On Bitches and Whores

I used a sleepless night in deep research of the blogoland area that is called 'Comments'. Quite a few blogs have them, mine included, though right-wing blogs for some odd reason tend not to allow commenting very much. Isn't the free exchange of ideas an important part of the free markets -religion? Anyway, I wanted to find out how commenters on political blogs use gender-related language when the topic isn't gender itself. The idea was to see what people do when they are not on their guard about sexism, for example.

The results are interesting, though I must warn you that no statistical significance is implied here, and I'm not going to give you a single mean or standard deviation; just some questions and guesses about what might be going on in this region of the cyberspace. Most of my data comes from reading the comments sections over a period of two days on just a few blogs, and what I say here may have no relevance in any wider sense. Or then again, it may.

What I found was a frequent use of the terms "whore" and "bitch". The term "slut" also appears, though not in any of the quotes I include here. These are all words that describe women who behave against the norms of the society either sexually (whore and slut) or in terms of aggressiveness (bitch), but the way they are used by blog commenters is different:

Who taught these bitches in the White House how to invade and conquer

Of course, these pampered millionare GOP whores threaten to move their teams if the voters don't approve a tax hike to pay for new luxury stadiums

One more time to blogwhore my comparison on Vietnam and Iraq

It's different, because the whores and bitches in these quotes are men, or at least not necessarily women, and the acts of whoring and bitching are defined differently: not as sex-related, but as unprincipled prostitution of ones ideas rather than of ones body and as pure nastiness, respectively. Reading them this way gets more complicated when the topic in the comments also happens to be a woman:

Not only did I get one hour less worth of sleep because of daylight savings or whatever it is last night, I was woken up to the inane blatherings of that worthless whore Cokie Roberts. She said something like ""If Richard Clarke hadn't destroyed Bush's credibility, Bush is actually doing quite well!"

Now she is a Media Whore Emerita and her comments don't have to have any tether to reality,

I can't stand the sanctimonious bitch. She reminds me of the Church Lady from SNL

I find my reading here shifting from the traditional definitions of bitch and whore to the ones that I think the blogoland has adopted. The overall effect is to make me feel that the woman is double-condemned here.

Not all blog comments-sections use whore and bitch in these ways. They can also be used to convey racism, as in this example:

I'll be a good crack 'ho in yo bitchinass blog, honky

What's interesting about this is the way terms denigrating women are used twice as often as terms denigrating race in this short statement, yet the final impact, on me at least, is purely racist. So somehow all these examples take traditionally derogatory female terms and make them into something else.

And now to the really fascinating question: what does this all mean? Is the mainstreaming (if this is mainstreaming) of nasty female epiteths a sign of decreased sexism? If men can be sluts, whores and bitches, too, aren't we all now more equal? Or is the real trend something completely different: the mainstreaming of misogyny under the disguise of this new wider interpretation of the terms?

I truly don't know. What do you think?


--------------------------------------
A postcript (April 9). This is a reprint of an exchange I had on the comments-section of Eschaton tonight:
Comment 1:

Person X,
I can smell your cunt.

My comment concerning it:

Person X,
I can smell your cunt.

This I found quite insulting. As if there's nothing worse in this world to be than a woman. Surely you can think of better ways to beat a troll.

Comment 2:

Echidne, grow some fucking cultural literacy, would you? Just google the phrase, add it to your netflix cue, and shut your runny hole.

Interesting....

Meanwhile, in Turkmenistan

President Saparmurat Niyazov of Turkmenistan is a man of some astonishing ideas:

In a televised address at an agricultural academy, Niyazov took note of the gold teeth of the female student who welcomed him.
"Don't take offense, your gold teeth are very beautiful, but you, young people, look much better with white teeth," he said, exhorting them to take better care of their teeth, according to the Interfax news agency.
"I watched dogs when I was young. They were given bones to gnaw ... Those of you whose teeth have fallen out did not gnaw on bones. This is my advice," he said.

My dogs would probably agree, but you just try to take a bone away for them, even if it's for the purpose of keeping your own choppers nice and white.

This is not the only shocking thing Niyazov has done in Turkmenistan:

Niyazov has banned all opposition and controls all branches of government and the media. Golden statues and busts of the president are scattered across the country, and his portrait is on every banknote and coin.

He is also a dear friend of the United States...

The Mrs. Degree

Women's Enews has an interesting article about marriage and highly educated women. Traditionally, more educated women were less likely to be married in the U.S., but this seems to be changing. As the article notes:

In 1980, a woman with three years of graduate school was 13 percent less likely to be married than a woman with only a high-school diploma. By 2000, that gap shrank to less than 5 percent...

More surprisingly, while the general rate of marriage among women aged 40-44 is falling, the most educated women in this age group are actually marrying at increasing rates:

... Rose found an overall decline in the percentage of women between ages 40 and 44 who were married. In 2000, 72 percent were married, down from 81 percent in 1980.
The decline in marriage rates for women in that age bracket is roughly equivalent for more- and less-educated women. Between 1980 and 2000 marriage rates for women with a high-school education declined 5 percentage points to 91 percent. For women with college education, the rate declined by the same 5 percentage points to 88 percent.
Women with three years of graduate school, meanwhile, have bucked the declining trend. For them the marriage rate has actually increased by 3 percentage points, to 86 percent.

What explains this change? One researcher speculates that marriage has become more egalitarian and less about division of labor between the sexes (i.e., about women cleaning and keeping house and about men going out to work).
Would this change affect the desirability of marriage for men and women in the same way? I wonder. It still seems to me that even researchers sometimes assume that all women (whatever their sexual orientation or other values) want to get married, and if they don't marry the reason must be that nobody asked them. I'd like to see a study looking at women's own decision-making in greater detail.

Still, this snippet of news is important, especially given the continuous mythmaking in the media about the unhappily liberated successful women who can't "get" a man or babies. Remember Sylvia Hewlet's lament about the professional barren women? Remember the urban myth that a forty-year old woman is more likely to get killed in a terrorist attack than to get married? Remember that "you can't have it all"? Somehow I doubt that the injection of these new pieces of evidence will have much evidence on this particular anti-feminist enterprise. It's far too ingrained in the so-called liberal mainstream media.

Another Poll... Plus Some Unrelated Ramblings

About Bush's job approval. It has dropped to 49%, its lowest level in 2004. The 'strongly disapprove' category beats the 'strongly approve' category by one percent. Whether these results matter at all is quite a different question. But horoscopes are fun to read, too.

The drop in Bush's job approval probably has something to do with what's happening in Iraq; to hand over power in that country in less than three months' time seems to me to be pure lunacy. No-one asked me, of course. More's the pity.
-------------
Elsewhere, I hear that China has at least eleven million eternal bachelors. Why is that, the BBC News wonders? Could it possibly have something to do with the still prevalent Chinese view that prefers boys to girls, combined with the strict limits on the number of children per family? But the real reason is the low value attributed to girls, not only in China but all over most of the world. Rather than worrying about these eleven million unmarried men, maybe we should worry about what happened to the women who in a different world might have married them.
-------------
And then some really good news, also from BBC! We are going to get Ruport Murdoch for good here in the U.S.! He's moving his headquarters from Australia to New York, so that he can keep a closer eye on all his media outlets here to see how well the brainwashing is going. Aren't we lucky? Or aren't the Australians lucky?

What U.S. Drug Companies Say

That importing cheaper drugs from Canada and other countries would be unsafe, would lower incentives to market generic drugs, and would increase drug prices in other countries. Not very surprising that they would say this; it would have been more interesting if they had pushed for drug importation at any cost.

But are these claims true? The last one probably is, at least in those countries where the government doesn't regulate drug prices. This prediction comes from standard economic theory of a firm which prices the same product differently in two different markets. This is only possible if resale can be stopped, or in our case, if the importation of Canadian drugs to the United States can be stopped. If resale is impossible to stop, the two market prices will become roughly equalized (ignoring the effect of any tariff or tax differences between the countries), and the most likely outcome is that the country with previously lower prices will find them go up. Incidentally, the firms' profits will also decline, which is why they are fighting the drug importation plan.

The Canadian government might not let Canadian prices rise, though. The health care system north of the U.S. border has much more government control over things such as prices, and this makes it harder to predict the impact of drug exportation on the Canadian markets.

The truth of the first claim of the drug companies, that imported drugs would be unsafe, clearly depends on the quality control system that is practised in the countries of origin. It's pretty hard to pretend that Canadian drugs would present any health dangers to American consumers, as long as the sellers use the same system of requiring physician prescriptions before filling orders for prescription drugs. Which they do. Importing drugs from some other countries could be more dangerous. Still, there are ways of insuring the quality of imported drugs (we do it all the time with other imported products), and quality problems exist with domestic drugs, too. Also, if the alternative to imported drugs for some poor American consumers is no treatment at all, the likely unsafety of such drugs should be compared to the unsafety of an illness possibly remaining altogether untreated.

But there are already cheaper alternatives for poorer consumers, say the drug companies. These are the generic drugs, i.e., medications which don't have brand names but do have the same chemical components that make brand name drugs effective. Would importing drugs reduce the incentives to market such generics? Maybe, but the current marketing efforts of generics aren't exactly noticeable, either, perhaps because there is a lot less profit in marketing them.

