Sorry, folks, but as collateral damage from changing the host for “Alas,” a day or so of posts and comments was lost. I’ll work on getting as many of them as possible restored, but in the meanwhile, my apologies to everyone who had a comment lost.
The call for submissions can be read over at Bitch|Lab’s place. She’s got some really interesting “suggested themes” this time, too.
Sometimes it seems the following must be invoked whenever a feminist brings up the subject of childcare as a burden: “Lots of men who work long hours in high-stress jobs would give anything to spend more time with their children.” It’s supposed to prove that, far from being a burden, childcare is a privilege that women disproportionately enjoy and that, by implication, any feminists who complain are miserable, child-hating whingers.
It’s a red herring. I have every sympathy for the hard-working men - I’ve worked some terrible jobs myself to try to keep the credit card companies off my back - but their plight isn’t directly relevant to the question of whether childcare is or is not a burden. (Whether it’s indirectly relevant is a much larger question, far beyond the scope of this post.) There’s a huge difference between “spending time with” children and “looking after” them.
My dad spends time with my daughter. He sings to her, talks to her, encourages her to smile and clap her hands. And he can do all these things safe in the knowledge that if she fills her nappy or starts crying uncontrollably, or if he just wants to get on with something else now, he can hand her back to me and I’ll take over. Because I’m the one that looks after her.
I love my daughter, but I also know that there are very few high-stress jobs that can compare to the task of looking after her. In a job, you clock off at the end of the day and your time is your own. Parenting means being constantly on duty: even when the baby is asleep, you have to be alert for the moment when she wakes up and needs attention. If you have the financial resources, you can subcontract some of the work to a childminder, but even then you have to be alert for the call that says there is a crisis only you can resolve.
Looking after a baby is exhausting. Normal tasks like showering and preparing breakfast require careful planning so that the baby doesn’t get frustrated with boredom and start crying. Something as simple as reading the paper or writing an essay requires co-operation from someone else, otherwise the baby cries from lack of attention. Trying to cram everything you didn’t get done during the day into the evenings when the baby’s asleep means you don’t get enough sleep, which makes it even harder to cope with what can often feel like never-ending demands.
This is a partial explanation for why I haven’t posted anything recently.
Prologue
This post is inspired in part by Kim’s post on Tony Snow. What is fascinating to me is how Whites decide what is racist and what is not (there really seems to be no rhyme or reason to it). I’m not sure if there’s any sort of science to it, but it seems to me that there are many cases where even the most blatant evidence is not enough for some Whites to believe that a person’s behavior or ideology is racist. Let’s put Tony Snow’s comment aside for a minute, and focus on what white supremacy and white racism is.
On my site a few weeks ago, I was attacked by white supremacists, and I realized at that time that many people do not know what white supremacy is (or they do not care to acknowledge it). I remember some people saying, “I don’t see any white supremacist comments.” I started to ask myself why don’t they see this–was it because their own beliefs support white supremacy and they didn’t want to label themselves White supremacist. Was it denial? What was it? (incidentally, I later found a link directly from a major WS site to my blog, where they were attacking me on my views on the Duke case. One guy was also lamenting/laughing at how I banned him. Incidentally, this person was also banned from this site.)
One thing that bothers me is the tendency of many people in mainstream America to set the burden of proving racism so high that nothing is ever racist. I recently heard someone defending Nicholas Minucci (a man convicted of a racially motivated attack) saying that the N-word is not really racist. Well my thought is, when you use the n-word while beating a Black man with a bat, you are a racist–plain and simple. The other tactic that some in mainstream White American use to deny the power of racism, is to try and give examples where they believe that people of color are being racist to Whites as if this somehow absolves the White person they are trying to defend. The more I debate with people over these issues the more I realize that people are often clueless as to what racism and white supremacy are. And they are also clueless about how closely their own views mirror white supremacists.
In order to help people understand what racism is, I decided to start a post with quotes from the discussion boards on white supremacist sites, so people know what is out there. Perhaps this will help people get a real sense of White supremacist ideology. I suspect that many people on the boards I collected quotes from would not call themselves racist or white supremacists. In fact, their preferred term is “White nationalist.” As you read through the quotes, think about how their comments are similar to and different from the mainstream media. I am not putting links to these sites (as I do not want them coming to this site anymore than they already do, and I don’t want to give them publicity).
Pt 1 “You Might Be a white supremacist if…..”
If you believe the following about Bill Cosby’s comments to Black America, You might be a White Supremacist:
You hear Bill Cosby “speechifyin’” about how negroes must begin to act in more moral,self-disciplined ways (Ha!Good ****in’ Luck! )to be more prosperous and have better lives and better communities;and the negro leaders all say this is a good thing. (But “we aint nevuh lettin’ whitey off da hook”). But this ’stripper’ represents everything wrong with black america today! She is a low-down,lying thieving filthy degenerate,adulterous,sleazy,drunken,immoral lump of feces. Yet no negro will speak against her;she is now a ‘black leader’;these innocent white guys,even if they are ‘privileged’,are betrayed by the rotten Duke PC community. And lambasting these guys for being privileged is just a pathetic dirty cheap way of hiding the real reason they are so hated:they are WHITE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Old Testament law commanded the Israelites not to engage in interracial marriage (Deuteronomy 7:3-4). The reason for this is that the Israelites would be led astray from God if they intermarried with idol worshippers, pagans, or heathens. A similar principle is laid out in the New Testament, but at a much different level: “Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?” (2 Corinthians 6:14). Just as the Israelites (believers in the one true God) were commanded not to marry nonbelievers, so Christians (believers in the one true God) are commanded not to marry unbelievers. To answer this question specifically, no, the Bible does not say that interracial marriage is wrong.
A person should be judged by his or her character, not by skin color. All of us should be careful not to show favoritism to some, nor be prejudiced or racial to others (James 2:1-10, see especially verses 1 and 9). A Christian man or woman’s standard for selecting a mate should always be to find out if the person they are interested in is a Christian (2 Corinthians 6:14), someone who is born again by faith in Jesus Christ (John 3:3-5). Faith in Christ, not skin color, is the Biblical standard for choosing a spouse. Interracial marriage is not a matter of right or wrong, but of wisdom, discernment, and prayer.
The only reason interracial marriage should be considered carefully is because of the difficulties a mixed-race couple may experience because others will have a hard time accepting them. Many interracial couples experience discrimination and ridicule, sometimes even from their own families. Some interracial couples experience difficulties when their children have skin tones of different shades from the parents and/or siblings. An interracial couple needs to take these things into consideration and be prepared for them, should they decide to marry. Again, though, the only Biblical restriction placed on whom a Christian in regards to marriage is whether the other person is a member of the Body of Christ.
(Rachel’s Note–This actually ticked off several of the people in the WS forum off because they wanted a stronger pronouncement against interracial marriage–other than, it’s not practical. What I found interesting about the quote is that it is really representative of mainstream views on interracial marriage. Most of the people I interviewed in my research on interracial marriage had relatives who felt as this white supremacist does.)
If you believe the following statement about Black people in groups, You might be a White Supremacist.
I think it is just a numbers game. One or two blacks in a large group of whites know to behave themselves. If they start the shuck and jive show, they’ll quickly get ostracized. Once the group (or town or classroom or city) becomes 25-30 percent black though, they start reverting to their natural state. ( insert realistic monkey sounds )
If you believe the following statement about HIV, You might be a White Supremacist.
Black America Negroes are always whining how “da white mang keep him down.” Hell, we don’t have to work to hard to do that, they do it themselves for the most part!
Pt.2 How far out of the mainstream are white supremacists?
