Wednesday, September 05, 2012

Photo-Shopping Classic Nudes


This is an interesting project: 

Anna Utopia has made several female nudes in old paintings more compliant with today's body ideals.  One example below, with the original work on the right:











left: anna utopia giordano's reinterpretation of 'venus, cupid, folly and time' by angelo bronzino , 2012
right:
'venus, cupid, folly and time' by angelo bronzino, 1545



Michelle Obama's Speech. A Feminist Look.


She spoke very well and her speech achieved the various goals pundits tell me a candidate's wife's speech has:  to humanize the candidate, to relate the love story of the couple and to inject into this human and emotional message as many subtle links to the policies of the candidate's party as possible.

Michelle Obama's speech was even cleverer than that because she managed to contrast her messages with those of the Republican candidate and his wife.  And yes, she looked fantastic and her dress was great and so on.

It would be better if Barack just resigned tomorrow and president Michelle Obama took over!  Michelle won the War of the Wives.

The above paragraphs are my summary of what I have learned about the general political opinions on this matter.   I agree with them, of course.  Michelle Obama is a great speaker, a beautiful woman and very intelligent.

But here's the reason why I can cheer as wildly as all those folks at the Democratic Convention one moment and go a bit sulky the next moment:  I need a feminism-ectomy!  Also:

Speeches by spouses are one of the many aspects of American electoral politics that puzzle the rest of the world. As a reporter from VG (The Way of the World), the largest newspaper in Norway, was heard to ask, "What do these women do that their men can't?"

In many western European contests, the voting public doesn't even know the names of the candidates' families -- but that's never been true in America. From the first, presidents' wives have been the focus of the public eye, much to the chagrin of Martha Washington, who never wanted her husband to be the leader of the new republic. Abigail Adams, wife of the second president, John Adams, had no time for "the people" and their curiosity about the family that led the nation. It would not be until Dolley Madison became the figurehead for her reticent and uncharismatic husband, James, that a new role for the first lady was born.

That's the way I grew up.  Having wives of candidates take the podium to discuss the candidates as husbands and fathers still sounds very weird to me.

But it's that feminism-ectomy need that truly bothers me.  I don't want to pee on the parade, I don't want to be a fanatic single-issue goddess and I don't want to be a curmudgeon.  I also understand that the role of the political spouse is but one role for women in politics, that women also give speeches as candidates on their own right, and I very much understand the specific trials and tribulations a woman of color would face in the role of the First First Lady of Color, what with various racist stereotypes about black women, in particular.  I don't blame Michelle Obama for the only track she can really take.  Besides, her speech did much more than that requisite get-to-know-my-husband.

Still.  The role of the First Lady does not translate into the role of the First Husband, and that's where the feminist problem with this tradition lies. 

Suppose that the roles were indeed reversed between the two Obamas (as courteous commentators suggest).  Would the First Gentleman, Barack Obama, then give a speech which would end in his vow that his most important role is to be Dad-in-Chief?  Michelle finished with the female equivalent, after all:

And I say all of this tonight not just as first lady.and not just as a wife.
You see, at the end of the day, my most important title is still “mom in chief.”

And would the viewers of that imaginary speech then discuss Barack's clothing and shoes and handsomeness?

My point is that this stuff does not translate, which means that the institution of the First Lady and all the baggage that comes with it is an essentially female one.  

And this is why the role of the First Lady cannot be the role of the First Gentleman.

That is a minor obstacle in the road of female politicians to the highest office in the country, the absent script for the role of the First Spouse.  Other obstacles are much more severe.  Perhaps the best way for me to look at my small sulks is to accept the times we live in.

Now that I got that off my chest,  let me point out that Michelle Obama works that difficult, ill-defined and unpaid job of a First Lady very well.   My grumbling is not about her (or about the earlier First Ladies, either) but about the expectations attached to that role.

 



Tuesday, September 04, 2012

On Angry White Guys And The Need For Liberals To Shut Up. Recent Immortal Statements.


Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.):

The tensions come amid a debate within the GOP on how best to lure new voters. The nation’s shifting demographics have caused some Republican leaders to worry not only about the party’s future but about winning in November, particularly in key swing states such as Virginia and Nevada.
“The demographics race we’re losing badly,” said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.). “We’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term.

Bolds are mine.  I saw a reference to this statement before and simply couldn't believe that it wasn't a hoax.  But nope.  It's real.  Note the verb "to generate" in that sentence.  Graham is taking credit for fueling the anger of the white guys, by presenting them with straw enemies.

An odd moment of honesty perhaps?

Then there's  Alessandra Stanley of New York Times:

You can agree with everything that Rachel Maddow or Ed Schultz say on MSNBC and still oppose their right to say it.
Especially when they and their hyped-up panelists shout that Republican claims are “lies,” or Chris Matthews says that Republicans view welfare recipients as “looters.” MSNBC panelists gave Mitt Romney his due on Thursday but mocked his audience. Mr. Matthews noted that when Mr. Romney called for Americans to give the poor a helping hand, Mr. Matthews said, “He got zero applause,” adding, “I think that’s so telling about tonight.”

Bolds are mine, again.  Some of Stanley's points in that piece are valid.  It's true that Fox News has pretty much destroyed informative and fact-based political debate, and it's true that others are now following suit.

But how come has Fox been allowed to say utterly disgusting things for years without much criticism from journalists in general?   As long as one meta-debating partner (Fox) is allowed to blow farts and breathe fire without any punishment but rather with the rewards of good profits, others will follow suit, right?  Unless rudeness and bias are only OK when carried out by Republicans?

Then there's that whole bit of opposing someone's right to say nasty things.  I have never seen that applied to Fox News, and if it were there would be very loud yells about the freedom of expression.

I guess my point is that if there ever was an idyllic era of polite and fact-based political debates in the American media, that era has been broken by the political right, a long time ago.  The intermediate outcome has been an odd one where your average political debate has consisted of a few fire-breathing monsters from the right, high on angry testosterone and furious at the whole world, and one vewy scawed pseudo-liberal whose point has been to act as a stupid mouse for the cats to play with.

Whether having monsters on both sides is better than the mouse-torture games depends on the spectator.  But the process towards general monstering appears unavoidable if the right are allowed to practice it.


Ramesh Ponnuru on False Choices


Ramesh Ponnuru, a conservative writer for the National Review, is cracking jokes!  Or making threats:

More Gridlock
The Republicans aren’t going to change. Judging from the interview, neither will the president. He said that after the election he would tell Republicans “you no longer need to be focused on trying to beat me; what you need to be focused on and what you should have been focused on from the start is how do we advance the American economy.” He would reiterate that he has always been open to compromise. And he would “look at how we can work around Congress,” if needed.
In other words, after winning he will lecture Republicans about how their positions are insincere and adopted purely for political reasons; he will insist that his existing positions are already a compromise with them; and he will try to govern unilaterally. These tactics seem unlikely to produce the desired results. Obama has, after all, adopted all of them, and they haven’t worked.
If the public renders a split verdict -- returning Obama to the presidency and giving Republicans more power in Congress -- both parties will insist that it’s the other that needs to “listen to the American people.” The choice before those people is looking more and more like one between Romney and a unified Republican government, or Obama and four more years that look a lot like the last two.

Or as Atrios puts it:


Or The Hostage Gets It

Yes there really is no other choice but to surrender to perpetual Republican one party rule.

This is one example of the kind of political writing I love to detest.  Here a guy goes on a rant about the Republicans going even more extreme if they are not allowed to govern unilaterally!  They will pee in the punch bowl nonstop, he swears, throw temper tantrums on the floor and otherwise act discourteously.  Better the people surrender right away so that all those crappy safety nets can be pulled down.  After all, you know they will be shredded apart eventually, so why not now?  And if you don't like it, well, you get another year of gridlock.

