The Spurnned Wife

First, read this piece published by Time Magazine: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1947305,00.html

There are two things I want to say about the spurned political/sports/whomever wife . . . way to go Jenny and where is the word SEXISM in all of this?

I whole heartedly agree with Time's portrayal of Jenny Sanford.

She has been the face of eloquence and poise during such an emotionally bruising point in her life. She has been able to be public without too much detail, and think well about not only her children, but her philandering Christian husband. Bravo.

However, aside from taking on infidelity with poise, I think the media coverage of any couple's infidelity completely misses a discussion about sexism and how far we have to go. For example, let's figure out to be a Tiger . . .

Apparently, you go to the gym, train, go to the golf course, train, travel to tournament, let off some steam (if you know what I mean), return to wife and children, repeat. However, what is missed in this scenario is that there is someone laboring, unpaid in our philanderers' absence. There tends to be a woman who is raising the children and keeping track of what is going on in the household to make sure that he can govern or play sports (or work in a law firm, work in a hospital, build buildings, teach kids, and on it goes). The "public" spouse need not bother their pretty little heads with what preoccupies the rest of us for most of the day - who will pick up Junior from school; Junior needs to eat dinner by 5 to make sure he's not a raving maniac . . . what should I cook that he and hubby like; oh dear, Schnookums is bringing over a pal from the office and the housekeeper isn't here today . . . I have to clean; better get Junior to bed so he is ready to learn in the morning; is the homework done; I hope he doesn't feel like making love, I'm exhausted! You get the point.

Bottom line: the philanderers are taking advantage of someone else's time and hard work to enjoy their lives to the max. Here is the sexism - because they are men, they are entitled to their wives' labor. Of course there's the emotional betrayal . . . after all, they swore in front of God,the State, family, and friends that they would be true to their spouses forever. However, these women often hold another job or have given up careers; contributions to their IRAs, pensions, social security funds; their own wealth; and now their emotional security after working their asses off for these men. How much would it cost for them to replace this lost labor? Perhaps this is what Tiger is dealing with this week in addition to his wife's wrath.

It is this entitlement that burns me (I suspect these wives as well). Women don't get socialized to expect this level of entitlement . . . indeed, we don't expect to demand anything in return for the labor we put into our relationships. Ultimately, perhaps THIS is what these men have to apologize for; however, shifting the assumption of entitlement is harder work . . . work they better start doing. And that's why I admire Jenny Sanford - she effectively told her husband he is not entitled to anything of hers anymore. And, in spite of the fact that I suspect she wouldn't identify as feminist, that is the feminist morality tale.

Obama and Nobel

I can't help but to weigh in on this. In the wake of the criticism of President Obama winning this award from both the U.S. right and left, perhaps we all need to take a big step back with a deep breath. This is hardly meant to diminish other very worthy candidates for this year's peace prize; however, I think, while surprising, the award make sense. It makes sense for two reasons: words matter; and we need hope to change.

Let's start with the fact that words matter. What happens when someone calls you a liar, a racist, a terrorist? Yeah, those words hurt. Recall that 8 years ago, we had a President and Administration that set up the "axis of evil." We officially designated Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as countries that export and support terrorists and so we were no longer talking to them. That was helpful (I do hope you detect sarcasm in that statement).

Further, we took a policy that U.S. interests are the only interests that mattered in the world and so for foreign policy purposes, we would go it alone. That's right, the cowboy was back in town. This was personified by John Bolton who was our enthusiastic representative as ambassador to the United Nations.
Can you imagine what this policy would look like if you were trying to impart it to young children - "Johnny, the only games we play are the ones you want sweetheart. It doesn't matter what your friends would like to do." We pulled out of the climate change agreement negotiated in Kyoto as a result of this stance and took many other positions on the world stage. Another helpful foreign policy direction brought to you by the 43rd President of the United States.

Suffice it to say that these words POISONED the international atmosphere and impaired our ability to speak with, negotiate, or discuss policy problems with anyone but friends, such as they were. This position left us very isolated and with little influence in the world. Enter U.S. President number 44 and he says we're going to talk to you. Wow! No more axis of evil? No more my way or the high way? I don't know if we can appreciate enough what openings this brought to the international community. Iran actually told us they had enough nuclear material for a missile (not that they stopped developing weapons, but they SPOKE to us, an important condition for NEGOTIATING - you can't negotiate if you're not talking!); we have a warmer relationship with Cuba; things are warming up with Russia . . . this is a new day on the international front and we in the United States probably can't appreciate this enough because we're mired in health care. Words matter.

