First, do read this editorial from today's Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/04/AR2008110403872.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
I find the need for Republicans to move back to a particular knee jerk orthodoxy about lower taxes, free markets, and smaller government to be utterly absurd in this particular climate. In a time where people are losing their jobs, where government has failed to protect them against the problems of the free market, and where we will actually have to spend money to dig us out of our domestic and international crises, why resort to such inflexible orthodoxes?
I've always been a fan of Keynesian economics, using the government to provide a safety net, etc. for its citizens. But if we recall correctly, it was FDR who spent to get this country out of the Great Depression. Social Security was started so that the old and disabled could have income and participate in the marketplace. He spent money he didn't have to create jobs so that people could rebuild this country, literally through public works, and create a tax stream so that the government could do more for the people.
How will tax cuts, less oversight of many industries, and a failure to support new industries (i.e. green industries) actually be helpful to getting the United States in better shape, particularly while we are at war with two countries? Is the Republican party that out of touch? It seems that a majority of the American electorate has, for now, rejected these sorts of solutions for our nation's ills and if promoting these ideas is the only way that the Republicans can see their way out, may they stay in the wilderness for good.
I do agree with them about one thing, particularly as of last night: I LOVE THIS COUNTRY!
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Monday, October 27, 2008
Admit it - you enjoy drinking lattes as well!
I can't believe that I've been able to hold my tongue on this blog throughout this political season, but now that it's almost over, I have this to say. If you are part of the Republican party, you may want to reconsider your conservative principles so that most ordinary humans are not tripped up by them.
What do I mean? The Republicans tend to get into trouble because they can't figure out how to set standards low enough so that they don't get burned by the same standards. When Dan Rostenkowski got convicted of illegally using government resources in the early 90s, Republicans got swept in because they were going to run a clean and efficient government. Then enter Newt Gingrich's Revolution and they were going to make sure that government shrank and got off of our backs. Never mind the promises of a government that lived up to a better morality and was for the little guy, and that ensured that liberals could never again take office.
What has happened since? Newt Gringrich, Mark Foley, and Vito Fasselli, the Congressman from Staten Island, New York (and many others) got busted for having their pants down (literally). Family values were so important that my buddy Vito had two of them. W has increased the size of government many times over. And the little guy . . . does Sarah Palin's Neiman Marcus wardrobe qualify as one Joe the Plumber and his wife would wear?
Frankly, I'm not so worried about sexual impropriety (alright, Mark trying to diddle minors goes way too far), smaller government, or the wardrobe of a woman who is in the public eye. However, when you get all high and mighty about sexual morality, make government bigger and more efficient for Halliburton, and claim you're all for the Wal-Mart crowd, these things are problematic. Perhaps a reborn Republican party might want to reconsider attacking people for their sex lives; decide that government should be bigger for military and defense purposes and shrink it for everything else they don't like; and decide that drinking lattes and driving Volvos may not have been so bad! At least we have one thing in common - I like lattes and love Volvos!
What do I mean? The Republicans tend to get into trouble because they can't figure out how to set standards low enough so that they don't get burned by the same standards. When Dan Rostenkowski got convicted of illegally using government resources in the early 90s, Republicans got swept in because they were going to run a clean and efficient government. Then enter Newt Gingrich's Revolution and they were going to make sure that government shrank and got off of our backs. Never mind the promises of a government that lived up to a better morality and was for the little guy, and that ensured that liberals could never again take office.
What has happened since? Newt Gringrich, Mark Foley, and Vito Fasselli, the Congressman from Staten Island, New York (and many others) got busted for having their pants down (literally). Family values were so important that my buddy Vito had two of them. W has increased the size of government many times over. And the little guy . . . does Sarah Palin's Neiman Marcus wardrobe qualify as one Joe the Plumber and his wife would wear?
Frankly, I'm not so worried about sexual impropriety (alright, Mark trying to diddle minors goes way too far), smaller government, or the wardrobe of a woman who is in the public eye. However, when you get all high and mighty about sexual morality, make government bigger and more efficient for Halliburton, and claim you're all for the Wal-Mart crowd, these things are problematic. Perhaps a reborn Republican party might want to reconsider attacking people for their sex lives; decide that government should be bigger for military and defense purposes and shrink it for everything else they don't like; and decide that drinking lattes and driving Volvos may not have been so bad! At least we have one thing in common - I like lattes and love Volvos!
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Tread Carefully Indeed
Check out this blog entry from The Politico.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8659.html
It seems that Republicans are actually becoming sensitive to the fact that they're perceived as racist and sexist. For the record, I can't imagine how they came by that charge . . . was it painting the face of welfare recipients that of Black women? Was it Willie Horton? Was it the GLBTQ intolerance-fest that we saw at their convention some years back?
However, now that the Democratic nominee is going to either be Black or a woman, they understand that they'd best mind their ps and qs . . . or at least the "pc police" as they call them. But let's get real . . . some may call them the pc police, but does it make sense to campaign by making sure you insult as many people as you can get away with? What of basic courtesy? Let's take Allen's "macaca" comment, for example: what would have been the courteous thing to say to this man who had been following his campaign? Plain courtesy would keep them out of trouble.
But wait, there's more to think about. If they were going to really shift perceptions, what would they do with the immigration issue? What would the party's position be about people living across our border working in the U.S. For those who are stunningly hostile to anymore Latinos working in the U.S. and whose jurisdictions got rid of the immigrant menace, those communities are in economic meltdown because the economy required those workers. Further, if we're so concerned about Americans doing jobs Mexicans are taking, then why don't we allow more people to organize into Unions so they can negotiate better wages? Why not raise the minimum wage to over $10.00 per hour so people are not in poverty when they're working? What are Republican proposals for affordable healthcare aside from charging that the Democrats are socialist and the market can take care of it (which it hasn't).
How would we responsibly talk about terrorism without implicating everyone who has a last name from the Middle East? How would we build relationships in that part of the world so that we develop peer relationships that work? How would we really help Iraq develop political solutions to problems that can't be fixed by our military? What might we really say to Musharraf in Pakistan? I think this all smacks of racism!
So I can't wait . . . a season of Republicans trying to hold their racist and sexist tongues! What they really need to worry about is Obama's ability to out-organize them because if the far right doesn't provide foot soldiers for McCain, I don't see how he can win.
But while they're at it, I'd appreciate it if they didn't insult the Black man or the woman, and not only for the duration of this campaign, but never again!
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8659.html
It seems that Republicans are actually becoming sensitive to the fact that they're perceived as racist and sexist. For the record, I can't imagine how they came by that charge . . . was it painting the face of welfare recipients that of Black women? Was it Willie Horton? Was it the GLBTQ intolerance-fest that we saw at their convention some years back?
However, now that the Democratic nominee is going to either be Black or a woman, they understand that they'd best mind their ps and qs . . . or at least the "pc police" as they call them. But let's get real . . . some may call them the pc police, but does it make sense to campaign by making sure you insult as many people as you can get away with? What of basic courtesy? Let's take Allen's "macaca" comment, for example: what would have been the courteous thing to say to this man who had been following his campaign? Plain courtesy would keep them out of trouble.
But wait, there's more to think about. If they were going to really shift perceptions, what would they do with the immigration issue? What would the party's position be about people living across our border working in the U.S. For those who are stunningly hostile to anymore Latinos working in the U.S. and whose jurisdictions got rid of the immigrant menace, those communities are in economic meltdown because the economy required those workers. Further, if we're so concerned about Americans doing jobs Mexicans are taking, then why don't we allow more people to organize into Unions so they can negotiate better wages? Why not raise the minimum wage to over $10.00 per hour so people are not in poverty when they're working? What are Republican proposals for affordable healthcare aside from charging that the Democrats are socialist and the market can take care of it (which it hasn't).