Hmmm.  To stay in gridlock or to careen off the cliff?  To stay in gridlock or to careen off the cliff?   Hard choices.

In any case, Ponnuru fails to point out that there's an alternative way out of that dreaded gridlock.  It's to give Democrats the majority in both the House and the Senate and then to re-elect Obama.




Monday, September 03, 2012

Let Us Now Celebrate Labor


Because it is Labor Day in the United States:

Labor Day: How it Came About; What it Means
Labor Day, the first Monday in September, is a creation of the labor movement and is dedicated to the social and economic achievements of American workers. It constitutes a yearly national tribute to the contributions workers have made to the strength, prosperity, and well-being of our country.

That's in our reality.  In the alternate reality, Eric Cantor tweets this:*

Today, we celebrate those who have taken a risk, worked hard, built a business and earned their own success.

I might be mistaken.  Maybe Cantor is not referring to  entrepreneurs in that statement but to the workers on whose backs corporations are ultimately made?  After all, GOP would like to transfer all the risks of entrepreneurship from the owners to the workers ("Right to Work" laws, lack of health insurance, lack of guaranteed annual vacations and so on).

I have nothing against entrepreneurs, by the way.  They carry out an important economic task by taking on certain types of financial risks, those which are used to justify high profits later on.  But today is not the Day of The Entrepreneur,  and workers also work very hard.  Anyone with three simultaneous jobs works hard, for instance.

Given the current lack of media coverage when it comes to workers' circumstances and rights, I really wish that Labor Day be allowed to be about workers.  At least it might remind some people about what the workers are losing in this country.

-----
*Thanks to trifecta for the link

 



Why I Am Pro-Choice


I have written about this topic at least twice before, first in 2005 and then on the day commemorating Roe in 2007.

As you can see from those posts, my stance is based on gender equity and fairness.  If women are largely treated as inanimate (i.e. powerless)  potential or actual containers of the more valuable fertilized eggs, women and men can never be socially or economically equal in the extreme forced-birth world.  Never.

If women are not allowed to be in control of their own fertility, other people will have that control.  And a person without the ability to decide on when she becomes pregnant will not have the same economic and social opportunities as someone who does have that control.   All written history shows us that very thing.

Which sex is it today which is urged to think of itself as living in the state of perpetual  pre-pregnancy when fertile and not actually pregnant, keeping the egg-aquarium clean and sparkly?   Which sex is it today whose contraceptive tools (the pill, the coil)  are blamed of causing abortions by the pro-life constituency?  Which sex is it which is sometimes denied access to contraception by pharmacists with consciences?   And which sex is it today which many employers suspect of just leaving when getting pregnant and therefore not worth hiring or promoting on the job?

All these minor aspects of modern American life would be thousandfold stronger in the world the pro-lifers desire.  Indeed, women's bodies would have to be guarded, miscarriages would have to be investigated as potential murders and going out at night might expose a woman not just to the same dangers a man might face but also a forced pregnancy and birth.

There is no way such a world could offer women equal social and economic opportunities.


Sunday, September 02, 2012

How To Draw A Rocket


More art from me when I was little (click on the pic to make it bigger).  This is a picture of a rocket, though the text says "a rocket if it is."  The dot in the upper left-hand corner is probably a planet.




On The Life of Tomoe Goezen. A Guest Post By Anna.




These days female action heroes are becoming ever more popular. In addition to The Hunger Games book and movie trilogy, there is Black Widow of The Avengers, Snow White in the movie Snow White and the Huntsman, and more. 
 
Perhaps now is therefore a good time to take a look at an under-appreciated real-life warrior, Tomoe Goezen. 
 
She was a female samurai warrior (female samurai were known as onna bugeisha).
An example of the consummate woman warrior, Tomoe Goezen was a legendary fighter at the time of the Genpei War (1180-85), a period that saw the birth of the samurai tradition in Japan. Goezen is not a surname but an honorific applied principally to women. 
 
The sources differ on the details of her life. She was either the wife, concubine, or female attendant of the Japanese commander Minamoto no Yoshinaka. Skilled in the martial arts and fearless in battle, she was one on Yoshinaka's senior officers in the struggle for the control of Japan between the Taira and Minamoto clans.

Tomoe Goezen's beauty and prowess are described in the Hieke Monotogari (Tales of the Monotogari): "Tomoe was especially beautiful, with white skin, long hair and charming features. She was also a remarkably strong archer, and as a swordswoman she was a warrior worth a thousand, ready to confront a demon or a god, mounted or on foot. She handled unbroken horses with superb skill; she rode unscathed down perilous descents. Whenever a battle was imminent, Yoshinaka sent her out as his first captain, equipped with strong armor, an oversized sword, and a mighty bow; and she performed more deeds of valor than any of his other warriors. "

Minamoto no Yoshinaka's ambition to head the Minamoto clan eventually led to his downfall. The clan chieftain, Minamoto no Yoritomo, decided to nip his cousin's designs in the bud and dispatched his brothers to kill him. Yoshinaka did battle with Yoritomo's forces at Awazu in February 1184, where it was said that Tomoe Goezen decapitated at least one of the enemy. With only a few of his soldiers left standing, Yoshinaka ordered Tomoe Goezen to quit the field. One account has her remaining and meeting death at Yoshinaka's side. Another has her surviving to become a member of a religious order. In yet another she casts herself into the sea, clutching Yoshinaka's severed head.

In the 1980s Tomoe Goezen was used as a character in a trilogy of fantasy novels, known as "The Tomoe Goezen Saga", by American fantasy and horror author Jessica Amanda Salmonson. Here you can see her life told in fantasy form.

References: The Tale of the Heike, translated by Helen Craig McCullough, 1988.

Hell Hath No Fury by Rosalind Miles and Robin Cross (pgs. 22-23).
 
 

Saturday, September 01, 2012

Things To Read


Shulamith Firestone has died.  You can read the first chapter of The Dialectic of Sex here.


This essay on children of rape (CONTENT WARNING FOR RAPE) sets Akin's stupid statement about the impossibility of conceiving from rape into its proper (and painful) perspective.  Despite its title, the essay is mostly not about the children  but about women who gave birth after rape.

This BBC piece about women accused of witchcraft in Ghana reminded me of a book I read about the likely characteristics of women who were caught in the European and late American witch hunts.  They tended to be elderly or without husbands, and in many cases they owned land someone else desired or had an argument with someone in the village:

"The camps are a dramatic manifestation of the status of women in Ghana," says Professor Dzodzi Tsikata of the University of Ghana. "Older women become a target because they are no longer useful to society."
Women who do not conform to society's expectations also fall victim to the accusations of witchcraft, according to Lamnatu Adam of the women's rights group Songtaba.


"Women are expected to be submissive so once you start to be outspoken in your views or even successful in your trade, people assume you must be possessed."

Note that these witch searches have the secondary outcome of controlling women, especially at an age when they might not otherwise be so easy to control.

Finally, Matthew Yglesias has written a piece on the  question: If Ann Romney's work at home is harder and more important (as Mitt has argued), why isn't it Ann who is running for president?

The answer is obvious, of course.  But a more interesting question would have been:  If Ann Romney's work at home is harder and more important (as Mitt has argued), why didn't he want to do it?

Duh.  The Anglo-Saxon cult of motherhood is rife with empty praise for those who parent but very few material rewards, barring a wealthy husband.  And the answer to both those questions can be found in the belief that gender roles are innate and god-given.