I think that drug importation should be allowed. Aren't we all now devoted followers of the free markets? Wasn't NAFTA supposed to make all of this continent into one big supermarket? Well, here, finally, is an opportunity for ordinary Americans to benefit from it.

Something I want to Share!

I am worried that I put my readers off by being so divine and perfect. Just to reassure you that my life isn't all roses and nectar, either, I am going to let you into a big secret: I am a Red Socks fan. That's enough of a burden for anyone.

So now you can feel sorry for me and have all sorts of other fuzzy, nice feelings! AND I get more visits. Is this what humans mean by someone having 'social intelligence'?

Right-Wingery 101: How To Interpret Fallujah

Thanks to Atrios, I have finally met Kathleen Parker. She's a right-wing journalist and columnist, and must be a good one. After all, in 1993 she won

>...the H. L. Mencken Writing Award issued by The Baltimore Sun. The judges praised Parker for "singing another note on the subject of family values and following the tradition of H. L. Mencken in attacking ignorance and stupidity with vividness and originality."

The new note on family values she sings is the normal conservative lament. Her Townhall biography reveals the fascinating fact that she had four stepmothers, and this may explain her take on family values: the sins of the fathers and so on. Anyway, I digress.

The reason I wanted to write about Parker is the promise of finding someone on the right who has vividness and originality in the attacks against ignorance and stupidity; someone who would actually be fun to read. Maybe even a new Dorothy Parker. We'll see if Kathleen is one. She's going to be our guide on the question how your average American right-winger interprets the horrible events in Fallujah where four American civilians were killed and their dead bodies then burned, mutilated and hung from a bridge. She's going to teach us how to see the world through right-wing eyes, and she's going to be vivid and original while doing it. What a treat!

Here we go then. She begins thus:

I suppose it would be considered lacking in nuance to nuke the Sunni Triangle.
But so goes the unanimous vote around my household - and I'm betting millions of others - in the aftermath of what forevermore will be remembered simply as "Fallujah."

Wouldn't it be lovely were justice so available and so simple? If we were but creatures like those zoo animals we witnessed gleefully jumping up and down after stomping, dragging, dismembering and hanging the charred remains of American civilians whose only crime was to try to help them.

"To nuke the Sunni Triangle" means to destroy it by using something called weapons of mass destruction, in this case of the nuclear sort. The effect of such 'nuking' would be to kill most living things in the area, as well as all the foetuses still inside their mothers. I thought this was a no-no for Parker.

But she's willing to make an exception in the case of Iraqis, or at least in the case of those Iraqis who happen to live near the ones she describes as zoo animals. It took me some time to connect this zoo story with Fallujah, until I realized that Parker is talking about the Iraqis who participated in the mutilation or cheered it. She calls them zoo animals. Why zoo, I wonder? Who has caged them? Nevermind. What we can conclude from Parker's opening comments is that she thinks a nuclear attack would be a good equalizer for the murder of four Americans, and that it wouldn't really be that terrible, given that some who would be killed behaved in a manner which she thinks would fit zoo animals.

We are also learning that Parker believes millions of others to have the same opinions. These millions must be right-wingers. Ok.

But then Parker rises to the expected high moral level, and tells us that using weapons of mass destruction on the Sunni Triangle isn't really such a good idea; instead we Americans must stay calm:

But keep our heads we must. Calmly we must transcend the primitive lust that compels ignorant others to mug idiotically for cameras.
Our revenge will be in facing down enemies who, though unworthy adversaries, impede the worthy goal of stabilizing a country whose future may predict our own. To retreat now would merely feed the terrorists' appetite for America's immediate failure en route to her ultimate demise.

And who are the primitive muggers for cameras? Perhaps American politicians? Or maybe she means the zoo animals in Fallujah. But 'we' (the American right-wingers?) are not like that: we are rational, cool and logical planners of important military strategies. The most important of these is to guarantee that we don't see the same future in the good old U.S. of A as we would see in Iraq without our military intervention.

I'm not sure what the similarities are supposed to be. Does Parker mean that the American Christian fundamentalists are having similar takeover plans here as the muslim fundamentalists harbor in Iraq? If this is the explanation, how would the American troops in Iraq help? Shouldn't they be brought home to defend us against the much more immediate domestic dangers? Or am I getting all confused here, and Kathleen is just telling us the old Republican story of how the 9/11 terrorists really were Iraqis though everybody knows they weren't?

We then learn that Parker wants the United States to stay in Iraq to avert this horrible American demise. She also wants more international help for all the averting:

We have no choice but to stay the course and fulfill our commitment. That said, it would be nice if the international community would step up to the plate and insist on justice. This isn't just America's war, but America's response to a war that was brought to us.

I thought that the international community had stepped up to the plate over a year ago. Millions of people all over the world protested against the Iraq war, and I suspect that most of them thought their protest were for justice. But Parker sees things differently: the international community should come in aid of the unfairly attacked United States. It doesn't seem to trouble her that 'America's response to a war that was brought to us' meant attacking a country that had nothing to do with the bringing of that initial attack. As far as I know the guilty party was an organization called Al-Qaieda, not the bogeyman called Saddam Hussein. But clearly my way of thinking wouldn't do in the right-wing circles; instead I should view the Iraq war as a logical consequence of the 9/11 carnage and the international community as lacking in proper cooperation if it doesn't occupy Iraq, too.

Parker has more to say in the same vein, but I have covered most bases already (See! I can do baseball analogies, too!) She ends her column by reminding us about the zoo animals one more time:

Still, a well-placed MOAB smack in the Sunni Triangle ... but then, we are not animals. A reel of Rambo will have to do.

There you have it: the proper right-wing views to hold, all presented to you in a vivid and original manner by Kathleen Parker. I think Dorothy Parker was a better writer by far, but Kathleen is quite entertaining in her own way.

Which Conservative Pundit Are You?

Take this test at World O'Crap, and find out!
I am 1/3 Ben Shapiro, 1/3 Jonah Goldberg and 1/3 Ann Coulter. I think the test needs some tweaking...

Bye, bye Athena!

I just waved goodbye to her! She threw some kisses back and disappeared in a puff of dark cloud. Then I collapsed.

But it was a good visit: the only thing that suffered was my blogging career. I just didn't have enough time, and I get all crooked-eyed from sipping on the nectar nonstop. So I apologize for not being my usual scintillating self.

I bet you want to know what happened. Well, Athena was kind of stiff at the beginning. She didn't take to the snakes very much, and when Artful Asp drew a picture of her with an enormous bottom, Athena sulked for a few minutes. But things got better after a while. I plied her with made-up stories about how loved she still is and how famous she's becoming among the feminists, and she lapped it all up.

Then she told me several risque stories that I hadn't heard before. Some of them would make your hair (if you have any) stand up, and would be on the front pages of most newspapers in this world. But I have sworn to remain silent about them. At least for a time. Let me just say that Athena is a lot hawter than all that steel and marble would make you suspect.

We also spent some time laughing at the U.S. politics. She finds the neocons extremely funny, and she's planning to work some sort of a joke on the freepers. (She knew nothing about blogging, by the way, and I had to enlighten her there. She really took to Atrios, though of course she prefers me.) We'll see if the freepers think the joke is hilarious, too. Athena sometimes has a rough sense of humor.

And then we imbibed some more nectar, and she got all weepy and teary about the past glories and all that crap. I have no time for self-pity, especially as I don't need any, so I started tickling her and then we practised some new assassination techniques on each other and also worked a Wild West act of lariat throwing with the snakes as the rope. It was a little childish perhaps, especially as she kept changing my lariat snakes into strings of chewing-gum and the snakes found this disrespectful. Anyway, we then went shopping at a mall! I bought a Marilyn Monroe outfit (I can do the head on my own but the clothes are a bit trickier), and Athena bought a new helmet and a set of Wusthoff kitchen knives. It was a real girly bonding time! Just the two goddesses together.

Well, then I fell asleep. I'm not that used to the way gods and goddesses get drunk anymore, but falling asleep was a big mistake, because Athena had gone out boy-scouting in the meantime. I did save everybody, pretty much, and I do apologize for any damage she caused to the bar furniture and the cars parked outside. I'll pay for all of it.

But this morning she was really nice and repentant about everything. She taught me a goddess trick I didn't know before, and even invited me for a visit! And as she was taking off Artful Asp burst into tears. It looked so sweet, and Athena was quite touched. It's good she didn't know that Asp had poisoned all the nectar she drank and had waited with great excitement for the coming death contortions. I did tell the snakes that venom doesn't work against goddesses, but Asp is an optimistic little one, and she was bitterly disappointed when she realized that if Athena would die it wouldn't be in front of us.

But on the whole it was a very successful visit, don't you think so?

Fingerprints and Photos Required

Welcome to the United States of America!

A program requiring foreigners to be fingerprinted and photographed before entering the United States is being expanded to include millions of travelers from some of America's staunchest allies, officials said Friday.
The move affects citizens in 27 countries - including Britain, Japan and Australia - who had been allowed to travel within the United States without visas for up to 90 days. Officials said the change was prompted in part by concerns that terrorists might try to exploit those exemptions.

And will this help to find any potential terrorists among the flocks of tourists eager to spend their money here? I don't know. The answer obviously depends on the number of potential terrorists that have their photos and/or fingerprints on record somewhere. Without such prior records the process seems pretty pointless.

