It’s rare that Bob Hayes and I agree, but both of us are pleased by the results in the Connecticut primary.

Even if the result is that Lieberman keeps his seat but becomes a de facto Republican, I’d consider that an improvement over the status quo. Right now, Lieberman is enormously useful to Bush and the Republicans, because he provides cover for their positions; “even a Democrat like Joe Liberman agrees…” and so forth. As an independent, he won’t be as effective at providing cover for Bush and the Republicans.

Nor do I think Democrats have lost a swing vote in a hypothetical future fight over control of the Senate; if such a fight had come up while he was a Democrat, Lieberman probably would have switched parties rather than give control of the Senate to the Democratic party. His decision to run as an independent has demonstrated beyond question Lieberman’s complete lack of loyalty to the Democratic party.

As for if Lieberman is a “centrist,” please spare me from hard-line Republicans who feel they can tell Democrats who is and isn’t a centrist Democrat. This comment-writer at the Moderate Voice got it right:

Joe Lieberman has supported George Bush on domestic spying, suspension of due process, creation of an extra-judicial prison system, the conduct of the war in Iraq, the threat of war against Iran, downplayed the use of torture at Abu Ghraib, praised Alberto Gonzales in his nomination proceedings and suggested that those who disagree publicly with the administration are endangering the country. On the most important issues of the day he is securely in George Bush’s camp. How is he a centrist?

(I’d also add that Lieberman’s “rape victims can just walk to the next hospital” take on emergency contraception didn’t exactly endear him to me.)

And also at The Moderate Voice, Joe’s comment that “Lieberman represents and defines all centrists just as accurately as Britney Spears represents and defines all singers throughout show business history” is pretty on-target.

[Crossposted at Creative Destruction, where the skies are not cloudy all day.]

There’s been a lot of fussing over this statement, written by some LGBT activists, which calls for a broader debate over what kind of families will be recognized by the government. Here’s a sample:

To have our government define as “legitimate families” only those households with couples in conjugal relationships does a tremendous disservice to the many other ways in which people actually construct their families, kinship networks, households, and relationships. For example, who among us seriously will argue that the following kinds of households are less socially, economically, and spiritually worthy?

· Senior citizens living together, serving as each other’s caregivers, partners, and/or constructed families

· Adult children living with and caring for their parents

· Grandparents and other family members raising their children’s (and/or a relative’s) children

· Committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner

· Blended families

· Single parent households

· Extended families (especially in particular immigrant populations) living under one roof, whose members care for one another

· Queer couples who decide to jointly create and raise a child with another queer person or couple, in two households

· Close friends and siblings who live together in long-term, committed, non-conjugal relationships, serving as each other’s primary support and caregivers

· Care-giving and partnership relationships that have been developed to provide support systems to those living with HIV/AIDS

Marriage is not the only worthy form of family or relationship, and it should not be legally and economically privileged above all others. While we honor those for whom marriage is the most meaningful personal ­– for some, also a deeply spiritual – choice, we believe that many other kinds of kinship relationship, households, and families must also be accorded recognition.

I’m pretty much in agreement with this entire statement. The world isn’t limited to two-person couples who want to get married; there are other kinds of families, and they are also deserving of legal and economic support. Frankly, to me this seems like a no-brainer.

But obviously not everyone feels that way. Anti-gay-rights activists - from relatively moderate opponents of equal rights, like Elizabeth Marquardt, to full-on anti-gay extremists, like the folks at the American Family Association, are claiming that this statement shows the “real agenda” of “tak[ing marriage] apart.” Here’s Elizabeth’s take:

What do I find both amusing and infuriating about all this? The dance. The same people who want to extend marriage to same-sex couples are quite often the same people who want to take the thing apart, redefining and inflating it in ways that attempt to cover all sorts of human needs with virtually no regard for one of the most basic: the need for children, whenever possible, to be raised by the mom and dad who made them. For a while, the “take the thing apart” folks have been operating full steam ahead in academia and fringe advocacy but getting little attention elsewhere.

But what the “Beyond Marriage” statement calls for is not an expansion of marriage (although it leaves open the question of expanding marriage to same-sex couples), but for legal recognition of non-marital families, in ways other than marriage.

How is saying “forms of family other than marriage deserve recognition” anti-marriage? This is a consistent (although not universal) logical flaw in the so-called “marriage movement”; they see family as a zero-sum game, and believe that if any family form other than their own is given any respect or recognition, that will cause dire harm to their own families.

