Archive for July, 2007

Cartoon: White Lies

Posted by Ampersand | July 30th, 2007

Cartoon: White Lies

This one took forever to draw, much longer than I expected even given the number of panels. That I kept on having to interrupt drawing so I could go to “work” definitely didn’t help.1

Probably I should color this cartoon, and maybe I will someday; but that would be at least another day’s work, and right now I can’t face that. :-P Anyhow, I think it looks good in black and white.2

I’m gonna put off posting this on ZNet for a day or two, since once a cartoon’s up on ZNet there’s no way for me to modify or correct it. So if you notice any misspellings please let me know.

UPDATE: Livejournal discussion of “White Lies” here.

  1. I was originally going to have all of last week off, but then the Unitarian Church’s wedding coordinator got sick so they asked me to substitute for her for a few weddings. Yes, that’s right, I’m a wedding coordinator for a living. (back)
  2. Although, as regular “Alas” readers know by now, I always like my cartoons for the first few days after I draw them; the horror and “oh my god, what was I on when I drew that?” will come later. (back)

Mandolin Responds to Seelhoff: Gender Is a Constellation.

Posted by Mandolin | July 30th, 2007

In her response to Barry’s cartoon, Seelhoff writes, “To compare radical feminists to the Religious Right is propaganda, it is a smear campaign, it is disingenuous, and it is transparently and hatefully misogynist.”

I disagree.

In some discussions of transphobia, I’ve seen radical feminists say things like what makes a woman is her ability to bleed and have children. Here’s one such comment, made by Sally C on I Blame the Patriarchy.

“Knowing that someone is a woman does not tell me anything about her fate, but it does tell me she knows what I know about what it’s like to bleed.”

I am a woman-born woman who experiences problems with mensturation and fertility. Sally C goes on to call women “the tribe that bleeds.”

I do not bleed.

What galls me about this logic — apart from the fact that it’s bad, as no one proferring this definition means to exclude me from being a woman (my existence is being ignored/erased, rather than repudiated) — is that it’s extremely similar to the logic, the specific logic, that I hear from the religious right who also claim that a woman is defined by her uterus and reproductive capacity.

I don’t know what defines woman. As commonly phrased, it is a boring and irrelevant question, as has been acknowledged. It is attempting to take a semantic concept — woman — and reify it in a way in which it can not be reified. The truth is that the concept woman is complicated. It is not binary, it is not either/or, it is not on/off.

When we add the concept of gender, the whole of it becomes even more complex.

The question of womanhood is interesting for class analysis. But we should always expect there to be outliers. There are children with ambiguous genitals. There are XX infants that develop with male external genitalia and uteruses. There are infants whose gender identity does not match their physical bodies. There are women who can happily don male clothing and live out a masculine life — and there always have been. Equally, there are women who could never bear that. I am not part of “the tribe that bleeds,” but I am feminine. I abhor the oppression of women, but I want to live as one.

My external genitalia can tell you certain things about me. It indicates likelihoods and probabilities. It indicates that I am part of the class that is likely to undergo sexual abuse or harassment, although I have been fortunate enough to live most of my life free of these things. It indicates that I probably was urged toward the arts and social sciences, instead of the hard sciences. It indicates I was probably touched less often as an infant than my brothers were; it indicates that I am likely to be paid .76 on the dollar compared to men in my profession.

It indicates these likelihoods, but it does not make them fact. I am an individual. Some probabilities apply. Others do not.

The idea that biology bleeding creates women is part of an essentialist stance — a stance that is shared by many sectors of the religious right. It reduces my varied experiences to the fact of my blood or lack thereof: an inadequate measure.

Sex is a continuum, with most people falling to one side or the other. Gender is a constellation.

I am feminine, and I am sexed female, but I do not bleed.

I have never been raped. I have never given birth to a child. I have dominated class discussions. I have been oppressed. I have been a bully. I have endured undesired sexual contact. I have slapped a sexual partner. I have come top in my class in math and science, as well as english and history. I have used my privilege to make asinine comments about other women to try to gain favor in social power structures where I was floundering. Equally, I have ridden on top of other structures.

A transwoman may have a different set of experiences and privileges. Yes, she will have been raised with some version of male privilege — although, if the women I know are any indication, the male privilege they will have received will have been much closer to my memory of childhood than my fiance’s. They will have been bullied and abused for being too feminine, and sometimes treated as though they were girls because their sense of femaleness was present even when they were male-bodied. A transwoman I know well wrote female characters in our creative writing classes; where other men were petted and praised for “daring” to cross gender lines, her cross-gender writing was never highlighted; it seemed more easy and realistic than her male narrators.

A transwoman and I are different. She will have to struggle to overcome the male privilege of her childhood. But we are not different like on and off on a flipped switch; we have both had our turns at oppressor and oppressed.

More, we are not totally defined by our childhoods. How I act now affects my life. Someone raised with male privilege can repudiate it in part, if not in whole. A transwoman will have an easier time rejecting the social aspects of male privilege, as she likely will cease to be accorded them. Internally, she may struggle with ghosts of old experiences. But her childhood is not the whole of her experience. She will continue to be shaped.

Your rejection of her is based in biological essentialism and binary thinking. Your argument shares traits with segments of the religious right, who also view gender as binary and physically based. These are similarities. You may shudder under that comparison, but it remains. It’s legitimate to compare things that are similar.