It will certainly reduce the number of visitor to the U.S.. Most vacationers don't like to be treated like crime suspects, and there are plenty of other interesting places to visit instead.

Republicans in Hell

While walking down the street one day, a Republican head of state is tragically hit by a truck and dies. His soul arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance.
"Welcome to Heaven," says St. Peter. "Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts, you see, so we're not sure what to do with you."
"No problem, just let me in." says the Republican.
"Well, I'd like to but I have orders from higher up. What we'll do is have you spend one day in Hell and one in Heaven. Then you can choose where to spend eternity."
"Really, I've made up my mind. I want to be in Heaven," says the Republican head of state.
"I'm sorry but we have our rules." And with that, St. Peter escorts the Republican to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to Hell. The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a green golf course. In the distance is a club and standing in front of it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him, everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet him, hug him, and reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at expense of the people. They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster and caviar. Also present is the Devil (a Republican, too), who really is a very friendly guy who has a good time dancing and telling jokes.
They are having such a good time that, before he realizes it, it is time to go. Everyone gives him a big hug and waves while the elevator
rises. The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens on Heaven where St. Peter is waiting for him.
"Now it's time to visit Heaven." So 24 hours pass with the Republican head of state joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a good time and, before he realizes it, the 24 hours have gone by and St. Peter returns.
"Well then, you've spent a day in Hell and another in Heaven. Now choose your eternity."
He reflects for a minute, then the head of state answers: "Well, I would never have thought it, I mean Heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be better off in Hell."
So Saint Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to Hell. Now the doors of the elevator open and he is in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and garbage. He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags. The Devil comes over to the Republican and lays an arm on his neck.
"I don't understand," stammers the Republican head of state. Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and club and we ate lobster and caviar and danced and had a great time. Now all there is a wasteland full of garbage and my friends look miserable.
The Devil looks at him, smiles and says, "Yesterday we were campaigning. Today you voted for us!"


The source of this joke is here.

One of those things you really should know

If Barbie were life-size, her measurements would be 39-23-33. She would stand seven feet, two inches tall.

But what about her feet? What shoe size would she take? Something very small I suspect. How would she walk on those tiny feet, given how front-weighted her body is? Lurch, totter, lurch, totter? Like some sort of a tiptoeing monster.

If she was actually to come alive in life-size, she'd also need surgery to let her heels come down once and a while. And as this is not a family blog I can reveal that she'd also need extensive surgery in her pelvic area.

No, Barbie is not a good role model for anybody.

Dear Charles

Sometimes it pays to rummage in old files: I found this pearl developed by an oyster also known as Charles Krauthammer. It was in a review of the movie "Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World":

Weir's restraint carries into a remarkable austerity regarding women. In the movie's version of a love interest, a Brazilian beauty in a small boat selling wares offshore to the sailors of Captain Aubrey's ship catches Aubrey's eye for a moment at a considerable distance. For about five seconds you see Aubrey (Crowe) returning her glance.
And that is it. Indeed, that scene marks the only appearance of women in the entire two hours of the film, setting a new record for sexual austerity in an epic, a record previously held by "Lawrence of Arabia." (Bolds mine.)

It's so good it needs to be repeated: "Indeed, that scene marks the only appearance of women in the entire two hours of the film, setting a new record for sexual austerity in an epic". Hmmm. I wish someone told Charles that normal people don't necessarily think that women act in movies only when sexual titillation is called for.

A Snake's Eye View on Some Recent News

I refuse to write about the 9/11 commission scandal, about what the Bush administration knew or did not know, about who lies and why. There are plenty of very good blogs about all this, and they show us very convincingly that the Brooklyn Bridge is still a very good buy. Which is sooo depressing.

Let's look at something more cheerful instead. First, there are very good news for the mice: they can be vaccinated against the SARS virus. This makes it much more comfortable for them to travel to the Far East. Humans are very kind to the mice; sometimes it seems that almost all medical research has to do with the well-being of our four-legged friends. Can mice take artificial sweeteners without harm to their health? Can we solve extreme obesity in mice? Will Prozac work to keep the mice positive while hunting for the cheese? Large libraries consist of all the crucial findings on Mouse Health.

Too bad that humans are rather different from mice, and that not that many of the mice findings generalize terribly well to other mammals. I'm old enough (very old as humans count!) to remember countless mouse health revelations that ultimately had nothing to do with the health of humans. Still, studying mice is a lot more harmless than some other human activities (except from the mouse point of view).

If all these people weren't studying mice, they might be making movies like Mel Gibson. What do I think about his latest take on the last days of Jesus? This is what Father Thomas Hopko, a Christian, thinks about it:

Whatever the cinematic and artistic merits of Mel Gibson's film, "The Passion of the Christ," and whatever the conversations it provokes, it hardly portrays the fullness and depth of Christ.

Gibson's passion is a monotonous and misleading exaggeration of one aspect of the scriptural Christ's suffering and death to a distorting degree. His Jesus is God's suffering servant whose passion is reduced to his being ridiculed and beaten with a sadistic brutality far beyond what the four Gospels record. The film's relentless emphasis on Christ's physical sufferings which, contrary to scripture, begin already in the Gethsemane garden, and the almost comic ugliness of the villains - the priests, the soldiers, Judas, Herod, Barabbas, the devil figure and its child, the faces in the crowds - capture the viewer's attention and serve more to conceal than to reveal the fullness and depth of the passion's multiple meanings.

The sacrifice of a grain god is of course common in many older religions, and sacrifices of all types have always been popular in human religions. It's an extension of commerce to the supernatural realm: If I give you my son, will you give me victory and power? There is also something about the suffering of others that appeals to the worse instincts of some, yet portraying this suffering as a just sacrifice makes watching it ok, not sadistic or anything. In fact, it makes watching a holy experience. This is nothing singular for Christians. All humans seem to do it.

I don't pretend to understand Christianity, but I'm sure that the story of Christ has more important lessons (the Sermon on the Mount?) for us than the one Gibson chose to portray: That it hurts to be crucified. A lot.

It also hurts some to be a victim of racism. The University of Notre Dame has a spokesman in Paul Hornung that the university would probably prefer not to have:

Football great Paul Hornung said in a radio interview that his alma mater, Notre Dame, needs to lower its academic standards to "get the black athlete."

Where is this "black athlete" with the low academic standards? Who is she or he? And how did Hornung find out about this person if Notre Dame is still oblivious?

It is racist to stereotype a whole class of people in the way Hornung did, though maybe he doesn't know any better. I guess he will learn soon.

But what are universities for, anyway? If they are for team sports, why not just dispense with all the fusty academia and make all college campuses into big training camps for football, basketball and ice hockey? We can still have the alumni come and picnic at the games, and we can still have media coverage for the institutions. Plus, we'd save a lot of money and get rid of the evil lefty-liberal professors at the same time.

Maybe this will happen in time for my next snake's eye review of news.

A Totally Trivial Post (Well, Almost)

Can you lick your elbow? (It's not supposed to be possible. Thanks to heini for this tidbit of information.)
_____________________________

If you drive an old, rusty car you might wish to redecorate. Bumber stickers are excellent for covering small holes in the car and also for striking up interesting conversations with total strangers. Here are some good suggestions for the 2004 presidential campaign:


Bush/Cheney '04: Four More Wars
Bush/Cheney '04: Leave no billionaire behind
Bush/Cheney '04: Deja-voodoo all over again!
Bush/Cheney '04: Compassionate Colonialism
Bush/Cheney '04: Because the truth just isn't good enough.
Bush/Cheney '04: Making the world a better place, one country at a time.
Bush/Cheney '04: Over a billion Whoppers served.
Bush/Cheney '04: Putting the "con" in conservatism
Bush/Cheney '04: Thanks for not paying attention.
Bush/Cheney '04: The last vote you'll ever have to cast.
Bush/Cheney: Asses of Evil
Don't think. Vote Bush!
George W. Bush: A brainwave away from the presidency
George W. Bush: The buck stops Over There
Bush/Cheney '04: This time, elect us!

______________________________

And finally the only nontrivial item in this post: I have looked into the reasons why some of my dear readers see my blog as a long, thin column on the right rather than the way it's meant to be seen. The problem only appears with older versions of Netscape (older than Netscape6), and so far at least I have found no solution except to recommend that those of you who have this problem download a more recent version of Netscape. Though my immortal words are equally immortal in a long, thin column so it's completely up to you!

Exercise and Cancer in Women

You must have heard by now that abortion does not cause breast cancer. The debates surrounding this topic have taught me how political the field of women's health research can be. This makes it extra important to scan all new studies carefully for political motives. Sad but true: there are people in this world who are more interested in making political points than in improving the health of the general population or of any of its subgroups such as women. Also, researchers and media pundits are only human, and quite likely to have the same biases as the rest of the population.

So what does this have to do with exercise and its potential effects on cancer? A study has recently shown that women who exercise regularly after the diagnosis of breast cancer have a better survival record than those who don't exercise. The effect is larger the more the woman exercises, but even a leisurely half an hour spent walking each day appears to help the odds of survival.

Another study, which was carried out in China, looked at the relationship between lifelong exercise and the risk of endometrial cancer, the fourth most common cancer in U.S. women. The researchers found that:

...those who stayed active through exercise, housework and walking and cycling for errands had about a one-third lower risk of this form of cancer.

