There’s a protest in Downing St 3.30pm-5.30pm today - 10th May. Tell Blair (and his successor) what you think of him. (from Lenin’s Tomb which has a good post).
For everyone else: No, Blair’s resignation won’t make any difference. You kill the Tzar and a new one follows.
The pace has certainly picked up in this third issue of the Buffy Season 8 Comic book. We have plot, relationships, and many unanswered questions. This of course gives me even more to pick at. Since I’m about to rip it to shreds, I should make it clear that I enjoy the Buffy comic and would recommend it.
I’ve already written about the awfulness of Part III’s cover.
Even worse than the cover was the Andrew sequence. There are non-drawing problems with that sequences. I am not OK that in a world where there are heaps of women coming together to fight, men are acting as the leaders. I can’t stand the ‘heh Andrew’s gay’ jokes, which are lacking in the funny and try to compensate with the offensiveness. It’s even worse when the ‘joke’ is basically a set-up to have pictures of women in their underwear (because Andrew doesn’t find naked women interesting, isn’t that just the funniest thing you ever heard). The artist ‘just happened’ to have the woman with the most exaggerated hourglass figure front and centre in that panel (although my friend Rowan thought one of the slayers had a strap-on - which would have made for a much more interesting reading of the comic - unfortunately it is probably just underpants with a teddy bear on them).
The art is getting worse - women’s bodies are objectified more each week. There is no reason at all why Rowena is recovering in a sports bra and skin tight pants, except that in a comic her body isn’t created for her, but as a signal to readers of the position of women.
I guess I should be grateful that inside the book they’ve gone for the hideous witch look of OMWF for Willow.
Because I suspect someone will ask, there is an important difference between the way women’s bodies are portrayed throughout this issue, and how Angel and Spike were portrayed in the (hilarious) dream panel. In the three issues so far women’s bodies have been casually objectified and posed for the male gaze no matter what they’re doing. Fighting, healing, sleeping, standing, whatever - it’s been for men. If, in that context, there’d been a similar dream from Xander’s perspective, it wouldn’t have meant anything - just a continuation of the rest of the art. The only reason that panel stands out from the rest of the comic is because the artist isn’t randomly objectifying men.
There’s obviously a lot more to a comic than the art (particularly to someone as non-visual as me). For me, the most satisfying part of the comic were the dream sequences, which were pretty much perfect. I’ve always liked Joss’s dream sequences and this worked particularly well. I liked the idea of dreamspace - and like every other geek who owns this comic I’ve spent considerable time identifying what’s in the cubes (definitely Joss by the way) .
I thought the battle between Willow and Amy was pretty fantastic as well. I still think that Amy’s reappearance had more to do with a whole in the plot, than the character she had been, which sucks. But the fight was well done, I loved both the Zombie ball, and Giant Dawn.
I thought not telling us who kissed her was a bit of cheap tension. I hope they resolve the kiss soon, and not in a Chosen - whatever you want to happen that was what happened - kind of a way.*
I’m worried that Warren, like Amy, has been chosen for convenience rather than character (I don’t even care that there’s no way he could have survived). Unless the rest of Warren’s plotline involves intense Misogyny, then he was the wrong person to bring back.
But the big hole in the issue for me is Willow. Call me over-invested in these characters, but Willow, Xander and Buffy are friends. Now we’re landed in a situation where Willow hasn’t contacted Xander and Buffy for a long time. This is in a world with cell phones, and psychic communication. I’m not saying that it can’t work, but I think this is the wrong place in the story to bring us in.
I’m not saying that it can’t work, but I’m not sure this dynamic will hold my interest long enough for Joss to explain what’s going on. A month is a long time between issues, and the comics cost $8 each here.
Although while I’m being over-invested, enough with the retconning Willow’s sexuality. Willow was straight in high school, she totally ran with the stubbly crowd, from that badly dressed vampire in the first episode, to the stupid robot episode, to sex at graduation. Am I the only person who remember Oz?**
* I want Spike not to have been in Chosen at all and since I have a fan’s selective memory (Magic!Crack? I don’t know what you’re talking about) that’s relatively easy to achieve.