True enough, that comparison doesn’t continue to hold true. Radical feminists are not like the religious right when it comes to acknowledging and fighting against the oppression of female subservience in the home. But the comparison does not need to be true in all points for it to be legitimate; it only needs to be true at the point of comparison. No one is claiming that radical feminists and the christian right are wholly indistinguishable. The only claim is that on the single point of transphobia based in biological essentialism, both transphobic radical feminists and transphobic christian conservatives sound the same. Transphobic radical feminists and transphobic christian conservatives are united in the biological essentialism that leads them to the bigotry of transphobia.

A note to commenters: I am locking this to feminists only. I would like this to be a safe space for radical feminists who are interested in seeking dialogue, and also for transsexuals. If it’s acheivable, I would like Daisy and Nexyjo to feel safe in the same discussion. Please avoid saying things like “this exemplifies everything that’s fucked up about radical feminism” — that’s incendiary and unfriendly. Please also don’t mistake my own positioning; I often agree with radical feminists over people who identify as sex-positive. While I don’t necessarily believe that oppression of women is the original oppression (I don’t see how such theories can ever be proven), I do have a number of philosophical points of connection with radical feminists, as well as great respect for radical posters here including (but not limited to) Bean, QGrrl, Bonnie, Ms. Xeno, Pheeno, and Ginmar.*

However, bigotry against transsexuals is intolerable to me. I have a close transsexual friend who avoids most feminist blogs because of the nastiness that happens in threads like these. I refuse to support the kind of hatred that pushes people like her, already subject to isolation and bile from the rest of the world, closer to despair or suicide. Please remember we are discussing real people and real people’s lives.

*My apologies if any of you don’t identify as radical. I’m making some guesses.

Who do you want to win?

Posted by Maia | July 29th, 2007

My favourite blog at the moment is Lenin’s Tomb. Lenin has a great breadth of coverage - I’m always marking his posts saying to myself “I should write about strikes in South Africa” and then I never do.

So I was delighted to see that Lenin’s Tomb had responded to Katha Pollitt who was in turn responding to Alexander Cockburn.*

Alexander Cockburn started by quoting Lawrence McGuire:

“I was reading a recent piece by Phyllis Bennis recently. She talked about the ‘US military casualties’ and the ‘Iraqi civilian victims’ and it struck me that the grand taboo of the antiwar movement is to show the slightest empathy for the resistance fighters in Iraq. They are never mentioned as people for whom we should show concern, much less admiration.

“But of course, if you are going to sympathize with the US soldiers, who are fighting a war of aggression, than surely you should also sympathize with the soldiers who are fighting for their homeland. Perhaps not until the antiwar movement starts to some degree recognizing that they should include ‘the Iraqi resistance fighters’ in their pantheon of victims (in addition to US soldiers and Iraqi civilians) will there be the necessary critical mass to have a real movement.”

I probably disagree with this argument - but mostly because I think the American anti-war movement has far bigger problems (they rhyme with Pemocratic Darty). But Katha Pollitt almost made me change my mind:

So, okay, call me ignorant: The Iraqi resistance isn’t dominated by theocrats, ethnic nationalists, die-hard Baathists, jihadis, kidnappers, beheaders and thugs?

What made me so angry was the way Katha Pollitt dismissed the Iraqi armed resistance out of hand, as if the idea of supporting people fighting in self-defence was too ridiculous to take seriously.**

I wanted to respond, but got distracted in the face of research that would prove that Iraqis who want self-determination aren’t just: “theocrats, ethnic nationalists, die-hard Baathists, jihadis, kidnappers, beheaders and thugs?” Luckily Lenin has done it all for me. He’s responded to Katha Pollitt, and then put together information about what the armed resistance is actually like.

My position is a little different from Lenin’s.*** In order to actively support any sort of resistance group I want to know how they treat their own people, and what sort of world they want to build. But it’s an academic question, because I have nothing the Iraqi resistance needs. As Lenin (the blogger) said:

A little humility would compel her to recognise that the Iraqi resistance is doing far more to frustrate American imperialism than then American left is. The resistance is supporting us. It is their courageous insistence on combating an enemy with immense death-dealing power, confronting them in the streets despite years of savage murder, despite the prospect of incineration and shredding, that is causing Bush’s unpopularity.

The fact that I’m not prepared to support any particular Iraqi resistance group shouldn’t obscure the most basic point - I want the Iraqi resistance to win. I want the US to get the hell out of Iraq, and not to be capable of leaving a puppet government behind us. Any other outcome will give the people who rule America more power and the people who are fighting them less.

* I’ll be the first to acknowledge that not all Alexander Cockburn’s arguments are worth thinking about seriously - particularly not his climate change arguments, which I haven’t paid enough attention to accurately summarise, but have paid enough attention to to know they’re stupid.

** I take these discussions so seriously I once started a pool at what the ratio of male/female speakers would be at a meeting on our attitudes towards the Iraqi armed resistance.

*** That’s Lenin the blogger, although I’m guessing my position is also different from Lenin the Revolutionary leader.

Stand Down Margaret

Posted by Maia | July 28th, 2007

I sleep walk.

I don’t actually sleep walk - I sleep run. I have these dreams where a bomb is about to go off in my flat and I have to get out now. So I get out of bed and run out of the house. These dreams come in different intensities, but at their worst I know I’m about to die, and I’m terrified of that death.*

When I was small I lived in Thatcher’s Britain, the Britain of Protect & Survive. I was terrified of bombs. When we moved to New Zealand I was five, and I listed one of my favourite things about this country that their were no bombs.

I don’t think my terror dreams come from those years in Britain. I think they’re a stress or anxiety response. But I think it’s because of Margaret Thatcher and her pals that I dream of bombs. If I lived in different times I might be running from Wolves, or communists. I’d probably be just as scared, but that’s small consolation when I can still taste the adrenalin from believing that I was about to burn to death.