Did someone mention health care? Ah yes, which brings me to my second point - hope matters. Remember how pollyanna people thought this was during the campaign - all lofty words, no action, hope, schmope! No one changes things from a hopeless position. Let me repeat that - you cannot change things if you are hopeless. You have to hope that things will be better so you take the actions needed to make it happen. Health care is a doozy because of all of the entrenched interests - we all know them well. You have to be hopeful to take on the insurance companies, the doctors, the hospitals, the pharmaceutical companies, and the list goes on. The opposition hopes that we'll become hopeless and let the issue die. We can't become hopeless if change in health care is going to happen. This applies to many other issues as well - if GLBTQ people are to attain rights in the states and across the country, there is no place for hopelessness. If we hope for change in an issue as daunting as cleaning up our environment, there is no place for hopelessness. If, to tackle the issue raised by Time Magazine this week, women are to improve the way sexism impacts their daily lives, there is no place for hopelessness.

There are many who would like convince us that exhortations such as "hope" are empty words. To them, and to all of the discouraged, I say that words matter. And hope is as important a word as any of them! Congratulations President Barack Hussein Obama - I'll read your winning the Nobel as the first step in worldwide change and remain hopeful with you!

The R Word

With the furor of the town halls around health care, shouting traitor whenever Obama's name was mentioned during the campaign, the increased hate crimes, and finally, the elevated number of death threats against President Obama, there has been some explicit naming of the r word, yes, racism, as a factor in this behavior. The right wing (some would argue fringe) insists racism is not the primary culprit, it is just real upset about Obama's policies. After all, racism became less of a factor the minute the U.S. elected Obama.

Enter Jimmy Carter, stage right. Last night he tells Brian Williams that he thinks that, as a Southern White Man who is familiar with the thought processes around racism, racism is at the core of the animosity being displayed.

I know this will surprise you, but I agree with President Carter. However, I want to discuss how the right tries to diffuse the issue, because their noise is confusing, at best. My poster boy for these conversations (if they really could be called that) is an exchange I saw last night on Anderson Cooper's show between Mark Williams (one of the primary organizers of the Tea Parties) and Roland Martin.

What concerns me is that when members of a target group points out a pattern of behavior that is racist, sexist, homophobic, and the list goes on, they are accused of being racist, sexist, etc. Why? Because people who are trying to handle race (I'm not sure about handling) don't talk about race at all. Those of you who engage in race baiting need racism because you would not be able to earn your keep. Then the comparison is made between the person pointing out the racist behavior and either Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. When specific instances of racist behavior are listed that are not explicit, e.g. the use of the N-word or something like that, then Black people are just looking too hard for racism which no longer exists. Hence, it is the Black/Latino/group of the month who is really racist. By the way, racist speech is protected by the first amendment!

Well well! I guess women wouldn't be raped if we didn't walk outside either. My point is that they try to evade the charge of racism by blaming the victim (stop looking for it and then it won't exist). By the way, whether or not you agree with them, the reason that Sharpton and Jackson are such targets around race is because they dare to take a stand against it and call it when it is seen. Finally, I thought there was some understanding that not all incidents of racism require explicit insults invoking race, that much more subtle behaviors can certainly have a racist impact, hence institutionalized racism. Our own constitution supports that position to a limited extent.

My suspicion is that opponents feel shut down when they are told their behaviors are racist. They go on the attack to deflect that issue. I must say, it does not make sense to let the non-target group define what is racist, sexist, etc. because they feel too bad if their behavior is implicated - why would you want to feel that bad? It's easier to pretend it doesn't exist. I don't think the discussion of racism in the policy context is done with the aim of shutting down dissent. Indeed, as many on the right do, one criticism about the policies being implemented is the growing size of the federal budget; what is the role we want government to play, etc. While I don't agree with their positions, we need to have these discussions to continue a thriving democracy. This is doable without pictures of Obama as a witch doctor, scrimmaging about his place of birth, and other questionable attacks.

Ultimately, the spate of name calling, etc. does more to shut down the conversation than to reach consensus. In order to have real discussions with each other as Americans, we should avoid name-calling, even if that speech is constitutionally protected.

There's my attempt at civility and the r word!

Town Halls and Democracy

Let me start by giving Anderson Cooper a shout out - Thanks for asking Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri last night if she thought race was part of the motive behind these raucous town hall meetings. And while we're giving shout outs, let's also give one to Paul Krugman who wrote about it in his OpEd in the New York Times last week. Check out this link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=racism%20and%20%22Paul%20Krugman%22&st=cse

I never doubted that race was a partial motive in these incredible outbursts of upset with the government. I want to start by saying that I really believe that people who have racist sentiments are not bad people, they just make my life (and the lives of many others) difficult. With that said, I think some historical perspective about "government takeovers" is warranted (being-an-historian-in-training, particularly when I'm writing my dissertation which I'm not doing at this moment).