Thursday, August 30, 2012

More About the Republican War on Women


This is a neat timeline (to June 2012) of the Republican political initiatives having to do with women.  Remember that Chris Christie argues that his party shouldn't have to cater to women?

Well, they do not.  Based on the last few years the Republican Party uses enormous amounts of time and effort on attempts to control women.  I see no reason why they would change that strategy in the future,  both because all that is meat thrown to the Christianist base and because limiting women's reproductive rights or their ability to seek legal redress to discrimination are no-money-cost initiatives.  The latter also leaves more money in the corporate wallets.

And yes, I promise to write about something else as soon as I'm able!  It's getting to a point where I bore myself.




The Evils of Central Planning: A Soviet Factory In Every Uterus!


Yeah, that headline makes little sense.  It's the thought I have after the Paul Ryan speech in which he mentions the evils of central planning in general and the great unbridled joys of jungle markets in particular. 

Except that none of that applies to wimminz and their womb factories.  Those, my sweetings, are to be run by central planning, not by the factories themselves.

The odd combination of anarchy in the markets and strict fundamentalism in social relations has been the central platform of the Republican Party for so long that few even think about how very odd it is, how very much the two basic blocks of that party contradict each other.  Freedom for some, forced births for others.


Kudos When Deserved


Last night I was grumbling about bad journalism.  This morning I saw a proper fact check article on the Paul Ryan speech.  I haven't fact-checked the fact checks...

Added later:  Two more fact check pieces.



Wednesday, August 29, 2012

Political Journalists Are Now Just Style Judges?


Atrios linked to a story which suggests that this the new job of political journalists:

Blitzer: So there he is, the republican vice presidential nominee and his beautiful family there. His mom is up there. This is exactly what this crowd of republicans here certainly republicans all across the country were hoping for. He delivered a powerful speech. Erin, a powerful speech. Although I marked at least seven or eight points I’m sure the fact checkers will have some opportunities to dispute if they want to go forward, I’m sure they will. As far as mitt romney’s campaign is concerned, paul ryan on this night delivered.

Judges, your style marks, please.

Chris Christie. Blind as A Bat?


This video of Chris Christie speaking about why the Republican Party shouldn't have to cater to women voters or the minorities made me grind my fangs.  Bad.

Christie is saying that there is no reason to have a different message to female voters than to male voters, that it is a fallacy to have to cater to a particular sector of the society, that it is condescending to expect to have a different message to women than to men.

Why I'm spouting flames right now:

First, the Republican Party does have a separate message to women.  No, they are not catered to.  They are catered as the main meal in that big fratboy-cum-Christianist dinner party of the GOP.

Women are supposed to give birth on demand, even when the pregnancy is caused by rape.  Women are not supposed to have access to laws which protect them against domestic violence.  Women are not supposed to have protection against labor market discrimination,  or to have maternity leaves or any chance of equal earnings and so on.  Indeed, women are supposed to do as they are told, to focus on Kinder, Küche und Kirche, and to leave the deciding bidness to men.

Second, the Republican Party does have a separate message to minorities.  Which is pretty much that minorities can go and f**k themselves.  There will be no protection against labor market discrimination based on race or ethnicity, and the hunt for "illegals" is certainly not about illegal Irish or Finnish immigrants to this country.

Third, the Republican Party caters very much to particular sectors of the society.  Those sectors are rich people, mostly older white men, and the Christianist hordes.  The latter are needed for their votes, and the former are the true base of the GOP.  But Republicans are quite willing to cater to misogynists, too.

Thus, Christie is full of crap.  He is insulting, perhaps because he wears blinders.


From the Fringes of The Republican Convention



A nasty racist incident led to the culprit being thrown out of the Convention. 

Then there was this:

An unscripted moment happened late this afternoon that caused the assembled mainstream media to turn away in the hope that it would disappear. As I was standing in line for a sandwich next to an Italian and a Puerto Rican correspondent, a controversy was unfolding on the floor. The RonPaulites, whose furious devotion to a single idea have made them the Ellen Jamesians of the right, were protesting a decision by RNC officials not to seat members of the Maine delegation, which was split between Paul and Romney supporters following rule changes made just prior to the convention. There were energetic shouts of “Aye!” and “Nay!” as a Puerto Rican party functionary—Zoraida Fonalledas, the chairwoman of the Committee on Permanent Organization—took her turn at the main-stage lectern. As she began speaking in her accented English, some in the crowd started shouting “U.S.A.! U.S.A.!”The chanting carried on for nearly a minute while most of the other delegates and the media stood by in stunned silence. The Puerto Rican correspondent turned to me and asked, “Is this happening?” I said I honestly didn’t know what was happening—it was astonishing to see all the brittle work of narrative construction that is a modern political convention suddenly crack before our eyes. None of us could quite believe what we were seeing: A sea of twentysomething bowties and cowboy hats morphing into frat bros apparently shrieking over (or at) a Latina.

You can watch the video on the linked site.   Perhaps the chant wasn't occasioned by the Puerto Rican party functionary.  But perhaps they were.

Finally, and not really from the fringes, Bill Keller writes about the crude editing of Obama's statements in a video aired at the Convention.


Ann Romney Speaks. Echidne Listens.


More from the Republican Convention.  Ann Romney, the wife of Mitt Romney, gave a speech yesterday.  The transcript is here and the video here.

The purpose of the speech was to tell American women that if the Republican Party doesn't love them, well, Ann Romney does!  It's almost as good, honest.

I may be too nasty there, because Ann Romney wanted to speak about her husband and how much she loves him.  She also made this comment:

Sometimes, I think that, late at night, if we were all
silent for just a few moments and listened carefully, we could
hear a collective sigh from the moms and dads across America who
made it through another day, and know that they will make it
through another one tomorrow. But in the end of that day moment,
they are just aren't sure how.
   And if you listen carefully, you'll hear the men sighing
a little bit more than the women.  It's how it is, isn't it?  It's
the dads who have always had to work a little harder to make
everything right.  It's the dad's of this nation, single,
married, widowed, who really hold the country together.  We're
the fathers.  We're the husbands.  We're the grandfathers.  We're
the big brothers.  We're the little brothers and we are the
sons.
   You know it's true, don't you?
   (APPLAUSE)
   I love you,  men!
   (APPLAUSE)
   And I hear your voices.  Those are my favorite fans down
there.

OK, she didn't.  It was that Evil Echidne who switched all the gender signifiers to their opposites, to show you how ultimately insincere I found that particular part of the speech was.  Women are loved because they have kinship ties to other people and because  they worry a bit more about the economy than the men.  Who also, of course, have kinship ties to all sorts of other people, but that has never been used as a justification to love them, in general.  It suffices for us wimminfolk, however.

Ann Romney does give specific examples of the Americans who suffer from the current economic situation.  I looked at those examples more carefully, given the pro-woman angle of this speech.  Here are few of those examples:

  And the working moms who love their jobs, but would like to 
work just a little less to spend more time with the kids, but 
that is just out of the question with this economy.
   Or how about that couple who would like to have another
 child but wonder how they will afford it?  I have been all
 across this country and I know a lot of you guys.
   (APPLAUSE)
   And I have seen and heard stories of how hard it is to get
ahead now.  You know what?  I have heard your voices.  They have 
said to me, I am running in place and we just cannot get ahead.


...

 You are the ones that have to do a little bit more and you 
know what it is like to earn a little bit harder earn the 
respect you deserve at work and then you come home to help with 
the book report just because it has to be done.


Mmm.  Let's see what the Republican Party has done for those working women, recently:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Monday that Senate Republicans oppose equal pay for women, citing as evidence their expected opposition to the Democrats' Paycheck Fairness Act in a scheduled Tuesday vote.