I also thought the following 2 exchanges were very instructive for those Whites who are not part of these hate groups, but truly do want to understand white supremacy. Unfortunately, I think these White supremacists may have a point in both of these threads. In the first thread they are basically saying that other Whites are too damn wimpy to say anything when they make racist comments, and then in the second thread they are debating about how to get other Whites involved in their movement (The first post sounds just like CNN’s Lou Dobbs). I put up the post that started the threads, and some of the more interesting responses to it (some of the responses would pointless so I left them out).
Here’s the first thread, which asks if the racism taboo is fading:
Like most people my age, I have to go through Communist Brainwashing at my college government class. Contrary to what I have heard, not all people fall for the white guilt. I was overjoyed when someone stood up for our people when my professer told us that it was white oppression that made blacks fail. I then saw a man in the back tell my professor that the blacks have been given every possible avenue to fufill equality except us giving them everything. I added that the worst black neighborhoods are neighborhoods. It is impossible to scream racism when everyone around you is the same color.
I’ve noticed that any white that has busted their butt and made it wont give blacks any concessions. Whites Earn the right to a 3 bed 1.5 bath in the ‘burbs. They no longer see the need to give the dangerous inner cities anything. The word Race Card is now used as much as racist.
Next is Comedy Central’s Mind of Mencia. Has anyone seen it? Mencia is a Mexican, but he tells racist jokes at every ethnic group. With whites watching that, they are starting to subliminally realize that there are differences in the races. Although White America is far from putting on a Waffen SS uniform and wanting to deport all muds, I do believe the racist taboo is fading.
All thoughts would be appreciated.
And here are some of the responses
“Mencia is funny at times. He tells it the way it is. No Political correctness. Yes, talk to middle class white males, and they are fed up, even SOME girls. Americans aren’t stupid(white americans that is). White nationalism has nothing to do with the nazi’s. The nazi’s were for white supremacism. White supremacism is the reason why we now have things like affirmative action. Talk about Nazi’s and you will tick off a lot of kids. Talk about things like affirmative action, illegal immigration, and they will start sounding more like us. First let’s deal with mexicans and africans before we deal with the jews.”
“Living in Massachusetts, I can’t see any sign of the racist tabbo fading. In my highschool, a student was suspended for sometime (around a month) for having a white power fist on his shirt while a black student has been wearing a black power fist shirt with no reprecussions. It’s rediculous. It might just be the communists running Massachusetts, or it might be the Jew principal and administrators at my highschool, but as I see it, racial sensitivity is still rediculously high.”
“i dont know if i can agree with you on this one. i go to a very multi culti school and yet, i always use the N word, i use it like its a regular part of my vocabulary, and because of it… absolutely nothing negative has happened, the muds laugh, and most of the whites agree, or they downtrodden me, but im still friends with them! i havent lost a SINGLE friend over saying the word and it seems that most people do hate them, they just think that nazism is intertwined too far into all of this and we as a people need to rid of nazism. they have also been brainwashed into believing “jews are ok” so we have to go at an anti nazi point of view.”
“I think that the taboo is fading amongst the people. The automatons that are supposed to be teachers, administrators, managers, etc… are the ones that still toe the party line, and expect the same from everyone else.”
“I think amongst most people, it was never particularly taboo to be racist. Most white people I know (even some half-jews and asians) don’t seem to care when I drop the “N bomb”, or shake my head in disgust at the lazy blacks who live here. It might have a lot to do with the fact that I live in the south, so most of my friends are racist rednecks anyway.” “It is true in my experience (as many have noted in this thread already) that mentions of nazis and anti-Jewishness is what turns people off. Most people will allow racist jokes, and even make general observations about blacks being lazy, and Jews being greedy, but they consider references to Hitler to be either pointless or just vicious.”
“It is indeed fading at least in my area. I was on the bus the other day and this white woman had struck up a conversation with the black woman she was sitting beside about how trifling those “mexicans” were who live in her apartment complex and how upset she was that her daughter had fallen in love with one.”
“It is indeed fading probably due to the influx of nonwhite immigrants. Blacks are not looked at as the big problem so much as the hispanics are.”
And here is the second thread, which asks “will mainstream America support White Nationalism?”:
I certainly hope so, but it won’t happen overnight. We need to make it happen. I believe that we should go after millions and millions of regular white folks (families with kids, workers, homemakers, etc.) who are worried about colored immigrants, jobs being shipped to China and India, U.S. blood and treasure being wasted on Arabs, neighborhoods going bad, etc. Whites realize that something is wrong with this picture, but haven’t connected the dots yet. That’s where white nationalists can help. We need to open their eyes without making them feel they are “racist.” Why not organize “White heritage celebrations” in rural areas of the South and the Midwest? Places where people can go to listen to the country music, look at antique cars, Confederate items, Harleys, arts and crafts, drink beer and have a good time. If we start receiving support from regular folks, we’ll also gain political clout. However, without an aggressive effort to attract mainstream whites, we’ll remain at the fringes of the political spectrum, instead of its center, where we belong.
Here is a later response from the same guy.) We have failed to attract mainstream whites because of our strategy. We keep trying to sell some pretty radical ideas to a white guy who sits on a couch, eats food, drinks beer and roots for black athletes. He does not consider the Nazis, the Klan and the prospect of a racial war an appealing alternative to his hedonistic lifestyle. Obviously, we need to find some other way to connect with this guy. We also need an upbeat, positive message, instead of this never ending doom-and-gloom. Let’s figure out the way to repackage our ideas and make them palatable to common folks.
And here are some of the responses from others:
“Which “Brand” of WN do you mean?
Personally, I think most Whites are “white nationalist” as a general philosophy. But the Devil is always in the details. White Pride is a great thing… until four skinheads jump a white guy in a parking lot because he played a friendly game of pool with a negro at the local bar. Then everyone goes… “hmmm, that could have been me”. And suddenly WN don’t smell so good.
So you can make an aggressive effort to attract mainstream people but if they don’t trust your underlying motives… WN is just another ‘ism’” “White America is lost. The majority of white Americans live in its big cities; cities which are infested with colored immigrants and Old Southern Blacks.
The Negro alone has an amazing cultural grip on white Youth and most the parents of these, from the Negro Sub-Culture mesmerized kids, are far too weak to teach their offspring any kind of racial pride.
Most white Americans haven’t got a clue where their ancestors came from and most don’t care. The fact is White America is on its way down the toilet!
Had Germany & Japan won the last war & devided the world up between them, we would be living in a much better world.
The death of Germany was the death of the LAST CHANCE for White Culture globally. However, I shall fight to my last breath for the resurection of German Culture and for a better world through >>eugenics< <.""I don't think that the Sally Soccer Mom and Joe Six Pack will come around till the savages are at the gates. Once a Katrina like event happens to them, they will totally come around to our side.
Question is if we can do something with them when it happens?""I estimate 50% of Americans (i.e., White people in the USA) will eventually accept "racism" as the proper organizing principle of society. The other 50% are irrevocably tied to non-Whites by blood (half-breed children or siblings) or marriage, or by financial dependence (Federal whores, including the political police), and/or they are so insane as to be incurable of their psychosis of self-hatred.
Do not despair at my "low" numbers. Successful revolutions are frequent throughout history with only a plurality of support...both the Founding Fathers and Hitler came to power with active pluralities.
Perhaps only 10% of Americans are currently racially-aware or racially-leaning. The remainder will "come around" when most of our large cities are in flames and the economy has went much further into the abyss.
