Archive for July, 2007

Review: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Movie

Posted by Maia | July 14th, 2007

When I was walking to the movie theatre we were talking about what they would include and one of my friend’s said ‘don’t spoil me’ (and then claimed he was too busy to read the books, but apparently has plenty of time for the movies). Just to be clear that this post has spoilers for the movie, and every book that has been published.

The movie theatre had big stickers on the back of every fourth seat saying “1 in 4 women and children are the victims of domestic violence.” Apart from my dislike of running together ‘women and children’ I thought that was an awesome way of representing the effect of violence within families. This week is refuge appeal week so give money if you can (last year the government gave more money to Clint Rickards than Wellington Women’s Refuge, so it’d be good if other people could pitch in).

That wasn’t the only good thing to happen before Harry Potter started, because they showed a Northern Lights preview (well they’re calling it a Golden Compass preview, but whatever). I’m terribly excited.

I think the Harry Potter books are getting worse, and the movies are getting better, as the series progresses. I think this might be related. In the later books J K Rowling has no page limit, and doesn’t have to listen to an editor so they just sprawl. She’s particularly prone too over-foreshadowing, and overlengthy explanations by Dumbledore at the end of each book. I think all the unnecessary bits in the books make it easier to make a movie (even as the books are getting longer), as the movie can tailor itself to the essential story (which I think J K Rowling has been two drafts away from in every book after the third).

I’m not suggesting that Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix is the greatest movie playing, but it is very engaging. David Yates was previously a TV director, and I think in some ways this services . In TV you are servicing characters and a story first and foremost. Previously directors (particularly Chris Columbus who directed the first two) were far too interested in set pieces to do either of those. Alfonso Curon, is a brilliant director, but in Prisoner of Azkaban he was more interested in creating mood and atmosphere than characters and story.

The casting directors did very good jobs and were very lucky, because the actors’ physicality continues to work for the parts. Ginny was a walk-on part in the first movie, and would have been 9 when she was cast and that the actress has grown up in roughly the way the character in the book did.

Imelda Staunton was brilliant as Dolores Umbridge, and everything about her costumes, and design of her room emphasised her character, and made the movie. To underscore the banality of evil isn’t a particularly new point, but it was incredibly well done. The movie is worth seeing just for Dolores Umbridge’s room alone (you’ll know what I mean when you see it).

While I have an affection for J K Rowling, it’s next too impossible to put a radical reading on the Harry Potter books.* But I feel this book, in particular, has a good heart. The students getting together to fight authority is a theme that works for me, and the movie really emphasised this angle. The simple scene of Fred and George sympathising with the first year who had had the (creepy and totally sadistic) crazy cutting lines thing underscored that nicely (and their departure was spectacular. And the ending is a reiteration of ‘we’re stronger together than we are alone’, which always makes me happy.

And just to go on the record with my (rather boring) predictions for the final book: Snape isn’t evil, Dumbledore was telling him to kill him, Snape was in love with Lily and the reason Dumbledore trusts him will be something to do with that love. More than one Weasley will die in the final book. The love stories will annoy me.

Feel free to add your own thoughts about Harry Potter in general and predictions (but no spoilers, although I don’t suppose there are any).

*And don’t even get me started on the gender politics - which are made worse in the movies by upping the ways Mrs Weasley conforms to a stereotype (which is quite an accomplishment in itself).

1,000 Pickets And They All Agree

Posted by Maia | July 13th, 2007

1,000 service workers in New Zealand hospitals have gone on strike, and then been locked-out. Service workers are some of hte lowest paid workers in any hospital. In this case the workers have been trying to get one contract to cover orderlies, cleaners, and so on, at public hospitals throughout New Zealand. They’ve got agreement with the Hospital Boards, and all but one of the companies that subcontract this work, but one company, Spotless, is still holding out. Hospital workers at Spotless have gone on strike.

Any time 1,000 workers get locked out it’s important that we win. The fight for a single pay scale for service workers in the hospitals is an important one. Raising the starting rate of these low-paid workers to $14.25 an hour would be a great victory. But this is also a fight against contracting-out, and it’s a fight we have to win.

Theoretically businesses, and government organisations, contract out services. They contract a company to clean, or to perform a certain task. But in reality they’re contracting out employment.

Cleaning is a really good example of this. It’s a low capital industry, and large cleaning companies don’t get huge economies of scale. Companies get their printing done by a contract because they don’t print enough to justify having the equipment sitting around all day. It takes about the same amount of equipment to clean a hospital whether the equipment is owned by Spotless or the Hospital, and neither of them can use the equipment elsewhere. In fact, by contracting out companies, and government organisations have to pay extra, to cover the profit that any cleaning company is going to make.

So why do hospitals (or businesses or anyone else) contract out their cleaning? Because they can use the tendering process to drive down the cost. To win tenders, and bid lower than other cleaning companies, the winning company has to either pay their workers less, or get their workers to do more cleaning in less time.

Contracting out is so effective, because everyone can claim that they’re not responsible. The cleaning companies aren’t responsible, because they can’t afford to pay any more than they’re given. The hospital that contracts out its cleaning isn’t responsible because it’s up to the sub-contractor how much money to pay.

It’s a vicious way of keeping wages and conditions down, and the only way workers can fight it is by organising. Hospital workers in the SFWU have fought really hard to get this far. An agreement with the DHBs, and all but one of the contractors is a huge step forward. But it will be meaningless unless they can get Spotless to agree to the same terms and conditions, otherwise Spotless will be able to undercut other companies up and down the country, and wages will go on a downwards spiral again.

793851081_ec617fa9a71.jpg

Contacting out can affect all workers. Although low-paid workers like cleaners are the most vulnerable, all sorts of jobs can be done on a contracting out basis. So it’s really important that all workers support the hospital workers in this battle against contracting out, and for one wage scale for all workers.

Or, what she said:

All amounts are in NZ dollars, so I don’t want to hear anything about how it’s a reasonable amount of money - because it’s not.

Link Farm & Open Thread #50

Posted by Ampersand | July 13th, 2007

Please feel free to use the comments for any purpose, including posting links to your own stuff or others’ stuff.

Carnivals

Abyss2hope presents Carnival Against Sexual Violence 26
This series — run solely by Marcella — is one of the best ongoing carnivals out there. She always finds tons of interesting links.

Retired Waif presents Disability Blog Carnival #18
The “We’re just like you!” edition, containing three times the average daily recommended dosage of delicious snark. :-)

The Hidden Side Of A Leaf presents Carnival of Feminists: 40th Edition
The book review edition!

* * *

Links To Stuff I’ve Read

Pandagon: Easy, Quick Action You Can Take Right Now To Help Katrina Survivors
And read this post by Sheelzebub, while you’re at it.

The Glasshouse: Why Most Moderate Pakistanis Now Dislike America

We in Pakistan also want to have liberty, freedom of speech and a rule of law. Why is it that the US Administration persists in supporting a despot who is denying us our basic rights as human beings?

It seems unlikely that Musharraf will be able to stay in power much longer; but the ill-will our support of Musharraf has created could last decades.

Abyss2Hope: Rape Victim Thrown In Jail; Pro-Life Jailer Withholds Emergency Contraception
A pregnant woman behind bars; for pro-lifers, this story must be a dream come true.

Cruella: British Courts Refuse To Prosecute Child Sex Abusers On Grounds Of “Consent”
In one case, a subsequent rape of a two-year-old would have been prevented if the court had put the rapist behind bars when it had the chance.

Black Looks: Walls Going Up All Over The World
Really excellent post; I had no idea how much of this was going on. Curtsy: Brownfemipower.