"They don't agree with this, they don't want women to make the same amount of money, so they're filibustering this," Reid said on the Senate floor. "They are filibustering us even getting on the bill."

More examples from Ann Romney:

You know what those late-night phone calls with an elderly 
parent are like, and those long weekend drives just to see how
 they're doing.
   You know the fastest route to the local emergency room and
 which doctors actually answers the phone call when you call at
 night, and by the way, I know all about that.


The Republican Party is very much opposed to any changes in the old health care system which made the local emergency room the only place of care for many of those worried working mothers.

And yet more from Ann Romney:

I  am not sure if men really understand this, but I don't
 think there is a woman in America who really expects her life to 
be easy. In our own ways, we all know better.  You know what,
 and that's fine. We don't want easy.  But the last few years 
have been harder than they needed to be.  It is all the little 
things, the price of the pump you could not believe and the 
grocery bills that just get bigger, all those things that used
 to be free, like school sports are now one more bill to pay.
   It's all the little things become the big things.  And the 
big things, the good jobs, the chance at college and the home
 you want to buy just get harder.  Everything has become harder.
We're too smart and know that there are no easy answers, but
 we're not dumb enough to accept that there are not better
 answers.


So.  Given that the price at the pump went up partly because of the wars of the previous Republican president, what are we to conclude from this?  Given that the school costs are going up because of the decision of mostly Republican state governments with the desire to squash the public sector like an annoying gnat, what are we to conclude from this?  And given that college funding is also slashed by the same Republicans on state level, what are we to conclude from this?


The women Ann Romney speaks to (or so I imagine) are not at all worried that the Republican Party wanted to get rid of the Violence Against Women Act or that the draft platform of the Republican Party appears to include that bit about the Rapists' Fatherhood Rights.  Neither does she mention that her party is overwhelmingly white and overwhelmingly male, and that there are good reasons for that to be the case.

But whatever.  The big thing seems to be to point out that women are necessary in their traditional roles for this particular economic and social system to work, and that to praise them for their traditional work suffices to keep them faithful to the GOP.







Tuesday, August 28, 2012

Governor Chris Christie Speaks. Echidne Listens.


I watched Chris Christie's speech at the RNC Convention.  My, he was good on the emotions!  Your task:  Find a transcript of that speech and circle around all the possibly factual assertions.

You will be astonished that they are so few.  He argues that the "truth" has to do with too large a government, one which needs to be shrunk to size, that this shrinking will require equal sacrifices from all (has it in the past?), that the Murkan people are unselfish and willing to do that very thing, all quite equally!  And that Murka will, once again, be exceptional!  That all grandchildren can be proud of living in the kind of exceptional banana republic Christie desires.

That the "truths" might also be about such unimportant matters as joblessness and suffering and the loss of much wealth in the Bush-abetted financial markets crash was not part of Christie's speech.

Then there was that odd bit about the need to cut the pay of teachers!  Teachers are really evil people and the cause of much suffering in this country because they are for teachers' unions and not for the children.  Christie even mentions, fleetingly, that teachers are not motivated by pay but by the love of children.  Or should be.

On the other hand, in the rest of the economy those who work hard should get paid well.   And the kind of education system Christie desires is the exact opposite of the education systems in this world which do well.

The Finnish system, for instance, is based on government funding, high salaries for teachers, and quite a bit of respect for the teaching profession.  Christie wants teachers to teach because of their love for children, Christie wants teachers to be rewarded only for the very best results (which, naturally, depend on the circumstances and problems of the children, and therefore results in differential teaching rewards in poorer areas where children have many more problems).

Despite the scarcity of factual assertions, Christie's speech was very good on all that hindbrain stuff.  FEEL GOOD!  Even if your life is not good.  FEEL UNSELFISH!  Even if the choices work for the selfish desires of the few on top.  SHARE EQUALLY IN SACRIFICES!  Even though this is impossible to achieve if those sacrifices mean unemployment and hunger for some,  one less yacht for some others.

Most importantly, the good feelings cost the Republicans nothing at all.  That's always an important consideration for that party.

On the other hand, Christie never mentioned the misogynistic policies of his party,  despite using the idea of the government not getting between a woman and her doctor in his reference to the health care policies of the Obama administration.

That up is down and east is west is to be expected from Christie and his ilk.  Still, I've been flabbergasted by the general Republican argument that women don't care about reproductive choice because the economic problems are more serious.  Why should these two be mutually exclusive alternatives?   How, exactly, do the Republican economic policies require that raped women give birth to the children of their rapists?

The answer, naturally, is that this is all bullshit.  Reproductive choice costs the Republican Party nothing in money, and might save the government some in later welfare payments.  But the lack of reproductive choice is a demand made by the extreme Christian patriarchs of that party, and it's something the misogynistic element in the party doesn't care about.  Hence, Republican women are told what they should choose:  American exceptionalism for their grandchildren!

What kind of exceptionalism that might be?  Especially for their granddaughters.
---

Added later:  Here's a piece about the Christie economic miracle!


On Trigger Warnings


Roxane Gay has written a beautiful article on the futility of trigger warnings:

Many feminist communities use trigger warnings, particularly when discussing rape, sexual abuse, and violence. By using these warnings, these communities are saying, “This is a safe space. We will protect you from unexpected reminders of your history.” Members of these communities are given the illusion they can be protected.
There are a great many potential trigger warnings. Over the years, I have seen trigger warnings for eating disorders, poverty, self-injury, bullying, heteronormativity, suicide, sizeism, genocide, slavery, mental illness, explicit fiction, explicit discussions of sexuality, homosexuality, homophobia, addiction, alcoholism, racism, the Holocaust, ableism, and Dan Savage.
Life, apparently, requires a trigger warning.
This is the uncomfortable truth—everything is a trigger for someone. There are things you cannot tell just by looking at her or him.
And she has a point.  More than one point, because trigger warnings cannot guarantee a safe space and because almost everything can trigger a flood of memories in some reader.  She also makes a related point later in the article:

It all seems so futile, so impotent and, at times, belittling. When I see trigger warnings, I think, “How dare you presume what I need to be protected from?”
Trigger warnings also, when used in excess, start to feel like censorship. They suggest that there are experiences or perspectives too inappropriate, too explicit, too bare to be voiced publicly. As a writer, I bristle when people say, “This should have had a trigger warning.” I think, “For what?”
I do not understand the unspoken rules of trigger warnings. I cannot write the way I want to write and consider using trigger warnings. After a while, I would second guess myself, temper the intensity of what I have to say. I don’t want to do that. I don’t intend to ever do that.
Writers cannot protect their readers for themselves nor should they be expected to.
There is also this: maybe trigger warnings allow people to avoid learning how to deal with triggers, getting help. I say this with the understanding that having access to professional resources for getting help is a privilege. I say this with the understanding that sometimes there is not enough help in the world. That said, there is value in learning, where possible,  how to deal with and respond to the triggers that cut you open, the triggers that put you back in terrible places, that remind you of painful history.

These points all carry their own kind of truth.  It's a partial truth and a subjective truth but a truth.

My own use of trigger warnings is also partial.  It's based on trying not to set up sneaky assassin triggers for anybody, the kinds of triggers which could open up a flood of flashbacks in a PTSD sufferer, without any warning, without any time for her or him to set up the brick walls or to take up the defensive weaponry.

Thus, I use them when the topic of a blog is different from what readers might usually expect from this site.  I often (always?) write about hate and loathing and disgusting behaviors, and to label all those topics would require permanent trigger warnings.  But when a post describes human evil and human suffering in such detail that it can provoke flashbacks, that's when I put up the warning.