"Popular Comfort" is the greatest enemy of the revolutionary.""Yeh this is especially important - I think we have to identify exactly what rubs the majority of whites the wrong way and use that. Be very very politic - don't run off at the mouth on tirades - and above all stay honest and fair in all things.
We should stay away from typifying people by race and concentrate on religious and cultural differences. e.g. If you see an CHinese guy eating - usually slurping rice in some disgusting manner you instantly feel the culural distance and there are deep tribal feeling that it awakens. The same with weird Islamic rituals and kosher slaughter, arranged marrriages etc etc.
In addition I would say the media rubs people the wrong way. They keep hammering away at topics that annoy alot of people, and they have very little credibility after Rathergate, so I would say stick to a message of attacking foreign invaders rather than directly pointing them out.""I know we all hope for the day where mainstream white Americans can wear a t-shirt showing pride in there culture without being critized. But it's going to take time and a lot of hard work. And I know most of us are more than ready to do whatever it takes. If we had more organizations and eliminated certain things it would be a step in the right direction in my opinion. I agree with those that believe we need to eliminate those things that have people look at WN as a racist thing, such as Nazism, KKK etc. They mean something but are looked opon negativley as hate groups. I'm not about hating other racists, I'm about taking pride in my own, just like other races and cultures are intitled to do. I'm tired of being called a racist and sneered at when My friends and I where our white pride t-shirts or wear a confederate flag on a hat or coat. I'm tired of seeing young white americans supporting a different culture than there own. And I'm espically tired of Whites feeling sorry for "What there ancestors have done" to blacks, jews, etc. I'm tired of blacks being able to have television stations, magazines, websites etc. and not being looked down upon when whites try to show pride and it is only seen as negative and hateful. I'm tired of seeing Native Pride, Black Pride, Hispanic Pride, and every other Pride besides WHITE PRIDE being displayed publicly with no snickers. White Americans need to realize that the country we took a huge part in building is being controled by those who we're formerly repressed, and now we're the repressed minority. I believe the key is to get mainstream whites to be proud of there heritage and skin color, and quit feeling sorry or feeling the need to support other cultures before there own. In my mind, youth are the easiest to convince, in my own town we bring forth issues into the minds of those young white people who have been blinded by this cruel world. Those young people who wear monsterous chains around there necks, sag there parents, have no respect for there parents or the heritage, and have a need to fit in more with other races, and impress them."
There are over a 150 comments on the last thread mentioned, which indicates to me that these White Supremacists are very concerned with winning over the majority of White Americans.
So there you have it, here are some of the things white supremacists are saying. What’s striking to me is that if you tweak a word here or there, quite a bit of what they are saying is not much different from what people in the “mainstream” are saying.
So the second Washington Post article on Black men is out (Thanks to Joy Princess for the Update). The article basically summarizes the findings of their survey, so I figured I would take issues mentioned in the article and elaborate on the sociological trends.
On Suicide
One of the first issues they discuss is the increasing suicide rate of Black men. The assertion that the suicide rate of Black men has increased is correct, but it should also be noted that the Black male suicide rate is still lower than the White male suicide rate. I also found this excellent article from National Public Radio’s News and Notes With Ed Gordon. It my estimation one of there are two factors that have allowed the suicide rate among Black men to escalate. First, is the increasing number of Black middle class families. These young men are more likely to commit suicide than their lower income peers. The second factor would be the notion that suicide is a “white thing,” which I have heard on numerous occasions. For a long time the suicide rate was much higher in Whites, but the gap has closed dramatically.
On Who’s to Blame for the Problems and Opportunities Facing Black Men
Six in 10 black men said their collective problems owe more to what they have failed to do themselves rather than “what white people have done to blacks.” At the same time, half reported they have been treated unfairly by the police, and a clear majority said the economic system is stacked against them.
Black men said they strongly believe in the American Dream — nine in 10 black men would tell their sons they can become anything they want to in life. But this vision of the future is laden with cautions and caveats: Two-thirds also would warn their sons that they will have to be better and work harder than whites for equal rewards.
Well I guess Bill Cosby needs to read this survey because the majority of Black men are placing the blame on themselves not Whites. But I agree with the general way the Washington Post has framed this problem. There is an interesting irony in that a high percentage of Black men report experiencing discrimination, yet they feel that Black men are to blame for the problems facing Black men. I think there probably is the “well I’m not that way, but other Black men are” attitude going on here. The optimism is also ironic. I get the sense that many of these guys are thinking there is racism, but they will be able to overcome any of it. On an individual level I think that is probably a good attitude, but at a societal level I think it is a bad attitude. Personally, it keeps people from getting down and allows them to maintain a can do ethic, but it doesn’t really challenge the racism that does affect these guys.
On Self Esteem
I was also really annoyed with this quote:
Sociologists and social psychologists say that black men’s poor view of themselves may have its roots in several factors. Movies, music, television and the news media are full of unflattering images of black men, they say.
The article fails to distinguish between self esteem and group esteem. Self esteem is how I feel about myself, and group esteem is how I feel about the group that I am a member of. For example, for me myself self esteem would be how I feel about Rachel, and my group esteem would be how I feel about a group I am a member of such as White women. As far as I can tell the study did not ask about self esteem, they asked about group esteem. When is comes self esteem, African Americans usually have higher self esteem than Whites (numerous studies have found this); on the other hand there are not many studies about group esteem, so I’m not sure about racial differences in group esteem. But Black people do not suffer from low self esteem as a collective.
On Worries and Respect
This part of the study was interesting. I don’t want to comment on it to as much because I think that there will probably be a more through analysis on some of these issues later. But for now here is a brief quote on some of the worries of Black men:
Among blacks with college degrees and household incomes of $75,000 a year or more, six in 10 said someone close to them had been murdered and six in 10 said a family member or close friend had been in jail or prison — similar to the reports of working-class, less-educated black men. Three in 10 have been physically threatened or attacked in their lives because of their race, again no different from less-advantaged black men.
If anything, the survey suggests that better-educated black men experience more direct racism than those with fewer resources. For example, 63 percent of educated, upper-middle-class black men said they have been unfairly stopped by police, compared with 47 percent of less-advantaged black men.
From the shared experiences and worries of black men have emerged a set of priorities that are very different from those of white America. Three in four black men said they highly value success on the job, fully 20 percentage points higher than white men. Black men also placed a far higher value on “being respected” by others, as well as standing up for their racial or ethnic group.
That’s all for now folks, please let me know when the next article comes out.
Sydney loves swimming pools (going swimming with her, you have to keep a good grip on her while preparing to go into the pool, because left to herself she’d jump into the pool as fast as her legs can run), but some forms of getting soaked are even better. Such as….
I love this photo of Sydney playing with a fountain (you can click on the photo to view a bigger version). I wasn’t there, but I’m told that this fountain was one of the absolute high points of Sydney’s life to date.
Sydney is getting better at controlling her emotions - for instance, when told “no,” she often pouts and stomps into the next room and bitterly shouts “No!” if an adult tries to comfort her. (The terrible thing is, Sydney’s anger is cute - she crosses her little arms and scowls and the adults in the room go “aawwwww!, Just ‘ook at the widdle scowl!” which is, to put it mildly, not the reaction Sydney is hoping for.) What’s great about the sulking is that, eight months ago, Sydney would have reacted to the same situation by crying. The sulking shows that she’s grown a lot of emotional control.
But naturally, Sydney still cries sometimes. For example, when (after quite a bit of time, and after Sydney was soaked to the bone and shivering) Matt and Kim finally pulled Sydney away from this fountain, she wept and wailed and wouldn’t accept any consolation. The fountain was that good.
