OPINIONS OF ECHIDNE OF THE SNAKES, A MINOR GREEK GODDESS. She can be reached at: ECHIDNE-OF-THE-SNAKES.COM

Saturday, February 28, 2009

When Men Are “Men” Someone Needs To Get Killed? by Anthony McCarthy 

Around the new year, Suzie and I posted pieces about the male mystique and nostalgia for the time when men were men and women were their support staff, at best.

This op-ed from this morning’s paper started out having me wondering if Jay Atkinson had been cribbing from us but it didn’t take long to be assured that he wasn’t.

IN ITS PUERILE, lowest-common-denominator way, Hollywood has always reflected society. The movies "Taken," starring Liam Neeson as Bryan Mills, a retired CIA operative, and "The Wrestler," with Mickey Rourke as an aging grappler whose life and career have reached terminal velocity, share in their depictions of the Alpha Male* separated from his kin by the vicissitudes of the warrior profession.

Atkinson goes through the two movies concentrating on the main characters macho conduct.

In "Taken," Neeson's Mills pursues the mobsters who have kidnapped his 17-year-old daughter. Midway through, Mills accuses a former colleague of skimming money from the bad guys, asking the man why he'd do such a thing. I have to take care of my family, says the sleazy agent.

Mills notes that he's doing the same thing, and then shoots the man's wife to clarify his point. "It's only a flesh wound," he says.

Real men shoot women to punctuate an argument? And this is supposed to be, what? A model of behavior?

The Ram's [Mickey Rourke’s] situation is trickier, and sadder. It was his job to make a spectacle of himself and now, tired, arthritic, with the sagging muscles of an old circus bear, he wants his little girl to take care of him. But she won't, so the Ram starts training for another bout. He's a man who gave the world nothing, and has nothing left to give.

At this point I still expected Atkinson to break into the largely unexplored territory to talk about how macho men have always required women to act as their servants. The ultra-macho, field and stream equivalent of office mommies. Mommies they had sex with at the end of the day or between assignments. But no.

These days, it's no longer fashionable to be a man - to inhabit one's masculinity as previous generations have done. Compare baseball star Alex Rodriquez, under scrutiny for using steroids, with Red Sox great Ted Williams, who sacrificed the prime of his career to serve as a Marine aviator. (Williams flew 39 combat missions in Korea and crash-landed after taking small-arms fire.) Williams's baseball statistics, including a lifetime batting average of .344, compare favorably with A-Rod's. And in this age of the pseudo-man, it's hard to imagine Rodriquez visiting the troops in Iraq, let alone volunteering to serve there.

Interestingly, departing from his theme, Atkinson doesn’t seem to remember that there were better examples of celluloid warriors, exemplars of the warrior mystique who studiously got no closer to battle than shaking hands with their stunt double. And as the John Waynes and Ronald Reagans were doing that, there were others in the movies who, though having seen actual combat, didn’t choose to become ads for the Military-Industrial Complex.

CIA agent Bryan Mills and pro wrestler Randy the Ram worked long hours, far from home; as "real" men, their wives and children expected them to be intrepid, warlike, and venturesome.

This sentence strikes me as being deeply weird. Is there really a part of the psycho-CIA agent and the pro-wrestler of the “Ram” variety that is motivated primarily by the heroic idol they think their wives and kids see in them? Somehow, I tend to doubt that’s their primary motive, though it might be a wishful afterthought. I think it’s probably more realistic to suspect that the macho image has always been deeply narcissistic, motivated by an overgrown ego that adults outgrow. The glorious, heroic image that they want to see in the eyes of their wives and children is of themselves, after all.

Atkinson’s use of the baseball players is inappropriate for a deeper reason as well. Though I’m not a baseball fan, being from New England, I learned a lot about Ted Williams and his youngest son’s tragic stories. I think investigating the son’s sadly bizarre inability to break free from the heroic myth of his father and his inability to live up to it might shed a lot of light on that kind of heroism. That’s not to take anything from Ted William’s service during the Second World War, but that wasn’t what primarily defined his mythic image. And while he was a hero, he was also a rather unattractive person too.

Getting back to Atkinson:

Today, the American warrior is an anachronism - witness how we outsource some of the fighting in the Middle East to companies like Blackwater, then turn their operatives into pariahs when they come home with blood on their hands. In yesteryear, suburban dads taught their sons how to kick a football, or pitch horseshoes. Nowadays, they hire private coaches and personal trainers, then stand aside for these professionals. Meanwhile, soldiers and airmen in nondescript Virginia office parks kill aspiring insurgents half a world away, via predator drones.

This mess of a paragraph requires a longer commentary.

Notice two things, how the mercenaries of Blackwater who have done so much to deserve their status as pariahs, are equated with someone like Williams who volunteered to be a combatant in a provked war. And that Atkinson wants us to sympathize with the mercenaries who have “blood on their hands”. There is a fundamental contradiction in the “warrior” image, of someone who is honored for doing something awful, killing.

Atkinson, like most people, don’t differentiate in why the killing was done. America’s involvement in the Second World War was due to an attack made on our country and to defeat the allied fascist-Nazi forces who were set on conquest and imposing a brutal regime of continual war on the world. Iraq was an unprovoked war based in lies and with the clear goal of controlling the oil resources of the country. There is a world of difference in the two wars and the motives of a volunteer and a mercenary in either one. The blood on the hands of those who fought Imperial Japan in the 1940s and those who contracted to protect the Imperial administrators of the conquered Iraq isn’t the same. While it is impossible to describe every single act in the two wars and come to a black and white distinction, ignoring the reasons that produced the wars, the motives of the “warriors” and the victims of the violence they committed and other aspects of it, produces nothing but a tidy lie of convenience. That, thanks to science, some of the thugs can do it from a desk, out of harms way, doesn’t sanctify the thuggery of those who lack the technical skills required to use predator drones.

Warriors have only one possibly legitimate role, that is to protect a society from an unprovoked, outside attack. It isn’t to provide fantasy heroics for desk jockeys and the entertainment industry. That kind of dirty work is a world removed from truly filthy work of imperial conquest and rule. Mercenaries are highly paid thugs. In a democracy it’s the role of the warrior to re-enter civilian society. It isn’t to act as an advertisement and bulwark of an imperial system. It is right that a those required to repel that kind of attack are respected and compensated for their service. Parades and the phony honors substituted are both the cheap way out and a danger to a civilian democracy.

By the time Atkinson gets back to making the absurdly tenuous link between homicidal mercenaries and suburban dads who leave their SONS’ training in vicarious combat to professional coaches, it has veered into the totally surreal.

Considering how he began with the Ram’s desire to have his estranged DAUGHTER take care of him, you would think that the dad’s failures re co-ed activities would be more relevant. Though the absence of the daughter in this passage is revealing, isn’t it.

Here is how Atkinson finishes his wild ride into nostalgia.

There are a few holdouts. Recently I met an out-of-work carpenter in Fitzwilliam, N.H.; because of the poor economy, he and his ex-wife and three children continue to share their modest, two-bedroom home. To give everyone a break, the carpenter, an avid hunter, goes out and sits in the woods until dark; he's killed two deer that way, dressing them out on the back porch so his kids could see how it's done.

Just can’t get away from killing as the real determinant of manhood, can he.

Any single dad will tell you that family court punishes those men who persist in doing what men were once mandated to do: range wide in hunting, bringing back the kill at irregular intervals, adorned with its blood. In today's world, you must produce the trophy without being the one who kills it. In Hollywood, anyway, the only acceptable role is man-by-proxy: You must get someone else to do your dirty work, or risk losing everything.

So, this is the goal of the piece? The typical “Men’s rights” whine that they can’t get away with trying to live out the fantasies of Walter Mitty when they’ve fathered children? That their play warrior lives don’t tend to jibe with responsible parenting? And that the courts sometimes make them pay up? No, it’s not a matter of getting someone else to do “your dirty work”, it’s to grow up because someone has to take care of the children you’ve produced.

I’m sorry if this piece is all over the place but the habit of simplifying and conflating so many aspects of the masculine mystique is deeply embedded and the destructive results are a major problem for us all. Masculinity is a mess, you can’t deconstruct it without getting your hands dirty.

* Can’t help but noticing this bit of ethological clap trap, adopting the language of assumptions made about animal behavior for our society. It really isn’t very useful when trying to change things for the better, is it.
|

Saturday Kitties 



Emma (on the pedestal) and Pippin posing for your enjoyment. Courtesy of FeraLiberal:




|

Friday, February 27, 2009

HaloScan Is Down 



The comments have not worked for a few hours now (you may be able to read but not add to them). The problem is with HaloScan and not with this blog, though I have written a letter to the folks at HaloScan. Sorry about that.
----

UPDATE: According to Haloscan, users can now read comments but not write them or edit them. It will take up to 24 hours to get those facilities back.

|

Friday butterfly blogging (by Suzie) 

This is another one from the Butterfly Rainforest. Can anyone identify it? ('Cause I've gone through pages of pictures and I give up.)
|

A white woman of color (by Suzie) 



          I’m talking about one of my sisters, and I don’t mean that in some sort of all-women-are-my-sisters way.
         Our white parents adopted her a few hours after her birth. We heard that her birth mother was a blue-eyed blonde, but we know nothing about her biological father. Because my sister has a café-au-lait complexion and dark curly hair, people speculate on her background. She finds it rude. Why should she have to detail her family history for strangers?
         When she lived in a smaller town, she could tell people that her family was Jewish, and that seemed to satisfy them. Many of them had never known a Jew before, and our Jewish father did have tanned skin and curly black hair.
          Now she lives in a city with a large Mexican-American population, and people often assume she's Hispanic. She thinks it’s likely that her biological father was Hispanic. On official forms, she checks off white, the race listed on her birth certificate, but informally, she has come to consider herself a person of color.
          As I’ve mentioned before, the U.S. Census and other government institutions consider Hispanic, Latino, Chicano, etc., to be an ethnicity, not a race. There are a number of people who see themselves as both white and Hispanic or black and Latino or other combinations. (You may want to read the comments on the previous post.)
         The Census doesn’t recognize Arabs as a separate race although they were once grouped with Jews as Semitic people. (Of course, liberals don’t view Jews as a separate race, although some others do, most notably white supremacists.)
         But the term “people of color” is commonly applied to Hispanics and Arabs. Thus, my sister is not the only one who thinks of herself, at different times perhaps, as both white and a person of color. There are other people who were adopted who can only guess at their ethnic background. I’ve written about my mother, who heard that her biological father was American Indian but knew few details.
         No one knows her complete genetic ancestry. People who trace their genealogy can go back only so far, and even then, the official record is no proof of biology. 
         No matter how my sister identifies, some people will view her as a person of color, while people often saw the Irish in my mother, because she had red hair and green eyes, but not the Native American.
       These perceptions influence the identity that some choose for themselves. A biracial person like Obama may call himself black because he knows that he will be seen that way. Others of us choose our ethnic identity based on what we know about our ancestry. Thus, a biracial person who appears white may still identify as black. If the same person identified as white, she could expect grief from all sides for trying to deny her heritage.
"Person of color" is a synonym for "non-white" only in the sense of racial classification, not actual color. An albino can be a person of color, depending on his parentage.
         Nor is it the same as "minority," because there are other ethnic minorities in the United States, such as immigrants from Eastern Europe, who are white but face discrimination.
          Just as white feminists have been criticized for speaking of “women” without considering all the world’s women, those who refer to “people of color” must remember that there are many (millions of?) people of color around the world who have never heard the term and who don’t think of themselves in solidarity with everyone else of color. 
          Geoffrey K. Pullum writes:
[I]t seems like an unwholesome capitulation to the old apartheid idea that there really is some meaningful division between people who are white and people who are not — it seems to presuppose and endorse the stupid idea that there really is some way of determining whether some random Armenian or Azerbaijani or Albanian or Afghan or Argentinian or Ainu or part-Aboriginal Australian is or is not a legitimate claimant to the label "person of color".
          Despite all this, I sometimes use the term “people of color” because I try to call people by the labels they choose. But I hope the day comes when we can talk about culture and ethnicity without putting people into the false categories of race.
------------
         My thanks to the reader known as "dude" for our long conversation on these issues.
|

Thursday, February 26, 2009

Thursday's Echidne Musings 






Do I repeat myself too much? What do you do when you think you have said everything you want to say but doubt that it stuck? Repeat it again and again? Heh.

This ties to something else I have been thinking, which is the role of individual feminist blogs. The blogs seem to have grown an almost-natural division of labor so that some bloggers focus on news about women, some on reproductive issues or women-and-sex or women-and-religion or on questions of race-and-gender etc., and sometimes I think I should fill in one of the gaps that still exist in the feminist blogosphere. One of those gaps is the lack of a good expert blog on the way women are viewed in academic research and its popularizations, and I, for one, would read such a blog. Not so sure about writing it, though, given that I'm not an expert. Which means that I'm going to start asking for experts to volunteer. You could even write for this here blog.

There's also a need for blogs which provide support and validation, as well as blogs which just analyze issues critically and let the comments be argumentative. Right now this blog is mostly in the latter camp. Should it stay there?

I'm always in the winter of my discontent, being a goddess of gloom, sigh. It's sorta enjoyable if you are melancholic by nature. But I'm serious about always wanting to do better and to have more and more conversations with you, my erudite and sweet readers.

|

On Aspirin, Booze, Women and Men 



Remember when those studies first came out which recommended taking small amounts of aspirin to prevent heart attacks? The early studies were all done on men but the results were usually generalized to apply to everybody though some reports did note that the studies had not actually looked at women.

Fast forward to today and the new study about alcohol and women. Here's how its findings are explained:

For years, many women have been buoyed by the news about one of life's guilty pleasures: That nightly glass of wine may not only take the edge off a day but also improve their health. Now it turns out that sipping pinot noir might not be such a good idea after all.

A new study involving nearly 1.3 million middle-aged British women -- the largest ever to examine alcohol and cancer in women -- found that just one glass of chardonnay, a single beer or any other type of alcoholic drink per day increases the risk of a variety of cancers.

...

"No one study is ever sufficient to make a recommendation," said Linda Van Horn, a professor of preventive medicine at Northwestern University who is chairing the committee revising the guidelines. "But it will be added to the body of literature that will be reviewed."

In the meantime, several experts said women should consult with their doctors about whether they should drink.

Perhaps we have now learned not to generalize studies beyond their subject group? But I think we also regard studies about men as applying to humans and studies about women as applying to women. Hence this study is not seen as giving men any kinds of warnings about alcohol.

Indeed, I spot something rather different in those opening lines I quote above, something which suggests that alcohol is not a general health question but one only for women, and the picture the Washington Post chose to go with the article reinforces that idea. This could be because I'm a feminazi, always seeing nastiness behind perfectly innocent health commentaries. But somehow I get the 'gotcha' feeling from those first sentences.

|

And Etna Erupts 



Paul Krugman has a very useful lesson of Econ 101 on his blog about Bobby Jindal's jeering at volcano monitoring:

Traditionally, the division between conservatives and liberals has been over the role and size of the welfare state: liberals think that the government should play a large role in sanding off the market economy's rough edges, conservatives believe that time and chance happen to us all, and that's that.

But both sides, I thought, agreed that the government should provide public goods — goods that are nonrival (they benefit everyone) and nonexcludable (there's no way to restrict the benefits to people who pay.) The classic examples are things like lighthouses and national defense, but there are many others. For example, knowing when a volcano is likely to erupt can save many lives; but there's no private incentive to spend money on monitoring, since even people who didn't contribute to maintaining the monitoring system can still benefit from the warning. So that's the sort of activity that should be undertaken by government.

So what did Bobby Jindal choose to ridicule in this response to Obama last night? Volcano monitoring, of course.

Volcano monitoring is called a public good (whether impure or pure) because private for-profit firms can't elicit enough voluntary payments for it to provide the service to the degree that people really would want it provided. The problem is not that people don't want the service (if they live near volcanoes) but that everyone can figure out that the service can be obtained without paying for it (think of the old-fashioned lighthouse services). So the logical thing is not to pay for it and get the service anyway, except that everyone might have the same logical response and thus the service would not be provided at all. (Do you see some similarities to the troubles the music business is suffering right now? Internet technology is giving it some aspects of a public good (the difficulty of excluding those who don't pay) and the outcome could be less music in the long run.)

Why does the public sector do any better in the provision of public goods? The answer is an unpleasant one: It has the power to tax people.

Was that too boring for you? I also liked the Eschaton commenter who argued against volcano monitoring and signed the comment: Bobulus Jindalus, R-Pompeii.

|

Fun With Statistics 



I was reading this article yesterday:

The percentage of American households with children under 18 living at home last year hit the lowest point — 46% — in half a century, government data reported Wednesday.

The trend reflects the aging of the Baby Boom generation and younger women having fewer children, demographers say.

The article does point out that earlier percentages rose because of the same Baby Boom generation. When large age groups have children you get lots of them. When smaller age groups have children you get less of them. I'm not sure what the impact of more older people living alone might be on all this might be. It would raise the total number of households without raising the numbers of those with children, for one thing. Come to think of it, divorce does that, too.

Note that the cause is seen partly as "younger women having fewer children." Not "younger families", say. I know that the terminology has its reasons, but I'm irritated when I read that women have too many children in India and too few in Italy. Those dratted women! They never get it quite right, while men never make such mistakes, except for getting older when they, too, can be blamed for everything.

Anyway, that wasn't the fun I intended to have with statistics. It's this part of the article:

In 2008, about 35.7 million families (46%) had children under 18 at home, the Census figures show, down from 52% in 1950. The percentage peaked in 1963, when about 57% of families had children under 18 at home.

...

The data also show:

•About 5.3 million "stay-at-home" mothers and 140,000 such fathers.

If you put together those numbers of households with children under eighteen and stay-at-home parents you get a ratio of seven to one. Around fourteen percent of all families with children have a stay-at-home parent (SAHP). This is worth pointing out, because the popular culture and much of our public conversations pretty much assume the traditional pattern, and an alien from outer space would certainly conclude that it's the predominant child-rearing arrangement in this country.

If the data was more detailed we'd probably find that most of the families with a SAHP have very young children and that once the children are at school both parents work again. I'm not sure if the culture truly has taken this into account. It seems that the local schools here, for example, expect parents (read: mothers) to be available during daytime hours for all sorts of unpaid chores.