How would we responsibly talk about terrorism without implicating everyone who has a last name from the Middle East? How would we build relationships in that part of the world so that we develop peer relationships that work? How would we really help Iraq develop political solutions to problems that can't be fixed by our military? What might we really say to Musharraf in Pakistan? I think this all smacks of racism!
So I can't wait . . . a season of Republicans trying to hold their racist and sexist tongues! What they really need to worry about is Obama's ability to out-organize them because if the far right doesn't provide foot soldiers for McCain, I don't see how he can win.
But while they're at it, I'd appreciate it if they didn't insult the Black man or the woman, and not only for the duration of this campaign, but never again!
Thursday, February 7, 2008
A Long Hot Summer
With all of the enthusiasm about the Democratic ticket, I hate to be the party pooper, but we should consider who-can-vote-problems BEFORE the general election. I am thrilled about the possiblity of a woman or a Black person winning the White House. However, there are many who are not excited about this prospect: frankly, they abhor it. While the Republican party is a little scattered about who to back (I understand that Mitt Romney is suspending his campaign), I don't underestimate how badly they would like to (1) keep the White House and (2) make sure people of color and women don't have access to that level of power. We know that Republicans in Ohio and Florida have tampered with voter lists as a means of disenfranchising people. Let's really think about what this entails.
One way that voters are regularly disenfranchised is that if their names resemble those of people who are in jail, they are prevented from voting. If the States withdraw the right to vote from someone who has served time in prison, for life, if your name is just like that person's, you cannot vote. There doesn't seem to be a way to say "I'm not that John Bean, I'm John Bean on Main Street". Unfortunately, this has a disproportionate impact on Black people and seriously compromises our ability to vote.
Further, if a state reinstates the right to vote if someone leaves prison, if that prisoner has not taken efforts to reinstate their names, again, people with the same name are often prevented from voting. These issues require proper training of poll workers and making sure that States properly indentify those who are no longer able to vote and make sure that people who have not run amock of the law can exercise this right. Unfortunately, people who have similar names to those who have been disenfranchised have also been denied the right to vote and even more Black people are prevented from exercising their rights at the voting box.
Identification is also a means of preventing people from voting. All voters need to be sure that they bring their state issued identification card, preferably with a current address, to the polls to ensure they can vote. I don't think that people who are serving jail terms can hold passports and this form of identification should immediately provide evidence of legitimacy when voting.
Finally, there have been significant issues about making sure that people can register to vote in the first place. Everyone needs to make sure that they follow their states' procedures in getting this done. If you are required to use heavy cardboard to submit your registration application, please do so (remember Ohio in 2004?). We all need to follow up with our Boards of Election to make sure we're on their systems and have voter registration cards if necessary. Frankly, our parties should ensure that this can be accomplished and we should put pressure on them to make sure things go well so that we can exercise this ever more important right.
One wonders if we had taken these precautions whether there would have been a first Bush term - (1) no Iraq war; (2) no change in the Supreme Court; (3) no destroyed economy; (4) no wiretapping U.S. citizens, and the list goes on. Ultimately, these details cannot escape examination in our exuberance about the ticket. I know that my right to vote was compromised because either the DMV or the Board of Elections, or both, here in New York State, did not do their job. We all need to take responsibility for it. It's not too early . . . it easily becomes too late to handle these problems.
One way that voters are regularly disenfranchised is that if their names resemble those of people who are in jail, they are prevented from voting. If the States withdraw the right to vote from someone who has served time in prison, for life, if your name is just like that person's, you cannot vote. There doesn't seem to be a way to say "I'm not that John Bean, I'm John Bean on Main Street". Unfortunately, this has a disproportionate impact on Black people and seriously compromises our ability to vote.
Further, if a state reinstates the right to vote if someone leaves prison, if that prisoner has not taken efforts to reinstate their names, again, people with the same name are often prevented from voting. These issues require proper training of poll workers and making sure that States properly indentify those who are no longer able to vote and make sure that people who have not run amock of the law can exercise this right. Unfortunately, people who have similar names to those who have been disenfranchised have also been denied the right to vote and even more Black people are prevented from exercising their rights at the voting box.
Identification is also a means of preventing people from voting. All voters need to be sure that they bring their state issued identification card, preferably with a current address, to the polls to ensure they can vote. I don't think that people who are serving jail terms can hold passports and this form of identification should immediately provide evidence of legitimacy when voting.
Finally, there have been significant issues about making sure that people can register to vote in the first place. Everyone needs to make sure that they follow their states' procedures in getting this done. If you are required to use heavy cardboard to submit your registration application, please do so (remember Ohio in 2004?). We all need to follow up with our Boards of Election to make sure we're on their systems and have voter registration cards if necessary. Frankly, our parties should ensure that this can be accomplished and we should put pressure on them to make sure things go well so that we can exercise this ever more important right.
One wonders if we had taken these precautions whether there would have been a first Bush term - (1) no Iraq war; (2) no change in the Supreme Court; (3) no destroyed economy; (4) no wiretapping U.S. citizens, and the list goes on. Ultimately, these details cannot escape examination in our exuberance about the ticket. I know that my right to vote was compromised because either the DMV or the Board of Elections, or both, here in New York State, did not do their job. We all need to take responsibility for it. It's not too early . . . it easily becomes too late to handle these problems.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Super Tuesday is my Super Bowl
I briefly tuned into the Superbowl. Frankly, I couldn't care less. But I hung on every word about the elections last night! What a something.
Admittedly, I am a split woman when it comes to backing a Democratic candidate. I back Hillary with my head, but Obama with my heart. I have to say that I was DISENFRANCHISED by New York State . . . I registered to vote when I got my driver's license in SEPTEMBER, but they never registered me. I decided to vote by affadavit yesterday and am assuming that my vote won't be counted. Fear not, I've sent in my voter registration directly to the Board of Elections . . . I BETTER be able to vote in the general election.
But let's talk about my mind/heart problem. I am feminist (ok, yes, the name of the blog makes that abundantly clear). I think Hillary Clinton's running is important not because she acts on her feminist impulses (she doesn't as far as I'm concerned), but because it shows the U.S. hypocrisy about sexism. We act like we've done our work here. We haven't. And it pisses me off that we always have to point to Afghanistan and women wearing burquas to point to the "liberation" of American women. What self-righteousness crap! I think it disheartening that it's hard to find a pair of jeans that don't make it over most women's butts! What does it mean that "beautiful" women are a size 0? We are supposed to take up SO LITTLE space that we should physically almost disappear as well? How frightening! What does it mean that over half the people attending law school are women but most of them do not end up in law firms? What does it mean that most of the people in poverty are women? What does it mean that quality childcare is completely unaffordable - do we really think that women belong in the workplace or is this one way to send us out? Given these problems, it seems that most of our feelings about Hillary are the way that we feel about women overall and suggest the extent to which it is difficult to really back a woman. The question is what do we believe about what sexism tells us about women that makes it hard to back her.
Let me jump on this question . . . I think she's duplicitous, particularly as it concerns Black women! Yes, she started her career with the Children's Defense Fund. Yes, she's written articles concerning women and children. However, there were some gaffes during the Clinton administration on which she remained as silent as everyone else. Let me spell them out:
Zoe Baird: She was the Attorney General nominee who didn't pay social security taxes for her nanny. I don't back this . . . nanny's do really hard work and deserve every dime they work for. However, I do think this points to one critical challenge for women - finding affordable childcare. I know that she earns more than many women, but childcare options are so expensive that even she had to shirk some of this duty. So Hillary, defender of children, could you not speak out against your husband when others trashed her as a candidate because there are few affordable childcare options? How could you have redirected this discussion? Again, do we really want women in the workplace? What would be required for us to do this with peace of mind? Never mind that Black women have been taking care of White women's children since the 16th century in this hemisphere (let's not forget slavery and its aftermath) and they haven't been paid well or offered decent childcare options. And some in the Republican Party want to get rid of Head Start . . . one of the only effective and reliable childcare options for many women. Where was Hillary's voice here? This silence points to Clinton treachery against women in general and women of color in particular.