Over at Rachel’s Tavern I am answering some of the emails I have gotten in my new monthly mailbag post. In this post here at Alas, I am going to post my response to the most common questions I have been getting, which are of course about the Duke Rape case.
I have gotten numerous emails on this subject, so I figure I should give a general statement on the case. Mostly people have been asking why I haven’t been posting and if my lack of posts indicates that I now believe that these “boys” are innocent. There are a few reasons I haven’t been posting. First, the information on the case has been slow to trickle out, so I have decided only to update when there are big developments in the case. Second, the vast majority of the recent stories on the case have involved leaks from the defense, which I don’t consider newsworthy. They have routinely leaked information to try to spin the case in their favor, which is of course the job of the defense attorneys, but they simultaneously refuse to release the actual documents for the media to review. In fact, there was a really good story in the NY Times today with the following quote:
“I have no doubt that Mike believes her,” said H. Wood Vann, a lawyer in Durham who once represented the woman in a joy-riding case and has also done general legal work for her parents. Mr. Vann said that he wanted to give her the benefit of the doubt but that few other people in town do, and he added that many wonder why Mr. Nifong persists.
“At some point in time he’s going to have to get to a tipping point,” Mr. Vann said. “His case is going to hell in public opinion. He’s suffering death by a thousand cuts.”
Mr. Nifong’s silence makes it impossible to evaluate the case as a whole. Certainly some evidence has not been revealed … the next hearing is set for June 22 … and the defense has released evidence selectively, presumably showing only those parts that strengthen its public position.
I generally agree with that quote. The Prosecutor is losing in the court of public opinion, and that is because the only chatter we hear is from defense attorneys, who would have people believe that there is no grounds whatsoever for this case. If the case was as groundless as they claim, then the grand jury and/or the judge would have intervened. You’ll have to pardon me if I am a little skeptical of defense attorneys claims, especially since we are hearing them with no rebuttal. That also leads to the third reason I have not been putting up as many posts on the case.
I am relatively certain that the defense attorneys are reading these blogs trying to figure out what will stick with people, and I didn’t want my blog to be used as a means for them to test the jury pool. In fact, I suspect that one of the emails I received was from someone close to the defense in this case (I could be wrong, but that is my guess.) The defense in this case is a vast well oiled machine. In fact, one of the best articles on this matter came out in the Washington Post. The articles is called “Lacrosse Players Case a Trial for Parents,” and it shows you how powerful the families in this case are.
Now I’d be liar if I didn’t say I think the defense team is winning the court of public opinion, but I also know that the DA has been firm in maintaining his support for the victim and this case will be tried in a court of law, not the court of public opinion (which is the other reason my posts have been a little sparse lately). The defense team seems to be taking the condemning the condemners strategy in what appears to be an attempt to keep this case from going to trial. I assume they are thinking that if they taunt the victim and the prosecutor enough the charges will be dropped.
So there you have it those are my current thoughts on the case…..if you want to read an extended version of the mailbag, you can come over to Rachel’s Tavern.
I’m honored and pleased that Amp has asked me to cross-post my Letter Writing Sunday series here on Alas. For those that are unfamiliar, every Sunday i write at least one letter of social importance. The letters range from contacting members of congress, to local elected officials, to corporations, and, as you’ll see this week, to political prisoners. While this is the first letter writing sunday at Alas, it is #8 in the series. The idea is to raise awareness about a different issue every week, to provide a simple outlet for action on that issue, and to create a sense of collective action. I sometimes write letters in the middle of the week and label them such things as letter writing sunday #5.2, but here i will only publish the official Sunday edition. So let’s begin (i assure you that they usually aren’t this long. This is simply a topic that is very near and dear to me.)…
I should have posted something about this earlier, but today is the last day of the International Weekend of Resistance Against the Green Scare. And for those that aren’t quite in the mental space to go out and participate in some direct action or if you’d like to highlight your other action(s), i’m dedicating this week’s letter to solidarity with the weekend of resistance. But rather than write yet another letter to yet another corporate office, let’s show some love for those who are in prison.
The Weekend of Resistance started as the International Weekend of Resistance to Support Free Luers, a political prisoner at Oregon State Penitentiary. This weekend marks the fifth anniversary of his imprisonment. Here is a clip from Free’s support site:
In June 2001, 23 year-old forest defense activist Jeffrey “Free” Luers was sentenced to 22 years and 8 months in prison for the burning of three Sport Utility Vehicles (SUV’s) in Eugene, Oregon. To make a statement about global warming, Jeff and his codefendent, Craig ‘Critter’ Marshall, set fire to 3 SUVs at a Eugene car dealership. Their stated purpose was to raise awareness about global warming and the role that SUVs play in that process. No one was hurt in this action nor was that the intent. An arson specialist at trial confirmed that the action did not pose any threat to people based on its size and distance from any fuel source. Despite the fact that this action hurt no one, caused only $40,000 in damages and the cars were later resold, Jeff was sent to prison for a sentence considerably longer than those convicted of murder, kidnapping and rape in Oregon state. Jeff is a political prisoner and continues to write and agitate for his release while imprisoned at Oregon State Penetentiary. His appeal was filed in January 2002 and oral arguments before the Oregon Court of Appeals were heard on November 30, 2005. The judge has not yet issued his opinion.
I do not persyanlly know Free. We’ve never met. But i’ve been familiar with his case from the beginning. His obscenely long sentencing sent shockwaves through the radical environmental movement, of which i am proudly a part. We had always known that we were targeted for political crimes. Many of us have spent time in jail or prison for our actions. But Free’s case marked a new era for the environmental and animal rights movement. An era plagued by the same fervor as the COINTELPRO witch hunts of the 60s and 70s and the Red Scare hunts of the 1950s. An era where even a website could land you in prison for a few years. An era that is now affectionately called the Green Scare.
In a failrly recent article written by Free, he talks about this upsurge in government repression and how the FBI has dedicated more time and energy towards targeting activists (the #1 domestic terrorist threat, according to the FBI) than it has to groups such as al-Qaeda. In the article, he also reminds us that we cannot believe that this is the first time that such represssion has happened and that we must learn lessons from similar targeting that occured against groups like the Amercan Indian Movement and the Black Panther Party. And in some ways, we have all learned a lot. In fact, the FBI has discovered that its Operation Backfire has, in fact, backfired. Not only has a once splintered environmental-animal lib movement found itself reuniting, but the surge of prisoner solidarity work has spawned many relationships that otherwise may never have formed. For example, a recent animal liberation conference in the northeast US dedicated more time to the issue of prisoner support work, like that of the Jericho Movement, than it did to campaigns about non-humyn animals; centralizing a new dialogue in the animal lib movement about racism and the prison-industrial complex. In an odd way, these attacks have been one of the best things to happen in recent hystory for White radicals in the US. But that is no reason for us to allow these people who have risked so much for a better world to be left alone to rot in prison.
Free doesn’t deny the allegations against him. He simply argues that his sentencing, over twice that of the average convicted rapist, outweighs the crime considering the fact that the only damage done was to three SUVs that were later resold. The average sentence for arson, according to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, is 5.5 years, one-quarter of Free’s sentence.
Free has continued his struggle in prison. He has never allowed the cold walls to silence him. He continues to publish his words in magazines and recently published a zine, Heartcheck, with fellow Oregon political prisoner Rob “los Ricos” Thaxton (who is completing his seven-year sentance this month!).
You don’t have to agree with Free or his chosen tactics. A friend and i were talking about the recent round-up of activists in Operation Backfire and the lack of attention it has received outside of the relatively small radical environmental, animal lib, and prison abolitionist movement(s). We agreed that even scarier than the round-up was the complacency surrounding it in the larger radical, progressive, and liberal movements. Its as though people believe that activists such as Free deserve their extraordinary sentences and that people like Daniel McGowan, who has maintained his plea of innocence, deserve to face life in prison because they associate with the likes of Free.