Here's where the politics comes in. Washington Times, the very conservative newspaper owned by the Reverend Moon, reported these findings in an article entitled "Housework Cuts Cancer Risk". It begins as follows:

U.S. and Chinese researchers said Tuesday that doing housework can reduce a woman's chance of getting cancer.

Only later does the reader find that the research findings apply to all ways of staying active. Someone just skimming the headlines and first paragraphs of stories might have gotten a very different idea of the message of the story, one perhaps more suited to Reverend Moon's political values.

Just to make my point very clear: you don't have to do housework to get any possible benign effects of exercise on cancer prevention; water-skiing, figure-skating or boxing will work just as well if not better. And it's a lot more fun. On the other hand, if you feel that you have to do housework, at least now you can feel happy that you are also working out at the same time. To strengthen the positive effects throw plates at the lazier family members.

But does exercise actually prevent cancer or its reoccurrence? The evidence looks pretty good. The only general reservation I have concerns the possibility that we might be measuring a reverse causality here: Breast cancer patients who feel poorly are less likely to exercise, and the reason that they feel poorly may lie in them having a more severe form of the illness. Likewise, people who never exercise very much may be that way because they are not in good health. Still, I think that there is enough overall evidence to support the role of exercise in the maintenance of good health. Doing it partly for cancer prevention can't hurt.

On Polls

A CNN/USA Today poll just published tells us weird and wonderful things about the group of Americans that pollsters call 'likely voters'. First, 51% would choose Bush as the president and 47% would choose Kerry if only these two men were offered for s/election. Second, if Nader is added to the menu, 49% would pick Bush, 45% Kerry and 4% Nader. Third, half of the respondents believed that the Iraq war is a valid part of the war on terrorism. Fourth, president Bush's job approval percentage rose after a week of negative media headlines about the way the Bush administration handled the terrorist threat before 9/11. Fifth, 80% of likely Kerry voters trust Clarke's testimony more than the administration's, while 81% of likely Bush voters trust the administration's testimony more than Clarke's.

Well, not all of this is so weird and wonderful. The first result, for example, has a margin of error of plus or minus four percent, so it's even possible that Bush and Kerry would get the same number of votes if the elections were today and if all voters resembled the likely voters in this poll. Unless Nader entered the race, of course. Though, surprisingly, Nader seems to take votes away from both of the main runners. The fifth result isn't that unexpected, either, as the decision to vote for a particular candidate is pretty highly correlated with the opinions one has of that candidate. Of course, we can't tell which of these is the egg and which the hen...

But the remaining two findings are indeed miraculous. Think about it: there is no evidence that Iraq had anything to do with the terrorist attacks against the United States. Yet half of the respondents know something the world's elite intelligence professionals don't: the Iraqis had their fingers in the pie! Why aren't these people questioned by the 9/11 commission? Or better still, why aren't they hired to do the intelligence work for their country?

Even more awesome is the likely voters' reaction to Clarke's testimony: they now like Bush even better than before! I could understand Bush's job ratings not declining among those who are going to vote for him come whatever may, but for these ratings to rise? Once again, these likely voters are blessed with some extremely valuable inside information, and I want to know what it is.

Polls are silly things, on the whole. Imagine trying to make people answer a poll like this one: how many refusals do you think the pollster gets for each willing respondent? The answer is a lot. Then imagine trying to squeeze definite statements from people who often have but the fuzziest idea of the issues they are being quizzed about. The only scary thing about all this silliness is that it's rather reflected in the elections themselves: most stay away and those who participate often don't know what they are choosing.

Is NPR Ageist?

Not everybody listens to the National Public Radio's "Morning Edition", but those who do are familiar with the name Bob Edwards. Edwards has hosted the news program since it began twenty-five years ago. Last week he was forced to leave this post. Why? Linda Ellerbee believes that the reason is ageism. Edwards is 56 years old. Other than his age, what other reason could there be?

Were the ratings sinking, perhaps? They were not. "Morning Edition's" audience grew by 41% in the last five years; Edwards' is the most-listened-to morning radio program in the U.S.
A spokeswoman for NPR said only that the change was "part of a natural evolution." She said a new host would "bring new ideas and perspectives to the show." Uh-huh.

According to Ellerbee, NPR's thinking might have gone something like this: We want to attract a younger group of listeners. Younger listeners don't want to listen to boring old ways of presenting news. Old fogies present news in the boring old way. Therefore, we have to get rid of Edwards: he is too old.

If this scenario is true, NPR is ageist. It associates concepts such as rigidity and inability to evolve with the concept of physical age, and it also assumes that younger listeners are uniformly ageist themselves. I sure hope that Ellerbee is mistaken and that NPR has some other reasonable explanation for this firing, especially as I have always liked Bob Edwards. He has a voice like whisky-flavored honey.

Deep Thoughts for the Day

On Sex:

1. It's good.

2. It's even better with a partner.

Athena Is Coming For A Visit

Yes she is. In a few days' time she will land at the Snakepit Inc., and I haven't finished the cleaning and the polishing of the snakes, I haven't decided which way my hair would look most divine, and I still don't remember all her great deeds in a chronological order. I have butterflies in my stomach.

Does this surprise you, me being a goddess and all? Well, you shouldn't be surprised. Athena is a Much Bigger Goddess than I ever was, and the only reason she deigns to hobnob with me at all is that lots of her good pals have expired over the centuries. That's what happens to gods and goddesses when their believer base drops below a certain level. I'm lucky as the snakes were never really Christianized. This makes me one of the stronger goddesses now, but Athena will think of me as just the bothersome half-breed who never had tea with Hera. (As if I had ever wanted to have anything to do with that origin of the Phyllis Schlafly myth!)

And I'm not sure if I really like her that much, Athena, I mean. Sure, she's great to have around when logical thinking is needed or when an intricate long-term war needs planning. But all those shields and helmets, all that clanging of the pot lids! And she's such a daddy's girl. She even got a myth started about her birth containing no female assistance whatsoever. Which is a lie as all gods and goddesses know. Her real mother was probably a goat, but whoever she was, Athena never burst out of Zeus' head. Nothing burst out of his head except for lust and stupid ideas. I can say this now safely as he has long since expired. But Athena likes to think of herself the Exceptional Goddess: the one with no touch of femininity, all pure reason and military strategy. Poor thing, Zeus never cared for her anyway, and femininity is a very useful aspect in the goddesses' tool kits.

On the other hand, goddesses get lonely, and only another goddess really knows what it was like once. If only I could keep her off the topic of Ann Coulter. Athena thinks that Coulter is one of her acolytes or something, and I get so fed up with having to stare into corners with glazed eyes while she goes on and on about Ann. As I'm the hostess with the mostest I can't just bite Athena's butt. So annoying. I must write a list of suitable neutral discussion topics soon.

So what do you think about the hair? How would a goddess have her hair arranged? Would a few small baby snakes look cute peeking out on the temples? Give me some help here!

The World Stupidity Awards

This is the second year for these awards. Last year's winners of the Golden Dunce Caps included George W. Bush for the Most Stupid Reckless Endangerment of the Planet and the former Iraq information minister Saeed al-Sahaf for being the Stupidest Person in the World. You can now nominate candidates for this year's award competition. The categories are as follows:

Stupidest Man of the Year
Stupidest Woman of the Year
Stupidest Country of the Year
Stupidest Trend of the Year
Media outlet which has made the greatest contribution to furthering ignorance worldwide
Stupidity Award for Reckless Endangerment of the Planet
Stupidest Movie of the Year
Stupidest TV Show of the Year
Stupidest Act of the Year
Stupidest Statement of the Year
Lifetime Achievement Award for Stupidity

Winners will be announced on July 23rd 2004 in Montreal. To find out how to send your nomination letter, go here.

The Unborn Victims of Violence

The law to protect them was passed today, and George Bush has promised to sign it ASAP. I have several questions about this law:

1. As Xexyx on ms. boards pointed out, does this law mean that every woman who becomes the victim of a violent crime will have to undergo a pregnancy test? Even if she doesn't want one? I suspect so. Welcome to a society that Margaret Atwood wrote about in the Handmaid's Tale.

2. How discriminatory is this law? A man who is killed will never sire children now. What about all those unborn victims of violence that also lost their lives because their potential father is now dead? The same goes for all women victims who are not currently pregnant, but might have become so in the future if they had not been killed in some heinous crime. I think that this law discriminates on the basis of sex and on the basis of actual and potential pregnancy.

3. The only logical basis for this law is to assume that human life begins at conception, not before that nor after that. As there is no evidence for this view (or any other), does this mean that if it becomes common our ages must now be counted from insemination rather than from birth? Imagine its effect on sudden retirements! Birthday parties having to be cancelled!

Sigh. I have to stock on some nectar for tonight.

Who Wears the Pants?

One October night in 1792 a young North European woman was returning home after her day's work when the town guard stopped her, took one look at her clothing, and arrested her. She was wearing trousers. The next day she was taken to court where she was accused of having had criminal intentions. Why else would she dress as a man?

The woman defended her choice of clothing by pointing out that the male garb was more practical in her heavy manual labor and that it was also warm. The court decided that it was 'selfish and shameless' for a woman to dress like a man, declared her a person of no fixed abode, and ordered her to be driven out of town. Should she return, she'd be sentenced to a certain number of lashes at the hand of the official beaters*.