Lani Guinier: the next nominee for the Attorney General position. She was a Black woman who published articles about Black people and political representation and its relationship to voting. The Republicans called her quota queen. However, if you read her work, she argues that White people can effectively represent Black people in Congressional districts and did not advocate any quotas for voting representation. Did Hillary have anything to say about this? 'Nuff said.
Jocelyn Elders: our Surgeon General who, wisely in my opinion, recommended that we should consider teaching about masturbation as a form of safe sex. Let's think about this. Many are averse to this activity; however, no one else is involved, no pregnancies, no STDs. The Republicans had a fit and Clinton tossed her overboard. Did we hear a single word from Hillary Clinton? Do we see racist remarks about rampant Black female wild sexuality attached to Elders' concerns about STDs and teenage pregnancy so that her point was completely lost? Hillary had nothing to say.
Welfare deform: poor Black cadillac driving welfare queens need to work if they think they're going to get any more "handouts" from the state, right? Because ALL women on welfare really are just trying to get over. The racist tinge of all of this goes way back . . . Black women have been categorized as brood mares - animals that can't stop breeding and have irresponsible sex. Remember, we have wild sex drives and can't control ourselves. That's why our children are in such terrible shape and maybe we can do something for ourselves if we just got into the workplace. There are jobs out there, we just refuse to work. If I recall correctly, raising children IS work. And damned hard work, especially if people systematically discriminate against you for work, the work you can get doesn't pay well and as a result, you can't get childcare and you don't get health insurance either. Hillary, did you have anything to say about this? What a betrayal against Black women.
So, I cast my affidavit ballot for Hillary, but my gut is upset because she has not taken some important public stands on behalf of women. These are the reasons she strikes me as duplicitous. Perhaps she would not be this far if she had a record on these events. But given the condition of women in the U.S., remember, sexism isn't dead, we can't afford this. Would Barack do better? I don't know, but he doesn't parade himself around as an advocate of women and children.
Admittedly, I am a split woman when it comes to backing a Democratic candidate. I back Hillary with my head, but Obama with my heart. I have to say that I was DISENFRANCHISED by New York State . . . I registered to vote when I got my driver's license in SEPTEMBER, but they never registered me. I decided to vote by affadavit yesterday and am assuming that my vote won't be counted. Fear not, I've sent in my voter registration directly to the Board of Elections . . . I BETTER be able to vote in the general election.
But let's talk about my mind/heart problem. I am feminist (ok, yes, the name of the blog makes that abundantly clear). I think Hillary Clinton's running is important not because she acts on her feminist impulses (she doesn't as far as I'm concerned), but because it shows the U.S. hypocrisy about sexism. We act like we've done our work here. We haven't. And it pisses me off that we always have to point to Afghanistan and women wearing burquas to point to the "liberation" of American women. What self-righteousness crap! I think it disheartening that it's hard to find a pair of jeans that don't make it over most women's butts! What does it mean that "beautiful" women are a size 0? We are supposed to take up SO LITTLE space that we should physically almost disappear as well? How frightening! What does it mean that over half the people attending law school are women but most of them do not end up in law firms? What does it mean that most of the people in poverty are women? What does it mean that quality childcare is completely unaffordable - do we really think that women belong in the workplace or is this one way to send us out? Given these problems, it seems that most of our feelings about Hillary are the way that we feel about women overall and suggest the extent to which it is difficult to really back a woman. The question is what do we believe about what sexism tells us about women that makes it hard to back her.
Let me jump on this question . . . I think she's duplicitous, particularly as it concerns Black women! Yes, she started her career with the Children's Defense Fund. Yes, she's written articles concerning women and children. However, there were some gaffes during the Clinton administration on which she remained as silent as everyone else. Let me spell them out:
Zoe Baird: She was the Attorney General nominee who didn't pay social security taxes for her nanny. I don't back this . . . nanny's do really hard work and deserve every dime they work for. However, I do think this points to one critical challenge for women - finding affordable childcare. I know that she earns more than many women, but childcare options are so expensive that even she had to shirk some of this duty. So Hillary, defender of children, could you not speak out against your husband when others trashed her as a candidate because there are few affordable childcare options? How could you have redirected this discussion? Again, do we really want women in the workplace? What would be required for us to do this with peace of mind? Never mind that Black women have been taking care of White women's children since the 16th century in this hemisphere (let's not forget slavery and its aftermath) and they haven't been paid well or offered decent childcare options. And some in the Republican Party want to get rid of Head Start . . . one of the only effective and reliable childcare options for many women. Where was Hillary's voice here? This silence points to Clinton treachery against women in general and women of color in particular.
Lani Guinier: the next nominee for the Attorney General position. She was a Black woman who published articles about Black people and political representation and its relationship to voting. The Republicans called her quota queen. However, if you read her work, she argues that White people can effectively represent Black people in Congressional districts and did not advocate any quotas for voting representation. Did Hillary have anything to say about this? 'Nuff said.
Jocelyn Elders: our Surgeon General who, wisely in my opinion, recommended that we should consider teaching about masturbation as a form of safe sex. Let's think about this. Many are averse to this activity; however, no one else is involved, no pregnancies, no STDs. The Republicans had a fit and Clinton tossed her overboard. Did we hear a single word from Hillary Clinton? Do we see racist remarks about rampant Black female wild sexuality attached to Elders' concerns about STDs and teenage pregnancy so that her point was completely lost? Hillary had nothing to say.
Welfare deform: poor Black cadillac driving welfare queens need to work if they think they're going to get any more "handouts" from the state, right? Because ALL women on welfare really are just trying to get over. The racist tinge of all of this goes way back . . . Black women have been categorized as brood mares - animals that can't stop breeding and have irresponsible sex. Remember, we have wild sex drives and can't control ourselves. That's why our children are in such terrible shape and maybe we can do something for ourselves if we just got into the workplace. There are jobs out there, we just refuse to work. If I recall correctly, raising children IS work. And damned hard work, especially if people systematically discriminate against you for work, the work you can get doesn't pay well and as a result, you can't get childcare and you don't get health insurance either. Hillary, did you have anything to say about this? What a betrayal against Black women.
So, I cast my affidavit ballot for Hillary, but my gut is upset because she has not taken some important public stands on behalf of women. These are the reasons she strikes me as duplicitous. Perhaps she would not be this far if she had a record on these events. But given the condition of women in the U.S., remember, sexism isn't dead, we can't afford this. Would Barack do better? I don't know, but he doesn't parade himself around as an advocate of women and children.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
What does it mean that the White Guy is out?
This is a fascinating election season. On the Democratic side, the last White guy is out of the race. Don't get me wrong, I actually found Edwards to be an interesting candidate and found it compelling that he raised poverty to the forefront of his campaign. The punditry insists that people thought it was fake that a wealthy guy took on this issue - I think that poor people need wealthy allies and should take him!
So now a Black man and a White woman are at the forefront of the Democratic side. But we only talk about gender and race when these two are on the scene. Aren't White and Male race and gender? What does it mean that Republicans only run White Male candidates? Who decides what the issues are? Doesn't it seem that race is central when a rag-tag yet organized fringe (ok, I know that's oxymoronic, but it actually says what I'm thinking) of seal-the-border folk make immigration a major issue (at least for Republicans)? Isn't it White people, visibly men, who are determined to eliminate abortion in this country, downsize entitlements (now we know welfare queens are only Black women (I'm being sarcastic!)), and want to go after "Islamo-fascists"?
And yet it was a White guy who made poverty the focus of his campaign. Does the lack of support question whether people in this demographic actually should be involved with this issue? Does it mean that most Americans don't care . . . I certainly hope not. If Hillary and Obama make this a central issue, does this mean that they are making gender or race, respectively, central issues of their campaign? I suspect there are more White men in poverty than we will ever know. I know more men period are in poverty than we will ever want to admit. I hope Edwards' departure genuinely brings this to the fore of the campaign and that the same, sorry market solutions won't be trotted out to fix the problem. A girl can dream, can't she?