In addition to Operation Backfire, the SHAC 7 were recently convicted of terrorism for hosting a website (the site was forced to shut down, but others have popped up to take its place. CloseHLS is one such site.). They await their sentencing, which will be between two and twenty years each. My friend and i strongly believe that the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security have learned a lot from the very successful Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) campaign. What they learned most is that you do not go after your target as a whole, you pick it off piece by piece. Those who believe that these arrests and repression will stop with groups like SHAC and Earth First! have not been paying attention to the news. More and more stories are coming out about the FBI infiltrating and spying on peace groups, Indymedia, SOA Watch, and other groups. What all of these groups have in common is a dedication to non-violence and social change that has proven to be successful (HLS is one the verge of its third bankruptcy, the SOA is on the verge of being closed down, Indymedia’s expansive network rivals CNN’s, and so forth). Once they have succeeded in isolating and shutting down groups like SHAC and Earth First!, they will come after others (SOA Watch, International Solidarity Movement, Indymedia, and others have already witnessed imprisonment, Grand Juries, and State repression). A current revision in the House and Senate to the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act of 2002, the Act underwhich the SHAC 7 were convicted, would make it so that so much as holding up a sign on a sidewalk could land you in prison for two years as a terrorist. Why has this received no attention outside of the animal lib movement? Do people honestly believe that this will stop with animal lib activists? According to this legislation, groups like PETA could be targeted as terrorist organizations akin to al-Qaeda or the World Church of the Creator. If PETA is a target, NOW and Feminist Majority are targets for their support of economic boycotts. United Students Against Sweatshops are a target. The American Friends Service Committee are a target. Anyone or any organization that threatens the unregulated profits of any corporation strong enough to endorse legislation, is a target.
It is for that reason that these arrests are not just relevent to the animal lib or radical environmental movement. They are relevent to all of us dedicated to positive social change. And if we cannot support those that are in prison now, then we will soon find ourselves isolated and picked off, one-by-one. Even if it is just two sentences to say hi, write a letter to Free to let him know that he is not alone. Because it is not unheard of that you too may find yourself in a Kafka-esque nightmare, hoping only for contact from a friend; contact from a slightly more sane world beyond the cold hard steel.
You can reach Free through the following address:
Jeffrey Luers
#13797671
Oregon State Penitentiary
2605 State Street
Salem, OR 97310
If you are looking for more information about the support work that is being done for the Weekend of Resistance, the Houston Indymedia Radio Project and Anarchist Black Cross teamed up this weekend and put together a nice Green Scare Special Edition (you can listen to it on my blog) full of interviews about Free Luers, Daniel McGowan, the Green Scare, the SHAC 7, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, Eric McDavid, Zachary Jenson and other such vital topics.
You can read the letter i wrote to Free on my blog.
It’s hard to say whether or not the use of ‘hug the tar baby’ in Press Secretary Tony Snow’s first conference had any hidden racial significance or if he genuinely felt that the racist historical significance of the word was unimportant (well maybe not, but I’m trying to be generous here people). What isn’t hard is to see that Mr. Snow’s use of such language is the epitome of what people are talking about when they say ‘privilege’.
Having said that, I don’t want to hug the tar baby of trying to comment on the program… the alleged program, the existence of which I can neither confirm or deny.
First lets look at the etymology of ‘tar baby’. I decided to do a bit of informal ‘research’, which means not extensive, but did consist of about 3 or 4 hours of looking up every possible twist on the phrase and words to get all references I possibly could from the Internet. It seems that many feel it was initially a reference to dark skinned first generation slaves, most recognize it most easily by the late 1800’s story by Joel Chandler Harris of Uncle Remus and the Br’er rabbit series. In one particularly good academic critique of the stories, I found a really interesting interpretation which surfaced regularly in my search, but none so eloquently as by Julie Zbeda:
This story suggests that Br’er Rabbit has dual sides as both the victim and the aggressor. He also has a prideful nature as is shown when he refers to himself as “respectable” in comparison towards the tar baby. As racial and moral characterization is a big part of the Br’er Rabbit stories, the relationship between Br’er Rabbit and the tar baby may represent the subtleties of race relations, in which the tar baby is like a Sambo - an uneducated slave who is mentally bound to slavery as well as physically bound - the ideal creation of Br’er Fox, who represents the slave owner. This also poses the question of who is the dominant and who is the subordinate. Although Br’er Rabbit thought himself higher in the social order than the tar baby, when he gets stuck in the tar, he is at the mercy of the tar baby and its creator, Br’er Fox. This represents a warning for what happens when a position of authority is assumed by a slave in a society where it is not permitted. This tale functions as a commentary of plantation culture in regards to the conflicts between the slave and the master, and between the slaves themselves.
The fact is, most people understand that words can have many meanings (despite tar baby having questionable racist connotations to its very etymology) and can change significantly in different contexts. The question then becomes, is the need to use a word or phrase so crucial to making your point that no other word or phrase will do. In a great thread on the Democratic Underground, Fishwax summed it up pretty well by first addressing that Joel Chandler Harris had actually admitted in his introduction that the stories were done in partial defense of slavery, and that ultimately context does matter:
I think one of the chief flaws of the “outrage at the outrage” in this case is that it relies on a belief that context obliterates connotation. People have appealed to Tony’s context of use as if it were 100 percent conclusive, the final word. But context is most useful for determining denotative meaning. Connotative associations extend beyond the specific topical context of the conversation.
I read that and it really hit home for me. Why would the press secretary for the President of the United States be incapable of seeing if nothing else, that particular reference might cause discomfort. The answer for me was pretty clear - white privilege is about being shielded from discomfort and racism that isn’t experienced by them. I guess it’s hard for a middle-aged white man who lives a comfortable and cushy life to relate to why references that have had racially negative origins might bother some people. It’s also a pretty glaring example of cognitive dissonance. And really, it’s a pretty big stretch to call it necessary or defensible.
Here’s a few other questionable points about Mr. Snow’s history when it comes to the issue of racism and the need for sensitivity to other races and cultures:
The O’Reilly Factor on June 30th, 2005: Snow said that calling racism and poverty systemic is “making excuses” for cultural problems in the U.S. rather than trying to understand the situation of the poor. “When you say systemic, it sounds like you’re trying to make excuses…in other words, it sounds like you’re giving people a copout.”
Fox News, Sunday, October 30th, 1998: Snow said, “I love Thanksgiving. It is the least politically correct of all our holidays. It celebrates the old-fashioned bourgeois family. It praises God, who’s creator non grata in most of our public schools, and it bespeaks our national faith in higher truths and greater goods, as well as in our neighbors and ourselves.”
Chicago Tribune, November 20th, 1991: As a White House speechwriter Tony Snow defended former KKK leader David Duke, saying, “Duke is talking about things people really care about: high taxes, crummy schools, crime-ridden streets, welfare dependency, equal opportunity. A lot of politicians aren’t talking about these things.”
Fox News, Sunday, October 5th, 2003: Snow spoke about Rush Limbaugh’s controversial comments that Donovan McNabb was overrated and that reporters are disposed towards black quarterbacks. “The comment wasn’t racist,” Snow said, “but that did not stop political opportunists from accusing Rush of bias.” Snow added, “Racism isn’t that big a deal anymore.”