It’s true, as Elizabeth says, that most children will be best off being raised by their own parents. But nothing in the “Beyond Marriage” statement denies that. Once again, Elizabeth sees a zero-sum game where none exists: recognizing and caring about support systems for children raised by same-sex parents, or in shared households, does not require in any way that we stop caring about or stop providing legal and economic support for children being raised in conventional nuclear families.

It’s also notable that Elizabeth herself supports “civil unions” for same-sex couples (although she rarely mentions this support except when she’s arguing against marriage equality). So when the Beyond Marriage folks propose that family forms other than marriage be given legal recognition, that’s “taking the thing apart” and bad; but when Elizabeth proposes that family forms other than marriage be given legal definition, why is that any different?

The American Family Association statement is, as you’d expect, a good deal less intelligent and sophisticated:

Pro-Homosexual Marriage Proponents Go Public With Their Agenda

We have repeatedly said the agenda of those pushing homosexual marriage will lead to polygamy and a total devaluation of marriage. Not content with “the narrow terms of the marriage debate,” the pro-homosexual advocates are now declaring, “Legal recognition for a wide rage of relationships, households and families - regardless of kinship or conjugal status.” They also demand, “Access for all, regardless of marital or citizenship status, to vital government support programs, including but not limited to health care, housing, Social Security and pension plans, disaster recovery assistance, unemployment insurance, and welfare assistance.”

In short, they want to totally redefine our society by eliminating the very concepts of marriage and family, and the battle to redefine traditional marriage is just the beginning. The proponents of homosexual “marriage” admit it and they have posted their manifesto online.

The big error the AFA makes, that Elizabeth doesn’t, is to implicitly assume that all homosexuals share an “agenda.” This is, of course, a common view of bigots. A non-bigoted person, when seeing that queer group X produces a statement which in some ways disagrees with the statements put out by queer group Y, would come to the conclusion that queer group Y and queer group X disagree on some issues. In contrast, a bigot like the AFA writer assumes that all queer groups agree on everything, and any apparent disagreement indicates that there is a unified “real agenda,” and that statements from queer groups that don’t agree with this “real agenda” are lies. (Oh, those tricksy trisksy queer groups!)

But note also what Elizabeth and the AFA share in common: the zero-sum mentality, which falsely assumes that the very act of recognizing or respecting “alternative” family arrangements will do terrible harm to “conventional” families.

UPDATE: Check out this response to the AFA and other hard-right anti-gay groups at Good As You.

UPDATE 2: Amanda at Pandagon comments:

Naturally, conservatives are claiming that this is evidence that progressives are trying to tear down traditional marriage. But what I noticed about the family types that conservatives are giving the hairy eye to and claiming shouldn’t have full rights as bona fide families is that they are often family arrangements that are made by people who are not WASPs and/or people who don’t have the financial means to divide up into households based around a straight couple, a gaggle of kids, and a white picket fence.

In other words, conservatives oppose opening up the meaning of the word “family” for reasons other than strict sexism, but in fact have very classist motivations. They want special rights for family living arrangements that are often only available to people of means. The fetishizing of the housewife is the biggest clue that this is about proclaiming that people of means are morally superior to people without, but beyond that, everything about the culture wars starts with the assumption that middle class WASP culture is morally superior to all others and that everyone else should aspire (or be forced to aspire) to the lifestyle of our social superiors.

Now I’m not saying that people who do have nuclear families are morally inferior by any means. Just that they are not morally superior to other people, and yet it’s still largely assumed that the nuclear family is the morally superior option, even though the expense and burden of it is too much for some of us. It’s the 21st century and it’s still so widely assumed that male-dominated nuclear families are so morally superior to the rabble that it’s still traditional for politicians to trot out the wife and kids in front of the camera to assure Americans that they are morally strong enough to be leaders. Single mothers, people who live with friends, people who live with extended families all need not apply.

[Crossposted at Creative Destruction, where the moderation is lighter and all the children are above average.]

Via Noli Irritare Leones, I learn of Michigan’s “Coercive Abortion Prevention Act.” What the CAPA would do is make it a crime to “commit, attempt to commit, or conspire to commit physical harm to the pregnant female” in order to force her to have an abortion; or to commit “repeated or continuing harassment of the pregnant female that would cause her to reasonably feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, or harassed” to compel her to seek an abortion. As well as providing criminal and misdemeanor penalties, CAPA also makes it possible for women to sue coercers in civil court.