So now a Black man and a White woman are at the forefront of the Democratic side. But we only talk about gender and race when these two are on the scene. Aren't White and Male race and gender? What does it mean that Republicans only run White Male candidates? Who decides what the issues are? Doesn't it seem that race is central when a rag-tag yet organized fringe (ok, I know that's oxymoronic, but it actually says what I'm thinking) of seal-the-border folk make immigration a major issue (at least for Republicans)? Isn't it White people, visibly men, who are determined to eliminate abortion in this country, downsize entitlements (now we know welfare queens are only Black women (I'm being sarcastic!)), and want to go after "Islamo-fascists"?
And yet it was a White guy who made poverty the focus of his campaign. Does the lack of support question whether people in this demographic actually should be involved with this issue? Does it mean that most Americans don't care . . . I certainly hope not. If Hillary and Obama make this a central issue, does this mean that they are making gender or race, respectively, central issues of their campaign? I suspect there are more White men in poverty than we will ever know. I know more men period are in poverty than we will ever want to admit. I hope Edwards' departure genuinely brings this to the fore of the campaign and that the same, sorry market solutions won't be trotted out to fix the problem. A girl can dream, can't she?
Monday, January 28, 2008
What's up with this old stuff?
OK. I had a blog on AOL. I've kept it for many years although there weren't that many entries. I've moved it here and copied all of those entries for your enjoyment. Now that we're in the midst of an exciting election seasion, you'll see more recent postings.
Enjoy and I would love to hear your thoughts about anything!
Michelle
Enjoy and I would love to hear your thoughts about anything!
Michelle
Language and American Culture
I must admit I was outraged when Imus justified his remarks about the Rutgers Women's Basketball team with the Black community uses that language. I was even more disgusted when many members of the press jumped on that bandwagon and started discussing the double standards applied to certain types of speech.
I do not defend the use of words like "'hos", "bitches", etc. in any type of music, but I thought the deflection of the conversation to double standards was, at best, racist. Why? Because it allows us to ignore the ordinary incidents of sexism in everyday life and decide that it's only Black people that have problems with sexism.
What ordinary incidents of sexism? I read an article in the New York Times about working class women who had babies and their employers would not provide them with an area to pump breastmilk so they had to stop nursing their children. I think this is an act of sexism. Everytime I see a woman wearing a t-shirt with a logo saying "Porn Star", this is an act of sexism (who are we pleasing here . . . I suspect not themselves). What about the fact that there are few women as partners of law firms. Do we call that the "glass ceiling"? Another example of sexism. Donald Trump won't change his own son's diapers? Sexism.
What other stories do women tell about their lives? I haven't even gotten personal. So before we start accusing rap music of debasing our standards, let's look at the basic stuff in front of our faces.
I do not defend the use of words like "'hos", "bitches", etc. in any type of music, but I thought the deflection of the conversation to double standards was, at best, racist. Why? Because it allows us to ignore the ordinary incidents of sexism in everyday life and decide that it's only Black people that have problems with sexism.
What ordinary incidents of sexism? I read an article in the New York Times about working class women who had babies and their employers would not provide them with an area to pump breastmilk so they had to stop nursing their children. I think this is an act of sexism. Everytime I see a woman wearing a t-shirt with a logo saying "Porn Star", this is an act of sexism (who are we pleasing here . . . I suspect not themselves). What about the fact that there are few women as partners of law firms. Do we call that the "glass ceiling"? Another example of sexism. Donald Trump won't change his own son's diapers? Sexism.
What other stories do women tell about their lives? I haven't even gotten personal. So before we start accusing rap music of debasing our standards, let's look at the basic stuff in front of our faces.
Imus
When I first heard about "Nappy Headed 'Hos" I thought we were having a discussion about hair. It really took a while to really say the word SEXISM in public. So I want to take this opportunity to clarify something:
I have nappy hair. I wear dreadlocks. I'm delighted with keeping my hair nappy. Fewer products, less work, looks good, and I'm not worried about keeping up with the Joneses. My hair does what makes sense for it. SEXISM, in American society, would argue that if my hair isn't straight and doesn't adapt to the latest styles and colors, it is not stylish and therefore not good. However, I am also not interested in the multitude of chemicals we see in the products. That's not good for me!! Besides, I used to have a perm that straightened my hair - my hair fell out. Nappy is the way for me to go!
I am not a 'ho. Period. Never have been. Never will be. However, it looks like women get criticized for not meeting up to male standards about sexuality (SEXISM?!) and when they do are slammed for being 'hos (SEXISM). We haven't really discussed what this slam is supposed to mean in any substantive way and I think we need to deconstruct it to understand why it would be so insulting. Way back in the 60s, the second wave of feminism, remember one problem was dismantling characterizing women as virgins or whores. It seems that we have given up on women being virgins, and we've settled on all of them being whores, particularly Black women.
Let's also backtrack to slavery. Black women as slaves had to service their masters. Resistance could lead to all sorts of problems, no matter how sadistic the master. However, for doing this, we got characterized as whores. I don't know how many people feel about historical memory . . . but Imus' characterization drags up historical memories of slavery. Were the Rutgers women, by being stellar athletes, not conforming to Imus' vision of proper female deportment (and what was that) - and therefore deservingthe characterization of 'hos?
He says he's sorry, but there are a lot of questions to answer. By the way, when entertainers throw these terms around, they have many questions to answer as well.
I have nappy hair. I wear dreadlocks. I'm delighted with keeping my hair nappy. Fewer products, less work, looks good, and I'm not worried about keeping up with the Joneses. My hair does what makes sense for it. SEXISM, in American society, would argue that if my hair isn't straight and doesn't adapt to the latest styles and colors, it is not stylish and therefore not good. However, I am also not interested in the multitude of chemicals we see in the products. That's not good for me!! Besides, I used to have a perm that straightened my hair - my hair fell out. Nappy is the way for me to go!
I am not a 'ho. Period. Never have been. Never will be. However, it looks like women get criticized for not meeting up to male standards about sexuality (SEXISM?!) and when they do are slammed for being 'hos (SEXISM). We haven't really discussed what this slam is supposed to mean in any substantive way and I think we need to deconstruct it to understand why it would be so insulting. Way back in the 60s, the second wave of feminism, remember one problem was dismantling characterizing women as virgins or whores. It seems that we have given up on women being virgins, and we've settled on all of them being whores, particularly Black women.
Let's also backtrack to slavery. Black women as slaves had to service their masters. Resistance could lead to all sorts of problems, no matter how sadistic the master. However, for doing this, we got characterized as whores. I don't know how many people feel about historical memory . . . but Imus' characterization drags up historical memories of slavery. Were the Rutgers women, by being stellar athletes, not conforming to Imus' vision of proper female deportment (and what was that) - and therefore deservingthe characterization of 'hos?
He says he's sorry, but there are a lot of questions to answer. By the way, when entertainers throw these terms around, they have many questions to answer as well.
Go Tyra!!!
I must say that I find this bru-ha-ha over Tyra Bank's weight to be fascinating. Honestly, she looks like a regular woman to me, so for these tabloids to carry on about how fat she has become is absolutely absurd. A couple of points have become clear for me: (1) the standard of what is fat has become completely skewed so that normal looking people look fat; and (2) it is completely ok in our society to mistreat people on the basis of their weight.
Tyra Banks is 5'10" and 161 pounds. If one looks at the BMI scale, she is not even overweight. Medically, she is the perfect weight. She is not fat. At all. Period. My question becomes, then, why would the press target her as fat? I applaud that she has stood up to the press about her weight and has not internalized the absolute crap about her being overweight. How skinny does a woman have to be to avoid criticism of her weight? Do the people who issue these critiques about fat have ANY idea how difficult it is to maintain lower than normal body weights? I have had a history with anorexia and I exercised SO much and ate SO little to be a size 8. Size 8. The Washington Post ran a story about models auditioning for New York's Spring Fashion Week and many models are so small that a size 4 is too big for them. Size 4 is ridiculously tiny, especially for tall women. How on earth does size 4 become too big?! And this is what women are supposed to be aspiring too? What could we change in our society if we weren't so preoccupied about being under a size 8? What could we change in the world?