** Hey, maybe they’ll bring Oz back, that would be extremely awesome.
(This is the second of a series of posts criticizing how the National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAW) measured rape prevalence. This post is the first of two examining how NVAW measures attempted rape, as opposed to completed rape. This post will criticize the methodology of the question used to measure attempted rape; the next post, which I think will be more interesting, will look at underlying questions of how we define “rape” and “attempted rape,” and what that means for a survey attempting to measure attempted rape prevalence. Future posts in this series will look at ways that NVAW is both underestimating and overestimating rape prevalence, and at issues with how NVAW measures the prevalence of rape against men.)
(WARNING: This post and the subject it discusses may be triggering. This post, and other posts in this series, discuss rape prevalence studies in an “academic” tone, similar to the tone used by academic studies of rape prevalence. Understandably, some folks may not want to read that. The post itself is below the fold.)
This is kind of old news, but I missed it at the time, and maybe some “Alas” readers did too. Wyoming State Rep Dan Zwonitzer, who is straight and a Republican, in February of this year voted against a measure that would have forbidden Wyoming from recognizing opposite-sex same-sex marriages performed in other states.
As Pam said:
What makes Zwonitzer inspiring and so deserving of praise is that the risk he took, in Red State America, as a straight ally. He was willing to put his neck and political career on the line to do what is right — he is a Republican doing so at a time when Democrats in much more favorable political environs are spineless, calculating and treating us like ATMs and pariahs as it suits them.
The text of Zwonitzer’s speech is below the fold:
Here’s an open thread for discussing what you’d like, including links to your own stuff if you feel like putting those up.
This is kind of an odd one, because I started it weeks ago, then got tired of working on it so ignored it for a while, and then picked it back up.
Angry Black Woman: May 18th Is The Deadline For The May Erase Racism Festival
The Gimp Parade presents: Blog Against Disabilism Day!
Taking Steps: How Cops Treat Transgendered People
She was brought in after me, stripped down to her long underwear, and as they were throwing her to the ground and removing her piercings, she tried to bring up the local statutes preventing discrimination against the transgendered, the right to self-identification, hell, the right to remain silent. As they had told me, they told her these were “TV rights,” and they knelt on her back and grabbed at her crotch and triumphantly announced that she was a he, and that he was a freak.
Not an easy post to read, but one we should all read anyway. A sure Koufax nominee.1
Ambling Along the Aqueduct: How Political Narratives Shape How We Write Science Fiction
As well as being notable because it’s smart and interesting, this post is written by our own co-moderator Mandolin, on a group feminist sci-fi writers’ blog.
Feminista: How John Gray Taught Me To Love Andrea Dworkin’s Work
Op-Ed Pages Refuse To Publish Pro-Choice Editorial Cartoons
Thanks to Bean for the tip!
The Nation: Things We Could Do If We Rescinded Bush’s Tax Cuts For The Richest 1%
Sanders’ National Priorities Act makes his budgetary priorities crystal clear: providing primary and dental care to millions of Americans and health insurance for children; full funding for veterans health care; increasing access to affordable childcare and fully funding Head Start; lowering property taxes by federally covering 40 percent of special education costs for kids; providing 330,000 additional Pell Grants and doubling the maximum allowable amount; creating 200,000 jobs by investing in renewable energy, public transit, and high speed rail; creating 180,000 jobs by constructing, preserving, and rehabilitating at least 150,000 affordable housing rental units; reducing taxes for 10 million working families by expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit; and reducing the deficit by $30 billion.
I think this is the most spectacular (albeit grim) photo of a dead dandelion I’ve ever seen.
Curtsy: DCist.
The Debate Link: The Hate Crimes Law And Terrorism
The Gimp Parade: The Hospital Broke State Law By Performing “Ashley Treatment” Without A Court Order
See Blue’s post for the details, and also for a response from Ashley’s parents.
Blog Of The Moment: The Dumbest Argument In The History Of Argumentation
And it’s a really sexist argument, too!
Amanda Reviews Great Comics
Check out Amanda’s reviews of Alison Bechdel’s Fun Home and Howard Cruse’s Stuck Rubber Baby.
Debitage: Why Environmentalists Aren’t Rushing To Buy Post-Global-Warming Beachfront Property
Every time I think there’s a limit on how dumb denialist arguments are, some denialist out there outdoes the previous record.
DovBear: Why We Are Better Off Today, In Handy Tabular Format
Masslibrulgirl: Signs you’ve taken too much sociology
Your Cousin Vito: What Superhero Comics Would Look Like In A Matriarchy.
Curtsy: Charles.
