As someone who lived in France for nearly a decade, and who has visited those suburban ghettos, where the violence started, on reporting trips any number of times, French_riots I have not been surprised by this tsunami of inchoate youth rebellion that is engulfing France. It is the result of thirty years of government neglect: of the failure of the French political classes — of both right and left — to make any serious effort to integrate its Muslim and black populations into the larger French economy and culture; and of the deep-seated, searing, soul-destroying racism that the unemployed and profoundly alienated young of the ghettos face every day of their lives, both from the police, and when trying to find a job or decent housing.

To understand the origins of this profound crisis for France, it is important to step back and remember that the ghettos where festering resentment has now burst into flames were created as a matter of industrial policy by the French state.

Read the whole thing. (Hat tip: Once Upon a Time.)

Once you’re done with that, read Adrien Wing on the French rioting. Here’s a sample:

The French train their judges at a national judge school located in Bordeaux which I take my American summer students to visit each year. Students mainly in their 20s are admitted after scoring in the top few percentage points on a national test. They don’t become judges after extended careers as lawyers. Well, the French “baby judge” students are maybe 70-80% female at this point — a matter of some concern to the country with a historically male judiciary. I have even heard talk that maybe affirmative action, which does not exist in schools in France, will have to be considered in order to prevent the judiciary from becoming all female in a few years. Whenever we question the baby judges about the lack of racial diversity at the school, we get blank stares. “We are all French. This does not matter” or Well, all they have to do is score in the top percentages on the test” are among the responses.” I hope the country will realize that gender, racial and religious diversity on the bench needs to be a priority now.

More.

Well, that’s certainly cool. Although the corporate drones folded so easily, I wonder if perhaps the initial sales on the retro-sexist tees were dissappointing.

In any case, check out The Countess’s contest for best offensive (or counter-offensive) t-shirt slogan. You could win some fine chocolate shaped like a body part - what could be better?

Marriage Must Be As Jesus Intended It (Except Divorce, Which Is Cool)
Unclaimed Territory, pointing out that some Texans have cited “Christianity” as their reason to oppose same-sex marrige, wonders why those same Texans haven’t been trying to outlaw divorce and remarriage. Thanks to “Alas” reader “Curtis.”

Fat Trucker Wins Discrimination Lawsuit
A 550 pound trucker in Oregon has won a $106,000 award against a trucking company which discriminated against him, even though he was able to do his job. The Oregonian does the usual media thing of using the headline for faux-witty weight references, but the article isn’t bad. Thanks to Aaron for the tip.

Race and Football
Michael Berube persuasively argues that, while Rush Limbaugh’s comments about black quarterbacks last year were racist nonsense, football coach Fisher DeBerry’s recent remark that “Afro-American kids can run very well,” while inelegant, is inoffensive.

Fake “Deficit Reduction” Plan Screws Over The Poor
Good Obsidian Wings post on the faux deficit reduction plan the Republicans are pushing; as you’d expect, tax cuts for the rich are preserved, but essential services for the poor are cut. Meanwhile, more irresponsible tax cuts mean that the deficit will actually be increased by $35 billion. Who cares if less food stamps means more children go hungry, while we saddle future generations with apalling debt; all that matters is, Dick Cheney will be a little bit richer.

Outsourcing Parenting
Jill at Feministe discusses feminism and domestic help. My favorite bit: Living in Manahttan, the most public domestic workers are the nannies who you see all around the city … they’re easily identifiable because they’re usually women of color with white children in tow. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard otherwise progressive people complain that rich (ostensibly white) Manhattan mothers “aren’t raising their own kids.” And yes, there’s room to criticize absent parents … but no one seems to mention that Dad isn’t raising his own kids, either.

A National Idiotcy Begins
The same week marijuana was outlawed for the first time - October of 1937 - came the first irrationally harsh sentencing: four years hard labor for two joints. Cops supported the new laws by saying that pot users displayed “superhuman strength” and a “lust for blood.” Hat tip: TalkLeft.

An Idealogue Before Nomination is an Idealogue After Confirmation
Scott at Lawyers Guns and Money points out that right-wing interest groups - both big religion and big money - are lining up to support Alito despite his newfound reputation for being moderate and without known positions.