Part of the story here is that it is ok to mistreat people for being overweight still. I can't think of a single basis to mistreat somebody. Period. We don't know peoples' stories about their weight and making abusive cracks about their size and just needing to eat fewer donuts is not a model of the connections we should be trying to make with all human beings. People are denied jobs, fired, receive poor work reviews, can't get married, are denied a sexuality because they are fat. OK, think about what your life would be like if you experienced this stuff for some random reason (the color of your eyes). It is not ok.
We need to rethink our society if we cannot treat all people well, no matter their strengths/weaknesses. I don't think that Tyra Banks aspired to defend fat people, but I think she is taking a powerful stand on their behalf.
Tyra Banks is 5'10" and 161 pounds. If one looks at the BMI scale, she is not even overweight. Medically, she is the perfect weight. She is not fat. At all. Period. My question becomes, then, why would the press target her as fat? I applaud that she has stood up to the press about her weight and has not internalized the absolute crap about her being overweight. How skinny does a woman have to be to avoid criticism of her weight? Do the people who issue these critiques about fat have ANY idea how difficult it is to maintain lower than normal body weights? I have had a history with anorexia and I exercised SO much and ate SO little to be a size 8. Size 8. The Washington Post ran a story about models auditioning for New York's Spring Fashion Week and many models are so small that a size 4 is too big for them. Size 4 is ridiculously tiny, especially for tall women. How on earth does size 4 become too big?! And this is what women are supposed to be aspiring too? What could we change in our society if we weren't so preoccupied about being under a size 8? What could we change in the world?
Part of the story here is that it is ok to mistreat people for being overweight still. I can't think of a single basis to mistreat somebody. Period. We don't know peoples' stories about their weight and making abusive cracks about their size and just needing to eat fewer donuts is not a model of the connections we should be trying to make with all human beings. People are denied jobs, fired, receive poor work reviews, can't get married, are denied a sexuality because they are fat. OK, think about what your life would be like if you experienced this stuff for some random reason (the color of your eyes). It is not ok.
We need to rethink our society if we cannot treat all people well, no matter their strengths/weaknesses. I don't think that Tyra Banks aspired to defend fat people, but I think she is taking a powerful stand on their behalf.
Hiding the Money we Spend
I was reading the New York Times only to come across an article about women who buy their luxury purchases with cash because they don't want to fight with their husbands/boyfriends/parents about how they spend their money. This has been a trend in particularly upscale shopping venues such as Bergdorf Goodman, etc. from purchases ranging from $100 - $10,000. TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS CASH?! And many of these women actually EARNED THEIR OWN MONEY. They are not living off of the good graces of their partners!
Aside from my clear amazement that someone could scare up that much cash, it makes me wonder about the state of our relationships. In my relationship, we seem to have recurring fights (2 - 3 times per year) about money and how I spend my time. Actually, we just argued about how I spend my time with the insinuation that I should be working even if school is out of session. My personal policy is that if time being spent is not interfering with the functioning of our family, I don't owe an accounting of it. Further, the time spent on my academic work is actually to be discussed with my ADVISOR, not PARTNER (who knows little about my discipline).
Aside from complaining about this fight, I am going somewhere with this, namely that I have the same issues with money. If bills aren't getting paid, if we have a common goal that is being compromised by my spending, then we all need to discuss how money is spent in the relationship. That means that if these crises are coming up, not only do we discuss my spending habits, but my partner's as well. Otherwise, it is DISCRETIONARY income to be disposed of however I please.
There are two issues to be considered even further. (1) Why do women make these luxury purchases; and (2) Wouldn't the more powerful position be taking on these issues explicitly with our partners? I do think we need to challenge conspicuous consumption including one more handbag, the pair of shoes we've "just got to have", etc. Many of these goods are marketed on the basis of our feeling lousy about ourselves and frankly, I'm not convinced we should buy things without being rooted in the fact that we're the perfect size at this moment, we are pretty enough, etc. We shouldn't patronize retailers/designers, etc. if they insist on making us feel like crap to purchase their products to feel better. They are exploiting our deepest insecurities and frankly, NO ONE should make money off my insecurities!
Secondly, we doneed to learn to be upfront with our partners about what we do. Isn't this the key to open and loving relationships? Doesn't it make sense to adopt policies that say we should be respected in the relationship and part of that respect is shutting your trap about how money is spent unless there is clearly an addictive pull or financial obligations are being undermined? Sexist assumptions about women spending money in relationships assume that men should have the ultimate say about this issue, even if they haven't earned the money being spent. I find that troubling and think this is worth fighting about. But this raises another question: do the women discussed in this article actually fear the fights, or are they actually having/avoiding these fights.
As my example about my partner and I arguing about the way I spend my time, I clearly don't have this completely figured out in my life. But I swear, I will fight about it. No one, as long as I am an adult, has the right to dictate to me how my time and my money are spent as long as we are handling business. Especially seeing I do most of the work connected to raising our child. Women need to develop these policies before entering intimate relationships so that we are not confused about the correct direction in the midst of our partners' upsets.
Aside from my clear amazement that someone could scare up that much cash, it makes me wonder about the state of our relationships. In my relationship, we seem to have recurring fights (2 - 3 times per year) about money and how I spend my time. Actually, we just argued about how I spend my time with the insinuation that I should be working even if school is out of session. My personal policy is that if time being spent is not interfering with the functioning of our family, I don't owe an accounting of it. Further, the time spent on my academic work is actually to be discussed with my ADVISOR, not PARTNER (who knows little about my discipline).
Aside from complaining about this fight, I am going somewhere with this, namely that I have the same issues with money. If bills aren't getting paid, if we have a common goal that is being compromised by my spending, then we all need to discuss how money is spent in the relationship. That means that if these crises are coming up, not only do we discuss my spending habits, but my partner's as well. Otherwise, it is DISCRETIONARY income to be disposed of however I please.
There are two issues to be considered even further. (1) Why do women make these luxury purchases; and (2) Wouldn't the more powerful position be taking on these issues explicitly with our partners? I do think we need to challenge conspicuous consumption including one more handbag, the pair of shoes we've "just got to have", etc. Many of these goods are marketed on the basis of our feeling lousy about ourselves and frankly, I'm not convinced we should buy things without being rooted in the fact that we're the perfect size at this moment, we are pretty enough, etc. We shouldn't patronize retailers/designers, etc. if they insist on making us feel like crap to purchase their products to feel better. They are exploiting our deepest insecurities and frankly, NO ONE should make money off my insecurities!
Secondly, we doneed to learn to be upfront with our partners about what we do. Isn't this the key to open and loving relationships? Doesn't it make sense to adopt policies that say we should be respected in the relationship and part of that respect is shutting your trap about how money is spent unless there is clearly an addictive pull or financial obligations are being undermined? Sexist assumptions about women spending money in relationships assume that men should have the ultimate say about this issue, even if they haven't earned the money being spent. I find that troubling and think this is worth fighting about. But this raises another question: do the women discussed in this article actually fear the fights, or are they actually having/avoiding these fights.
As my example about my partner and I arguing about the way I spend my time, I clearly don't have this completely figured out in my life. But I swear, I will fight about it. No one, as long as I am an adult, has the right to dictate to me how my time and my money are spent as long as we are handling business. Especially seeing I do most of the work connected to raising our child. Women need to develop these policies before entering intimate relationships so that we are not confused about the correct direction in the midst of our partners' upsets.
