February 23

1787: (Birthday) Emma Hart Willard, founder of the Troy Female Seminary, born in Berlin, Connecticut.

February 22

1822: (Birthday) Isabella Beecher Hooker, a lifelong suffrage leader, born in Litchfield, Connecticut.

1860: Women shoemakers join strike for higher wges in Lynn, Massachusetts.

1912: Thirty-five starving women and children were beaten and arrested at the train station of Lawrence, Massachusetts, when they tried to go to temporary homes in Philadelphia. Workers were striking the lowering of wages and poor working conditions in the textile plants and were part of the now famous Bread and Roses strike.

1994: (A First) the Church of England announced officially that it would ordain women as priests. The first ordination of the 1,200 women in line for priesthood occurred March 12, 1994, with the first woman celebrating communion March 13, 1994, British Mother’s day. The U.S. Episcopal Church had ordained 1,031 women by the time of the Church of England announcement. Thirty-five Anglican priests announced they would leave the church, some saying they would join the Roman Catholic Church and predicting as many as one-third of the men would leave over the ordination of women. It did not occur.

February 21

1846: (A First) Sarah Bagley reports to work at New York and Boston Magnetic Telegraph Company office in Lowell, Massachusetts, as the first female telegrapher. This is accomplishment is the last [known] among many, many others achieved by Bagley. Previous to this, Bagely worked in a cotton mill in Lowell, Massachusetts.

1866: (A First) Lucy Hobbs graduates from Ohio Dental College, becoming the first American woman to become a dentist. This came after being denied admission to both the Eclectic College of Medicine and Ohio College of Dental Surgery. Through private tutelage by a professor from the former and the dean of the latter school, she opened a private practice in Cincinnati in the spring of 1861, and later in Bellevue, Iowa and McGregor, Iowa. In July 1865 she was elected to membership in the Iowa State Dental Society and sent as a delegate to the American Dental Association convention in Chicago. In November 1865 she finally was admitted to the senior class of the Ohio College of Dental Surgery, and on her graduation in February 1866 she became the first American woman to receive a dental degree.

1936: (Birthday) Barbara Jordan, Representative to U.S. Congress 1973-79, born in Houston, Texas. Jordan was the only black and only woman in the Texas State Senate 1966-1972. Because of health, she was forced to retire to teaching at the University of Texas, but served as a political advisor to Texas Governor Ann Richards.

1960: Jerrie Cobb started secret tests for astronaut training. Years later in a U.S. Congressional probe, NASA officials admited they had “no intentions” of allowing women into space. Cobb testified that of the 25 women who applied to the space program in 1960, 13 had been found qualified.

Continuing this week’s trend of computer-related posts, I have a question for any LaTeX users out there:

How do I break a line such that the line that follows it begins at the point where the break occurs rather than beginning at the side of the text margin? I’m thinking here very specifically of character changes in dialogue written in verse. Something along the lines of:

                  Francisco
Give you good night.
                  Marcellus
                    Holla! Bernardo!
                  Bernardo
                                    Say,--

I suppose that that doesn’t exactly fit what I was wanting because of the character names. So let me pose the question a different way: Consider the piece from Hamlet I quoted; how would I format do that with LaTeX?

Earlier today I decided that I would be better off living a Microsoft-free lifestyle and set about purging my computer of Microsoft products.

While not yet entirely finished, the project goes on…
Read the rest of this entry »

Sandoval County, New Mexico, is another place where the local government has sanctionined same-sex marriages. The reasoning there seems to be a bit different from that in San Francisco and Chicago, though.

From the Albuquerque Journal:

Edited to add this, from the Denver Post:

Things sure changed in a hurry there. But I have a feeling this isn’t quite where that story ends.

Good news:

Bad news:

At about ten o’clock yesterday evening I decided that I was done. After realizing that it took my computer longer to load Microsoft Word than any other program (with the sole exception of Photoshop, which took the same amount of time), after reading yet another article about Microsoft’s corporate practices, and after reading about yet another major flaw in a major Microsoft product, I decided that I was done with Microsoft.

I’ve made a vow: I’ll not use a Microsoft product again so long as any reasonable alternative exists.
Read the rest of this entry »

February 20

1805: (Birthday) Angelina Emily Grimke born in Charleston, South Carolina. She and her sister, Sarah, were noted abolitistions and women’s rightists who drew audiences in the thousands, but were widely criticized for addressing audiences of both sexes which was considered immoral. In fact, women who spoke in front of men (including mixed sex groups) were referred to as “promiscuous.”