Feministe: Response to Garance’s Proposal To Raise The Consent Age For Participating In Porn
Ilycain: Ponies? I mean, what the fuck. Ponies?
You’ll just have to click through if you want to know what I’m talking about.
Economist’s View: Why Republicans Are Skeptical About Global Warming
Obsidian Wings: Mitt Romney Thinks Science Fiction Novel Is Reality
All in the service of dissing France. As Hilzoy points out, the weird thing is that no one at the Washington Post thought to question Romney’s beliefs that French marriages legally end after seven years.
IrrationalPoint’s Soapbox: Five Things Wrong With The “People Fake Disabilities” Cliche
Google Blogoscoped: Calculate Any Website’s He/She Ratio
The “Alas, a Blog” he/she ratio is 54%/46%. CNN’s is 77%/23%.
The Times: Children’s Activity Levels May Be Determined By Genes, Not By Phys Ed Classes
Thanks to “Alas” reader Original Lee for the tip!
I’ve been randomly dipping into the archives of The Unapologetic Mexican, and what I’ve been finding is spectacularly perceptive writing on race and on whiteness. For instance:
It is not the color of your skin or eyes that will bother me. It is the lenses you may see through. So when I speak of “Whites” and “Non-whites” in this blog, let it be a given that while I do speak of blood (”melanin-lacking race” and “melanin-laden race”) I mostly refer to the lenses that are typically found on each type of person. And if you can take those off for a minute, I think you will see what I mean.
His discussion of lenses reminds me of Sandra Bem’s book The Lenses of Gender, which was an essential book for my own developing feminist thinking way back when.
And, more recently, on the subject of internalized racism (among other things) (in a post that I’m going to try to remember to nominate for a Koufax award):
But I didn’t even let myself think in honest terms anymore. I sublimated the White Supremacist notions that my New Legal Father constantly oozed into other shapes of less-obvious thought. After ten years of his influence (as well as mainstream “universal” (White®) culture), instead of thinking facial hair brings out the Mexican in me (even tho many have said so verbatim) I just thought facial hair looks ugly on me. Because in that strain of White® thought, Mexican=Ugly. And so I avoided facial hair (especially a mustache) at all costs. Instead of thinking taking Spanish in High School will tie me more to my Mexicanness I just thought that French would be more “interesting.” (Also interesting that they were conquerors, for a while, of Mexico). Instead of thinking The sun makes me so dark I stand out as not-White™, I thought to myself as I reached into my late 20s The sun will age my skin, I should start avoiding it.
What reading that post reminded me of is American Born Chinese, a comic book by Gene Yang. Yang’s comic is one of the best treatments of struggling with internalized racism and the desire to match the “default person” I’ve ever read.
Feministing: The Effects Of High Heels
Wife Beating And Fundamentalist Islam Debated On TV
This clip collection of bits from TV talk shows in (I think) various languages is both horrifying (one male taking head pretty much advocates men raping their wives) and inspiring (the women standing up to these fundamentalist fools). Also check out this video at My Private Cashbah, about if women should appear on TV (the woman in the debate kicks serious ass).
Junk Food Science: Risk Factors And Anxiety-Mongering
Washington Post: Female Bloggers Face Sexual Threats
As Original Lee said to me in her email, “Gee, the MSM is paying attention now. Just a flash in the pan that won’t fix anything, I think.”
Sara Speaking: Thinking About Race, Cultural Consciousness, and Eating With Chopsticks
YouTube: Batman and Spiderman Discuss Spiderman 3
Who, me, geeky?
Ilyka on Spiderman 3
“Oh, how I wish I could unsee this movie.”
From CNN’s political ticker:
CHOCOLATE, SODA, CIGARS AMONG CANDIDATE BAD HABITS: When The Associated Press asked the presidential candidates about their bad habits, they did not fess up to anything that would sink the republic. John Edwards drinks his bad habit out of a can or bottle - he is a voracious consumer of orange soda. Barack Obama is chewing nicotine gum these days to beat his bad habit and chose something else to mention here. [...]
Bill Richardson acknowledged what has been obvious at various campaign functions: He has been eating what’s in front of him, breaking from his regimen of protein shakes.
It’s difficult to imagine that eating at a campaign dinner would be considered a “bad habit” in a non-fat candidate.
(And what does “what’s in front of him” mean? Most people eat from the plates set in front of them. Should Richardson have eaten from the plates of the people sitting to either side, instead?)