Changing Dirty Diapers
I reviewed Parenting Magazine's picks for the Dirty Diaper awards and some people we would suspect were on the list, such as Britney Spears. An interesting selection was Donald Trump because over the course of five children, as we all know well, at least two of them are adults, he has never changed a diaper.
Which got me to thinking, why does the press always ask if the male parent changes diapers. Because frankly, changing diapers is not really the useful thing for the other parent of an infant. It is spending significant amounts of time with the young one and building a relationship with them. Why? There are selfish motivations -- what new mother wouldn't like at least two hours without a newborn attached to her? But there are more important reasons as well.
Parenting is about building a close relationship with the young people we bring into this world. Ensuring their well being does not work well if we have fractured relationships. This is what is sad about the role men play in the lives of children - because they are so busy working absurd hours, they cannot build the relationships with their young people which means that ultimately, they actually sacrifice their ability to leverage authority over their kids' lives.
I don't underestimate the demands of the workplace and we know that our economy is completely hostile to the interests of parents and compromises our ability to form the close relationships we would like. However, diaper changing needs to be seen in the context of relationship building. You make important physical contact with your baby (tenderly wiping their behinds, perhaps massaging their feet), you gaze in their eyes, and talk to them about their world. These sorts of interactions are the building blocks of any parent/child relationship.
So, perhaps the next time a father has a new child in this world, instead of asking whether the father changes diapers, the reporter will actually ask "how much time did you spend with your baby this week and what did you do with them." Once we understand this, we'll really understand the role fathers play in their children's lives. And by the way, if a father spending more time with their child isn't a benefit of feminism, I don't know what is.
Which got me to thinking, why does the press always ask if the male parent changes diapers. Because frankly, changing diapers is not really the useful thing for the other parent of an infant. It is spending significant amounts of time with the young one and building a relationship with them. Why? There are selfish motivations -- what new mother wouldn't like at least two hours without a newborn attached to her? But there are more important reasons as well.
Parenting is about building a close relationship with the young people we bring into this world. Ensuring their well being does not work well if we have fractured relationships. This is what is sad about the role men play in the lives of children - because they are so busy working absurd hours, they cannot build the relationships with their young people which means that ultimately, they actually sacrifice their ability to leverage authority over their kids' lives.
I don't underestimate the demands of the workplace and we know that our economy is completely hostile to the interests of parents and compromises our ability to form the close relationships we would like. However, diaper changing needs to be seen in the context of relationship building. You make important physical contact with your baby (tenderly wiping their behinds, perhaps massaging their feet), you gaze in their eyes, and talk to them about their world. These sorts of interactions are the building blocks of any parent/child relationship.
So, perhaps the next time a father has a new child in this world, instead of asking whether the father changes diapers, the reporter will actually ask "how much time did you spend with your baby this week and what did you do with them." Once we understand this, we'll really understand the role fathers play in their children's lives. And by the way, if a father spending more time with their child isn't a benefit of feminism, I don't know what is.
Plastic Surgery
I'm a BIG fan of Anderson Cooper's, so, even though I often have no business, I try to catch his show (I am working on my doctorate and with a son who wakes up at 6 in the morning, do I really need to go to sleep at midnight?). This week there's a series called "What would you do for . . ." and last night's installment was about plastic surgery. He covered women who went to Central and South America for surgery with generally negative results.
I must say that I think the press, overall, has done a lousy job covering plastic surgery and what that means. So I wanted to use the blog today to sound off about this industry. Overall, many things are sold because advertisers successfully hit the spots where we feel lousy about ourselves. However, most products are not designed to take care of where we feel bad (for example, food or a car). This is not to say that anything can't be used to mollify ourselves, it's just that the purpose of the product isn't that.
That being said, plastic surgery is specifically targetted to people who feel bad about their physical selves and who can afford a quick fix for these problems (there are people who have reconstructive surgery because of accidents, etc., and I think this is a different matter). For women, this becomes particularly pernicious. Nothing in this society allows us to feel good about our bodies and we can cite any number of problems with ourselves (too thin, not curvy enough, not tall enough, fat thighs, whatever). With a magazine industry that encourages us to size up ourselves against celebrities who eat nothing but celery to maintain size zeros or who drop all of their pregnancy weight (we forget they have cooks!) and wonder what we are doing wrong. There is little questioning of whether the standards of beauty make sense and whether we, as women, should be so preoccupied with it (especially as we are fighting an insane war in Iraq and many of us in the United States have no health care). Black women face even greater challenges because we still are seriously underrepresented as possibly beautiful.
So for women to make "choices" to pay less money to visit far away lands to "fix" problems on their bodies is simply heartbreaking. We never really fought to appreciate the bodies we have. They do amazing things . . . I know mine does yoga, chases a toddler around, makes breakfast, takes a toddler to school, writes dissertation proposals, walks around New York at a brisk pace, and MANY otherthings. That is the purpose of my body, not to look vapid and sexy according to standards that are virtually impossible to meet. My body gets fruits and vegetables to eat, and gets to enjoy sweets as well.
I think we need to think of a world that admires what our bodies can do, not what they look like. While we all like people to appreciate the way we look, that cannot make that the center of everything we do. Admittedly, that's the underlying lesson I hoped to hear from "What I Would Do For" last night. Instead, I settled for yet another installment of caveat emptor, buyer beware.
I must say that I think the press, overall, has done a lousy job covering plastic surgery and what that means. So I wanted to use the blog today to sound off about this industry. Overall, many things are sold because advertisers successfully hit the spots where we feel lousy about ourselves. However, most products are not designed to take care of where we feel bad (for example, food or a car). This is not to say that anything can't be used to mollify ourselves, it's just that the purpose of the product isn't that.
That being said, plastic surgery is specifically targetted to people who feel bad about their physical selves and who can afford a quick fix for these problems (there are people who have reconstructive surgery because of accidents, etc., and I think this is a different matter). For women, this becomes particularly pernicious. Nothing in this society allows us to feel good about our bodies and we can cite any number of problems with ourselves (too thin, not curvy enough, not tall enough, fat thighs, whatever). With a magazine industry that encourages us to size up ourselves against celebrities who eat nothing but celery to maintain size zeros or who drop all of their pregnancy weight (we forget they have cooks!) and wonder what we are doing wrong. There is little questioning of whether the standards of beauty make sense and whether we, as women, should be so preoccupied with it (especially as we are fighting an insane war in Iraq and many of us in the United States have no health care). Black women face even greater challenges because we still are seriously underrepresented as possibly beautiful.
So for women to make "choices" to pay less money to visit far away lands to "fix" problems on their bodies is simply heartbreaking. We never really fought to appreciate the bodies we have. They do amazing things . . . I know mine does yoga, chases a toddler around, makes breakfast, takes a toddler to school, writes dissertation proposals, walks around New York at a brisk pace, and MANY otherthings. That is the purpose of my body, not to look vapid and sexy according to standards that are virtually impossible to meet. My body gets fruits and vegetables to eat, and gets to enjoy sweets as well.
I think we need to think of a world that admires what our bodies can do, not what they look like. While we all like people to appreciate the way we look, that cannot make that the center of everything we do. Admittedly, that's the underlying lesson I hoped to hear from "What I Would Do For" last night. Instead, I settled for yet another installment of caveat emptor, buyer beware.
Our Armed Forces
This week I was listening to National Public Radio and a story came on about soldiers who experienced PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder). The Army has been throwing out these soldiers with less than honorable discharges for their symptoms, e.g. drug use, instead of recognizing it as the disorder it is and treating it overall. One particularly disturbing quote was from a soldier saying some were strong enough to handle the battle, and others were simply weak. The other disturbing part of this story was that it was cheaper to treat the soldiers this way than providing them with full treatment.