Born to an aristocratic Episcopalian judge who owned slaves, the Grimke sisters later turned away from their father’s teachings and became abolitionists and converted to Quakerism (known for their work in the abolitionist movement). After the General Association of Congregational Ministers of Massachusetts issued a pastoral letter in July 1837 strongly denouncing women preachers and reformers the sisters felt compelled to crusade equally for women’s rights. Angelina’s letters to Catherine Beecher regarding slavery and abolition along with sister Sarah’s letters on the Equality of the Sexes and The Condition of Women, published in 1838, probably constitute the first published advocacy for women’s rights in the U.S.

1972: (A First) Dr. Juanita Kreps is elected first woman governor of the New York Stock Exchange.

Yup, I’m back!!! I would like to thank Amp for graciously stepping in while I was gone. Thanks again, Amp.

[whistles] OK, is Amp gone? OK, now, he was really great for stepping in, but, as with many substitutes, he missed a few things here and there, so I’ve gone back and made a few additions and corrections to the days he did. Don’t hold it against him, just check out the updated entries — don’t forget, you can get all you “On this day in Women’s History…” entries with one click, just by clicking on that link in the upper right hand corner (or here).

February 19

1841: (Birthday) Elfrida Andree, the first woman telegraphist in Sweden, pioneer-activist of the Swedish women’s rights movement, elected Swedish Academy of Music (1879), elected Cathedral organist in Goteborg and directed more than 800 concerts.

1903: (Birthday) Clare Boothe Luce, playwright, war correspondent and Representative to Congress born in New York City. Booth Luce wrote a number of plays, perhaps her most famous being The Women, which was made into a movie directed by George Kukor (the screenplay by Anita Loos) and featuring an all-star cast (of all women) including Norma Shearer, Joan Crawford, Rosalind Russel and many more. Booth Luce is considered by some to have been “the most influential woman in both modern American history and the American conservative movement.” Her conservative and anti-feminist stances (continued today by The Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute) certainly do not make her loved by feminists, but there’s no denying her achievements and her influence on society, which are at least worthy of respect (though, to be honest, that respect does not extend to the institute for me).

1946: (Birthday) Karen Silkwood, documented safety infractions at Kerr-McGee Corp. Cimarron Facility involving the misuse of radioactive materials. Her mysterious death, rather than covering up the infractions, prompted congressional hearings. And yes, the movie was about her, and yes, it’s pretty good — but like most movies, it’s neither 100% accurate nor 100% complete.

In a post earlier this week, I objected to the principle of sacrificing the interests of same-sex families in order to (allegedly) reduce divorce among heterosexuals.

Eve responds wildly, horribly briefly:

Here’s a (similarly, wildly, horribly, brief) reply:

1. There’s an enormous difference in the sacrifice Eve wants same-sexers to make, versus the sacrifices she wants from others. In the examples Eve mentions, she’s generally asking people to make sacrifices for the benefit of their own children. Married parents should not divorce because divorce hurts their own children; pregnant women should be forced to give birth for the sake of their own (unborn) children; fathers should be forced to pay child support for the benefit of their own children; etc.

   In contrast, lesbians and gays are being asked to sacrifice their own well-being to help other people’s families - which is not the same thing at all.

   Even worse, Eve wants same-sex couples to sacrifice their own children’s well-being to (allegedly) help other people’s children. (I’ve posted before - here and here - on the benefits of same-sex marriage to the children of same-sex couples).

   Eve says “every adult has to sacrifice for the interests of children,” but no adult - other than lesbian and gay adults - is asked to sacrifice their own children’s well-being. That’s a hugely unfair thing to ask of same-sex couples, and it’s far, far more than she’s asking of heterosexual couples.

2. Eve doesn’t really address the question of discrimination. She talks about “men who father children when they wish they hadn’t” - a reference, I think, to forcing noncustodial fathers to pay child support (among other policies). I agree with that - but noncustodial mothers should also be forced to pay child support. And if child support laws protected the children of straight fathers, but not the children of gay fathers, that would be disgusting.

   In other words, just because we want to protect children doesn’t excuse legal discrimination based on sex or sexual orientation.

3. I quibble with Eve’s use of the word “asking,” which falsely implies that Eve thinks same-sex couples should have a choice. Eve is not “asking” same-sex couples anything; instead, she wants to use the law to prevent them from having the choice to marry at all.