Stormfront Article, December 31, 1999: An article written by Tony Snow with a debunking theory of Kwanzaa for Stormfront that is archived on Martinlutherking.org. The site itself is worth looking at to get a better understanding of who Mr. Snow has worked for and with in the past - it’s a Martin Luther King hate site and that is littered with examples like this (please keep in mind this quote is not from Snow):
The political affiliations of Martin Luther King that Sen. Jesse Helms so courageously exposed are thus only pointers to the real danger that the King holiday represents. The logical meaning of the holiday is the ultimate destruction of the American Republic as it has been conceived and defined throughout our history, and until the charter for revolution that it represents is repealed, we can expect only further installations of the destruction and dispossession it promises.
And to finish this rather winding ramble of mine off, I found this quote from the Stormfront.org forums in defense of Tony Snow:
Anyone in the newsmedia who attempts to give a fair balanced presentation on the White Nationalist movement can expect to be slammed by the powers-that-be. We all know who those powers are and no elaboration is needed.
So while Tony Snow and the hill might feel comfortable in blithely brushing off the elephant in the room, I’m just sayin’….
In the comments of Chuck’s livejournal entry about the Male Privilege Checklist, Miss Fahrenheit wrote that “#42 just makes me angry because I know it’s wrong, but Google isn’t throwing up any helpful statistics I can scream about.”
Here’s what #42 says: “If I am heterosexual, it’s incredibly unlikely that I’ll ever be beaten up by a spouse or lover.”
I based #42 on the Centers for Disease Control’s report on intimate violence, which is (as far as I know) the largest and best-conducted study of intimate violence done in the US to date. According to this study, women are 14 times as likely to have been beaten up by an intimate partner at some point in their lives than men (8.5% versus 0.6%).
The study asked about many kinds of violence, ranging from being shoved to being attacked with a gun. In all categories, women were more likely to have been attacked by an intimate partner than men, and the discrepancies got larger as the violence became more serious. I focused on “beat up” because, unlike items like “threw something” or “pushed” (is a push a bone-jarring crash into a wall, or a painless, flirting push on the shoulder? What if someone pushed only in self-defense, or to escape?), “beat up” has little ambiguity, and implicitly contains a negative outcome.
They also found that men who had cohabited with a male partner were three times as likely to report having been assaulted by a partner as men who had only lived with opposite-sex partners.
Other studies have suggested that men and women are equal victims of intimate violence, but none of those studies are as large or well-conducted as the CDC’s study. Please see this past post for a much more in-depth discussion of “husband-battering” and intimate violence statistics.
(This is one of a number of posts responding to Chuck’s critique. You can use the category archive to see all posts related to the Male Privilege Checklist.)
* * *PLEASE NOTE* * *
Discussion on this post is reserved for feminists and pro-feminists only. If you don’t thinik you’d be considered a feminist by Amp, you’d probably be better off posting comments on the same post at Creative Destruction.
You heard it right, my friends - according to an Oregon pastor’s prophecy, God so hates the queers, he’s prepared to destroy Portland. There will be earthquakes, floods, and buildings collapsing atop the LGBT Pride Parade. Thousands of queers (along with goodness knows how many non-queer allies and street vendors) will be sucked into the Earth’s gaping maw and crushed moments before their lungs fill with water and then they are finally killed by falling bricks. (Salem and the entire Willamette Valley are predicted to get it too, but I get the feeling that they’re just His collateral damage.)
It sounds like a terrible Father’s Day, frankly. You’d think the Father of All would pick some other day for carnage, but no. And why us? San Francisco is much gayer, Lord. Smite them! Smite them!
Here’s an intriguing detail from the Pastor’s dream - just in case anyone survives His earthquake, His flood and His collapsing buildings, God is conspiring to use terrorists to wipe out the survivors as they crawl from the damp rubble.
I saw a group of men. I think that there was about twenty of them. They all had large automatic weapons. I had the feeling that they were terrorists but I’m not sure. There were a few survivors wandering around, dazed from their injuries from the earthquake. Whenever this group of men came upon anyone wandering around, they would kill them.
You heard that right, folks - God is working with the terrorists! Just like Saddam did!
Well, I for one refuse to give in to God’s terror tactics and terrorist demands. I propose that on Father’s day, June 18th, every true-blooded American should have queer sex. And lots of it.. Do it whether you like it or not - because this isn’t about sexual pleasure, this is about standing up to the terrorists! If we don’t all have queer sex on Father’s day, then the terrorists will have won!!!
In the short time that remains, let’s prepare to Have Queer Sex For America. Here’s a helpful instructional comic book (not work safe) for any ladies who want to do their patriotic duty by having lesbian sex on the 18th, but aren’t quite clear on the details. I don’t know of any similar instructional comics for male-male sex, but there must be some out there, so keep your eyes open and ask your local comic book store owner. It’s also possible that there is, somewhere on the internet, a website with photos of gay male sex that guys can consult for ideas.
If Father’s Day ends without anything happening then you can be happy that you had hot queer sex and return home. If something does happen then you can be happy you stood up for America, a thought which comfort you in the moments before the earthquake, floods, falling rubble and terrorists bring about your demise.
The Pastor did say that people should “pass it on to whoever you know,” so below you’ll find his own description of the dream God sent him.
A reader asked that I expand on the earlier post about the poorest counties and richest cities in the US.  His question was really good, so I went back and looked at the data (since I collected it months ago). This data is only for counties and places with over 250,000 people. I figured I would add a broader context by providing a few more charts, and talking about some of the measures. I realize that many people have no idea what the poverty level or the median income in the US is. This chart shows the poverty thresholds for various family sizes. In 2004 the poverty threshold for a family of four (2 kids two adults) was $19,157. The median income for families (regardless of household size) was $44,684. All of the graphs below are from the 2004 American Community Survey. Since this survey is not a Census, the results are listed as estimates (They are very reliable estimates).
In the earlier post, I should also have noted that the places and counties listed are only cities with over 250,000 people. Unfortunately, the American Community Survey does not have a readily available list of smaller counties or places and their median incomes for 2004. Thus, this reflects the countries urban population. However, in this post, I have added the poorest counties and the wealthiest cities with over 250,000 people. Overall, the poorest urban counties are primarily in the south, and cities with the highest median family incomes are really spread out. If you are looking for data on smaller cities or rural areas, the best data is provided by the 2000 Census. (I have added the link below.)
Since I gathered that data a long time ago, I had forgotten why I did not put the cities with the highest median incomes. I now remember why…since they are only looking at cities, we miss the fact that in the modern city wealth is concentrated not in the city, but in the surrounding suburbs. The Census Bureau uses the term places as a synonym for cities over 250,000 people. The suburbs or surrounding areas of these cities are not included. Thus, places like Scarsdale, NY (an extremely wealthy New York suburb), where the median family income in 1999 was around 200,000 dollars, are not included in the analysis because they have under 250,000 residents. Additionally, very poor small towns like Jonestown, MS, where half the people live in poverty are also excluded. Both small towns and rural areas are not in these lists. So, the way a geographic area is constructed does affect the who is included in these lists.Â
The New York city area deserves a special mention since includes more than one of the poorest and richest counties. In the New York city metro area the contrast between wealth and poverty is profound. Bronx county and Kings county are both part of New York city…the boroughs of the Bronx and Brooklyn are located in these counties, and they are surrounded by very wealthy suburban counties, which are listed in the top 15 counties. While there are many metropolitan areas with poor cities and rich suburbs, New York is striking because the contrast is so extreme.Â
There are of course other ways to measure the economic status of geographic areas. The first variable that can be changed or manipulated is the geographic areas as I noted above…we could look at states, counties, metropolitan areas, cities, towns, zipcodes, census tracts, and even census block groups. We can also look at different measures of the economic status of an area, such as the (un)employment rate, the per capita income, the percent of people receiving government assistance, and several other measures (that an economist would know more about LOL!). These graphs focus on families and people and families in counties and cities over 250,000. To prevent graph overload, I wil add another post in a couple days the uses another geographic unit…states. I’ll show you the richest and poorest states in that post.