It’s unfortunate that my post about denialism among Republican candidates for president, has in the comments become a discussion of what polls show.
It’s true, as Robert pointed out with this link, too many Democrats don’t believe in evolution. And yet, I doubt any Democratic running for President would dare admit to not believing in evolution in a national debate, whereas about a third of the Republican candidates did. That’s an important difference, but what accounts for it?
The answer is partly in the polling numbers. According to Robert’s link, more Democrats (49%) believe in evolution than not (47%). That’s within the margin of error, admittedly, but it’s clear that the anti-science folks have a strength among Republican voters they lack among Democrats. 49% of Kerry voters versus 28% of Bush voters believe in evolution; 24% of Kerry voters vs 45% of Bush voters want Creationism taught in the classrooms. Those differences aren’t small.
Even more important than the polling numbers, though, is how voters in each party prioritize their beliefs. Denialism exist among Democratic voters — but anti-evolution Democrats aren’t forming coalitions to elect Democrats who believe in creationism and related views. Their Republican counterparts do form such coalitions. This makes a huge difference to who is electable in each party.
Among Republicans, creationism1 — and the anti-science, anti-rationality baggage creationism carries — isn’t a barrier to high political office. Few Republican party activists will abandon a major Republican candidate who is a creationist; they can’t afford to utterly reject creationism, because the denialism creationism represents is a major part of the Republican coalition.
In contrast, for many Democratic party activists belief in creationism is a deal-breaker. Outside of Detroit, being a denialist on global warming is a deal-breaker. Thinking that one could diagnose Terri Schiavo via a TV screen would be, among Democratic party activists, a deal-breaker.
The issue isn’t who has a bunch of evolution denialists among their voters; both parties do (although the Republicans have many more). The issue is which party is prone to electing anti-science denialists. And this matters because anti-science denialists are incapable of governing responsibly on issues which require valuing science over ideology and religious fundamentalism.
Denialism isn’t only about creationism. It’s about FDA drug approval. It’s about who knows better what abortion procedures are safe for women: Congress or doctors. It’s about lesbian and gay couples, and about lesbian and gay parents. It’s about if Iraq is going swimmingly for the U.S.. It’s about global warming. It’s about any issue where religious fundamentalism and ideology are pulling a politician one way, while facts and science pull the other way.
And — contrary to what some of my lefty allies believe — it’s a significant difference between the two major parties.
UPDATE: Amanda comments.
Over the last few years there’s been a lot of publicity and discussion about police rape in New Zealand, including a damning report into how police respond to police officers who rape.1 Given this you’d think the police would try, at least a little bit, to avoid looking like they’re blaming women who have been raped for their rape. You’d be wrong:
Police are warning young women against walking alone at night, after a Wanganui teenager was abducted and sexually violated on the weekend.
[...]“It’s a timely reminder to young girls that they shouldn’t be walking on their own,” Ms Mansell said.
“These types of attacks are rare but they do happen and girls who are walking the streets on their own at night-time are making themselves targets.”
I wanted to write less about rape, not because I don’t care, but because I feel like I was writing paint by numbers posts, where I assembled basic feminist ideas one after another.
1. The people who are responsible for rape are the rapists.
2. Blaming women for being raped is not acceptable.
3. If you tell women to modify their behaviour to avoid rape then you are placing the responsibility for rape in the wrong place.
4. Avoiding being out alone out night is a serious restriction on a woman’s freedom.
5. Anti-rape advice isn’t just victim-blaming, it’s also wildly inaccurate.
6. Most rapists know the women that they are rape.
7. Rape is most likely to happen in someone’s home.
8. A woman who walks home with a man she knows is at more danger from rape than a woman who walks home by herself.
9. Clint Rickards is a rapist.2
I guess I’ll keep writing it till there are no longer people who need to hear it.
Note about this post Currently New Zealand parents have a defence from convictions of assault for hitting their children by arguing that they used force for correction and the force was reasonable under the circumstances. This defence Section 59 of the Crimes Act. Over the last couple of years a bill to repeal Section 59 has been winding its way to becoming a law. I’ve written about this on my blog a bit, but generally not cross-posted on Alas, because I think they’d require too much explaining. The law has now all but passed, and in a couple of months children will have almost the same protection from assault as everyone else (there were a couple of compromises along the way).