   In contrast, Eve is not (so far as I know) suggesting that divorce and non-marital sex be outlawed. Until she does support using force of law to compel all those people to follow her own moral preferences, though, she can’t honestly claim that she’s treating same-sex couples no differently from other folks.

   (To be fair, Eve does favor government compulsion on some other issues, such as child support and abortion. Needless to say, I disagree with Eve on abortion, but that’s another post.)

Eve also writes:

1. I’m not “conflating equality and happiness.” I’m arguing in favor of equal treatment of homosexuals and heterosexuals under the law. That is the issue under discussion; do you favor or oppose equality under the law? I favor equality, Eve and her allies oppose it.

   (People may think that framing the issue this way is a personal attack on Eve. It’s not; it’s a factual statement about Eve’s policy position, and says nothing about her personally.)

2. I don’t believe that Eve’s argument can justify legal discrimination against a minority. To see why, imagine that a social scientist put together reams of evidence proving that it doesn’t benefit society when Jews get married. Even if the social scientist were factually correct, would anyone say that Jews should consequently be “treated differently,” that is, banned from marrying?
3. Eve assumes that same-sex marriages cannot benefit society.
   But her assumption is unjustified. It certainly seems likely that the children of same-sex couples benefit from gay marriage; society in turn benefits from having happier, healthier children. Insofar as access to marriage may make lesbians and gays happier, more likely to form stable family units, more productive, and less likely to be on the public dole, society benefits. And insofar as legal discrimination against lesbians and gays morally degrades our entire society, ending that discrimination benefits society.

4. Finally, I object to the implication that people are objects for society’s benefit and nothing more. Certainly, society’s benefit is a legitimate factor to consider, but it’s not the only factor. If a person benefits society should not determine if they have equal protection of the law. Homeless people, for instance, probably don’t benefit society much, but that wouldn’t justify taking away their right to vote, or speak freely - or, for that matter, to get married. Human beings are more than instruments to be used to benefit society, but Eve’s argument doesn’t seem to acknowledge that.

P.S. Okay, that wasn’t so brief after all. :-p

David Benkof writes:

Actually, that’s not what David Benkof wrote - he was writing about gay marriage, not segregation. But I thought switching the words would add a bit of perspective. He’s saying that if courts find that lesbians and gays are entitled to equal protection of the law, it is reasonable to respond by changing the constitution.

It comes down to whether you think constitutional rights are important in all circumstances, or only important in those circumstances in which you approve of the outcome. If you believe in the 14th amendment, providing equal protection of the law to all citizens, then you must believe that the 14th amendment is still valid even when it leads to an outcome you disagree with, or that the majority of voters disagree with.

David’s position is that the 14th Amendment (and the Massachusetts equivalent) is invalid if it leads to a court decision that he doesn’t like, or that the majority wouldn’t vote for. That’s no different from saying that there shouldn’t be a 14th Amendment at all.

“Remember, kids, gay marriages don’t kill - people kill.”

Al Rantel, quoted on MarriageDebate.org, asks:

Well, Al’s analogy doesn’t quite work, because San Francisco isn’t handing out marriage licenses “left and right.” For example, they aren’t handing ‘em out to minors.

But let’s assume that the mayor of San Franscico believes that California’s laws against concealed guns violate California’s equivilent of the second amendment. To make the point, he begins issuing concealed gun licenses in a responsible-but-still-against-California-law manner (i.e., he’s not issuing CGLs to children or convicted murderers, etc).

In that case, it would be no different from what the mayor of San Francisco is doing right now. And I’d be cool with that. Obviously, civil disobedience - if done in a peaceful, non-violent way - is a tool available to everyone to use, including pro-gun folks, and including folks whose politics I don’t share.

Of course, in either case, I’d expect the mayor to take his medicine when (and if) the courts slap him down (part of civil disobedience is willing acceptance of consequences). But what he’s doing, in essence, is questioning the constitutionality of a state law. That’s a fair thing to do, regardless of if the issue is guns or equal marriage rights.

Really, Al’s question boils down to “is it right to flout an unjust law”? While I agree the issues aren’t simple, in the end, I side with the mayor (and also with Rosa Parks). There are times when breaking the law is justified social protest.

(Bean returns from her trip to the tropical forests and alpine peaks of London, Canada tonight, and so “On this day” will return to its regular host tomorrow.)

