This post was removed by request of the author.

This post was removed by request of the author.

As the war in Iraq continues, abatement of the violence does not seem on the horizon. Oddly enough, while the US struggles to enlist soldiers to replenish the ranks, Capitol Hill Republicans are yet again making moves to reverse the direction of women’s rights as they reopen the debate of women in combat. In the recent defense authorization bill the house slid an amendment in that would ban women from both combat and combat support units.

While the left has outspokenly opposed many of the decisions that led up to and accumulated with regards to our actions in the middle east, especially Iraq, this new angle by conservatives to diminish the roles women have in in the military is an attack that can’t be overlooked.

Some interesting quotes have surfaced with regards to this issue from the would-be saviors of the delicate female soldiers. Representative Duncan Hunter of California (R), tells us that “It’s time for Congress to step in, provide some stability to the situation and draw a line of demarcation and ensure that women do not go into direct ground combat.”

Interestingly enough, this attempt is being met with a rather cold reception from the upper officials in the military itself, according to the Washington Post:

Army leaders strongly criticized the legislation in letters to Congress yesterday, saying women are performing “magnificently” in a wide range of units, working where battlefields have no clear front lines.

“The proposed amendment will cause confusion in the ranks, and will send the wrong signal to the brave young men and women fighting the Global War on Terrorism,” Gen. Richard A. Cody, the Army’s vice chief of staff, wrote in a letter delivered to the House yesterday. “This is not the time to create such confusion.”

He said that the Army is in “strict and full compliance with Department of Defense policies regarding women in combat,” but that it continues to “study” the role of women in light of an ongoing reorganization of Army units and the complex, changing nature of warfare. Cody wrote that Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, concurred with the letter, an identical version of which was sent to the House by Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey.

While the attempt in and of itself is an affront to the courageous women whom have served through out the Iraq War, all hope may not be lost according to MSNBC:

There are about 9,000 U.S. Army women in Iraq. Banning them from combat support units could further stress the Army, already stretched thin in Iraq.

“27 percent of the Army’s people are women right now, and it would devastate the Army,” says Capt. Lori Manning, retired from the Navy and now director of the Women in the Military Project.

Despite the debate, Pentagon officials are confident Congress will leave the current policy as is … and U.S. military women on the front lines.

More on the subject:
BBC: US Mulls Ban on Women In Combat

Before the fisking, a digression.

May I beg for a ban on titles for articles about fat issues featuring faux-clever wordplay? I’m talking about titles and subtitles like “Weight of Evidence” or “fat haters’ arguments flabby” or Cathy Young’s latest entry, “A Fistful of Lard.” It’s not clever, folks. It’s an embarrassing negation of cleverness; it’s saying “I’d like the idea of giving my article a clever title, but I’m fresh out of clever at the moment, so here’s some unbelievably obvious crap instead.”

Ahem. Pardon my digression.

Cathy Young’s latest Boston Globe column takes a critical look at a recent JAMA study, written by Katherine Flegal and colleagues, which found that being mildly “overweight” is in fact associated with a longer lifespan than being the so-called “normal” weight, and that overall only 25,000 “extra” deaths per year are caused by obesity and overweight combined. (That’s actually over 110,000 obesity-related deaths, minus the deaths “saved” per year because overweight people live longer than “normal” weight people). Unfortunately, Young’s analysis is flabby - pardon me, lacks weight - oh, I mean, pound for pound it’s not so sound - no, it’s thin on facts - no, it’s a glutton for…

Oh, heck. It just isn’t very good, all right?

Flaws in the “300000 to 400000 deaths caused by fat” studies

Cathy Young writes:

The new study by Katherine Flegal and her colleagues claims that excess weight causes “only” about 25,000 deaths in the United States annually, far below the earlier Centers for Disease Control and Prevention figure of 365,000. Yet, significantly, the CDC is not revising its official estimate…which is based on six previous major studies. It’s not unusual for different studies to yield contradictory results; the scientific consensus emerges from an overview of all available research.

It’s true that the CDC’s official estimate uses data from six previous studies, whereas the Flegal study draws data from only three previous studies. In fact, there are many studies supporting both points of view. What matters isn’t how many studies are done, but if they’re done well or poorly. I will argue that the CDC studies supporting the idea that there is an obesity crisis, with hundreds of thousands dying every year, are poorly done.