My Aunt’s Building Burned Last Night
Must-read post discusses what is real and what is myth regaring the rioting in Paris.

It does poke a needle in a pet theory of mine, however. We took Syndey trick-or-treating in the mall this year (I’ll post pictures of Sydney in her costume in a couple of weeks, when I’m back home from Florida). The mall encourages this practice, and most of the mall stores have an employee in a costume and holding a bag of candy hanging out by the entraces, ready to fill up kid’s bags. Some of the places give away stickers instead of candy, which is a little on the lame side, but since Sydney actually loves stickers I’ll give those stores a pass.

What’s unforgivable is the Disney Store, which didn’t give away candy, and didn’t give away stickers. Instead, they gave away little printed ads telling us that Disney’s new movie, Chicken Little, will open soon.

Keep in mind, children wait on line for this, thinking that they’re going to get candy. Disney stole precious time from these 2-6 year olds that could have been spent waiting on line for some store that doesn’t Hate America and therefore gave out candy!

Plus, they dressed some poor 12-year-old in a princess costume to hand out the ads - I presume because they knew that an adult employee would have had to listen to complaints from angry parents, whereas no one was willing to yell at a 12 year old girl. So not only are the people who run the Disney Store lame, they’re cowards.

Anyway, at the time I argued that Disney could only get away with being so lame because they were in a mall, which screws up the entire trick-or-treat economy by eliminating the essential threat of egging. It’s classic moral hazard: If the infrastructure guarantees no punishment for it, why shouldn’t people use trick-or-treating as a ruse for advertising? But Mythago’s Christians apparently aren’t worried about being egged, either, so maybe I’m wrong. (Or maybe the Christians want to be egged, so they can feel martyred.)

In Mythago’s comments, by the way, is one of the best distinctions I’ve read all week: ” I would pee on these people in a non-sexual way.” Thank goodness it’s in a non-sexual way!

Incidentally, in various polls, about 70% of Americans favor a law requiring a woman to notify her husband — some polls include “partner” as well — if she’s having an abortion. So either the vast majority of Americans support male patriarchal ownership of women, or there is something else at stake.

Another possibility - one that seems more likely - is that the majority of Americans haven’t given enough thought to the question to have an informed opinion. Husband notification is an obscure issue, and it’s likely that many of the people who were polled never knew about the potential downsides of such a law. If this were a hotly debated, much-talked about issue, the pro-choice objections to husband notification - both its sexist roots, and the concern that such a law might lead to women being punished by their husbands through emotional abuse, or through spreading the word that she’s had an abortion, or through cutting her access to shared family resources - would be much more generally known. My speculation is that if that were the case, we’d see radically different poll results.

Cathy’s post implies that if lefties criticize a sexist (racist, homophobic, etc) policy , that’s in some way equivilent to accusing anyone who supports the policy of being “a fascist, a neanderthal, or a male chauvinist pig.”

I don’t think that’s the case. I can think of nonsexist reasons for someone to support a husband-notification policy: Maybe they want to encourage fathers to be more connected to children (as fathers would be, in a less sexist society), for example. It is because I think non-sexist people sometimes support sexist policies that I make the arguments I do; I’m hoping that, if I can convince someone that a policy is rooted in sexist assumptions, that will make them less likely to support it.

(More on this general subject here).

The US May Be Backing Down on Dalfur
The Debate Link points out recent moves that suggest we’re preparing to live and let live with genocide.

Being Gay In Nambia
Obsidian Wings quotes extensively from a great Washington Post article about being Gay in Nambia.

Gallagher and Blankenhorn Respond
Maggie Gallagher and David Blankenhorn have separately responded to a post of mine about the (in my opinion) changing positions of anti-SSM folks over the years. I will respond sometime in the next several days.

Sometimes I Can’t Fucking Stand White People.
Occasional “Alas” poster Sydney lets off some steam.

McMarten Revisited
Twenty years ago, children who attended McMarten preschool were abused by police, prosecutors, parents, media, and psychologists, who collectively bullied the children into making up horrific accounts of sexual abuse by satanic cultists, leading to many ruined lives and unjust criminal prosecutions. Unfortunately, some feminists - including some prominent ones - were on the wrong side, as anti-feminist Cathy Young points out.