February 18

1851: (Birth) Ida Husted Harper, official publicist for the National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA, see below) and collaborating author of History of Women’s Suffrage, born in Fairfield, Indiana. In 1897, she moved into the home of Susan B. Anthony in Rochester, NY after Anthony requested that Husted become her official biographer. The first two volumes of the Life and Work of Susan B. Anthony appeared in 1898; a third was published in 1908. She also collaborated with Anthony on the fourth volume of the History of Woman Suffrage in 1902 (the first 3 volumes were written by Anthony). In 1916 Carrie Chapman Catt asked Harper to head the newly formed Leslie Bureau of Suffrage Education within the National American Woman Suffrage Association. In 1922 she published the fifth and sixth volumes of the History of Woman Suffrage, bringing the coverage up to 1920. A prolific writer and supporter of women’s rights, Husted edited columns for the New York Sunday Sun and Harper’s Bazaar and was a correspondent for major newspapers in Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., and New York City and served as chair of the press committee of the International Council of Women in 1899-1902 and was a delegate to council conventions in London in 1899 and Berlin in 1904.

1874: (Birth) Mary Dewson, economist and activist. Dewson helped establish the US’s first minimum wage law, in Massachusetts in 1913.

1878: (Birth) Blanche Ames, artist, women’s rights activist, botanist, author, inventor, and political cartoonist, among other achievements.

1890: The National Woman Suffrage Association and the American Woman Suffrage Association combine to form the National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA), with Elizabeth Cady Stanton as president.

1931: (Birth) Toni Morrison, nobel and pulitzer prize-winning author.

1934: (Birth) Audré Lorde, black lesbian poet and activist. Lorde, a wonderful public speaker, had a knack for telling quotes: “Silence has never brought us anything of worth.” “Our feelings are our most genuine paths to knowledge.” “The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.”

edited by bean to add a few important events not mentioned earlier

(This is the fourth post in an ongoing exchange; first Sara at Diotima posted this commentary regarding a Gloria Steinem interview, followed by my response, followed by Sara’s response. Phew.)

Sara was bothered by the “nastiness” of my previous post. I apologize. I certainly didn’t mean to imply that she doesn’t care about the deaths of women in the third world. In fact, it’s just the opposite - it’s because I know Sara is not callous, that I was shocked by her apparent use of abortions in the USA to rebut Steinem’s concern for women in other countries.

Sara wrote:

I was genuinely taken aback by this linkage - so much that I suggested in my earlier post that it might have just been something Sara said in anger, and not a reflection of her real position.

Sara has now clarified this statement, writing that “my juxtaposition of the number of innocents killed since Roe with Ms. Steinem’s claim was a clumsy attempt to remind people that pro-lifers really do believe in the personhood of the fetus.” Fair enough - thank you for clarifying that. (However, in my own defense, I think it’s understandable that I didn’t infer Sara’s intent from her original wording).

* * *

There is also some discussion of the UN Population Fund, which Bush defunded due to allegations that the UNPFA supports coercive abortion in China.

First of all, Sara believes I questioned whether she, personally, is really interested in halting abortion. However, she’s mistaken. I did question the “pro-life leadership’s commitment to opposing abortion,” in a sentence about “pro-life organizations.” When I wrote that, I was specifically thinking “I’d better make it clear I’m talking about the leaders of the big organizations here, and not Sara.” However, it’s obvious I didn’t make the distinction clear enough; I apologize for that.

Nonetheless, I stand by my criticism of the pro-life leadership; as I’ve written in the past (in a different context), they often seem more interested in scoring partisan points than in pursing substantive policies which would reduce abortion. (Once again, let me clarify that this criticism is made of pro-life leadership, not of Sara.)

Speaking of substantive argument, Sara argues in favor of defunding UNFPA, writing:

Sara implies that the dispute over UNFPA is a dispute between pro-life research and pro-choice research. In fact, Bush’s own fact-finding mission found that PRI’s report was wrong. So did the right-wing MP Edward Leigh, who before visiting China was UNFPA’s strongest opponent in British government. (There’s more detail in this post). Leigh’s study “found no evidence of UNFPA advocating or facilitating coercive FP [Family Planning] laws. Indeed, it seemed precisely the opposite applied. The UNFPA projects, based on the IDPD Programme of Action, helped empower women by ensuring that they had the fullest possible information about reproductive health and choices.”

Keep in mind, that’s a statement a pro-lifer signed on to. This is not a dispute between pro-life and pro-choice researchers; even pro-life researchers who have examined UNFPA’s program in China have come away convinced that PRI is dead wrong, and recommending that UNFPA be fully funded.

