Archive for February, 2004

Decide which you favor: The Constitution, or tyranny of the majority.

Posted by Ampersand | February 19th, 2004

David Benkof writes:

The problem is, the current political situation gives segregation proponents no choice other than what our president calls “the Constitutional process.” Believe me, right-of-center politicians (and especially the White House) haven’t been eager to deal with segregation at all. But blacks sued in court, won in Massachusetts, and now the only way those of us who want to preserve racial segregation can do anything politically is to amend a constitution - the Massachusetts one or the federal one.

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.

Same-sex marriage and gun laws

Posted by Ampersand | February 19th, 2004

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

Al Rantel, quoted on MarriageDebate.org, asks:

What if the mayor of San Diego, not liking California gun laws, started handing out concealed weapons licenses left and right? How is that different from the mayor of San Francisco flouting the California constitution by handing out same-sex marriage licenses?

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.

On this day in history

Posted by Ampersand | February 18th, 2004

(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

More about UNFPA (Diotima on Gloria Steinem, part two)

Posted by Ampersand | February 18th, 2004

(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:

We’re going to injure and kill millions of women [in other countries]? What about the millions of unborn babies we’ve killed right here in the past 31 years?

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:

I have looked at a lot of the literature out there on the UNFPA and whether or not it supported coerced abortions in China, and I’m just not sure it’s as conclusive as Ampersand does (for example, I’m not sure why you’d decide to dismiss the Population Research Institute’s report as just pushing an anti-woman agenda but accept the Catholics for Choice report as objective, unless you’ve got an agenda yourself).

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.

Furthermore, I’m surprised feminists aren’t applauding the President’s decision to pull UNFPA’s funding, especially because he justified it by pointing to UNFPA’s involvement in China’s One Child Policy. China is not a bastion of reproductive freedom, something I would think feminists would be a little more concerned about.

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.

On this day in history

Posted by Ampersand | February 17th, 2004

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:

Obviously, [the Met] could have given the honor of “first black” to someone younger and musically stronger, like soprano Mattiwilda Dobbs, who had succeeded at La Scala and the Glyndebourne Festival in England, or baritone Robert McFerrin, who was engaged at the Met immediately after Anderson. But the point was clear; Anderson, whose career had quietly and continuously broken barriers, dissolved hostilities, and awakened the consciousness of an entire country, was the only singer whose presence could signify the real meaning of the event. The length and contour of her own journey, from poor prodigy to artist-ambassador in the span of half a century, mirrored the progress of an entire movement of people advancing toward artistic and social equality. Anderson’s life, in simple terms, defined that movement.

edited by bean for additional event not previously included

Same-Sex Marriage: Why Are Gay Interests So Easily Sacrificed?

Posted by Ampersand | February 17th, 2004

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

With cloning, women and children become objects, merely means to someone else’s end. If — if — “therapeutic” cloning works, people with serious diseases may have a new treatment option, but it’s also quite possible that new treatments could be found that don’t require sacrificing women and children. Cloning isn’t worth it. Please, let’s come to our senses.

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:

Legalizing same sex marriage requires us to change the legal definition of marriage. Marriage becomes between “two persons” rather than between “a man and a woman.” Once we change the definition our law, and increasingly our culture, is unable to say that children need their mother and father. This will make it much harder to defend the proposition, still held by many people even in our weakened marriage culture, that heterosexual parents should try to marry rather than cohabit, and that they should try to stay married and avoid divorce. As a result, with legalized SSM more children are likely to grow up lacking their mother and father in the home.

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.

BlogAds

Posted by PinkDreamPoppies | February 17th, 2004

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:

I had lunch with Blogads proprietor Henry Copeland this weekend, and he gave me some excellent advice on running the campaign. Henry told me not to try to communicate too much information with the ad, as tempting as that might be. Don’t underestimate the ‘wtf?’ aspect, he said. So I’m trying to create simple ads that create curiosity. Nothing So Strange has a densely packed website, so there’s no reason not to let the website do the work.

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.

Links links links links links

Posted by Ampersand | February 16th, 2004
  • 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.

On this day in history…

Posted by Ampersand | February 15th, 2004

Februrary 15

1820: (Birth) Susan B. Anthony, women’s rights leader, who with Elizabeth Cady Stanton led the fight for votes for women for many years.

susanbdollar.gif

1859: (A First) Federal Law, promoted by Belva Lockwood, gives women who practice law access to the Supreme Court bar.

edited by bean to add even not previously included

On this day in history…

Posted by Ampersand | February 14th, 2004

February 14

1847 : (Birth) Reverend Anna Howard Shaw, suffragette leader, one of the first woman ordained as a Methodist minister, and president of the American Woman Suffrage Association for many years. “Nothing bigger can come to a human being than to love a great Cause more than life itself, and to have the privilege throughout life of working for that Cause.”

1920: The League of Women Voters is formed.

1985: The U.S. Rabbinical Assembly of Conservative Jews votes to accept women as rabbis.

edited by bean for correction

I wish I had been in Massachusetts yesterday

Posted by Ampersand | February 14th, 2004

Via MarriageDebate, the Boston Globe’s report on the legislature’s debate over gay marriage:

…discord was touched off when the hour grew late and the gay marriage supporters defeated the Travis amendment. That emboldened the gay groups, who wanted to use the remaining hours until midnight to prevent another vote.