In the meantime, you can check out your local area by using the Census Bureau’s American Fact Finder site. The results can even be sorted by areas as small as Census block groups or zip codes. The site also contains additional information gathered from the 2000 Census, such as the racial make up of the area, the educational level of the people, the percent male and female, and so on.
Â
10 Poorest Counties over 250,000 (% in poverty)
1. Hidalgo County, TX (43.6)
2. Cameron County, TX (35.8)
3. El Paso County, TX (32.3)
4. Bronx County, NY (30.6)
5. Philadelphia County, PA (24.9)
6. Baltimore city, MD (23.9)
7. Orleans Parish, LA (23.2)
8. Kings County, NY (22.6)
9. Caddo Parish, LA (21.7)
10. St. Louis city, MO (21.6)
10 Poorest Places Over 250,000 (% in poverty)
1. Detroit, MI (33.6)
2. El Paso, TX (28.8)
3. Miami, FL (28.3)
4. Newark, NJ (28.1)
5. Atlanta, GA (27.8)
6. Long Beach, CA (26.4)
7. Milwaukee, WI (26.0)
8. Buffalo, NY (25.9)
9. Philadephia, PA (24.9)
10. Memphis, TN (24.6)
15 Counties Over 250,000 in the US with the Highest Median Family Income ($)(the ones with * are in suburban NYC)
1. Fairfax County, VA ( 90,194)
2. Montgomery County, MD (90,187)
3. Morris County, NJ (90,168)*
4. Howard County, MD (90,157)
5. Monmouth County, NJ (90,148)*
6. Somerset County, NJ (90,133)*
7. Westchester County, NY (89,249)*
8. Chester County, PA (88,164)
9. San Mateo County, CA (87,762)
10. Nassau County, NY (87,558)*
11. Fairfield County, CT (87,434)*
12. Rockland County, NY (86,624)*
13. Santa Clara County, CA (85,581)
14. Norfolk County, MA (85,091)
15. Bergen County, NJ (84,604)*
15 Places Over 250,000 With the Highest Median Family Income ($)
1. San Jose, CA (77,232)
2. Anchorage, AK (73,840)
3. San Francisco, CA (68,667)
4. Seattle, WA (65,080)
5. Raleigh, NC (64,908)
6. Virginia Beach, VA (60,926)
7. Honolulu, HI (60,618)
8. San Diego, CA (59,818)
9. Arlington, TX (58,924)
10. Charlotte, NC (58,116)
11. Minneapolis, MN (57,164)
12. Colorado Springs, CO (55,554)
13. Austin, TX (55,488)
14. Oakland, CA (54,333)
15. Washington, DC (54,193)
I’ve been revamping the Hereville website, parlty to ease myself back into drawing new Hereville pages, but primarily because I accidentally destroyed the entire Hereville website a couple of days ago. (That was a neat moment.)
Anyhow, it’s for the best - the rejiggerified website is better designed than the old site was. But I’m having difficulty with the dropdown menus. On Firefox and Netscape they work fine, but in IE the second-level drop down menus can’t be clicked on. (To see the second-level menus, scroll your mouse down the “read the comic” menu.)
Also, in IE, the “read the comic” heading is printed on three lines, whereas I’d prefer it to appear on a single line like it does in Firefox.
I’d love any suggestions on how I could fix this stuff.
Alternatively, if anyone knows how I can keep the second-level menus from appearing in IE, while still appearing in Firefox and Netscape, that would be cool too. (The second-level menus aren’t absolutely necessary to navigate the site).
(Opera seems to have the same problem as IE, by the way. But, at the risk of sounding like a tool of Microsoft(tm), I have to admit that I care more about IE functionality than Opera functionality).
“Chuckdarwin,” while criticizing the Male Privilege Checklist, wrote:
11. If I have children and provide primary care for them, I’ll be praised for extraordinary parenting if I’m even marginally competent.
Harsh. Strident. Unprovable. I know single dads that no one has ever called ‘extraordinary’.
#11 is anecdotal (as is your rebuttal), but a lot of the anecdotes are from custody cases, where fathers have sometimes been given a lot of credit for fairly minimal parenting time, compared to what is the norm for most mothers. This is the sort of observation that isn’t provable; I think we’ll have to disagree on this one.
16. As a child, chances are I was encouraged to be more active and outgoing than my sisters.
Plenty of parents don’t encourage any of their children to be active at all.
It’s true, of course, that regardless of sex too many children have parents who provide poor or rare encouragement. But that in no way disproves my point. As I said in the list’s introduction, nothing about the list claims that men (or boys) never have bad experiences.
#16 - which I intended to refer not only to treatment by parents, but also treatment by teachers and by other children - is very well documented in the social science literature (I’ve included some references at the bottom of this post). For example, the various Baby X studies, which have found that adults perceive and treat the same baby very differently depending on if they’re told it’s a boy or a girl. (Some recent studies suggest that this effect has been declining over the years, which I’d say is to feminism’s credit).
It should be noted that the gender expectations put on too many children is not a benefit for all boys. In particular, boys who can’t live up to stereotypical gender role expectations often face emotional abuse from adults and peers, as well as physical abuse from peers.
References
Read the rest of this entry »
It’s another open thread! Say what you want, be what you want. Be-in! Be-in! It’s a hippie thread! Free love! Peace! Beads! Men in luxurious long flowing skirts! Gimmie a head with hair! Etc.
Anyhow, some of what I’ve read lately:
Fabulosa Mujer: Fifth Radical Women of Color Carnival
Official Shrub.com: Carnival of Empty Cages 2
Mombian: Blogging for LGBT Families Day!
Lots of great family-friendly links! Check it out!
Abyss2Hope: First Carnival Against Sexual Violence
Blac(k)ademic Goes To Washington!
Well, she’d like to go to Washington for a political conference she’s been invited to (cool!), but she needs folks to hit her tip jar to make it happen.
New Blog: Feminist Allies
Groupblog for feminist (or pro-feminist, if you prefer) men. The first post has info on joining.
Political Sapphire: The lessons of Malcolm X (aka El Hajj Malik el-Shabazz).
Fantastic, very long and interesting post about Malcolm X - less about his life than about him as a political thinker, and why the US (including the left) has ignored him in favor of MLK Jr.. I definitely want to remember this post come Koufax nomination time.
Fetch Me My Axe: On Temping For A Worthless Gob of Swine Smegma
DeviousDiva: Jewish Rights In Greece
Did you know that the Greek government pays the salaries of priests and imams - but not rabbis? That to build a new synagogue requires permission from a high-ranking priest? I didn’t, either. Holy crap.
Ballastexistenz: On Underlying Content, Being Unable To Send “I Am Nice” Signals, And Super-Waggy Dogs
If you haven’t been reading Ballastexistenz, you should give it a try - one of the best writers in the blogosphere, in my opinion.
Bitch|Lab: The Slut As A Scab In The Economy of Sex
Being Amber Rhea: My Slut-Baiting Days
At least the girls who were called sluts were getting some attention. At least the boys recognized them as sexual beings. Sure, the boys may have been treating them in a disrespectful or downright dehumanizing way - but to my rattled young brain, it didn’t matter.