Brownfemipower: MLK, Radical Media, Media Justice, and Blogging
There’s no way I can describe this great post, so you should go read it. Koufax-nominaion for sure. Here’s a small sample:

The speech that was played was an earlier version of the “I have a Dream” speech. A crystal clear sound system lifted the deep measured voice of MLK throughout the hall. The speech was so clear, I thought for a good part of it that MLK had recorded it in a sound studio. But about half way through the speech MLK made a joke at which time, the entire congregation he was speaking to laughed in response. And it was then that I realized–the absolute clarity of his speech was due in large part to the absolute silence of his congregation. This sermon was given in the days before the March on Washington version of the Dream speech–which was when MLK flew out into the national spot light.

I could only imagine the intense feelings that must have wrapped around the congregation as this speech unfolded. The ecstasy of potential freedom, the sisterhood with the woman sitting next to you, the awe of knowing something amazing is happening right in front of you–all mixed, surely, with a healthy dose of fear.

Is Your Doctor Playing Judge?
A good — and scary — article in Self Magazine about Fundamentalist Doctors using their positions to try and deny care to pregnant women — even rape victims needing emergency contraception. If your religion prevents you from carrying out the job duties of an ER Doctor, then you shouldn’t be an ER doctor. Link via The Well Timed Period, which has an excellent post on the subject.

I See Invisible People: “Competence,” The Entitlement To Vote, and Disability

Photo: Me and Mikhaela Reid Drawing Each Other
When we started drawing, I was clean-shaven and Mikhaela wasn’t wearing glasses. Mikhaela, for those of you who don’t know, is a kick-ass political cartoonist; writing a review of her new book (which I thought was terrific) is on my “to do” list.

Taking Place: Duke Rape Case Demonstrates That Justice Isn’t Colorblind
There are plenty of cases of prosecution misconduct leading to black defendants being railroaded. So when are we going to see one of those prosecutors debarred?

Feminist Law Profs: New Study Shows Women Don’t Talk More Than Men
and
Echidne: New Study Shows Women Don’t Talk More Than Men
Both posts are good; the FLP post includes an up-to-date link list to the astounding blogging Language Log has done on this and related issues. (I really regret not thinking of nominating LL for a Koufax for best series last year.)

QuakerDave: Iraqi Baby Blogging and Darfur Baby Blogging.

Terrible Palsy: The other story from a ‘Pillow Angel’: Been there. Done that. Preferred to grow.

When [Peter] Singer wrote that, “Ashley is 9, but her mental age has never progressed beyond that of a 3-month-old. She cannot walk, talk, hold a toy or change her position in bed. Her parents are not sure she recognizes them. She is expected to have a normal lifespan, but her mental condition will never improve,” he has accepted the doctors’ eyeball assessment of Ashley without asking the obvious questions. What was their assessment based on? Has Ashley ever been offered a way of showing that she knows more than a 3-month-old baby? Only someone like me who has lain in a cot year after year hoping that someone would give her a chance can know the horror of being treated as if you were totally without conscious thought.

Rachel’s Tavern: How Not To Talk About African Relations With African Americans

Feminist Peace Network: Halliburton Sued by Women Alleging Sexual Harrassment and Rape

Jewish Circumcision: An Alternative Perspective
Good article arguing that Jews should stop performing circumcision on male infants, but also discussing the historic link between anti-circumcision movements and anti-semitism.

Prometheus 6: The He-Man Presidency (quoting Mark Dery)

The hidden costs of our overcompensatory hypermachismo are far worse than a few politicians slimed by pundits. The horror in Iraq has been protracted past the point of lunacy by George W.’s bring-it-on braggadocio, He-Ra unilateralism and damn-the-facts refusal to acknowledge mistakes — all hallmarks of a pathological masculinity that confuses diplomacy with weakness and arrogant rigidity with strength. It is founded not on a self-assured sense of what it is but on a neurotic loathing of what it secretly fears it may be: wussy. And it will go to the grave insisting on battering-ram stiffness (stay the course! don’t pull out!) as the truest mark of manhood.

Rachel’s Tavern: Teen Victim Of Racist Texas Hate Crime Commits Suicide

Kill Bigotry: History’s Hit Job On Thomas Paine
So why has Paine — who was intellectually essential to the American revolution, and in addition was genuinely anti-slavery and in favor of women’s rights — been honored so much less than some of our other “founding fathers”?

The Thinkery: Unmasculine Men Raising Boys, And Sexism In The Wall Street Journal

ZNet: Killer Lesbians Mauled By Killer Court & Media Wolfpack

The Trouble With Spikol: PETA Lectures Michale Moore For Being Fat
The odd thing is, even a fat person who has lost a lot of weight, is eating healthier, exercising more — as Moore has in fact done recently — still gets shit for being fat. Anti-fat bigots like to pretend it’s about health, but it’s really about their own sense of being morally and aesthetically superior to fat people. Curtsy: Gimp Parade.

The Joy of Autism: Attending Autreat.

Inhospitable and unsafe environments are those in which we seek to normalize and reward normal responses to tasks where the autistic response is never acknowledged, rewarded or accepted, thus valued. By never rewarding an autistic person for being autistic, we threaten their self-esteem and identity. Most will grow up being confused because every well-intentioned therapist was so “nice” to them. [Curtsy: Gimp Parade.]

Lew Rockwell: History If Iran Were America (And We Were Iran)
Curtsy: Pandagon.

May The Sanctity Of The Sink Prevail
An awesome high in the history of passive-aggressive housemates. Thanks to my housemate Bean for the tip.

Quote: Amanda Marcotte On The Miss New Jersey “Scandal”

The pageant officials are letting her keep her crown, but they’re no doubt reconsidering the advisability of having flesh and blood women compete and may be looking into using Real Dolls in the future.

Abyss2Hope: If you’re not certain you didn’t mumble “yes” on the way to passing out, then you weren’t raped.

The line of questions that defense attorneys are allowed to use against alleged victims who wake up to find someone using their body exploits unconsciousness the same way rapists do.


Washington Post: Good Critique Of Christina Hoff Sommers’ Book “The War Against Boys

The Gimp Parade: 3 Perks To Using A Ventilator

Rudd Sound Bites: Anti-Fat Stereotypes In Children’s Books
Including a comments-section debate regarding Dudley Dursley in the Harry Potter books. The Rudd people are odd; some of them seem honestly anti-sizism, but they don’t seem to realize that Rudd itself is chock full of anti-fat ideology.

Feministe: For Those Who Want Still More Discussion Of Male Circumcision

Larvatus Prodeo: How Often Do People Lie?

Hoyden About Town: School Holidays Are Part Of The Real World, Dammit!

Independent Gay Forum: Follow-Up Questions About Gays Reporters Should Ask Candidates

Or he could have asked, “But as you are no doubt aware former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman John Shalikashvili wrote a New York Times op-ed earlier this year reversing his previous anti-gay position and advocating the inclusion of openly gay and lesbian soldiers. Is your perception of the military’s needs more accurate than his?” Or he could more aggressively have asked, “To what extent is your position, like that of Gen. Peter Pace, based on a belief that homosexuality is immoral?”

Ezra Klein: The Health Of Nations Series
From a wonky perspective, Ezra’s blogging on universal health care are among the very best you’ll find in the blogosphere. Since we’ve discussed health care here recently, I thought some “Alas” readers might be interested in this series, focused on international comparisons.

The New Republic: What France Can Teach Us About Health Care

Obsidian Wings: The Majority Of American Voters Are Dangerously Out Of The Mainstream
A new poll shows that a bare majority of voters think Bush should be impeached, and that a strong majority want to see Cheney impeached. As Hilizoy says, who knew Kucinich is the mainstream?

Crooked Timber: Why Feminists Should Not Support The Basic Income
I don’t think I agree, but it’s certainly interesting enough to link to.

Republic of T: Waste Time Making A “Springfieldian” Image of Yourself!
Yes, it’s a Simpsons Movie promo.

How Not to Be a Dick, Religious Dicks Edition

Posted by Mandolin | July 13th, 2007

I’m sure that by now, most of you have heard that a Hindu chaplain delivered the opening prayer in the US senate on July 12. This, of course, has driven some Christian jerks into a whirling, frothing frenzy.