I don't know if it works, and I worry over the fact that I don't know which posts truly deserve those warnings.  My own history is not the same as the history of others, and I may happily skip across a topic of dire importance to someone else.  I know this because this has happened to me in other places and at other times.

But marking everything is not a feasible approach.  The general contents of this blog provide information about whether reading me is ever recommended (!).

No place can ultimately be a safe space, in the sense of being impermeable, of being able to take any attack.  People die in their own bedrooms, friends and family  can take us down.  But what I have tried to do with this blog  is to create a space of respect, a space where the fighting is fair when it happens.

I have failed miserably and frequently, of course.  Still, I think the conversations we have here are closer to that feeling of respect than they would have been without any such choices.

Monday, August 27, 2012

Precocious


Well, goddesses are.  When I was five I drew this picture of a horse.  As you can see I already questioned received wisdom in at least two ways: the udders and the best kind of tail. 

It's not very sharp because of damage from storage.  My  apologies for that.  The thing in the upper left-hand corner is a practice for drawing a foot, of course.  The thing below it is "horse" in Finnish.




On Those Alpha Males


The wolf ones.  The ones that the Pickup Artists tell us they emulate.  Manboobs has an interesting piece about actual wolves:

Because the qualities of the Alpha Male (such as social dominance and leadership) are attractive to women, many PUAs have adopted these ideals as models of emulation. In fact, the term “alpha” has come be shorthand for the qualities of an attractive man, and it is a common refrain among PUAs to be “more alpha” or to “out alpha” competitors.
There’s a certain logic to all this. But unfortunately for the PUAs and other manospherians the notion of the Alpha male is based on bad science. The notion of Alpha dominance, as the definition above notes, came originally from studies of wolf packs. Even if we assume that wolf behavior is somehow a good model upon which to base our understanding of human romance  – as manosphere men and evolutionary psychologists tend to do – the science behind the Alpha male wolf has now come completely undone, with many of those who promulgated the theory in the first place decades ago now explicitly repudiating it.
The problem, you see, is that the studies underlying the notion of the alpha male wolf, who aggressively asserts his dominance over beta males in order to rule the pack, were all based on observations of wolves in captivity. In the real world, wolf packs don’t work that way at all. Most wolf packs are basically wolf families, with a breeding pair and their pups. When male pups reach adulthood, they don’t fight their fathers for dominance — they go out and start their own families.

Presumably the female pups leave, too, to start their own families.  Otherwise those new families couldn't be created.


I haven't yet read the actual study but I have for some time been concerned with how much of our animal research has taken place with captive animals.  For instance, the early mother-infant bonding studies were carried out with caged chimpanzees.  In a sense humans studied how chimpanzees might mother in a concentration camp.







Sunday, August 26, 2012

The Republican Party Loves Women!


Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-Texas)  has told us that the Republican Party doesn't have a problem with women!   So that's all right then.

A letter-to-the-editor in my Google news (which I now can't find to link to) argued the same.  The reasons:  Republican men breed with women, you see!  And about a hundred years ago many suffragettes were Republicans.  So that's all right then.

Except that neponset in Eschaton comments brought up a few problems:

Stop insulting my intelligence.  When Rs had to choose between giving women the chance to sue for equal pay and employers they picked employers.  When they had to choose between women who need birth control and catholic employers' religious freedom they picked catholic employers.  When they had to choose between their anti-gay base and the Violence Against Women act they picked the anti gays.  When they had to choose between the anti choice movement and rape and incest victims they picked the anti choicers.  I could go on.
Add to that the types of stories that get published on the conservative site, Townhall.  I've read several stories there about the dreadful mistake that was the Nineteenth Amendment (voting rights for women).  In general, if I want to write on misogyny I just go to Townhall and push my cart along the aisles there.   Then the National Review can also be a bargain basement for misogyny.

The war on women is not a brand new thing with the Republican Party but a branding thing:

Much of the so-called “gender gap” is simply the natural order of American politics; women favor Democrats more, while men are closer to the GOP. Even as Republicans might struggle among women, they can make up for it by winning men by a bigger margin.

That's far too facile.   First, it's mostly only white men who vote reliably Republican, as a group.  Second, does the writer imply that Akin et al.  bash women to attract men?  That the misogyny of the Party is an intended feature to attract those men who are also misogynists?   Or does he imply that it's the rest of the Republican platform (no taxes!  lotsa wars!) which appeals to men?

I once read a rant about many women voting for the Democrats.  It explained to me that women are gold-diggers and unable to make it on their own so of course they look up to the Big Daddy for sustenance!   I think that was on Townhall...

In short, the interesting question here is to what extent the misogyny  is a planned part of the Republican brand.

It's also true that many, many women do vote for the Republican Party.  The gender gap in voting is not humongous.  People vote on many different issues and many people vote whatever their parents voted (or the exact opposite, depending on family dynamics).  And most people don't follow the political fights in any detail at all.  Thus, it's difficult to know if the open contempt of so many Republicans towards women matters much when it comes to actual voting choices.

But then all this is something which happens against the background of general societal misogynistic chatter.  The Republicans aren't that extreme in that context.  





Saturday, August 25, 2012

The Shrinking Middle Class


This, about a new Pew Study on the middle class,  is a few days ago but still worth pointing out:

The Pew study is just the latest indicator of a long-term trend of widening U.S. income inequality. The Census Bureau reported last year that income fell for the wealthiest — down 1.2 percent to $180,810 for the top 5 percent of households. But the bottom fifth of households — those making $20,000 or less — saw incomes decline 4 percent.
The new study reviewed 2010 data from the Census Bureau and Federal Reserve, defining "middle class" as the tier of adults whose household income falls between two-thirds and double the national median income, or $39,418 to $118,255 in 2010 for a family of three. By this definition, "middle class" makes up about 51 percent of U.S. adults, down from 61 percent in 1971.
In 1970, the share of U.S. income that went to the middle class was 62 percent, while wealthier Americans received just 29 percent. But by 2010, the middle class garnered 45 percent of the nation's income, tying a low first reached in 2006, compared to 46 percent for upper-income Americans.
Since 2000, the median income for America's middle class has fallen from $72,956 to $69,487.



Thursday, August 23, 2012

From The Republican Weirdness Files


I don't usually do this kind of writing but it seems deserved,  what with the recent Republican platform's Personhood Amendment (which, to me, appears to have the power to ban abortion even when the aquarium pregnant woman will die if the pregnancy is continued) and that National Review story (see post below) about how cruel age is to women and how cruel not being allowed to be the boss is to men and how the value of a man is in how many sons he sires and how daughters are truly icky and a sign that a man is not a Real Alpha Male.

But given the way all this seems to have turned our public conversation on that Pesky Woman Question into ponderings about whether a raped woman can ever conceive and whether Rapists' Fatherhood Rights are also going to be on the Republican Platform, I think it's time to cast a sharp light on some other aspects of the fringes of that party.  Though it does appear, these days, to consist mostly of weird fringe elements, rich old white men being one of those (though of course the one in power).

So here it goes:  The weirder news about Republicans in this country.