This gave me a chance to consider this as an example of how men are adversely affected by sexism. I can't imagine what it's like fighting in Iraq. My son's father is there as a doctor and it sounds quite stressful for him and he's not even on the battle field. Worrying about your every step and the sounds you heard around you because of IEDs and other activities Iraqi militias might engage in would set the calmest of us on pins and needles for the rest of our lives. To characterize the people who served over there as weak because they experience emotional problems from that experience is insensitive at best, and simply missing the point at its worst. What sort of man would be unaffected by this experience? If we're thinking about the likes of Charles Grainer (remember Abu Graib), then we're in real trouble. He is the sort of emotionally off person I do not want serving in our military.
I've heard the stories of people who return from a tour from Iraq and they have a hard time adjusting to life at home. Their tempers are hair-trigger, they don't know how to resolve conflict if they're not at the other end of a gun, and they are haunted by their battlefield memories. For all of this patriotic ying-yang about supporting the troops, the least we could do is make sure the institution they work for, the military, takes copious amounts of time to listen to them and fully heal from their experiences.
But in a society that decides that men who respond to brutal warfare in these ways are weak, this will not be the pay back for their patriotic duty. Instead they're dismissed as not up to the task, let me repeat, weak. Feminine? Perhaps men need to consider feminism as useful to them as well. Then we'll really understand men's strength.
This gave me a chance to consider this as an example of how men are adversely affected by sexism. I can't imagine what it's like fighting in Iraq. My son's father is there as a doctor and it sounds quite stressful for him and he's not even on the battle field. Worrying about your every step and the sounds you heard around you because of IEDs and other activities Iraqi militias might engage in would set the calmest of us on pins and needles for the rest of our lives. To characterize the people who served over there as weak because they experience emotional problems from that experience is insensitive at best, and simply missing the point at its worst. What sort of man would be unaffected by this experience? If we're thinking about the likes of Charles Grainer (remember Abu Graib), then we're in real trouble. He is the sort of emotionally off person I do not want serving in our military.
I've heard the stories of people who return from a tour from Iraq and they have a hard time adjusting to life at home. Their tempers are hair-trigger, they don't know how to resolve conflict if they're not at the other end of a gun, and they are haunted by their battlefield memories. For all of this patriotic ying-yang about supporting the troops, the least we could do is make sure the institution they work for, the military, takes copious amounts of time to listen to them and fully heal from their experiences.
But in a society that decides that men who respond to brutal warfare in these ways are weak, this will not be the pay back for their patriotic duty. Instead they're dismissed as not up to the task, let me repeat, weak. Feminine? Perhaps men need to consider feminism as useful to them as well. Then we'll really understand men's strength.
Britney Spears
I feel like I should be writing about something more serious than this, but I need someone to help me figure out something about motherhood. Personally, if I want my son to know that some things are worth sacrificing for, that if you make some choices, you don't have others, I have to model that for him. It's not that I'm a martyr for a mother: I 'm not. I don't feel guilty when I work. I don't feel guilty when I'm doing yoga instead of taking care of him. I don't feel guilty about using my peer counselling network. Frankly, if I'm emotionally and spiritually drained, things don't go so well for him and these are the sorts of things that keep me going.
I also am not a mother of two children barely a year apart and about to divorce my husband. However, I can only wonder how Britney's young children are doing while she's out galavanting with none other than the queen of responsibility, Paris Hilton. I can appreciate that divorcing someone the likes of Kevin Federline would require celebration, but enough is enough. How would we want our young people to handle difficult times in their lives? As adults, do we want them to thrive on escapism? Do we want connected young people who have a solid base to go to and know how to build that base for themselves? I understand that it is HARD WORK staying connected to babies and toddlers all day long. It is more than any of us ever got as young people. But we really have to rise above how we feel at a given moment and think about what is best not only for them, but for ourselves as mothers.
Britney is probably completely tapped out. She needs some rest and taking care of; however, I would suggest that she spend time with a mental health professional (not because she's crazy, but because she needs a place to talk about what is hard in her life) and engage in nourishing activities: drinking all night saps crucial vitamins and sleep, at a minimum! She needs to take care of herself as she prepares to release a new album and, I assume, tour, in the next year with her babies. Never mind the care she will need as she goes through what may end up being a nasty divorce. She should teach her babies how to build reliable networks of friends. Perhaps, instead of Paris, she should give Madonna a call.
I also am not a mother of two children barely a year apart and about to divorce my husband. However, I can only wonder how Britney's young children are doing while she's out galavanting with none other than the queen of responsibility, Paris Hilton. I can appreciate that divorcing someone the likes of Kevin Federline would require celebration, but enough is enough. How would we want our young people to handle difficult times in their lives? As adults, do we want them to thrive on escapism? Do we want connected young people who have a solid base to go to and know how to build that base for themselves? I understand that it is HARD WORK staying connected to babies and toddlers all day long. It is more than any of us ever got as young people. But we really have to rise above how we feel at a given moment and think about what is best not only for them, but for ourselves as mothers.
Britney is probably completely tapped out. She needs some rest and taking care of; however, I would suggest that she spend time with a mental health professional (not because she's crazy, but because she needs a place to talk about what is hard in her life) and engage in nourishing activities: drinking all night saps crucial vitamins and sleep, at a minimum! She needs to take care of herself as she prepares to release a new album and, I assume, tour, in the next year with her babies. Never mind the care she will need as she goes through what may end up being a nasty divorce. She should teach her babies how to build reliable networks of friends. Perhaps, instead of Paris, she should give Madonna a call.
Madonna and Child
I thought this was a fitting title given the upcoming holiday season. However, I'm not talking about Mary and Baby Jesus, but Madonna and her newest son David. I'm behind the 8-ball in reacting to this, but I think it deserves some comment (one quick digression: why is Richards apologizing AGAIN?!).
It seems that whatever beef people have with women who are openly sexual gets aimed at Madonna full throttle. As a result, there's always some group that hates her music, her clothes, or whatever the project she is working on at the time. I'm not going to engage a discussion of whether she's talented muscially, whether we buy her devotion to the Kabbalah, or anything else for that matter. Again, I think the pull to criticize her for these parts of her life have nothing to do with her and more to do about the people levelling the criticism. How many of us reach our late-30s and wonder what this life is all about? She's been doing yoga and the Kaballah for nearly ten years, one cannot exactly accuse her of hopping on a trend and dumping it when it was no longer useful. These aspects of her life have taken her art in new directions (whether we like them or not). I think this is part of how women have stereotypically been perceived as flakey and without substance belief. Eight years later it seems that Madonna has proven us wrong on this tip.
Further, her activism in Africa is not some Johnny-come-lately venture. What many do not know about "Madge" is that she has engaged in philanthropy for YEARS before supporting orphanages in Malawi (she started that project one year before David ended up in her life!). She volunteered to walk and donated to AIDSWalk here in New York, she is known for visiting children's wards in hospitals, and she has given much time and resource to the GLBTQ community. Often she does this without bringing press attention to herself and so no one knows she did it. Her commitment to making sure things are right in the world and her love of children were in her life long before even her children. It's time we gave her a break.
It seems that whatever beef people have with women who are openly sexual gets aimed at Madonna full throttle. As a result, there's always some group that hates her music, her clothes, or whatever the project she is working on at the time. I'm not going to engage a discussion of whether she's talented muscially, whether we buy her devotion to the Kabbalah, or anything else for that matter. Again, I think the pull to criticize her for these parts of her life have nothing to do with her and more to do about the people levelling the criticism. How many of us reach our late-30s and wonder what this life is all about? She's been doing yoga and the Kaballah for nearly ten years, one cannot exactly accuse her of hopping on a trend and dumping it when it was no longer useful. These aspects of her life have taken her art in new directions (whether we like them or not). I think this is part of how women have stereotypically been perceived as flakey and without substance belief. Eight years later it seems that Madonna has proven us wrong on this tip.
Further, her activism in Africa is not some Johnny-come-lately venture. What many do not know about "Madge" is that she has engaged in philanthropy for YEARS before supporting orphanages in Malawi (she started that project one year before David ended up in her life!). She volunteered to walk and donated to AIDSWalk here in New York, she is known for visiting children's wards in hospitals, and she has given much time and resource to the GLBTQ community. Often she does this without bringing press attention to herself and so no one knows she did it. Her commitment to making sure things are right in the world and her love of children were in her life long before even her children. It's time we gave her a break.