Trailer Park Feminist at Feministe reports a One News Now poll reflecting the tantrum, in which 53% of respondents say that the prayer “proves the U.S. is no longer a Christian nation.”

TPF also quotes one of the Christian whiners, who says of Hinduism: ” “This is not a religion that has produced great things in the world,” he observes. “You look at India, you look at Nepal — there’s persecution going in both of those countries that is gendered by the religious belief that is present there, and Hindu dominates in both of those countries.”

TPF deftly fisks his remarks: “But not the Christians-hating-on-Hindus type of religious persecution, oh no,” she points out. “He’s talking about the bad kind of religious persecution. You know, the kind that doesn’t involve Christians.”

Taking a different tack, John Scalzi of the Whatever helpfully addresses the situation by weighing in with some practical advice for people who find themselves afflicted with a persistent case of religious dickishness. He writes:

Look, this one is simple: Some people really and truly believe that what Jesus wants is for them to be dicks to everyone who isn’t their particular, mushy-headed stripe of Christian. And if it’s what Jesus wants, then it can’t be wrong. Now, I’m entirely sure that in their minds they can come up with a better explanation for their activities than “Jesus wants me to be a dick” — they may actually be able to find some internal calculus that has them being a dick out of love for us godless idolaters and saving our worthless heathen souls, even — but the rest of us can call it for what it is. And also, of course, when these Dicks for Jesus try to offer up some alternate explanation for their behavior, I think it’s fair to remind them of a number of things:

1. Whatever the rationale, they’re being dicks.

2. At no point in the Bible does Jesus say “be a dick in My name.”

3. Lots of other Christians seem to get through life without feeling called upon to be a dick in the service of Christ.

4. Indeed, when many of these Christians discover to their dismay that they’ve been a dick about something, they will frequently fall to their knees and say, “Forgive me, Lord, for I have been a total dick.”

5. And He does.

6. That’s a hint.

UPDATE: A you-tube link to the Jesus-dick-generated disturbance, swiped from Pharyngula.

Oh No, Not Again

Posted by Maia | July 13th, 2007

I wasn’t going to comment any more on Clint Heine, but his comment threads get worse. SimonD said:

I want to offer a job for Maia in K’Rd. My massage parlor needs 2 women to dance nude on stage.

Does anyone know Maia’s full name? I want to forward the job offer to WINZ, so they can get registered unemployed people like Maia to apply. I know WINZ doesn’t like unemployed people who are registered with them to decline a job offer (any jobs really). So, there is a chance that Maia will take my offer.

For those who don’t know the NZ benefit system, if you turn down a job you can go on a benefit stand-down for up to 13 weeks. So people on benefits can’t turn down work.

SimonD wants to coerce me into sex-work by cutting off my other forms of income.*

Clint Heine’s objection to this isn’t based on my right to my own body:

If her blog is accurate I do believe she is already well known to the WINZ staff in her area. I somewhat doubt you’d want somebody like her in with your lovely girls. :)

I’m proud to say that he’s right. If I was to work on K’Rd I’d educate, agitate and organise, and SimonD wouldn’t know what hit him.

But the point here is that coercing a woman to work in the sex industry by cutting off her other forms of income is rape. These clearly men view women as objects to be used by them, and my desire is irrelevant. This is the second time a man on Clint Heine’s blog has expressed a desire to punish me with sex, and Clint Heine has no problem with that at all.

* In reality WINZ do not require women to accept jobs in the sex industry.

Right on Religion–Left on Science What do you think?

Posted by Rachel S. | July 12th, 2007

I’ve felt for a long time that the right wing here in the US puts too much faith in religion (Yes, that’s a deliberately ironic word choice).  Christianity becomes a means to solve all kinds of social problems, and perhaps some of those problems are better fixed through non-religious social institutions–governments, the economy, family, and so on. 

However, more recently I’ve also started to feel that some on the left have put too much faith in science and by extension the academy.  Now given that I am a “social scientist” (the kind some folks think are not real scientists) and an academic, this is a fairly controversial position.  It’s not that I do not think science and education are valuable, but it seems like some people on the left lose track of the fact that science is evolving (Once again, a deliberately ironic word choice), and we forget that claims of objectivity frequently have underlying assumptions and biases.  For example, even the choice of a particular subject for scientific inquiry reflects some subjectivity.  Moreover, the scientific method itself may be limiting our thinking at times.  I’m not going to give any thorough critique of the scientific method or objectivity in this post, but what I am curious about how people feel about the relationship between the social/political left and science/the academy. 

What do you think? 

I know I said much more about the left having too much faith in science and the academy, and that’s because I would like to focus on this since Alas is a progressive site and most commenters will likely agree with my statement about the right and religion.  However, I also don’t want to go into too much depth about my personal opinions on the second proposition because I’m open to persuasion on this topic.

New York Court Approves Electroshock On Unwilling Woman

Posted by Ampersand | July 12th, 2007

In a 7/2 decision, the New York Court of Appeals has turned down Simone D., who had sued not to be put through electroshock again. (She’s had electroshock done to her over 200 times in her life).

According to the majority opinion,

At a hearing held on the petition, Dr. Ella Brodsky, a licensed psychiatrist and the person who administers the ECT at Creedmoor, testified that the appellant suffers from a “major depressive disorder, severe, with chronic features” and was incapable of making decisions regarding her own treatment. In fact, Dr. Brodsky asserted that during a meeting to discuss treatment, at which the appellant, her Spanish-speaking attorney, Dr. Brodsky, and the treatment team were present, the appellant refused to respond or even make eye contact.

Gee, the patient refused to talk or make eye contact during a meeting with the doctor who conducts torture on her. What could possibly account for that? Hmmmn….

A few points:

1) Electroshock, or ECT, Has No Proven Benefits.

The majority’s opinion relies heavily on Dr. Brodsky’s belief that electroshock is an effective treatment for Simone D. But the evidence that electroshock1 has any beneficial effects is practically nonexistent.

For instance, Bonnie Burstow, an academic and psychotherapist, writing in the journal Canadian Woman Studies, reports:2

While minimizing the damage done, ECT3 promoters defend the use of ECT on the basis of its alleged effectiveness in alleviating depression and preventing suicide. And yet electroshock has no such special efficacy. In a rigorous double blind study, Lambourne and Gill found that a month after shock and simulated shock, shocked patients had not improved more than nonshocked. They concluded that shock does not produce a superior therapeutic effect and that its alleged effectiveness is due to placebo. Correspondingly, all the research on electroshock and suicide—for example, Black and Winokur—tell the same story: ECT has no effect on the suicide rate.

From a review of literature published in The International Journal of Risk And Safety In Medicine:4

Crow and Johnstone, in a review of controlled studies of ECT efficacy, found that both ECT and sham ECT5 were associated with “substantial improvements” and that there was little or no difference between the two. [...]

At the Consensus Conference on ECT, critics and advocates of ECT debated the issue of efficacy. The advocates were unable to come forth with a single controlled study showing that ECT had a positive effect beyond 4 weeks. Many studies showed no effect, and in the positive studies, the improvements were not dramatic…. The Consensus Conference panel stated in its report that ECT had no documented positive effect beyond 4 weeks. [...]

ECT is frequently justified as treatment of last resort in cases at high risk for suicide. [...] Despite the claims of advocates, research uniformly shows that ECT has no beneficial effect on the suicide rate. [...]

Some patients do feel “helped” by ECT. Often they have been so damaged that they cannot judge their own condition. They suffer from iatrogenic denial and helplessness. But should a treatment be banned when some people believe they are helped by it? In fact, it is commonplace in medicine and psychiatry to withdraw from use treatments and devices that have caused serious harm to a small percentage of people, even though they may have helped a very large percentage. The risk of serious injury to a few outweighs helping many.

