With all the discussion of false rape convictions on this blog lately, I thought it could be worth pointing out that one form of false rape conviction doesn’t involve false accusations at all. Many false rape convictions now being discovered due to DNA analysis involve genuine rape victims who make good-faith, but mistaken, IDs.

One disturbing thing is the apparent connection between false IDs and race:

One thing that may reduce false IDs is changing police proceedures for IDs by victims; the methods used by police too often send unspoken messages to the victim that “this guy here! He’s the one!” The Innocence Blog has an interesting post about methods of making the ID less subject to police bias.

Over on the Family Scholars Blog, quoting from his own article in the Weekly Standard, Brad Wilcox writes:

But those studies don’t control for the most important factor of all, for the argument Brad is making: whether or not a child is donor-conceived.

Although it’s certainly true that being raised by a single parent (not just single mothers) has been shown by legitimate research to worsen the odds for children, the research also shows that some children raised by single parents turn out fine. The question is, are studies about the experiences of children of single parents in general really representative of donor-conceived children of single mothers in particular? Or are those children perhaps especially likely to wind up in the “doing fine” population?

It certainly seems possible that donor-conceived children may do better than many children of single parents. Although they have only one parent, that parent - because her pregnancy had to be carefully planned - is likely to be older than the average single mother, with more resources and a better support network. And, perhaps, an on-average higher enthusiasm for being a parent.

Or perhaps not. There’s no way of knowing for sure. However, Brad’s article should have acknowledged this limitation in the data he cites.

Looking around, I found only one study focused on donor-conceived children of single mothers. Contrary to Brad’s expectations, that study found that “this route to parenthood does not necessarily seem to have an adverse effect on mothers’ parenting ability or the psychological adjustment of the child.” Of course, since that study is a long-term study that has just barely begun (the kids were only two years old at the time the most recent report was written), it’s hardly certain, either. (UPDATE: In comments, Dianne pointed out another study with similar findings, this time looking at seven year olds).

I also had a problem with Brad’s point about “listening directly to the voices of donor-conceived children.” The evidence Brad quotes appears anecdotal, and so cannot tell us how the typical donor-conceived child feels (I’ve read anecdotal accounts of donor-conceived children who said they had no problem with it). We’d need surveys of donor-conceived children before concluding that the quotes Brad provides are or are not representative.

Reproductive freedom is not a minor part of life. Before even considering a ban on donor conception, we should have solid evidence of harm. So far, that evidence is lacking.

Preemptive Karma provides this interesting update to the “Insufficiently Traumatized Behavior” case.

It’s disappointing, from a I-want-to-know-the-truth perspective, that there are no recordings or transcripts. But under the circumstances, a completely new trial seems like the best thing. Unless there’s a lot more to this case than The Oregonian reported, I don’t see how a fair court could possibly find guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

I’ve repeated my original post (edited somewhat) on Blue Oregon, a blog for lefty (but not necessarily feminist) Oregon bloggers. It’ll be interesting to see what the reaction is there, compared to the mostly feminist blogs on which this story has played so far.

Also, I’ve sent a letter to the Oregonian (text below). If you’d like to send a letter to the big “O” (and I encourage everyone to! Let’s flood the op-ed page, if we can!), the instructions are here - basically, be polite and keep it under 150 words.

On Z Magazine’s website, Gail Dines and Robert Jensen are criticizing the left’s attitude towards pornography:

I think they make a good point. Partly, perhaps, as a result of the polarization caused by the “porn wars” in the 1980s, and the desire to avoid even a hint of censorship, lefty defenses of porn sometimes seem more knee-jerk than thoughtful. But you don’t have to endorse censorship to critique the sexism, misogyny and racism found in a lot of porn.

Where Dines and Jensen fall down, in my opinion, is in not providing a working definition of what pornography means. The truth is, porn - like “partial birth abortion” - is one of those terms that is used so loosely, it has become impossible to be sure what any particular author means unless they explicitly define their terms.