Back Bay Democrat Paul C. Demakis launched into a passionate and lengthy defense of the rights of gay and lesbian couples. Next up was a Milton Democrat, Senator Brian A. Joyce. Leaving no room for words to fail him, he proceeded to read, in full, a lengthy op-ed column in defense of same-sex marriage by Peter J. Gomes, a minister and a Harvard University professor of Christian morals.

As Joyce went on, opponents of gay marriage realized what was happening — a filibuster.

They tried to regain the floor by appealing to Senate President Robert E. Travaglini. But Travaglini rebuffed them, and Representative Eugene L. O’Flaherty threw the parliamentary equivalent of a tantrum. The Chelsea Democrat led about 20 fellow House members, mostly loyalists of Speaker Thomas M. Finneran’s, out of the chamber.

They chanted, “We want a vote! We want a vote!” echoing the cries from opponents of same-sex marriage that had rung through the State House hallways on Tuesday.

After a brief respite, Travaglini regained control of the chamber. As the night went on, legislators who support gay marriage went to the podium one by one.

Outside the chamber, a group of about 200 gay-rights activists, holding rainbow flags and a huge American flag, had been singing for hours, their voices as strong and loud at 11 p.m. as they had been at 3 p.m. When it became clear that the amendment would not pass, Arline Isaacson, cochairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, addressed the crowd in a brief civics lesson. Camera lights illuminated her face, and chants followed virtually every sentence.

“It’s sure a lot better to be alive at the end of the day, and have dodged all those bullets. So understand this. If midnight comes, and they have not voted to take our rights away, they’re still going to come back and they’re still very inclined to put discrimination in the constitution, to make us second-class citizens. But if they get past midnight, we’ve made it through one more day, and that will be a good thing.”

Legislators who had spoken in favor of gay marriage rights streamed out of the chamber and into the crowd, and the singers chanted “Thank you! Thank you!” and slapped their backs.

Damn, that sounds sweet.

It’s so strange for me to feel thrilled reading the news. But I love what’s going on in Massachusetts, and the torrent of gay weddings in San Francisco. I imagine it felt this way to open a newspaper and read that a woman named Rosa Parks had refused to go to the back of the bus.

On this day in history…

Posted by Ampersand | February 13th, 2004

1870: (A First) Wyoming’s Esther Morris is appointed a Justice of the Peace - the first woman to serve in that capacity in the USA. Morris was also an active women’s rights campaigner.

1906: (Birth) Pauline Frederick Robbins, pioneering female TV and radio journalist. Among other firsts, she was the first woman to moderate a presidential debate.

1943: (Birth): Feminist scholar and theologian Elaine Pagels.

1945: (Death) Henrietta Szold, founder of Hadassah Women, the largest Jewish organization in American history. As the founder and director of the Youth Aliyah Agency, Szold was responsible for the rescue of over 22,000 Jewish children from the Nazis.

1962: (A First) Eleanor Roosevelt becomes first chair of the President’s Commission on the Status of Women.

edited by bean for corrections

Diotima on Gloria Steinem

Posted by Ampersand | February 13th, 2004

I read Gloria Steinem’s interview in Buzzflash when it came out, but didn’t think it was especially fascinating; I didn’t even link to it from “Alas.” Then I read this entry at Diotima, in which Sara - one of my favorite conservative bloggers - is reduced to what can only be called sputtering incoherence by the task of responding to Steinem’s interview.

I’m not going to rebut every instance in which Sara’s points are illogical or based on a failure to comprehend Steinem’s arguments. But for example, consider this quote from Steinem, about right-wing religious activists:

Gloria Steinem: But these are the people that our European ancestors came to this country to escape. I mean, they are trying to cite unproveable arguments — arguments that take place in heaven and life after death — as reasons why we should obey them now. These literally are the type of people that the Europeans who founded America came here to escape.

Sara responds by saying that she learned from this that…

…modern religious conservatives are actually 17th century Anglicans. Interesting. I guess what I find most striking about this is how completely ignorant it reveals Ms. Steinem to be of her opposition. I guess I’d always assumed that some members of the Left promote these inaccurate stereotypes as scare tactics, out of malice. But Ms. Steinem seems like a true believer.

The Anglican line is an easy put-down, but it ignores the meaning of Steinem’s quote. Steinem’s quote explained in what sense modern religious conservatives are like 17th century Anglicans; both groups “cite unproveable arguments — arguments that take place in heaven and life after death — as reasons why we should obey them now.”

Steinem’s statement is a simplification, but also fundamentally correct. Conservative intellectuals like Sara aren’t what’s driving the Republicans to oppose same-sex marriage (actually, Sara favors same-sex marriage) and reproductive rights. In those areas, the 800-pound gorilla in the Republican party is the religious right. And those folks use unprovable arguments all the time, just as Ms. Steinem said.