In the case of ECT, a large percentage of people are being harmed, and there is very little evidence that many are being helped.

And of course, Simone D. doesn’t perceive herself as being helped by ECT at all.

So the first thing to understand about this decision is that it’s based on a false premise. The court’s assumption that ECT “works” and is beneficial, which formed the basis for their decision, does not have any empirical support in controlled scientific studies.

What has been proven beyond reasonable doubt is that ECT causes permanent damage to the brain. So Simone D. is being forced to have treatment that she finds painful and unhelpful, and which will permanently damage her brain.

What ECT brings to my mind this review of the book Madhouse — about Henry Cotton, administrator of a New Jersey asylum, who for decades forcibly removed teeth and other body parts from unwilling patients “for their own good,” and was much admired for this practice.

I don’t doubt that Dr. Brodsky believes she is doing good. But medicine, and in particular doctors at asylums, have a long history of doing grave harms to their patients in the name of helping them, based more on ideology than on evidence.

2. Most Electroshock patients are elderly women.

Multiple studies have shown that between two-thirds and three-quarters of patients given electroshock treatment — regardless of the diagnosis — are older women. From the activist website endofshock.com:

Why is it that women are disproportionately represented as electroshock patients?

1) This is a legacy of patriarchy, where women continue to be coerced, overtly or subtly into psychiatric treatment.

2) This is also a legacy of sexism, where “’masculine“ stoicism is valued and feminine” qualities such as emotional expression are classified as psychopathological. It is also related to sexism in that social and economic inequality is still a big factor in our society, and understandable stress reactions, sadness and confusion are interpreted as “symptoms of mental illness.”

3) Women, compared to men, are expected to be passive, and they may be punished or silenced for speaking out and complaining. When a woman is being considered for electroshock, one should ask, “What is important that she not remember and tell about?” Or “What is it that the others do not want to hear or look at?” Often it is abuse, always it is difficult or disruptive conduct that makes others feel uncomfortable or threatened.

4) Women are on average more open to getting help than men. In our psychiatric system, it is assumed that human problems and crises are due to biologically or genetically based “mental illnesses.” The primary treatment is psychotropic drugs, so women reaching for help get drugs, these drugs often do not help or actually worsen their situation; hence, the backup treatment of electroshock is brought into play.

5) Elderly women often cannot handle psychotropic drugs because of aging and infirmity, so are considered prime candidates for electroshock.

6) Women of perimenopausal may be experiencing depressive symptoms due to undiagnosed hormonal or endocrine changes.

Of course, the minority of patients who are young, male or both are equally important; electroshock therapy should be banned for all patients, period. But that doesn’t mean that we should ignore that this form of torture is practiced disproportionately against older women.

I expected that ECT would also be primarily used against lower-class and non-white women. However, according to Bonnie Burstow’s essay, “the primary target is middle-class white women.”6

3. Simone G. is a native Spanish speaker, but has not been offered substantial therapy in Spanish.

ECT shouldn’t be used at all, in my opinion; but even ECT defenders agree that if ECT is used, it should be a last resort. But — as the dissenting opinion by Judge Crane noted — treatment by a Spanish-speaking therapist was tried “for only a few weeks.” Simone G., through her lawyer, has requested that same-language therapy be resumed as an alternative to ECT, but this request has been refused.

Alison Hymes (whose mental disability rights blog is really great), writing in comments at the Mental Disability Law Blog, sums it up:

So they’ve caused her brain damage, documented in her record, tried psychotherapy with someone who speaks her language for only a few weeks, and they call this treatment? She doesn’t speak English but has no Spanish speaking MH staff, you think that might impact her mental health????

This is state sanctioned torture and brain damage. I thought NY was doing better than this a few years back. We need a stronger advocacy system in NY, that’s clear, and more rights for patients in treatment over objection hearings.

4. Who you can write.

Reclusive Leftist has the contact information for four New York politicians who should be emailed, faxed, called or emailed asking them to intervene on Simone G’s behalf.

(It’s via R.L. that I learned of Simone G’s case. She heard it in turn via Writhe Safely, which is annoyingly anti-feminist which I think is unfair to feminists (the post blames feminists for not knowing about an issue that has received zero media coverage; I think it would make more sense to blame the media) but I can totally understand why she’s pissed off, even though I think her anger is aimed a bit in the wrong direction. The Mental Feminist also has a post up.)

(Edited a bit to try and fix my phasing in the link to Writhe Safely. For the record, I don’t think she’s an anti-feminist at all. She seems like a cool person; I just disagree with how she wrote one post.)

  1. Including “ECT” or “electroconvulsive treatment,” which seems to bear approximately the same relationship to “electroshock” that “intelligent design” bears to “creationism.” (back)
  2. Burstow, Bonnie. “Understanding And Ending ECT: A Feminist Imperative.” In Canadian Woman Studies, aka Les Cahiers De La Femme, vol. 25 (1,2), p. 115-122. (.pdf link.) (back)
  3. ”ECT” stands for “electroconvulsive treatment,” a form of electroshock. (back)
  4. I’ve edited out endnotes and citation details from this passage. Citation: Breggin, Peter (1998). “Electroshock: scientific, ethical, and political issues.” In The International Journal of Risk And Safety In Medicine, vol. 11, p 5-40. (.pdf Link.) (back)
  5. ”Sham ECT” refers to faking ECT treatment but not actually shocking the patient. It’s the equivalent of treating patients with a sugar pill rather than a drug. (back)
  6. From Burstow, page 120: “Whenever a relatively new area is taken up, it is easy to assume that the identical structural dynamics that apply to other issues apply to this one. Indeed, I have heard feminists who know little about ECT claim that working class women and women of colour are in greater jeopardy of electroshock. As demonstrated in Breggin (1997) and numerous other sources, the reality is markedly different. The primary target is middleclass white women. While is it important to start theorizing why this is the case and theorize it with an antiracist and anti-capitalist awareness, it is essential that we educate with this reality in mind.” (back)

A Few More Links About Female Genital Cutting

Posted by Ampersand | July 12th, 2007

Following up on Mandolin’s recent posts here on “Alas,” here are a few more discussions of the complexities of Female Genital Cutting (aka Female Genital Mutilation and Female Genital Surgery):

Official Shrub dot com: Why I Cringe When Western Feminists Discuss FGC

This is not to say that Western feminists ought to ignore FGC, or never examine patriarchal tendencies in societies outside of our own. This is not to say that all examinations of FGC by Western feminists are innately imperialist. What I am saying is that we ought to be very careful of the judgments we make in the name of feminism, when that feminism can be used to obscure our own complicity in imperialism.

To return once again to Razack, she quotes from Isabelle Gunning to list some basic necessities for feminist analyses of international human rights: “1) seeing oneself in historical context; 2) seeing oneself as the “other” might see you; and 3) seeing the “other” within her own cultural context” (97). These steps do not give us a complete guide on how to avoid perpetuating imperialism through our feminism - but they’re a start.

ThinkNaughty: Female Genital Cutting, Sexuality, and Anti-FGC Advocacy

Interesting post from last year pointing out that many women who have had FGC don’t consider themselves “victims.” As I wrote in ThinkNaughty’s comments last year, though, I think this post, in trying to point out that the issue is more multifaceted than Western critics acknowledge, goes too far in the opposite direction by not quoting local female activists who oppose FGC.

How Pledge Associations Can End Female Genital Cutting

This essay by academic Gerry Mackie describes “pledge associations,” a strategy that historically worked to end footbinding in China — and is working to end FGC in some communities today. Mackie’s argument is that FGC, like foot-binding, is to a great extent perpetuated by the need for marriageability; the practice continues because parents and daughters fear that an uncut daughter will not be able to get married. Even parents who don’t themselves approve of FGC often still practice FGC, because to do otherwise is to risk ruining their daughters’ chances of marriage. But when a critical mass of people in a community jointly pledge to end FGC, that allows people to quit practicing FGC with reassurance that their daughters will remain marriageable.