***********************
There was another letter in the paper today about Section 59 and education. I’ve noticed a few letters that argue what is needed along side the repeal of Section 59 is more parenting classes.
In objecting to these letters I’m want to make it clear that I do think learning how to be a parent is important. Learning how to parent is work, it’s devalued work, and it’s work women do. Either learning how to parent is completely ignored (there’s a lot of skill-sharing, and support within women’s networks, particularly mother’s networks) or there’s an idea that it’s unnecessary - neurotic.
But there’s a tone to these letters, a tone that says ‘the reason other people hit their kids is because they’re not educated enough.’ Leaving aside the patronising, offensive implications of that, I just don’t think it’s true.
I’m the oldest of four children and my parents were better at parenting by the time my little sisters came along. Partly that was about learning and experience, my parents had a much better idea of what they were doing third and forth time.1 When my littlest sister hit adolescence and started slamming doors, my Mum would say “I don’t know what’s wrong with her” and whichever older sibling was at hand would say “Well she’s thirteen.” There was no-one to do that when I was thirteen; my Mum felt it was about her.
But there’s only half the reason. Just as important was that my parents were much more stressed when I was in adolescence. There were reasons for that stress that were specific to our family. But the stress could have been eased in so many ways if parenting was supported and if non-parenting work didn’t have to always be organised on what the employer wanted, rather than what you could give.
I said last year:
So while I do support the repeal of section 59, it’s ridiculous to look at that in isolation. Parenting will continue to be a job that is much more stressful than it needs to be when it is done in isolation, without adequate support or resources, and children will always be the ones that suffer when their parents are under stress. The law can’t change that.
I’m glad the bill is going to go through. Section 59 said kids didn’t matter when their parents hit them, and if all this law does is reassure one kid that they do matter, then that’s enough for me. But there was a missed opportunity here to talk about parents and what they need. If that had happened then at the very least people wouldn’t be writing to the paper suggesting that all we need is a few parenting classes and maybe we would be demanding a whole lot more.
The three denialists were Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, and Tom Tancredo. McCain hesitated before admitting that he believes in evolution. (Curtsy, again, to Ezra).
Denialism has become the primary intellectual sin among conservatives. Denial of evolution, denial of global warming, denial of utter disaster in Iraq, and the Terri Schiavo embarrassment are, in a way, just four different cases of the same right-wing ineptitude. Conservatives have cultivated a denial of reality so profound that it makes it impossible for them to even acknowledge reality, let alone govern responsibly.
And yeah, not all Republicans are denialists on every issue. But enough Republicans are denialists so that denialism, and antagonism towards science, is now an intrinsic part of the Republican approach to policy. They simply can’t keep their coalition together and acknowledge reality at the same time.
I’m not a big fan of the Democrats. But at least they’re only horribly wrong part of the time. It’s at least conceivable that a Democrat will take an intelligent, responsible position on climate change; Republicans can’t do that. Reality is no longer politically viable for them.
Related news, from The Onion: Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New ‘Intelligent Falling’ Theory.
The Subway handbook says that workers can have free soft-drinks while working. Jackie Lang shared a drink that she’d poured while on shift with a friend. Not only has she been fired, but Subway called the police. The police arrested her and charged her with theft, and she was in the cells for two hours.
That story was in the same paper as a story on mobile trucks in South Auckland,1 that sell goods on credit at extortionate prices. This is perfectly legal, if being a parasite off the poor was illegal our entire economic system would collapse. But I would hope that taking money from people’s bank accounts wouldn’t be:
Customers were sometimes being asked to sign multiple, undated direct debit forms allowing the company open access to their accounts.
Many companies continued to take money after the debt was repaid and failed to advise customers when they have gone into credit.
I know there are people, who consider themselves progressive, and believe that the police are neutral, that their primary role isn’t to uphold the power system we have in place. I would ask those people why police care about a 19 year old who shares a soft-drink, but not companies who steal through direct debit.
From Ruy Teixeira, via Ezra:
Given that virtually no important politician in America would dare support a guaranteed basic income in public, it’s interesting that most Americans favor a guaranteed basic income of some sort.
And let me add this chart:
Although liberals are more in favor of universal health care than conservatives, there’s significant support for universal health care even among Republicans. According to the Pew Research Center, 50% of Republicans favor repealing most of the recent tax cuts in exchange for universal health care, and 60% of Republicans say they’d support a tax increase in exchange for universal health care. What’s frustrating is that in both parties, the leadership is less in favor of universal health care than the base.