Yesterday, Rhode Island Representative Victor Moffitt (R) justified his anti-gay-marriage bill by saying “The sanctity of marriage needs to be defined, protected. I am a Catholic. I view marriage as a sacrament.” How can one argue with that? Mr. Moffitt has a right to his beliefs, and to vote based on his beliefs. Nonetheless, he’s clearly attempting to use the law to force all Rhode Islanders to obey his religious beliefs; and that’s typical behavior from religious conservatives in America today, on issues ranging from same-sex marriage to reproductive rights to “Terri’s law.”

If Sara actually believes that folks like Representative Moffitt are a scare tactic made up by feminists - or if she believes that they are not a powerful force in the Republican party - then I’d say that Sara exhibits less understanding of the modern conservative movement than Ms. Steinem does.

Here’s another Steinem quote with Sara’s response:

Gloria Steinem: If he is elected in 2004, abortion will be criminalized in this country. We will continue to injure and kill millions of women in other countries by the gag rule and the withdrawal of funds for family planning, for AIDS education. And we will endanger many other advances we take for granted — Title IX and so on.

Sara at Diotima: Sputter. Read that again. “If he is elected [not "re-elected"] in 2004, abortion will be criminalized in this country.” What kind of alternate universe is this woman living it?!?! We’re going to injure and kill millions of women? What about the millions of unborn babies we’ve killed right here in the past 31 years? Rrrrraaggrrrr! We LOST on Title IX! They won! This woman is on crack! She’s completely lost it!

Clearly Sara’s wacked-out tone here is tongue-in-cheek, but her logic is just as wacky.

First, Sara implies that it’s insane to think that a Bush re-election might lead to criminalization of abortion. Why? It’s certainly possible (I’d say likely) that both O’Connor and Stevens will retire from the Supreme Court in the four-year period following the 2004 election, and if so Bush might intend to choose anti-Roe justices to fill those seats. The result of this would almost certainly be criminalization of abortion in much of the USA.

This is not an obscure scenario; the Buzzflash interviewer brings it up during Steinem’s interview. Nor is it so implausible that only an insane person could worry about it.

And yes, feminists won on Title IX. But there is a continuous movement among conservatives to water-down or overturn Title IX; it’s quite reasonable for Steinem to think that Title IX and other feminist victories will be “endangered” by continuing Republican dominance in politics.

Finally, I am puzzled - and appalled - by this bit of total illogic from Sara: “We’re going to injure and kill millions of women? What about the millions of unborn babies we’ve killed right here in the past 31 years?”

Is Sara honestly saying that because she finds abortion morally wrong, injuring and killing millions of women is somehow unimportant or justifiable?

When Steinem referred to the withdrawal of funding for family planning and AIDS prevention, I took that as a reference to the way pro-lifers and the Bush administration blocked $34 million earmarked for the UN Population Fund (UNFPA for short - yes, I know the initials don’t match up, complain to the UN). $34 million is almost 15% of UNFPA’s total funding.

A few facts about UNFPA: UNFPA does not provide support for abortions or abortion-related activities anywhere in the world. In fact, they prevent abortion, by providing family planning services and birth control in developing countries all over the world. They also help prevent AIDS, provide medical care which makes pregnancy and childbirth safer for mothers and babies, and work to prevent and treat obstetric fistulas. (More on what UNFPA does here).

According to UNFPA, “UNFPA estimates that $34 million applied to family planning programmes could prevent some 800,000 abortions, 4,700 maternal deaths and 77,000 infant and child deaths annually worldwide.” That’s only deaths - the total would presumably be much higher if non-fatal conditions such as fistulas were included.

Why was UNPFA defunded? Because some US pro-lifers accused UNPFA of supporting coercive abortions in China. Several independent fact-finding missions - including one from the Bush administration - have refuted this claim. (A more recent group of US religious scholars and ethicists, organized by Catholics for Choice, came to the same conclusion - pdf file).

I understand that to pro-lifers, there is little or no difference between the death of an 8-week embryo and the death of an adult woman. However, how can concern for unborn children possibly justify defunding an agency that doesn’t provide abortions, helps women and reduces the need for abortion?

Sara seems to feel that while abortion is legal in the US, it’s somehow ridiculous for Steinem to object to pro-life attacks on health care for women in the third world. Sara’s position (if it is indeed her position, and not just a momentary flash of anger) is unsupportable and immoral; the deaths of unborn fetuses in the US do not justify deaths and injuries to women in the third world.

Illogical as Sara’s statement is, it’s also typical of the pro-life movement in the United States. To the best of my knowledge, not a single pro-life organization in the US - not even the pro-life “feminists” - objected to the defunding of UNFPA. This calls into question the pro-life leadership’s commitment to opposing abortion - apparently an agency that reduces abortion through non-coercive needs, like UNFPA, is seen as the enemy by pro-life organizations.

Actually, pro-lifers who don’t think Bush’s election (not, as Sara correctly points out, “re-election”) will lead to overturning Roe would be well advised to vote for the Democrat instead. By reauthorizing funding for UNFPA (which had been cut off under Reagan), Bill Clinton probably prevented more abortions than President Bush ever has.

* * *

More generally, I think part of Sara’s difficulty with Steinem is due to the cultural difference between the IWF and feminism. Gloria Steinem is a type of leader that the IWF has never had. Steinem isn’t an academic or a think-tanker; she’s a popular leader and organizer. That’s a kind of leadership that’s completely foreign to the IWF culture, because they’ve never had any popular support.