And I Am Not Lying, For Real
I’ve really been enjoying the stories told on And I Am Not Lying. Particular favorites: Movies and TV Led Me Astray Once Again, about trying not to be an asshole in a world that seems full of assholery, and The Night Was Fierce and Fabulous, about attending a (mostly) drag queen party. Nice photos, too.

Bat Boy: The Musical
(Currently listening to.)

While there is no right not to be looked at, that doesn’t mean it’s always right to look.
Hugo discusses questions of feminism, ethics, objectification, and checking out good looking people on the street.

Xander Patterson For Multnomah County Commission
My favorite local water commissioner - and one of my favorite local politicians - has his eye on a slightly higher rung of the ladder. Go, Xander, go!

Creating a Fair Voting System in Ohio
Daniel Tokaji discusses the subtle issues of making voting more convenient while still trying to achieve fairness and honesty.

The End Change of Gay Culture
Warren has a thoughtful post about the mainstreaming of gay culture.

They Hate Queers! They Really, Really, Really Do!
The Log Cabin Republicans provide an impressive list of queer-bashing quotes from conservatives. Hat tip: PurpleScarf.

Icelandic Women Strike For Equality
Women began the working week by abandoning their offices, classrooms and kitchens to join a remarkable strike for equal wages. Marching through Reykjavik and other Icelandic towns, they banged pots and pans and shouted, “Women, let’s be loud!” and “Equality now!”

The Case Against Health Savings Accounts (HSAs)
What puzzles me is that, in the past, I’ve heard HSAs described as “donut-shaped” - that is, the first thousand or so is covered by the HSA, the next thousand or two is paid by the consumer, and after that it’s paid for by HSA. That’s a much better design than what’s described in this critique, because it wouldn’t discourage preventative care - although, of course, a lot of the critiques would apply to the donut-shaped accounts.

The Conservative Case for Same Sex Marriage
Dale Carpenter, guest-blogging at the Volokh conspiracy, makes the right-wing case for marriage equality. The above link takes you to all of Dales’ Volokh posts; so far, he’s doing an excellent job.

For the record, while I am staunchly pro-choice, I think that spousal notification is a painfully complex issue.

Until lesbian couples have equal marriage rights, the term is “husband notification.” Calling it “spousal” notification is Orwellian; there will never be an instance in which a male “spouse” needs to sign a form swearing he’s notified a female “spouse” of his medical decisions.

Yes, it’s the woman’s body. It’s also the man’s future child…

It’s not the man’s future child if she’s getting an abortion, because the “future child” Cathy refers to will never exist.

I don’t believe we can expect men to be equal partners in child-rearing while denying them any say in reproductive decisions.

The claim that men have no say is not only mistaken, it belittles men’s agency.

Do you really think I have no choice whether I have sex or not? No choice over if the form of sex I have will be coital or not? No choice whether I use birth control or not? Men are not helpless children, incapable of making sexual choices - but that’s the level Cathy’s analysis reduces us to.

Nearly half a century ago, Kurt Vonnegut skewered the belief that it’s wrong if some people have abilities everybody doesn’t share, in his short story “Harrison Bergeron.” That story is very relevant to the “choice for men” debate.

If my partner is female, she has an ability I lack - the ability to abort. (She also faces risks I don’t). But the fact that other people have inherent abilities I lack, doesn’t make me a victim, and doesn’t mean I lack liberty.

Is it fair that women have an ability men lack? It’s not fair in the sense that the government in Harrison Bergeron-land understood “fairness,” which seems to be the sense Cathy uses.

But in another sense, our system is fair, because it treats women and men the same: Everyone has the right to choose what to do with the reproductive abilities they have, and everyone is responsible for dealing with the choices they make.

Paternal consent, in my view, goes too far in infringing on the woman’s bodily autonomy; paternal notification, on the other hand — with exemptions when there is domestic violence or other complicating factors — may not be such an onerous measure.

Cathy makes an interesting slip here - she uses the word “parental” where she should use the word “husband.” I’m sure it was an honest error, but it’s ironic, because the “husband notification” laws Cathy favors really do treat husbands like fathers - and wives like children.