Recall the "Regan Revolution." The concern moved by the right wing was that entitlements had become too big a part of the budget and needed to be cut. What are the programs included in entitlements? They are food stamps, housing assistance, Medicaid, etc. What was the demographic group that became the poster child of these programs? BLACK WOMEN. We were portrayed as lazy, non-working, good-for-nothing, immoral, promiscuous, Cadillac driving child bearing machines who took all of this money from hard working White people and gave nothing back (see Ange Hitchcock's book The Politics of Disgust. Only by eliminating these government programs for lazy people would we actually go find work (which was, of course (sarcasm intended) prolific and well-paid) and contribute to society instead of sucking off of its teets (not my language . . . I don't have a citation, but government officials talked about sucking off of the societal/social teets).

With Black people (women in particular) being the face of government programs, it was easy to mobilize Joe-six-packs (a hard working White guy in Rural, USA) to vote for Republicans no matter that the party had never done anything useful to their bottom line. And so the polarization of American politics continued. White guys generally had their wishes fulfilled (I would argue even under the Clinton administration) through President Bush. However, then the non-American Black guy with a Kenyan father (what White mother?) popped on the scene and won the Democratic primaries and went on to win the election. Couple this with the fact of ominous reporting that Whites are becoming a minority among minorities and some of us become rather agitated. Notice that at the Town Hall meetings, the questions about health care center around debt (I suppose that we don't want to pay for health care for promiscuous non-working Black people)or other issues such as carrying guns or Obama's birth certificate. How one could compare Obama to Hitler is beyond me, but really, can we compare Obama to a White supremacist?

These are peculiar times we are living in (also note that AC 360 broke a story last night about the rising tide of militias, that's right, angry White guys arming themselves against a socialist state and Mexicans) and we have a little sense to not be completely explicit about our antipathy towards people of color. They have an axe to grind and if shutting down the debate about any issue allows the current demographic trends to subside (as well as preventing abortions, don't forget, many of these people are concerned that WHITE women are terminating pregnancies while Black women can be forced by the courts to take hormonal forms of birth control that prevent ovulation for a year and do not have data on the long term effects on womens' health), so be it. The people protesting at the Town Hall meetings aren't crazy; but I certainly think they should be watched. What does Skip Gates have to say about this?!

The feminist fight at home and abroad

I never thought it would be possible to talk about Governor Sanford and the Iranian protests in the same breath, but here I go. They are both examples of how sexism adversely impacts our lives, not just the lives of women who live in Islamic countries, but women who live in capitalist, democratic societies as well. Excuse me now if this sounds didactic.

Let me start with Iran. I was blown away when I saw many women protesting the elections in chadors! Given the propaganda about the Middle East disseminated by the United States, you would think this was impossible, unthinkable. Indeed, Iranian women were involved, organizing, and at the front lines of this political movement and have not necessarily backed off. Indeed, they've even taken their licks on the front line by the Revolutionary Guard and the Basij! My hats off to these sisters and let's never again that it's the chador that's oppressive. It's the society we all live in (I'm getting back to the U.S. shortly) that's oppressive. No item of clothing can stifle the voice and desires of any woman!

Now let's return to our Atlantic shores. Recall that during the Bush administration, American women were supposed to take a deep breath because we didn't have to wear chadors and were allowed to go to school. How generous! However, how can we ignore the pay differentials between men and women; how can we ignore the fact that women's pay is permanently handicapped if a woman decides to have a child; how can we ignore the fact that many men (not just Sanford and Ensign, or Jon from Jon and Kate + eight) refuse to "man up" to the responsibilities of raising their kids because of their extracurricular activities - yes, raising children is work and they should do some of it. How can we ignore that many women are paying tons of money to implant breasts that look like everyone else's? How can we ignore that women starve themselves to be sexually attractive? How can we ignore that some women will never have access to the educational and living opportunities they deserve because they come from a non-White socioeconomic background. If this doesn't smack of sexism, I don't know what does.

Ultimately, what a particular fight to eliminate sexism is in a society is situational, dependent on time and place. We cannot afford to look abroad and ignore the sexism we experience in our own borders. Yet we should support and cheer on our sisters in countries near and far as they try to alter their lives so that they can have no limits. The struggles go well beyond what we put on our bodies (although these are symbols of what we might be up against - and putting little on our bodies is just as oppressive as covering them up). Let's not forget the lessons of our Iranian sisters!

Sotomayor, Identity Politics, Legal Realism . . .

I am proud of President Obama's naming Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. I found myself alternatively laughing and crying while watching him make this historical appointment. I must say that she isn't the first woman of color nominated for the highest court - remember Lani Guinier. Unfortunately, the same tirades made against Guinier are being made against Sotomayor. And it is these tirades that this blog entry seeks to address.