Sara thinks that Steinem should embarrass feminists because she says something silly in an interview (and I admit, Steinem’s quasi-Marxist interpretation of the pro-life movement was cringeworthy). But that completely misses the point - Steinem’s accomplishments and contribution to feminism has primarily been as an organizer, not as a theorist. As an organizer, Steinem contributed to a huge advancement of feminism, equality and justice in the USA; on balance, a mistaken statement about pro-lifers in an obscure interview is insignificant.

[Edited on 2-16-04 to correct typos, grammer and to make it slightly less snippy.]

On this day in history…

Posted by Ampersand | February 12th, 2004

(Bean’s away this week, enjoying the tropical sunshine and the palm trees of London, Canada, so I’m subbing for her - Amp.)

February 12

1855: (Birthday) Fannie Williams, co-founder of the National Association of Colored Women born in Brockport, NY. The NACW still exists today.

1909: (A First) The first meeting of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) is held; members include Mary Church Terrell, Jane Addams, and Ida B. Wells Barnett, Joesphine Ruffin, and Inez Millholland Boissevain.

1992: Following a seven-year court battle, Sharon Kowalski is finally brought home by her life partner (and now legal guardian), Karen Thompson. Kowalski, who had been severely injured in an accident, was the subject of a custody suit between Thompson and Kowalski’s estranged father.

2004: (A first) City officials in San Francisco issued a license and performed a wedding ceremony for a lesbian couple. This appears to be the first legal same-sex wedding in the United States. The couple, Phyllis Lyon, 79, and Del Martin, 83, are longtime lesbian-rights activists, who have been together for over half a century.

edited by bean to add previously missing information and to make one correction.

Iraqi women’s rights: Send a letter to George W. Bush

Posted by Ampersand | February 11th, 2004

The Feminist Majority Foundation has a letter you can email expressing “concern to the Bush Administration about” the stripping away of Iraqi women’s rights. Please fill out the letter; it’ll only take you a minute to send it using the FMF’s form, and it’s possible it’ll do some good.

Ashcroft goes after medical records of women who have had abortions

Posted by Ampersand | February 11th, 2004

Lis at Riba Rambles has highlighted an interesting news story. The case is National Abortion Federation vs. John Ashcroft, in which the NAF is trying to get the so-called “partial birth” abortion ban overturned. One of the parties suing is a doctor who performs late-term abortions.

Ashcroft’s lawyers tried to subpheona the medical records of the doctor’s patients from the hospital. Although they agreed to let the hospital strike off the patients’ names, they reserved the right to try and get further identifying information from the hospital later.

Happily, the court slapped the attempt down - Lis has quotes from the ruling. Still, it’s scarey stuff, and yet another example of how little Ashcroft seems to understand the notion of “privacy.” Especially, of course, as applied to pregnant women.

Update Will Baude responds:

Why is it that people feel compelled to accuse Ashcroft of not understanding “privacy” rather than, say, understanding perfectly well, but disagreeing about what should be private?

I think Will overestimates how literal my readers are. I trust that “Alas, a Blog” readers, being smartish sorts, realize that a smart, accomplished politician like Ashcroft comprehends arguments that he disagrees with. They would therefore not take my words literally.

What if I had said something along the lines of Will’s suggestion? “Ashcroft understands privacy perfectly well, of course, while disagreeing with me on what is private.” That version would better suit literal-minded readers, but would have failed to effectively communicate my disdain for Ashcroft and the (in my opinion) anti-women views he represents.

My original version isn’t as literal, but better communicates my attitude.

Of course, if I were engaged in direct debate with Mr. Ashcroft, that would be a reason to choose the more polite version. But I think expressing disdain (and in this case, heartfelt disdain) for the views of public figures is perfectly reasonable rhetoric.

SECOND UPDATE: This cracked me up. My, this post has generated some odd criticisms. Anyhow, point well taken; I’ve made a correction.

What Causes Rape? Anatomy of a rape culture

Posted by Ampersand | February 11th, 2004

What causes rape? How can we change our culture so that it happens less often, or not at all? I’d like to give my opinions on this - at, perhaps, some risk of pissing some folks off.

Alas readers who know me know that I’m a font of statistical evidence about rape; there was a year or so in which I didn’t read about much other than quantitative research about rape. But of the hundreds of stats about rape I’ve read, the most essential one is the most obvious: the overwhelming majority of rapists are male. If we want to discover how to reduce rape, we have to be willing to figure out what the hell is wrong with men, and how to change it.

(Okay, ass-covering time: when I say “what the hell is wrong with men,” I do mean all men in our culture - even men as “enlightened” as the more feminist men on this board. But I don’t mean that all men rape, or even that all men are potential rapists. Rather, I’d say the things in our culture which screw up men so much that rape becomes a widespread problem affect all men to some degree - even those who never rape.)

Unfortunately, I think feminism - and especially radical feminism - has been limited in increasing our understanding of rape, because feminism is (generally) focused on women, whereas rape is mostly about men. You will never find the cause or cure for rape by examining women, because rapists are overwhelmingly male.