Trash Talks Back: Random Thoughts on Fuckability, Date-ability, and Trophy-ability
Curtsy: Women’s Space
The Primary Contradiction: Report on 1898 Massacre by North Carolina White Supremacists Released
Paleofeminist: I was so relieved when I finally ditched the whole “pretty” lifestyle.
My Amusement Park: On Lists, Winners and Favorites
So, we, as individuals (scholars, viewers, bloggers, writers, listeners, readers, etc) tend to construct or exhibit our identities through lists (which are often counter-lists to Big Lists, to begin with) and to develop and change these lists as a way of tracing our respective critical evolutions.
Jay Sennett Jaywalks: Finding Common Ground With People We Might Otherwise Despise
When we let bigots hurt us, is it only because we haven’t uprooted our own self-hatred? It’s sounds a bit too hippie to me, but at the same time I’m thinking on a recent experience with being flamed and to some degree it rings true. Exceptionally thought-provoking post.
My Amusement Park: In Defense Of Cultural Appropriation
Modern Feminist: Awesome vlog criticizing sexism in the vlogosphere.
In case you don’t know (I didn’t) “vlog” refers to video blogs. She’s a good speaker - I especially enjoyed her closing in this one. Vblogging is entirely new to me, but it’s an interesting format. I wonder how many fat vbloggers there are?
Taking Place: Washington Post Series on Black Men Gets Off To Racist Start
The New York Times: The War On Food
Curtsy: My Amusement Park
I don’t know if PunkAssBlog is joking or has bad taste, but I for one love the Beatles.
Okay, that’s kind of a mean way to link to a blogger I actually like a lot, but I figured he’s hoping to stir up some arguments. :-)
Being Amber Rhea: Really interesting debate about libertarianism in the comments
NPR Audio: Roundtable Discussion of Sexual Media Images of Black Women
Curtsy: New Black Man.
Smackdog Chronicles: When Arundhati Roy Speaks, People Should Listen
IrrationalPoint: On the Kenyan reform of rape law
The good news is that the definition of rape now includes offences against men and boys, and the bill also introduces a minimum sentence for rapists. The bad news is everything else.
Capitalism Bad; Tree Pretty: Bodies and the Validation of Personal Experiences
I find it really hard to read material about pre-menstrual syndrome, particularly that from a feminist perspective. Unless it begins “Pre-menstrual problems can be horribly severe and hard to deal with” I get angry, because I feel like they’re denying my experience.
A Womb of One’s Own: Chicken/Egg Question Definitively Answered
Noli Irritare Leones: Porn, Prostitution, Sexual Harassment
One of those thoughtful, wandering posts that’s incredibly difficult to sum up in one line in link farms, but I liked the post so I hope folks go read it.
Why Am I Not Surprised: Who’s Gonna Liberate America?
The first time I read Peggy McIntosh’s “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack”, I don’t think I deep-down understood why this one is so important: “If my day, week or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether it had racial overtones.” I think I’m getting it more these days. Anyhow, that’s what this very well-written post made me think of.
The Record: Larry Flynt, Free Speech, and the Right to Refuse Debate
Granny Gets a Vibrator: An Open Letter to the Mother of Two Small, Loud Children on the Airplane
Not what I expected it to be.
Interesting debate at PunkAssBlog and Shades of Grey over the never-ending topic of men’s place in feminism.
Start here at Shades of Grey, then the response at PunkAssBlog, and finally the counter-response back at Shades of Grey.
PunkAssBlog: Marc Watches Sienfeld Episodes In His Sleep
Beat the Press: Immigrant Labor, “Shortage of Workers” and Supply & Demand
There is no more a shortage of workers for low-paid jobs than there is a shortage of workers for higher paid jobs. The difference is simply that the workers who perform less-skilled work have less political power to protect themselves against the efforts of employers to get low cost immigrant labor.
Hugo Schwyzer: On The Accusation of Feminist Double-Standards
Quiz: Should You Be Male or Female?
Like “ Antiprincess ,” I scored “either.” Whew!
Doctor Science Knows: Housework, Fleas, and Evolution
Kung Fu Monkey on Why and How To Get Rid of the Electoral College
While you’re there, check out part 2 and part 3 of his anti-E.C. series, too. (Part three is also a very sensible take on the “Did Bush steal Ohio in 2004?” question.) Curtsy The Sideshow.
BlackProf: Is X-Men III a Story about Race and Sexuality?
The Happy Feminist: Why “Feminist” Instead of “Gender Egalitarian”?
I would love a world in which merely professing a belief in “human rights” were sufficient to convey that both women’s and men’s interest in justice. Unfortunately, history has shown that unless women make some noise and draw some focus onto our rights or equality, women’s rights and equality will not be seen as important.
I don’t have any real analysis here, but I will tell you that the data comes from the 2004 American Community Survey
10 Poorest Places in 2004 (% in poverty)
1. Detroit city, MI (33.6)
2. El Paso city, TX ( 28.8)
3. Miami city, FL ( 28.3)
4. Newark city, NJ (28.1)
5. Atlanta city, GA (27.8)
6. Long Beach city, CA (26.4)
7. Milwaukee city, WI ( 26.0)
8. Buffalo city, NY (25.9)
9. Philadelphia city, PA ( 24.9)
10. Memphis city, TN ( 24.6)
The 15 Counties in the US with the Highest Median Family Income (the ones with * are in suburban NYC)
1. Fairfax County, VA ( 90,194)
2. Montgomery County, MD (90,187)
3. Morris County, NJ (90,168)*
4. Howard County, MD (90,157)
5. Monmouth County, NJ (90,148)*
6. Somerset County, NJ (90,133)*
7. Westchester County, NY (89,249)*
8. Chester County, PA (88,164)
9. San Mateo County, CA (87,762)
10. Nassau County, NY (87,558)*
11. Fairfield County, CT (87,434)*
12. Rockland County, NY (86,624)*
13. Santa Clara County, CA (85,581)
14. Norfolk County, MA (85,091)
15. Bergen County, NJ (84,604)*
Kim decided it would be cute to tie bows in Sydney’s hair. And lo, cuteness was created.
Several more pics below the fold. (Sydney’s relatives who already got emailed these photos by Kim, it’s worth it to click through - most of these photos aren’t the ones Kim sent you!)
Read the rest of this entry »
A few days ago, I linked to a Rolling Stone article by Robert Kennedy Jr., in which he argued that Republicans successfully cheated in Ohio in 2004, throwing what should have been Kerry’s election to Bush.
At the time, I took a “maybe it was stolen, maybe it wasn’t” view. After reading this persuasive Salon trashing of the Rolling Stone article, I’m convinced the election was not stolen. Yes, Republicans (led by Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell) cheated and suppressed votes (especially Black votes), but even if they hadn’t Bush would have won Ohio.
Kung Fu Monkey has a sensible assessment:
You will notice, however, Salon lightly skipping over big chunks of Blackwell’s actions, whistling and waving over yonder. No mention of the paper-weight registration trick or the multiple judges who found that Blackwell was interfering, repeatedly, with the election. It is a sad day when Salon’s rejoinder in defense of the republic is “Sure, Blackwell was plainly a partisan bastard who betrayed the public trust, broke the law, and stole votes. But did he actually steal enough votes to swing the election? If not, no foul.”
…Perhaps the title “Was the 2004 Election Stolen” can be argued either way — but a better question is “Was the 2004 Election Fair?” I believe even the Salon article cedes a definite “no.”
Thanks to “Alas” comment-writer Anono for pointing out the Salon article to me.
Cross-posted at Creative Destruction. If you don’t like the moderation here, give it a try over there.
You are currently browsing the Alas, a blog weblog archives for June, 2006.