And that, Sara, is one reason I find the Catholics for Choice report credible - because it matches what the British team and the Bush team found. (Also, pro-choice organizations have no particular reason to support UNFPA other than a belief that UNFPA saves women’s lives - remember, UNFPA is against abortion, and doesn’t provide abortions or fund any abortions). Both pro-lifers and Bush’s State Department (and, yes, some pro-choice ministers and ethicists) have examined and refuted PRI’s accusations. When pro-life and pro-choice researchers agree, doesn’t it seem probable that they’re telling the truth?

In any case, I can’t imagine what - “unless you have an agenda yourself” - would lead you to dismiss the British MP and US State Department reports.

That UNFPA has any involvement with China’s “One Child Policy” - other than working to end it - is a vicious lie, one that even pro-life researchers have disproved. Of course, feminists are concerned about women in China - which is why feminists don’t want to defund the only Western organization that is successfully opposing coercive practices there.

By spreading the lie, pro-life leaders like President Bush and “Feminists for Life” are greatly hurting the interests of women in China. UNFPA has done more to fight coercive reproductive policies in China than any other organization - period. And - because the UNFPA does not support abortion, and in fact reduces the need for abortion - the net effect of the pro-life leadership’s defunding of UNFPA is to increase abortion worldwide. How does that help anyone?

Sara points out that the $34 million taken away from UNFPA went to the US Child Survival and Health Programs Fund, a US government program. That’s no substitute. The US government money is deeply politicized, so it will go exclusively to programs that are “politically correct” even to the most fanatical pro-life organizations. For instance, none of that money will go to helping the women in China President Bush pretends to feel concern for.

Furthermore, the US program is simply less extensive and provides assistance to fewer women. Overall, the US program funds programs in about 65 countries, compared to the over 140 countries UNFPA is providing assistance to.

Finally, the program Sara refers to was created in 2002; it doesn’t have the experience or the proven effectiveness of UNFPA. Moving $34 million dollars to where the money will help fewer people less effectively isn’t really a wonderful approach to policy.

* * *

Sara writes “I was under the impression that Bush was actually spending a bunch of new money to help fight AIDS in Africa.” Yes, that’s the impression Bush gave - however, after taking the credit, Bush played games with the money, making it difficult to know if there even was a net gain in funding.

* * *

There are many other issues to address, but I’ve got to run. More later.

February 17

1870: (A First): Esther Hobart Morris, suffrage pioneer and later delegate to the National Suffrage Convention in Cleveland, Ohio (1895), is appointed justice of the peace of South Pass City, Wyoming Territory, becoming the first woman the first woman to hold judicial office in the modern world. Mrs. Morris served 8½ months and handled 26 cases, none of which were ever overturned on appeal.

1897: (birth) Pioneering vocalist Marian Anderson, the first African-American to break through the “glass ceiling” keeping non-whites off opera stages. Anderson was known for her dignity, for her courage in breaking barriers, and for one of the greatest singing voices ever heard. Singer Jessye Norman described first hearing Anderson sing: “I listened, thinking, ‘This can’t be just a voice, so rich and beautiful.’ It was a revelation. And I wept.”

In 1955, rather late in her career, Anderson was the first African-American to sing at the Metropolitan Opera. As Rosalyn Story wrote:

edited by bean for additional event not previously included

Over on FamilyScholars.org, Elizabeth Marquardt made an interesting argument against cloning:

Although this argument is interesting in its own right, what struck me is how this contrasts with Elizabeth’s case against same-sex marriage. Here’s Elizabeth’s anti-SSM argument in a nutshell:

There’s an interesting parallel here. Elizabeth asks why it’s acceptable to exploit thousands of women to increase the chance of curing deadly diseases. There are two premises implicit in Elizabeth’s anti-cloning argument - one, that there are potentially fruitful avenues of research aside from cloning, and two, that cloning harms women’s interests - but if you accept Elizabeth’s premises, her conclusion is reasonable. All else held equal, it is better to try to cure diseases without harming women in the process.

Well, then: Isn’t it also better to try to help heterosexual families without harming lesbian and gay families in the process?

Why is it acceptable to deprive thousands of same-sex couples and their children of marriage - of the rights to having socially recognized families, with the dignity and security that, for many, only marriage can confer - just because there’s a chance that depriving same-sex families of equal rights will reduce heterosexual divorce?