First,  in New Hampshire a  Republican candidate for Hillsborough County Sheriff Frank Szabo promises to use lethal force against doctors who perform abortions.  To uphold the Constitution, you know:

In the face of criticism from both New Hampshire Democrats and high-ranking members of his own party, Republican candidate for Hillsborough County Sheriff Frank Szabo is not backing off his comments that deadly force is an appropriate means to prevent abortion.
"Just because a law is on the books does not mean that it's lawful," said Szabo. "I talk about the difference of 'legal' and 'lawful.' It used to be legal to own slaves, but that didn't make it lawful. It used to be legal to restrict someone of color to the back of bus ... Just because a piece of legislation says it's legal to murder the unborn doesn't make it lawful."
Szabo contends it's the responsibility of the sheriff to protect the lives, property and citizens of the country and the state.
"The big issue here is the sheriff is supposed to protect all of its citizens," he said. "Just because a person is not born yet doesn't mean he or she shouldn't have same level of protection. Someone needs to stand up and tell federal and state officials they're wrong if it's in the best interest of citizens ... but my main point is deadly force is always a last resort."

Some Republican leaders, at least, have disowned Frank Zabo.

Second, in Lubbock County, Texas, a judge called Tom Head  worries about how he is going to cope with the violent revolution which would inevitably result if Obama gets a second term:

Judge Tom Head and Commissioner Mark Heinrich told the station this week that a 1.7 cent tax increase for the next fiscal year was necessary to prepare for many contingencies, including Obama's re-election. He also mentioned to the station that the county needs a pay increase is needed for the district attorney's office and more funds to pay for more sheriff's office deputies.
"He's going to try to hand over the sovereignty of the United States to the (United Nations), and what is going to happen when that happens?," Head asked the station during a Monday interview. "I'm thinking the worst. Civil unrest, civil disobedience, civil war maybe. And we're not just talking a few riots here and demonstrations, we're talking Lexington, Concord, take up arms and get rid of the guy."

Third, and this is really below the belt, a  masturbation story having to do with an anti-gay Republican pastor in New Orleans.  This story matters, because the pastor, Grant Storms, disapproves of the consensual sexuality of gays and lesbians:

A prominent Louisiana-based Christian pastor known for his anti-gay stance was convicted of obscenity yesterday after being caught masturbating at a public park near a children's playground last year.
As NOLA.com reports, Rev. Grant Storm was sentenced to three years' probation after the incident in Lafreniere Park. Storm is quoted as calling public masturbation "a thrill" in his confession. However, despite an eyewitness account cited by the New Orleans Times-Picayune which stated that 55-year-old pastor had been "looking at the playground area that contained children playing, with his zipper down" at the time of his arrest, authorities denied any suspicions that he was a pedophile.

I could go on.  These are low-hanging fruit, true, and I almost always leave them alone.  But when the higher fruit consist of Akin and Ryan and their other brothers-of-heart there's not that much difference in what I pick.

Any point to this post?  Perhaps to show you that I could do this.  But mostly to point out that it's someone else who sets the topics for public debates in this country, and that someone else is far too often a Republican game lord.  Thus we now discuss whether women who have been raped should have the right to an abortion if they so wish.  We actually discuss which exceptions to the abortion bans are possible!



Wednesday, August 22, 2012

And The Next Version of the Republican War On Women


The Republicans really do fight a war against women and all things with female cooties!  I find this truly fascinating!  Well, not the war on women but that the Republican women go along with it.  Perhaps the ability to ignore un-ladylike things is an evolutionary adaptation in them?

Just kidding.  I've been reading a National Review article on essentially why having daughters is icky and horrible and why having sons shows that one is a successful man.  The background is probably Kanazawa's work which has been shown to be false.  https://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/articles/313504/boss


What do women want? The conventional biological wisdom is that men select mates for fertility, while women select for status — thus the commonness of younger women’s pairing with well-established older men but the rarity of the converse. The Demi Moore–Ashton Kutcher model is an exception — the only 40-year-old woman Jack Nicholson has ever seen naked is Kathy Bates in that horrific hot-tub scene. Age is cruel to women, and subordination is cruel to men. Ellen Kullman is a very pretty woman, but at 56 years of age she probably would not turn a lot of heads in a college bar, and the fact that she is the chairman and CEO of Dupont isn’t going to change that.
It’s a good thing Mitt Romney doesn’t hang out in college bars.
You want off-the-charts status? Check out the curriculum vitae of one Willard M. Romney: $200 million in the bank (and a hell of a lot more if he didn’t give so much away), apex alpha executive, CEO, chairman of the board, governor, bishop, boss of everything he’s ever touched. Son of the same, father of more. It is a curious scientific fact (explained in evolutionary biology by the Trivers-Willard hypothesis — Willard, notice) that high-status animals tend to have more male offspring than female offspring, which holds true across many species, from red deer to mink to Homo sap. The offspring of rich families are statistically biased in favor of sons — the children of the general population are 51 percent male and 49 percent female, but the children of the Forbes billionaire list are 60 percent male. Have a gander at that Romney family picture: five sons, zero daughters. Romney has 18 grandchildren, and they exceed a 2:1 ratio of grandsons to granddaughters (13:5). When they go to church at their summer-vacation home, the Romney clan makes up a third of the congregation. He is basically a tribal chieftain.
Professor Obama? Two daughters. May as well give the guy a cardigan. And fallopian tubes.

Hilariouser and hilariouser!  

I'm not sure why the Republicans are so keen on making it absolutely clear that, yes, they do indeed hate women.

Dancing on the Edge of the Abyss. The Republican War on Women.


That would be the Republican platform on abortion:

The draft official platform strongly supports a "a human life amendment" to the Constitution:
"Faithful to the 'self-evident' truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed," the draft platform declares. "We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children."
Let's be very, very clear that such an amendment—which Mitt Romney has said unequivocally he would sign—would not only criminalize abortions of any kind for any reason, but also would outlaw many forms of contraception, in-vitro fertilization, and treatment of pregnant women with life-threatening conditions such as cancer. Moreover, it would also criminalize miscarriage.

I know that the Republican powers-that-be don't mean any of this quite seriously.  They rely on someone else pulling them back from the abyss, the one which is the desired destination of the forced-birthers in their party.  But let's look into that abyss, shall we?

What do the most extreme anti-choice forces in the Republican Party say?  They say that raped women must have the child if they become pregnant (even though that's almost impossible, given all those secret weapons women have).  They also say that the contraceptive pill, the Morning After Pill and the coil are all ways to kill a zygote or a fetus, and thus equal to abortion.

That means that in their extreme abyss-world all the ways women could protect themselves against becoming pregnant from rape would be illegal.  All female-managed contraception (except perhaps for the female condom which a rapist would naturally let you insert before rape) would be banned.

Put that all together,  and what do you get?  A world where any fertile woman could be made to carry a child to term without any consent from her.  Yes, this would be an extreme case but the Republican platform draft does not allow any alleviation of it.

Or put in another way, all rapists would have fatherhood rights.  The right to become a father, even if the woman doesn't want to become a mother.

As I mentioned above,  the Republicans don't really mean to enslave women this way.  Or rather, they don't really care, either way.  They are after the votes of the forced-birthers in general, and the forced-birthers do desire women to have no choice at all.  Even keeping your legs firmly crossed will not help you, given that a pregnancy arising from rape Must.  Result.  In.  Giving.  Birth.

Those are the folks the Big Money Republicans are in bed with, and nobody tries to limit what they can do in those bedrooms.





WOW. On When Magazine Covers Show Generic Women


WOW.


The things I learn by going through my posts for 2012 (so far) all in a row!  This is the way a woman gets on the cover of a general interest magazine in the United States of America, anno 2012:













Added later, some text which is most likely not necessary.

Note that these are generic women.  Not individual women when the story is about that individual.  Do these magazines use generic men this way on the covers?  To highlight a story about the trouble of, say, working men?  Fathers?

The answer is a firm and resounding no, naturally.  Because men are the default gender, women are the other, and it's perfectly acceptable to discuss the other as an outside group. 