There is no single study supporting the CDC’s high death counts; they’ve revised their official number multiple times, and each revision represents a new study. However, all the studies share a common methodology, and share some terrible errors. W. Gibbs, in the current (June ‘05) issue of Scientific American, criticizes one of the CDC’s high-death studies (written by Dr. David Allison and colleagues), but his criticisms apply to all of them:

Read the rest of this entry »

This post was removed by request of the author.

This post was removed by request of the author.

This post was removed by request of the author.

As we’ve been told often by same-sex marriage opponents, the historical definition of marriage has never changed and must never be allowed to change, or else civilization will collapse. (I’m exaggerating their views, but only very slightly). Marriage is, and has always been, about “heterosexual intercourse, child bearing, and child well-being.”

Roderick Long (who is, by the way, a genuine libertarian feminist) points out an opinion written by Judge Valentine of Kansas in 1886, ruling that a couple was not married:

In my opinion, the union between E. C. Walker and Lillian Harman was no marriage, and they deserve all the punishment which has been inflicted upon them. … In the present case, the parties repudiated nearly everything essential to a valid marriage, and openly avowed this repudiation at the commencement of their union.

So what, according to this legal ruling in 1886, was “everything essential to a valid marriage?” Roderick describes the objectionable parts of their ceremony:

What “essentials” had the couple repudiated? In their marriage ceremony Harman had declined not only to vow obedience to her husband (such a vow being repugnant both to her feminism and to her libertarian anarchism) but also to vow love unto death: “I make no promises that it may become impossible or immoral for me to fulfill, but retain the right to act, always, as my conscience and best judgment shall dictate.” She also declined to submerge her individuality in another’s by taking her husband’s last name: “I retain, also, my full maiden name, as I am sure it is my duty to do.” Walker for his part vowed that “Lillian is and will continue to be as free to repulse any and all advances of mine as she has been heretofore. In joining with me in this love and labor union, she has not alienated a single natural right. She remains sovereign of herself, as I of myself, and we … repudiate all powers legally conferred upon husbands and wives.” In particular he repudiated any right as husband to control his wife’s property; he also acknowledged his “responsibility to her as regards the care of offspring, if any, and her paramount right to the custody thereof should any unfortunate fate dissolve this union.” Harman’s father added: “I do not ‘give away the bride,’ as I wish her to be always the owner of her person.”

So she retained her own identity, her own name, and reserved the right to divorce if need be; and he refused the traditional husband’s right to rape his wife, control her property, and own any children of the union.

(Damn, they sound cool!)

In 1886, the idea that a woman owned herself, even when married, and had the right to not be raped was a radical redefinition of marriage, so much so that a court refused to acknowlege it as a marriage at all.

As Roderick points out, if tradition determines what makes a legitimate marriage, then virtually no current marriage in the US is legitimate; coveture laws no longer exist, for example, and nearly all the states have fully outlawed marital rape (although of course it still happens).

Since tradition must always be respected, on what grounds would SSM opponents have allowed marital rape to be outlawed, or coverture laws to be undone?

[This is a comment left by Shiloh on a previous thread. I've edited it a bit to make it "stand-alone," rather than quoting other posts. The post title was suggested by Kim (basement variety). --Amp]

I will agree that sexual power is about one’s “value” in the world of dating and relationship. What [some people] seem to be missing, however, is that the higher a woman’s sexual power, the lower her value as a person. Female sexual power, by definition, is dehumanizing. Female sexual power silences women.

First example - when I was fourteen, I took a summer class in typing at the local high school, because it wasn’t offered at my jr. high. One day, as I’m halfway to school, crossing this big field, a guy I’d met precisely twice before grabbed me and started kissing me and feeling me up. He informed me that he was a star wrestler, and that I was going to be his girlfriend. I informed him that my tastes ran to skinny bespectacled geeks who read a lot, and I had no interest what-so-ever in being his girlfriend, thank you very much. He insisted that I only said this because of a “poor self-image,” that he was going to make me popular and happy, etc. etc., ad nauseum.

No matter what I said, this guy “translated” it to fit his preconceived notions. “No” meant “yes.” “Not interested” became “interested but won’t admit it.” “You’re not my type” becaome “she’s just shy.” Many feminists argue that pornography “silences women.” This is what they mean. The woman is only allowed to say what the man wants to hear - even if what she actually says is completely different. Pornography that plays with the rape myth tells the story of a woman who says no, but ultimately means yes. That is what this guy was doing to me. He was insisting that whatever I said meant what he wanted it to mean.