The two situations are very similar. There’s a valuable goal being sought (stronger het marriages/cures for diseases). There are multiple policies we could pursue to reach the goal. However, one of the policies treats a particular group of people (women/same-sex families) as if their well-being doesn’t count.

When the group being sacrificed is women, Elizabeth says “let’s find an alternative route.” But when the group being sacrificed is same-sex families, suddenly a group sacrifice is appropriate. Why?

* * *

Elizabeth’s basic argument could have been made against interracial marriages being made legal. It’s a statistical fact that cross-racial marriages are more likely to end in divorce; if we want to reduce divorce, it would make sense to outlaw interracial marriage. Right?

Similarly, laws giving married women the right to own property - rather than all of the couple’s property belonging to the husband - almost certainly increased divorce in the long run, by giving women the financial wherewithal needed to leave unsatisfying marriages. To reduce divorce, we should return to the traditional understanding of marriage, in which husbands owned and controlled all the family property. Right?

Of course not. I’m confident that neither Elizabeth, nor Eve Tushnet, nor David Blankenhorn, nor any reasonable opponent of SSM would endorse these proposals - even if we assume (for the sake of argument) that these proposals would in fact reduce divorce. Reducing divorce is an important goal - but it’s not the only important goal. It is not so important that it justifies sacrificing equal rights between the races, or between the sexes.

Which begs a question, doesn’t it?

When did same-sex couples become objects, merely means to someone else’s end? Why are same-sexers - and same-sexers alone - so worthless?

That’s not right.

Why the difference? Our society now widely acknowleges that women and racial minorities deserve equality. Women and racial minorities aren’t actually treated equally, of course - but to openly advocate legal inequality is no longer acceptable. Except when it comes to the treatment of homosexuals. It is only because our society is still very bigoted against lesbians and gays that advocating their legal inequality is acceptable.

Elizabeth says she’s not bigoted against lesbians and gays, and I believe her. Nonetheless, her argument is premised on bigotry against lesbians and gays. It is only in the context of a bigoted society that a reasonable person like Elizabeth could advocate treating gays as objects to be sacrificed for others’ benefit.

I agree that reducing divorce would be a good thing. I agree that children’s welfare would improve if more heterosexual parents stayed together in healthy marriages.

But I cannot, will not agree that lesbians, gays and their families are appropriate objects for sacrifice. I cannot, will not agree that their interests should be trashed for someone else’s ends. Lesbians and gays are not pawns fit for sacrifice - and to suggest they are is an endorsement of bigotry (whether or not the speaker is personally bigoted). There are other possible approaches to saving het marriage. Let’s pursue those approaches, and allow same-sex families the equality that should be their birthright.

Opposing equality isn’t worth it. Please, let’s come to our senses.

Brian Flemming has an interesting post about his use of BlogAds to promote his movie, Nothing So Strange, a fake documentary about the assassination of Bill Gates. One quote from his post stood out to me:

Curiously enough, this wtf-factor was effective with at least one consumer: me. Well, the story’s a bit more convoluted than that. Allow me to indulge myself in a brief divergence, then I’ll get back to BlogAds as a whole.

About six or so months ago, I first read about Nothing So Strange because of an interview at Film Threat. This kicked me over to the Nothing So Strange site, which kicked me to a discussion about BitPass, which kicked me over to Scott McCloud’s site, which inspired me to read Understanding Comics, which in turn introduced me to serious comics, which has in turn lead to the sheets of paper cluttering my desk on which I am drawing a comic. In the midst of all that leading and kicking, I entirely forgot about Nothing So Strange, or, rather, I forgot the title and the director. Until I saw a BlogAd over at Josh Marshall’s site, advertising discussion of “the last major murder of the twentieth century,” or somesuch. Viola! Nothing So Strange.

Anyway, that enigmatic ad, featuring a blurry photograph of a man in a red hat, caught my eye in a way that the other BlogAds hadn’t. (Incidentally, the latest Nothing So Strange ad is equally enigmatic: a police officer in riot gear, and a comment about how the 2000 Democratic Convention was “reality hacked.” The ad leads to this post which is bound to be fascinating to process junkies.) Kevin Drum, of CalPundit, noted recently that all of the BlogAds on his site seem to have become political fundraising ads.