Three comments on CAPA:

1) CAPA’s sponsors don’t oppose coercion when pro-lifers do it.

The law itself seems benign, at least on the surface. What makes it twisted, is that the Michigan pro-lifers who pushed CAPA through the legislature, actively worked to defeat an amendment to this law, which would have left CAPA intact but also have applied the same rules and penalties to people who coerce women not to have an abortion. In other words, pro-lifers explicitly opposed making it illegal to “commit, attempt to commit, or conspire to commit physical harm to the pregnant female” if the intent is to coerce her into giving birth.

(Pro-lifers might respond that there’s no need for such a law, since such things are already illegal. But if that’s their view, then how can they claim CAPA is needed at all?)

Of course, this is not surprising, since being pro-life by definition means being in favor of forcing pregnant women to give birth unwillingly.

Of course, I don’t believe anti-abortion Congressfolks in Michigan consciously favor violence against women seeking abortion. So why were they so dead set against outlawing coercion? Because they want to protect anti-abortion activists. In particular, I think they didn’t want to make it possible for women to sue so-called Crisis Pregnancy Centers for using fright and intimidation to compel women not to have abortions.

Pro-choice groups in more liberal states should propose “Coercion Prevention Acts” of their own — acts which would make it illegal for women to be “terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, or harassed” to compel her to make any reproductive decision (not just about abortion or not-abortion, but also sterilization and not-sterilization). If the laws are passed, then good.

And when “pro-life” leaders oppose such laws - as I’m sure they would - then at least the foulness of their views would be forced a bit more into the open.

2) Where are the MRAs?

I’m surprised Men’s Rights Advocates aren’t screaming opposition to CAPA. Under CAPA, it can be “coercion” if someone living with the pregnant woman - say, the father of the fetus - says he’ll move out, if the pregnant woman bears a child. From the text of the law:

A person who has actual knowledge that a female individual is pregnant shall not do any of the following with the intent to compel a pregnant female to seek an abortion:

[…]

(b) file or attempt to file for a divorce from the pregnant female.

(c) withdraw or attempt to withdraw financial support from the pregnant female that had previously been supplied or offered to the pregnant female.

(d) change or attempt to change an existing housing or cohabitation arrangement with the pregnant female.

In the most extreme case - an 18 or older, unwilling father moving out (or just saying he will move out) from his “cohabitation arrangement with the pregnant female” if she’s 17 or under - a man could be thrown in jail for a year and fined $5000.

Being legally forced to continue cohabitation is much more intrusive than being forced to pay child support. Yet I haven’t seen “Choice For Men” advocates saying a word against this law. My guess is that they’re just not aware of it.

The above-quoted bit of the law goes too far. This section of the law tries to provide a legislative solution to the fact that some people are assholes, but assholishness isn’t a problem the Michigan legislature is capable of solving. Also, it’s unconstitutional as all get-out.

3) CAPA doesn’t address the most common reason women are forced to have unwanted abortions.

It’s terrible when any woman is coerced to have an abortion — or to give birth — by an abuser. But also terrible, and far more common, is when women feel forced to have abortions because of their economic circumstances. It’s ironic, therefore, that anti-abortion legislators, despite their supposed opposition to coerced abortion, nonetheless oppose any but the most grudging and measly programs to assist poor single mothers.

Even if we limit the scope of our cocern to abused pregnant women, CAPA fails to address the most pressing needs. To quote Michigan NOW:

The vast majority of battered women who feel “coerced” to consider or have an abortion are forced to consider this option not because of threats from the batterer but because child custody laws do not adequately protect battered women and their children or because current social policies do not allow battered women to feel they have the resources necessary to provide for their child such as employment, employment training, safe child care, and housing and health care.

(Hey, shouldn’t Michigan NOW be called “MOW?” That would be cool, because it would be the same upsidedown as it is right side up.)

* * * Please Note * * *
Comments on this post are reserved for feminists, pro-feminists, and feminist allies. Others may leave comments at the crosspost at Creative Destruction.

for the Association of Black Sociologists and the American Sociological Association Meetings. I’m going to running around for a a week, so expect posting from me to be light. I will give a few updates, and will be checking up on comments. I’ll also let you know if I see any interesting presentations.

Here, at Body Impolitic. A lot of great links there; please go check out & please link!

This is the last of the three-part “Amp takes a lot of photos in a grocery story” series of baby bloggings. (Parts one and two are also available).