As far as Thatcher’s casualties go - my experience is nothing. The miners lives weren’t ruined in their dreams, they were ruined in reality. While she never dropped a nuclear bomb, she did drop other bombs. Her economic policies led to redundancies and unemployment - those aren’t just abstract ideas - they kill people. Poverty kills, hoplessness kills - the year after the miner’s strike saw many more than the usual number of suicides. It’s not just economic policies either Section 28, passed by the Tories, made it illegal to promote the teaching in state schools “the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.”

So when someone responds to me posting the lyrics to Merry Christmas Margaret Thatcher with: “Nothing Margaret Thatcher did is worth hoping for her death” - that really depends on what, and who, you value. People have died because of Margaret Thatcher.

I don’t think individuals are the driving force for politics, if Thatcher hadn’t been there, it would have been someone else. I don’t particularly hope for her death any more, she’s old and out of power, and probably a little bit out of it anyway. But when she does die you better believe that I’m going to celebrate. I’m going to dig out my parents old anti-Margaret Thatcher t-shirt and put it on, I will play anti-Margaret Thatcher songs all day, and I will write a post on this blog, maybe about Women Against Pit Closures.

My favourite phrase in Solidarity Forever is ‘we will break their haughty power’. The power to ruin people’s lives by remote control and sit back with a cup of tea is a haughty power indeed. To suggest that people shouldn’t be angry about what is done to them, and other people, shouldn’t be angry at that haughty power, is telling them their lives don’t matter.

15th Erase Racism Carnival is Up!

Posted by Rachel S. | July 27th, 2007

The 15th Erase Racism Carnival is up over at Race Wire.   Go check it out. For those who are unfamiliar with the blog, it is the blog for Colorlines Magazine, which is a great magazine that focuses on race and ethnic related issues.

We will have pride in how we live

Posted by Maia | July 26th, 2007

I have a new favourite Christmas song. I’m not sure what my old favourite Christmas song was, but there’s no way it can be as awesome as Merry Christmas Maggie Thatcher from Billy Elliot: The Musical. This is the chorus:

So merry Christmas Maggie Thatcher
May God’s love be with you
We all sing together in one breath
Merry Christmas Maggie Thatcher
We all celebrate today
‘Cause it’s one day closer to your death

I wasn’t particularly fond of the movie Billy Elliot. I felt it wasn’t particularly well written, and the mining strike was too far in the background. I wouldn’t have expressed any interest in the musical, but my sister has just come back from the UK, and she brought the Cast Recording with her.

I’d consider a song about celebrating Maggie Thatcher’s death enough to make a musical anyway, but there’s more. There are songs of solidarity and struggle, which give workers’ struggle weight and importance.

I’ll probably never see the musical, for all I’m loving soundtrack and I’m still a little unsure about the idea. I believe passionately that we need to tell the stories of our struggles. Knowing about fighting and winning, even fighting and losing, is the hope in our history. I don’t know much about the miner’s strike, and I’m a trade unionist and historian, who was born in Britain. Billy Elliot: The Musical will keep the history of the miners strike alive.

But this a West End musical, with seat prices to match. At what point do people telling their own stories become the commodification of resistance? Does it matter that the creators don’t see themselves writing about someone else’s life, but feel resonances in their own life for the story that they tell?

Do ex-miners and their families get in free?

Note for Comments No derogatory comments about the miners in the strike in particular, or workers more generally.

Brilliant Post by Nojojojo on The Angry Black Woman Blog

Posted by Mandolin | July 25th, 2007

Nojojojo, who writes science fiction and fantasy under the byline N. K. Jemisin, is guest blogging at the Angry Black Woman blog. (Readers may be interested to know that Nojojojo has a story in the all female-authored issue of Helix that I wrote about a few days ago.)

Nojojojo writes about the recent supreme court blows against desegregation. She looks at segregation through a lens rarely discussed.

The bulk of my reaction is this: fuck it. Just let all the schools in the US re-segregate. Black students did better academically before integration anyway. It’s a lot easier to achieve when you’re not bombarded with negative cultural messages and social isolation if you do well. When I was in elementary school, I knew a few black and Latina kids who tested into the gifted program around the same time that I did. Most turned it down. I couldn’t understand why — until the day I walked into my first gifted class and realized I was one of only two people of color there. (There weren’t even any Asians; this was Alabama, remember. Though I hear a good-sized Asian population has developed down there in the twenty years since.) The next year I was the only one; the other kid dropped out. I stayed and did fine — academically, at least. Socially… well, there were consequences. My decision to stay in the gifted program branded me a sellout, because I didn’t do what the other kids had done. I was accused of “trying to be white” and worse. I had no black friends until late middle school. Some of the white kids were friendly, but it was a superficial kind of thing — there were certain things we just couldn’t talk about, and there was some inherent objectification that came with being “the black friend”. I got a lot of “Can I touch your hair?” and “Wow, I didn’t realize black people like to read!” Even for the handful who might’ve become true friends, their parents weren’t all that happy when they brought me home (to be fair, neither was my mother, when I brought white friends home). So while I did well in middle and high school, I often wonder how much better I could’ve done if I hadn’t been a treated like a freakish aberration.

Nora adds that she’s not “seriously advocating an end to integration. Too many people, black and allies, have shed too much blood to get this far. And there’s lots of evidence to show that Tatum’s model of education does work — I wouldn’t be here if it didn’t. It just takes time, money, and persistence.”