This intrigues me. I’ve said previously that although I dislike Howard Dean as a candidate, I believe that his campaign model is something that we’ll see copied in the future. I think we’re seeing the beginning of that copy-catting with the BlogAds being flooded by political ads. Similarly, Ben Chandler has been in advertising heavily on Eschaton and at the Daily Kos (and possibly others that I haven’t seen) to fundraise for his bid in the Kentucky special election held… Today, I suppose. (I haven’t been to bed yet; it’s three in the morning.)

I’m intrigued to see how much these politicians actually end up getting through their blog-related advertising. But, it seems that the BlogAds are working for filmmakers, and presumably for the coffee-sellers and kitsch-dealers also advertising on the blogs I frequent. I’m still not sure that blogs will last or if they’ll go the way of the CB radio or if they’ll simply be taken-over by corporate sponsors, but… It’s nice to seem them working while they’re here.

February 16

1862: (A First) Mary Ann Bickerdyke changes military history when she begins nursing wounded soldiers on the battlefield following the fall of Fort Donnelson in Tennessee. Because of her dedication to treating wounded soldiers — in the hospital and on the battlefields — she became known as the “Mother of the Battlefield.” Under Bickerdyke’s supervision, about 300 field hospitals were built with the help of U.S. Sanitary Commission agents. After the war:

1870: (Birth) Labor activist Leonora O’Reilly, who helped found The Woman’s Trade Union League, the first labor organzation for women in the USA, in 1903.

1881: (Birth) Mary Breckinridge, pioneering midwife who provided care to rural America. Founder of the Frontier Nursing Service.

1888: (Birth) Dorothy Kenyon, lawyer, progressive activist and feminist. On being targeted by Senator Joseph McCarthy in 1950, she said “He’s a lowdown worm and although it ought to be beneath my dignity to answer him, I’m mad enough to say that he’s a liar and he can go to hell.”

1920: (Birth) Patty Andrews, lead singer of The Andrews Sisters, arguably the most popular and influential girl group of all time.

edited by bean to add additional event not previously included.

• MaryBeth Williams, of Wampum, is running for the legislature. No joke. From being a fan of her blogging, I know MaryBeth is smart, passionate, compassionate, dedicated, feminist, educated and skeptical - everything I could want in a politician. Plus she’s a woman and a minority in a state that doesn’t have enough of either in government (is there any state with enough?). I only regret she’s running in the right-hand coast’s Portland, rather than mine.

  She plans to keep on blogging, so there should be some fascinating blogging in Wampum as the campaign moves on. By the way, MaryBeth’s blog has a Paypal button if you’d like to contribute to her campaign.

• I can spend hours just yanking the funny flexi man back and forth. Back and forth, back and forth… If your browser lets you, zoom in so he’s bigger. Whheeeeee….
• There have been tons of great posts at Body and Soul lately. ‘Cheap’ has more than one meaning, sweetheart is one of my faves, and if you haven’t read it I recommend you do so.
• Just when you thought it was safe to go back to reading economics journals… “The Economics of Orgasm.”
• Two brief responses to this post of mine on the Family Scholars Blog: here and here. Until I have further information, I have to agree with Tom and David that NOW LDEF was being unfair and attacked what seems to be a decent program unfairly. On the other hand, I’m a little skeptical that the separate programs offered to women won’t be “lesser” - it definitely merits investigation.

  I should also mention that David Blankenhorn was perfectly nice in his response to me - and even admitted error on one point - making me feel rather guilty that I was snarky in my comments to him. I’ll do better in future.

• A few days ago, the New York Times carried an article on the Justice Department seeking medical records of women who have had abortions. Most chilling quote:
  Citing federal case law, the department said in a brief that “there is no federal common law” protecting physician-patient privilege. In light of “modern medical practice” and the growth of third-party insurers, it said, “individuals no longer possess a reasonable expectation that their histories will remain completely confidential.”

  Unfortunately, at least one Judge (in New York) has taken Ashcroft’s side in this dispute. (Link via Rita Rambles).