Then note the baits.  They are all about women's proper roles, where those might be found and what they consist of.  Also, wimmenz are always in deep shit about everything.


Tuesday, August 21, 2012

And one more post about David Brooks


I almost forgot this post about David Brooks.


David Brooks On Gender. Through The Ages.


I do tend to dissect Brooks' writings often, don't I?  But the truth is that I stopped reading him so obsessively some years ago and mostly forgot what he actually says about women, girls and the wider question of gender. 

Working in my archives reminded me why I dislike him so.  Here's a smorgasbord of Brooks on the question of gender:

March 2006:

According to David Brooks, thymos is the secret ingredient in men, the thing that makes them tick. Not the puppydogs' tails, after all. Had there ever been a female Freud she might have had her question about what men want answered easily: men want to be recognized:*
Let me tell you what men want. Let me tell you why some middle-age men wear the sports jerseys of semiliterate behemoths half their age while others customize their cars with so many speakers they sound like the hip-hop version of the San Francisco earthquake as they roll down the street.

Recognition. Men want others to recognize their significance. They want to feel important and part of something important.

Some people believe men are motivated by greed for money or lust for power. But money and power are means to get recognition. They are markers of success, and success makes men feel important and causes others to pay attention when they walk in the room.

Plato famously divided the soul into three parts: reason, eros (desire) and thymos (the hunger for recognition). Thymos is what motivates the best and worst things men do. It drives them to seek glory and assert themselves aggressively for noble causes. It drives them to rage if others don't recognize their worth. Sometimes it even causes them to kill over a trifle if they feel disrespected.

Brooks is trying to hedge his bets about whether women might want similar things, too. On the one hand, he has just read a really fun and supportive book about Manliness. On the other hand, he wants recognition from women as the kind of guy who might not bash them on the head and drag them back to the cave for some... recognition.

April 2006:*

All great scandals occur twice, first as Tom Wolfe novels, then as real-life events that nightmarishly mimic them. And so after "I Am Charlotte Simmons," it was perhaps inevitable that Duke University would have to endure a mini-social explosion involving athletic thugs, resentful townies, nervous administrators, male predators, aggrieved professors, binge drinking and lust gone wild.
...
The educators who used this vocabulary several decades ago understood that when you concentrate young men, they have a tropism toward barbarism. That's why these educators cared less about academics than about instilling a formula for character building. The formula, then called chivalry, consisted first of manners, habits and self-imposed restraints to prevent the downward slide.

Furthermore, it was believed that each of us had a godlike and a demonic side, and that decent people perpetually strengthened the muscles of their virtuous side in order to restrain the deathless sinner within. If you read commencement addresses from, say, the 1920's, you can actually see college presidents exhorting their students to battle the beast within — a sentiment that if uttered by a contemporary administrator would cause the audience to gape and the earth to fall off its axis.

Today that old code of obsolete chivalry is gone, as is a whole vocabulary on how young people should think about character.

The concept of "chivalry" is offered to women in lieue of equality on several MRA sites, by the way.  So far we have learned that men want recognition and that they should be taught chivalry.

June 2006 (note that I wrote two posts on one column there), to analyze in greater detail this Brooks column:


Over the past two decades, there has been a steady accumulation of evidence that male and female brains work differently. Women use both sides of their brain more symmetrically than men. Men and women hear and smell differently (women are much more sensitive). Boys and girls process colors differently (young girls enjoy an array of red, green and orange crayons whereas young boys generally stick to black, gray and blue). Men and women experience risk differently (men enjoy it more).
It could be, in short, that biological factors influence reading tastes, even after accounting for culture. Women who have congenital adrenal hyperplasia, which leads to high male hormone secretions, are more likely to choose violent stories than other women.
This wouldn't be a problem if we all understood these biological factors and if teachers devised different curriculums to instill an equal love of reading in both boys and girls.
The problem is that even after the recent flurry of attention about why boys are falling behind, there is still intense social pressure not to talk about biological differences between boys and girls (ask Larry Summers). There is still resistance, especially in the educational world, to the findings of brain researchers. Despite some innovations here and there, in most classrooms boys and girls are taught the same books in the same ways.

That's a wonderful stew of all sorts of observations, some clearly proven false!   Brooks wants sex-segregated schools, of course, and believes that things like color preferences (pink!) are innate.   That Iran, with its sex-segregated schools, geared towards boys most likely, shows the same gender differences as the US doesn't matter to Brooks.  Neither does the fact that schools were created for boys, not for girls, initially, and that the sitting quietly in classrooms was a feature of all those boys' schools. 

September 2006:

That would be a good name for a movie, starring David Brooks as the earnest and impartial neuroscientist who finds, after all, that girls are icky. Brooks has written yet another column about how the old sexual stereotypes are all validated by science:
Over the past several weeks, I've found I can change the conversation at any social gathering by mentioning Louann Brizendine's book, "The Female Brain." Brizendine is a neuropsychiatrist and the founder of the Women's and Teen Girls' Mood and Hormone Clinic in San Francisco. She's written a breezy — maybe too breezy — summary of hundreds of studies on the neurological differences between men and women.

All human beings, she writes, start out with a brain that looks female. But around the eighth week in the womb, testosterone surges through male brains, killing cells in some regions (communications) and growing cells in others (sex and aggression).

By the time they are three months old, girls are, on average, much better at making eye contact with other people and picking up information from faces. During play, girls look back at their mothers, on average, 10 to 20 times more than boys, to check for emotional signals. Girls can also, on average, hear a broader range of sounds in the human voice, and can better discern changes in tone.

...

This shift in how we see human behavior is bound to have huge effects. Freudianism encouraged people to think about destroying inhibitions. This new understanding both validates ancient stereotypes about the sexes, and fuzzes up moral judgments about human responsibility (biology inclines individuals toward certain virtues and vices).

Once radicals dreamed of new ways of living, but now happiness seems to consist of living in harmony with the patterns that nature and evolution laid down long, long ago.

That's pretty hilarious, given the criticism Brizendine's books have received!  She is not a neuro-scientist, by the way.

October 2006:


This is a tale of two predators. The first is a congressman who befriended teenage pages. He sent them cajoling instant messages asking them to describe their sexual habits, so he could get his jollies.

The second is a secretary, who invited a 13-year-old girl from her neighborhood into her car and kissed her. Then she invited the girl up to her apartment, gave her some vodka, took off her underwear and gave her a satin teddy to wear.

Then she had sex with the girl, which was interrupted when the girl's mother called. Then she made the girl masturbate in front of her and taught her some new techniques.

The first predator, of course, is Mark Foley, the Florida congressman. The second predator is a character in Eve Ensler's play, "The Vagina Monologues."

Enough said.  A fictional story and actual events are treated as equal.

July 2007.

This was in response to a column where Brooks worried about the anger of women.

August 2007.

This, in turn, was a reaction to Brooks' attempt at creating a masculine mystique.

At this point I stopped following Brooks so obsessively and my mental health instantly improved.  I even spotted him changing some of his ingrained opinions on gender:

June 2009:

In 2000, Geoffrey Miller, a leading evolutionary psychologist, published a book called "The Mating Mind," in which he argued that the process of sexual selection among early human groups hardwired many of the behaviors we see in humans today. Some of the traits are physical. Men generally prefer women with a 0.7 waist-to-hip ratio (that's a 24-inch waist and 36-inch hips, for those of you reading this at the gym). Women generally prefer men who are taller and slightly older.

Some of these traits are more subtle. Men, Miller argues, tip better in restaurants, because they've been programmed to show how much surplus wealth they have. The average American adult knows 60,000 words, far more than we need. We have all those words because we like to mate with people who caress us with language.

