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?
Thursday, January 31, 2008
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)