For myself, I think “pornography” is any media produced with the intention of being used as a masturbatory aid by the audience. But my definition of porn includes material that contains no violence and is not degrading in any obvious way (for example, Colleen Coover’s comic Small Favors), while Dines and Jensen’s analysis doesn’t even seem to acknowledge that there could be such a thing as non-degrading, non-violent pornography. Does this mean that they see all sexually explicit materials - even something like Small Favors - as degrading and implicitly violent? Or are they not counting such material as “pornography” at all?

Two cover-my-behind points. First of all, I’m not denying that there’s a lot of porn out there that is disgustingly violent, and disgustingly misogynistic. Just clearing out my spam makes it clear to me that porn makers believe they can generate a lot of business by appealing to misogyny: “come see this bitch get nailed!” is if anything a mild example of the misogynistic language typical of much porn advertising. Assuming that market incentives work, the high prevalence of this sort of advertising indicates that there is considerable profit for porn producers who make direct appeals to woman-hatred. And there seems to be a similar, although perhaps slightly smaller, market for overtly racist porn.

Secondly, just because a piece of porn is not overtly misogynist or overtly degrading, doesn’t place it beyond feminist criticism. For instance, a lot of porn (such as Playboy-style naked posing) endorses not only very traditional ideas of what is or isn’t attractive, but also implicitly endorses the idea that sexuality is something possessed by women, which men must pry out of women. To me these ideas are problematic; they support a narrow and limiting idea of sexuality, which I think is harmful to society. However, this isn’t a problem with porn qua porn; the same harmful ideas I dislike in even “non-violent” porn, are also found in abundance in non-porn media like “women’s magazines,” “men’s magazines” and popular sit-coms. So although I think this is a legitimate critique of a lot of porn, it doesn’t make sense to single out porn in general for this critique, since these flaws are evident in virtually all of pop culture.

Regardless of what definition of porn Dines and Jensen are using, or if they’re overlooking the existence of non-degrading porn, it’s clear that their critique is applicable to a lot of the porn out there - and that there’s no reason that leftists should give racist and misogynistic porn a pass, when we don’t give racism and misogyny in non-porn media a pass.

UPDATE: Tiffany at blackfeminism.org weighs in, and also discusses “the virgin-victim-whore trichotomy.”

If you don’t read any other post today, go and read this remembrance of Judge Constance Baker Motley, written by one of her former clerks.

Judge Motley, among many other accomplishments, was the first Black woman to be accepted at Columbia University Law School; the only woman on the legal team that won Brown v. Board of Education; the first Black woman elected to the New York State Senate; and the first Black woman to serve as a federal judge.

A good article in the New York Review of Books reviews the book American Dream: Three Women, Ten Kids, and a Nation’s Drive to End Welfare by Jason Deparle.

As the article points out, the existing welfare system during Clinton - Aid for Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) - was severely flawed, and had earned its widespread unpopularity:

No good story with this week’s pictures (which were taken by Kim, by the way - thanks, Kim!) - just Sydney and Maddox snoozing and being oh-so-cute.

Read the rest of this entry »

Frequent “Alas” comment-writer (and token right-winger) Robert Hayes has started a new blog, The Argument Clinic. There’s a lot there that “Alas” readers will disagree with, as well as rare points of agreement. If you enjoy arguments (or just enjoy being pissed off by right wing opinions), check it out.

An Oregon woman who says she was gang-raped by three men, has been convicted of filing false rape charges, because she failed to act “traumatized” enough. From the Oregonian:

After a day-and-a-half trial, Municipal Judge Peter A. Ackerman on Friday convicted the woman of filing a false police report, a class-C misdemeanor. Ackerman explained his decision, saying there were many inconsistencies in the stories of the four, but that he found the young men to be more credible. He also said he relied on the testimony of a Beaverton police detective and the woman’s friends who said she did not act traumatized in the days following the incident.

That’s appalling.