Sydney and Maddox, playing in the grocery story. You may think that Maddox is wearing a wig, but actually she’s just strapped to the chest of her filthy long-haired commie hippie daddy. (Hi Matt!)
Read the rest of this entry »

I have read thousands of student papers, and I routinely notice is that students (and the general public) really don’t have a good grasp of how to write or talk about race and racism. In particular I have taught several writing intensive courses, and these experiences have lead me to develop several writing guidelines that deal with racial and ethnic issues. I know some of these suggestions my seem fairly basic, but I always seem to have more than one student who has these sorts of problems with talking/writing about race. Here are the suggestions from class:

• Racial/Ethnic Bias: Avoid using racial slurs or outdated terms, unless directly quoting from a source or if it is absolutely necessary. For example, you could say, “Racial slurs such as spic or chink are commonly used in the locker room, but not in public settings.” Sometimes you’ll find older books that use outdated terms; if you are quoting them directly you shouldn’t change wording.
• While racial slurs are easy to avoid, the more common problem is using universal terms or passive voice to avoid specificity. You should not be too vague in the name of political correctness. For example, don’t say, “People were lynched by mobs.” Instead be frank, say, “Most lynchings involved White mobs lynching African Americans.” I often find students avoiding racial terminology, especially for Whites. Sometimes doing this takes away from the clarity of your writing. It is also important that we name the actors in any given situation; passive voice generally obscures the actors and denies the power of racism.
• Over Generalizing: Be careful not to overstate findings or group differences. For example, don’t say, “African Americans do not support the Iraq War,” Instead say, “African Americans are less likely to support the war in Iraq.” Substitute “all” for many, most, a majority, etc. It is very important to remember that there is diversity within groups and phrases like “all” or “none” obscure that diversity. There are appropriate times to say “all”/”everyone” or “none”/”nobody” just make sure you really do mean what you are saying. For example, I could accurately say everyone in my (Prof. Sullivan) high school graduating class is white.
• Capitalizing Racial/Ethnic Groups: Ethnic groups should always be capitalized. For example, African Americans, Irish, Ashanti, etc., but there is some disagreement about whether or not racial terms, specifically, Black and White should be capitalized. You can make your own decision, but you must be consistent. (I have been wavering on this one lately. I used to be of the capitalize racial terms school of thought, and now I’m starting to back off of it. I always capitalize the term Asian, when it am using it as a racial category. I’ve thought about using lower case for color terms, but as you can see I don’t have a clear answer for this dilemma.)
• First, Second, and Third Person: Use first person (I, we) when you want to emphasize your own belief, perspective or experience. Avoid using second person (you) unless you are directly addressing the reader. For example, you shouldn’t say. “You should take your grades seriously” since I (Professor Sullivan) am your reader. Instead, change it to “Students should take their grades seriously.” Since your audience for this paper is me (Prof. Rachel Sullivan), you should avoid using “you” in your papers, unless you are speaking directly to me. Third person (she, he, it, they) is usually the best in you papers.
• Passive Voice: Passive voice is weak and often takes agency away from an actor, allowing someone to avoid responsibility. For example, don’t say, “Divorces were granted.” Instead say, “Judges granted divorces.” Don’t say, “Blacks were lynched.” Instead say, “White mobs lynched Blacks.”

I know the first one seems self explanatory, but almost every semester I get students writing about “colored people”–like it’s 1950 or something. I have taken to explaining that colored people is an outdated term and that it doesn’t have the same connotation as “people of color.”

Now, I’m probably going make some people mad, but I see these same problems in the way that many bloggers write about race. I’m not trying to put anyone down because we all fall into these traps. I’m sure if you look through my blog long enough, you will find some of these problems. In fact, I think given the pervasiveness of racism and stereotyping it is very difficult for anyone to completely escape racist and/or stereotyping language. I also think that many of these same sorts of guidelines can apply when we are talking about other forms of social inequality–sexism, heterosexism, classism, ageism, and so on.

So first thing I did once I got back from NY is catch up on some of the TV I missed. Spoilers ahead!

So You Think You Can Dance

The judges on this show are obsessed with masculinity. All of the smaller male dancers are told that they have to be masculine, judges wonder aloud if they can be masculine, and whenever they dance a ballroom dance well they’re praised for being “masculine” or told “now you are a man!” In contrast, the bigger, deeper-chested men are always assumed to be masculine - even when their dancing has sometimes been relatively tentative and unsure, which would have caused any of the smaller male dancers to have their masculinity questioned.