So what does cause rape? Or, put another way, if we can agree that we live in a “rape culture” (defined as “a culture in which rape is prevalent and is maintained through fundamental attitudes and beliefs about gender, sexuality, and violence”), then what are those fundamental attitudes about gender, sexuality, and violence?

I’d identify three interrelated candidates: the myth of masculinity, cultural disdain for women, and our society’s conception of sexuality as something possessed exclusively by women. If we want “24 hours in which there is no rape,” then we have to destroy these three warped cultural ideas.

1) The Myth of Fragile Masculinity.

From early boyhood, men are taught that their masculinity must be protected above all else, or else it will be lost. Men who have lost their masculinity are objects of contempt, derision and violent abuse, and have lost the right to be loved or respected by their fellow men and by their fathers.

Boys are also taught that masculinity is fragile and high-maintenance; you work to get it and to retain it, and the slightest slip can cause it to be altogether lost. You can slip instantly, with no transition, from the most popular boy in the room to the butt of everyone’s jokes: all it takes is a moment’s lapse in which you say or do anything that can be interpreted as feminine.

This is essential: Masculinity is fragile. The man who has lost his masculinity is, in the eyes of male culture, less than nothing, worse than dead. Therefore, force in defense of masculinity - like beating up a boy who accuses you of being a faggot - can feel to boys and men like a form of self-defense.

Masculinity is defined by what it is not. Being masculine means avoiding the feminine. Being feminine, even for an instant, means risking loss of masculinity. Empathy, in our culture’s warped conception, is feminine; thinking about other people’s emotions is feminine. Boys are taught to avoid empathy.

Masculinity is also defined by power-over. The man who is overpowered by others is less then a man; the man who has power over others is a man among men. Remember, masculinity is fragile: if you don’t have power-over, you’re in danger of losing your manhood.

Once boys become teens, masculinity is additionally defined by the absolutely crucial task of getting laid. Once again, masculinity is fragile: he who isn’t getting any ain’t a man.

So there are a myriad of ways in which boys and men can lose the status of “being a man.” But at the same time, boys and men feel absolutely entitled to becoming men.

Masculinity comes wrapped around a sense of entitlement. Men don’t feel grateful when the women in their life (mothers, wives, maids) prepare meals, make beds, or whatever: in our society’s warped view, the women are just doing what they’re supposed to, and men are just getting what they’re entitled to. (Statistically, it’s interesting that virtually everyone in our culture who decides to blow up a building or machine-gun a crowd is white and male. The main reason for this, I believe, is that white men feel so entitled to high status in society, some of them take revenge if they don’t their rightful entitlement.)

There is one bit of good news - for most men, issues about masculinity are more extreme in the first thirty years of men’s lives then thereafter. For someone still in school - be it the 6th grade or a college frat house - the social enforcement mechanisms for not maintaining masculinity can be extreme. Those who can’t “be men” are social pariahs, are taught to be ashamed, and are not-uncommonly the subjects of beatings. But that’s not as true in most adult environments (although it’s true in some adult environments, like prison). Perhaps once we’ve been away from those sorts of environments for five or ten years, most of us begin to feel that our masculinity isn’t so threatened, after all.

Statistically, environments which tend to have the most rape - middle and high school, frat houses, prisons - are also the environments which most emphasize masculinity, and where boys and men have the most reason to fear losing masculinity. If we could change the culture of such environments, we’d go a long way towards reducing rape.

2) Low regard for women.

The fact is, women aren’t respected as equals, by and large. To some degree this is a self-perpetuating cycle: why aren’t women in more of public life’s highest-respected positions (Presidents, CEOs, Senators, movie stars, cartoonists :) , etc)? Because women aren’t seen as capable of holding society’s highest positions. Why aren’t women seen as being as capable? Well, just look around: there are almost no women are doing those things.

Women’s lower pay - and lower status generally in most of the overtly powerful and materially rewarding aspects of our culture - is both a cause of and a result of the low regard in which our culture holds women. That the huge amount of unpaid caretaking work our society requires to get by is overwhelmingly done by women, and accorded almost no respect (”stay at home moms just sit around watching TV all day, right?”), is both a cause of and a result of the low regard in which our culture holds women.

Women get paid less. Women get promoted less. Women get out of the house less. The work women do is worth less. In our society, women are less. This must change if rape is to be eliminated.

Remember how masculinity encourages lack of empathy? Well, low regard for women also encourages lack of empathy. Social scientists have shown that people (regardless of sex) are less empathic towards those who are below them in the social hierarchy. Bosses are less empathic towards secretaries than vice-versa; owners less empathic towards slaves than vice-versa; men less empathic towards women than vice-versa.

Why do men rape women? It’s not because they hate women, by and large. Do hunters hunt because they hate animals? No, they hunt because hunting is fun, because they like the meat, and maybe because hunting is a way of male-bonding, They don’t hate the animal; they just consider empathy for the animal’s feelings irrelevant, less important than their desire for meat or fun. (I’m ignoring the ecological arguments for hunting for the sake of the analogy).

Men who rape women don’t do it because they hate women, but because they don’t give a fuck about women (at least, not the women they rape). They want something, they take it, and they’re by-and-large indifferent to how the person they “take” it from feels.