I’ve written two posts recently about the persistent awfulness of the Democrats, neither of which mentioned voting. Despite that the discussion on both of them has turned to voting.
I would say voting is completely irrelevant in a discussion on the extent to which the Democrats suck. First you discuss how much the Democrats suck, then once you’ve reached consensus (or not) on that you discuss what impact that would have on your voting habits.
On the thread about Freedom Movement Amanda’s first question was:
What’s “support”, then? Are we permitted to steal into the election booth and shamefacedly vote for Democrats while publicly condemning them and helping them lose elections by increasing the number of people who don’t vote on the theory that they’re all the same?
My answer is it doesn’t matter.
Well it matters if people don’t publicly critique the Democrats because they’re afraid of the consequences. It’s unprincipled and bad politics. One of the first jobs of the left (wherever you are on the left) has to be to raise people’s expectations. Part of raising people’s expectations means saying that left-wing governments are not good enough.
But it doesn’t matter whether or not people steal into the election booth and vote. Sometimes it really doesn’t matter - since she’s from Texas Amanda’s vote in the Presidential election will be as important as mine.1 At other times voting may have an effect, but if it’s the most important, or anywhere near the most important, political act you take, then you’re unlikely to achieve what you’re going for.
A lot of my friends don’t vote ever; I think even that is giving voting too much weight. Voting doesn’t do any harm (and America is proof that not voting doesn’t give the government any less legitimacy). I’ve no problem with people voting, or not voting, on the flimsiest of reasons. I’ve voted for the most left-wing party in parliament up until now, but at the next election I won’t do so, because of the co-leader of that party.2
But, and this really shouldn’t come as a surprise based on what I write, I don’t think real positive change comes from voting, which is why I see political energy focused on changing voting patterns, as wasted energy. I’m hardly the first person to observe that progressive change is driven from below, not given from above. That means that we should focus our energy below, not above.
I’m not into memes, so I’ve never done any where where I tell readers things they don’t know about me.
But high on the list would certainly be my support for Welsh independence.
This support doesn’t amount to much. My Welsh pronunciation is probably better than yours, but it’s not good. I would know less than fifty welsh words, and could probably only produce one sentence: Nos da, cariad bach.1 Now I live on the other side of the world. While I could probably get together a Welsh solidarity group in Wellington, I don’t think it’s on anyone’s priority list.
I care because of my family. Mum’s cousins fought for Welsh hard. Back when Welsh street signs were only in English one of Mum’s cousins was part of a group that spray-painted Welsh language everywhere. My grandmother compared me to her; Welsh language and Welsh independence are part of a much wider set of values within my family. It’s the Welsh side of my family who have resisted every war since World War 1.
So I checked the UK elections today, I wanted to know how the Plaid had done. The Plaid is the party of Wales - whose basic principles include Welsh independence, support for the Welsh language and socialism. The elections that were held yesterday in the UK included voting on a new Welsh Assembly, and the Plaid gained seats. While I’m not particularly into elections I was glad, and I’d have probably voted for them.2
What I thought was particularly awesome was that Mohammad Ashgar, the first Assembly Member from an ethnic minority (obviously that’s a whole ‘nother problem) was from the Plaid.
It’s really awful that the fascist BNP gained so many votes in North Wales. So awful that I have to take a moment to make fun of the whole thing. Nationalism makes limited sense at the best of times, but even less sense when you’re not sure what language to be nationalist in. I’m fairly sure no-one has ever translated ‘Rule Britannia’ into Welsh
The support for the BNP is what makes it so important that the Plaid is not just a party for white people. Combining anti-racism, welsh independence and socialism3 seems the best way of offering a real alternative to the BNP.
I don’t know enough about Welsh politics to know what relationship there is between the Plaid and out of parliament activism. If winning those seats was the focus of Welsh progressive activism then it probably won’t achieve anything, but if it’s a demonstration of the level of support and activism for those goals then the land of my mothers might be in pretty good stead.
Garance Franke-Ruta, in an op-ed published by OpinionJournal, argues that people below age 21 should not legally be able to consent to appear in porn.
But the “Girls Gone Wild” problem concerns adult porn: At what age is a girl ready to make that decision, one that she will live with–technologically speaking, at least–for the rest of her life? A woman of 18 may be physically indistinguishable from one who is 21, but they are developmentally worlds apart. [...]