Those data also tell us that about 3% of SAHPs are fathers. Until that grows to a much higher percentage we will not see any general policies to help SAHPs to get better retirement benefits or help when wanting to return to the labor force. That's what I think.

|

A dog for the White House (by Suzie) 

        The Obamas have been looking for a dog that would be less likely to cause allergies. Michelle says she wants a Portuguese water dog. Barack has said he's considering that breed or a Labradoodle, a mix of a Labrador retriever and a poodle.
        Both dogs have coats similar to the hypoallergenic poodle, without the French connection and the association with the effete. 
        In a previous interview, Barack said he wanted a "big, rambunctious dog," not a small "girly" lap dog.
        The Obamas say they will get a rescued dog. I checked Petfinder, which turned up only two Portuguese water dogs in the country available for adoption. Both are mixes. At right is Bear, a mix with a Lab. What a great compromise! He's described as house-trained, very obedient and laid-back. 
      Although I know that all rescues do not use Petfinder, it does appear that there aren't a whole lot of Portuguese water dogs out there. The Obamas should understand that they will help popularize any breed they choose, and the breeders will crank up their operations. A mix would send a great signal. 
|

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Now No Napolitano 



Janet Napolitano used to be the Democratic governor of Arizona. She vetoed quite a few bills aimed at decreasing women's reproductive rights. Now that she has moved on, Arizona politicians didn't wait very long to get all that anti-abortion bidness done:

Hoping a new governor means a different result, abortion foes have combined three separate — and previously vetoed — abortion measures into a single bill.
HB 2564 would:
• Require women to wait for 24 hours before terminating a pregnancy.
• Allow health professionals, hospitals and pharmacists to refuse to perform abortions or provide "morning after" pills or even to "facilitate" a woman getting access to either.
• Specify what factors a judge may consider in determining if a minor is mature enough to have an abortion without first getting parental consent.

Here's HB 2564. Notice that the proposal uses the term 'unborn baby.' This proposal most likely will become law under the new Republican governor.

|

Nobody Loves Me Like Limbaugh 



Limbaugh's being silly after finding out that women don't like him that much:

Now, from Limbaugh's website re: the gender gap found by PPP:

"The gender gap is one of the largest [Public Policy Polling] has seen on any issue it's polled in the last year, with [Rush] Limbaugh having a +19 (56/37) net favorability among men, but a -12 (37/49) with women." I have a 37% approval with women, 49% disapproval. "Thirty-one-point point gender gaps don't come along all that often." Now, ladies and gentlemen, this is an opportunity here, because this takes us to the age-old question: What do women want? Not even Freud was ultimately able to answer the question. Women generally, for the most part, can't answer it, either. But it has never stopped people from asking the question: What do women want? Given this massive gender gap in my personal approval numbers, a 31-point gender gap, it seems reasonable for me to convene a summit.

How:

We'll have a summit of all the women in this audience — or as many of them as we can get into breakout groups — and perhaps devote an hour in an upcoming program to calls only from women who genuinely want to talk to me. They can be liberal, conservative. They could be non-audience members, could be audience members. But I want some of these women to start telling me what it is I must do to close the gender gap — or, if not what it is I must do to close the gender gap, what it is I've done that has caused the gender gap; assuming the gender gap is true and that the poll is true.

He really is a slimy monster from some small puddle of gasoline. That's why women don't like him.

Also because of comments like these:

Limbaugh's views on women are crystallized in this 'Rushbite':

One of my fabulous routines concerns a San Francisco men's club which lost its battle to exclude women from membership. The courts ruled that they had to admit women on the basis that businesswomen were being unfairly denied opportunities to do business. This is specious. How much business did women think they were going to get as a result of forcing their way in?
Anyway, after one year, the female members demanded their own exercise room. They were probably tired of being ogled by a bunch of slobbering men while they pumped iron in leotards and spandex. The men offered to install the first three exercise machines in the women's new workout room. The ladies were thrilled. When they arrived on that first exciting day they found, to their stunned amazement, a washing machine, an ironing board, and a vacuum cleaner. Heh, heh, heh. (The Way Things Ought To Be, p.142-45 Jul 2, 1992)

And comments like these:

As Media Matters has documented, Limbaugh recently referred to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) as sounding like a "screeching ex-wife." On the February 21 broadcast of his show, Limbaugh said that Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter is "a girl" and claimed that Jack Carter, son of former President Jimmy Carter, "has been castrated by the feminization of this culture."

Or comments like these:

From the November 30 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: My cat -- here's how you can get fooled. My cat comes to me when she wants to be fed. I have learned this. I accept it for what it is. Many people in my position would think my cat's coming to me because she loves me. Well, she likes me, and she is attached, but she comes to me when she wants to be fed. And after I feed her -- guess what -- she's off to wherever she wants to be in the house, until the next time she gets hungry. She's smart enough to know she can't feed herself. She's actually a very smart cat. She gets loved. She gets adoration. She gets petted. She gets fed. And she doesn't have to do anything for it, which is why I say this cat's taught me more about women, than anything my whole life. But we put voices in their mouths.

Or comments like these:

So the question is this: Will this country want to actually watch a woman get older before their eyes on a daily basis?

Or comments like these:

We know -- we've been told that Elizabeth Edwards is smarter than John Edwards. That's part of the puff pieces on them that we've seen. Ergo, if Elizabeth Edwards is smarter than John Edwards, is it likely that she thinks she knows better than he does what his speeches ought to contain and what kind of things he ought to be doing strategy-wise in the campaign? If she is smarter than he is, could it have been her decision to keep going with the campaign? In other words, could it be that she doesn't shut up? Now, that's as far as I'm going to go.

Well, you're -- Snerdley says he's missing something. If you're missing it, you're going to have to provide it. What are you missing? Mm-hmm, mm-hmm.

I can't close the loop on it. I can't close the loop on it. I'm on -- you know, I'm in a little quicksand already today talking about how the chicks are giving us boring pictures of the female athletes from the Olympics. Because I know -- you -- the diversity crowd's going to be upset. They're going to -- "Ooh, do you mean the Olympics are just so you guys can ogle wom--" Yes, because we do not care to watch 'em compete. But back to Elizabeth and the Breck Girl.

I'm sorry, my friends, I just -- I can't. It just seems to me that Edwards might be attracted to a woman whose mouth did something other than talk.


Mmm. I have 97 posts on this here blog which mention Rush Limbaugh and only one of those shows him giving a pretense-feminist statement. And of course Rush is a joke. But this joke called Rush is taken quite seriously by many, many observers, most of them with testicles.
|

Promiscuity 






Atrios linked to a story about a Colorado politician and his views on sexual promiscuity:

Democrats were outraged Wednesday morning when Republican state Sen. Dave Schultheis said he planned to vote against a bill to require HIV tests for pregnant women because the disease "stems from sexual promiscuity" and he didn't think the Legislature should "remove the negative consequences that take place from poor behavior and unacceptable behavior." The Colorado Springs lawmaker then proceeded to cast the lone vote against SB-179, which passed 32-1 and moves on to the House.

Schultheis is clearly unimportant in the wider scale of things. But his views on 'the negative consequences from poor behavior' are fascinating. Here's more, from his own mouth:

Sexual promiscuity, we know, causes a lot of problems in our state, one of which, obviously, is the contraction of HIV. And we have other programs that deal with the negative consequences — we put up part of our high schools where we allow students maybe 13 years old who put their child in a small daycare center there.

We do things continually to remove the negative consequences that take place from poor behavior and unacceptable behavior, quite frankly, and I don't think that's the role of this body.

Dave is a warm-hearted guy. He wants to punish the promiscuous women and promiscuous thirteen-year old girls for having sex, and the punishment includes letting their children get HIV and making further education for the mothers impossible. I bet he'd recommend public shaming of loose women, too, because that would keep the negative consequences of promiscuity fresh and biting.

As I pointed out above, Schultheis' opinions are far out of the mainstream and in some ways not worth discussing. But it's also true that many, many people would like to see women who have sex punished. The punishment could take various forms, true, but forced childbirth is always part of it.

Now reverse that. Do we call men promiscuous? Do we demand that promiscuous men be punished? Have we ever shunned them, say?

All that is odd, because heterosexual intercourse is not something women do without men. Yet it is the women who are labeled as promiscuous, even though there must have been at least some men who were equally promiscuous.

One might argue that all this is because the role of the promiscuous men used to be invisible or easily hidden before DNA-testing, and that it was the women who got 'caught' for promiscuity. But the society certainly never paid much effort in trying to unearth those fickle shadows of horny men with multiple partners. If anything, prostitution was at least tacitly supported in most societies and plays and books often portray the womanizing man as a hero. The stud, you know.

I think the women were selected as the scapegoats. The whole traditional idea of women as gatekeepers in sex is part and parcel of that same scapegoating. It also ignores the ability of powerful men to force women into sex, whether the women wanted it or not (think of the chamber-maids in Victorian England) and the fact that even today in many parts of the world a woman cannot really refuse a man who is above her in the societal rankings. Come to think of it, the whole concept of promiscuity stinks of sexism.

|

Parsing The Speeches 



That would be Obama's first speech to the joint session of the Congress and the Republican answer by Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal.

My overall impression of the speeches was "awww" and "ouch", in the order that they were given. Barack Obama is a great orator, Bobby Jindal not that much (popping suddenly into sight from around the corner is scary, too). But riding the emotional wave of a well-given speech is insufficient. What the words are matter, too. How convenient, then, that I also liked Obama's words much better than Jindal's words.

Obama hit most of the major points from the expected 'centrarian' angle. He also included some quite lovely progressive bits (health care reform (YEAH!) and getting rid of torture, for example) and a few bits that I wasn't happy about: the concept of clean coal, the support of charter schools and a mumbly reference to doing something about Social Security.

I doubt that clean coal can exist and although American schools need a lot of work charter schools cannot be the answer to the general problems. Social Security is not an urgent problem when compared to, say, Medicare, and had the Republicans had their way with it in the past we'd see the elderly begging on the streets today.

Jindal, on the other hand, used the Katrina disaster to demonstrate that the government cannot work! That this was because George Bush didn't let it work appeared not to occur to Bobby.

But mostly Jindal kept repeating that Americans can do ANYTHING. To be fair, Obama also flattered the American people. I have to check if this behavior is common among politicians in all countries. Somehow I doubt that. But if there is a time for excessive stroking of citizens it probably is now, because we want to turn confidence up a notch or two, at least consumer confidence.

To add something trivial to my criticisms, I dislike the term 'working families' and wish it to die a painful death. It brings to mind images of little children toiling away in sweatshops and nineteenth century mines and it omits everyone who lives alone as well as those who are retired. I know why the term is used. I just dislike its artificiality.

|

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Some Good News 



Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburgh is back in court:

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg returned to the Supreme Court bench yesterday with a wide smile and a long list of questions for the lawyers appearing before her, resuming her duties less than three weeks after surgery for pancreatic cancer.

Ginsburg, who will turn 76 next month, smiled broadly as she walked into the courtroom with her eight colleagues and turned slightly to look directly at reporters who chronicled her Feb. 5 surgery and diagnosis of early-stage cancer.

She was a vigorous participant in yesterday's two oral arguments, and even teased veteran Supreme Court practitioner Carter Phillips about whether an opinion she wrote in 2003 had misstated the justices' intentions.

I raise my divine winged helmet to her. She's tough. Like a diamond is tough. And her presence was already noted in the decision about guns and domestic violence.

Then Hilda Solis was confirmed as the new Labor Secretary:

U.S. Representative Hilda Solis, the daughter of two union members, was confirmed by a Senate vote today as the nation's 25th labor secretary.

The nomination was approved with bipartisan support after Republicans ended efforts to delay a vote over concerns about her ties to union groups and tax liens on her husband's business. The vote was 80-17.

This is a major change from the Bush administration which ran lots of these departments on the basis of the fox guarding the chicken coops and of course absolutely loathed organized labor. Not organized capitalism, mind you, but only its counterveiling power.

|

Shady 



This is a sneeky post, because it is actually about window shades. Not about politics or feminism or anything fun. I'm too exhausted right now to write proper posts. Also, I need some good advice on this important aspect of life: How to cover the windows.

The back story: I need to buy new roller blinds or something similar and the number of windows to be covered is fourteen. They are all narrow old-fashioned windows, three or two making a larger window so to speak, but the narrow windows need separate blinds.

The problem I have is this: I hate the cheapest kind of roller blinds, the vinyl ones. They are the wrong color and shine too much and collapse too fast. But then I hate slats, too, because you really cannot wash them without taking early retirement and spending your life and all your tootbrushes on them. BUT: I cannot afford the new honeycell shades or similar types.

My old ones were cotton-based and not bad ones. They are no longer amenable to my repairs (I got by for a few years by re-sewing them shorter to use up the unrolled good bits at the top), and I cannot find the same brand name in the stores or on the net. All I can find are roller blinds which would look good and do the job but which would cost me around sixty dollars per window. Multiply that by fourteen...

All my windows are slightly different widths so ready-made shades which can't be altered will not really work properly.

Do any of you have some ideas what I could do? What do you have in your windows?

|

Well, No. 



That's the answer to the question the LA Times poses in its headline for an article about Michelle Obama's possible First Lady role:

Is Michelle Obama really in the kitchen?

She is not in the kitchen. Someone else cooks the White House meals. Probably a large number of someone elses. And of course the article doesn't mean that Michelle would herself cook and clean and do laundry. No First Lady ever did those things, unless that's what they got their kicks from.

The article is not about the real lives of many women who actually do cook and clean and wash clothes every day. It's about the metaphorical meaning of "wife" in the American society and about the roles that women are or are not allowed to play. That has always been the hidden function of the First Lady's job, and an important part of that job is to soothe the subconscious fears of so many that women are somehow getting out of hand and will no longer be willing to be just helpmates.

Hillary Clinton did not do this. That is one of the main reason why she is still so hated by many. Michelle Obama doesn't want to go the same way. After all, the right-wingers already label her as an angry black woman, and "angry" is not what Americans want the partnering word with "wife" to be.

Still, I hope she remembers that she is now a mirror in which every American woman is supposedly seen as reflected. Not a nice job to have, especially an unpaid one.

But a job it is.

|

Monday, February 23, 2009

Where The Famous Wimmin Are 






According to a recent U.S. News And World Report poll powerful women should be running daycare centers. That's because you can't quite say that they should be caring for their own children, I guess, especially given that some the ones to be included are past the child-bearing years.

In any case, the above picture of bobble dolls, intended to portray four famous women, is attached to the poll which then asks:

If you had a choice of four daycare centers run separately by Michelle Obama, Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton, and Nancy Pelosi, which would you choose for your kids?

Yesterday Sarah Palin was winning ever so slightly over Michelle Obama. Both Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi fared very poorly in this wonderful poll.

Sometimes I wake up in the middle of the night and scream because I've had a dream about the insides of the heads of the editors who put up stuff like this. Well, I don't, actually. Those heads must be fairly empty. But it was fun to imagine doing that.

More fun than analyzing this particular poll. Not sure why daycare centers was picked as the chosen industry here, unless it has something to do with all those uteri. What else could powerful women be good for? Neither am I sure why Michelle Obama was lumped together with three working politicians, given that she is not one herself. Perhaps the idea is that women are judged only on womanly things such as their ability to raise children? It doesn't matter if they are expert in some other fields, too. Or instead of that field.

Now do a reversal of that poll. Let's make the industry landscaping and let's ask which of four famous guys (three politicians and then someone else) you would want to mow your lawns regularly. It's not a perfect reversal, because lawns are not as important as children, but it captures the idiocy of this poll rather nicely.

|

Sean Penn Speaks 



At receiving his Oscar for his role in Milk:





I have no idea if the YouTube link I posted will stay. If it does not, Sean Penn argued for equality in fairly robust words.

|

The Gender Gap In A Global Setting 



This does not refer to the famous gender gap in earnings but to a study which compares men's and women's economic, educational, political and health outcomes by building all that into an index. The index measures outcomes (for example, the labor force participation rates of women and men) and not inputs (for example, the presence or absence of paid parental leave). What is interesting about this particular index is that it doesn't weigh the results by the economic development level of a country. Thus, a poor country can rank high on this index even if it doesn't offer many opportunities for girls to get educated as long as the opportunities are the same for boys and girls. Get it?

Now, no index of something like gender equality can be perfect and neither is this one. For example, it has no data on violence against women or the legal status of women, perhaps because those would be viewed as input measures and not outcome measures. Neither does the index tell us anything about general levels of woman-loathing in the various cultures, though those might in general correlate with the outcome measures it uses.

Having said that, here are the top (most gender-equal) ten countries in 2008:

1. Norway
2. Finland
3. Sweden
4. Iceland
5. New Zealand
6. Philippines
7. Denmark
8. Ireland
9. Netherlands
10. Latvia

The United States ranks 27th. Here are the bottom (least gender-equal) ten countries in 2008

1. Bahrain
2. Ethiopia
3. Turkey
4. Egypt
5. Morocco
6. Benin
7. Pakistan
8. Saudi Arabia
9. Chad
10. Yemen

Yemen ranks the lowest of the 140 countries in the study.

If you want to know more about the index and its parts, check out the original report. It includes versions which split the countries into subgroups by income levels and does the ranking within each subgroup, and versions which look at only employment or only education or only health or only political participation rates.

|

Some Monday Fun 



Just to get going I'm posting these suggestions for new license slogans:

Alabama: COME ON IN AND GITCHA SOME.
Alaska: WE CAN'T ACTUALLY SEE RUSSIA FROM HERE.
Arizona: WHERE AIRSTREAMS GO TO DIE.
Arkansas: HELL, YES, WE SELL LIQUOR ON EASTER AND CHRISTMAS.
California: WE REALLY PISS YOU OFF, DON'T WE?
Colorado: WHERE PROACTIVE HOLISTICISM EMPOWERS INTROSPECTIVE PERSONHOOD.
Connecticut: FIRST IN LYME DISEASE.
Delaware: IT AIN'T DOVER TILL IT'S DOVER.
Florida: WE GOT DOZENS OF PEOPLE WHO STILL SPEAK ENGLISH.
Georgia: SORRY, WHAT WAS THE QUESTION?
Hawaii: NO MORE "I GOT LEI'D" JOKES, OKAY?
Idaho: SERIOUSLY, WE'RE STILL SEEING THOSE BLACK HELICOPTERS.
Illinois: THE STATE THAT'S MOSTLY A CITY.
Indiana: WHERE FOLKS ACTUALLY VOTED ON WHAT TIME IT WAS.
Iowa: GIVE US ONE MORE SHOT AT ETHANOL, OKAY?

You can see the rest of U.S. states and some Canadian provinces at the link.
----
Found by Bad Art.

|

Sunday, February 22, 2009

OctoMom Nation (by Phila) 

David R. Stokes wants to know if the "better angels of our nature" are socialists.

After a split second of reflection, I'd have to say...yes, they are. And I suspect Stokes agrees, deep down, given the effort he expends to paint his fellow citizens as a pack of schemers and thieves who will only be further corrupted by "our" misplaced compassion.