In 2004, leaflets began circulating in Kenya telling women to stop wearing trousers and mini skirts by March 1. In January, 54 women were stripped naked in Oyugis town for wearing trousers or 'dressing shamelessly'. The men who attacked these women were local youth. One resident of the town told a radio station that the action of these men was justified and also warned that :

"If they continue dressing in ways that make us (men) suffer, we shall rape them."

These cases are very similar, aren't they? The women who are the pathbreakers in wearing what's regarded as men's clothing are 'shameless', threatening, to be driven out of town or to be raped. Never mind if trousers actually are more comfortable and practical than the traditional female garb, women who wear them make men suffer.

Why is that? The answer is simple and summarized in the old saying about 'who wears the pants in the family': male dress is a sign of authority in traditional societies, and if this dress no longer reliably signals real authority, the whole society will be in chaos. Consider some of the fears expressed by callers to the same Kenyan radio station referred to in the above quote:

In recent weeks, local radio stations have been receiving calls from emotionally charged men - and some women as well - claiming that by wearing trousers, women are not only provoking men to rape them, but are also largely responsible for the spread of HIV/Aids in the country.
Most of the callers argue that only men should wear trousers, with some quoting verses from the Bible to the effect that women should not wear men's clothing and vice-versa. Others even claim that some women wear trousers to disguise their intention of usurping their husbands' role as the head of the family.

Honore Daumier's prints from the mid-nineteenth century France express similar fears. In one**

"...a wife angrily refuses to sew a button back on her husband's pants. He, standing woefully with hands held limply in front of his phallus, comments that not only does his wife "wear the pants" but now she throws them back at him."

The question isn't really then who gets to wear the pants, the question is what women wearing pants means. To some men it means a threat, a horrible fear of authority lost, of dominance hierarchies upended. It isn't a fear of equality between men and women, but a fear of a total reversal: If women wear trousers, will they act the same as we did? Will they misuse the power this would give them as some of us did? Will we then have to wear dresses? Will we have to serve the women who now wear the pants? These are the monsters of the night that are behind the leaflets in Kenya, that were behind the public eviction of a trouser-wearing woman in the eighteenth century Europe, and that tortured Daumier to draw pictures about them.

Well, we know now that the world doesn't tip over just because women wear pants. More's the pity in some ways. It would be great if women-in-pants would mean the end of bloody wars and greedy battles for power, hunger and pestilence and crooked politicians. But it doesn't work that way. All this development really tells us that women in some country are trying to gain a few more freedoms, to wear what they wish, perhaps to be safer at an assembly-line job or more practically dressed for farmwork.

But that women in trousers can still provoke the punishment of rape tells us that real equality of the sexes is still far in the future for many. Perhaps it won't really have arrived until everybody, male or female, can wear dresses, pants, shorts or burqas, and nobody else raises an eyebrow. Though right now I think that the day when the Devil will build an ice-skating rink may come a little sooner.
------------
*I have lost the reference to this story which I had written down on an index card. It was in some book of European history. Sorry.
**Anne Higonnet: "Representations of Women" in A History of Women, Part Four, edited by Genevieve Fraisse and Michelle Perrot, 1993.

Darfur

Do you know where Darfur is? Do you know what's happening there?

Darfur is in the western Sudan, and what's happening there is ethnic cleansing. I hate that term with its associations to doing the dishes or the laundry; I hate its coldness, its perverted tidiness, its lack of gore and blood. Yet gore and blood is what's being spilled in Darfur, by armed Arab militias with, most likely, the full support of the Sudanese government.

Already 10,000 people have been killed, and another 110, 000 has fled to the neighboring Chad. But even there they're not safe, as the Sudanese attack across the border and bomb the villages on the other side of the border. The situation is dire. The United Nations coordinator for Sudan, Mukesh Kapila, fears for another Rwanda and desperately wants more help with the humanitarian tasks of helping the survivors.

Why is this happening? The immediately preceding reason is the rebellion against Khartoum that two local armed groups started last year. Add to that a long-standing competition for good land between the African tribes and the Arabs. Many of the survivors believe that the Arab militia are attacking for purely racial reasons. The government of Sudan fears a situation where it would have enemies on several sides, and this is why it may be helping in the killing of the local villagers:

There are reports of Sudanese military planes bombing villages, after which Arab militias go in and rape and kill survivors.

These are the weapons of genocide: murder and rape. A few weeks ago the village of Tawila woke up at sunrise to an attack by the militiamen. Seventy-five people were killed and over a hundred women were raped. The militiamen also abducted several hundred women and children. I'm not sure which of these destinies I would choose if I were forced to choose, not to mention the fact that being raped, abducted and killed are not mutually exclusive fates for any one individual. But of course none of the victims were given a choice of any kind.

The Christian Science Monitor calls this 'a silent war', not because slaughtering people could somehow be done more quietly in Darfur or elsewhere, but because the rest of the world (which means us) hardly hears about it. Darfur is isolated, difficult to get to, and the area is full of bandits as well as the militiamen. The UN humanitarian efforts are also hampered by the remoteness and dangers of the area. All this plays into the hands of the thugs and murderers and must not be allowed to go on.

Maybe Mukesh Kapila is exaggerating as some argue. Maybe Darfur won't be another Rwanda. But those who thought the rumors of the Rwandan genocide were exaggerated now bitterly regret their scepticism. It's much better to stop an imaginary genocide than to fail to stop a real one. Make noise about Darfur!

My New Career Goal

I'm going to be Rushette Limbaugh, the slightly deranged, extremist voice for the liberal, high IQ dittoheads, especially the girls. I'm going to start with a radio show called "Kicking the Asses Out" or perhaps "Dr. Russette Will Spank Your Bottoms". Then I'm going to publish a litter of books with names such as "I'm All That's Left Because the Right Was Wrong" and "Fundamentalism isn't Funky". Then I'll get my own tv show on the now-repentant Faux network where I will use soap to wash the mouths of those who use naughty words like politically correct.

What do you think? The snake tail needn't be a deterrent in any of this, what with multiculturality and so on. And I can use it to wipe unpleasant guests off the stage.

Trees Are the Lungs of This Earth

Something to think about.

The Bush administration doesn't seem to care for trees, unless they can be felled and made into large desks for Republican managers. To encourage this,

The Bush administration on Tuesday eased restrictions on logging old-growth forests in the Pacific Northwest, completing a rules change that will allow forest managers to begin logging without first looking for rare plants and animals.

Why this change? Ostensibly it's because of a timber industry law suit. The industry doesn't like the hassle of having to look for rare plants and animals: it takes time and money. Much easier just to rev up the chain saws after relying on information provided by Washington, Oregon and California. And where does this information come from? Can you imagine hordes of civil servants toothcombing the wilderness so that all the available information on rare species will be ready for the eager loggers to scan? I smell a rat here, and it isn't one of the rare types either.

This 'easing of restrictions' on logging is part of the Bush administration's 'Healthy Forests' initiative. I wonder what their definition of 'healthy' might be? Not contaminated with all sorts of critters and weeds? With lots of open spots, conveniently provided by the timber industry?

Some logging of federal forests is needed for forest fire prevention. But the rules of the game shouldn't be decided by one party alone (the timber industry), especially as that party has an obvious incentive to cut as many good trees as possible. Still, all this is totally on par for this administration: it sees pre-emptive wars everywhere, and it probably is true that the forests won't attack us if we kill them first. Or who knows, maybe the Ents are real and not just something Tolkien made up. Maybe they'll wake up and start their slow, slow march to Washington, D.C.. If so, I'll go and cheer them all the way.

The Neutral Alan Greenspan?

An interesting question: Is Alan Greenspan as neutral and objective as he's supposed to be as the Fed chairman? Why is he holding the trend-setting federal funds rate at one percent? Is it because this is the right thing to do, given that hiring is still 'lagging' as the polite way puts it? Consider this:

Many economists don't expect the Fed to move up until the fall of 2004, and possibly not before the U.S. presidential election in early November.
But a few analysts, and even some of the 12 members of the Fed's interest rate-setting committee are growing uneasy about the easy money policy. They worry that keeping rates this low for much longer may cause a speculative bubble, in stocks and real estate, that could be hard to burst without inflicting collateral damage.
"Some members of the [committee] are already expressing concern that policy is remaining too loose for too long," said BMO Nesbitt Burns chief economist Sherry Cooper.
"There is increasing evidence that U.S. inflation has finally touched bottom and is beginning to stir."

There is indeed a bubble in the housing markets, and such bubbles have the unfortunate tendency to burst. When this happens, the consequences can be dire. Think of adjustable mortgage rates being adjusted upwards; think of suddenly owning a house with a lower sale price than your remaining mortgage payments, think of the chain-effects from this to other consumer markets, think of all those people who took out loans on the inflated value of their houses. As much as $3 trillion might vanish like a puff of hot air into the cold skies of a new recession.

The low value of the dollar is also creating inflationary pressures, and traditionally the Fed has viewed inflation as the worst possible outcome, and it has" even triggered recessions in order to fight real or imagined threats of even small increases in the rate of inflation." But not this time.

This time Alan Greenspan is reluctant to move, perhaps because he has truly decided that weak labor markets are more important than fighting housing market bubbles or inflation. Or perhaps because:

...Mr. Greenspan clearly doesn't want to be seen to be interfering in the coming election. As a result, there will likely be a rate hike blackout period between July and the November election...