A new legal age for participating in the making of erotic imagery–that is, for participating in pornography–would most likely [be] sometimes honored in the breach more than the observance. But a 21-year-old barrier would save a lot of young women from being manipulated into an indelible error, while burdening the world’s next ["Girls Gone Wild" owner] Joe Francis with an aptly limited supply of “talent.” And it would surely have a tonic cultural effect. We are so numb to the coarse imagery around us that we have come to accept not just pornography itself–long since routinized–but its “barely legal” category. “Girls Gone Wild”–like its counterparts on the Web–is treated as a kind of joke. It isn’t. There ought to be a law.
On her own blog, Garance explains further:
I think it’s really important to publicise what happened to the immigrant rights protest in Los Angeles. The police attacked protesters with tear gas, rubber bullets. 1 You can read more.
I’m sorry I didn’t write sooner, I’ve been sick. Brownfemipower is on it. I particularly recommend State Violence is Not an Anomaly (if you’ve got a faster internet connection than I have). This is awful, but it’s also not the first time the police have acted like this, by any stretch of the imagination, and it won’t be the last, unless there’s some counter-organising.
Note about comments I don’t want this to become yet another debate about ‘illegal’ immigration, or who immigration policy should serve.
The House of Representatives voted to extend hate crimes protections those who are the victims of crimes motivated by gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation. Here’s a quote from the New York Times:
By 237 to 180, the House voted to include crimes spurred by a victim’s “gender, sexual orientation or gender identity” under the hate-crime designation, which now applies to crimes spurred by the victim’s race, religion, color or national origin.
“The bill is passed,” Representative Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat who is gay, announced to applause, most of it from Democrats.
Similar legislation is moving through the Senate. But even assuming that a bill emerges from the full Congress, it will face a veto by President Bush on grounds that it is “unnecessary and constitutionally questionable,” the White House said before the House vote.
The House did not pass the bill by a margin wide enough to override a veto, which requires a two-thirds majority. The Senate is not expected to do so either.
Debate over the legislation has been spirited, and while some of it has addressed whether the bill is really necessary, the arguments have also been colored by issues of conscience and notions of personal morality.
Representative Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the Democratic majority leader, said the House vote represented “a statement of what America is, a society that understands that we accept differences.” Civil rights groups have long urged that people who are attacked because of their sexuality be given additional protections.
But Dr. James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, a conservative lobbying group, told listeners to his radio program that the bill’s real purpose was “to muzzle people of faith who dare to express their moral and biblical concerns about homosexuality,” according to The Associated Press.
I have no idea what these conservative lobbying groups and right wing Christian activists are talking about. For example, I found this site, which makes the following claims.
Today, conservative groups and lawmakers warned that the measure undermines freedom of speech.
They say it could lead to arrests of Christians who speak out against homosexuality.
Conservatives also say the bill would make homosexuals more important than other Americans — because crimes against them would have harsher penalties than crimes against others.
Well folks this is false (I thought lying was in the 10 Commandments.), and it reflects a basic misunderstanding of hate crimes legislation. Hate crimes legislation does not curtail freedom of speech, so if the conservative Christian activists want to have public protests denigrating women, gays, lesbians, and transgender people, they can do so. However, if they commit a crime in the process of their “protest” and that crime is motivated by bigotry, they could get a harsher sentence. But they have to commit a crime. So they can say God hates women and gays all day long, but if they decide to go and beat up a women/gay man/lesbian/transgender person while yelling I hate bitches, fags, and dykes. The prosecutor will now have the option to take on a hate crimes charge to the assault.
It is also ridiculous to assume that this makes “homosexuals have more rights than others.” Why? Because the legislation targets all crimes motivated by gender, gender identity, or sexual orientation. Crimes against heterosexuals (and men), however rare they are, would also be covered. The identity of the perpetrator is also irrelevant. LGBT folks could commite hate crimes against other LGBT folks and be prosecuted for hate crimes, and the same could be said for men and heterosexuals.
What matters is the motivation of a crime. People will still be entitled to believe hateful things, but if they commit crimes motivated by bias, then they will have a harsher penalty.
Some friends and I saw August William’s Fences last night (the same production seen by Strange Quark and Heather). It’s a great play, of course, and the production – actors, set, lighting — was impressive.