Still, like most things, the effects of racialization and segregation are more complicated than they appear at first glance. Nora refers extensively to Beverly Tatum’s Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria? as she examines how the formation of race identity interacts with segregated, and unsegregated, environments. Tatum starts with the notion that “all Americans go through predictable patterns of awareness and internalization about race.” Nora draws on Tatum’s structural support, and moves to talking about her own experiences in education.

[At the end of the predictable pattern of awareness and internalization abotu race, is people] “becoming black”, “becoming white”… the pattern of development is relatively similar in whites vs peole of color — for example, both start out in a state of racial unawareness. For white people this is a general sense of racelessness — not so much being willfully “colorblind” as simply not noticing people of color as anything other than background noise. For black people (and Tatum does spend some time on Hispanics, Natives, recent immigrants, and Asians, but her expertise is clearly with African-American non-recent-immigrants), the initial state is called pre-encounter — they’re aware of race because it’s impossible to not notice if you’re black in this society, but they haven’t yet experienced any of the consequences of being black…

The breakdown of the “racially unaware” state for both whites and PoC is usually some kind of triggering event — a sudden, undeniable confrontation with the inequities of race. For PoC, this is usually their first encounter with racism. By the time black kids get to high school, they’re usually in another phase of identity development — immersion, in which they feel compelled to band together with others of their culture in order to survive an environment newly understood to be hostile. This small group then begins developing a collective sense of identity about what it means to be black. This group sense serves as a kind of protective shield until the individual is ready to develop his/her own personal definition of blackness. After that the group definition can safely be shed.

Tatum confronts the unspoken assumption of the “Why are all the black kids sitting together” question, which is “…and what can we do about this problem?” She explains that it isn’t a problem; that after being slapped in the face with the trauma of racism, kids of color need support to recover from that trauma, and the best people to help them do that is other kids who are going through the same thing. This way, they can reject the wrongness of racism and develop needed defenses against it, such as a stronger understanding of their own culture and its benefits. Because most white kids haven’t yet progressed beyond the raceless stage at this point — they typically don’t until closer to college — they’re no help even if they mean well, because their natural reaction is to dismiss or downgrade the traumatic experience (”Are you sure it was because you were black?” or “But I’ve eaten there all the time, and they’ve always been nice to me…” and so on). So the black kids seek solace from each other.

But here’s the thing. Immersion is, in its own way, incredibly superficial. Kids in immersion have no real clue how to be black; they’ve been whacked with a societal interpretation of blackness as “bad”, but they’re not yet sure how to counter that interpretation. So they cobble together their own definition of blackness, drawing on what they know and what society tells them about themselves. If they’ve been exposed to positive knowledge about their culture, they embrace positive manifestations as the norm. But when they’re bombarded with stereotypes and negativity about their culture, they end up embracing that as their standard. This is what I fell afoul of as a child — the kids around me had absorbed the racist notion that black people weren’t smart, were lazy, didn’t “talk proper”, etc. Because I rejected this, I was deemed insufficiently black.

I saw a different example of immersion when I went to college. Tulane was a predominantly white school, but it had a large (for a white school) black population, mostly because New Orleans was majority black and the school accepted a lot of bright local kids. Apparently that population reached a kind of critical mass, because the instant all of us stepped on the yard it was like some kind of racial Singularity — we were somehow all drawn together into a weird gestalt consciousness. There was a series of benches in front of the student center, and this one corner bench suddenly became “the black bench”. Everyone knew it and gathered there between classes. In the cafeteria — yeah, it happened in college too — one black person couldn’t just sit by herself. It was as if her solitude triggered some kind of disturbance in the Force; suddenly a dozen other black people would just appear and come sit with her. One time I was walking through the experimental psych building, humming “Summertime” by Jazzy Jeff and the Fresh Prince, and I heard the same humming from the labs on either side of me, and two other black students poked their heads out and said something like, “Whoa, I was just thinking of that song.” And they became my study partners.

When I was reading this, I tried to understand what Nora was saying by analogizing through the imperfect tool of my experience. I’m a non-practicing Jew who is ethnically Ashkenazic on my mother’s side. Culturally, I’m distant from any religious practice of Judaism — my grandfather was raised as an orthodox Jew, but became an atheist as a young man.

Still, I found that many of my friends when I was growing up were Jewish-derived, like me. Most of them were atheists, or Jews who practiced a reform variant of the religion. We (especially me) were isolated from the history of what it meant to be Jewish, and were left with certain tatters that we’d picked up from our parents, or from media stereotypes. What we created out of those experiences were remarkably similar. We saw ourselves as intelligent, academically oriented, interested in high art and culture, well-read, unathletic, calm and rational.

As Jewish children, we were able to create these good stereotypes for ourselves because it’s what we saw of ourselves reflected back at us. Jews were brainy, but not brawny. We didn’t get much of the penny-pinching thing, but most of us were from upper-middle class backgrounds.

In college, I found a mirror of this, except that the stakes now included some level of support for Israel (at least in my social group). I went to two colleges with large Jewish populations. In one, I found a group of Jewish friends who later ended up forming a pro-Israel group (I left the college before the group was formally begun, but later learned that it became quite extremist). In the other, I sought out a pre-existing group and went to work for the Jewish newspaper (which I eventually left due to its extremist position).

These cultures were something of a respite for me, particularly as a child, because I didn’t cope well with mainstream expectations of what children were supposed to be. I preferred books to running around, and was more interested in theater than pop music (which I’ve never gotten into) or the kinds of television my peers were watching. I was permanently lost on the concept of fashion, and tended to be yelled at for using large vocabulary words which were presumed to be curse words. Also, I was fat, and this study rings very true to me.