1. Identity Politics - This is one phrase that the radical right has turned into an epithet. I think a little historical consideration is needed to appropriately contextualize what is meant by the term and how it is in use by everyone. My understanding of the origin of this term is through the Combahee River Collective, a group of poor/working class Black women, some of them lesbian, who were involved with political causes around Boston concerning poor Black women in the early and mid 1970s. At the time, many Black women were being murdered and there was no police attention to them because the women were assumed to be prostitutes (OK, much could be said about that, but I'll let it go for now). It was issues such as these that fueled their political activism. They wrote "We believe that the most profound and potentially the most radical politics come directly out of our own identity, as opposed to working to end someone else's oppression." (Combahee River Collective Statement) First of all, for once, a group of women of color were going to put themselves at the center of political discourse - they were not going to sacrifice themselves at the feet of someone else's issues. This is a radical statement because sexism requires women not to put their struggles as central - indeed, many women see their daily struggles as something that is their fault. Under a sexist framework, working for the "larger good" is what's best for society, but, as the Combahee River Collective suggests, this is not best for us. Secondly, this statement ultimately means that the range of people who make claims on the state expands and the issues of a much wider population must be contended with. Is this such a bad thing? Do White Males not have an identity (I know, academics debate this ad nauseum and I'm not going into this work)? They've been making their claims (clearly not uniformly as there is much diversity in that population) for years. Are we really still arguing about expanding the political pie? What is really meant by the "Democrats are practicing identity politics" with this appointment? What do conservatives mean? Who would they exclude? If no one, why would this be such a big deal?!

2. Judicial Activism - Here is another epithet hurled around by the right for anyone who finds constitutional justification for civil rights (of anyone, women, gays, people of color) or abortion. However, my question is whether "judicial activism" is really the sole province of the left. Jeffrey Toobin just wrote a piece in the New Yorker about Justice Roberts and his version of judicial activism. There was a column in the Washington Post today about judicial activism and the right. I don't think, in this day and age, we can afford to give the right wing a pass on textualists and originalists not being judicial activists. They have specific policy objectives that they can further through examining the text of the constitution narrowly or claiming that wasn't the original intent of the founders. Do you not think that Roberts' unwillingness to give deference to Congress about the Voting Rights Act is not a piece of judicial activism? It is thought that a decision to be made soon will gut the Act. Do we really think that attempts to dismantle Roe v. Wade would not be judicial activism? We, as lawyers, are taught to respect precedent and that there should be a damned good reason to overturn it. The same thing applies to legislation. We need real intellectual honesty when we evaluate this term and make the right account for what they mean by this. Is judicial activism by those who agree with them the only necessary activism? What does this mean for everyone else who does not narrowly fall into their interests?

3. Identity and the court - Justice Sotomayor stated that she thought as a Latina she could make wiser decisions than White men. I know that there is more to this statement than this, but let's take a deep breath. I think she's right and here's why. As all people who fall outside of the dominant group, she has to be fluent with how they operate in society (let's say the White men in the GOP), and with the people she grew up with and endured daily struggle. She's has a wider viewpoint than many of those on the right to be sure - she understands what it means to be a single mother (yep, it's not as simple as promoting marriage), she knows what it means to be divorced. She knows how people struggle in many ways because of what they look like/sound like, not because of who they are (the heart of the battle of anti-discrimination work). Let's not back away from this. The Supreme Court needs to be able to flexibly handle, within the bounds of the law, the claims of all Americans, not a select few.

4. The GOP Problem - It's on this note I'll end this blog entry. I think, as a fighting strategy, they should go ahead and critique legal realism, critical legal theory, etc. However, in doing so, they should really seek to define terms, explain what is meant, etc., not hurl terms as insults (i.e. socialist, radical, etc.). I think it's time to have a rich discussion about judicial philosophy and legal philosophy. However, to critique Sotomayor's credentials/qualifications/temperment is a personal attack of the Lee Atwater days of the GOP. It is personal attacks that leave the GOP vulnerable to critiques of being racist or sexist, or, both. Stop the name calling, stick to issues, and the GOP may not alienate the young, queer, people of color, and women . . . boy, can that tent get any smaller?

Health Care Reform

Check out this article first: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22155.html

Alright . . . I find Republicans to be completely baffling, but here we go again. I have three simple things to say to/about Luntz's strategy:

1. There, for many Americans, is no doctor/patient relationship to interfere with. No insurance, no doctor. His political approach does not discuss this simple reality. We're talking about a health care crisis in large part because so many people are uninsured. They make too much money for Medicare and too little to afford their own individual/family plans. How would this fix that problem?!