What if some people get money who don't deserve it, Stokes asks? Nathaniel Hawthorne had a pretty good answer:
There is so much wretchedness in the world, that we may safely take the word of any mortal professing to need our assistance; and, even should we be deceived, still the good to ourselves resulting from a kind act is worth more than the trifle by which we purchase it.
But what if they not only don't deserve it, but are the sort of horrible, despicable people we hate mainly because it's such an enjoyable distraction from our real problems...like, for instance, Nadya Suleman, who's evil because she's crazy, or vice versa?
Of course, the Suleman story is objectionable and infuriating to us on so many levels because she clearly seems to be deranged. Or maybe she is just depraved. Maybe she is a manipulative, scheming, deceiver, who is thinking only of self. I am not trying to bash the lady – that line is really too long.
The line is pretty long...but fortunately, the express window has just opened:
After all, if OctoMom, as she has been dubbed, is indeed trying to “work the system” with the mother of all scams (literally), is she really all that different from many others right now? I’m talking about those who are already slowing down on the personal responsibility side of things because we have a cool new government in place ready to stimulate all of us. Nadya Suleman may be more like the not-too-distant future of America than we might care or dare to admit.
Well, it worked in the Reagan years, so why not try it again? Pick one person, preferably female, paint her as lazy, dishonest, and sexually irregular, and make her the official representative of The Poor. Above all, make it clear that if she "gets away with" surviving, she'll be laughing at us while she lolls around in her Welfare Cadillac, or her million-dollar condo full of ill-gotten babies, or what have you, so that we can displace the rage we should feel at the crooks who are actually robbing us onto our fellow suckers.

Stokes goes on to paint a pretty picture of the world as a den of vipers who are hoping to pick the pockets of the unwary. Needless to say, all of them are at or near the bottom of society, which proves once again that crime doesn't pay.

Still, we can't simply throw stones at other people...at least, not without making high-minded excuses for it. We need to understand that "we all bear a moral-DNA similarity to OctoMom" -- even those of us who've managed to avoid dehumanizing the woman by calling her idiotic names. By casting people like Suleman into the outer darkness where they belong, we triumph over the inborn evil they represent, which is why oppressing the poor and the unfortunate is not a convenience so much as a moral duty. (Which might suggest to a better theologian that this outlook is as sinfully self-interested as anything it attacks, since it allows us to profit from creating scapegoats who justify our preexisting meanness.)

Unfortunately, the idea that kicking people when they're down has an ugly side to it, no matter how spiritually gratifying it may be, belongs to what Stokes calls "dominant secularism and sterile religion." Stokes is concerned with grander things: the glimmer of evil in the eye of the homeless mother; the crimson lust that begat the hungry child; the passion for worldly things that inspired the foreclosed homeowner to imagine that her loan broker was an honest man acting under a system of laws. By turning its back on God and capitalism, secular socialism gave up on the Christian idea that everyone is bad, and the capitalist idea that being bad is good. This is what has brought us to the state we're in today, where a single welfare mother threatens us with spiritual destruction to the precise extent that she inspires compassion, which is capitalism's version of original sin.
Do we really want to admire nations where people surrender significantly more than half of what they earn to a government in exchange for state-run services that are chronically insufficient, incompetent, and impersonal?
It shouldn't be done; the mere effort corrupts us all. But to make matters worse, they do it incompetently...which means that they only save some people from dying on the street. And the system is impersonal, too...which I guess means that it tends to take the word of "any mortal professing to need our assistance," instead of piously withholding aid and explaining that suffering builds character (and who asked you to get knocked up anyway, ya goddamn slut)?

Which is a roundabout way of saying that I do admire those nations, at least compared to ours. And I'm just patriotic enough to believe that we can become even more competent than they are at treating people like human beings, once we stop listening to the lunatic propositions of dead-hearted, pietistic scolds like David R. Stokes.

Either because he's completely cynical, or really, really stupid, Stokes wraps things up with a butchered quote from Walt Kelly:
If so, then we need to be fair and concede that, as Pogo might have put it, we have met Nadya Suleman and she is our future.
After reading that, I wished for a moment that Kelly had lived long enough to deal with Stokes. But then I remembered that he did.
|

Irrational Envy, A Pillar of Conservatism by Anthony McCarthy 

The Republican reaction to President Obama’s plans to rescue mortgagees from the ocean of debt came in huge wet gouts this week. The idea is to plant the trope that those helped would be models of the legendary undeserving poor and that bailing them out would constitute a huge injustice to the good, worthy mortgagees who didn’t find themselves out of work with an inflated mortgage crushing them. Just why someone would be advantaged by the house next to theirs being auctioned off in an emergency sale at a fraction of the original price or left vacant to fall into ruin or vandalism isn’t generally considered by the Republican water boys in the media. There’s not much to support that side of the argument. Of course it would cost the good, virtuous home owner a lot more in their houses value to have it next to a decaying shell than the relatively small amount Barack Obama’s plan will cost them. And, if they happen to have a major illness or lose their job, they’ll be the next in line for just that same program. The argument isn’t a difficult one to understand, though don’t hold your breath before you hear a member of the Washington Press Corps making it.

What’s most interesting to me is what this shows about how the conservative mind works. Envy is a pretty low emotion, generally considered a serious sin in traditional morality. It can’t be felt without some degree of coveting another’s goods or position. And in the absence of the sin of covetousness, it merely wishes bad things to happen to others, just for the sake of meanness. Envy is inherently bad spirited. It is often a destructive emotion that hides during development. Watchfully looking jealously as something good happens to someone else, exaggerating or inventing reasons that person isn’t deserving of that good. Steadily inventing some illegitimate, secret means that their neighbor gamed the system or stole something outright. It doesn’t have to be grounded in evidence or reality.

In my town there is a family of the clearly undeserving poor. While I’ve known a few of the family to be rather nice, most of them are not. The nice ones are saddled with the reputation of their relatives, most of them have been unable to escape damage due to that disability. This family, several generations of them, live in a hovel that the police get called to once in a while. A number of those who live there are alcoholics and drug users. I won’t go on with the details. You know families like that yourself. A number of years ago, their neighbors saw that there were some improvements made to their place, a roof, siding, as I recall even some addition put on. It was immediately spread around town that they’d gotten some kind of general assistance to do it, that ‘the taxpayers’ were subsidizing their modestly improved lifestyle. It was even brought up in a Selectmen’s meeting. One of the Selectmen who is a friend of mine took it on himself to do what no one had, he asked the family how they’d financed the project. They had paid for it with their own money. The town clerk had told the people at the meeting that no money had been given to the family to make the improvements, but that there was no program in place they could have taken advantage of. Yet, to this day, the urban legend of how this family of famously undeserving poor people had gotten “taxpayer money” to fix up their wretched house.

But you don’t have to be improvident to suffer the same prejudice. With the constant practice it gets, that kind of envy is a too common part of community life.

The conservative mind set is intrinsically infested with envy and resentment. Disdain for those in need, even those who are in need through no discernible fault of their own, is endemic to conservatism. That is why even before President Obama had released the broad outlines of his plans to stem massive homelessness, the Republicans and their media started nourishing the evil seed of envy in the minds of those susceptible to this form of irrationality. It’s worked for them, Ronald Reagan won office largely on his lies about “welfare queens” and “strapping bucks” on some form of welfare. When someone is talking about the moral principles of conservatism, no one should forget the place that appealing to an emotion as base as envy plays in those.

What we are seeing in the Republican and the media attempts to scuttle mortgage relief is a good opportunity for us to see how, far from being a movement with real morals or even the reason that “enlightened” self-interest brings, modern conservatism is a pretty awful ideology.
|

Saturday, February 21, 2009

A Muslim Tradition (by Phila) 

Georgie Ann Geyer is shocked to the depths of her being that a Muslim man has beheaded his wife. You can tell from the serious and thoughtful opening paragraph of her latest column:
No, not Buffalo! Not our very own American city, where it snows all the time and where residents just oversaw the tragedy of the Continental Airlines plane crash. How much are they supposed to bear?
This, you'll agree, is precisely the right tone to take in regards to the murder of Assiya Hassan: an expression of grief and sympathy for Buffalo, where it snows all the time.

Some people would blame the religion of Islam for this act of violence. But not Geyer. She's a thoughtful centrist, not a bigot, so she blames Muslim culture instead.
[W]e see in the papers every day -- from India to Pakistan and sometimes to Egypt and to other Arab countries -- wives, daughters and sisters being horribly mutilated and killed, sometimes being burned alive or their faces disfigured by acid, by male family members for everything from marrying a man of their own choice to being the victim of village rape.
Of course, we also read in the papers about women being abused and attacked and murdered by their white, American husbands. But that doesn't count, because those cases are all aberrations, and would remain so if there were three times as many of them. These men are all individuals who went astray, whereas Muslim wife-murderers -- of whatever race, nationality, or class -- are part of an irrational, primitive horde that threatens "our" America.
Americans of Muslim faith and of Middle Eastern or South Asian descent will be judged by these events and changes (or non-changes) in their mother countries. It is simply human nature.

It is also time, then, not only for American Muslims to speak out against such horror -- how silent, so many of them have been! -- but especially for Muslim imams and other officials to cry out to the holy heavens against them. Where are their voices?

Ultimately, a death like Assiya Hassan's -- how many beheadings exactly have you heard of, even among the most violent of American men recently? -- will simply confirm to the rest of America that this is a Muslim tradition.
Indeed. Once Muslim men lay down the shamshir, and start shooting or bludgeoning their uppity wives instead, we'll be able to say that they've finally taken a tentative step away from the superstitious barbarism of the past. (At which point, we can get back to work on keeping their arrogant, America-hating women out of our private gyms.)

Incidentally, since Geyer asks, the most recent beheading I heard of was this one, which happened a little more than a week ago:
Hagerman said he killed his son on instructions from God out of fear that "the anti-Christ would take his soul." On his MySpace page, Hagerman - a former Marine now working as a school security guard - wrote of his struggles with schizophrenia but said he had overcome it through his religious faith.
Apart from that case, and a couple of others, I'd have to go all the way back to May of 2008 to find an example of an American (i.e., white) man hacking someone's head off.

In unrelated news, Newsweek purports to explain "the complex reasons seemingly ordinary men are driven to murder their families —- and why we may soon see more of these tragic cases." And an US Army medic who was convicted of murdering four Iraqi detainees says, "I made a bad mistake. I want to move on."
|

Testing The Limits of Civility by Anthony McCarthy 

I’m glad to see the announcement that civility is catching on in the internet. I hope it’s more than a temporary fashion and that it gets a serious consideration. All that childish invective gets tedious and depressing. It’s an odd phenomenon how as the most putrid and puerile levels of put down were considered a birth right, objecting to it came to be treated as an offense against freedom. As has been pointed out, that in itself was an offense against freedom of speech. Objecting to someone being offensive isn’t any less an expression of liberty than telling someone to “shut the fuck up”, in those or other words.

But incivility isn’t all the same thing. Not all of it is an expression of bigotry against a beleaguered group without resources. Sometimes its targets are those with enormous power and wealth engaged in actively harming other people and the environment. I think that makes all the difference.

Last week in a blog discussion of the infamously racist NY Post cartoon someone who I generally like brought up those who called George W. Bush “Chimpy”. First, count me as among those who never or rarely made the comparison. I have more respect for chimpanzees than that. But was calling Bush “Chimpy” equivalent to identifying President Obama with the mad chimpanzee who was shot last week? I don’t think the two incidents were anything alike. The cartoon was clearly in the long line of racist imagery equating black people with apes, it has that history. I’ve never seen a rich, White Anglo-Saxon compared with an ape in that way, if it was ever done it was rare and clearly had no lasting political or social impact*. That history alone makes the two comparisons entirely different acts in their clear intent and in the possible results they could have. Dehumanization on the basis of race or ethnicity is different than comparing one of our least intellectually accomplished presidents, unfavorably, with Curious George.

The clear invitation to consider violence against President Obama in the cartoon also set the two comparisons apart. I hope the Secret Service has talked with the cartoonist, the editor and publisher of the scummy tabloid. The possibility that this was a widely published encouragement to consider the assassination of President Obama is too clear to let pass. I can’t watch him addressing the public without anxiety. It has been said that he is the recipient of more death threats than any of his predecessors. We’ve lost too many of our leaders to assassins to just let this imagery pass under the lazily applied motto of “freedom of the press”. As an aside, if another progressive leader is murdered, it will be civil war. And that’s not ironic hyperbole.

I generally try to avoid using incivility, both because it makes me feel cheap when I do and it isn’t always helpful. I do use it sometimes in response to incivility. I’m not going to go into a brawl disarmed. But, in itself, it’s never useful to accomplish something worth the price. But sometimes, as in the opposition to a homicidal tyrant, incivility is hardly an unmitigated evil. The worst that can be said is that it can be used to distract the discussion from the crimes of the tyrant. But that’s sometimes a risk worth taking. The assertion that it is always counterproductive isn’t true. Ridicule was used against the civility of Jimmy Carter and George McGovern, it was used against Al Gore, depriving him of the presidency he’d won. Ridicule has worked for the corporate right, it is going to be used against President Obama.. We don’t set the rules that the Republican’s kept media play by, we can’t fight them by disarming. We do have one advantage, they give us enough material to work with without having to distort reality. Truth and accuracy, productive use of ridicule as opposed to stupid snark, those should be the issue for us, not the tender feelings of powerful, homicidal crooks and their lackies.

Using incivility to enforce conformity on the blogs of the left, enforcing the limits of the allowable POV among leftists, using it against people who aren’t engaged in rotten behavior or advocating bigotry. That should be totally out.

* Some of you will be glad to know that I decided against posting the 2,500 word piece written for Darwin Day. I tried to avoid the silly event, though I did get into one blog fight over some absurdly hagiographic assertions made about him.

Someone in the discussion of the NY Post bigotry pointed out that in the 19th Century the Irish were targeted with identical apish images by nativist bigots. In the Darwin Day argument one of my opponents felt no hesitation to echo them in defense of the Great Man. As one of the points I made in the piece, and in the argument is relevant to this, here are two excerpts.

I’ve concentrated mostly on the political impact of Darwinism, which has included some pretty awful stuff. Ignoring the effect of that legacy in the opposition to the fact of evolution is one of the stupider aspects today’s back and forth. One of the things I read this week asserted that his great secret inspiration was the struggle for the abolition of slavery. I’m sure that as a Wedgewood cousin he would have voiced opposition to slavery, he may have felt some sympathy for slaves. But as you congratulate him on that stand, hardly unique to him or his family, I don’t know how you can honestly ignore this:

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked (18. 'Anthropological Review,' April 1867, p. 236.), will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. The Descent of Man.

How this differs from the most putrid contemporary advocacy of Jim Crow in the United States in anything but the refinement of the language, I’d like an explanation. As I noted here last year, the uber-Darwinist, Thomas Huxley, stated pretty much the same idea in even cruder terms.
____

As an example: A most important obstacle in civilised countries to an increase in the number of men of a superior class has been strongly insisted on by Mr. Greg and Mr. Galton (19. 'Fraser's Magazine,' Sept. 1868, p. 353. 'Macmillan's Magazine,' Aug. 1865, p. 318. The Rev. F.W. Farrar ('Fraser's Magazine,' Aug. 1870, p. 264) takes a different view.), namely, the fact that the very poor and reckless, who are often degraded by vice, almost invariably marry early, whilst the careful and frugal, who are generally otherwise virtuous, marry late in life, so that they may be able to support themselves and their children in comfort. Those who marry early produce within a given period not only a greater number of generations, but, as shewn by Dr. Duncan (20. 'On the Laws of the Fertility of Women,' in 'Transactions of the Royal Society,' Edinburgh, vol. xxiv. p. 287; now published separately under the title of 'Fecundity, Fertility, and Sterility,' 1871. See, also, Mr. Galton, 'Hereditary Genius,' pp. 352-357, for observations to the above effect.), they produce many more children. The children, moreover, that are borne by mothers during the prime of life are heavier and larger, and therefore probably more vigorous, than those born at other periods. Thus the reckless, degraded, and often vicious members of society, tend to increase at a quicker rate than the provident and generally virtuous members. Or as Mr. Greg puts the case: "The careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman multiplies like rabbits: the frugal, foreseeing, self-respecting, ambitious Scot, stern in his morality, spiritual in his faith, sagacious and disciplined in his intelligence, passes his best years in struggle and in celibacy, marries late, and leaves few behind him. Given a land originally peopled by a thousand Saxons and a thousand Celts--and in a
dozen generations five-sixths of the population would be Celts, but five- sixths of the property, of the power, of the intellect, would belong to the one-sixth of Saxons that remained. In the eternal 'struggle for existence,' it would be the inferior and LESS favoured race that had prevailed--and prevailed by virtue not of its good qualities but of its faults."

There are, however, some checks to this downward tendency. We have seen that the intemperate suffer from a high rate of mortality, and the extremely profligate leave few offspring. The poorest classes crowd into towns, and it has been proved by Dr. Stark from the statistics of ten years in Scotland (21. 'Tenth Annual Report of Births, Deaths, etc., in Scotland,' 1867, p. xxix.), that at all ages the death-rate is higher in towns than in rural districts, "and during the first five years of life the town death-rate is almost exactly double that of the rural districts." As these returns include both the rich and the poor, no doubt more than twice the number of births would be requisite to keep up the number of the very poor inhabitants in the towns, relatively to those in the country. With women, marriage at too early an age is highly injurious; for it has been found in France that, "Twice as many wives under twenty die in the year, as died out of the same number of the unmarried." The mortality, also, of husbands under twenty is "excessively high" (22. These quotations are taken from our highest authority on such questions, namely, Dr. Farr, in his paper 'On the Influence of Marriage on the Mortality of the French People,' read before the Nat. Assoc. for the Promotion of Social Science, 1858.), but what the cause of this may be, seems doubtful. Lastly, if the men who prudently delay marrying until they can bring up their families in comfort, were to select, as they often do, women in the prime of life, the rate of increase in the better class would be only slightly lessened. The Descent of Man

Notice that Darwin’s comforting assertions about the brake on reproduction by such as the degenerate Irish involves the actual deaths of a very large number of people, many explicitly stated to be children. Which anyone who isn’t in denial would admit he sees as beneficial due to its being a “check on downward” tendencies in the human species. Notice also, many of them are women.

These “careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman”, Darwin’s choice to represent the “ reckless, degraded, and often vicious members of society”, would include most of my great-great grandparents who were raising families as he wrote the book. Most of them had recently come through the test of natural selection in the form of the potato famine around Skibbereen, often considered the epicenter of the famine, within Darwin’s life time. You wonder why he didn’t conclude that the survivors of that brutal cull might constitute “superior stock”.

Why shouldn’t it offend me anymore than bigotry against Africans or Jews offends us? Because it’s Darwin who wrote it? Because it’s the Irish he targeted for some stunningly brutal bigotry? But, as seen above, he hardly stopped at we, the degenerate Irish. You might want to find out what the great man may have asserted in regard to your family.
|

Cabdrollery Has A Birthday! 



Go and say hello. It's a smart blog written by two smart women.

|

Is The Recession A Feminist Issue? 









Nancy Goldstein over at Broadsheet argues that it is:

Sure, some women have written great pieces about the meltdown, including the ways that women have been hit -- and missed. Two weeks back, Jennifer Barrett noted "that many of the jobs being generated for women [in the proposed stimulus bill] will probably come later and pay far less than the jobs being created in fields dominated by men." Linda Hirshman's December NYT op-ed took Team Obama to task for weighting the stimulus plan toward creating jobs in sectors that employ very few women (construction and green jobs, to name two). She followed up with a virtual master class on how to unpack dicey numbers and squishy logic, toasting Team Obama for releasing an unrealistically rosy report on the stimulus bill's projected positive effect on women's employment. She also offers a smart, refreshingly understandable explanation of why it's not quite right to say that the economic crisis is hurting men more and in greater number than it's hurting women. (Hint: Women's rate of unemployment is rising faster than men's; women earn less.)