(It turns out I was the one making an honest error - Cathy said “paternal,” not “parental.” So I’ve definitely got some egg on my face. :-) However, I still feel Cathy’s term was inaccurate; the law in question would only apply to married fathers, not to fathers in general. “Husband notification” is therefore the more accurate term.)

The majority opinion, disagreeing with Alito, explained very well what’s wrong with husband notification:

The husband’s interest in the life of the child his wife is carrying does not permit the State to empower him with this troubling degree of authority over his wife. The contrary view leads to consequences reminiscent of the common law. A husband has no enforceable right to require a wife to advise him before she exercises her personal choices. If a husband’s interest in the potential life of the child outweighs a wife’s liberty, the State could require a married woman to notify her husband before she uses a post-fertilization contraceptive.

Perhaps next in line would be a statute requiring pregnant married women to notify their husbands before engaging in conduct causing risks to the fetus. After all, if the husband’s interest in the fetus’ safety is a sufficient predicate for state regulation, the State could reasonably conclude that pregnant wives should notify their husbands before drinking alcohol or smoking. Perhaps married women should notify their husbands before using contraceptives or before undergoing any type of surgery that may have complications affecting the husband’s interest in his wife’s reproductive organs. And if a husband’s interest justifies notice in any of these cases, one might reasonably argue that it justifies exactly what the Danforth Court held it did not justify — a requirement of the husband’s consent as well. A State may not give to a man the kind of dominion over his wife that parents exercise over their children.

Section 3209 embodies a view of marriage consonant with the common law status of married women, but repugnant to our present understanding of marriage and of the nature of the rights secured by the Constitution. Women do not lose their constitutionally protected liberty when they marry.

Hat Tip: Scott at Lawyers, Guns and Money, whose entire post is well worth reading.

The New York Times published a report based on a leaked internal memo from Wal-Mart’s executive vice president for benefits. While it does a lot of hand ringing about fatness and long-term employees, there was no indication that any active discrimination was being advocated. The closest is a misguided attempt to introduce physical labor to positions that wouldn’t ordinarily require physical labor like cashiers. Presumably based on the false assumption that fat people are sedentary and who will flee from physical activity.

Nevertheless, a memo like this will foster an environment of hostility towards fat employees as well as longer-term employees. It is likely that managers will feel pressured to avoid hiring fat applicants even if there is no overt expression of intent to discriminate. Not that an overt expression isn’t likely itself. Wal-Mart may just do a better job preventing leaks on that account. Even still, there is some thought that mandating physical labor unrelated to one’s job for the purpose of discouraging certain workers could be illegal. David Sclar makes note of an article in American Health Line that advances this argument, and it certainly seems like a valid legal concern.

An issue also worth noting is where would such health discrimination stop. If fat people are fair game, what about ethnic groups who have shown higher rates of some diseases? Or women given their possibility of pregnancy. It may seem absurd to think of it, but this is the next logical step from health-justified fat discrimination. If health care dollars spent on fat people are a waste, who gets to decide when it is worth it? Ultimately, this is either an economic concern which targets everyone or a moral concern which targets those considered morally undesirable. Neither outcome is one we should be comfortable with. Most especially when its individual companies making those decisions.

Increasingly, we are seeing big businesses understand that health care costs are making them less productive compared to nations where there is universal health care. The good outcome from this would be some visible support from the business community for a universal health care plan. The bad outcome would be what Wal-Mart is doing and creating a hostile environment for employees who look like they are unhealthy. Lets hope most companies fall towards the good outcome.

At the same time, it is a very good reason why fat activists shouldn’t give up fighting the “common sense” that being fat is unhealthy. It is not enough to just try to combat fat discrimination. What we see with stories like this is that the “fat is unhealthy” message fuels discrimination. This is what justifies it fat hatred for so many people. Even when the bigotry is obviously cosmetically based, such as Dan Savage’s tirades against Girl Love Handles, the prejudice is always defended by pointing how unhealthy fat is. Prejudice against fat people and the prevailing assumption that fat is unhealthy go hand in hand, and Wal-Mart shows us just what is at stake.