If Mackie is to be believed, pledge associations — group, public declarations that a practice will be ended — were critical to ending Chinese footbinding, and are now working to end FGC.

Here’s a brief quote from Mackie’s essay that I’m including mainly because it dovetails with Mandolin’s posts:

Nondirective education works. Harsh propaganda backfires. The example of footbinding suggests, however, that it is appropriate in some circumstances for outsiders to state their opposition to FGC, but only if such opposition is factual, understanding, and respectful.

Suppose that a law professor is charged with the task of eliminating automobile usage in Los Angeles, and proposes this strategy: legal prohibition enforced by serious penalty. Because the professor has provided no alternative method of transportation, no one can stop driving. Because no one is able to stop driving, police and prosecutors will not waste their time picking out some poor Joe Blow for punishment. But there will black marks on a white page to satisfy the irate Oregonians and Bangladeshi who demand that the Angelenos stop their destructive driving habits. Criminal law works because thieves and murderers are a minority of the population that the state can afford to pursue with the cooperation of the majority of the population. It is not possible to criminalize the entirety of the population, or the entirety of a discrete and insular minority of the population, without the methods of mass terror. Reactance complicates the problem. The example of footbinding shows that legal prohibition comes at the end of the process of abandonment, not at its beginning. Legal prohibition that is not the expression of local popular will on the subject is ineffective if not undemocratic. Europe and America have every right to prohibit FGC among their inhabitants, however, because FGC is a mistaken practice, and also because the children of the immigrants aspire to participate in their uncut host societies…

Larvatus Provodeo: Putting Her Money Where Her Mouth Is

Kim at Larvatus Provodeo is looking for a few good comments on FGC — and she’s willing to pay for them.

For every comment on this post which discusses the issue seriously without turning it into a political football, attributing motives to bloggers or indulging in disputation about religion, politics, culture wars, or clashes of or within civilisations, I will donate two dollars to The Foundation for Women’s Health, Research and Development up to a maximum of two hundred dollars.

As far as I can tell, Kim hasn’t reached her limit and her offer hasn’t been closed, so go leave a comment.

* * *

The point of these discussions, in my opinion, is not to say that there’s nothing we can do to bring about a major reduction in FGC. Rather, the point is that what’s most effective may be different from what seems most uncompromising and hardcore. It’s right that Western feminists feel anger and horror at FGC, but we have to be careful that our approach to FGC remains effective, aware of the problems of colonialism and racism, and serves women — rather than serving our own need to feel like we’re doing something.

As I wrote in comments of Mandolin’s post, it’s mistaken for Americans to think that we have the ability to change whatever we want about other cultures, if only we’re determined enough. (See: Iraq.) Very often there is no beneficial solution the US has the ability to implement. Even in cases where US motives are not imperialistic, we still have only limited power to make real improvements.

When it comes to FGC, if there’s any alternative in which we can prevent untold numbers of girls being mutilated and dying, then obviously that is what we must favor. But I don’t see any sign that such an alternative exists; and as Mandolin argued, there’s good reason to think that western pressure on the Egyptian and other governments to institute bans makes things worse, leading to more mutilation and death.

Curtsies to Katie and to The Rook’s Not To Blame for the links.

The Least Segregated Cities for Latinos in 2000

Posted by Rachel S. | July 11th, 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 Latinos, and it’s only measuring urban segregation.  I am preparing future posts on Asians and Native Americans, and you can read the previous posts on

 The analysis of Latinos only 36 metro areas met the Census criteria for analysis–the number was 43 metros for blacks.

All data comes from the US Census Bureau

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

  1. St. Louis
  2. Seattle, Bellevue, Everett
  3. Fort Lauderdale, FL
  4. Portland, Vancouver
  5. Baltimore

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

  1. St. Louis
  2. Baltimore
  3. Seattle, Bellevue, Everett
  4. New Orleans
  5. Portland, Vancouver

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

  1. Nassau, Suffolk (Long Island, NY)
  2. Tampa, St. Petersburg, Clearwater
  3. Orange County, CA
  4. Detroit
  5. Baltimore

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

  1. Oakland, CA
  2. Naussau, Suffolk (Long Island, NY)
  3. Orange County, CA
  4. Newark 
  5. Baltimore

5 Least Clustered Metros

  1. St. Louis
  2. Baltimore
  3. Seattle, Bellevue, Everett
  4. New Orleans
  5. Portland, Vancouver

Overal Least Segregated for Latinos (Averaging ranks for all 5 major dimensions) Drumroll…..

  1. Baltimore
  2. St. Louis
  3. Fort Lauderdale, FL
  4. Nassau, Suffolk (Long Island, NY)
  5. Tampa, St. Petersburg, Clearwater
  6. Detroit
  7. Seattle, Bellevue, Everett
  8. Atlanta
  9. Oakland, CA
  10. Cleveland, Lorain, Elyria

A few points for discussion:

By this point in our analysis of the most segregated cities readers should notice a trend for the least segregated metro areas–the cities with relatively small percentages of a group tend to have lower levels of segregation for such groups.  Of course this is not always true, but it is frequently the case.  For example, St. Louis and Detroit aren’t well known for their Latino populations in part because they are relatively small.  Just as the black population in Orange County, CA or Portland, Oregon are relatively small, but these cities all rank as less segregated.  Of course, we have to ask, does less segregation necessarily mean that a particular city/metro would be a good place to live?  Is St. Louis really that welcoming for Latinos?  My guess is probably not.  Same for Detroit.  I attended school in Detroit, and I had several Latino friends and acquaintances, who were from other places like New York City or Texas.  Many of these friends missed having the variety of restaurants, shops, dance clubs, and other places that reflected their ethnic backgrounds.  I would not be surprised if a black person living in Seattle felt the same way.  I bring this up because I think integration/segregation is just one factor that affects the well being of people of color.

Now whites are a different story, since we can generally access products and services that cater to us in almost any place in the US.  This is why we really need to have data on whites that reflects white’s level of integration in these metro areas.

All things considered I’d rather be expelled from the Labour Party*

Posted by Maia | July 11th, 2007

I’d like to thank everyone who has posted and commented about James and Clint Heine’s comments.

Clint Heine appears to be claiming that he thought James was talking about masturbation (he also claims to know that James was only talking about masturbation too, although I’ve no idea how Clint could know that).

He seems to think that this would mean that there was no implications of non-consensual sexual activity in what James wrote.

He’s wrong.

James does not care about me as a person, he has no knowledge of, or interest in, my desires. His prescription of a dildo - whatever he imagined was done with it, was based on him, and what he wanted, not on me. To talk about sexual acts in a way that renders women’s desire invisible and irrelevant is to promote rape culture. To talk of ‘fixing’ a woman with a sexual act and ignore her desires is to threaten rape.

I’m aware that James, and Clint had no intention of taking any action, that discussion of sexual violence is just words to them. But the effect, and the intention, is to police women’s behaviour, with threats about what will happen if we don’t conform.

I promise to get back to things that aren’t about me tomorrow. I’ve still got a report on Angela Davis’s talk to write (although I’m afflicted by a kind of curse, whereby if I ever mention that I’m planning on writing a post on this blog then it’s guaranteed that I never actually get around to writing it).

* The post that Clint Heine and James were responding to was about an Australian unionist who called a boss a thieving parasite dog, and was expelled/suspended from the Australian Labor Party because of it.

“Make Love To The Razor” — various Sondheim bits from Youtube

Posted by Ampersand | July 10th, 2007

Serious Sondheim and “Into The Woods” fans might be interested in this… a “second midnight” song, from the first act, which was cut at some point. I assume this audio recording was made during a rehearsal; the accompaniment is just piano, but the people singing are the original Broadway cast.