...

I'm guessing that women aren't writing about the economy at nearly the rate that we're writing about abortion, sexist ads and the latest asshattery from the Palin clan for a number of reasons. First, we've too narrowly defined what constitutes a feminist issue. Second, our response to any of those hot button issues is stronger, more immediately personal and easier for us to understand than the slog through hell that is the 1,000+-page stimulus bill. Finally, I suspect that many of us are hesitant either because we think we don't know enough, or because we really don't know enough.

Hmm. This makes me feel all itchy with guilt, because I could probably wade through all that material and point out where women are being vacuumed out at the various stages of "cutting out the fat" and such. But wading through all that material means an awful amount of work, because if I do something I really want to do it thoroughly (the goddess of thoroughness, I am), and that would just take too much time with no money coming in. So that's why I haven't done it.

But some things are fairly quick to point out: For example, it's true that supporting schools in the stimulation proposal is important for women and their families, both because children go to schools, but more importantly because women are a major part of those employed in the education industry. The same is true of health care and of local government jobs. On the other hand, heavy construction employs few women to begin with.

And to evaluate the various proposals on the basis of how 'shovel-ready' they are certainly shows an unconscious bias about the stimulation package as something meant for blue-collar guys to benefit from, because if you think of a shovel you then think of a man wielding it. Not a woman. The second underlying assumption is that all those guys digging ditches will then take care of their wives and children with that money, though of course that's not the family pattern we have anymore. Most families have two breadwinners, and if a family only has one breadwinnner that family is likely to be called a 'female-headed household'....

But as Goldstein notes in her piece, the unemployment rates have been higher for men, especially in blue-collar occupations, than they have been for women, and that's probably why the focus has been on construction. On the other hand, construction is that canary industry which shows changes up and down first. Then the other industries follow suit. Which means that now we see local governments laying off their clerical staff in large numbers, and many of those laid off are women. The same holds for all those banks and financial institutions which are closing offices and merging functions.

So all this is clearly something that feminist economists should keep an eye on, because it's possible to create a stimulus tide which does more than lift some boats or not: It can also create an economy with even greater earnings differences between men and women, say. Still, whether the recession itself is a feminist issue might depend on how one defines feminism. I learned during the Democratic primaries that many feminists define it very differently from the definition I apply.
----
Pictures from the Great Depression from here and here

|

Friday, February 20, 2009

Friday butterfly blogging (by Suzie) 

I shot these two at the Butterfly Rainforest at the Florida Museum of Natural History in Gainesville on a cold day, when the butterflies were doing little flying. I think these are Schaus' swallowtails. Here's a guide for identifying butterflies. 
|

Medicare for people under 65 (by Suzie) 



         Many people associate Medicare with older adults, and they may not know, or they forget, that people who receive Social Security Disability Insurance payments also qualify. About 7 million people younger than 65 qualify for Medicare because they have severe and permanent disabilities. 
       The government makes people wait two years after becoming eligible for SSDI before they can receive Medicare. (Here's an explanation.) Some of us joke that the feds must be hoping we'll die first and thus save them the expense. Cost was an issue when Congress decided in 1972 to create a two-year waiting period. This also was supposed to reduce abuse, according to a Newsday article. But people already go through rigorous screening to get SSDI. If they pass those hurdles, why make them wait again? 
       A report this month on cancer patients, by the Kaiser Family Foundation, mentions the issue with Medicare. The Medicare Rights Center has a form for writing to Congress in protest. The center notes: 
According to a 2003 study by the Commonwealth Fund, as many as one-third of those in the waiting period may be uninsured or have inadequate insurance coverage. By the time they obtain Medicare coverage, 77 percent are poor or nearly poor. Close to half have incomes below the poverty line. After qualifying for Social Security Disability Income (SSDI), nearly 12 percent of individuals die while still in the Medicare waiting period.
         Even when they get on Medicare, some people can't find an insurance company willing to write a Medigap policy
         As a step toward universal health care, Congress needs to end the two-year waiting period for Medicare, and all states should require insurance companies to write Medigap policies for people under 65 if they do so for people 65 and older.
         P.S. SSDI and Medicare are different from SSI and Medicaid.  
|

Thursday, February 19, 2009

The Way Of All Flesh 



Is not the same, you know. Women's flesh is something different from the general human muscles and tissues. It's all very complicated, this fat-and-females business.

First, you are supposed to have plump lips and plumb breasts. Second, you are not supposed to have any other fat on your body whatsoever. But, third, you are not allowed to be too thin, either, because we have now learned to point out that it's bad to be too thin. But, fourth, obesity really is a health problem, especially for women. But, fifth, it seems that the women who worry about obesity are not necessarily the obese women. Sometimes they are really young girls, and they're not worrying about the health aspects of obesity but about their own desirability in the societal lens. But, sixth, the society isn't forcing any woman to follow its requirements and in any case men like women who have some meat on their bones and if anyone is enforcing the rules of extreme thinness it's fashion designers. But, seventh, if you read the comments threads on various pictures about women which have to do with their weight you do find lots of men criticizing all that flesh or its lack. Or at least comments by people who use male handles and sound like men in what they say. But, eighth, body weight has become a moral indicator for women, much more than for men, and it's not only about health (or at all about health in some cases). It can be about maintaining an impossibly low weight because doing so demonstrates strength of character and denial of bodily pleasures and power over the animal aspects of ourselves. And you win! But, ninth, all that energy spent on fighting your own body! How it could be used for something else, not for hating your body all the time, but for something that would be enjoyable and meaningful!

I had to write that the way I did, because the whole topic is just a giant tangle in my head. Thinking more about it may help or it may lengthen the list of 'buts.'

Here are two stories which relate to all this:

First, Lindsay Lohan is too thin.






Second, Heidi Klum is too fat.





Of course these stories are gossipy items from different sources and apply to only women in the limelight. But young girls read about the women in the limelight and then they learn what is expected of such women in this culture, and what is expected of them is a tightrope act which is essentially impossible.

|

A Natural Experiment? 



I've been reading about the itchy decision some Republican governors must make: whether to accept the stimulus money for their states or not. Sadly, none of them are planning to nobly refuse the money. What some of them are doing, though, is going through the list to see if they could refuse some of the money, to show their conservative credentials, I guess.

But imagine what an interesting natural experiment we'd get if all the red states refused the help to the states! We could make up a careful model right now and collect all the necessary data (allowing for influences across state borders, for instance), and then we could actually study if the refusing states fare worse or better than the ones who don't refuse!

Now that was the Echidne with the stern eyeglasses speaking, the one who is all head and no heart. That natural experiment wouldn't be very kind, of course. But then we have just lived through an eight-year natural experiment in warmongering and anarchy-in-the-marketplace as the new gods.

|

You Could Go Crazy, You Know 



Just by reading all the research about diet, exercise and so on and by trying to apply it to your own life. For instance, bicycling is good for you, right? It's great for people who need a low-impact form of aerobic exercise. But then it turns out that you get osteoporosis from too much cycling:

Many factors contribute to osteopenia or osteoporosis (very low bone mineral density) in cyclists, but one of the culprits is the nature of the exercise itself. Cycling is a low-impact sport that puts little mechanical load on the bones. That's great if you have joint problems, but it's the weight-bearing nature of exercise that signals bones to create more mass. Without such stress, bones don't get stronger, making them more prone to injury.

Avid cyclists, both amateur and professional, seem to be especially at risk of bone injuries if they don't do any type of cross-training. (Swimmers may also be in danger, since that sport requires little mechanical loading as well.) The lower spine is a particularly susceptible area, since it gets almost no loading. The hips may get some from the action of pedaling.

There ya go. Or not, as the case might be. At least the article points out that the problems don't apply just to women, so that's an improvement over much of the oh-dear literature on elite athletes.

Then there's red wine. I'm sure you've read how it's wonderful for your heart if taken in moderation. Now it turns out not to be so wonderful for your mouth and colon (if the research is properly done which I don't have the energy to check):

The most comprehensive review of literature on the subject, carried out by the World Cancer Research Fund concluded that alcohol increases the risk of cancers of the mouth, voice box, throat, colon cancer, liver and breast cancer.

The report said there is a dose response, with the more alcohol drunk the greater the risk, and there is no level which has found not to increase the risk of some cancers.

Scientists had thought that drinking small amounts of alcohol was good for heart health but this is now being disputed.

Of course even a 160% increase in the risk of a rare cancer is actually a very small increase, even though those numbers look so frightening.

What's worth keeping in mind when reading all these studies is that they are almost always observational studies, not laboratory studies, and that establishing single causes for various illnesses from such studies is very hard indeed.

Then there's the problem of correlated variables. For example, if the rich eat more salads than the poor, on average, and if a study shows salad-eating to be linked to better health it could just be that what it is measuring is the impact of having more money on health. To rule out that possibility necessitates holding all the income and wealth related measures constant in the study, and often the data for that hasn't been collected.

The history of popularized medical research should remind us to be careful about accepting such findings at face value too quickly. Remember how eggs were the root of all evil once? Moderation in all things is still a good plan.

|

Meanwhile, in North Dakota 



The State House has voted to give a fertilized egg personhood rights. The Senate has not yet voted on that, and in any case the law would not take effect as long as Roe is the law of the land.

But once Roe falls, the women of North Dakota become the outermost doll in a set of Russian dolls, and the dolls inside her are persons now, too. She might be empty of such dolls, true, but there's no way of knowing that. Just imagine a woman drinking, say, and someone then suggesting that she might be pregnant, giving alcohol to a minor. Off she'd go to be tested. You'd probably have to have regular pregnancy tests for all women who drink or smoke or participate in a lot of sports or work in occupations which might harm an embryonic person should one happen to live inside some of those women. It's not hard to imagine that all this would get so cumbersome that it would just be easier to ban all fertile women from anything that might hurt an embryo.

Now I'm sure you think that I exaggerate, and I do in the sense of imagining the worst possible outcomes this proposed law would allow. But there's nothing in the personhood proposal that would protect women from such actions if the personhood of an embryo is taken to equal the personhood of a woman.

Somehow I suspect that many of those voting for this law regard the personhood of the embryo as higher than that of its female container. After all, the embryo might be male and when it would be born it would be a person with full human rights!

|

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Refreshing... 






This video (via Daily Kos diary). We seldom hear the pro-union stance on anything much in the mainstream media and I enjoyed the rant thoroughly. Which reminds me that the public radio stations here run a Market Watch every day, from the angle of people who own shares and bonds, but there is no daily radio program about American workers. The conversations we have take place within those prearranged frames. Feminists know all about that, of course.

|

Misogyny Is Fun! 



Or perhaps fun is misogynistic? Or I might just be a humorless hairy-armpit-card-carrying feminazi. I can look at this picture which someone linked to from Eschaton comments:





and I can even get the joke. But then I remember walking past a store which caters for the bikers and saw a sticker in the window, a sticker you could buy and stick on your bike. It said: Never Trust Something That Bleeds Five Days A Month And Doesn't Die.

Which I found rather woman-hating. Google "bleeds five days", though, and you will find it being used as a personal saying and such by some men and women. It's hard for me to figure out what positive value women get from that comment. It could be that they swam through it to the very bottom, understanding completely the loathing and the fear and all the other submessages that sentence has, and that they then came up again, with some greater truth or power about the sentence. It could be. But I doubt that. I suspect that they are just trying to fit in a society which sorta hates them, or perhaps to distance themselves from the real meaning of that comment by pretending to be on the other side, the side which does not bleed without dying. That is sad.
----
Added later: Michael Savage gives us more fun jokes about women.

|

Your Daily Evo-Psycho Nutritional Supplement 



Is this story, criticized on both Pandagon and feministing.com:

Sexy calendars and pictures of topless models in tabloid newspapers really do lead men to think of women as objects, research shows.

When men are shown images of women in bikinis, the part of the brain they use when thinking about DIY tools and other objects lights up.

At the same time, the region they use to try to tune into another person's thoughts and feelings tunes down, brain scans showed.

...

Professor Fiske, of Princeton University in the U.S., said the effect could spill over into the workplace, with girlie calendars leading men to sexualise their colleagues.

She said: 'I am not saying there should be censorship but people need to know of the associations people have in their minds.'

Asked if women were likely to view half-dressed men in the same way, she said that women tended to rate age and bank balance over looks.

It's that last sentence that I have extreme trouble with, because I want to see the reference to the study which showed that when women look at men's bank balances their tool-associated brain areas light up and that they don't light up when they are shown pictures of semi-naked hulks. I want to know whether that throw-away comment was based on a) evolutionary psychology JustSo stories, b) studies which used brain imaging or c) some other studies. Then I want to know which those studies are so that I can look at them. I've learned such horrid facts about many of those studies that I now always want to see the original study and the homework that went into it. Remember that previous piece I wrote about the study on something very like this which coded binary variables as one and two?!!!!

I'd also love to learn what 'age' refers to in that comment. Presumably it means that women want older men, always older, older and older! The older the better! And it doesn't matter at all whether those older men happen to have money and such?

And of course the actual world we live in matters here, the world in which women have less money than men and the world in which women have less power to choose their mates just on the basis of their physical attractiveness. The world in which culture dictates gender-appropriate behavior.

Mostly I agree with Amanda when she writes that the evo-psycho myths are already deeply ingrained in the popular culture, even though the myths themselves contradict each other and are without actual evidence (given that such evidence cannot be obtained) or even any wider frameworks (which would discuss the questions of how those early humans lived, in what size groups, how they 'married' or not, whether they understood the concept of fatherhood, whether birth families supported each other economically or not, whether women actually could select their sexual partners and so on). It's a lot more fun to view men as general inseminators and women as general gold-diggers.

|

Welcome to the 1800s 






The above cartoon in the New York Post looks a lot like the racist explanations of evolution in vogue in those days:





It's hard for me to see how the cartoon wouldn't be interpreted as a racist one, given the history I've quickly linked to, however much the Post assures us that the cartoon refers to the violent chimpanzee incident in Connecticut and the simultaneous stimulus package arguments.

The cartoon also trivializes violence in a worrisome way.

|

Today's Trivial Thought Which Will Bring Feminism Down 



Note how we always write "men, women and children?" Always in that order, and what you say with that order has become invisible. Try changing it to "women, children and men," say, and note how suddenly you are stressing the first word in the list and you wonder why men are less important than the other two groups.

The original statement is not just a statement with words which could be presented in a different order without changing its meaning. The original statement really means menANDtheirwomenandchildren. That's how we see the world. At the same time the fact that we see it like that is invisible. Even someone like me pointing it out is irritating and will bring feminism down. That's because words are trivial and should be ignored, even if they teach us something about this weird planet.

|

California Blues and Pinks 



The budgetary troubles of California are not just about the general recession:

The roots of California's inability to address its budget woes are statutory and political. The state, unlike most others, requires a two-thirds majority vote in the Legislature to pass budgets and tax increases. And its process for creating voter initiatives hamstrings the budget process by directing money for some programs while depriving others of cash.

In a Legislature dominated by Democrats, some of whom lean far to the left, leaders have been unable to gather enough support from Republican lawmakers, who tend on average to be more conservative than the majority of California's Republican voters and have unequivocally opposed all tax increases.

And then there is Governor Schwarzenegger, whose budget woes far outweigh those of his predecessor, Gray Davis, whom he drummed from office in a 2003 recall that stemmed from the state's fiscal problems at the time. The governor has failed to muster votes among lawmakers in his own party, whom he often opposes on ideological grounds, resulting in more scorn from Democrats.

Furthermore, Republican leaders in the Senate and the Assembly who have agreed to get on board with a plan have been unable to persuade a few key lawmakers to join them. The package needs at least three Republican votes in each house, to join with the 51 Democrats in the Assembly and the 24 Democrats in the Senate.

Wasn't Schwarzenegger elected partly because of the budget woes of his predecessor? That, and him being a manly-man actor.

All this reminds me of the famous Proposition 13. Many argue that it alone destroyed California's educational system.

I guess the moral of that old story is that rules and recommendations do matter, that what people may regard as their privately optimal outcome (low property taxes) might ultimately lower the value of their houses by more than the savings in the taxes, because a house in a bad school district is not desirable for many buyers. More generally, if you create rules which make raising taxes difficult you are not going to raise them very often. Now, that could be nice. Until the day the street light falls on your car and your old auntie trips on a pothole and so on. And when you need to hand out pink slips to 10,000 state workers.

|

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Echidne Whines 



Here comes the payment for reading this blog free. You get to listen to my whining. It's all about that series on health care costs I told you I was going to write. Well, it gets born, opens its mouth and speaks academese. Then I put it back in the mental womb and start the process again. And out it comes, talking about morbidity indicators and regression analyses. Gah. I'm such a bad mommy.

That was the first whine. I can repeat it quite a few times if you want to catch the rhythm. Or you could just go and read my much better article on what's wrong with our health care system and how to change it. This series could be very good, too, if it somehow learned to speak simple English.

My second whine has to do with that mommy business. Read Patricia Williams' take on the octuplets and how that links to the way we view women as walking wombs. The whining is because of the simultaneous invisibility of women in so many other ways and the incredible visibility of our ovaries and uteri and vaginas. When I first started blogging I considered calling myself Olive The Omnivorous Ovary. Boy, am I glad not to have done that now! But the joke is still there and it's not funny.

It would be fun to do a reversal on all that focus on women's pelvises (pelvii?) by counting the numbers of children of all male anti-feminist pundits, by discussing their fertility, its timing and their qualities as fathers, and by noting, in a rather loud voice, that Pat Buchanan (who's always on about white wimmin not breeding enough) has exactly zero offspring himself. As far as I know. Poor dried husk of a man he is. No wonder he's all full of vitriol, given his lack of fecundity. It sounds funny when you reverse the thoughts, doesn't it?

The treatment of Nadya Suleman and her octuplets in the comments threads of various newspaper articles and blog posts has been horrible. As Katha Pollitt points out, she's the woman we hate this week. Either she's ill and deserves our help and empathy or she's not ill. You can't have it both ways. But I have also been struck with the large number of comments who regard her case as somehow representative of something (the dangers of welfare, the Obama administration and its impact, the permissive society, horrible women, loose women, gold-digging women) and not as the truly unusual case it seems to me to be.

My third whine: I'm tired of the dark and the snow.

|

Girls In The Government 



Al Kamen tells us today that

President Obama, with his constant chatter about change and shaking things up and new ways of doing things, had rattled some traditionalists in this area -- especially those lacking a proper level of cynicism.

But a review of the early demographic data of Obama's first 56 selections for Senate-confirmed top jobs in the departments and agencies shows a marked tendency to choose old, white guys from the East Coast with credentials from elite universities.

In other words, not to worry. The Establishment remains firmly established. The Beltway is king.