2. The government rations health care in some societies. The MARKET rations health care here. This is why so many people are uninsured. You can't afford it, you don't get it, and so millions of Americans have no health insurance. This also means that so many Americans don't have a doctor/patient relationship to have the government interfere with. Catch my drift - see point 1.

3. The GOP is trying to look new. But they have the same old ridiculous positions that are not in anyway connected with the reality of peoples' lives. Same dog food, different day. They have more than a branding problem. Their anti-intellectual bias means they're devoid of ideas.

'Nuff said!

The Bowling Ball

I just wanted to write a few reflections on my yoga practice. I have practiced Ashtanga yoga since 1993 with varying levels of daily commitment. Ashtanga is a very challenging, vigorous type of yoga with a pre-set sequence of positions that one can do either in a class or on your own. It's also characterized by following the eight niyamas (if I have that correct), including doctrines such as satya (truth) and non-violence (don't ask me the sanskrit word for that). Admittedly, I don't do it so much for the spiritual practice, but for the ability to reduce stress, exercise regularly, and as a means of making sure I sleep through the night.

Many of the people who practice at my studio are nothing short of pretzels and are quite strong. Many of them are also SMALL. I, on the other hand, am one of the largest women who is nowhere near as flexible and probably stronger because I have more body to move around! However, I take to heart the notion of being where you're at and ashtanga is one of the largest challenges I take on in my life - really. That, childrearing, and the damned dissertation (that I should be writing now, but you'll get this for now).

So, there are days where it feels really fluid, fantastic, I feel open, strong, and flexible and my mind is even with it. I focus in each asana (pose) and I'm sure the glory of God shines on me, etc. (I can't tell if I'm being sarcastic here . . . really). Other days, like recently, the mat looks like an enemy, my body resembles a bowling ball . . . heavy and tightly wound, and I'm lucky if I can finish sun salutations. So the question is why do this at all - well savasana of course (corpse pose where you lie on your mat for a long time, I like to do that for 30 minutes at the end of the practice). OK. Savasana is only part of the picture.

I realize that life works this way. Sometimes things flow and you're with it and it feels good and you're powerful and you wonder how it could every be anything different. And then there are those days where bed looks like a better option because you couldn't possibly do better. In my case, I, like so many others, have a 4 year old to drag me out of bed, so I can't engage that option, but then I fantasize about doing it! As a result, I have to take on everything in little bites daily. This is the discipline of yoga. It's not the pose, it's making sure I breath the entire time I do it. The practice gets done one breath at a time, no faster. The dissertation gets written one letter, one word, one sentence, one paragraph, one page at a time, and no faster. I just have to do it every day. It's the tortoise that wins, not the hare.

I've said nothing deep. I know that. It's just a reminder - because I'm having a day where I'd rather be in bed.

Arlen Spector and it's time to step up

I'm thrilled about Spector joining the Democratic party. It does not mean that everything can get done, but now who has to worry about reconciliation to get some major health care reform?!

But there's one wrinkle. We have to seat Al Franken. WE HAVE TO SEAT AL FRANKEN!! The Republicans will appeal this to the Supreme Court and back to prevent us from reaching 60. I think we need a grass roots movement - the people of Minnesota need to tell the Republican party that they want their representative seated with no more delays, starting now!

I hope we can have some party discipline so we can continue to get this country back on the right track. I'm thrilled. 'Nuff said!

Gay Marriage

I have to admit, I'm more ambivalent about this issue than I want to be, and not for the reasons one would think. I'm not convinced that GLBTQ folk are the potential cause of the downfall of Western civilization, etc. That seems hysterical. Lately, I've been reading a book by Amy Dru Stanley, From Bondage to Contract, about the institution of marriage in the late 19th century. It was the 19th century that brought us contracts as we know it - indeed it was the contract that distinguished slavery and freedom. The 19th century brought abolition as well.

However, the situation for women was more complicated. As Black women were freed from slavery, they were told by elites that one thing that would make their lives different (Black men too, but with different implications) was the right to marriage - they could keep home, work in the fields (we need that labor) and allow their persons to be subsumed into their husbands, the doctrine of coverture. That means that your husband would control your money, your time, and your ability to contract. This left many women asking what was the difference between slavery and marriage? Of course, White women entered marriage with the same rules and this institution was critiqued by the first-wave feminist movement.

Today, thank God, we don't have to deal with coverture, etc., but that does not eliminate the possibility of sexism in the institution of marriage. Indeed, women often are employed for pay outside of the home (at rates lower than their male counterparts for the same job) and unpaid for work inside of the home (housekeeping, childcare, cook (for those who have time to cook anymore), and I'll just say, etc.). Indeed, the pressures put on wives these days are tremendous. Lose 5 pounds (you must look good for your husband), do these fantastic sex moves to keep him interested, he still doesn't do anymore of the housekeeping or childcare, and everyone tends to treat the work that women do outside of the home as supplemental still - except for now when most of the layoffs are happening in fields that have been predominantly male.