Read the rest of this entry »

Right-Wing Blogger Says Feminist Should Be “Fixed” By Being Raped

Posted by Ampersand | July 10th, 2007

On his blog, Clint Heine and his readers discuss Maia. Responding to Heine calling Maia a “parasite” and suggesting she’s mentally ill, “James” wrote:

Nothing a big black dildo won’t fix……

To which Heine responded,

James…..!!! Nice suggestion, go over there and tell her that :)

I’m not going to bother rebutting anything Heine and his cohorts wrote; they’re not human beings, they’re maggots and worms, and I don’t debate maggots and worms. And yes, I realize Heine and his maggoty friends doubtless consider such comments “jokes,” because they’re too stupid to know what an actual sense of humor looks like.

(I do wonder if James or Heine could look his mother, sister or girlfriend in the face and tell her “Today I said a woman on welfare whose politics I disagree with could be fixed by raping her with a big black dildo. Don’t you agree that’s how these women should be fixed, Mom?” Maybe if they imagined that they could begin to develop a vestigial, wormish understanding of what’s wrong with their “joke.” But maybe not.)

But it’s worth noting that Clint Heine (his real name) has been in a position of leadership in New Zealand politics (he used to head up the youth wing of the ACT party, which is the most right-wing party in NZ).

And it’s worth noting that there’s nothing unusual about James’ and Heine’s remarks. It’s not uncommon for female bloggers, especially feminist bloggers, to have to deal with such oh-so-hilarious rape threat jokes. The purpose of these “jokes” is to remind uppity women (especially poor women and women of color) of their place. (The pathetic nature of men who feel driven to put uppity women in their place is, I trust, obvious.)

James and Heine themselves are so meager and unimportant they barely exist. But they and their fellow maggots create an environment in the blogosphere that women have to deal with; that is important, and it’s unfair, and it’s bigoted, and it fucking sucks.

UPDATE: Maia comments.

What Kinds Of Help Do Abused Men Need?

Posted by Ampersand | July 10th, 2007

[This post is a collection of comments I've read on "Alas" and on "Pandagon," which I thought it would be worthwhile to gather together. The first section is a comment I wrote on this thread in 2005. The other comments quoted are individually credited and linked. --Amp]

Many Men’s Rights Advocates (MRAs) demand that existing Domestic Violence (DV) shelters do more to assist male victims. Most Domestic Violence (DV) shelters feel that they can’t take in men because they can’t both allow in men and provide for the security of their female clients.

Some DV shelters have hotel vouchers or other such programs to help battered men; some don’t. I really think that if the MRAs would approach DV shelters with a spirit of cooperation –”we’d like you to have a hotel voucher program to help battered men, and we have a source of fundraising to make it happen, so that helping battered men doesn’t mean taking resources away from battered women” — they’d get a better response.

However, most MRAs are belligerent towards DV shelters and the people who work there. Most DV shelters are already turning away battered women and making due with insufficient staff due to lack of resources; into that situation comes stumbling some MRA folks who know nothing about DV shelters, who say, in essence, “You lying feminist bitches owe us help, and we don’t give a damn what it costs your current clients.” Is it any surprise that no fruitful relationships have resulted?

Despite this, as I said, many DV shelters do have voucher programs to help the rare battered men who needs help — because contrary to MRA mythology, most feminists aren’t man-hating monsters. But that there is DV help for men available is no credit to MRAs. Nor has any MRA organization, that I know of, made a point of seeking out those DV shelters that do help men and helping them with fundraising or other needs.

Ironically, if the MRAs were right - if there were as great a need for battered men’s shelters as there is for battered women’s shelters - then it would be a viable idea for MRAs to build their own shelter network, modeled on the work that feminists did building DV shelters. Fortunately, however, men aren’t that bad off, and in most areas of the country men’s shelters would die out for a lack of men needing their services.

For that reason - and here I disagree with many other feminists — helping the few battered men who need shelter-style help will probably have to be something added on to what already existing DV agencies do (conditional on doing so in a way that doesn’t take resources away from female victims). There simply isn’t enough “business” for a separate men’s network to be viable, and it’s morally necessary to help the (relatively rare) male victims, just as it is to help female victims.

But it’s not fair to demand that DV shelters divert already insufficient resources from battered women. If MRAs want existing DV shelters to expand what they’re doing to help men, then they’ll have to start working with existing DV workers in a respectful, reasonable fashion, including working on establishing grants to allow existing DV shelters to voluntarily add on or expand help for men. And I haven’t seen any sign that MRAs are willing to do that. (For more on what MRAs aren’t doing — at least, not that I’m aware of — see this comment by Robert.)

* * *

I thought this discussion of help for abused men, from a comments on Pandagon, was interesting. First, a comment by Jesurgislac:

I agree that the lack of support for male victims of domestic violence is an issue. But it’s an issue best resolved by the folks complaining that there is no support for male victims of domestic violence turning to and setting up that support: helplines for men to call, appropriate support for men wanting to leave abusive partners. Because men tend to be in a very different financial/social position from women, whether men suffering from domestic violence are in same-sex or mixed-sex relationships, it’s unlikely that the same support provided for women would be at all appropriate — not to mention, that what’s needed is more support, not less.

To give an example: suppose a man in a heterosexual relationship finds that whenever his wife loses her temper, she punches him. Her blows are not life-threatening and never do worse than bruise. Talking to her about this gets him nowhere - she’s either angry or dismissive. He’s embarrassed to talk about it with anyone else he knows, because it just doesn’t fit his world view or anyone else’s he knows - women aren’t supposed to hurt their husbands. He thinks about divorce, but on the surface they’re happily married, and the thought of having to admit to a lawyer that he wants out because his wife leaves nasty bruises almost every week is just too humiliating. Besides, what would he tell the children? They see their mother hitting their father, but they have no idea it actually hurts him.

I wouldn’t say this man doesn’t deserve help: he does. But it would be inappropriate to offer him the same help as offered to a woman who’s being beaten by her husband: because he doesn’t need that kind of help. He needs help specifically tailored towards a man being abused in a hetero relationship….

Which was followed by this response from Paul:

Male privilege is also a powerful trap keeping men in abusive relationships. After all, how could a (mere) woman, who might not even be able to inflict lasting physical damage, be abusing a real man? Any man who considers himself abused must therefore be a wimp and a coward, and if he’d just suck it up everything would be fine. I think men have to figure out for themselves how to help other abused men, from consciousness-raising to the kinds of counseling and physical help that might be appropriate to dismantling the structures that make “traditional” relationships ripe for abuse. Right now we’re barely at the Masculine Mystique stage.

In 2005, in a comment that’s unfortunately no longer online, Bean wrote::

I have written before about DV shelters for men.

The shelter I currently work for was founded and started by feminists. We help women who are in need of confidential shelter due to domestic or sexual violence.

We don’t have any sort of “all men are evil” mentality. In fact, for many years our Children’s Program Coordinator was a man — he left recently to pursue his Master’s in Counseling, and we were all very, very sad to see him go. While many of the women were a bit startled (and a few were uncomfortable) with a man working there, for the most part it was an extremely positive experience, especially for the children who were able to have a healthy relationship with a man. While that particular man has left, we do still have a couple of men who volunteer there on a regular basis. They are great, and very much welcome.

However, we are able to do a much better screening/interviewing process for staff and volunteers than we are for residents. And, sadly, most abusers (men and women) are upset (to say the least) about losing control over their victims. They do everything in their power to find them. Abusers have been known to call the shelters looking for their victims, coming up with all sorts of stories (including claims of being police, family, and even victims, themselves). If we were to accept men, we would be greatly increasing the chances of allowing an abuser access to their victims and knowledge of where the confidential location is.

Also, staff and volunteers are not living at the shelter — which brings up a number of other issues.