But this is illogical: A rate hike blackout period is what the current administration most desires. I bet that it's the number one topic in many of the Bush prayer circles. How is doing the bidding of the Republicans 'not interfering' in the coming election? How is trying to guarantee that the housing bubble won't burst until AFTER the election good for objectivity?

I'm not convinced of Greenspan's nonneutrality yet, but I'm going to keep an eagle's eye on him from now on.

My Marketing Survey Results

Dear Readers!

Here are the results from my marketing survey. I decided that this is a good time to do the summary as the questionnaire is sliding into the archives.

Fourteen readers answered the questionnaire. Most were content with feminist (93%) and political (80%) stories, and half or more (50% and 57% respectively) were ok with funny stuff and expandind the field. The archaic format of the blog (just text) had 80% support. No snakes answered the survey. Of those who responded to this question 58% were human, 25% supernaturals and 17% both human and supernaturals, depending on the day.

Whether this can be generalized to my readership on the whole is tricky to say, as the sample was not random but based on self-selection. As a percentage of my readers n=14 is quite low ( unless the same fourteen people spend all their time on my blog, which of course would be understandable), but I will assume that the results are generalizable. Which means that I am planning to go on pretty much along the same lines. If you don't like something, speak up in the comments. Obviously if you do like something, you can send me a smooch in the same comments.

---------

As an aside, I found out by googling my divine self that a person called Glenn Sacks has listed my opinion about him on his website. This is what I say about him, according to him:

"Glenn Sacks is...misogynistic."

I couldn't remember having said anything about him on this blog, so I did quite a lot of searching to find the quote. It was in the comments threads to a story on ms. lauren's blog. The story concerned the anti-boy t-shirts which encouraged people to throw rocks at boys. Such t-shirts are absolutely vile, and Sacks had been saying so. What I said in the comments was as follows:

Actually, Glenn Sacks is one of those men's rights activists who are also misogynistic. Someone used to post his articles on the ms. boards and they are very painful reading if you're a woman. This doesn't mean that he wouldn't be right in this case; even a blind hen finds a worm once and a while.

I hereby respectfully petition that Mr. Sacks changes the quote attributed to me to:

"Glenn Sacks is...a blind hen."

Thank you.

On First Ladies

This story was to be about the First Lady, Laura Bush, but I have a congenital loathing of the job of First Ladies, so I'm going to write about the job instead. First Ladies have a job which nobody acknowledges to be a job. They are judged on the performance of this job which isn't supposed to be one, and the criteria for judging them are not objectively determined, but whatever the observer happens to see as criteria. Moreover, they are not really judged as First Ladies, but as Archetypal Wives.

And being an Archetypal Wife is pure hell, as nobody agrees with her exact qualifications. She should be demure, sure, but she should also have the right opinions to support her husband. She shouldn't compete, no, but she shouldn't be a ninny either. She should walk exactly three steps behind her husband, yet make it seem as if she's walking by his side.
And under no circumstances can she have interests other than those that are deemed proper for the Mother and Wife. For example, physicians who don't quit their jobs to join their husbands election campaigns are never to be entered into the caste of Archetypal Wives. A good Archetypal Wife drops everything when her husband calls for her, whether it's laundry or patients that gets dropped.

Hillary Clinton, in a perverse fashion, served as an excellent Archetypal Wife. For many in the United States she was the Evil Wife: the woman who is quite possibly smarter and more energetic than her husband, the woman who will not shut up. She was used as a target for all those murky, half-perceived fears and rages that independent women still provoke in many men and women; as a societal scapegoat for the wrongs of feminism, or what its opponents see as wrongs.

Only her humiliation in the face of her husband's philandering saved her from being the Archetypal Witch. This humiliation struck a cord in many Americans, something that they recognized. Now Hillary could be reclassified: she was clearly the Long-Suffering Victim Wife, the woman who silently endures all for the sake of family cohesion. This was something familiar, something that many churches had supported for centuries. Not all observers switched their views on Hillary, of course, so that media comments about her later in Bill Clinton's presidency came across as if they were describing two quite different women. Of course they were really describing two different archetypes, neither of which is the real Hillary.

Even Barbara Bush, the comfy-looking silver-haired grandmother, suffered from not fitting an Archetype precisely enough for the audience. The one that was fitted for her first was the Gentle Granny archetype: the benevolent matriarch of a vast family. When it turned out that she was quite strong-willed and politically astute, her archetype had to change for some; now she was the Old Bitch.

Nancy Reagan was fitted into the Adoring Wife mold, though Reagan's political opponents also saw her as an example of the Wasteful Wife, the woman who will drive her poor husband to bankruptcy. I think that Nancy was one of those First Ladies who actually understood all about the Archetypes, and she played hers to the hilt, having been an actress. Thus she also earned the Treacherous Wife archetype.

And what about Laura Bush, then? What archetype would we like to have now? Hers is an easy one: she is the Good Wife to counterbalance Hillary Clinton's Evil Wife. She will never embarrass George in public debates, never disagree with him openly, never show him up as a loser. She lives for George.

Or that's how the archetypists would have her. Or perhaps as a Stepford Wife, if the archetypists don't like George's politics, a cold unfeeling woman all surface and no soul. What she's really like doesn't much matter in this game. Still, a recent article in the Chicago Tribune shows that Laura thinks her stereotyping should be changed. She's not really a homebody. In fact, she doesn't even bake cookies. And she even has political opinions different from those George holds so dear. However, she won't tell us what these differences might be.

Laura's attempts to change her public image will not be successful, simply because the Archetypal Wife is not allowed to define herself. That's against the rules.

It would be a lot easier if every male candidate for the presidency was equipped with a human-sized mechanized Barbie doll for a wife, and the real wife could stay at home and go on with her life. The doll could be given any archetypal qualities that are in fashion, and she could be programmed to say only approved things. Her body would always be perfect, and if body-fashions changed she could be recast. So much easier for everybody. Besides, Mattel could then launch a new series of First Lady Barbies for little girls: The Archetypal Wives.

Rumsfeld in His Own Words

If you haven't seen and heard this yet, maybe you should. Click here.

Spring-Cleaning

Spring-cleaning is wasted on the organized and orderly, which is sad, because they're probably the only people who still do it. I never really cared for cleaning (so bad for the hands), but a recent experience has made me look at it quite differently: Don't think about dusting and scrubbing, lifting and rearranging. Think about 'Raiders of the Lost Ark', about archeology and ancient history, about pirates and their treasure-chests.

This experience was a necessary cleaning-out of several closets and cupboards; necessary, because opening the doors caused an avalanche. I expected to be bored to death. What I actually had was one of the most interesting afternoons of my life, and this is what I found:
Five Radios
Several Unopened Advertizing-Size Boxes of Cereal
A Pair of Bright Red Leather Shoes
Enough Cotton Balls/Wool to Keep the Ears of the U.S. Military Forces Clean
Six Blocks for the Quilt 'Dresden Plates'
One Mummified Boxing Shoe

You might not find this list very interesting, of course, and maybe it isn't. But what is interesting is the history it tells (well, some of it, anyway, I have no idea who owns the red shoes and how they got into the linen closet). The cereal boxes are a memento of a time when I had decided to see if it was possible to stay alive by only eating the free samples in stores. It isn't, by the way, but one meets an interesting class of individuals that way. The radios have to do with the striving to find the Perfect Radio and a natural laziness in returning duds. I'm going to give them to charity.

The cotton balls I inherited from someone who had an obsessive fear of running out of cotton to stick in the ears. I have enough for several lifetimes. The quilt blocks were the output of one of my homebody phases. They could make a quilt for a very short and a very wide person almost as they are. The boxing shoe was once one of a pair, and brings back many fond memories of broken noses (not all mine) and of the one fight I won because I pinched the guy. The referee was a coward and refused to accept my superiority. Sigh. I no longer box because I have seen the light (and my back hurts), but the smell of the shoe still makes me wax nostalgic.

It's like personal archeology in the making, isn't it? And this is possible for everyone of us who decides to tackle spring-cleaning. Tomorrow I will clean the shelves and put everything back from the floors. I swear.

An Update on the Urinals

I'm very happy to hear that Virgin Airways has decided not to go on with the installation of urinals shaped like women's mouths in their J.F.Kennedy airport Clubhouse:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: 203 750 2570

VIRGIN ATLANTIC WILL NOT INSTALL "KISSES" URINALS
AT JFK CLUBHOUSE

(Norwalk, CT) March 19, 2004 - Virgin Atlantic recently opened its new Clubhouse at JFK's state-of-the-art Terminal 4. As one of the more quirky features of the lounge, the airline had planned to install two unique "Kisses" urinals in the Clubhouse restroom, designed by a Dutch-based company, Bathroom Mania. In response to the public's concerns about the design, the airline has decided not to move forward with the installation of these urinals in the bathroom.

John Riordan, Vice President of Customer Services, said:
"Everyone at Virgin Atlantic was very sorry to hear of people's concerns about the design of the "Kisses" urinals to be fitted into our clubhouse at JFK airport. We can assure everyone who complained to us that no offense was ever intended."