In fact, half of Obama's first 56 senior-level picks are from the D.C. area and an additional 18 percent are from elsewhere on the East Coast. New York has four appointees, Massachusetts two, and there's one each from Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey and Virginia, according to a count by our colleague Sarah Cohen.

As would be expected, Illinois is well represented -- home to four appointees. Five come from California. No other state has more than two people in the mix. Overall, it appears more than half, 55 percent, are retreads from the Clinton administration.

Thirty-eight of the 56 appointees (68 percent) are men. (But white men, representing 46 percent of all picks, fall short of a majority.)

Nearly 70 percent of these appointees are white, 7 percent are of Asian or Pacific island descent, 16 percent are African American, and 7 percent are Latino.

If you do sums in your head you can figure out that 32% of the appointees are women. This is higher, according to Kamen (I haven't checked his figures), than the percentages of women among the first nominees of both Bill Clinton (25%) and George W. Bush (14%). It's hard not to see those rising numbers as a welcome trend. I hope that they are the beginning of one but perhaps not. The next Republican administration will surely back-pedal again and so on.

Kamen's overall argument is interesting and worth looking into in more detail. Has Obama indeed proven himself to be a friend of the status quo as Kamen states, and what does this mean? And what is it that those percentages should look like if Obama indeed changed the government in some meaningful way?

I can't help getting myself mired in the mud of old arguments about quotas and such here, because every time anyone in the past pointed out the low percentages of women in various desirable posts the opposition would yell and call you a quota-queen and argue that you prefer incompetent people over competent people and so on, and that the Best Man Should Win. Well, you know what I mean.

So it helps to take a step back and ask why we look at these types of percentages in the first place, and the best way to explain the reason is to ask you to think of a truly democratic and fairly just society and to imagine what its powerful layers would look like if the society consisted of men and women of various races and ethnicities.

In the absence of some real group differences in abilities or interests (and given the lack of discriminatory rules and laws in this imaginary paradise), we'd expect to see the population percentages roughly reproduced among the powerful. That's why I always point out that women are over fifty percent of all Americans, and that one might be a bit worried if the percentage of women in the U.S. Congress is around 20% of the total.

The next step for the opposition is then to point out that the top layer can't have the percentages of the general population if the layer right below it doesn't, and so it goes. Because then one can say that it's a pipeline problem and once enough women have entered the second-from-the-top layer everything will be blissful for us feminists. Except that nobody makes an effort to get them to that layer, so that the pipeline argument has now been used for over forty years, successfully.

Of course the really dedicated anti-feminists skip all that and go directly into the biological arguments that it's the silver-backed male chimpanzees who are the natural leaders and that women don't like politics because it's so much like male posturing and so on. And then one has to ask why the taking-care-of-our-common-house is framed as male war or sports and why women wouldn't be interested in that taking care part of the business. Also, one might point out that women in some other countries appear to have different genes as they are entering politics in large numbers, which points out to cultural differences and such.

Anyway. Revisiting those arguments is useful, because they show something about those percentages which really do differ from the status quo: The percentages of Asian-Americans and African-Americans in the Obama administration are at least equal to their population percentages. It's the Hispanic percentage that is still too low. Of course the white male percentage is rather a lot higher than their share in the population.

|

Monday, February 16, 2009

More Bad Poetry For Presidents' Day 



I just found this one while looking for something quite different. It was written on Presidents' Day some years ago, and it's still as bad as then:

All these holidays for men --
We shop and shop and shop.
Not thinking of the days when
We work and never stop
To buy ourselves the needed rest
to shop and shop and shop.

|

Meanwhile, in Swat 



Islamic law will be introduced for this area of Pakistan (do check out the picture of the men who decide this):

Peshawar, Pakistan - In its latest effort to stem the spread of Taliban militancy, Pakistan is expanding the rule of Islamic law.

In a deal announced Monday, the government agreed to a suite of legal reforms, including the establishment of a religious court of appeals serving only the tribal region of Malakand. The area includes the Swat Valley, a strategic corridor first infiltrated in 2007 by Taliban militants and the scene of an Army counteroffensive. On the eve of the agreement, the Taliban operating in Swat announced a cease-fire with government troops.

Previous Pakistani truces have faced US criticism for merely giving militants space and time to rearm. This latest deal raises the added concern that the government is trading away secular traditions and taking a step toward Islamic law, or sharia.

However, political leaders and analysts here agree that this religious court system would not invoke some of the most draconian punishments often associated with sharia. And it is widely seen as a popular move to restore the efficient rule of law in a country where the secular court system often takes years to resolve cases.

Not good news for anyone who believes in gender equality, of course. But I doubt that women have much power over the current system, either. It's hard to know what could be done about all that, except to point out that women are still mostly very unequal in this world and that their position might indeed be getting worse in many countries.

|

Nasty Post V: The Manufacture Of Fear 



Much of this is familiar to those of you who remember the events unfolding after the massacres of 9/11/2001. What you do to create a PTSD in all viewers is something like was done then: Keep showing the people plummeting to their deaths over and over again.

And the result was an almost whole country with a mental condition not unlike PTSD. Just think of Christopher Hitchens and how his writings changed to see what I mean.

This links to the way airplane crashes receive an odd treatment in the press. The focus is on the almost death-porn way of covering the accidents, on the grief of the relatives of the victims and on these mumbo-jumbo type stories:

Local family planned to be on flight 3407

Passenger Missed Connection to Doomed Continental Flight 3407 That Killed 50
Paul Twaragowski: 'For Whatever Reason, I Wasn't Meant to Be on There'


You do realize that every day we all make choices that end up leaving us alive at the end of the day? That random horrible events might have happened to us today? I could have crossed some other street today than the one I did, I could have been hit by a car that might have been there. The roof could have collapsed on me.

I also have missed quite a few connecting flights in my life. It's true that none of them crashed later, but they could have.

Sigh. I'm not quite as grumpy as this. But I'm angry at the journalists going for the lowest common denominator or the largest possible sales, for not only approving the illogical reactions of their audiences but for amplifying and perpetuating them. For manufacturing fear.

Sure, we humans want to feel more in control of our lives than we actually are, and there's something mesmerizing about a large accident, some odd need in us not to look away, some belief that by studying its horrors that kind of an accident will never happen to us.

But much of the coverage doesn't give us more facts. It strengthens our biases to be especially afraid of certain risks only and not others, even if the latter actually are objectively more serious ones. Note that we don't get these write-ups about car accident deaths, even though those are many and kill loads of people every year. They are not large enough, as single accidents (except for a few bus accidents), and in any case we are somehow used to the risk of death on the roads. But in the air! That's a totally different matter.

|

Vaginaphobia 



It should be a real diagnosis, but for some inexplicable reason it's not.

Never mind. A Tennessee politican called Stacy Campfield does suffer from this sad and troubling ailment:

It's really hard, when looking at the legislation Campfield is trying to get passed, as a whole, to not get a sense of my vagina as some ancient, sacred thing–like the Ark of the Covenant in Raiders of the Lost Ark–that Campfield is trying to keep closed except under special ritual circumstances in order to keep it from melting the flesh off people.

How sacred is my vagina?

It is so sacred that parents should be able to keep their children from learning about what it does in school (HB0811). So taboo that advertisements for it should be subject to a 25% sales tax (HB0809) and that, if you want to look at it, you should be charged an "amusement tax" (HB0810). So mysterious and full of danger is my vagina that we must forbid kids from even learning that there are other things you can do with it besides have babies (HB0821).

According to Campfield, my vagina is so powerful and mysterious that it can fool a man into raising a kid that's not his without his knowledge and trick him into paying child support for a child he isn't genetically related to (HB0805). My vagina has magical powers that confer legal personhood on the fetuses that die just north of it (HB0807 & HB0819) in some cases causing a person to be issued a death certificate before he or she has the legal ability to be dead.

Read the whole thing because it is very funny.

|

Sunday, February 15, 2009

From a comment made last Friday by T. McCarthy 

Every day you begin with,

Scented soap,
Scented shampoo,
Scented conditioner,
Scented deodorant,
Scented toothpaste,
Scented rinse,
Scented powder,
Scented makeup
Then perfume,

You put on

Clothes washed in scented, detergent and bleach,
Dried with scented softeners,

Then use
Scented tissue,

You encounter throughout the day,

Scented, air fresheners in the home, later in the car.
Scented candles,
Scented paper, .....

posted by Anthony McCarthy
|

Saturday, February 14, 2009

Will You Be My Valentine? 






Mwah to all of you.

Here's something to do today: A right-wing Hindu group, Sri Ram Sena, attacked Indian women in a pub one afternoon, in the name of taking care of that upholding-the-manners-and-culture business (which means pulling women by their hair and such, to keep things traditional and demure), and then:

A group of Indian women have started the awesomely-named Consortium of Pubgoing, Loose and Forward Women and launched a campaign to send pink panties, or chaddis, to Pramod Muthalik, leader of the Sri Ram Sena, in protest of his misogynist horseshit.

And, then, on Valentine's Day, women across the world are being encouraged to: "Go to a pub wherever you are. From Kabul to Chennai to Guwahati to Singapore to LA women have signed up. It does not matter if you are actually not a pub-goer or not even much of a drinker. Let us raise a toast (it can be juice) to Indian women. Take a photo or video. We will put it together (more on how later) and send this as well to the Sri Ram Sena."

Neat, eh?

|

Lessons of the Hour by Anthony McCarthy 

Surely John Boehner’s declaration yesterday, saying that he hoped the stimulus bill worked were the most dishonest words spoken in the country this month. The Republicans are scared to death that it will work, that the Democrats will, once again, have repaired the massive damage that their party has done to this country. They are afraid that it will work and the American People will stop believing their lies and understand the real nature of the modern Republican Party. That reality is clear, the Republican Party hates the United States. That is they hate the United States when it lives up to the ideals of Lincoln, that it be a party “for The People”. They hate it when it’s building school, building railroads and other vital public infrastructure. They hate it when it is providing children with health care, when it is protecting women and minorities from discrimination and hate. They hate the United States when it safeguards the integrity of our justice system, when it prevents sadists from using offices of the state to satisfy their perversion. They hate the United States when it is protecting the environment which we all depend on for our lives. They only love the United States the way a con man loves an easy mark.

The truth of the Republican response to President Obama’s attempts at bipartisanship them is laid out for everyone to see this week. In their lock step refusal to put the good of the country before partisan gamesmanship, in the insistence of the pathetic “moderate” Republican three to damage the effectiveness of jobs creation and other public benefits in the bill, they have shown what it takes to work with Republicans. You have to betray the public trust, you have to betray the founding principles of the country, you have to do it their way. Judd Gregg’s bizarre antics have shown that you can’t even work with them by going more than half way. You try to reach out your hand, they try to stab it, you honor them, they spit in your face.

Republicans don’t want the government to work for The People, they see it as a vehicle to rob The People, to use public office as means of gaining wealth for their patrons, the oligarches. The Peoples’ use for Republicans is to produce wealth, get their wages stolen and as cannon fodder when they want to throw a war.

Good government, government that provides efficient services and builds sound infrastructure is anathema to modern Republicans. The Paulson giveaways, the whole scale thefts of the Bush II regime, the gutting of regulatory agencies, all of those are models of Republican government. Those are a clear example of how Republicans want government to work. They don’t want it to work the way its supposed to, they can steal so much more of it when there is secrecy and chaos.

Speaking of Paulson. Someone on the radio recently explained his last weeks in office by explaining that he had serious ideological problems with the TARP program, which he insisted was absolutely necessary to save the financial system. In the end, after he had his hands on the money with permission to distribute it, he couldn’t bring himself to ask his pals to use it the way congress and The People had been told was necessary. He couldn’t bring himself to make strict conditions as to how that money would be used. We don’t know if the gentlemen making these deals with him shook his hand or made the boy scout salute as a guarantee that it would be used to get the credit system going again or that The People would be getting fair value for their investment in their rotting, criminally managed institutions. Well, that is typical of Republican morality. You can be sure that if it was Paulson’s own money that he was handing out, he’d have gotten his guarantees in writing. Seeing as it was The Peoples’ money, perhaps an unstated gentleman’s agreement would suffice, a wink and a nod. Needless to say, there should be an investigation to see how much of that money can be recovered and to equalize the stake which the government has in the institutions it has invested in. It should be a dollar for a dollar, at the minimum. Paulson should be held accountable, that’s the least we can demand of our representatives who took him at his word. They should have known better. I would imagine some of them do now.

And in that is also a warning for Tim Geithner, one whose lesson he has to be made to hear. Some news reports said that he had successfully resisted mandatory caps on executive compensation in distributing the next installment of TARP. He apparently has similar scruples against applying standards in lending he, no doubt, would insist on if it was his money being invested.. I had my doubts about him when he was named, I think just about all of those with close ties to the financial system have similar emotional attachments to a morality that has clearly been shown by history to be false. Geithner, it’s not your money. You only have in trust, The Peoples’ trust. Which you are in the process of wasting, you’ve got at most one more chance. And you might not even have that unless you go way beyond your clearly insufficient personal code. They said you were a smart guy, it’s not that hard to figure out.

Others in the Obama administration should be wondering if maybe the guy was the wrong choice for treasury.
|

Friday, February 13, 2009

Comparing oppressions (by Suzie) 



         Comparing and contrasting has a rich history in writing and can be done in different ways to illuminate a subject. Comparing apples and oranges can be appropriate if I’m discussing the nutritional content of fruit, for example. If I compare genocide in Rwanda with the Holocaust, I may learn something by examining how they differed and how they were alike.
        Some people equate “comparing oppressions” with “deciding which oppressions are worse.” This has gotten tagged as oppression Olympics.
        I try to steer clear of that minefield. Instead, I venture into another one: I often use comparisons when I think people get one subject but not another. Examples can be found in the post below on cancer.
        Here’s a well-known example from the presidential election: Some white liberals who would never dream of saying something racist had no problem saying something sexist. When I challenged friends, the answer was always the same: They thought racism was worse than sexism. Once that was out in the open, I could discuss why they thought sexism wasn’t that bad. I could do that without arguing that racism is no longer a problem; that sexism is worse than racism; that the history of racism and sexism are the same; or that all oppressions work in the same way. I could discuss this, knowing that what people say and do can differ, and that anti-racist whites can still do things that disadvantage people of color.
        Comparing gender and race has a long history in feminism, most notably among the suffragists who worked in the abolition movement and the ’60s feminists who supported the civil rights movement.
        Some people dislike comparisons of oppression because they believe that their oppression is worse, and that others have no right to compare themselves. Here’s an example from a review of a book by Monique Wittig:
Although I don't believe in “comparing oppressions,” I am amazed at the audacity of women who are descended from a group that actually OWNED other women who then can turn around and compare themselves to a group in whose oppression their own ancestors explicitly participated.
          I wish people would understand that, if someone thinks her oppression is worse, then she is comparing oppressions.
|

Cancer, women and politics (by Suzie) 



         The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have a public awareness campaign for the five most common types of gynecologic cancer. That’s admirable, and I support it. Last year, however, I complained that there was no mention of gyn sarcoma, the rare and aggressive cancer I have. (I've written about that, with an analogy to feminist politics.)
         At a recent medical conference, when I mentioned sarcoma to the two women at the CDC table, they looked annoyed. In a patronizing tone, they told me that experts had decided what was important. 
         Later, a CDC researcher talked about how women with ovarian cancer had pushed for the awareness campaign. If women with sarcoma wanted inclusion, they needed to push just as hard, he said. I couldn’t get across the idea that it’s unfair to ask a group with much fewer numbers to be just as vocal and do just as much work. 
         Women with gyn sarcoma represent 1-2 percent of all gyn cancers (although we may be undercounted). In comparison, Jews make up a similar percentage in the U.S. population, while people who identify as American Indian are even less. At what percentage point do we judge people not worthy of our attention?
         I talk about women with rare cancers, in regard to racial and religious minorities, not to suggest our discrimination is the same, but to address how society makes use of its resources. Should we focus on the majority to get the biggest bang for the buck? On the people most likely to do well? On those with the greatest needs? On those who have gotten the least help in the past?
        We're lucky that we have experts to make these decisions for us.
|

Friday sunset blogging (by Suzie) 

This is a century plant near Los Angeles. You don't get the scale in this photo, but the stalk is bigger than a person.
|

‘Dollhouse’ debuts tonight (by Suzie) 



         The new show by Joss Whedon is on Fox at 9 p.m. EST, after “Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles.” “Battlestar Galactica” comes on at 10 p.m. on the Sci Fi channel. For fans like me, it will be a terrific trifecta, a fabulous Friday the 13th.
          From io9:
Whedon has admitted that much of Dollhouse analogizes the issues around prostitution, as his Dolls, or "Actives," are being hired out to perform roles that are dangerous, sexual, or emotionally intimate without their knowledge or consent.
          I get that the show is being sold, in part, on sex and violence, and the marketing makes me crazy. In this interview with PinkRaygun, Whedon expresses his concerns, in regard to star and co-producer Eliza Dushku:
[A]re we actually making a comment about the way people use each other that is useful and interesting and textured or are we just putting her in a series of hot outfits and paying lip service to the idea of asking the questions?
          I trust Joss to do his best to reach people who wouldn’t otherwise be talking about human trafficking and identity vs. objectification. Whedon has long supported Equality Now, helping to raise great gobs of money for the international women’s rights organization whose issues include the trafficking of women. He discussed the show with the Equality Now board, he says in this interesting NPR interview.
         From SciFi Scanner:
Q: You're a feminist. How does a show about women being subjugated fit in with that?
A: It's terrifying. There's no way you can avoid the idea that this feels like high-end human trafficking. But what I'm interested in is the idea of a woman who has no identity, who is gradually becoming self-aware and saying, "I think I know more than they want me to." It hurts me and intrigues me.
|

Thursday, February 12, 2009

This is What I've Been Working On 



A health care article.

|

Where The Buck Does Not Stop 



This sounds like fun:

Greenspan Says He Was Mystified by Subprime Market

Alan Greenspan, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve, told CNBC in a documentary to be shown Thursday night that he did not fully understand the scope of the subprime mortgage market until well into 2005 and could not make sense of the complex derivative products created out of mortgages.

"So everybody in retrospect now knows that that boom was developing under the markets for quite a period of time, but nobody knew it," Mr. Greenspan told CNBC's David Faber. "In 2004, there was just no credible information on that. It wasn't until we got well into 2005 that the first inklings that that was developing was emerging," he said.

Next time you get that worrying feeling that you might not be qualified for some job you'd like to apply for just remember that Greenspan didn't think he had to understand some rinky-dinky market to run the money supply of this country. Neither did he ever express much doubt about the wisdom of the markets in general. But it's still someone else's fault.

What makes me disinclined to believe this 'not mea culpa' is that someone as far removed from the centers of power as a lowly goddess of snakes was wondering about all this trading and packaging long before 2004. For one thing, there was something very odd about the way banks kept eating up each other, so that some months she couldn't remember what the name of her bank now was or who held her mortgage or her house insurance policy.