This is why the “rape isn’t about sex, rape is about violence” analysis falls short. It’s not true - not from the point of view of many rapists - and it denies the true horror of the situation. Many rapists don’t rape because they hate and want to hurt women; it’s not that personal. Rapists rape because they want sex; they don’t consider the woman’s feelings at all, because a woman’s feelings aren’t worth considering. They’re just women, after all.

Which brings me to my third point….

3) Sexuality is something possessed by women, which is given to (or taken by) men.

That’s our society’s view of it. Look at the magazines on the racks - it’s pretty obvious why men’s magazines, wanting to sell copies with a sexy cover, usually use photos of mostly-undressed women. But why do women’s magazines do the exact same thing? Because to do a sexy magazine cover, you generally have to show a photo of a woman. Sexuality equals women in our culture; it is something possessed by women, not by men.

That’s also why women are taught to wait to be asked for a dance (or for a date), while men are taught to do the asking. Women have it; men ask for it. That’s why porn-like images of women are so common they’re impossible to avoid, while porn-like images of men are (outside gay male culture) relatively infrequent. Women have sex; to show a picture of sex, show a porn-like image of a woman.

Why do men rape, while women virtually never rape? Because sexuality is something possessed by women, in our society’s warped view. In our society, women don’t rape for the same reason rich people don’t mug.

This connects to the first point, too - the fragility of masculinity. Men who have lost their masculinity are, in our culture’s view, less than men, less even than women. They are the lowest of the low. One way to lose your masculinity is to be unable to “get” sex from a woman. This also breeds resentment of women (in much the same way that poverty can sometimes breed resentment of rich people): “how dare women not give something to me that I need so desperately? How dare women withhold from me the masculinity that I’m entitled to?”

If there’s nothing worse to a man than losing that fragile masculinity, and if one way of retaining masculinity is to use masculinity’s power-over to take sex from the owners, and if the owners are only women, anyway, rather than being anything important - then rape is frequently the result.

Hell, looking at how twisted and sick our culture is, sometimes I’m surprised rape doesn’t happen even more often.

* * *

Obviously, I’m not saying that this is right. It’s sick, warped, and twisted. But that is the truth about our sick, warped, and twisted society, in my opinion. People talk about a “rape culture.” I’d argue that these three things - Masculinity, Low Regard for Women, and Sex is Owned by Women - are the three main ingredients of that rape culture. And if we want to create a world without rape, finding ways to change those three things is where we should start.

Ampersand is reading…

Posted by Ampersand | February 11th, 2004
  • I’ve been meaning to link to this interesting article from Nervy Girl Magazine for a while, about women’s and men’s razors.

    On the “Experience Venus” page, I learned about how Venus can give me “oh-so-touchable legs.” And I got the inside scoop on some features special to the Venus system, including the super-simple blade-change function—“No fiddling. No mistakes. Blade-changing made simple. Click. That’s it. Just open the refill and click on the handle. You couldn’t do it upside down if you tried. Phew.”

    Phew indeed. The MACH3 site’s version? “Open cartridge architecture makes rinsing and cleaning the MACH3Turbo blades easier than ever; the single-point docking system … makes it virtually impossible for consumers to accidentally load a cartridge upside down.” Architecture? Docking system? Thank goodness they didn’t try those 50-cent words on the girlies.

    Via Jenn Manley Lee, who has additional thoughts you should read.

  • Body and Soul guest poster Donald Johnson has an excellent post discussing the sanctions in Iraq (remember the sanctions? You know, when the US needlessly killed hundreds of thousands of civilians? It was reported in the European papers), and what they tell us about “How Centrists Think.” There’s some good material in the comments section, too.
  • A really impressive twenty-questions type game. It’s also interesting to see what it gets wrong - for instance, it didn’t know that elephants can swim.
  • If you’re any sort of comic book geek, you should know who Julius Schwartz is - that is, who he was. He passed away earlier this week. I’d say “sadly, he passed away” but really - how sad is it when someone passes away from a seemingly long, accomplished and happy life? We should all do so well. Read Marc Evanier’s remembrance, even if you have no idea who Julius Schwartz was.
  • The Leiter Report notes that, according to a wide range of statistics, the USA isn’t actually the only worthwhile place in the world to live.
  • Eugene Volokh looks at the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment (actually an anti-marriage amendment, if you think about it) and finds that it’s quite possible it would outlaw not only same-sex marriage, but also state-level civil union and domestic partnership laws.
  • See a man wrestle a hippo with his bare hands! A lot of folks have linked to this Decembrist post which attempts to grapple with the scale of the dishonesty of the Bush budget.
  • Ms Musings responds to the latest batch of nonsense from the swell gals of the IWF. The IWF’s conclusion: every single policy that the GOP favors is in women’s best interests. It must be mysterious to them that women tend to vote for the Democrats…
  • Womens Enews reports on how important even a part-time, low-paying job can be for securing a degree of empowerment for women in South Africa.
  • Who are the left? John Quiggin’s initial post on this wasn’t that great, but the update and concession are terrific.
  • Joel Rogers in The Nation argues the progressive case for Edwards. I have to admit, if it’s a choice between Edwards and Kerry, I don’t see why Kerry - who, on TV, strongly resembles Lurch on tranquilizers - is seen as more “electable.”
  • The New York Times examines how the religious right settled on fighting gay marriage as their best fundraising hope of the moment.
  • Ain’t-It-Cool-News reports on the most important news story of all (look for February 10th):
    Buzz inside certain Los Angeles law firms suggests that talent contracts are being hammered out, and they’re timed around a May start for an upcoming Universal feature about a starship captain, a space hooker, a mysterious preacher and a pair of fugitives named Tam. The bad news: under the scenario discussed, “Firefly: The Movie” wouldn’t hit multiplexes until late 2005.