Another real life example of how a woman’s sexual power silences her. I was not one of the “popular kids,” partly because I had little interest in being one, but one of my good friends was exactly what you describe when you are discussing a woman with a lot of sexual power. She was a cute, feminine blonde, popular, intelligent, cheerleader, upper middle class, dressed conservatively but was perceived as sexy. The guys I hung out with - who, like me, were NOT socially powerful - said she was the most beautiful girl in the school. What did all this sexual power get her?

Well, in 10th grade it got her raped by most of the guys on the football team. She was dating one of them, he slipped her something stronger than she was used to, then passed her around to his buddies. When she told people about it, most of her friends basically said she got what she deserved - if you’re going to be beautiful, them’s the hazards. Mind you, she did not disagree - she accepted that this is just the way the world is. When I pointed out that being pretty is no excuse for rape, she said I was probably right, but what can you do about it?

Nothing. There is nothing a beautiful woman can do about it. From her perspective, and in her experience, woman’s “sexual power” means that she does NOT get to choose her mate. If she was not interested in the most “alpha” guy around - tough. If said alpha guy laid claim to her, she was stuck, because he viewed her as his property, and any guy hanging around too close would be chased off. In high school, at any rate, if said alpha male was on a sports team, not only would he monitor her activities - his buddies would monitor her activities. If she was interested in another guy, she had no chance of talking to him or getting to know him.

Of course, once you get past high school (and college, in some cases, but she deliberately went to a college that did NOT have any sports teams), this male control is less blatantly obvious. But it’s often still there. Look at Kathleen Parker’s story (on the web). J*** R*****’s harrassment of his ex-wife’s family. Paul Corey. Eric Bleicken. A dear friend’s husband, who called everyone on her side of the family (including me, a non-relative) to tell them what a whore she was when she left him - this despite the fact that his adultery had so destroyed her reproductive system she had to have a hysterectomy and ovariectomy at 27.

Another friend, whose husband used to rape her when she was unconscious from the drugs they were using to help her sleep - this despite the fact that she was undergoing radiation treatments for her cancer and despite the fact that she was in constant pain and his rapes only exacerbated it. Yes, she’s blonde, long-legged, charming, and popular. What did all this “sexual power” get her? Abuse, plain and simple.

Most of the kids at my second high school were upper middle class. I used to hang out with actors, artists, engineers in the aerospace industry, millionaires who owned their own company. I’ve talked to the “beautiful people” of both sexes. Men who are beautiful complain that “she dumped me because I shaved my head” or “I never know whether she likes me for my self or for my looks or for my cash.” Women who are beautiful worry about being raped, about being abused, about ending up in a marriage to someone who will try to completely control them.

Again, men have access to sexual power, too - more access, through more channels, than women do. And the risk of sexual power for men is minimal. For women, sexual power is often outright dangerous. For women, sexual power is as disempowering as it is empowering. A woman weilding sexual power is easily silenced.

[...]

Rape exists primarily because a man decides that his version of reality is more important than the woman’s - he decides he gets to tell her what reality is. Whatever his motives (sex, power, anger), a rapist’s reality is that the woman’s sexiness somehow justifies his treatment of her. Everytime a male non-rapist treats a woman as a sex object, rather than a person, he is supporting the rapist perspective.

Arguing that a woman’s sexual power in any way “evens things out” between the sexes is to miss the point entirely. A woman’s sexual power is used to justify rape; a woman’s sexual power is used to silence her; a woman’s sexual power is used to dehumanize her. The fact that some women manage to use their sexual power in some instances to their benefit doesn’t change any of this.

Via Tapped, this PEW center poll has an interesting abortion question; rather than asking about banning or not banning, or about Roe, they asked if people opposed or favored “making it more difficult for a woman to get an abortion.” This form of the question doesn’t seem biased in any obvious way, and it directly reflects the new face of abortion rights wars - in which conservatives try to chip away at abortion availability bit by bit.

The result was that Republicans - and only Republicans - favored making it more difficult to get an abortion. Swing voters and all groups of Democrats do not favor making abortion more difficult. Overall, 55% of those surveyed opposed such efforts, while 36% favored them. So the theory that Democrats could find many new votes by being less pro-choice seems dubious. Here’s the graphic; the top three groups are different groups of Republicans, the bottom three different groups of Democrats, and the middle two represent different groups of swing voters.

There are other notable resolts. As Tapped pointed out, an overwhelming majority of Americans wants the Ten Commandments in courtrooms (22%/74%), and a majority would like to see creationism as well as evolution taught in the classroom (33%/57%).