It was almost as if you woke up one morning and into the bedroom walked some stranger, telling you that your sweetie had traded contracts with this stranger who was, from that moment onwards, to take over the duties of being your partner. And nobody knew?

|

Hee! 



Remember the earlier post about the Wicked Witch of the East? The one which included a video showing Bill O'Reilly making 'fun' of Helen Thomas? Well, there were complaints about that and now we get the response. Be prepared for fish-and-bicycles!





Mmm.

|

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Walking Down The Street Today 



I spotted an ad for a diet program: "Lose up to 25lbs! Guaranteed!" I'm sure they can guarantee that, because the only thing they are NOT guaranteeing is losing more than 25lbs. If gaining is viewed as losing minus-signed pounds then even someone getting heavier in the program would still be within the spirit of that ad.

Ads are like that, of course. Sales tell us that we can save up to 90% of the price (which might literally mean that some items have no discounts at all), but most of the discounts will be a lot less than 90%.

Political language is often similar to advertising, so you need to stay alert to figuring out what's wrong with the promises or the figures quoted on behalf one plan or against it.

|

On Rationing in Health Care 



Rush Limbaugh has gone wild talking about the scary monsters hidden inside the stimulus package, including the assertion that the proposal to increase the use of IT in health care means that the government will decide if you are gonna get treated or not. Rush's monsters are not real, naturally, but once he released them into the wingnut space of the media they cropped up elsewhere:

Summary: During appearances on Lou Dobbs Tonight and Glenn Beck, Dobbs and Beck allowed Betsy McCaughey to advance the false claim that provisions in the economic recovery act would permit the government to control health care. In fact, the provisions she cited address establishing an electronic records system in part for the purpose of "reduc[ing] health care costs resulting from inefficiency, medical errors, inappropriate care, duplicative care, and incomplete information." It does not say that the federal government will determine what constitutes "unnecessary care."

My reason for talking about this is this: We are always going to have something or someone determine what constitutes "unnecessary care." Right now in this country it's likely to be your insurance provider, perhaps your health care provider and ultimately your wallet. Note that for someone without any insurance and not much money practically all care is deemed "unnecessary."

It's important to be clear about this. Even a completely unregulated market system of health care provision has rationing of care. It just doesn't look like that to us, because we are used to seeing such a system as somehow fulfilling every need we have. But it does not. And the way care is rationed in such a system is by the ability of the patients to pay.

In a mostly government-owned system, such as the one in Canada or the U.K., care is indeed at least partially rationed by the governments. But that does not mean that a civil servant sits in at your doctor visits and refuses treatments. It's just that some treatments are not covered by the national systems or that they have a long waiting time.

Thus, the choice we have is not between some kind of an imaginary system of abundance-for-all and some type of rationing; the choice is between different types of rationing.

|

Where The Girls Are Not 



Oh, lots of such places. But one of immediate interest is the House/Senate Conference on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Here's the list of the committee members:

Senate Democratic leadership has announced who will be serving on the conference committee to iron out differences in the House and Senate versions of the stimulus bill.

* Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
* Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont.
* Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii
* Finance Committee Ranking Member Charles Grassley, R-Iowa
* Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Thad Cochran, R-Miss.

Both Finance and Appropriations were heavily involved in the creation of the Senate version, with each committee holding markups on their portions.

And for the House:

* Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey, D-Wis.
* Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y.
* Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif.
* Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Jerry Lewis, R-Calif.
* Ways and Means Committee Ranking Member Dave Camp, R-Mich.


Count the girls. Perhaps Nancy Pelosi is involved in some way? I'm not sure. But it's not impossible to think that ten guys might find it easier to negotiate away parts of the stimulus bill which are more important for gals than guys, just because they don't see their importance in the same personal way.

One might argue that these committees will end up all-male because there just aren't enough women in the Congress, and those who are there don't have enough seniority to get to be on such committees. But see how boring stuff about the number of women in politics ends up really, really mattering?
----
Update: Check out this post on the topic.

|

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

The Wicked Witch of the East 



Here's an enlightening glimpse into what goes on at Fox:





It's Bill O'Reilly having fun imitating Helen Thomas, calling her the wicked witch of the East and so on. But the most fascinating bit is the one where O'Reilly asks us why his mother isn't out there sitting in the front row of Obama's press conference, asking questions. Or Colmes' mother. Or any old lady at all! (He doesn't say that but it's what he means.)

To deny Thomas the respect her experience and professional qualifications deserve is probably a sexist response on O'Reilly's part. Try a reversal by imagining an older male journalist in her place and then O'Reilly arguing that his own dad is equally qualified to ask questions at the press conference.

If you think O'Reilly should apologize for his comments, go here.

|

Today's Funny Post 



It's this one:

During the February 10 edition of Fox News' Happening Now, co-host Jon Scott claimed that "the Senate is expected to pass the $838 billion stimulus plan -- its version of it, anyway. We thought we'd take a look back at the bill, how it was born, and how it grew, and grew, and grew." In tracking how and when the bill purportedly "grew," Scott referenced seven dates, as on-screen graphics cited various news sources from those time periods. However, all of the sources and cost figures Scott cited, as well as the accompanying on-screen text, were also contained in a February 10 press release issued by the Senate Republican Communications Center. One on-screen graphic during the segment even repeated a typo from the GOP document, further confirming that Scott was simply reading from a Republican press release.

Saves time, it does, to just use the Republican Party's press release. I guess 'the fairandbalanced' idea no longer applies to Fox News.

|

Metacommenting on Blog Comments 



This newspaper article discusses the reactions of blog commenters to the octuplets of Nadya Suleman. It's difficult to know how good a survey one person can arrive at just by reading through a bunch of commentary. But I found this interesting:

The overarching theme of Republican writers involved the issue of the mother of the octuplets relying on government money to raise her children. There was also quite a bit written about Suleman's physical appearance.

...

Over on the Democratic forums, the debate was much more extensive. Like the Republican forum writers, the majority seemed to feel it was wrong for a single woman living with her parents to have 14 children with no income other than funds from a disability claim.

Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats didn't say much about Suleman's looks...

I don't read the comments of wingnut blogs enough to know how common this difference might be, but women's looks sure provoke comments on leftie blogs, too, from Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. It's not that men's looks aren't cause for comment in some cases, too. It's just that every single woman gets her face and body assessed. And her ass, naturally.

|

News From Guy Religions 






The Church of England is considering how to introduce women bishops. The decision has been already made, but that leaves the pesky problem of how to be nice to the men who refuse to have a woman lord over them:

The Synod decided last summer to press ahead with the ordination of women bishops, angering traditionalists by denying them the legal right to opt out of the control of a woman bishop and into special dioceses headed by male alternatives.

However, a draft law to be discussed this week would provide for male "complementary" bishops, to look after parishes unwilling to accept a woman.

Some traditionalist clergy say they will join the Catholic Church if they are not given sufficient exemptions from serving under women bishops.

I've come to the conclusion that much of the discrimination against women is caused by women being too nice to yell in everybody's face about it. Instead of that we just let the bigots have their own "No Girls Allowed" tree houses, and hope that they will come around in time.






Is thirty years long enough a time? Actually, when it comes to women's rights 300 years is about the right time frame. The Iranian revolution is thirty years old and women were participants in it. But as usual, they got the short end of the stick:

Giti Pourfazel, a lawyer and female activist, believes those liberty-seeking women who supported the Islamic revolution were unaware of the true nature of a religious state.

"Some women felt they would stand a better chance of achieving their demands if they could emancipate themselves from political entanglements, but it was too late when they realised that a religious regime, due to its boundaries, could hardly deal with women's issues intellectually.

"Women had already hit home some of their demands but lost them after the revolution, such as the Family Law, which was annulled immediately after the revolution. The reason was women were rallying under a religious flag, which had other priorities and ignored female rights."

But the huge turnout of women during the Iranian Revolution of 1979 encouraged many of them to engage in social activity for the very first time. Studies by sociologists in recent years show that women are becoming increasingly aware of how the law discriminates against them.

Yah. I have always found religions to be one of the legs on which the stool of women's oppression sits. It may not have to be that way, but it mostly is.

|

Monday, February 09, 2009

Obama's News Conference 



Did you watch it? I thought he did fairly well, and I enjoyed hearing 'nuclear' pronounced correctly, mean-spirited as I am. What's rather shocking to me is the large numbers of people who appear not to understand that the stimulus package is not the same thing as giving Wall Street more bailout money. If anybody is getting bailed out in the stimulus bill it is the state governments to some extent, and that's a very important thing to do. In its absence the rapid contraction of state level spending will exacerbate the economic problems and hurt the most vulnerable people first.

I'm not sold on Obama's desire for bipartisanship, because it takes two to tango and because the Republican definition of bipartisanship appears to be getting their own way on everything.

|

The Stimulus, The Republican Party And Wimmenfolk 



Funny. Watching political pundits makes me almost completely convinced that the whole stimulus bill is dripping with pork fat. This is probably because the programs tend to over-sample right-wingers as guests (for obnoxious reasons) and because the pundits themselves have suddenly become watchdogs about the government.

But a recent opinion poll shows that Americans rather like Obama's stimulus bill:

A new Gallup poll shows that President Obama is continuing to enjoy high approval in handling the economic stimulus debate -- and his brand is solidly beating the Congressional Republicans, too.

The numbers: Obama has a 67% approval and only 25% disapproval on how he's handled the stimulus bill, compared to Congressional Republicans' 31% approval and very high 58% disapproval.

I'm not sure if they like the new lean-and-mean version (with loads of tax cuts pork) better than the original one. I do not. Check out the things the Republicans managed to cut out. Many of them would have helped women directly. So it goes.

|

Sunday, February 08, 2009

Life Imitates Satire 

Sometimes it is very hard to write satire about the rabid wingnuts and other anti-woman weirdos. Take the case of Silvio Berlusconi and what he said about the Italian woman who has been in coma for seventeen years and whose father now wants her feeding tubes removed:

The Italian government has been plunged into a constitutional crisis over the fate of a 38-year-old woman who has been in a coma for the past 17 years. Eluana Englaro was left in a vegetative state after a car crash in 1992. After a decade-long court battle, doctors reduced her nutrition on Friday in preparation for removing her feeding tubes, which her father claims would be in accordance with her wishes.

But in an extraordinary turn of events, the country's prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, after consultation with the Vatican, has issued an emergency decree stating that food and water cannot be suspended for any patient depending upon them, reversing the earlier court ruling. On issuing the emergency decree, Berlusconi declared: "This is murder. I would be failing to rescue her. I'm not a Pontius Pilate."

Justifying his campaign to save Englaro's life, the prime minister added that, physically at least, she was "in the condition to have babies", a remark described by La Stampa newspaper as "shocking".

Emphasis by me. So she is in the condition to have babies, Silvio? Who's gonna impregnate her? Some rapist? Because she can't consent, you know. Or were you planning to use her as some kind of a surrogate mother?

This truly is sick, not only because of these questions but because I really didn't want to get a glimpse of the dirty underwear in Mr. Berlusconi's soul. He seems to think that women are baby-making machines, good to go even when in a coma. Gah.

Then there's the Vatican angle to the whole thing... Gah squared.

|

Bartok’s Piano Sonata 

The afternoon sunlight is streaming in my window, a stiff, cold breeze is blowing and I’m thinking about Bela Bartok’s knuckle buster of a piano sonata hoping I can get this posted before the power goes back out.

The first movement is one of the most energetic pieces imaginable, in places there are so many voices all over the keyboard that you can’t count them. The second movement is where the sunlight comes in, the third movement is extraordinarily optimistic. Here’s Zoltan Kocsis playing. Ah, to be 50 again.

Mvt. 1


Mvt. 2 and 3




Posted by Anthony McCarthy
|

Saturday, February 07, 2009

The Biggest Crutch (by Phila) 

Dan Kennedy has taken a long cold look at these United States, and concluded that we're a bunch of pussies (or as he'd put it, "p*****s"; he's very careful not to shock the shrinking violets who read his column).

Pussies, believe it or not, are the antithesis of "tough guys" like Jim Brown and Clint Eastwood. They're effeminate, in other words. (Unless they happen to be female, in which case they're women. Which is just as bad, and possibly worse.)

As usual, pussies are ruining everything, primarily by asking for help from the government:
When did it become so ordinary, so acceptable to be a p***y? To be so helpless and inept and pathetic? And why don’t we – and our elected officials and our media – look all these embarrassing people in the face and tell them to go make their own crutches or lie by the side of the road and rot as they choose?
Good question! I'd say it's because we're not entirely worthless and useless people yet, despite conservatism's long effort to conflate having a conscience with lacking a penis, and lacking a penis with being a silly, shrieking hysteric whose mere existence constitutes an assault on guyhood, and therefore undermines Reason itself.

We've been told that we're supposed to act as if no people on earth mattered more than Americans, and that we must deny our fellow Americans food and medical care when they fall on hard times. But to our credit, most of us can't quite manage it. It bothers us, somehow...almost as though it doesn't come naturally to us.

If some computer consultant feels certain in his heart that God created the world's creatures in a matter of days, many conservatives would argue that this trumps any and all scientific evidence for evolution and the age of the earth. But for some reason, strong convictions about the importance of helping the poor and the hungry and the vulnerable never seem to call the virtue of selfishness into question. Not even when greed is bringing the country down around our ears, as it usually is.

The funny thing is, this self-styled tough guy, who informs us that "the biggest crutch is thinking you're a victim," insists that he's being victimized by hungry children, abused women, wounded vets, the mentally ill, and all the other losers who are "lining up for crutches" in our Land of Opportunity. He doesn't just resent them and the people who want to help them; he's actually frightened of them.
Jim Brown said: “A liberal is arrogant enough to think he can do you a half-***ed favor. He is superior enough to think he can give you something that you don’t deserve. A liberal will cut off your leg so he can hand you a crutch.”

The statements will be no surprise to roughly 50 percent of this country. We know them to be true. It’s why we fear liberals.
Roughly fifty percent, eh? That's an interesting claim, given that it's a lot more accurate in terms of the male/female split than the liberal/conservative one. Perhaps that's what's frightening him?

You can't blame him, if so: If women weren't preventing men from playing their proper role in society, orphans would starve in the street, as God intended when He created this world as a giant sandbox for dead-hearted solipsists like Dan Kennedy. But instead, women and their pathetic male courtiers are tossing tiny pink spanners into the delicate clockwork of Social Darwinism. No wonder Kennedy feels like there's a pair of pinking shears nipping at his balls.

So what's the solution, men? Let's all act like Dan Kennedy thinks Jim Brown would act, seeing as how Mr. Brown never has and never would personally benefit in any way from any sort of bleeding-heart progressivist imposition like clean water or public schools or civil rights.
I imagine if a liberal handed Jim a crutch, he’d beat him over the head with it. Even if he had to hop on one good leg while doing it.
Yeah, 'cause there's no insult more deadly than handing a destitute man with only one good leg a piece of wood that'll help him walk. A real man would hop to the nearest tree, hack it down with his pocketknife, whittle it into a crutch shaped like a nude woman, christen it "Josephine," and then use it to beat up hoboes and immigrants.

Dialysis machines and iron lungs and skin grafts are a bit trickier, granted, but the basic principle is the same.

I don't want to paint too black a picture of Kennedy, though. Certainly, he's nothing if not evenhanded...at least when it comes to pussies. For example, he doesn't approve of handouts for redundantly wealthy pussies or homeless and sick ones. Massive taxpayer-funded bailouts for people who already have millions of dollars are just as bad, to his way of thinking, as underfunded programs intended to feed or clothe or house the poor.

And if that's not fair, what on earth is?

UPDATE: In comments, Cass points out that Jim Brown is, indeed, a tough guy.
|

Nice News 



About a long-distance swimmer:

Jennifer Figge pressed her toes into the Caribbean sand, exhilarated and exhausted as she touched land this week for the first time in almost a month.

Reaching a beach in Trinidad, she became the first woman on record to swim across the Atlantic Ocean — a dream she'd had since the early 1960s, when a stormy trans-Atlantic flight got her thinking she could don a life vest and swim the rest of the way if needed.

The 56-year-old left the Cape Verde Islands off Africa's western coast on Jan. 12, swimming 19 out of 25 days battling waves of up to 30 feet. The distance from Cape Verde to Trinidad is roughly 700 miles. Crewmembers are still computing exactly how many miles she swam.

You go girl, as they say in this country.

|

Spider Nets 



A recent feminist conference had a presentation of the feminist blog community based on incoming and outgoing links. It's kind of interesting, though of no normative meaning*. Here's a frozen picture of this blog and its connections (click on it to make the picture larger). The red lines are blogs which link here, the yellow lines are from this blog out, and green lines show mutual link-love.





If you go to the above link you can play with the map yourself and find out the names of the other blogs and everybody's spider nets. I found some good blogs that I had not known about before. On the other hand, I'm not sure how much readers actually use the blogrolls in general. Neither am I sure if blogroll linkages are a good way to find out who actually talks to whom. I'm a bit of a social hermit, for example. Also, I hate updating the blogroll so I keep putting that chore off.

From a purely selfish angle it was nice to see this blog listed in the top thirty feminist blogs, because I do work my divine tail off for it.
-----
*Meaning that this system doesn't tell us which blogs are good and that it doesn't tell us which blogs have loads of readers and it doesn't necessarily tell us what a feminist blog is or should be and whether all types of feminist blogs are included in the initial sweep and whether institutional websites should be classed as blogs and so on.

|

To Merely Remember The Holocaust Is To Deny It by Anthony McCarthy 

For moral obtuseness THIS Pope’s aborted rehabilitation of bishop Richard Williamson sets a landmark in this monumentally obtuse papacy. Williamson’s old-line Holocaust denial not being a giant red flag in the gossipy ruling clique at the Vatican should be the conclusive proof of what Catholic critics of Ratzinger’s and his predecessor’s papacies have said, they’ve filled the hierarchy with careerist yes men in service to isolated men of severely limited moral comprehension. You would think that a more developed sense of morality would be the standard that a pope is held to, but that’s been missing in the Vatican for the past thirty years.

This is the second time that Holocaust denial has figured in the news since the beginning of the year, the other was in the angry and at times irresponsible reaction to Israel’s invasion of Gaza. All of this is supremely disturbing. The Holocaust is the most important formative factor of my generation’s moral culture. The consequences of the development of nuclear weapons, giving governments the possibility to produce multiple and instantaneous holocausts, might be seen as an equally important moral problem for my generation.

The generation that directly experienced the Holocaust is passing, rapidly, away. Their direct witness is entrusted to those of us who were born after it happened. It is a witness that is under increasing attack and, as the Vatican’s PR disaster shows, it doesn’t seem to inform even some of those who were alive at that time. The neo-Nazis and their allies are always a danger to that witness. Their activities show why history is important, they do want to revive Nazism, they want to exterminate Jews, mostly. That fact, the fact that Holocaust denial is largely an anti-Semitic manifestation, determines how the Holocaust is seen and the nature of the response to those who deny it. In addressing that fact, I am afraid that a huge miscalculation has been made in how we deal with the fact of the Holocaust.