• The Chicago Tribune and Ms.Musings have both recently linked to One Good Thing. Let me add “Alas, a Blog’s” tiny voice to the growing chorus - One Good Thing is smart, funny, mean as hell (in a good way) and wonderfully feminist take on motherhood, owning a sex toy store, current events and everything else.
• Speaking of sex toys, if you’re in the market, please make a point of shopping The Honeysuckle Shop; it’s a fine shop, plus the owners have good politics. Pass the word on.
• Back at the Family Scholars blog, Elizabeth Marquardt argues passionately that cloning is a women’s rights issue.
• Don’t know why I find this appealing, but I do. Dance, fat purple thing, dance!
• Interesting post at Crooked Timber on what makes a good childhood, venturing into thoughts about public spaces and TV watching rules. Via Apt. 11D.
• Excellent meta-blogging post at Feministe - you should go read it. When I started “Alas, A Blog,” there were many blogs by feminists, but relatively few feminist blogs. Now it seems to me that there are so many excellent feminist blogs. It pleases me (and gives me more to read!) - but at the same time, it makes me feel “Alas” is less necessary than it used to be. Like Feministe’s MsLauren, I’m wondering if it isn’t time to jettison the blog and work on other writing. (My fear is that without the blog I’ll do no writing at all - as MsLauren wrote, Blogging is the one kind of writing I seem to get done without deadline pressure.

  From Feministe (and via Sappho’s Breathing):

  The world is a strangely oppressive classroom in which memes we dislike and with which we disagree are taught to us every day. We often feel that we have no voice, no outlet, no space to call one’s own. Blogging has given us a space that is under our control, in which we can say what we like, popular or not, and form more concise ideas about who we are and what we really think about a given issue. We can accept or reject the memes as we so choose.

  I sometimes think I’ll spend my entire life doing nothing but unlearning poisonous memes the world has shoved down my throat. (Should I post this? It sounds negative, and my readers tend to like upbeat stuff more. And who can blame them?)

• Cyndi Lauper still rocks. Via MsMusings.
• Over at F-Word (a really good website I should read more often), the author linked in comments to this essay, “Feminists are sexist.”

  From F-Word:

  The thing is, I’m getting really, really tired of having to justify feminism by explaining how it also benefits men. And that, believe it or not, is the point of this article. What I’m angry about is not the genuine male enquirers who honestly wonder why “nobody complains about the stereotyping of men” (and they do exist, I replied to several of them), it’s the anti-feminist men who attack us for daring to get involved in a movement which aims to improve the lives of women.

  What this is really about is men accusing feminists of sexism and hypocrisy unless they can prove that they spend exactly half of their time, energy, and resources on campaigning on behalf of men. What this is really about is that if feminism only improves the lives of women, it has no value or importance. What this is really about is that feminism only has value if it works on behalf of men and improves the lives of men. What this is really about is anti-feminist men being threatened by women working for women. What they’re really saying is that to talk about women, to focus on women, to point out that something affects women badly; all of this is of no importance or value. It’s classic, really – because men are not always the focus of attention of feminism, these anti-feminists can’t stand it.

  I very much agree, and even drew a cartoon carrying much the same message a few years ago.

• Heidi Bond at Crescat Sententia has written a post well-worth reading, “On Giving Up.”
• At A Fistful of Euros, Scott Martins discusses the headscarf ban in France. He also points out something I hadn’t realized (but should have guessed); one consequence of the ban is parents choosing to keep their daughters home from school.
• Gabriel Rosenberg responds to responses to his posts on incest and polygamy, and also argues, persuasively, that it’s unlikely that any state will be forced to recognize same-sex marriages in other states.
• A descriptive Village Voice article on gay and lesbian same-household co-parenting arrangements… at some point I should discuss my own somewhat odd home life on the blog.
  In her late twenties, Beth decided she was ready to have kids. She met Phillip Hernandez and discovered that he and his partner, James Slayton, longed to have children, too. They joked about doing it together, and one day the conversation turned serious. The three drew up a formal agreement that was not legally binding but would serve as a framework for this family for the next 18-plus years. They now have two sons, 3 1/2-year-old Zander and 17-month-old Nicholas, and another son on the way. The boys are each biologically related to one of their dads, but Beth thinks the distinction isn’t important and balks when people ask her to clarify.

  I always get a thrill from seeing people make alternative arrangements work.

• I’m sure most of my readers would hate Dust in the Light (it’s unapologetically anti-gay). But I have to admit, I like the design. Most special-effects heavy designs leave me cold (and with a headache), but for some reason this works for me. Except that the stained-glass-window thingy looks bad when text scrolls over it.
• Via Dust in the Light, I came across this Letter to the Editor by Karen Hayes:
  Conservatives would have us believe that gay marriage threatens traditional marriage. But marriage and the “traditional family” have been in trouble for decades — for a host of reasons that have nothing to do with homosexual partnerships. No law against same-sex marriage will change the divorce rate; no constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman could have saved my parents’ marriage, or my own; and no legalized bigotry will heal America’s broken families.

  Yup, yup, yup.