....
 


But individuals aren't formed before they enter society. Individuals are created by social interaction. Our identities are formed by the particular rhythms of maternal attunement, by the shared webs of ideas, symbols and actions that vibrate through us second by second. Shopping isn't merely a way to broadcast permanent, inborn traits. For some people, it's also an activity of trying things on in the never-ending process of creating and discovering who they are.

The allure of evolutionary psychology is that it organizes all behavior into one eternal theory, impervious to the serendipity of time and place. But there's no escaping context. That's worth remembering next time somebody tells you we are hardwired to do this or that.

The allure of evolutionary psychology is actually in the fact that anyone can do it, over a cocktail wiener, and that it can be bent to support any bias one might have, given that evidence is impossible to obtain.  But I take whatever crumbs fell of Brooks' table here.

December 2010, however, shows Brooks back in his old form.

And in January, 2012, he seems to recommend wage subsidies for men so that they can get married to us the gold-digger females of Evolutionary Psychology.

Finally, in July 2012 Brooks was back to arguing that social engineering is an absolute necessity to save boys at school.

OK, that looks a bit like a laundry list.  It most likely omits many similar pieces, given that I stopped keeping a snake eye on our David, what with finding enough irritation elsewhere in my life.

But there are certain general patterns, more easily discerned in such a list.   Brooks believes in innate differences as the explanation for all gender-based stereotypes (which he regards as the truth), and he fishes in the rivers of academia for those studies (or pseudo-studies) that would support that belief.

Thus, what is is for reasons of biology and no government policies are necessary to correct it.  Women don't enter mathematics and the sciences because of innate gender differences, for instance.

The one exception to this can be found in Brooks' concern about boys at school.  There he urges social engineering of a type, albeit one based on his presumed gender stereotypes.

This contradiction is an interesting one and worth thinking about.  After all, evolutionary psychologists have argued that anything widespread across various cultures has a good chance of being innate.   Girls are doing better than boys in essentially all countries which allow girls entry to the school system.  Given this, one might propose that the observed gender differences in school success are innate, right?

That's rubbish, and I only present it here to point out that Brooks picks selectively from his menu of possibly biological sex differences.  The ones that hurt women are clearly biological, the ones that hurt men must be cultural or environmental and need correction.

So.  I was also struck by Brooks' pining for the golden era of chivalry.  Doesn't it sound wonderful?  Chivalrous men holding doors open for you and letting you get the best jobs going and so on? 

That's not what chivalry is all about.  From the column Brooks wrote it sounds more like a promise not to assault or rape someone, to be honest.
-----

The links to dates are to my old posts.  The links attached to the direct quotes go to Brooks' columns.
*I couldn't find the links to two of Brooks' original columns except as dead ones.

When Rape Is Not Legitimate


Rep. Todd Akin explains what he means by "legitimate" rape:

Akin explained — during a follow up interview with Dana Loesch — that he meant to argue that women sometimes lie about being raped:
AKIN: You know, Dr. Willke has just released a statement and part of his letter, I think he just stated it very clearly. He said, of course Akin never used the word legitimate to refer to the rapist, but to false claims like those made in Roe v. Wade and I think that simplifies it….. There isn’t any legitimate rapist…. [I was] making the point that there were people who use false claims, like those that basically created Roe v. Wade.

Mmm.  And this means that we could use pregnancy as a check on whether the rape was legitimate or  a false accusation?  If a woman becomes pregnant from a rape then it couldn't have been rape!

I knew what Akin meant when he used the term "legitimate".  Of course I knew!  I also visit the vicious types of misogynist sites!

This case reminds me of the earlier wingnut arguments about what constitutes a "legitimate" rape victim.  She's a virgin, young and attacked by someone rushing out of the bushes while she is coming home from church.   Come to think of it,  she should also be either dead or close to death to truly qualify.  If she isn't dead but becomes pregnant!  Perhaps she enjoyed it, after all?

It's all quite medieval,  in several ways.  The perfidy of women reminds me of the writings of some medieval Catholic priests and the assumption that women's bodies have secret weapons which keep them from conceiving while raped is also akin to various medieval beliefs.
----

Added later:  This song also explains when rape is legitimate....






Monday, August 20, 2012

Still Wallowing in My Archives! Or My External Memory


It's such fun, honest, except for also being extremely hard work.  I used to be very smart once, sigh.  And those archives can stand as my life's work, should I decide to enjoy my remaining life instead of always wearing the war helmet of the wrathful goddess.  Fighting for you, my sweet readers.

I'm researching my literary blog output for a longer-term project.  But as I mentioned before, this has had some really fun side-effects!  There will be posts on the  consistency of certain misogynists and also on their free access to Pulpits in High Places!

On the  negative side-effects:  I must stop complaining every time I get a head cold or a migraine.  It's most unattractive, as the archives tell me.  I must also stop pretending that I will ever do anything about this messy blog and all its problems.  I like the writing bit and the reading comments bit but I hate housekeeping of all types.  Though I will try to fix the most obvious problems (list: get a commenting system, find out how to solve the blog's appearance in other countries).  You might have to remind me to work on that.

Assuming that the archives will contain future posts.  I often wonder if I have anything left to say that I haven't already said much better before.  Of course, that didn't stop me on the first three or four posts on the same topic before.

What Todd Akin Said


You must have heard about the Todd Akin statement by now, right?   This:





A summary:

Rep. Todd Akin, the Republican nominee for Senate in Missouri who is running against Sen. Claire McCaskill, justified his opposition to abortion rights even in case of rape with a claim that victims of “legitimate rape” have unnamed biological defenses that prevent pregnancy.
“First of all, from what I understand from doctors [pregnancy from rape] is really rare,” Akin told KTVI-TV in an interview posted Sunday. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”
Akin said that even in the worst-case scenario — when the supposed natural protections against unwanted pregnancy fail — abortion should still not be a legal option for the rape victim.

Garance has written an excellent history of similar claims among the forced-birthers in the past.

It is very funny, of course, Rep. Akin's views on those unnamed biological defenses that women have!  Could it be vagina dentata he thinks of?

Let's not go that way.  Let's, instead, look at what this statement reveals about Todd Akin otherwise.

Note the reference to "legitimate rape."  What does "illegitimate rape" look like?  What Akin really means here is that women cry rape when they are not raped, that many rapes (perhaps most?) in his mind are not real rapes at all but just an excuse for a woman to get an abortion or to punish an ex-husband in divorce proceedings:

Akin previously was the cosponsor of a bill to redefine rape, and it was recently reported that Akin opposed a state law against spousal rape because it might be used as a tool against husbands in a "messy divorce."
 Smells a bit of some MRA arguments, don't you think?

Then there's Akin's statement about who should be punished in the case of a "legitimate" rape:

But let's assume that maybe that didn't work or something. You know, I think there should be some punishment. But the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.

Akin's desired punishment, of course, falls on the pregnant rape victim.  It is she who must go through nine months of a pregnancy and then a forced birth.  This can be dangerous.  It also means that the rapist's crime is allowed to continue, that the rape victim is made to give birth to a child the rapist decided she might as well  have, and to face all the health risks, physical as well as psychological, that the situation carries.

But that's not where Akin's sympathies lie, of course.

How odd that some wingnuts argue rape is an adaptation, something men practice because the mysterious genes for rape have survived from the distant past!  That view of rape ties it intimately with fertility.  Then there's this view of rape where someone who is raped doesn't even need contraception to protect her against pregnancy!

The two views have a connection, of course.  You can figure that one out easily enough.

I can't believe I wrote a serious post on this!