For all of the good reasons to remember the past, none of them is as important as how knowing what happened can help us form the present and, so, the future. If studying the Holocaust was merely a somber meditation on the crimes of the Nazis and the lives of their victims, it wouldn’t be nearly as important as it really is. In our perverted intellectual values system the merely abstract is generally held in higher repute that what is useful. That is an extremely stupid attitude. Utility, held in vulgar contempt by aristocrats going back to Plato, doesn’t diminish the stature of an intellectual exercise, it consecrates it with real meaning and with living consequence. It is what the murders of the victims, the criminal intent of the murderers, the resistance of the survivors can tell us to change lives now and into the future that are the real and highest honor that memory can be given. It is the highest honor to the dead, the supreme act of remembering. It removes the Holocaust from the realm of erodible letters on a monument that will eventually be ignored through habituation and makes it a living and important fact.

The assertion by some that the Holocaust is a singular event unlike any other and so incomparable, is a disservice to those who died in it. It is a disservice to the whole of humanity. There are even those who focus on the Jewish victims of the Nazis as being apart from the others. That is to some extent understandable, but it is short sighted and, in the worst cases, repulsive. The Nazis were in the business of ranking, of classifying and valuing people. Today, with the example of the entire Holocaust as a lesson, for their victims deaths to be classified in a similar manner is among the most vulgar and disgusting acts imaginable. It is a desecration not a memorial. To set that history of death, now sixty years past, apart from the genocides that preceded it and which continue today is just as much a desecration. It is to minimize the importance of other victims. It also diminishes the impact of the murders of the Jews by making them of merely parochial interest. People who claim that the genocide against them is, somehow, more important than that of another group should be unsurprised when those other groups choose to not see it that way. The memory of the Jewish victims of the Holocaust is best preserved by seeing them as being among the larger set of victims of the Nazis and of all genocides in all of history. All of the victims of the Holocaust are our people, all of the victims of all genocides are our people.

Williamson’s denial consists largely of denying the well established figure of six-million Jewish victims of the Holocaust, citing a figure of two-to-three-hundred-thousand victims. There is a telling elision in the statement of the idea. What it really means is “a MERE two-to-three-hundred-thousand”.* Let’s learn the lesson that this grim and vulgar numbers game can teach us. How did two-hundred-thousand ethnic murder victims become of nugatory significance in the world? Consider that. Two-hundred to three-hundred thousand murders, a footnote? I seem to recall that being the estimate for another of the identified groups of those the Nazis rounded up and murdered. I’m not going to tell you which one, all of them, including Jehovah’s Witnesses** and others who are seldom mentioned in that somber roll. I suspect that Williamson’s form of numbers based denial is a warning of how the neo-Nazis will play this going forward. It is their use of how the Nazi’s murder of Jews is presented as an event that can be separated out from the rest of their crimes. Separating the attempted genocide of Jews from others might have presented the deniers with some of their present day tactics.

All genocide throughout time should be talked of as a single crime, committed by those who think they have the right to kill people based on their identity. To see all of it as a part of the same lesson, which we all have a stake in preventing and which we have a duty to apply in life is to best protect any aspect of it. That reform of our common culture is going to be mightily resisted.

Governments today, more than half a century after the Nazis were defeated, practice genocide. Governments actively support other governments that practice genocide, generally for the rankest of economic and political motives. So governments will resist both facing their own past and their present acts. Mass media are a part of this crime against history and the present. They ignore numbers of murders up to and including hundreds of thousands, one fears they would ignore numbers up into the millions again, for their own reasons. They ignore even ongoing genocides on the basis of location and ethnicity, they talk about “ethnic cleansing***” to minimize genocide when they talk about it. Americans are kept in ignorance of the huge numbers dead as the results of actions taken by our government and those they have propped up in the decades after we witnessed the concentration camps, tried and executed many of the criminals. Many of the governments who did that found it convenient to allow some of the war-time criminals to escape and escape justice due to some perverted sense of utility. There are few of us who aren’t implicated in these acts of desecration to the memory of the victims of the Nazis. We are even more guilty in the genocides in the decades after we can’t use ignorance of history as an excuse.

The only way we can expunge the guilt is to face all of the genocide and to actively work to stop them now. Those who focus exclusively on the Holocaust, insisting that it is a unique event in history, even while supporting governments who have and are practicing or supporting subsequent mass murders, haven’t forgotten the lesson of the Holocaust because they’ve chosen to never learn it to begin with. The Holocaust, unless it is a living witness, one that has a determinative value in stopping the killing that is going on today, will become merely a neglected and vandalized cemetery.

* That a “bishop” could imply that hundreds of thousands of murders is of diminished moral consequence due to a lack of numbers is an indictment of his moral authority. Anyone who knew he’d said it and thought he could be taken as a religious figure is, likewise, indicted.

** I was tempted to list Jehovah’s Witnesses among other groups as a motivation to consider how we see the groups listed for extermination by the Nazis. I know that there is a temptation to rank them by group. I admit that I’m guilty of it too, though I’m trying to work my way out of it.

*** This is one of the most repulsive phrases in the English language, invented decades into the saturation of official Holocaust remembrance in the West. If there is any proof that the way we’ve talked about the Holocaust is entirely insufficient, it is the widespread adoption of a phrase that equates the victims of contemporary genocide with filth to be eradicated.
|

Friday, February 06, 2009

More Friday Critter Blogging 



This gives you more than your daily cuteness ratio:




|

Friday critter blogging (by Suzie) 

This is a seagull silhouette at sunset at Redondo Beach, Calif. I went there last month for a board retreat of the Sarcoma Alliance.
|

Humiliation & happiness (by Suzie) 



        No, this isn’t another post on BDSM. I’m talking about my bladder again.
        How many urologists does it take to fix my bladder? In this bad joke, I’m at five and still counting.
        I like and respect No. 4, who specializes in genito-urinary cancers. (My leiomyosarcoma didn’t start in my bladder, but I have damage from surgery and radiation.) I decided to go to No. 5 after struggling with a bladder infection for a month. I discovered that some urologists specialize in women these days, while some gynecologists are specializing in bladder problems. This is a great improvement over being the odd-woman-out among all the guys with prostate problems and/or erectile dysfunction.
        At one point, No. 5 was trying to determine if I could live with self-catheterizing. He asked: “Would you be happy if you stopped having these infections?” I wish I had said: “I would be less miserable.” Instead, I stared mutely as I meditated on the meaning of happiness.
        He also mentioned a urodynamics test, which I had a few years ago in my first urologist’s office. Here’s how a nurse describes it:
It is certainly not the most fun test in the world, with a special catheter in place, a drape to collect any leaked urine, another catheter and balloon in the rectum, and either a surface or needle electrode in the perineum …
         Since it seems useful to repeat the test now, I couldn’t understand No. 5’s hesitation. He explained that some people find it humiliating.
         We might all be better off if we could get over embarrassment about our bodies. There is nothing shameful in having a medical test that might improve my life, even if it feels like I’ve been abducted by aliens. Having probes stuck up my orifices doesn’t diminish or degrade me as a human being.
         You wouldn’t think that I’d need Humiliation Studies, but I found this Web site on the subject. I didn’t see a lot of gender analysis, but it does appear that men who feel dishonored or disrespected are more likely to strike back with violence than do women.
--------
        I wrote this in advance. Today, I'm either at the annual meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Oncologists, advocating on behalf of women with sarcoma, or I'm in an ER, depending on whether the latest antibiotic worked. Feel free to discuss happiness and humiliation among yourselves.
|

Thursday, February 05, 2009

The Epidemic That Wasn't 



FAIR writes about an article in the New York Times about the so-called crack baby epidemic which turns out not to have been either much of an epidemic or anywhere as dreadful as we all learned from the media:

A January 27 New York Times story, "The Epidemic That Wasn't," brought the news that researchers following children prenatally exposed to cocaine have found "the long-term effects of such exposure on children's brain development and behavior appear relatively small" and are "less severe than those of alcohol and are comparable to those of tobacco."

Though the Times makes it sound like breaking news, the fact is many reputable people disbelieved the whole "crack baby" phenomenon from the beginning: Even Dr. Ira Chasnoff, whose 1985 study spurred much of the early coverage, was lamenting as long ago as 1992 that medical research was being misused: "It's interesting, it sells newspapers and it perpetuates the us-vs.-them idea."

Indeed. What FAIR doesn't go into very much is the impact of the myth on women who had used crack and on poor women in general, especially African-American poor women, because crack as a form of cocaine is associated with the black community. These women were turned into monsters, based on the myth that the media perpetuated.

Something similar goes on with many of the Oh-My-God! articles about possible bad mothering:

The saddest part: Early on, researchers recognized that the social stigma attached to being identified as a "crack baby" could far outweigh any biological impact. The Times piece underscores that, with a source who says, "Society's expectations of the children and reaction to the mothers are completely guided not by the toxicity but by the social meaning" of the drug.

Indeed again, though I'd like to add that the society's expectations are also warped by the perfect-mother myth: Only women who do nothing wrong are viewed as acceptable mothers. Not perfect, mind you. Just barely acceptable.

I so wish journalists would remember that even epidemics that weren't have real victims.

|

By Their Own Hand 



Suicides among the U.S. military may have killed more members of the American military forces in January than combat in Afghanistan and Iraq did:

The Army is investigating a stunning number of suicides in January — a count that could surpass all combat deaths on America's two warfronts last month.

According to figures obtained by The Associated Press, there were 24 suspected suicides in January, compared to only four in January of 2008, six in January of 2007 and 10 in January of 2006.

Yearly suicides have been rising steadily since 2004 amid increasing stress on the force from long and repeated tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The service has rarely, if ever, released a month-by-month update on suicides, but officials said Thursday that they wanted to re-emphasize "the urgency and seriousness necessary for preventive action at all levels" of the force.

An alarmed Army leadership also took the unusual step of briefing congressional leaders on the information Thursday morning.

The big monthly count follows an annual report last week showing that soldiers killed themselves at the highest rate on record in 2008. The toll for all of last year — 128 confirmed and 15 pending investigation — was an increase for the fourth straight year and even surpassed the suicide rate among civilians.

What makes studying these numbers so hard statistically is that they should be compared to a suitably selected control group, and that control group depends on the questions we want the data to answer. Do we want to know if people in military in general commit more suicides? Or only during war times? Or only during the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

All that may sound trifling and even callous as a response to the quote I gave above. But we can't really tell how unusual the rate is without knowing what we should compare it to.

For example, it's not really meaningful to compare military suicide rates to the overall suicide rate in the U.S., because the latter is based on the averages from all age groups. Because suicide rates rise with age, we'd expect the military rate to be lower for that reason alone.

On the other hand, suicide rates are higher for men than for women and the military has a skewed gender distribution with many more men than women. That, in turn, should pull up the expected suicide rate when compared to the general population in the same age groups.

Finally, the military may just have a higher suicide rate even during peace times, and the relevant control group for evaluating the most recent news could be the average peace-time military rate of suicide.

In any case, that the rates are rising so rapidly suggests that we have a real crisis and that fast action is necessary. That action should probably also evaluate whether all the deaths of female military declared as suicides in Iraq and Afghanistan really were suicides.

|

Mr. Manners: David Brooks on Polite Behavior 



I haven't done a piece about Brooks for ages, have I? His column "Ward Three Morality" is such a lovely thing that I can't resist poking at it. Brooks tells us that it's no longer polite for the ultra-rich to make their own consumption choices, because the new kids of Ward Three are now the sour-faced moralists who decide how everybody else lives. Honest. That's what he says:

The essence of the problem is this: Rich people used to set their own norms. For example, if one rich person wanted to use the company helicopter to aerate the ponds on his properties, and the other rich people on his board of directors thought this a sensible thing to do, then he could go ahead and do it without any serious repercussions.

But now, after the TARP, the auto bailout, the stimulus package, the Fed rescue packages and various other federal interventions, rich people no longer get to set their own rules. Now lifestyle standards for the privileged class are set by people who live in Ward Three.

For those who don't know, Ward Three is a section of Northwest Washington, D.C., where many Democratic staffers, regulators, journalists, lawyers, Obama aides and senior civil servants live. Thanks to recent and coming bailouts and interventions, the people in Ward Three run the banks and many major industries. Through this power, they get to insert themselves into the intricacies of upscale life, influencing when private jets can be flown, when friends can lend each other their limousines and at what golf resorts corporate learning retreats can be held.

It's all about manners and also about some dreaded hidden Maoist ideologies of forcing everyone act like the peasants. Brooks goes on to explain why those Ward Three folks are doing all this:

In the first place, many people in Ward Three suffer from Sublimated Liquidity Rage. As lawyers, TV producers and senior civil servants, they make decent salaries, but 60 percent of their disposable income goes to private school tuition and study abroad trips. They have little left over to spend on themselves, which generates deep and unacknowledged self-pity.

Second, they suffer from what has been called Status-Income Disequilibrium. At work they are flattered and feared. But they still have to go home and clean out the gutters because they can't afford full-time household help.

Third, they suffer the status rivalries endemic to the upper-middle class. As law school grads, they resent B-school grads. As Washingtonians, they resent New Yorkers. As policy wonks, they resent people with good bone structure.

The Ward Threers are all just jealous and envious because they don't have gold-covered toilet bowls at home! No other reason for their disapproval of the behavior of the rich. And of course they can dictate now that they are in power!

Brooks doesn't give us any background on this astonishing change in the norms of polite behavior. We are never told that the rich who are doing all those expensive things are at the same time demanding tax payer handouts. It's us who are paying for the private jets soon, and it's therefore us who should have some say in how they are being used.

The rich do have a choice, after all. They can refuse subsidies and just stop being rich if that's what would happen. Then their golden toilet bowls would be their own business.

|

For Your Early Morning Reading 



Obama's op-ed piece in the Washington Post on the stimulus package. I like the way it ends with "The writer is the president of the United States." Bully pulpit...

I haven't written about the most recent quarrels over what constitutes job-creation and what the stimulus package should contain, because what I think matters most right now is for the government to step in to increase aggregate demand in the economy. Consumers are not going to spend much money at this time, but the less we spend the more jobs we will lose, due to the lack of customers or clients. Hence the need for government spending.

UPDATE: Yglesias writes about some of the things that the so-called moderates want to be cut out of the package. Perhaps the very things that would most help state economies. It's always tricky when economics and politics clash.

|

Wednesday, February 04, 2009

The Fox And The Dogs 



Atrios asked an interesting question this morning:

Have all the Democrats gone to an undisclosed location where there aren't any teevee cameras?

It does appear as if the television people have trouble finding many Democrats to discuss the stimulus plan. This immediately reminded me of the fox going to ground when the hunters and the dogs are out. Which has nothing to do with the topic, except that the American media does seem to think that the way to discuss politics (the fox hunt) is by showing lots of dogs (the Republicans) and only one fox (some random Democrat). Something that may be a balanced view of a fox hunt doesn't work quite as well for political reporting, especially when the foxes are in the majority. Just mentioning, you know.

Of course feminists don't exist at all in television land. They are most likely all protesting fox hunts somewhere.

|

Peggy Noonan Then. Peggy Noonan Now. 



This post is due to sally at Eschaton comments, who noticed that Sally Noonan appears to have undergone a personality transplant between 2001 and this year. In 2001 she wrote on the Republican tax cuts:

This is the way it's supposed to be, with division sharp, clear and meaningful.

There are two parties, and each believes in different things. The Democrats don't want to cut federal taxes. They have their reasons. The Republicans want to cut taxes. They have their reasons too.

...

So it's all pretty clear and not at all murky. Whoever is right will triumph and be politically rewarded, and whoever isn't will not.

This is good. It's not "Tweedledum and Tweedledee," and it's not "There's not a dime's worth of difference between them." It's a choice, not an echo.

This year, however, Noonan's message on the stimulus package is rather different:

It looks like a win but feels like a loss.

The party-line vote in favor of the stimulus package could have been more, could have produced not only a more promising bill but marked the beginning of something new, not a postpartisan era (there will never be such a thing and never should be; the parties exist to fight through great political questions) but a more bipartisan one forced by crisis and marked by—well, let's call it seriousness.

...

It's a win because of the obvious headline: Nine days after inauguration, the new president achieves a major Congressional victory, House passage of an economic stimulus bill by a vote of 244-188. It wasn't even close. This is major.

But do you know anyone, Democrat or Republican, dancing in the street over this? You don't. Because most everyone knows it isn't a good bill, and knows that its failure to receive a single Republican vote, not one, suggests the old battle lines are hardening. Back to the Crips versus the Bloods. Not very inspiring.

I'm naturally aware of the political games that are being played here. Noonan is a Republican and she will always take a certain stance in her writing. But let's be honest, for a moment, and accept that Republicans want bipartisanship now only because they are in the minority.

|

For The Discriminating Few 



Here's an article on price discrimination by gender, written by moi in my stern goddess-with-eyeglasses form. You might find it useful. Or tedious. Up to you.




Did you know that it's often perfectly legal to charge men and women different prices for the same product or service, just because of their gender? No federal law along the lines of the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (which bans paying men and women different wages for the same work) or the Titles VII and IX of the Civil Rights Acts (which ban other sex discrimination in employment and education, respectively) covers the case where men and women are not producers or students but consumers.

A recent newsworthy example of this is individual health insurance, the kind that John McCain would have loved to push onto more Americans, the kind that your employer usually does not offer you and also the kind that the National Women's Law Center (NWLC) analyzed in a recent study which found 38 U.S. states where women were quoted considerably higher prices for the same basic policy than men. The exact gender gap in the premia varied by the age of the hypothetical applicant and also by the specific state but on average the basic policy would annually cost women a third more until the age of fifty-five. After that some (but not all) states of those 38 charged men more for the same insurance package. What's especially interesting about these findings is that very few of the quoted policies included coverage for pregnancy or childbirth. That would be an extra charge for the women, over and above that one-third price difference, and in many cases the childbirth rider was so expensive as to make the term 'insurance' meaningless.

Individual health insurance markets are not the place where most of us get our health insurance. That place is our employment, and laws covering gender discrimination at work make charging women and men different prices for their health insurance benefits illegal. But the individual health insurance markets are free to practice price discrimination unless specific state laws ban it. No federal law requires that men and women should be charged the same prices for the same individual insurance policy. It sounds unfair, doesn't it?

The health insurance market is not the only insurance market which charges men and women different prices for the same package of benefits. Car insurance rates also vary by the sex of the applicant, especially when combined with age. Young men get quoted higher prices than young women for the very same benefits. It doesn't matter initially that a young man might be a careful Volvo-driving meditator and a young woman a reckless rally-driver type; their gender determines that it is he who should pay more for the policy. This sounds unfair, too.

Yet both these practices are time-honored ones in the insurance business and mostly not illegal. The reason has to do with group experiences: young and middle-aged women, as a group, use more health care than young and middle-aged men, as a group, and young men, as a group, make more car insurance claims than young women, as a group. Because insurers are unable to predict an individual's future behavioral patterns precisely, they use whatever information they are allowed to use for setting premia so as to maximize their profits or at least minimize their losses. Besides, if these gender pricing differences were disallowed then the insurers would have to charge men more for their individual health insurance and women more for their car insurance premia, right?