The Judge seems to believe that there is a typical way in which all rape victims act, and that if a woman fails to act that way, she must be lying. But that’s nonsense. There is no “rape victim script” that every rape victim follows. Essentially, this woman has been convicted of a crime for failing match the judge’s stereotype of what “legitimate” female victims act like.

Judge Ackerman has sent a message to rape victims in Oregon: If the judge doesn’t think you’re weepy enough, emotive enough, hysterical enough, whatever enough, then he might just convict you of a crime. There’s every reason to think an asinine ruling like this will deter rape victims from reporting rape to the police.

Shakespeare’s Sister, The Heretik and The American Street have more. UPDATE: See The Countess’ post, too. And a new post from The Heretik. And My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. And Once Upon A Time…. And Political Animal. And this stunning post at Shakespeare’s Sister. And Liberty Street. And Radioactive Quill. And Ded Space.

For a contrary view on this case, see Cathy Young’s post.

This post was removed by request of the author.

Excellent news! South Africa’s Supreme Court has ruled that the South African Constitution, which guarantees equal rights for lesbians and gays, requires the state to recognize same-sex marraiges.

From Reuters (hat tip: This Space For Rent):

As long as I’m reprinting stuff for (the morning after) blog about racism day, here’s my favorite of the cartoons I’ve done about racism. If you have trouble reading this, a larger version can be viewed here.

[Since this is (the morning after) “Blog Against Racism Day,” I thought I’d repost one of my better posts about sex, race and privilege. This post was first posted in November 2002, and has been somewhat modified.]

The more privileged you are, the easier it is to envision human beings as pure individuals, unconnected to other individuals in any way that matters.

It sometimes puzzles conservatives that progressives are so concerned with what people think. What is racism, sexism, homophobia, etc, after all, other than a way some people think about some other people? And as long as I’m free to pursue my own self-interest, what does it matter what others think of me?

For someone with a lot of privilege, the rational answer is, “it doesn’t matter at all.” The more privileged you are, the less other people’s thoughts count. You go into a store, and you buy what you want, or you don’t buy. You don’t have to worry about what the store clerks think of you - what could matter less?

It matters if you’re a black woman like Debbie Allen, the very successful producer and choreographer. When she walks into a store, it matters what the clerks think of her - because those clerks might decide to refuse to sell her anything (she obviously can’t afford it). This isn’t a hypothetical situation - it really happened. Just as it really happened to Patricia Williams (a very successful lawyer who is a black woman), who once visited a high-end retail store - and the clerk refused to even buzz her in.

Those are small examples, but they illustrate what I mean. To someone with a lot of privilege, what strangers think is irrelevant. To someone in a less privileged position, what strangers think of you determines what kind of access you get to the complex network of relationships that make up our society and our economy. When strangers often think less of you because of your sex or race, you have less access to the material benefits of our society and economy.

People with more privilege, in contrast, can easily imagine that they are independent. A big mark of privilege is that social and economic networks tend to facilitate goals, rather than block them. This makes it easier to ignore the social and economic networks around us; and it makes it easier for the privileged to imagine their accomplishments are the result of their own pure merit. Imagine two roads: one smooth, well-paved, well-maintained, the other lumpy and full of cracks and pits. Most people will drive over the smooth road without even noticing it - but that doesn’t mean that the smooth road hasn’t facilitated their driving. Nor does it mean that the person driving on the smooth road has more merit, as a driver, than someone stuck on pothole avenue.

The feminist and anti-racist view of the world - in which people are not independent but interlinked, and therefore what others think matters in very real and concrete ways - is much more realistic. No one is independent; we all rely on a network of social and economic ties to tens of thousands of strangers, just to get through a single day. (Who grew the food you eat? Who paved the road you take to work? Who decided to offer you your job? Who decided to offer - or not offer - you a residence where you now live? You didn’t do all these things yourself.)