It reminds me of something Esther Newton wrote in her book Margaret Mead Made Me Gay. According to Newton, in order to combat widespread stereotypes about dancers being gay, dance producers and choreographers, decades ago, began to favor stereotyped and exaggerated masculine and feminine roles in dance. When I watch So You Think You Can Dance judges natter on about masculinity, I’m watching the continuing effects of that historic homophobia. (You can also see it in the rule that female dancers wear very revealing costumes, while male dancers cover up. When one male dancer danced a couple of times in an open shirt, the judges made fun of him for it.)

Anyhow, it’s still one of my favorite shows on TV, because I love watching dances - especially the ones with so-called “contemporary” choreography, although all kinds can be fun. Regarding the last couple of weeks worth of shows, I think Allison Holker was robbed - she’s simply a better dancer than any of the remaining female dancers. I see that some other bloggers were also shocked to see Allison voted off - and so were the other dancers on the show, judging from their expressions.

It’s hard to feel bad for Allison, though, because she’s that talented and that skilled and she’s only 18. To hell with her, frankly. (TVGuide interview with Allison and Ryan here. Apparently Utah has one hell of a dance culture.)

I’m also a big fan of Donyelle. She’s a great dancer (although not the best in this competition), she doesn’t do the same thing over and over with her solo dances, and rather than looking waiflike she looks strong and powerful. But I think Travis (another damned 18 year old) will probably be the winner of the overall competition - he’s a great dancer, and extremely likable.

America’s Got Talent

This is one of those shows that would be unwatchable without TIVO. But as it is I can scan through and just watch the performances, some of which are a lot of fun in a “stupid people tricks” sort of way, some of which are just good. Plus, I love magicians, acrobats, and jugglers.

That said, I can’t believe the judges went for that fire-juggler. He juggled three balls. Then he juggled three pins. Then he juggled three multi-headed pins. Yes, the balls and pins were on fire, but so what? It’s not dangerous to juggle fire. It’s not difficult to juggle fire. And the juggles he did were all incredibly easy. Basically, this guy is a crappy, hack juggler. These judges don’t know a thing about juggling, clearly.

Doctor Who

(Again, spoiler warning - if you haven’t yet seen David Tennant’s first season, which has not yet been broadcast in the USA, then stop reading).

Finished watching the first season of the tenth doctor, which was actually very satisfying. David Tennant isn’t as good as Christopher Eccleston was, but the scripts were stronger this season then they were in Eccleston’s season (despite a couple of cringeworthy missteps, like the big swordfight in the first Tennant storyline), and the conclusion of Rose’s storyline turned Eccleston’s season and Tennant’s first season into a single, reasonably satisfying story arc about Rose and the Doctor’s doomed romance. (Plus, the final episode’s plotline was so cheesy - “DALEKS VERSUS CYBERMEN!!!!” - that the fact that the episode was actually about the main characters’ relationship really rescued the episode.)

I thought Rose’s character was pretty good from a feminist point of view, especially in Tennant’s season. She isn’t as super-capable as the Doctor is (nor should she, or any companion, be) - but she was frequently an active participant in plots, and got to do more than just be the designated hostage again and again. (Of course, there were some episodes that got my feminist skin crawling a bit, but that’s to be expected - if I only watched stuff I fully approve of politically, I could throw out my TV set entirely).

[Crossposted on Creative Destruction.]

We got a few quick letters this week to make up for my absence last week. First, brownfemipower brings us an email writing campaign from the United Farm Workers about the animal abuse at Threemile Canyon Farm. To make things interesting, supervisors at the dairy “farm” (i use that term lightly here) have been passing around a petition that denies that any animal abuse has taken place. Well, they have the right to petition, but what they don’t have the right to do is to threaten to fire any worker that doesn’t sign the petition. If you want some testimony from workers about the animal abuse and some of the legal background, you can check out the Humane Farming Association’s report [pdf].

Also on the worker front, but this time from Earthjustice, we have another email writing campaign. The EPA has proposed the phase-out of Azinphos Methyl and Phosmet over the next four years. Here’s what Earthjustice has to say about these two pesticides:

Five years ago, the Environmental Protection Agency found that two pesticides — azinphos methyl and phosmet — pose “unacceptable” poisoning risks to workers exposed to them when they work in orchards. These two pesticides are highly toxic neurotoxins, derived from nerve agents used during World War II, and attack the human nervous system. Exposure can cause nausea, dizziness, vomiting, seizures, paralysis, loss of mental function, and even death. Farmworker families and communities are exposed to organophosphates through “take-home” exposures on clothing, cars, and skin.