The problem I have described in these two markets is a curious one: It doesn't have an obvious solution which wouldn't treat someone unfairly. The current practice of price discrimination by gender means that all women will have to pay higher premia for individual health coverage, even if they themselves will never consume much care, just because they belong to the group 'women', and these higher premia don't even cover pregnancy and childbirth! Likewise, young men must pay more for car insurance, at least initially, however well and carefully they might drive. This means that we are treating people differently just because of their gender. But gender-blind premia for everybody would mean that men, as a group, would pay less for car insurance than they cost the insurers and women, as a group, would pay less than their total claims for individual health insurance.

Let's not get too calm and understanding about these explanations for gender discrimination in insurance pricing. It's quite possible for the prices to vary for reasons not related to different average claims experiences between men and women. For example, the NWLC study found that the quoted premia differences fluctuated wildly between insurance companies located in the same state, too wildly to be explained by just different claims experiences by men and women in that state.

Then there are the ethical issues: Do we really want to see women bear the whole costs of childbearing when children are something that benefits the whole society? Note that though most of the policies that NWLC looked at didn't cover childbirth, its indirect effects are one of the reasons for women's higher health care use. As one expert interviewed in the New York Times put it: "Bearing children increases other health risks later in life, such as urinary incontinence, which may require treatment with medication or surgery."

Note also that the insurers in the past have decided to dispense with indicators which are linked to claims rates, without anyone forcing them to do so. There was a time when race was used as one valid category in insurance pricing, but that time is long past, mostly because we as a society decided so.

Insurance isn't the only industry which charges people different prices based on their gender. Think about those "Ladies' Days" in baseball or about the admissions charges to night clubs and bars which often involve discounts of 25% or more or even free admissions for women. The Men's Rights Activists in California have certainly thought about them a lot, enough to take the cases to court as examples of sex discrimination, and that it is, of course, though a court in the state of New York recently declared differential prices to men and women at night clubs and bars a legal business practice.

Why would it be legal, anywhere? The argument hinges on the idea that firms have always tried to charge more to those groups of consumers which are less price sensitive, because less price sensitive consumers are both willing and able to pay more for the same product or service. This works as long as consumers cannot re-sell the product or service to each other.

A common example of routine price discrimination has to do with airline ticket prices for business travelers and vacation travelers: the former are usually charged more for the same flight because they cannot wait for a better deal the way vacation planners can. From this point of view women would get discounts at ball games and at night clubs because they are more price sensitive consumers or perhaps because they are more likely to be new consumers, currently unacquainted with the product or service, and therefore wary of paying too much. The idea is to get them through the door and then they might become faithful patrons of the establishment and willing to pay the usual (and higher) fees.

This doesn't fully explain the discounts for women in admissions to night clubs, though. Women are not new customers in the industry. The real reason for the discount policy might be the proprietors' desire to attract more (heterosexual) men to the establishment, to balance the numbers on the dance floor and so on. It might not be too far-fetched to suggest that the female customers are offered discounts so that the establishments might attract more male customers. Women as bait? You decide.

Whether these practices are traditional in business or not they certainly constitute gender discrimination in prices, because the only reason why someone is offered a lower price is the person's gender. Some U.S. states, Canadian provinces and the European Union have banned certain types of differential prices or are considering doing so.

Gender discrimination in prices can cost consumers real money, even in cases where this is hidden behind customs and cultural blinders. Take the common practice of charging between twenty to fifty percent more for women's shirts at dry cleaners and laundries or the even more common practice of charging women up to twice as much for a basic haircut. Those extra fees don't add up to much over a month or over a year but do so over a consumer's lifetime.

Why are women charged more for the same laundry or hair cutting services? The usual explanation is that the services are not the same. For instance, women's shirts are on average smaller than men's shirts, which means that they don't fit into the shirt press the cleaners have decided to buy so that hand-ironing is necessary. Women's shirts are also more likely to have darts or ruffles or flimsier material, all of which requires more expensive treatment. Yet a man taking in a very small men's shirt with tucks and ruffles would most likely be quoted the lower men's price and a woman taking in a large and straight women's shirt made out of tough material the higher women's price.

Likewise, a woman's haircut is, on average, more complicated, having to do with more hair, and thus takes more time. But a short-haired woman asking for a simple male haircut would still be charged a higher price than a man with long locks.

That the firms don't base their prices on the actual cost differences of different haircuts or laundering tasks is easily explained. They earn higher profits by simply charging women more than men wherever this is legal. That women go along with this practice is less easily explained. The traditional answer: that women are the less price sensitive market segment, might apply to the hairdressing example but not to the laundering example, given that women are still more likely than men to do their laundry at home and having more options tends to increase price sensitivity. I suspect that we are all simply used to price discrimination in these particular markets. Until more states ban it or more firms see a profit opportunity in gender-blind pricing the most we can do when faced with different prices by gender is to negotiate with the seller.

Sadly, even that might not work. Final prices in car sales are traditionally not the ones marked on stickers but a result of sometimes protracted negotiations between the prospective buyer and the dealer. Studies have shown that those final prices end up favoring men over women, even when the pretend-buyers are trained to use the same negotiating tactics and to present the same relevant evidence, though a study conducted in Chicago and including both black and white actors playing buyers revealed a further twist: Similar negotiation styles left black men with the highest final price offer and white men with the lowest, while white women did worse than white men but better than black women. This study suggests that dealers use the buyers' gender and race as predictors of the latter's willingness to accept certain prices and/or for their credit-worthiness. Note that no federal law bans this practice.

It's rather astonishing, this lack of federal laws, given that such laws ban pure gender (and race) discrimination both in employment and in education. Unless state laws decree differently, consumer prices can legally vary between men and women, even when no underlying cost differences could account for such differences. The beginning of a new federal administration might be a good time to address this issue.
|

Tuesday, February 03, 2009

This is Old Stuff But... 



Still worth making a note of. Booman Tribune noted something Mark Steyn said about the plan to include family planning services for poorer women in the stimulus plan:

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, is on TV explaining the (at this point the congregation shall fall to its knees and prostrate itself) "stimulus." "How," asks the lady from CBS, "does $335 million in STD prevention stimulate the economy?"

"I'll tell you how," says Speaker Pelosi. "I'm a big believer in prevention. And we have, er… there is a part of the bill on the House side that is about prevention. It's about it being less expensive to the states to do these measures."

Makes a lot of sense. If we have more STD prevention, it will be safer for loose women to go into bars and pick up feckless men, thus stimulating the critical beer and nuts and jukebox industries. To do this, we need trillion-dollar deficits, which our children and grandchildren will have to pay off, but, with sufficient investment in prevention measures, there won't be any children or grandchildren, so there's that problem solved.

It is a wonderful statement of much conservative thinking, wonderful! Short, concise and revealing. Note that it is the loose women who do all the hunting for sex purposes here and they wouldn't if they were worried about STDs! But in actual fact Steyn WANTS them to have sex so that they can get pregnant, because otherwise there won't be lots of babies later on. Even the title of his piece refers to that: "Stimulated right into being another Europe."

Here's that odd paradox of much of the wingnut thinking: Women should not WANT to have sex. If they do have sex, however, they should be "punished" with having children or sexually transmitted diseases or something bad. And children they should have, lots and lots of them, to keep up the white race (really). But they shouldn't have any fun getting those children started. And so on.

I do love that image he creates of the feckless men just standing there while being picked up by loose women. Not the experience most of us have but Steyn might visit a rather more exotic type of bar.

|

Daschle Out 



I'm so glad that I never mentioned him in this dratted manuscript I'm struggling with, about health care because I don't have to edit it out. Sometimes writing is like trying to dance the cha cha cha with an octopus with no rhythm. And where do you put all the arms?

In any case, Atrios says that this opinion piece was what made him withdraw from the game (Daschle, not the octopus).

The question of not paying taxes is an interesting one. I'd like someone to do a study about the average amount of non-payment among the class of people who are otherwise likely to be drawn into high-level political posts. Would we find that average higher or lower than the national average?

What I am driving at is the question whether we could take down almost any candidate on that level by a very careful analysis of their tax payments. Not sure about the answer to that. Of greater concern are the industry ties that Daschle had. Such ties are very common, but they can be bad when you are in a position to either help a friend or to stomp on a friend, hard.

|

The Economy Bad? Lower The Tax Rates For The Rich! 



This is really weird to read in the current economic climate:

The average tax rate paid by the richest 400 Americans fell by a quarter to 17.2 percent through the first six years of the Bush administration and their average income doubled to $263.3 million, new IRS data show.

The 17.2 percent tax rate in 2006 was the lowest since the IRS began tracking the 400 largest taxpayers in 1992, although the richest 400 Americans paid more tax on an inflation-adjusted basis than any year since 2000.

The drop from 2001's tax rate of 22.9 percent was due largely to ex-President George W. Bush's push to cut tax rates on most capital gains to 15 percent in 2003.

Capital gains made up 63 percent of the richest 400 Americans' adjusted gross income in 2006, or a combined $66.1 billion, according to the data. In all, the 400 wealthiest Americans reported a combined $105.3 billion of adjusted gross income in 2006, the most recent year for which the IRS has data.

Of course it's not the same four hundred every year. But it sure is hard to be rich under this kind of tax burden....

What's your average tax rate?

|

Monday, February 02, 2009

Dr. Echidne O.T.S. 



You may call me that if you ask nicely. I know it's a step down from "goddess", but we divines are often humble and like to seem approachable.

This doesn't work quite as well for Jill Biden who uses Dr. Biden while teaching community college. A Los Angeles Times media blog discusses the appropriateness of calling her "doctor", in great detail:

In 2007, at 55, Jill Biden did earn a doctorate -- in education -- from the University of Delaware. Since then, in campaign news releases and now in White House announcements, she is "Dr. Jill Biden." This strikes some people as perfectly appropriate and others as slightly pompous, a quality often ascribed to her voluble husband.

Remember Dr. Kissinger? The article does:

"It's a funny topic," Goldstein said. "Occasionally someone will call me 'doctor,' and when that happens my wife makes fun of me a little bit. But nobody thought it was pretentious to call Henry Kissinger 'Dr. Kissinger.' "

Maybe we should just call Dr. Biden Jill? That tends to work for women real well.

The L.A. Times piece is an odd one, because it grows horns in all sorts of unexpected places, spreading out into many different sub-stories. We learn that Jill Biden is the first spouse on this high a level who is choosing to continue her career. Then we learn that she wouldn't be allowed to use the "doctor" moniker in Germany, because her degree wasn't awarded in an E.U. country. Then we learn this:

"Ordinarily when someone goes by doctor and they are a PhD, not an MD, I find it a little bit obnoxious," Sullivan said. "But it makes me smile because it's a reminder that she's her own person. She wasn't there as an appendage; she was there as a professional in her own right."

Newspapers, including The Times, generally do not use the honorific "Dr." unless the person in question has a medical degree.

"My feeling is if you can't heal the sick, we don't call you doctor," said Bill Walsh, copy desk chief for the Washington Post's A section and the author of two language books.

Sigh. How much of all this is the fact that Jill Biden is a woman? I'm not sure. On the one hand, Dr. Kissinger got away with not being asked to heal the sick. On the other hand, we have a radio pundit called Dr. Laura, and while she indeed does have a doctorate it's not in psychology. Add to that the fact that "doctor" is the term many colleges actually apply for their PhD faculty and that many people, if not most, are fully aware of the ancient lineage of Doctors of Philosophy and such.

My guess would be that the article is all about Jill Biden not accepting to be totally covered by the honorific of "Mrs.", and that's what the piece really discusses, while trying to turn her into a gossip item.

|

Figure This One Out... 



Two new medical studies suggest that most everybody and certainly their grandma should be put on statins:

Two new studies indicate that the threshold of what doctors consider "normal" levels of bad cholesterol, or LDL, may be too high, leaving thousands of people vulnerable to heart attacks and strokes.

One of the studies, led by Gregg Fonarow of UCLA, examined 131,000 hospital admissions for heart disease and found that at least half of the patients had normal LDL levels. The other study, called JUPITER, involved 18,000 people. It showed that giving a cholesterol-lowering statin to older people with normal LDL cut their risk of heart attack and stroke in half.

Taken together, doctors say, the studies suggest that accepted notions of normal LDL are wrong — and that current treatment guidelines miss at least half of those who should be getting a statin.

Millions untreated

JUPITER suggests that millions more older people — as many as 11 million, Yale researcher Erica Spatz reported this month — should be getting statins. That would bring the total to about 45 million people, or 80% of all men older than 50 and all women older than 60.

There ya go! Note that 'normal' no longer has the meaning of 'average' in medical literature, not even of 'average among healthy individuals.' I'm not quite sure what it now means. Perhaps values corresponding to 'perfect health?' Anything else is a medical problem.

That doesn't make sense. If all women over sixty should be on statins then the use of statins is prevention, not treatment. The alternative is to view all women over sixty (and probably all men, too?) as sick and in need of treatment. That takes the medicalization of reality too far for me.

Then there is this quote from the original article:

But UCLA's Fonarow, whose study was published in the American Heart Journal, says there's another possibility. "There are two potential implications," he says. "Either the threshold of what was set as an ideal LDL was set outrageously high, thus allowing the vast majority of patients to be missed, or LDL isn't much of a risk factor.

"It's got to be one of the two."

The mind boggles. It would seem to be of utmost importance to know which of the two potential implications applies. We test people for bad cholesterol. We tell them to modify their diet to avoid it. We give them medications to take if the values are too high. And so on.

|

Get Laid Airlines 



Spirit Airlines uses an advertising campaign which trades on the sexuality of its female staff:

One ad features a large-busted blond woman with M.I.L.F. in huge letters above her and the Spirit version—Many Islands Low Fares—in much smaller type below. Right.

Other Spirit ads assert: "We're proud of our DDs." That's "deep discounts."

When I visited the site the ad shown was:
GET
Low
Airfares to
International
Destinations

It's an odd campaign, apparently aimed at heterosexual male customers (and lesbian women?). I'm not sure if the women working for Spirit Airlines have been asked about their willingness to be used this way. Note that the customers reacting to these sexual baits might think that it would be OK to make passes at the female crew.

An odd juxtaposition, this piece and the recent heroism of the crew of the plane that fell into the Hudson river.

|

Sunday, February 01, 2009

Prokofiev in February 

There’s something about February, the lengthening afternoons, the still long and broody nights, that always make me think of Prokofiev’s wartime works. Therein lies a tale and if I could find the notebook it was written in I’d tell it. Maybe some other time.

Fenwick Smith is a very great flute player, a great musician. If there is anyone who has found deeper depths to the instrument and its literature, I’d love to hear them. This You Tube of Smith and Olga Klun playing Prokofiev’s Sonata for Flute and Piano isn’t the best quality recording but the performance is about as good as you’re likely to find.

Movement 1, Moderato


Movement 2, Scherzo

Movement 3, Andante

Movement 4, Allegro con Brio


There are other good performances on You Tube with better recordings but this is the best performance.

And here’s a 1963 recording of Sviatoslav Richter playing Brahms Intermezzo op. 118, no 6.

Posted by Anthony McCarthy
|

The Difficult Case of the Octuplets by Anthony McCarthy 

Since I haven’t heard it mentioned yet, first, let’s not forget the sperm donor’s role in this, he also must bear responsibility and his choice questioned.

The case of the octuplets born this week brings together of many troubling and conflicting issues. Reproductive rights meets medical malfeasance meets mental health issues, personal responsibility, societal responsibility, .... Like it or not, this case will increase the willingness of many people to find a limit to what in normal circumstances should be a personal affair and a personal right. The situation is not normal or natural, it is an artificial birth, man made, the result of conscious choices and unnatural technology. The results create an unavoidable mess. And what a mess it is. I wonder if the artificial and commercial aspects of this don’t make it a qualitatively different political issue from other kinds of birth. Asserting that this is a private decision of personal choice, is only to willfully ignore that it isn’t an issue of solely personal consequence.

The issues surrounding the choices and desires of the mother are the most difficult since many of those are normally not anyone’s business but hers. But those choices not only impact the broader society in terms of support for children she won’t be able to support, their medical care and likely continuing needs they also open those choices to comment on whether or not the inherent rights of the children are damaged. Parents are held to be responsible for their behavior towards their children. If they are unwilling or unable to act responsibly or act in ways that harm their children, they should lose some if not all of their rights to them. They also are held financially responsible for children they produce, unless they allow other parents to take the full responsibility for the children.

The dangers of multiple births are an aspect of this as a legal and political issue. When that is an avoidable issue, it becomes a matter of the personal responsibility of the adults making those choices. The mother’s decision to be implanted with these eight embryos was irresponsible due to the likely consequences for the health of the resulting children. As uneasy as I feel saying it, it was selfish. Her children have a right to the support of society, they also have a just claim on her, the sperm donor, the fertility doctors and others who made their birth possible. If the children produced in this mega-multiple birth have severe health problems, it will be much more difficult to find adoptive parents who will be willing to take those responsibilities.

Then there are her other children’s needs which will, very likely, eventually need to be met by society too. When does the size of a family cease to be only a personal decision? The answer that it is never the business of the public at large won’t be accepted by many people, whether or not it should be. Like it or not, this will be discussed and considered, it will influence peoples’ political choices.

But the decision to implant the embryos was not hers alone. She wouldn’t have been able to do it without a large number of other people, doctors, technicians, likely administrative staff, insurance personnel. Those choices are an aspect of commerce, the professionals involved almost certainly didn’t do it for nothing. The fertility industry wouldn’t exist without money being paid. As such, their actions are legitimately subject to governmental and public oversight. Given the danger to the mother and the resulting children, all of them should be investigated for possible negligence and irresponsibility.

The fertility industry can help people who have trouble conceiving a child produce a family. While I’m inclined to wonder at the wisdom of that in a world with so many orphaned and neglected children, having a child is a right. Producing six by artificial means, I have an increasing problem with that, though I don’t think it should necessarily be a matter of law to restrict it. But this issue doesn’t only involve the relatively safe births of individual children through artificial means. These mega-pregnancies are both dangerous and unnatural. The serious impact on the rights of each of the individual children born and also to the mother’s health make this an essentially different matter. The commercially irresponsible acts of the fertility industry in this makes you wonder how it differs from commercial breeding of farm animals. That’s an outrageous comparison, but it’s a pretty outrageous act for them to make this kind of thing happen. What are we supposed to make of “healthcare” professionals that knowingly engage in activities that carry such a high probability of harm to their clients? That list of clients must also include the children its in the business of producing, not just the adults who initiate the process. The fertility industry should pay the costs of their choices.

When health care knowing produces medical catastrophes, when it makes a high risk gamble on that happening, legal regulation isn’t only justified, it is a necessity.
|

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com
Progressive Women's Blog Ring
Join | List | Previous | Next | Random | Previous 5 | Next 5 | Skip Previous | Skip Next
  • DONATE: FEED THE GODDESS!