    And then, I hope, a TV series… Via FireflyMovie.com and Kip.

  • He may be conservative, but Andrew Sullivan on gay marriage rocks. Here, he’s discussing the Massachusetts Court’s recent rejection of “civil unions” as an alternative to gay marriage.
    The Justices in the majority mercilessly home in on the central meaning behind so-called “civil unions” - the only defense of them is that they are a device to maintain exclusion, especially when they are substantively identical to civil marriage. In that sense - same thing, different department - they’re a text-book case of “separate but equal.” If you’re going to give gay couples the same rights as straight couples, why are you calling it something different? If both can drink the same water, why a different water fountain? The only answer can be: to keep the stigma in place. But stigma as such surely has no role under a constitution that affirms equal rights for all citizens. It’s not the court’s role to rule otherwise. The only judicial activism in this case would have been if the Court had decided that, in spite of the state constitution, the public’s own discomfort with a minority would be justification for maintaining that minority’s second class status.

    And more:

    I don’t believe courts should never do anything but rubber-stamp majority decisions. I think the argument for equal marriage rights is so constitutionally strong it will take a federal constitutional amendment to deny gays their rights. I suspect the religious right agrees. So we now have to see if the general public finds gay couples such a threat to their life that they will write discrimination against them in the Constitution. I have to hope and pray they won’t. But I cannot be dismayed when courts include gay people as equal citizens in this republic. That’s their job. And it’s their constitutional duty.
  • In addition to Andrew Sullivan, the go-to-blogger for pro-same-sex marriage arguments is Gabriel Rosenberg. (Hope I spelled that right - his name doesn’t seem to be posted anywhere on his blog.) This week, check out his posts arguing that polygamy and incest are easily distinguished from same-sex marriage, and also his response to Mr. Kurtz.
    …One reason many SSM advocates, myself included, are so adamant about the rights of same-sex couples to marry is that in this country many same-sex couples are adopting and raising children. We feel marriage would help protect those families in the same way they help protect families headed by opposite-sex parents. It is the people that strive to deny these families the protection of marriage that are saying that marriage isn’t important for parenting.

    Many links via MarriageDebate.org, which is a great blog for folks following the SSM debate.

The Violence Against Women Act: discrimination against men?

Posted by Ampersand | February 10th, 2004

The NOW Legal Defense Fund (NOWLDF) is suing the feds over a Pennsylvania marriage promotion program. The program apparently provides “employment services” to fathers but not mothers.

The marriage movement is bound to run into further problems like this as they push their agenda. Not all marriage movement people are chauvinists and gay-bashers, but they’ve nonetheless aligned themselves firmly with chauvinists and gay-bashers, and that’s bound to lead to problems.

Tom Slyvester of Family Scholars Blog more-or-less admits that the NOWLDF folks are correct to object to this sexist program. He also points out that it’s unfair to judge the entire marriage movement by one sexist program in Pennsylvania. So far, so good - I agree with all of that. Then Tom writes:

Ms. Brown also adds, “When a program offers services to men and not to women, that’s indisputable discrimination.” I don’t remember: did NOW Legal Defense fight the Violence Against Women Act for that same reason?

NOWLDF, of course, lobbied hard for passage of VAWA and the various VAWA sequels.

However, despite its title, it’s not at all clear that VAWA discriminates based on sex. Most of VAWA is written in scrupulously sex-neutral language. Take this passage (from a part of VAWA later ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, because the Court felt that Violence Against Women isn’t sufficiently related to interstate commerce):

(b) RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM CRIMES OF VIOLENCE- All persons within the United States shall have the right to be free from crimes of violence motivated by gender (as defined in subsection (d)).
(c) CAUSE OF ACTION- A person (including a person who acts under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State) who commits a crime of violence motivated by gender and thus deprives another of the right declared in subsection (b) shall be liable to the party injured, in an action for the recovery of compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, and such other relief as a court may deem appropriate.
(d) DEFINITIONS- For purposes of this section–
(1) the term `crime of violence motivated by gender’ means a crime of violence committed because of gender or on the basis of gender, and due, at least in part, to an animus based on the victim’s gender…

I know the legalese is painful reading, but still - it’s clear that this is not a law that created one law for women and a different law for men. Before the Supreme Court overturned the federal crime aspects of VAWA, VAWA convictions included women arrested for violence against men (see, for instance, Rita Gluzman’s arrest and conviction, reported by AP on 3/22/1999).