Now, we do have times when a female resident is the victim of a female abuser — a partner, a family member, etc. There are also times that a male abuser could ask a female family member or friend to seek shelter in order to help him find his victim. And because of this, we have to take a lot of precautions when accepting women into the shelter, as well. Honestly, the vast majority of our residents have male abusers — so this isn’t as big of a concern. But it’s one we do take seriously. And women who are abusive to other residents (whether they knew them previously or not) are not allowed to stay at the shelter.

Allowing all men access to the shelter puts all of the residents, staff, and volunteers at risk, not just the victim of a particular abuser. The longer a shelter is in one location, the harder it is to maintain our confidentiality. We are at constant risk of abusers (past and present) of locating us and doing damage — to the shelter, our residents, and to ourselves. That’s why we have a number of safety precautions, one of which is not allowing men in as residents.

Now, some shelters take this further than others. Some shelters do not allow teen boys to stay at the shelter. The shelter I work at once had that policy, too — but we changed it several years ago. We now allow boys up through the age of 17 (so long as they are coming in with their mother). While I am extremely glad that we have this policy, and would have a hard time working at a shelter who didn’t allow this (knowing how many more women would have to be turned away), I have also seen the problems this can create. We have at times, for example, had teen boys (as children of the victim) who are older than some of our residents (for example, a 17-year-old boy with his mother and a 16-year-old teen mom). In addition, some of these teen boys look and act like men, and some are already exhibiting abusive behavior — this can be extremely intimidating to the women there. We deal with these cases on a case-by-case basis, doing whatever we feel will be best for the mom and the shelter.

When we have the funding for it, we will voucher a hotel room for a male victim. Of course, we have almost no funding, and have already had to shut down programs for women because of this. We have extremely limited staff and resources as it is.

In my time working for various DV agencies, I have had very, very few legitimate calls from men seeking help. And even then, most of them did not want to come to shelter, and actually were just calling to find resources specifically for male victims (and I referred them to a couple of those resources in our area — yes, they are there, although admittedly, there aren’t enough).

I just spoke to Bean; she wanted to add that one shelter in our area — Monika’s House in Washington County — provides shelter to battered men (as well as women). Bean’s current employer makes a conscious effort to use language in their materials that applies to male as well as female victims.

In a later comment in the same discussion, Silverside wrote:

In my opinion, the entire emergency shelter concept, as a concept, has its ups and downs. It’s good insofar as there is supportive staff right there at the location 24/7, and that it’s easier to conduct group support meetings. There is often better security for the inhabitants, through sometimes not. But I have often heard it said by shelter inhabitants (not to criticize the fine work that Bean and other shelter workers provide), that living in emergency shelter, like living in any emergency shelter, means losing your privacy, having to live by rules that often seem intruding and coldly institutional, and leaving the comforts and familiarity of your own home and belongings behind. Living with other people in crisis is not always conducive to your own mental health either. Sometimes I think there is something to be said for letting victims stay in their own homes and remove the abusers to another location. I have heard of victims returning home, partly because their children were doing so poorly in an unfamiliar environment, that they figured they might as well go back home and deal with the crap that’s familiar.

Frankly, if I were in crisis (think Katrina here), I’d much prefer a motel room where there’s peace and quiet than a noisy emergency shelter with other people’s traumatized kids running around. So I wouldn’t be so quick to buy into me-tooism. Vouchers are a very workable solution in areas where there is a small population in question, whether that’s in remote, very low-populated rural areas, or among specialized relatively small sub-populations of homeless persons, such as men, heterosexual or homosexual, who are rendered homeless and without resources, due to domestic violence.

It should be noted here, that abused women with resources -– better paying jobs, family resources, etc. — generally do choose other options other than emergency shelter. It is generally the solution of last resort. That’s one reason why men, who tend to have more money relative to women, would seldom choose to go into a shelter. You would not only have to have a male who was beaten by an intimate partner and afraid to stay in his home, but so devoid of resources (unemployed?) that he couldn’t go elsewhere. Apart from who hit who and how hard, the domination and control cycles that battered women experience also affects their ability to earn a living and be economically independent, something I have never seen claimed about abused men.

(In that discussion, Bean responded to Silverside, and in essence agreed with what Silverside wrote.)

I’m not making the comments feminist-only. Comments discussing the best ways to help abused men are welcome; comments about how eeeevvvvvvviilllll feminists are, either said explicitly or implied, are subject to being deleted without warning.

We’re here today in solidarity…*

Posted by Maia | July 9th, 2007

A Maori party representative has taken a stand for accurate analysis:

“All Howard has done is generate more anger and bitterness in the Aboriginal community, a lot of which is going to be internalised,” Mr Harawira said.

“I said John Howard is … trying to impose racist policies on a people who can’t fight back,”

The Stuff article on this has the word racist in scare quotes: “Aussie PM ‘racist’ Maori Party MP claims.” A policy that reduces benefit entitlements only to indigenous Australians, steals land, and invades communities is racist, we don’t need MPs to point that out.

But naming racism is not enough, in days like these. If you live in Australia you must go to your local solidarity demonstration on July 14 (Melbourne details here and other cities here.

In Wellington there are going to be two demostrations one on Friday 13th from 12.30pm to 1.30pm outside the Australian embassy. The second will be a march meeting at Midland park at 12pm, and ending at Te Aro park.

*A friend of mine, I’ll call him Manuel, was once on the megaphone at an anti-roading demo and started “We’re here today in solidarity with the people of Iraq..” he realised what he said and said “Oh shit, oh well it’s all connected anyway.” Which is true enough, but I’ve never let him forget it.

Edited: Apparently Truthiness doesn’t mean what I think it means - I had a vague feeling I was quoting Buffy, apparently not.

Links About The Jena Six

Posted by Ampersand | July 9th, 2007

From a Countercurrents article written by a civil rights attorney:

On Friday night, December 1, a black student who showed up at a white party was beaten by whites. On Saturday, December 2, a young white man pulled out a shotgun in a confrontation with young black men at the Gotta Go convenience store outside Jena before the men wrestled it away from him. The black men who took the shotgun away were later arrested, no charges were filed against the white man.

On Monday, December 4, at Jena High, a white student – who allegedly had been making racial taunts, including calling African American students “niggers” while supporting the students who hung the nooses and who beat up the black student at the off-campus party – was knocked down, punched and kicked by black students. The white victim was taken to the hospital treated and released. He attended a social function that evening.

Six black Jena students were arrested and charged with attempted second degree murder.

Were the arrested students — including Mychal Bell, who was found “guilty” last week but has not yet been sentenced — actually the ones who assaulted Justin Barker? Maybe (although even if so, this is an appalling overreaction to a school fight) — but we can’t really know, because Mychal Bell wasn’t given a fair trial.

Bell’s court-appointed attorney didn’t call any witnesses, object to the all-white jury, bring up inconsistancies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses, or bring up evidence in Bell’s favor. Nor, as far as I can tell, did he object to the prosecution bumping up the charges by arguing that wearing sneakers qualified the incident as “assault with a deadly weapon.”

From BlackAmericaWeb’s story:

“His court-appointed defense lawyer didn’t present a defense. He rested the case without challenging the prosecution’s story,” Alan Bean of the Texas-based Friends of Justice told BlackAmericaWeb.com. “He never said the young man was innocent. He only told the jury, ‘You should find him not guilty.’”

Bell, who is 16, could potentially be in prison until he turns 40.

This post at The Friends of Justice blog has the most detailed account of the case, and of Bell’s trial, I’ve yet read.

Here’s a petition you can sign, requesting that the Department of Justice begin a civil rights investigation of events in Jena, Alabama Louisiana.

Elle, Phd has a list of suggested actions you can take, plus links to a couple of videos.

While Seated has original reporting from Mychal Bell’s trial in Jena, including photographs.

Least Segregated Cities For Blacks in 2000

Posted by Rachel S. | July 8th, 2007

In my continuing posts on segregation, I am adding lists of the least and most segregated metro areas for Blacks, Latinos, Asians, and Native Americans.  I’m posting the least segregated metros for each group here at Alas, and I’ll post both the least and most segregated cities at Rachel’s Tavern.