Fences is part of Wilson’s 10-play “Pittsburgh cycle,” about Blacks in America in the 20th century. Each play takes place in a different decade of the 20th century, all but one in the same black neighborhood in Pittsburgh; some characters in plays set late in the cycle are descendants of characters from earlier in the cycle. I’ve been fantasizing about seeing the entire Pittsburgh cycle, in order.1
Fences, despite some humor and despite stunning, lyrical dialog, is as grim a play as I’ve ever seen; one character has some hope in act 1, but it’s crushed by the start of act 2 and very little new hope comes to replace it. Any great play will have multiple interpretations, but for me Fences is about how racism’s scars do not go away quickly, if at all.
When white people say:
“I don’t see color”
or
“We should live in a colorblind society”
What they’re actually saying is:
“I refuse to deal with how our culture and society treats people of color because it makes me uncomfortable. I don’t want to understand how having a different skin color or ethnicity affects other people because that means I would have to think and consider other points of view. What I want is to not have to think. I prefer to believe I live in a fantasy land where no one ever pays attention to skin color, ethnicity, culture, or religion. I am part of the problem with race relations, not its great savior.”
Just so you know.
Rachel’s Note: This is reposted from my site, but I figured it should also be posted on Alas.
Admin’s Note: Here’s my weak-ass contribution to blog against disablism day. I’m in the middle of finals, but I figured I need to say something. I guess I made one mini-contribution over at Hugo’s because I really disliked his response to Mr. Soul, but that is not really enough.
So let me just say at little bit since I have one hour left today. This is not edited or proofed, please read around my typos.
Most of what I know about disability issues I learned from my good friend Kate. She posts around here and over at Alas sometimes. Kate was by closest grad school buddy. When were we up at school working in our offices until 11 PM, we’d have conversations about everything. A big part of that “everything was sociology.” I told Kate about racism research and she taught me about disability research (and we both already knew about feminism). Kate taught me the academic stuff–disability vs. impairment, but she also taught me about the lived experience of disability. Kate has a genetic neuromuscular disorder, and from listening to her tell me her story (or watching her live through it) I have changed the way I think about disability.
One of the big issues we have discussed is the difference between having a visible or hidden disability. Kate has a semi-hidden disability. Sometimes a person may notice it, and sometimes s/he may not noticed the disability. For people with hidden disabilities one of the big issues is coming out. Who should people tell other about their disability? When should they say something, and when should they be quiet? This issue permeates many aspect of life–for example, dating. When or how should a person tell their the boyfriend/girlfriend about disability? Will the boyfriend/girlfriend run away or be uncomfortable? Or what about your kids? If a child has a hidden disability, when do you tell the child or the child’s care giver? Or in the case of these genetic disabilities, should a parent test his or her child for the disability? If the child does test positive, will the child face genetic discrimination?
I’m not saying people with hidden disabilities have any more trouble than those with visible disabilities, but I am saying that the way people navigate their social lives is affected by whether or not a disability is hidden or visible. When most people think of disability, they think of the a person in a wheel chair (in fact, the wheel chair is almost a universal symbol of disability). They don’t realize that the person sitting next to them doesn’t have a twisted ankle, but a neuromuscular disability. They don’t know that their coworker has suffered with depression for years or that the reason their student leave in the middle of class everyday is because s/he has a back injury. Many disabilities are like this–dyslexia, epilepsy, some vision or hearing impairments.
Coming out about a disability can cause shame and fear that the person revealing the disability is “just looking for sympathy.” Sometimes coming out about a disability means having to acknowledge an identity as a disabled person, and accepting such a label is not easy. (In fact, I think it is quite similar to coming out for people in queer communities.)
So I guess one of the things that Kate taught me is that many people with disabilities are not going to come out. It is really risky, and it is incumbent upon all of us to make that coming out process easier. I try to do this by including a disabilities statement in my syllabus. Here is how it is worded:
If you have a hidden or visible disability, which may require classroom or test-taking modifications, please see me as soon as possible. If you require note taking, extra exam time, or any other disability related services, please be sure to call M. F. in the Disability Support Services Office at xxx-xxx.
It’s not perfectly worded, but I always mention it as a way to let my students know that I am conscientious about disability issues. I also try to make it clear that I am aware that not all disabilities are readily apparent.
Ok, maybe it’s not so weak…..off to bed.
You are currently browsing the Alas, a blog weblog archives for May, 2007.