Other parts of VAWA aren’t so clear-cut - for instance, I suppose someone could read the bits funding research, rape crisis lines, and the like as providing funding exclusively to helping women. In practice, however, VAWA hasn’t excluded male victims; rape crisis lines help anyone who calls them, and some VAWA-funded research has interviewed victims of both sexes (pdf file).

(Men’s rights advocates often claim that VAWA explicitly discriminates against men in its provisions, but I haven’t seen anyone quote an actual passage from VAWA to prove their case. To be fair, I haven’t read all of VAWA - but even if some obscure, discriminatory passage exists, that doesn’t alter the fact that the overwhelming majority of the legislation is sex-neutral).

To imply that VAWA is as discriminatory as providing employment training to men only is ridiculous.

* * *

That said, I think Tom’s argument misses the boat in another way. Like opponents of Affirmative Action, Tom ignores the difference between attempts to combat discrimination and discrimination itself.

As I wrote in an earlier post (I’m recycling freely from that post in this post, incidentally), it’s tempting to respond to VAWA by asking “so where’s the Violence Against Men Act?” Taken out of context, VAWA does seem pretty unfair. Why should the government focus on what happens to women?

But VAWA wasn’t written outside of context. In reality, crime is not sex-neutral. The majority of criminal violence against men is “stranger violence”; men are assaulted in bars, attacked by muggers, raped in prison. For women, in contrast, the majority of violence is “intimate violence”; women are beat up by husbands, raped by acquaintances.

Here’s where context comes into play. Our courts and our cops have been designed mainly to prevent stranger violence - which is to say, the kind of violence that happens mostly to men. You want to know where the Violence Against Men Act is? Virtually our entire criminal-justice system - at least, the bits dealing with violent crime - has been a Violence Against Men Act, for most of its history. Violence that happens primarily to women - intimate violence, date rape, and so on - has been ignored until recently.

VAWA isn’t adding bias to a sex-neutral system; it’s an attempt to correct a system which has for centuries been overwhelmingly biased towards the needs of men.

UPDATE: David Blankenhorn, also of Family Scholars Blog - using the rather bitter tone that has, alas, become the norm for his postings - argues that the employment-for-dads program is an example of good intentions leading to a mistake. From what David writes, I think that’s probably true.

It’s rather ironic, however, that David simultaneously asks us to give his friends’ motives the benefit of the doubt, while writing that he has “no doubts” that the folks at NOW have evil intentions. Apparently giving people you disagree with the benefit of the doubt is something David thinks his opponents should do, but he himself should not.

Also, David strongly implies that NOWLDF’s lawyers are racists - without, needless to say, providing a speck of evidence to support his mean-spirited insinuations. (As far as I can make out, David thinks that NOWLDF should give a pass to sexist policies if some of the administrators running the policy are black. Oy.)

South Dakota Considering Banning Abortion

Posted by Ampersand | February 6th, 2004

South Dakota’s legislature is considering “a bill making abortion a crime unless it is necessary to save the life of the mother.” (Link via Evangelical Outpost).

Pro-lifers are by no means united in support of this bill (here’s the text of the bill, by the way). Some worry that the bill would cost South Dakota taxpayers a lot of money to defend in court, but will ultimately be found unconstitutional and thus not actually prevent any abortions. Others seem to believe that the bill takes advantage of a loophole in Roe v. Wade. From Christus Vector:

The first paradox is that the bill is not only constitutional under a proper interpretation of the Fourteenth amendment, it may very well be compatible with Roe v. Wade. This is because the bill contains explicit findings that human life begins at conception, and that the state therefore has a compelling interest in the protection of that life. This is important because the court in Roe declined to decide when life begins, saying instead that since it wasn’t clear that life did begin at conception that possibility couldn’t override a women’s right to have an abortion. This, combined with the deference generally given to legislative findings of fact, means that it should be possible for a state to provide the missing basis for what the court in Roe admitted would be a compelling governmental interest in prohibiting abortion.

As I pointed out in Christus Vector’s comments, I don’t think the legal argument has much merit. There are two questions to be considered: First, is the Supreme Court obliged to defer to legislative fact-finding, and second, what does Roe really say.

Regarding deference, the conservatives on the Supreme Court have made it clear that they don’t consider themselves bound by congressional fact-finding. See, for instance, their decision overturning parts of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), on the grounds that VAWA had no relationship to interstate commerce, despite extensive congressional fact-finding which found just the opposite.

As Clarence Thomas once wrote (pdf file):

We know of no support… for the proposition that if the constitutionality of a statute depends in part on the existence of certain facts, a court may not review a legislature’s judgment that the facts exist. If a legislature could make a statute constitutional simply by ‘finding’ that black is white or freedom, slavery, judicial review would be an elaborate farce. At least since Marbury v. Madison (1803), that has not been the law.

As for the supposed loophole in Roe, to me it seems like wishful thinking on the part of some pro-lifers. Here’s the relevant passage from the Roe v. Wade decision:

Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

It should be sufficient to note briefly the wide divergence of thinking on this most sensitive and difficult question.[....]

In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake.

It seems clear that the logic of Roe is not threatened by South Dakota’s bill declaring that life begins at conception - just cross out “Texas” and write in “South Dakota,” and the problem is solved.