"The urinals were intended to be one of the more fun and quirky features of the new JFK Clubhouse, a project overseen by Virgin's in-house design team led by two female designers. The urinals themselves were the idea of a female designer and we were therefore surprised by the reaction."
"However, Virgin Atlantic always aims to listen to our passengers and the general public and as a result we will not install the urinals in the bathroom at our new JFK clubhouse."(Bolds mine.)

But Mr. Riordan still doesn't get it. That the "urinals themselves were the idea of a femal designer and we were therefore surprised by the reaction" indicates that he thinks all women think the same. Yeah, just like Noam Chomsky and John Kerry and George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden must all think the same because they are all men...
--------
Thanks to o.a.g. and hollymo at the ms. boards ; o.a.g. for the information, and hollymo for the point about all women not thinking the same.

News from Scopes County

The good people of Rhea County, Tennessee are still fighting:

The county that was the site of the Scopes "Monkey Trial" over the teaching of evolution is asking lawmakers to amend state law so the county can charge homosexuals with crimes against nature.
The Rhea County commissioners approved the request 8-0 Tuesday.
Commissioner J.C. Fugate, who introduced the measure, also asked the county attorney to find a way to enact an ordinance banning homosexuals from living in the county.
"We need to keep them out of here," Fugate said.

This was on Tuesday. But today the commissioners did a complete turnaround:

Rhea County commissioners took about three minutes to retreat from a request to amend state law so the county can charge homosexuals with crimes against nature. The Tuesday measure passed 8-0.
County attorney Gary Fritts said the initial vote triggered a "wildfire" of reaction. "I've never seen nothing like this," he said Thursday.
But Fritts said it was all a misunderstanding.
"They wanted to send a message to our (state) representative and senator that Rhea County supports the ban on same-sex marriage," he said. "Same-sex marriage is what it was all about. It was to stop people from coming here and getting married and living in Rhea County."
Not that the issue of banning homosexuals didn't arise.
"I'm not saying it wasn't discussed," Fritts said. "Sometimes you had five or six people talking."
Fritts said he advised the commissioners they cannot ban homosexuals or make them subject to criminal charges. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2003 struck down Texas' sodomy laws as a violation of adults' privacy.
Fritts said he doesn't believe the issue will come up again.
"I think they got all the publicity they need about it," he said.

So gays and lesbians won't be banned from Rhea County, after all. Before you expel that breath you've held in suspense, consider that Scopes County isn't really any one place at all but rather the mental homeland of a certain way of thinking, and there are other news from the same area:

Gay and lesbians in the entire federal workforce have had their job protections officially removed by the office of Special Counsel. The new Special Counsel, Scott Bloch, says his interpretation of a 1978 law intended to protect employees and job applicants from adverse personnel actions is that gay and lesbian workers are not covered.
Bloch said that the while a gay employee would have no recourse for being fired or demoted for being gay, that same worker could not be fired for attending a gay Pride event.
In his interpretation, Bloch is making a distinction between one's conduct as a gay or lesbian and one's status as a gay or lesbian.
"People confuse conduct and sexual orientation as the same thing, and I don't think they are," Bloch said in an interview with Federal Times, a publication for government employees.
Bloch said gays, lesbians and bisexuals cannot be covered as a protected class because they are not protected under the nation's civil rights laws.

My head aches. Let me see if I got this right: If I were a sexually abstinent lesbian or gay civil servant, I could be fired because of this without any protection from civil rights laws, but if I were a sexually active lesbian or gay the laws would protect me? No, this can't possibly be correct; the government being all hot for abstinence. What does it mean then? Quiet gays and lesbians can be fired at will, whereas noisy and belligerent ones will be protected? What about the "Don't Ask. Don't Tell" policies in that case? I give up. That's one of the things that tends to happen in Scopes County.

Is This Blog Sometimes Boring?

Of course. Is it going to get better? You betcha!

I've figured how to speak Republicanese at the face of any undeniable criticisms! It's really easy: all you need to do is repeat the accusation and agree to it, then strongly assert that remedy is already on the way, and you betcha! Were there any WMD in Iraq? No, of course not. Are we going to find them? You betcha!

This used the be the way only Donald Rumsfeld spoke, but all the other administration members liked it so well that they have also adopted it. I even heard a career diplomat Walter Slocum use it last night on NPR. He is a senior advisor to Paul Bremer on national security and defense. And today Richard Armitage joined in the spreading of this new way of speaking:

"So we think we're right on track with it.

Is it going to be easy?

No, it's not going to be easy.

Is it worthy work?

You betcha."

This is very clever. You restate the regrettable failure of your policies, but then immediately add a lot of fist waving and saliva flying and strong promises of a better tomorrow. I'm now going to use this device extensively. Is it going to be repetitive? Of course. Is it going to work? You betcha!

In Anything We Do, There Has To Be A Smile!

The 'we' is Virgin Airways, and the smile in this case is in the new men's urinals in the Virgin Airways Clubhouse in John F. Kennedy airport.

Even though they allow for high-volume servicing and back-in-a-flash trips to the john, the point-and-shoot-a-stinky-deodorizer-cake oddity known as the men's restroom urinal has been, for women, a constant enigma. But nothing will prepare you for the men's room in the newly-designed Virgin Airways Clubhouse in New York's John F. Kennedy airport, terminal 4: Urinals shaped like a woman's mouth, dolled up with red lipstick, wide open and ready for business.(Bolds mine)

I would have preferred an enigma to now knowing that there are men peeing into the wide open and ready mouths of women. What next? Make-up seats in the women's lounge shaped as African slaves on all fours?

Maybe nothing better can be expected of a company with the name 'virgin'. Do you want a pilot and a co-pilot to be on their virgin trip when you are sitting in the back of the plane? Still, the name is just silly, but this design feature is much more than that. Not that the powers-that-be at Virgin Airways think of it that way:

In anything that we do there has to be a smile, and that's the smile in this Clubhouse," said John Riordan, Vice President of Customer Services for Virgin Airways.

Well, I shall smile all the way to the competitors' ticket windows, thank you very much. Mr. Riordan may find that funny, too, given that he thinks urinating into a woman's mouth is a blast of a joke. Something we can all relate to, guffawing and elbowing each other while we zip up in front of all those helpless and harmless female mouths, right?

Wait a second...Maybe the mouths aren't so harmless, after all. If you click on the above link, or even better, here, you'll see a picture of the urinals, and what do we spot there, right inside the red-painted lips? Could it be.....teeth?
---------
Thanks for the link to cc.

Even Worse Poetry

I really have to share these!

Mother Goose,
were you married to Mr. Goose or not?
Did your webbed fingers
ever touch his
in a wedding trot?

Mother Goose,
were you charming in your feather dress?
When you swam around the pond
or nibbled watercress?

Mother Goose,
did it hurt to lay all those eggs?
Mother Goose,
did you ever wish for
drier legs?

---
Ms. Mosquito

Listen to the never-ending whine.
The darkness sleeps. You cannot.
You can hear her dance. It is hot.
When the dance is over she will dine.

You'll be her meal, laid out on bed.
Unless you rise and find her first,
and squash her, and her bloody thirst,
she will turn your pillows red.

-----
And this one is by far the best of the lot! A Truly Good Bad Poem!

Hundred and two in the shade
my eyes stand like hard-boiled eggs
in my crab-coloured face.
This country, she was not made
for people with snowpealike legs.
This country, she's on my case.

Ok. I promise there will be no more bad poetry, except perhaps for the feminist ones I was looking for when I found these.
Share yours in the comments thread.

More International Attitudes

Remember the recent post here on the attitudes of other countries' citizens to the United States? The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press just published the most recent results in their GAP project which maps out international attitudes towards the U.S., and the news are not good.

The gap between American beliefs and attitudes and those held by people elsewhere are growing. On the Iraq war, for example:

Majorities in all but the United States and Britain (33 percent) said they believed the Bush administration's main interest is to ''control Mideast oil'', while majorities in five of the countries, including France, said they believe his goals included ''dominat(ing) the world''.
Near majorities or majorities in all of the predominantly Muslim countries said another goal was ''to protect Israel''.
Majorities in France, Germany and each of the predominantly Muslim countries said they did not believe that Washington's ''war on terrorism'' was motivated primarily by the fight against terrorism. In Russia, a 48 percent plurality expressed similar skepticism.

...

The notion that Washington acts on its own without taking into account the interests of other nations was most prevalent in France (84 percent), Turkey (79 percent) and Jordan (77 percent), but even 61 percent of British respondents agreed with the statement.
By contrast, 70 percent of U.S. respondents thought Washington took other nations' interests into account.

It's as if the Americans live in a parallel universe from the rest. Various explanations might be offered for the growing divergence in attitudes, but one that certainly has an important impact is the stance taken by the media in each country, not only in the angle the news broadcasts adopt but also in what they choose to cover as news. I often listen to news on the shortwave radio from other countries. Try it if you haven't done so already; it can be very educational.

One very worrisome aspect of the international attitudes mapped in the survey is the prevalent support for Osama bin Laden in three of the four muslim countries included in the survey (Turkey, Morocco, Jordania and Pakistan):

Despite a reduction in the intensity of anger directed against the United States in the predominantly Muslim countries last May, GAP found that support for both bin Laden and the idea of suicide bombings remained disturbingly high.
Bin Laden was viewed favorably by 65 percent of respondents in Pakistan, 55 percent in Jordan and 45 percent in Morocco. Two-thirds of Moroccan and Jordanian respondents said suicide bombings against westerners in Iraq were justified; for Pakistanis, the percentage was 46 percent.
Even higher percentages said suicide bombings by Palestinians against Israelis could be justified -- from 47 percent of Pakistanis to 86 percent of Jordanians.