Which raises the following question for me. As GLBTQ people secure the right to marry, will this pose a radical challenge to marriage? What do I mean? The roles that two people take in a marriage really are based on sexist norms that have existed well before the 19th century. As a community, daily lives would have to be opened up, thought about, and examined to evaluate the extent to which this radical change came about in GLBTQ marriages; making the private, public, the personal, political. Why would this happen? To answer the following questions - Will the community use this as an opportunity to redistribute the work in homes? Will it use this as an opportunity to ensure that all people are fairly paid (the wage differentials become more appalling when complicated by race - yep, if you're not White, you're earning less and if you are a woman of color, even less)? Will it take the opportunity to ensure that there is universal healthcare and childcare for young children so that all of our families can thrive?

This could really be the radical move that seriously restructures society as we know it for everyone. This could be an opportunity for the GLBTQ community to really tackle the intersection of oppressions and take a strong stand against sexism and racism. Ultimately, I think this is really what the far right fears, not what GLBTQ people are doing in bed. However, if the community is pushing marriage as we know it, I'm not interested. Sexism is painful enough as it is. I'm not interested in having more people reinforce it.

Archaeology Conference

Last week I was honored to deliver a paper on the Accompong Maroons and the use of site in history at an archaeology conference. I do want to make a few comments about the conference. First, I have to say that I did not think that working on Maroons would be controversial. Participants asked me questions that were not related to what I spoke on, but included topics such as what do the Accompong think about the Trelawney Maroons and how to they account for their failure to back the Trelawney Maroons during the Second Maroon Wars. Generally, antipathy about the Maroons centers on their squelching of the Morant Bay Rebellion. This is certainly a different line of critique and it makes me wonder what else will happen if I publish my dissertation.

The other set of comments concerned an audience member's thoughts on Jamaica's National Heroes. She was a White Jamaican and argued that she could not figure out the criteria for vetting the country's national heroes. The heroes are Grandy Nanny of the Maroons, Samuel Sharpe who led the Christmas Rebellion in 1832, Paul Bogle who led the Morant Bay Rebellion, Marcus Garvey ('nuff said), Norman Manley, and perhaps Bob Marley. She was concerned that the heroes selected were violent and that school children could not state why they were heroes. Besides, she quipped, none of them are women.

I think there is one issue that needs to be addressed, that heroes are often unseen and unsung. So, what's interesting about the Morant Bay Rebellion, for example, is that women were very prominent in planning and executing it, but we don't know their names and their roles. They are hard to make heroes under those circumstances. Paul Bogle gets much of the credit, but he has many heroes amongst him. However, ain't Grandy Nanny a woman? She was the amazing military leader of the Maroons who won their freedom from slavery in 1738 and 1739. This might not have been doable without her!

Also, I would like to speak to the issue of violence associated with these heroes. Each one of them took violent action in the face of oppression none of us can imagine in this day or age. They resisted enslavement, they resisted their lack of input and political and economic participation in the period immediately following slavery, they started a new nation. We must contextualize the violence, not denounce it out of hand. Slavery was a violent institution which begot violence. The period in post-emancipation Jamaica also enjoyed its share of violence which also begot violence in response. To denounce the national heroes for violence does not make sense in this context.

But I am not a White Jamaican. However, she lives in a society amongst Black Jamaicans that are beneficiaries from the fights taken on by Nanny, Bogle, Sharpe, etc.

Let's talk about this Socialism business - among other things

Ever since the campaign for the presidency, Republicans have been hurtling the socialism label around with reckless abandon. So let's break this down. And let's really not run away from the label.

First of all, because it seems to me that the right always needs an enemy, they quickly label people and positions with the most incendiary labels so we don't even think about the CONTENT of the positions being moved. I think our country is in too perilous a condition to be frightened by labels.

With that said, let's start with socialism and end with their other favorite bogeyman - homosexuals. Socialism. Am I supposed to go running and take cover with images of the Russian Revolution of 1919? I suppose I'm supposed to weep and wail with the prospect of losing my religion and losing the ability to be the top 1% of people keeping all of the wealth while others live in tent cities? Let's get something straight. After the unbridled capitalism present in the U.S. before the Great Depression, thank God for those "socialist" trends of creating a social safety net. Thank God for Social Security, Food Stamps, and protections for labor to organize. Because I'm not interested in having a bunch of old people who can't take care of themselves thrown out on the street because they can't even afford food; hungry people in general; and having wages moving towards a race to the bottom. Actually, this reminds me that I wish there was a stronger international labor movement so that we can no longer hold out workers in China or India as cheaper so we don't get jobs. They don't deserve to be paid so little, especially given the profits made from their labor. If this makes me a socialist, sue me!