I wonder what kind of culture fat children would make for themselves. Would they segregate by gender? How would they reflect back the negative stereotypes of the media? Would they become consciously gross? Would they eat the way that the media suggests they do? Would the heterosexual boys act like Chris Farley while the gay boys and most of the girls traded tips on how to get away with bulimia or extreme diet plans?

And how would that culture evolve in college? I have no idea.

OK, that’s just where I go when I play with these concepts of grouping. To return to Nora’s brilliant essay:

Tatum makes the point that what I experienced at Tulane is common in HBCUs like Spelman, and in other environments in which a sufficiently large population of black students come together and are encouraged to positively express their blackness. This kind of thing used to be common, in fact, before integration. Once upon a time, academic achievement was as much a cultural ethic in the black community as it still is in the Jewish and some Asian communities. (Note that this hasn’t faded in more recent African immigrant communities, either.) It’s the sense of community that’s key. Many Asian communities seem to achieve this through the reinforcement of the extended family; many Jewish communities do the same, plus stuff like Hebrew school. But when integration ended, black communities fragmented; we stopped living in black neighborhoods, stopped patronizing black businesses. Black families, already fragile, fragmented as well, for a whole other set of reasons that’s a different rant for a different day. But perhaps the greatest loss was black schools, because that meant a whole generation of black children — my generation, and the ones just before and just after — grew up with no clear sense of who they were or what they were capable of.

Which is a tragedy, particularly since the model replacing it (integration) hasn’t been allowed to flourish long enough for its benefits to really take hold. The supreme court decision is a particular insult to Nojojojo’s generation, who had to sacrifice the positive tools that were already in place in hope of something better. They and their parents gave up something important, but the primarily white folks who sit on the supreme court decided the rest of us white folk were sick of doing our part.

I urge you to read the whole of Nojojojo’s essay. And add The Angry Black Woman to your daily reading too, if you haven’t. Their entries are always thought-provoking — and often funny or beautiful, too.

Some Responses to the “Easy Mistake To Make” Cartoon

Posted by Ampersand | July 24th, 2007

(The cartoon these folks are discussing can be read here.)

Laurie and Debbie at Body Impolitic (a blog I’m a fan of) argue that the cartoon is “the politics of hypersimplification.”

…The reason the two characters in the cartoon appear to agree is that their positions are hypersimplified. We seem to be living in a time where most political/social/gender opinions and expectations have been reduced not just to the sound bite but to the bumper sticker. Oversimplified opinions lead to false agreement and false disagreement.

Piny at Feministe responds:

Radical-feminist transphobia is not distinguishable from conservative Christian transphobia because they’re both transphobia. I hate to be as uncharitable as Amp here, but my experience has borne that out in many cases: tap the facade of philosophy and/or tradition and it cracks to reveal a deep and powerful current of simple hatred. All of the positions argued by the characters in the cartoon are shortened, but they’re not actually all that hyperbolic, and they don’t actually distinguish themselves in the longer version; take the “silencing/transsexual agenda” concurrence, for example.

Meanwhile, Littoral Mermaid suggests that I’m beating a straw radical feminist. She and I debate the question in her comments. Other comments on this post range from a smart criticism from Cellycel (whose blog I like, mainly because it’s well-written, but also because it includes references to role-playing games and “Avenue Q“) to impressively venal anti-fat bigotry from someone whose name I’ve forgotten.

Anyway, here’s a quote from my exchange with Cellycel:

Why compare it to the Christian right? Isn’t transphobia bad because of things like say, oppression and discrimination? Not “Because Conservative Christians thing it’s bad, so it must be good. Also radical feminists agree with conservative Christians. That makes radical feminists bad.”

I think this is the most substantive criticism of the cartoon I’ve seen so far. (A few people have made it, including my “Alas” co-blogger Maia). The cartoon would have been better if it had somehow closed off this interpretation.

My intent with this cartoon wasn’t “conservative Christians are bad, therefore anyone who agrees with them on anything is bad.” That would be a ridiculous argument (is giving to charity bad because Christians do it?), and it’s not what I believe.

My intended point was that transphobia is wrong no matter who the speaker is; and that if these arguments are bigoted when they’re coming out of a conservative Christian’s mouth, then they are still bigoted when they are spoken by feminists.

Cat Blogging: New LOLCat

Posted by Mandolin | July 24th, 2007

Ampersand and Rachel S. can do baby blogging, so I’ve decided to pitch in with some cat blogging. It’s not Friday, but let’s pretend.

I have invented a new LOLCat.

My cat, Alexi, got into a fight with a neighboring cat a few days ago. His head wound has become infected. We’ve put one of those radar dishes on his head (left over from last time this happened). We think he’s okay to hold off on going to the vet until tomorrow.

Meantime, I’m on “dab up the pus flowing out of Alexi’s wound” duty. This requires tissues every 30 minutes or so, and then vigorous hand washing because the bacteria that are infecting the wound are the same bacteria that live in cats’ claws and mouths that finish off all those little mice and birds.

Mike did some reading on cat fights, and we’ve learned that cats favor small piercing wounds, such as the insertion of a single tooth or claw, because they like to make wounds that will heal rapidly, sealing the awful bacteria inside. Chalk one more up to the idea that cats are vicious, evil bastards.

The new LOLCat?

Disgusting Cat Is Disgusting.

Be glad there are no pictures.

UPDATE: The little “darling” is at the vet, having a shunt installed to drain the pus.