Of course, everyone - regardless of race and sex - will hit occasional bumps on the road. And everyone, white men included, has put out some sort of effort to get where they got. But when the folks on the smoother road go faster and further, let’s not pretend it’s because they’re better drivers.

Prometheus 6 wrote something that has stuck in my head ever since:

Not to put too fine a point on it, but “racist” is the only word that makes white people as crazy as “nigger” makes Black people.

It’s true - a lot of white people, hell, most white people turn ten different shades of pissed off and shoot steam out their ears if someone suggests they’ve said something racist. And if you make a point of talking about race and racism, sooner or later someone will accuse you of being racist, fairly or unfairly.

Frankly, I think we whites - especially, we whites who think of ourselves as against racism - have to get over it. So here it is, in honor of “blog against racism day” (okay, it’s now the morning after blog against racism day, so I’m slow):

Amp’s Guide to Not Being an Insane-O White Person When Accused of Racism.

1) Breathe. Stay calm. Stay civil. Don’t burn bridges. If someone has just said “I think that sounds a bit racist,” don’t mistake it for them saying “you’re Klu Klux Klan racist scum” (which is a mistake an amazing number of white people make). For the first ten or twenty seconds any response you make will probably come from your defensiveness, not from your brain, so probably you shouldn’t say whatever first comes to your mind.

2) Take the criticism seriously - do not dismiss it without thinking about it. Especially if the criticism comes from a person of color - people of color in our society tend by necessity to be more aware of racism than most Whites are, and pick up on things most Whites overlook. (On the other hand, don’t put the people of color in the room in the position of being your advocate or judge.)

3) Don’t make it about you. Usually the thing to do is apologize for what you said and move on. Especially if you’re in a meeting or something, resist your desire to turn the meeting into a seminar on How Against Racism You Are. The subject of the conversation is probably not “your many close Black friends, and your sincere longstanding and deep abhorrence of racism.”

Think of it as if someone points out that you need to wipe your nose because you’ve got a big glob of snot hanging out. The thing to do is say “oh, excuse me,” wipe your nose, and move on. Insisting that everyone pat you on the back and reassure you that they realize you don’t always have snot hanging from your nose, before the conversation can be allowed to move forward, is not productive.

4) Let Occasional Unfair Accusations Roll Off Your Back. Sometimes, even after you’ve given it serious thought, you’ll come to the conclusion that a criticism was unfair. Great! Now please let it go. Don’t insist that everyone agree with you. Don’t enlist the people of color in the room to certify you as Officially Non-Racist. Don’t bring it up again and again, weeks or months after everyone else has forgotten about the original discussion. In other words, see point #3.

Shorter Ampersand: Don’t make it a whacking huge deal if you say something racist, or something others perceive as racist. Apologize, move on, and consider the criticism seriously so that you can improve your thinking, if need be.

New to me, anyhow - Official Shrub.Com Blog is actually several months old, but I somehow have missed it up until now. (Hey, remember when the feminist blogosphere was so tiny that it was possible to read all the feminist-focused political blogs? Hell, when “Alas” started, it sometimes felt like it was the only politically-focused feminist blog.)

Frankly, I usually ignore blogs with names like this - partisan bashing doesn’t appeal to me much. But Shrub.com is thoughtful, well-written, and spends a lot more time talking about feminism than talking about Dubya. I noticed it yesterday when I was reading every link I could find about that Linda Hershman essay - OS.CB had what I thought was the best post criticizing Hershman.

Wanna know why I don’t post more? A big reason is that I like reading too much. For instance, I was thinking of writing something about Linda Hirshman’s article “Homeward Bound.” But first I thought I’d see what other bloggers were saying about it… and that turned out to take up all my available blogging time.

I may or may not find time to write a post about Hirshman’s article - although the number one thing I have to say about it, I’ve already said, which is that much of her premise simply ain’t true. (Note, however, that Hirshman herself, in comments, argues that my criticism is unjust.) Meanwhile, here’s what I’ve been reading::