Finally, let's discuss the other bogeyman, "homosexuals". Homosexuals are credited with everything from hampering other people's civil rights to creating the downfall of American society (let's not forget the cause of 9/11). If we are going to make real strides for women in the United States, and don't think that men won't be beneficiaries, we can't allow the alleged "threat" of gay marriage to get in the way. What is the right really afraid of - that women will stop saying "yeah I'll cook your dinner, raise your kids, and clean up after you." Perhaps women should. Then men would have to take real responsibility for themselves.

Ultimately, socialists and homosexuals are used to keep real progress from happening in the U.S. I'd prefer progress - non-legally sanctioned discrimination on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, etc. [remember that the Lilly Ledbetter Act just passed this year; a real social safety neck so that we can all heave a sigh of relief until this economy gets its legs back, and a kinder, gentler nation. We could start the kinder, gentler part of this vision with ending the scapegoating of queers and socialists . . .

Black Women in the Radical Tradition Conference

I was fortunate to attend the Black Women in the Radical Tradition conference here in New York yesterday. And it's not just because my heart flutters every time I see Angela Davis. I have to say she's as brilliant as she ever was and wanted to convene it because she wants to pull anonymous Black women who have been committed to progressive causes out of anonymity, both in the U.S. and all over the world. Kudos to her!

I heard a wonderful presentation about Catholic Nuns organizing other Black sisters to provide education and a radical perspective on race to Black Catholics in their communities. This was a challenge because the South didn't support this work and the Vatican was less than warm to the idea themselves.

I learned about women such as Flo Kennedy who had a commitment not only to Black liberation, but also to the Women's Liberation movement. The scholar who presented on her pointed out that radical feminism began as a nexus of women's rights, Black liberation, and ooooooh, I forget what, but I was certainly thrilled to learn about this.

I also heard a presentation concerning home care workers here in New York City and the organizing they did before SEIU stepped in. It's amazing how the city government and the private agencies bounced them about in order not to bargain a contract! Yet, they continued on and they have been organized here for about 20 years.

Speakers were upfront about both being ecstatic about the change in the U.S. that electing Barack Obama represented; yet, questioning how we can move things further to a radical tradition and completely change what is going on in the U.S. It was refreshing to hear people say, outright, that capitalism is failing. I think that we see that with the banking crisis etc. We all need to think about what that means. Can we really continue societies based on a motive on unending greed and much for few?

Ultimately, I feel that it confirms my hopes for my own work - history from below and moving beyond, in all places and times, the regular titular heads. Many, particularly women, women of color, work hard to bring about important changes in their societies and hopefully many forums like this will be held to laud their work. Bravo Angela and Thank you!!

The recession, Women, and the job market

First, check out this link . . . http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/business/06women.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper

This raised three clear issues for me - (1) the article clearly states that women are now forced to work from their homes given the state of the economy; (2) that men are not assuming more of the DAILY WORK it needs to keep a household going although they do not have a job; and (3) that the pay gap is still real.

I have to say that I get seriously irritated when we use statistics about White women and portray that to be the state of women all of the time. Admittedly, I haven't done much research in American history, but I do know this - that Black women often took up doing the laundry or cooking for other people because they were jobs they could do in their homes. Why did they do this? Because they could have their children near them as they worked and to avoid sexual harassment. Even though slavery had ended (and I'm talking well into the 20th century . . . to this very day), Black women were often sexually harassed by "the man of the house" and they would then catch flack from the "lady of the house" for sexual advances they did not seek out. So to deal with this, Black women stopped doing work as domestics in other peoples' homes and would take in the laundry or do cooking for others. I suppose White women can join the rest of us then.

Secondly, how ridiculous is it that when women are unemployed, we have to look for our jobs and make sure everyone has their emotional and physical needs met. I do see this as an opportunity to move something about sexism here. Honestly, looking for a job is not necessarily an eight hour affair. Men need to take on these domestic responsibilities, particularly if women are the ones who are taking home the bacon. Perhaps they could learn to fry it up in the pan. How about making sure the kids needs are met after school? How about making sure that everything is nice, neat, and clean by the time their spouses are finished with their workday. Perhaps NOW we will understand that working at home is work.