This is not good. Not good at all.
------------
The survey was taken in February and early March of 2004. Nine countries were included.

Too Awful For Words?

"I cannot relate to being obsessed with all this hatred. I just don't get it. It is unspeakable to me. It is dirty. It is wounding. "

Who said this? Some wilting wallflower Liberal? Some testosterone-deficient bleeding heart? Some un-American lefty?

Wrong. These are words uttered by Rush Limbaugh, the braying trumpeter of the boys' own populist conservatism. Rush is aghast at how low the Democrats have fallen, how full of hatred they are. He's trembling, he's shivering, he's full of confusion and dread. Poor Rush.

And what was the cause of his nervous breakdown? Two widows of 9/11 victims, Kristen Breitweiser and Monica Gabrielle, who have been actively demanding better explanations from the government about the events preceding the mass-slaughter. Most recently, they protested the use of the 9/11 material in Bush's election advertisements.

Rush decided that they were plants by the Democratic party, carefully coached to say the right thing. This is what he couldn't stand: that someone would go as far as to exploit the grief of others for a political purpose...

"I'm saying to myself, 'This can't be. The Democrats have not given these poor widows talking points. This just can't be,'" Limbaugh said on March 5, the first time he played the audio of Breitweiser and Gabrielle's statements. "They're going to make me level this accusation? They're going to?" I mean, I'm an observer of life. I watch the news; I see this. If you saw it, too, I'm sure you had to come to the same conclusion. And I'm sitting, saying to myself, 'Can it possibly be that the Democrats are out there accusing George Bush of running an attack ad and capitalizing politically on the attack of 9/11, have actually gotten hold of some widows, some family members, and gave them talking points?'

Because when you listen to what they say, they're all saying the same thing about where Bush was when this happened, and I keep saying, 'There's nothing these people do that will surprise me anymore, nothing the Democrats, nothing the liberals will do. They can't go any lower than they are. They can't have any more hatred than they have. They can't be more bitter than they are,' and they continue to surprise me. They can become angrier. They do become more embittered. They do get slimier!. . .

I do like Rush. He could keep a legion of bloggers in business with his incredible ability to spout inanities by the hour, and I appreciate the humor in the reversals that he uses here. This must have been an easy write-up; all Rush needed to do was to borrow any one of the many critiques of his own radio shows. But he's got his facts wrong as usual: anyone who knows snakes could have told him that Liberals don't even count on the sliminess scale.

What He Said

This is your koan for the day:

"God loves you, and I love you. And you can count on both of us as a powerful message that people who wonder about their future can hear."—Los Angeles, Calif., March 3, 2004

By the president of the United States, G.W. Bush. E-mail me when the enlightenment strikes you.

---------------
Link via Atrios

The Mariana Mallard and the Guam Broadbill

Have you ever seen these tropical birds? If you haven't, it's too late. They are as dead now as the dodo bird. Species extinction has always taken place, of course, but many believe that the rate of extinction has risen thousandfold from the early figures of one to two species out of a million each year. The most pessimistic forecasts imply that in fifty years time we may lose a quarter to a half of all now-existing species. Much of this increase is due to human activity.

This planet might become quite a lonely place for the humans. That has its good sides, too. More space for shopping malls and new housing developments, more relaxing camping holidays with no bears or wolves to worry about, more space for industrial agriculture, which will be needed to feed all the people who move into the new housing developments and shop in the new shopping malls. But it will be lonely, especially for the children who can no longer read about the tigers and the rhinoceri or the elephants.

It may also be bad for adults, even those who hate all wildlife as vermin. The species on this earth are interlinked and each extinction unravels a small whole into the overall fabric. Some of those holes will be at unimportant places in the weave, and will not matter much for the overall design. Others, however, might break the very foundation threads of our existence and directly threaten the survival of everything, including homo sapiens.

Consider the humble bee. It stings, true, but it also makes honey. If it went extinct we'd lose both of these. But we might also lose apples, at least in some areas, as the bee is the major pollinator of apple trees. The bees may be only a tiny thread in the overall tapestry, but their loss would leave a big hole behind.

I don't know what will unravel because of the extinction of the Mariana Mallard and the Guam Broadbill, but there's bound to be something. If nothing else, the loss of their beauty and wonder is a loss for ever.

Marketing Research

I really should run this blog in a more business-like manner. This is the first step towards that, a real marketing survey to find out what my readers desire. You can answer the questions in the comments thread attached to this survey, or just write whatever you feel like!

Questionnaire:
1. Are you
a) a human
b) a snake
c) a supernatural

2. Which stories do you prefer
a) political ones
b) feminist ones
c) funny stories
d) other (I could write about literature, martial arts, embroidery, antiques, nature, religion or the best way to bite your toe nails)

3. Would you like more bells and whistles
a) yes, please add pictures and music and stuff
b) no, I like the archaic formulation
c) other

Simple and quick! And nobody will call you afterwards! I'll let you know the results with the modal values and margins of errors if anyone answers which is unlikely. Now I'm going out to enjoy a day off from the snakes. You have a great day, too!

The Odd Man Out

Some days I feel totally schitzophrenic. Like today: I was surfing the web toiling away in search of stories to amuse and irritate you, my dear readers, when I came across two articles which analyzed the ways in which the United States stands out of the crowd of other Western nations, and these ways are not pretty. Yet only a couple of hours earlier I had scintillated at a local block party with lots of very nice American humans, and not one evil power-broker or fundamentalist among them (I'm not counting me, of course). What is a goddess to think? Mainly that it's time for all good, normal Americans to get off their asses to vote so that I can hold my head up in international meetings of the supernatural. Should you think of no other reason to do so.

The first of these two stories is a tale on morality, the Right Way and the sin of sex. We've heard this one before, of course, but repetition doesn't make it any less weird. The events took place at a hemispheric health conference of the Americas which was held in Santiago, Chile. Forty countries participated in this conference, and all but one agreed on the importance of family planning programs. Guess which country disagreed? Right:

By acclamation, the more than 300 participants at the Santiago Health Conference added language over U.S. objections that reaffirmed and expanded the so-called "Cairo Consensus," the program of action endorsed by 179 countries, including the U.S., at the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD). The Consensus asserts that promoting women's reproductive and sexual rights and services is central to reducing poverty and promoting economic development.

The U.S. wanted all language to 'reproductive health services' to be removed as it naturally means abortion, and it also wanted to insert language asserting parental rights over all teenagers' sexual and health decisions. I smell a fundamentalist Christian here, somewhere in the room.

Given that the majority of South American countries are quite traditional in their values and strongly affected by the Roman Catholic church, the isolation of the United States stance is all the more remarkable. But an empire doesn't need to think like others, of course, not even like most of its citizens.

And it doesn't even have to worry about the equality of the majority of its citizens. During the last week the United States has also decided to renege on its commitment to the 1995 Beijing Platform of Action, "a program adopted by a UN conference to promote the advancement of women throughout the world". So American women don't need any more promotion, I guess. Twelve percent is an acceptable number of women in the Congress, and the Bible never said anything different. What's next, I wonder? A change to the female voting rights would seem like the logical next step. The next elections might be a good time to use them or to lose them.

The second story of the odd man out concerns the worldly goods, greed and the ever free markets. This is where my schitzophrenia again rears its ugly head, for the U.S. in this story is a totally different bunch of people than the ones who went to Santiago. No Old Testament values are touted here; rather, the tale is about the religion of markets and the god of globalization. My bard is Joseph Stiglitz, a respectable economist, and the events take place at an International Labor Organization committee about the negatives of globalization. Stiglitz says:

A new report, issued by the International Labor Organization's commission on the social dimensions of globalization, reminds us how far the Bush administration is out of line with the global consensus. The ILO is a tripartite Organization's with representatives of Labor, government and business. The commission, chaired by the presidents of Finland and Tanzania, has 24 members (of whom I was one) drawn from different nationalities, interest groups and intellectual persuasions, including members as diverse as the head of Toshiba and the leader of the American Federation of Labor Congress of Industrial Organizations. Yet this very heterogeneous group was able to crystallize the emerging consensus, that globalization - despite its positive potential - has not only failed to live up to that potential, but has actually contributed to social distress.

This consensus, and a rather moderate one at that, as what people agree about is that globalization is not all roses and wine, is not shared by the United States. Stiglitz gives two examples of the U.S. rigidity in dealing with globalization: the Americans insistence on the liberalization of capital markets at an early stage of economic development, despite the fact that this has been shown to result in crises, the disappearance of the middle class and increased poverty, and a similar insistence on strong intellectual property rights in areas such as pharmaceutical patents, which seriously hampers the poor countries' access to drugs that are needed to combat AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. Only reluctantly did the U.S. agree to allow genetic (and cheaper) equivalents to be marketed in these countries, and only when an epidemic or other emergency was taking place.

What these two tales share is the impression of American heartlessness and rigid fanaticism. These are not the values of the Americans that I know and love, and it makes me very angry that a bunch of people in one itsy-bitsy town, Washington D.C., can so ruin the reputation of nice, hospitable folk with a lot of common sense.