Rachel’s Big Kid Blogging: Kids and Boxes

Posted by Rachel S. | July 23rd, 2007

Ok, not so serious question: what’s the deal with kids and boxes? I remember loving boxes as a kid, and one of my early memories is of me playing in a box in the kitchen. My parents had bought something big, and I was playing in the box like it was a boat. Here we have pictures of the Brandenator (new nickname) at 4 and a half. Rather than playing with the toy, he started by playing “in” the box. I think he was hiding or something.

brandenbox3.jpg

Not only did he want to be in the box, but he figured Daddy wanted to be in the box, too. In this picture, he was trying to put Daddy in the box, and he couldn’t figure out why Daddy didn’t fit.

branden-box-daddy.jpg

Now fast forward to 7 years old. I had this box sitting on the floor by the trash. He picked it up, and put it on his head. Then proceeded to play video games with the box on his head. That’s when I took this picture.

branden-box-peek.jpg

I think this must be some kind of developmental stage or something because almost all kids I know of love boxes–in particular sitting in them, crawling in them, or in the picture above using the box as a “mask.” I’m sure a child psychologist or child development expert tell me why this is. As an adult, it’s really entertaining to watch because playing with boxes usually involves some kind of creative play, and it’s often much more creative than the play associated with the toy or product in the box.

Review: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows SPOILERS

Posted by Maia | July 21st, 2007

I wasn’t going to buy Harry Potter: The Deathly Hallows. I could have scraped together the money, but at the moment if I have a spare $35 sitting around it should go to the lock-out fund. But I remembered that I had a $20 Whitcoulls voucher, and wanted nothing more than to read the book in one sitting, and it was an enjoyable and engrossing five hours or so.

A lot of what bothered me in the last few books really worked in this one. There’s much better pacing and much less artificial tension, and plots that only exist because the characters aren’t talking to each other. From the seven Harrys on I was totally there for the ride. When I ended the book, I felt satisfied (the epilogue was another matter), and I was certainly cheering at times.

As I’ve said before, I love serial story-telling. The only thing I like better than enjoying serial story-telling is picking apart serial story-telling. I like the sense of collective ownership that fans feel over these stories.

So I’m going to spend rather a lot of words analysing the meaningover the meaning of these stories, what I liked about them, and what didn’t work for me. If you don’t enjoy this then go somewhere else. I’m using headings because I’m too tired for transitions.

Read the rest of this entry »

Collecting for Women’s refuge

Posted by Maia | July 20th, 2007

This week is the annual women’s refuge appeal week. Women’s refuges are desperately under-funded, the Wellington refuge gets less than half its money from government (and the amount they get is less than what Clint Rickards got paid for doing nothing last year). So I spent a few hours on the streets of Wellington trying to get money out of people. I quite like collecting, but not as much as I like collecting money

Starbucks was offering free drinks to collectors - I feel the same way about this as I do about the clothing industry raising money for refuge:

But I still took my free tea.

I expected more women than men to give money, but I would have expected two-thirds, or three-quarters. I’m obviously a ridiculous optimist, because one in ten of the donors was a man, maybe even one in fifteen.

I started to wonder about the women giving money. Was it solidarity that made them give? Or someone they knew? An insurance policy? A down-payment? Or just imagination?

Why did so many men not have this imagination? Why weren’t they putting money in the buckets for the women they knew? Their mothers, sisters, daughters, and friends who could need refuge?

I started muttering this at men who walked by without giving money - “You’re the problem, not me, not her, you, and you won’t even give me a dollar.”

There were some good experiences. I noticed a young guy hanging out in a T-shirt that said “I’ll show you mine, if you show me yours” and rolled my eyes. But twenty minutes later him and his friend came and both gave some money.

My friend told me a story from collecting last year. A man gave twenty dollars, he looked like he wanted to say something, but he didn’t. Later he came back and asked her if she wanted a drink, because it was cold, and gave another ten dollars. Then he said “I just want you to know that not all sons turn out to be like their fathers.”

That’s where the hope is, I guess. The possibility of change.

Cartoon: Ethanol Is The Earth’s Pal!

Posted by Ampersand | July 20th, 2007

Cartoon: Ethanol Is The Earth’s Pal!

Click on the image to see a larger version.

MRI Results

Posted by Mandolin | July 19th, 2007

The results from yesterday’s MRI have come in. I have no signs of demylinizing disease. So, it’s official. Yay!

Least Segregated Cities for Asians

Posted by Rachel S. | July 18th, 2007

This post is a follow-up to an earlier post, you can look at this post from July 2nd where I discuss the different dimensions of residential segregation.  That post discusses a few of the methodological issues, and it links to the Census Bureau report where the data comes from.  So if you are confused about the differences, between clustering and exposure (for example), you can get more information from that post.  If you link to the actual Census report, they show statistical formulas that are used in calculating segregation using each method described.  They also discuss other issues related to measuring segregation. 

You should also keep in mind this is only measuring segregation for Asians and Pacific Islanders, and it’s only measuring urban segregation.  I am preparing future posts on Native Americans, and you can read the previous posts on

 The analysis of Asians includes 20 metro areas which met the Census criteria of having at least 3% representation–the number was 43 metros for African Americans and 36 metros for Latinos.