The EPA is now holding a comment period to hear from the public. They have already waited five years to even think about taking action to protect workers, don’t let them wait any longer.

And last but certainly not least, another campaign from the UFW. As we all know, its been a hot summer. A really hot summer. But most of us don’t have to spend the day bent over in the middle of a field without so much as a tree within walking distance. That’s the fate of many California farmworkers. And that’s why on June 15, the state issued the first permanent heat stress regulation in the country. The regulation states that companies must provide workers with shade, water, training for working safely in the heat, and the right to take paid breaks when feeling the effects of such high temperatures. This was a huge victory for farmworkers, but of course its not an easy one.

Carl Borden, a lawyer for the California Farm Bureau, told a newspaper, “That could pose compliance issues for employers in certain situations where you may have dozens [and] dozens of employees out there working (and asking for shade) and essentially it requires the erection of a number of shade canopies, for example…That can be somewhat daunting if we’re talking about a field situation.” Cry me a river, Mr. Borden. Is it really asking that much for agribusiness companies to take some of the billions of taxpayer subsidies they’ve received to buy a few tents? Its in their interest, too. At least six California farmworkers have died this summer because of the heat. And it doesn’t take a genius to know that a living farmworker can harvest more produce than a dead one. But the California Farm Bureau is not Mensa, its a bunch of lawyers and, well, bureaucrats, so they need you to send them an email to inform them that you are paying them to treat their workers fairly, not so they can buy themselves a second Hummer.

This November, Oregon voters will have a chance to change the way Judges are elected to the Oregon Supreme Court. (Yes, we elect our Supreme Court Justices here.) Right now, OSC (Oregon Supreme Court) Justices are elected by the entire state. If Ballot Measure 24 (pdf link) passes, however, the seven judges on the OSG (and also the ten judges on the Oregon Court of Appeals) will be elected by districts determined by population.

In other words, if Measure 24 passes, Oregon will be divided into seven Supreme Court districts, each containing one-seventh of Oregon’s population; and each district will get to elect one Supreme Court Justice.

The idea is to let people in rural Oregon feel like they have representation on the OSC. (Oregon, in a much oversimplified nutshell, can be divided into “liberal Portland” and “conservative the rest of Oregon,” so Portland’s influence mightily annoys the rest of the state). However, Randy at Ridenbaugh Press points out that Measure 24 might work to weaken, rather than expand, the influence of rural Oregonians:

The up-side to the initiative, from the rural interest viewpoint, is that they’d be guaranteed a presence on the court. The downside is the limitation of that presence. On even the 10-member Court of Appeals, all of Oregon east of the Cascades would get just about . . . one seat. And that’s as much as they’d ever be able to get; under the present plan, you could in theory elect judge after judge from the big wide open. They’d get less than that on the Supreme Court. Meantime, under the new plan, the Portland metro area’s domination of the courts would be locked in.

It seems to me that this plan could make it far easier to elect at least a couple of progressive Judges, as well - it’s a lot easier for a progressive to get elected if they only have to get a majority of Portland voters, rather than a majority of Oregon voters.

So if you want Eastern Oregon to have guaranteed representation on Oregon’s highest Court, vote for Measure 24. And if you want to guarantee that the Court will always be dominated by Portlanders… vote for Measure 24.

Curtsy: Blue Oregon.

(Crossposted on Creative Destruction, where the moderation is lighter.)

It seems that about 1/4 of the readers of this magazine were offended by this cover. I can’t even feign any sort of objectivity on this subject. I usually try to be the semi-neutral academic blogger, but I can’t figure out why people would view breastfeeding as gross, disgusting, or sexual. I just had a big debate between myself and all but 2 (out of 18) of my students on the subject of breastfeeding. The majority of students felt that is was “icky” and should be done in private. Of course these same students also didn’t know about the health benefits of breastfeeding, how often it needs to be done, and the numerous studies showing that breast milk is generally healthier than infant formula. They were clueless. Now I’m an educator, and I have come to expect this sort of reaction; however, it is usually a small but vocal minority of students, not the vast majority of the class. The funny thing is that these are the same people who are not the least bit offended at the latest Maxim cover or numerous pictures of Pam Anderson with her breasts equally exposed, but suddenly when breasts are used for what they are actually for people get loopy.