Richard's Mouthing Off
I think everyone is in agreement that Richard's response to heckling at an L.A. comedy club were, at best, inappropriate. I can tell what a wreck he is about the whole thing as he referred to members of the African-American community in his apology as "Afro-Americans". How late 70s . . . and more importantly, it reflects that he doesn't have Black people close to him in his life (I'll not speculate on the reasons for that).
While that is important, and let's also not forget about Mel Gibson's anti-Jewish rant, I wonder if it is possible to make such a slur and stir about women. People often, without reservation, refer to women as bitches, hell, we even refer to each other that way. If women had heckled him, would there have been such an outrage if he used any number of stunningly, in my opinion, insulting and derogatory words about us (c--t as one example)? Would his career have been completely destroyed by such an event?
Regularly women are referred to in any number of insulting ways under the banner of art and there is little discussion of it. It takes references to murder to bring any sort of reaction about women (remember Eminem's song about killing his wife) and even that's not a career breaker (unless you actually kill your wife, right O.J.?).
I find it saddening that sexism is seen as a fight that has been won. I think we have a long way to go.
While that is important, and let's also not forget about Mel Gibson's anti-Jewish rant, I wonder if it is possible to make such a slur and stir about women. People often, without reservation, refer to women as bitches, hell, we even refer to each other that way. If women had heckled him, would there have been such an outrage if he used any number of stunningly, in my opinion, insulting and derogatory words about us (c--t as one example)? Would his career have been completely destroyed by such an event?
Regularly women are referred to in any number of insulting ways under the banner of art and there is little discussion of it. It takes references to murder to bring any sort of reaction about women (remember Eminem's song about killing his wife) and even that's not a career breaker (unless you actually kill your wife, right O.J.?).
I find it saddening that sexism is seen as a fight that has been won. I think we have a long way to go.
Sexism
Like many, I started blogging in the aftermath of Teri Schaivo and then I stopped. I needed a new focus for my blog, so I decided to use it to talk about sexism in concrete terms. I just bumped into a professor of mine and we were talking about a bunch of young female celebrities and how things overall do not look like they are going very well in their lives. Without getting into the details about that, it is a very sad thing that women are becoming sexualized at younger and younger ages. We miss the anti-porn days of Catharine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin as MTV is starting to look like soft-port central.
I identify as a feminist, and although many on the right of this country would call me the anti-Christ, there are things I have in common with them although we come to these conclusions from very different paths. I don't think it's necessary to use sex to see everything from toothpaste to children's clothing (ok, did you hear about the toddler thongs?! No kidding!). It is not ok to sexualize young people, which brings up a related thought . . . how do we allow our young people to be resilient to the constant messages that say it is ok for them to be sexualized and to sexually objectify others? Young people are oppressed on a daily basis and this is not alright. If we create young people who simply say yes to everything we want as adults, they are not in a position to resist the other oppressions that come their way. I want my 11 month old son to be able to tell adults NO when they mistreat him, NO when we make recommendations that are odd. Perhaps then he can take a stand on his own behalf when he is sexualized at too young an age and take definitive stands not only against racism, but also against sexism. Perhaps he will then understand that it is not ok to mistreat people, even by visual representations, for any reason.
I think I will need to be more concrete about this in future entries, and I will try to do just that.
Stay tuned!
I identify as a feminist, and although many on the right of this country would call me the anti-Christ, there are things I have in common with them although we come to these conclusions from very different paths. I don't think it's necessary to use sex to see everything from toothpaste to children's clothing (ok, did you hear about the toddler thongs?! No kidding!). It is not ok to sexualize young people, which brings up a related thought . . . how do we allow our young people to be resilient to the constant messages that say it is ok for them to be sexualized and to sexually objectify others? Young people are oppressed on a daily basis and this is not alright. If we create young people who simply say yes to everything we want as adults, they are not in a position to resist the other oppressions that come their way. I want my 11 month old son to be able to tell adults NO when they mistreat him, NO when we make recommendations that are odd. Perhaps then he can take a stand on his own behalf when he is sexualized at too young an age and take definitive stands not only against racism, but also against sexism. Perhaps he will then understand that it is not ok to mistreat people, even by visual representations, for any reason.
I think I will need to be more concrete about this in future entries, and I will try to do just that.
Stay tuned!
Terry Schaivo
I think that there are many issues that are being neglected in this debate. While this discusion has become one of "pro-life", there are some issues that are not considered alongside this.
One issue that member of Congress and Terri's family never discuss is what Teri would have wanted. They never make a statement saying that Teri told them that they could continue her life indefinitely, and from what I have read about this case, have never presented evidence supporting that this is what she would have wanted. A discussion of life without considering what she ultimately would have wanted is meaningless.
However, there are a couple of other issues we need to consider as well. Lately, we have hear d a lot about the sanctity of marriage. What happened about this notion in the context of Teri Schaivo? The Schindlers have tried to prove that Schaivo abused her and maligned his name; however, the state courts have disregarded these arguments wholly. Therefore, there is no basis on which a husband, who knows his wife's intent, should not speak for her in this situation. Otherwise, if parents can override the decision of two spouses, whether or not they have memorialized the intent by writing, what of the institution of marriage and the decisions that are made in that context? I think it is inappropriate that parents can run roughshod over the institution.
Secondly, if we are so concerned about a culture of life, how can we as a society support the death penalty? We do not see such vigils outside of prisons when prisoners are being executed, particularly in Florida. Frankly, I think it hypocritical to insist that a woman who does not want to be kept alive this way is kept alive, yet to execute criminals on a regular basis. I hope that the Bush administration and these other right to life organizations will take seriously the U.S. Catholic Bishop's challenge that we reconsider the death penalty in this country.
Finally, President Bush, while governor of Texas, signed a bill allowing pulling the plug on those who cannot afford medical care.
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/HS/content/htm/hs.002.00.000166.00
Are we about a culture of life only if people can afford to keep themselves alive? If Teri Schaivo did not have the financial resources to support being alive, would we be having this debate?http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/3087387
I hope to use this Blog to shed more light on some of these issues!
One issue that member of Congress and Terri's family never discuss is what Teri would have wanted. They never make a statement saying that Teri told them that they could continue her life indefinitely, and from what I have read about this case, have never presented evidence supporting that this is what she would have wanted. A discussion of life without considering what she ultimately would have wanted is meaningless.
However, there are a couple of other issues we need to consider as well. Lately, we have hear d a lot about the sanctity of marriage. What happened about this notion in the context of Teri Schaivo? The Schindlers have tried to prove that Schaivo abused her and maligned his name; however, the state courts have disregarded these arguments wholly. Therefore, there is no basis on which a husband, who knows his wife's intent, should not speak for her in this situation. Otherwise, if parents can override the decision of two spouses, whether or not they have memorialized the intent by writing, what of the institution of marriage and the decisions that are made in that context? I think it is inappropriate that parents can run roughshod over the institution.
Secondly, if we are so concerned about a culture of life, how can we as a society support the death penalty? We do not see such vigils outside of prisons when prisoners are being executed, particularly in Florida. Frankly, I think it hypocritical to insist that a woman who does not want to be kept alive this way is kept alive, yet to execute criminals on a regular basis. I hope that the Bush administration and these other right to life organizations will take seriously the U.S. Catholic Bishop's challenge that we reconsider the death penalty in this country.
Finally, President Bush, while governor of Texas, signed a bill allowing pulling the plug on those who cannot afford medical care.
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/HS/content/htm/hs.002.00.000166.00
Are we about a culture of life only if people can afford to keep themselves alive? If Teri Schaivo did not have the financial resources to support being alive, would we be having this debate?http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/3087387
I hope to use this Blog to shed more light on some of these issues!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