All data comes from the US Census Bureau

5 Most Even Metro Areas (cities where Asians are most evenly spread; this number reflects the percent of people who would have to move for the group to be evenly distributed across the metro area)

  1. Portland, Vancouver
  2. Seattle, Bellevue, Everett
  3. Nassau, Suffolk (Long Island, NY)
  4. Newark
  5. Bergen, Passaic, NJ

5 Highest Exposure Metros (cities where Asians have highest chance of having contact with whites)

  1. Baltimore
  2. Nassau, Suffolk (Long Island, NY)
  3. Portland, Vancouver
  4. Detroit
  5. Newark

5 Least Concentrated Metros (cities where Latinos are most least concentrated/most evenly spread throughout the metro area)

  1. Bergen, Passaic, NJ
  2. Nassau, Suffolk (Long Island, NY)
  3. Orange County, CA
  4. Oakland, CA
  5. Newark

5 Least Centralized Metros (cities where Asians are least concentrated in the central core of the city)

  1. Portland, Vancouver
  2. Nassau, Suffolk (Long Island, NY)
  3. Bergen, Passaic, NJ
  4. Orange County, CA
  5. Baltimore 

5 Least Clustered Metros

  1. Baltimore
  2. Nassau, Suffolk (Long Island, NY)
  3. Portland, Vancouver
  4. Detroit
  5. Newark

Overall Least Segregated Metros for Asians (Averaging ranks for all 5 major dimensions) Drumroll…..

  1. Nassau, Suffolk (Long Island, NY)
  2. Baltimore
  3. Newark
  4. Bergen, Passaic, NJ
  5. Detroit
  6. Philadelphia
  7. Portland, Vancouver
  8. Riverside, San Bernardino, CA
  9. Orange County, CA
  10. Oakland, CA 

A Few Points for Discussion:

On these measures the east coast cities tend to fair relatively well, except for the segregation capital of American New York.  Well, it’s not quite that simple; suburban New York–Long Island and northern New Jersey–do well.  I think for Asians in New York, the segregation dynamic is affected by class and immigration status.  When immigrants first arrive they tend to live in segregated areas of New York city, but if they managed to accumulate wealth, they are then able to move out into suburban areas and do their best to blend in to the predominantly white suburbs.  This may also be true in California.  The bigger cities tend to be much more segregated for Asians, but the outlying suburban areas are not as segregated.

I think, as someone pointed out earlier, Asian Americans seem to have a less entrenched form of segregation than their Black counterparts.

Cartoon: An Easy Mistake To Make

Posted by Ampersand | July 17th, 2007

Cartoon: Such An Easy Mistake To Make

Click on the image to see a larger version. (I think the drawing is nicer than my usual on this one). (Of course, it’s still new; in a month I’ll probably hate the art.)

Comments will be tightly moderated on this one; insulting comments are subject to being deleted at my whim.

This is Very Last Minute–Erase Racism Carnival

Posted by Rachel S. | July 17th, 2007

Even if you are a little late, I would try to send something anyways.

This month, RaceWire will be home to the 15th Erase Racism Carnival. The Carnival is a monthly collection of blog posts aimed at provoking discussion about race and catalyzing the eradication of racism.  

Read more about the Carnival here.

RaceWire is accepting submissions from all over the Blogosphere and on a gamut of topics. In addition to these blog posts, RaceWire wants to run some focused pieces looking at:

Race and the environment
Black-Brown divide
And what funny bloggers and video bloggers have to say about race, culture, and the economy

So with these in mind, please email your topics/and or blogs (250-700 words) to Malena Amusa at mamusa (at) arc (dot) org. Final deadline for blog submission is July 17. The Carnival will go up the third week of July in a series on RaceWire.

Looking forward!

Helix SF Magazine Publishes All Female-Authored Issue. Verdict: Cookie Allotted.

Posted by Mandolin | July 17th, 2007

The science fiction magazine Helix SF, which describes itself as publishing “controversial” stories, has posted an issue featuring all women writers.

It features fiction by authors such as Esther Freisner, Eugie Foster, Yoon Ha Lee, and Samantha Henderson. There’s also a nice selection of poetry by authors including Jane Yolen and Joselle Vanderhooft.

William Sanders is well-known for stirring up controversy, and participating in flame wars, on the Science Fiction Writers of America site. I’m not totally sure of his politics, but I believe he’s positioned as a right-libertarian. He’s certainly a colorful figure in the SF world.***

Sanders wrote an editorial about his decision to make this an all-women authored issue. I appreciated this bit: “Certainly it’s not intended to prove that women can write SF, or that they can write it well. That’s something that doesn’t need proving; it’s been proved over and over again — anybody who needs further proof by now is beyond hope.”

I was also interested in his discussion of the motives: “The truth is that all of the stories you see in this issue had already been accepted before I decided to do this. In fact that’s where the idea originated: I was looking over the stories I had in stock, choosing which ones I wanted to use for the next issue, and I noticed that I had quite a lot of excellent stories by women — and had in fact already picked several of them — and suddenly the light bulb went on and I said to myself, “Self, you ugly old son of a bitch,” (myself understanding this to be in the spirit of good-natured bandinage)**, “why not an all-women issue?”

And indeed, why not?

He adds, “But you know, in a way it’s a pity that this should even be worth talking about. Really, if things were as they should be, nobody should think it surprising or remarkable that an SF magazine should publish an all-women’s issue — any more than if, say, all the contributors were from Illinois, or all their last names began with R, or they all had red hair…Or if they were all straight white guys. That happens all the time, and nobody seems to find it strange.”

When I first read that last line, I was cheering it, but then I realized that its meaning is ambiguous. It could mean that the editor acknowledges that straight white men are the default state, and that no one finds it odd when issues are all straight white men because the assumption (pre-feminism and anti-racism) is that everything everywhere will be all straight white men. He could be referring to the phenomenon whereby a group of people that is less than half women will be perceived as “all women.” He could be referring to the recent study about conversation in which it’s demonstrated that if women and men are forced to speak for equal lengths of time, both parties perceive the women as completely dominating the conversation.