The magazine was reporting on a survey from the American Dietetic Association, and the findings of that study are even more depressing:

The picture in Babytalk was aimed at illustrating the controversy surrounding breastfeeding in the United States, where a national survey by the American Dietetic Association found that 57 percent of those polled are opposed to women breastfeeding in public and 72 percent think it is inappropriate to show a woman breastfeeding on television programs.

So most of the people in this random sample survey think that women should not breastfeed in public (I wonder if the survey asked how many opposed those Maxim covers???).

The good news is that in spite of the general opposition to breastfeeding in public, most states (32) have laws allowing women to breast feed anywhere. However, there are still states that do not have such laws, and more laws are need to protect breast feeding mothers and their children. Here is a brief summary of some of the breastfeeding laws from the National Council of State Legislatures:

• Thirty two states allow mothers to breastfeed in any public or private location (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Texas, Vermont and Virginia). Fifteen states exempt breastfeeding from public indecency laws (Alaska, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin).
• Ten states have laws related to breastfeeding in the workplace (California, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, and Washington).
• Ten states exempt breastfeeding mothers from jury duty (California, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oklahoma Oregon and Virginia).
• Four states have implemented or encouraged the development of a breastfeeding awareness education campaign (California, Illinois, Missouri, and Vermont).Nevertheless, it is still shocking to see such a low level of support for breastfeeding in the general public.

Nevertheless, the controversy over the cover and the ADA survey indicate that the social support system for breastfeeding is lacking. In spite of the numerous medical and social benefits to breastfeeding, there still seems to be a notion that breastfeeding should be hidden from public view.

Here’s More Info. on Breastfeeding Rights:

A Summary of States’ Breastfeeding Laws from the National Council of State Legislatures.

La Leche League Summary of Breastfeeding legislation.

The 4th Erase Racism Carnival will be at Rachel’s Tavern. I’m going to go with an open theme, since I think we can get more responses. You can submit here or directly to the Rachel’s Tavern email, mail at rachelstavern.com. The submissions are due on the 17th and the carnival will go up on the 20th. Please feel free to repost this call for submissions

In September it will be at Black Looks; then, in October it will be at Taking Place.

Just to add another data point to the discussion in Rachel’s post…

It seems likely that part of the reason for the decline in men’s LFPR (Labor Force Participation Rate) is the general increase in women’s LFPR over the same time period. Obviously, more women working in the paid labor force means that more husbands will have the option of being supported by their wives. This is not a bad thing in and of itself; it’s only problematic if there’s an increasing trend of households in which women do all the work (paid and unpaid) and men do little or none.

UPDATE: Half Sigma writes:

I respect these guys who are enjoying their leisure instead of working. They haven’t let themselves be brainwashed by conventional middle class values which say that every man has to work otherwise he’s a loser.

As long as the guy isn’t financing his leisure in an abusive or unfair way, I agree.

Luke directed my attention to this article from the New York Times. The general premise of the article is that an increasing number of men are out of the labor force. Here is a quote:

Millions of men like Mr. Beggerow — men in the prime of their lives, between 30 and 55 — have dropped out of regular work. They are turning down jobs they think beneath them or are unable to find work for which they are qualified, even as an expanding economy offers opportunities to work.

About 13 percent of American men in this age group are not working, up from 5 percent in the late 1960’s. The difference represents 4 million men who would be working today if the employment rate had remained where it was in the 1950’s and 60’s.

I am ambivalent about this trend. On the one hand, I see it as a product of economic restructuring, where working class and poor men are losing job opportunities because of the loss of factory jobs and the rise in incarceration. On the other hand, there is a big part of me that wonders if we are seeing some of the signs of the new patriarchy where the big battle will be over leisure time. Even though women still do not receive equal pay, it seems like it is going to be very difficult to get middle class women “back into the house.” So since we can’t keep women out of the labor force, what can men do to keep the upper hand? Work us like crazy?

Well, I think this phenomenon is the new trend. I am seeing this in my own life and with many of my friends. An increasing number of young women like myself are the primary breadwinners, which is no problem, except for the fact that we end up working full time, doing most of the housework, kin work, consumption work, and care work. In fact, the article notes that many men who are out of the labor force are not raising kids, which significantly contrasts them with unemployed single women. In fact, many of these men are single. It is not readily apparent if they were single when they first lost jobs or opted out of the labor force. It is entirely possible the loss of a job and the subsequent time out of the labor force contributed to the break-up of their relationships.