On the other hand, liberal economic ideas are pretty mainstream. Huge majorities of the public would like to see an increase in the minimum wage (12% opposed, 86% in favor) and raising taxes to pay for health insurance for all (30% opposed, 65% in favor).

And in general, “liberals” are less left on economic issues than “disadvantaged democrats” are. On the other hand, “liberals” are - surprise surprise - the only group that favors same-sex marriage.

Well, Sydney is around 19 months old now. Long past time she learned something about her proper gender role in life! And what better way to start than with housework?

First, we learned how to do the dishes….

Read the rest of this entry »

This post was removed by request of the author.

The discussion on this thread - originally about an Ohio rape case - has gotten too long, and has drifted considerably. So I’m closing that thread and starting a new one.

The new topic appears to be questions of lust, gender roles and power. Do girls and women have more “sexual power”? Do boys and men feel more lust than girls and women do?

I’ll quote parts of recent posts by Aegis and La Lubu to start this thread off, but feel free to respond to any post on the old thread, here on this thread.

Aegis: Understanding the disadvantages that a certain social system grants in one area should not lead us to ignore the way that system also grants certain advantages in another area. Obviously, the pressure on women to be beautiful, and the pressure on men to earn money are both disadvantages. But because of that pressure on men, they often succeed in earning more money, granting them economic power (although this power require sacrifices in other areas). Those poor men, being forced into having all that financial power! Likewise, the pressure on women to be beautiful may result in them improving their beauty, and consequently gaining sexual power over males. Of course, female sexual power does not always translate into respect from males, and it often comes at a price of other types of power. [...]

Surely being viewed sexually can often be a very positive experience for females! Isn’t it nice for an attractive woman to have a guy she really likes become totally smitten with her? Isn’t it nice for her to be able to wait for a guy to approach her, and then let him do most of the work when he does approach?

And some of my first experiences not being viewed as sexual were negative. I felt competely unnattractive to women until I was age 18, and this had horrible effects on my self-esteem and ability to interact with women. I also remember one time when a friend of mine who went to middle school with me told me only half-jokingly that she would like to marry me some day… just so she could sit in my big house and look at my artwork. I don’t think she would have been interested in dating me in a million years, but apparently I was good for earning money to buy a big house and adorning the walls of said house with paintings. Imagine how you would feel if a guy told you that he would like to marry you simply for your looks.

I am not saying that a guy who encounters comments like this and feels unnattractive necessarily has things as bad as a woman who gets catcalls and creepy older suitors all the time, just as I am not saying that a man never being seen as sexual in the business world has as much advantage as an attractive women who can easily attract men. Those comparisons are difficult to make.

One thing that bugs me about claims of “women’s sexual power” is that, insofar as it exists at all, it’s entirely indirect power. A woman’s so-called sexual power doesn’t mean that she gets to decide which project will be funded, who gets hired or fired, etc; at best, all it can mean is that she has the indirect “power” of influencing men who in turn get to make the actual decisions.

How much power did Monica Lewinsky actually have to determine US policy? I’d argue, virtually none. But no doubt it could be claimed by some that she had “sexual power” over Bill Clinton.

La Lubu: Aegis, being viewed sexually can be a positive experience for females. However, I would argue that most women have experienced being viewed sexually as either equally positive and negative, or more negative than positive. Why? Because we don’t get to keep being viewed sexually within its context, in other words, our perceived sexual persona is elbowing into all the nonsexual areas of our lives.

Like the professional world, for example. No matter how neutral our dress or behavior, the mere fact that we are Female, with a Female Body, brings sexuality into the equation as work. For women, this often translates into reduced opportunities at work. Potential mentors shy away from us because they don’t want to be tagged by the inevitable sexual rumors. Higher-ups don’t want to believe that women are on the job to work rather than find a husband. The Mommy Track is real. Even when we’re not mommies. How attractive we are or aren’t can translate into what work opportunities we are given, or aren’t. I once had a foreman on the job walk me around to all the journeymen already there, asking the guys if it was ok if I worked with them…he didn’t want to make anybody’s wife mad. Out of thirteen journeymen on the job, all said they’d work with me, that it was cool. But only two of them thought the whole idea of singling me out like that, for that reason, was complete bullshit. Only two other journeymen on the job thought it should have been irrelevant whether anyone’s wife got mad. The other guys thought it was nice of him to ask!

* * *

Again, don’t feel constrained to responding to only the above on this thread. Any of the posts on the old thread may be responded to here.