However, it’s also possible to read the statement another way: which is that no one pays attention to straight white male authored issues because feminists and anti-racists want special rights, and whites and men have “no one” arguing for their interests.

The more I think about this comment, though, I have trouble sustaining my second reading. In order for the second reading to work out, Sanders would have to believe that there are as many all-women tables of contents as there are tables of contents filled with authors who are straight, white, and male. But that doesn’t seem to be the case, since he acknowledges that an all-female TOC is still worthy of comment, while TOCs of only straight white men happen all the time.

However, an editorial by Helix guest editor Melanie Fletcher reveals an unambiguous example of the condescending attitude I’d feared: “it’s not a big deal that the Summer ‘07 issue of Helix is pretty much all female — like the almost all male Hugo ballot this year, it just shook out that way. And yet there was much hue and cry across the land about the 2007 Hugo nominees’ preponderance of testosterone, so we’re probably going to catch some shit about the clouds of estrogen wafting about this issue. Frankly, both complaints strike me as pretty damn stupid because it shouldn’t matter what flavor of gonads a writer is packing; what does matter is whether or not they can tell a cracking good story.”

Fletcher appears not to understand what is meant by systemic sexism or unconscious bias, from the way that she mischaracterizes the feminist critique of Hugo awards. She appears to be offering this issue as an example of how sometimes things “shake out” to female benefit — but she’s countered by the very fact that there was a conscious effort to put together an all-female table of contents. There was no conscious effort to skew the Hugos. Unconscious gender bias did that all on its own, as it does monthly in the table of contents for magazines like Harper’s.

I am inclined to give Sanders the benefit of the doubt and say his heart was in the right place when he orchestrated it. It’s harder to believe him when he says this isn’t a publicity stunt since he complained about the lack of attention he received for doing it. But I’m inclined to forgive publicity stunts; he’s trying to grow the audience for a small magazine.*

However, the editorial by Fletcher makes it clear why an effort like this isn’t usually greeted with open arms. It’s hard to tell what kinds of concealed motives people have for these kinds of actions. In this case, Fletcher seems to have been trying to hide a GOTCHA under her coat, even if it was a particularly ineffective one.

While I remain cagey, I’m going to go ahead and say this: Good on you, Sanders. Cookie allotted.

But you know what’s better on Sanders than an all-women issue? The fact that (if we are to go by the statistics listed in his editorial) of the 28 stories he published in his first year, 13 were by women. Sanders, and editors like him who publish an equal or near-equal gender ratio, are definitely part of the solution.

There’s one more net result that’s unambiguously positive: seven female short story writers, and six female poets, have sold their work. They will be paid and their work will be read. I urge people to read this issue, and throw in a couple of bucks to the authors if they think the stories are worthy.

UPDATE: Sanders points out that there are a lot of people of color who have written stories for this issue, also, such as Eugie Foster and Yoon Ha Lee. The name that jumps out at me is N. K. Jemison who I was fortunate enough to see speak last year at Wiscon. She’s brilliant. You can find her at her personal blog, but she’s also got the keys to Angry Black Woman’s place, where she’s recently written aa guest post or two. There may be other writers of color on the TOC besides these talented three, but those are the only three I know of for sure.

*And hey, complaining worked. I wouldn’t have written about this if he hadn’t complained. Of course, the fact that my health issues have been mostly cleared up! meant that I now have time and attention to write, which I didn’t have when the issue initially came out. (I did consider writing about it then.)

**Sanders also gets a musical-theater-related cookie for quoting Ruddigore.

***Sanders has written to let me know this wasn’t an accurate statement. Sorry!

Healthy!

Posted by Mandolin | July 17th, 2007

I saw the neurologist last night. He says I do not have neuropathy or nerve damage. He’s giving me an MRI to ease my anxiety, but he seems to think multiple sclerosis is unlikely. He seemed to think my symptoms were caused by migraines.

Yay!

Rachel’s Big Kid Blogging- Bike Wreck 101

Posted by Rachel S. | July 14th, 2007

My 7 year-old stepson Branden is here for part of his summer vacation, and we decided to take this time to teach him how to ride his bike without the training wheels. We took him out to the park in front of our building and put him on the bike in an area with a downward slope and after about 25 tries he finally got it. This was last Sunday, and by Wednesday he was able to ride around the perimeter of the park in a full circle.

Surprisingly he didn’t crash until Wednesday. It was ironic because his Daddy was saying how he wished that Branden had a wreck so he would watch where he’s going, and so he could “get it over with.” His Dad and I were talking, and agreeing that bicycle wrecks are a rite of passage, and literally 3 minutes later he took a hard fall on the pavement. He stayed on the ground and Daddy rushed over to help him up. He scratched his knee and his finger, but not too bad. Well in our view it wasn’t bad, but as soon as he realized his cut was bleeding and we were giving him attention, he started bawling and limping. We took him inside, and took a picture of his first bicycle injury. He was crying even harder at that point because he thought I was going to pour alcohol on the cut. I couldn’t convince him that I was going to put neosporin on it and it wouldn’t burn.

Even though he fell, he was happy about two things. He got to wear bandages, and he got to show off his cut to other kids.

Here’s a picture of the scraped knee, it’s hard not to feel sorry for him with that sad face.

Picture of Braden’s scraped knee and sad face.

Then, we have a close-up because he wanted everybody to see the blood, and the cut on his finger.

Close-up of Branden’s bloody knee and finger.

Branden, Daddy, and I are happy to report that his cut is healing, and he wasn’t the least bit scared about getting back on the bike a few days later.

Now we’re working on tying shoes.