However, I do think there is a significant difference between men in the lower class and the working class, and their middle and upper income counterparts. Factory jobs, once populated with working class men, are going overseas. The number of men with felony convictions has also increased in large part due to the war on drugs, and upper income men are not the targets of the war on drugs (even though they are no less likely to use drugs). Lower income Black men have been hardest hit by the war on drugs, and it should come as no surprise that they are overrepresented in the number of men who have been out of the workforce for an extended period of time. This is where I have some sympathy with men who are out of the labor force. Getting a job with a high school education or a felony conviction isn’t easy, and it is getting harder by the minute. I also think it is nice to see men who are opting out of the labor force to do child care and other types of family work. In these cases, the families are often middle class, the women out earn their male counterparts, and the couple has invested more in the woman’s paid labor.

What troubles me is the cases where men opt out of the labor force and put the pressures of both paid labor work and family work on the shoulders of women. Some of the men in the article said that they didn’t want to take jobs that were “beneath” them. In some ways I can understand not wanting to take a pay cut or a downgraded job, but I get the distinct sense that women are way more likely to take jobs that are “beneath” them. It’s one more example where women are expected to make the sacrifice. This is where I think we are seeing the new patriarchy. The men who are out of the labor force and relying on their female partners for everything even if the couple can’t pay their basic bills, even if the women is working all day and all night. It is almost like women are expected to be the mother’s and father’s for their children and male partners. It’s almost like some men are doing this just because they can. I know of a case where a women worked full time for years so her husband could pursue his writing. She coordinated everything and paid for everything, so he could fulfill this dream, and he made very few sacrifice for her. Women need leisure time to, and we need people to make sacrifices for us, just as many of us do for others. I think most women don’t mind hard work. We just want to see our hard work matched by our partners.

So is this the new patriarchy or economic restructuring? My sense is that the increasing number of men out of work is the product of both. What do you think?

Comment: What is the sex like?

Variations: Does he have a big/small penis? Is she a freak?

What the comment really means: When I see people of different races together I think they are primarily together because of the sex. I believe racist stereotypes about Black/Asian?Latina/o/American Indian sexuality. I think white women who sleep with Black men are sleazy.

Why the comment is inappropriate: Clearly this falls under the none of your business category, and it also feeds on a very long tradition sexuality being used to enforce racism. People of color have routinely been stereotyped as sexually provocative and or promiscuous, so such questions always need to be interpreted in this context. At this point in history, people also tend to have stereotypes about Whites who have sexual relationships with Blacks, especially White women. Moreover, these types of questions seem to challenge the legitimacy of interracial relationships by recreating the notion that they are all about sex.

Comment: Couldn’t you find a person of your own race?

Variations: You can do better. What are you doing with a Black/White/Asian/American Indian/Latina/o person?

What the comment really means: I think the only types of people who intermarry/interdate are people who are desperate. People who have IRs are selling out their group because it is clearly better to date/marry people within your own group.

Why the comment is inappropriate: First, of all this sort of comment feeds into the idea that interracial relationships are somehow inferior to same race relationships and a sign of desperation. The assumption here is also that the person’s partner is less than because he or she is from a different background.

Comment: Well you can’t help who you fall in love with.

Variations: Love is blind. Race doesn’t matter. Anybody can fall in love.

What the comment really means: Some sort of spell must have come over you because if you could help it you would not be with that person.

Why the comment is inappropriate: This sort of comment is problematic on a few levels. When the person says love is blind or colorblind it ignores the reality that race is important. Can you imagine a same race couple being told you can’t help who you fall in love with? The truth is that we can and do “help” who we fall in love with. Even though most people are not willing to admit it, relationships are not colorblind, and even people in interracial relationships fall into the love is blind trap. The other problem with this sort of statement it that it assumes that love is a spell that just sort of comes over you, and if you could help it and could fight it you would never choose this sort of person.

Over at Abyss2hope. Come check out the variety of posts included in this edition.

For general information about the carnival against sexual violence, including the call for nominations, check out the new blog dedicated to this carnival.

It’s superhot today, so don’t plan to walk long distances, and bring a bottle of water with you for any trip in the city today. (Why did I have to pick the hottest night of the year…?)

And once again:

PLACE: Grand Sichuan on St. Mark’s. ( 21 Saint Marks Pl, between 2nd & 3rd Avenue)

TIME: 7pm.

I’m really looking forward to meeting folks tonight!

(By the way, I’ll be out and about all day today, so I won’t be checking email or the blog again until late tonight.)