Finally, the pay gap. The statistics on U.S. educational achivement grow dimmer and dimmer everyday. Yet, this is a field that is predominantly female and is desperately underpaid. While we're trying to provide economic stimulus, perhaps now is the time to seriously boost the pay for important fields such as teachers. There would be far more medical mistakes if NURSES, who are predominantly female, did not pick up the slack for the male doctors they work with. How about a major pay adjustment for those women? How about putting more money in nursing schools so that we have more direct health care providers for an aging, more sickly population.

I would like to see not only the economy stimulated, but sexism stimulated out of our social and economic structure.

The Stimulus

I have to say I admire President Obama. He has stunning political skills. I am not surprised, just in awe. So while he has to make nice with Republicans, I can offer this critique of our dear Republican party.

Now that our country is a wreck and is falling off of the economic cliff, the Republicans want to critique government spending and tax cuts. None of this is new, but from where have these new balls been found? Where were they when President Bush invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11? Where were they when these supplemental budgets for massive amounts of money with absolutely no information detailing what for, in the name of national security, were being passed? Did they have any questions about the effect of tax cuts and how it actually cut revenue to the federal government while we were fighting two wars? Nowhere. Nowhere to be seen or heard. So now we have to spend like the wind to get people employed again, ironically, to collect further tax income needed desperately for the government to continue to function.

Tax cuts? Are they serious? Weren't tax cuts responsible for making sure we are in this deficit in the first place? If I recall correctly, it was President Clinton (remember, way back when) who put the country back in a budget surplus? Remember that it was Republicans who gave that surplus money away in tax cuts and then started spending more than they took in because of a war that had nothing to do with the attack on this country? If I recall correctly, while the wealthy were getting tax cuts, none of this trickled down to anyone else because pay was stagnant and working poor and poor people actually had to take multiple jobs to make ends meet. And we want to prescribe TAX CUTS for the solution to this problem? Where have they been for the past eight years?

I honestly think that Michael Steele and the rest of his brigands need to really rethink their orthodoxies. It makes no sense to have them if they do not correspond to what the country needs. Frankly, I would be willing to pay much more in taxes if I could have non-employer dependent health insurance, decent schooling for my son, and a security net so that if I lose my job in May, I would be alright. They can take their tax cuts and stuff it for all I care.

But then again, it's not my political life on the line.

It's a little early for Christmas 2009 greetings, but

I am DYING to know what the Obama holiday card will say. Granted, much could happen in this year, but let me give it a try:

Barack, Malia, Sasha and I wish you all Happy Holidays, be it Winter Solstice, Ramadan, Channukah, Christmas, and the New Year. We've certainly had a busy year. As you may have heard, we moved from Chicago to Washington, D.C. We are enjoying our new digs. I have to say it's much easier to handle with the staff.

There was a little party for the start of Barack's new job. The girls hosted Miley Sirus and the Jonas Brothers for themselves and a few others of their age. A few people came to witness his taking of the oath. OK, possibly a couple of million. Clearly, this wasn't going to be an indoor ceremony and it was frigid out, but there's nothing like starting a new job with a few good friends! In the event that we even briefly missed Chicago, it is clear that we brought the weather with us.

Joe and Jill have been invaluable to helping our transition here, even after Jill blabbed to Oprah about Joe's choice for VP or Secretary of State in the new administration. Watch out when the Biden's get excited!

Barack is exhausted and hoping for a couple of days off around Christmas. I have to say that it's really challenging for him to work from home because the job is always there. I have enjoyed working on behalf of military families and seeing to the girls' transition to their new school and city. I have to say that they've handled this in stride. Of course the new dog is a big hit with them. I even think that they understand the level of responsibility they have to take for it. I also must confess that it's about time Barack has brought in an income higher than mine!

We wish you the best for the new year!

With much love,

The Obama family

Inauguration - Underreported

I was fortunate enough to drag my son and partner to Washington, D.C. to witness the inauguration of Barack Obama. I must say that I still have to pinch myself when I hear President Obama. I still have to wonder why he wanted this job at this time. I must admit that I can't think of a single other person who would be better at this job at this time.

However, I do want to clarify a couple of things that seem to have been underreported in the press. The first was the ENORMOUS number of Black people who attended the inauguration. We know that Washington, D.C. has the reputation of being Chocolate City because of its large Black population (and I certainly was one of them for many years). However, outside of being in Jamaica, I have to say that in the United States, I have NEVER seen so many Black people in one place in my life. Really. There were definitely people of other races, but overwhelmingly, the crowd was Black.

Secondly, the crowd booed, very loudly to boot, whenever the images of either of the former Bush presidents and Dick Cheney appeared on the jumbotron. There is no doubt that many American people were ready for the Bush era to end. It wasn't a mere rumble. It was loud and clear.

Finally, I LOVED Aretha Franklin's hat. It rocked! And with that, know that I'm still smoking on the bong of hope!