This post was removed by request of the author.

“Alas” reader Kathleen emails:

Anyway, I wanted to send this article your way. A young Canadian cancer patient has refused a blood transfusion (she’s a Jehovah’s Witness, and her religion prohibits the procedure), but the government’s ruled that she has to undergo the treatment, as “the teenager’s constitutional right to choose medical treatment does not override the courts’ authority to protect her life and safety.”? I thought this was interesting, especially in light of the conflicts in the US over abortion and the colliding moral values of patients and doctors. There’s been a lot of discussion about when and if a doctor can refuse to provide treatment, but what if a pregnant woman has a life-threatening condition? Can she decide she’d rather die than have an abortion?

The article Kathleen points out, and the issues it brings up, are interesting. Here’s a few quotes from the article:

A 14-YEAR-OLD Canadian Jehovah’s Witness who is suffering from cancer has lost her court fight to refuse a blood transfusion which her faith forbids.

The teenager broke down in tears when the decision was announced by Justice Victor Paisley in a Toronto courtroom, before she was taken away in an ambulance under police guard.

The girl - identified only as Sarah - had reportedly fled across the country with her parents to Ontario after a judge in her home province of British Columbia ruled she could not refuse a blood transfusion if her doctors believed it was medically necessary. [...]

The girl’s lawyers had argued that she was not seriously ill and that, even though she was a minor, she still had a right to refuse treatment.

Shane Brady, the family’s lawyer, said they came to Ontario only to receive a second opinion and had hoped to begin alternative therapy in the United States soon.

Mr Brady said: “She was seeking competent medical care. The young woman was devastated. This is a matter of patient choice.

“To be denied that choice and be told, ‘Look, you’ve got to go back to British Columbia to be treated by a doctor that you’ve lost trust in’ - that’s difficult for anybody to stomach.” [...]

Jehovah’s Witnesses believe blood is a sacred source of life and not to be misused or tampered with under any circumstances, even life-saving.

If the girl really isn’t that sick and doesn’t really need the transfusion, then obviously she shouldn’t be forced to have it.

But what if the judge is right, and she really is that sick? My tendency is to say that the decision to die for your religion is not one a 14 year old should be allowed to make. If we don’t allow 14 year olds to drink, to have sex with grown-ups, or to get married - all based on the belief that they aren’t old enough yet to fully understand the consequences of these decisions or to make a genuinely informed choice - then we shouldn’t allow them to decide to die, either.

But even as I say that, I have to admit I’ve very unhappy with the idea of the government forcing medical treatment on anyone against their will. I’m a fence-sitter on this one.

UPDATE: Kathleen sent me a link to another article, and pointed out this quote in particular:

She had already consented to chemotherapy, surgery and even possible amputation of her leg. But in a court document, the teen says a transfusion would be a violation of her person, not unlike a rape.

“It’s no different than somebody getting sexually assaulted or raped or robbed or something. You’d feel violated because it’s not anybody else’s property, it’s you.”

She makes a good case.

I don’t foresee myself posting much more (or, perhaps, ever) regarding Terri Schiavo in the future; most of what’s going on in the media seems to be more of Terri’s families bashing each other, and I’m just not interested.

Here are a couple of links worth reading, though.

First, an article about the medical examiner in charge of Terri Schiavo’s autopsy report, Jon Thogmartin. From the article’s description, the guy is a somewhat egotistical Star Trek fan who prides himself in his independence from outside pressures, which is probably exactly the kind of person we want for this particular task. Although the article doesn’t say, I’d bet twenty dollars that Thogmartin has read most of Robert Heinlein’s novels.

Second of all, Matt at Abstract Appeal has made a “greatest hits” page of his best (or anyway, most popular) posts about the Terri Schiavo case. Matt has consistently done better legal and factual reporting on the Schiavo case than anyone else in the blogosphere or in the media.

In an earlier post, I was skeptical about the impact of the new allegations against Dr. Hager - particularly the revalation that he was asked to send what he called a “minority report” regarding Plan B birth control to the FDA. I’m very happy to report that it seems I was wrong. Thanks to “Alas” reader Anne for pointing out this new twist on the story!

Dr. Hager has told reporters that he will be leaving the FDA’s Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee at the end of June. So that’s good news. So long, and please be under the next bus out of town.

But it still leaves Plan B unavailable over the counter, unfortunately.

This post was removed by request of the author.

This post was removed by request of the author.

This post was removed by request of the author.