This post is a follow-up to an earlier post, you can look at this post from a few days ago 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 Blacks, and it’s only measuring urban segregation.  I am preparing future posts Asians, Latinos and Native Americans.

All data comes from the US Census Bureau

5 Most Even Metro Areas (cities where blacks are most evenly spread; the statistical formula represents the percent of people who would have to move for the group to be evenly distributed across the metro area)

  1. Orange County, CA
  2. San Jose
  3. Phoenix, Mesa
  4. Riverside, San Bernadino, CA
  5. Norfolk, Virginia Beach, Newport News

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

  1. Orange County, CA 
  2. San Jose
  3. Portland, Vancouver
  4. Phoenix, Mesa
  5. Seattle, Bellevue, Everett

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

  1. Orange County, CA
  2. Atlanta
  3. Norfolk, Virginia Beach, Newport News
  4. Phoenix-Mesa
  5. Cincinnati

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

  1. Nassau, Suffolk (Long Island, NY)
  2. Orange County, CA
  3. Oakland, CA
  4. Tampa, St. Petersburg, Clearwater
  5. Newark

5 Least Clustered Cities

  1. Orange County, CA
  2. San Jose
  3. Phoenix, Mesa
  4. Portland, Vancouver
  5. Seattle, Bellevue, Everett

The 10 Least Segregated Cities (Averaging all five dimensions of segregation)

  1. Orange County California
  2. San Jose
  3. Norfolk-Virginia Beach
  4. Tampa, St. Petersburg, Clearwater
  5. San Diego
  6. Providence, Fall River, Warwick
  7. Seattle, Bellevue, Everett
  8. San Antonio
  9. Oakland, CA
  10. San Francisco

A few notes final notes:

The western US does very well, in particular California’s suburban areas. Southern cities do better than most people would expect.  They tend to be in the middle of the pack, but they lean toward the less segregated side. I also think the centralization measure really doesn’t work well when the metro area is a suburban area, since they are not organized around a central core.  The Nassau Suffolk area, only scores well on centralization because the 3-4 towns with large black populations are not close to each other, and there is no central area since it is all suburbs.  In fact, that same metro area is the 10th most segregated on eveness (which is the most commonly used measure of segregation).  Atlanta is also an interesting case because it does very well on concentration, which reflects the large number of predominantly black suburban areas in Atlanta.  However, the reason Atlanta doesn’t do as well on the other measures is because the individual towns themselves are often relatively segregated.

I know some people will be tempted to say, hey I’ve been to _____ and it is fairly segregated.  Keep in mind this is just how the cities compare to each other, and the segregation numbers for African Americans are considerably higher than they are for all other minority groups.  For example, in Orange County, CA, which is by far the least segregated area on almost every dimension, 37% of African Americans would have to move to other areas for African Americans to be evenly spread throughout the area. The overall average number of people who would have to move for the group (we’re talking ALL metro areas) to be evenly spread throughout the metro area is 64% for blacks, 50% for Latinos, 41% for Asians, and 33% for American Indians and Alaska Natives.

Correction to Previous Post: Writing the Other is by Nisi Shawl and Cynthia Ward

Posted by Mandolin | July 8th, 2007

In a previous post, I attributed a concept that’s presented in Writing the Other to the writer Nisi Shawl. Shawl did not write the book alone; she collaborated with another writer, Cynthia Ward. I should have attributed the concept to both of them. I apologize for my error.

(I actually misremembered the concept as having been attributed specifically to Nisi in the book, but having gone back and reread, I see my memory was faulty.)

Anyway, Writing the Other is an amazing book. I refer to it all the time in my writing and teaching. If anyone hasn’t read it, I recommend recommend recommend.

Again, apologies to Ms. Ward.

Universal Health Care & Personal Health Concerns

Posted by Mandolin | July 8th, 2007

On a pandagon thread about socialized medicine, a commenter called Catty writes, “I know 2 die-hard libertarians that are now universal health care supporters. Funny how problems like multiple sclerosis and cancer can change people’s minds.”

I have always supported universal health care, but jesus fuck she’s right.

A couple weeks ago, I started having some strange symptoms. Last week, I went to the ER to speak to a physician, and she said the things I didn’t want to hear — namely, that my symptoms were consonant with two bad diagnoses: diabetic neuropathy and multiple sclerosis.

I have since been to my regular physician who is not nearly so concerned. I am still being checked for diabetes, but she’s holding off on the MRI to diagnose for multiple sclerosis for now. We’re first looking into other possible causes which are much more benign, such as hypothyroidism, advanced anemia, migraine, and anxiety.

I am an incredibly privileged woman. I’ve never been without health care. My health insurance is incredibly good. I pay $5 for doctor visits, and $5 for medications. I’ve always known that my health insurance was great, but I don’t think it’s ever really hit home for me how much uninsured people have to pay for their health care — not just going into debt, but going bankrupt, becoming homeless, and sometimes having to make the difficult decision to let themselves or their loved ones die from treatable illnesses.

Another commenter called Jodie relates the following story, “My 27 year old brother in law developed an intense headache on a Thursday, dx’d as brain tumor after an MRI, had surgery, went to intensive care, had chemo, and died prior to the next Thursday. Cost after insurance: $280,000 (at last count, I don’t think all the bills are in yet)… That bill was amassed in less than a week.”

Note: After insurance.

Other commenters discuss surgery for marrow transplants coming in at $250,000, refills for cancer drugs being in the thousands of dollars, a course of treatment for a major illness costing hundreds of thousands. Canadian commenters relate how relieved they are to live in Canada, after considering the ramifications of the major illnesses in their lives should they happen to have been American and uninsured. When a parent, a sibling, and another close relative are sick, often the whole family can’t find enough money to fund health care for all of them, even when they go into debt. They must choose bankruptcy or death.

Treatment for uninsured people is abominable. Uninsured people often have no choice but to obtain their health care through emergency room visits, which are phenomenally expensive. Pandagon commenters report paying $300-1,200 for emergency room visits, for things as routine as obtaining antibiotics for a bladder infection. One commenter notes that his $320 physical meant that he had to put off paying his bills for a month.

Facing debt, uninsured people often put off going to the doctor until their dieases have progressed beyond treatment. Worse, if they do go, they may be ignored. Pandagon recently reported incidents of uninsured people being left to die in hospital emergency rooms.

In the emergency room at Martin Luther King Jr.-Harbor Hospital, Edith Isabel Rodriguez was seen as a complainer.

“Thanks a lot, officers,” an emergency room nurse told Los Angeles County police who brought in Rodriguez early May 9 after finding her in front of the Willowbrook hospital yelling for help. “This is her third time here.”

The 43-year-old mother of three had been released from the emergency room hours earlier, her third visit in three days for abdominal pain. She’d been given prescription medication and a doctor’s appointment.

Turning to Rodriguez, the nurse said, “You have already been seen, and there is nothing we can do,” according to a report by the county office of public safety, which provides security at the hospital.

Parked in the emergency room lobby in a wheelchair after police left, she fell to the floor. She lay on the linoleum, writhing in pain, for 45 minutes, as staffers worked at their desks and numerous patients looked on.

Aside from one patient who briefly checked on her condition, no one helped her. A janitor cleaned the floor around her as if she were a piece of furniture. A closed-circuit camera captured everyone’s apparent indifference.

Arriving to find Rodriguez on the floor, her boyfriend unsuccessfully tried to enlist help from the medical staff and county police — even a 911 dispatcher, who balked at sending rescuers to a hospital.

Alerted to the “disturbance” in the lobby, police stepped in — by running Rodriguez’s record. They found an outstanding warrant and prepared to take her to jail. She died before she could be put into a squad car.

At the same hospital, in 2003, “20-year-old Oluchi Oliver waited hours to be admitted to the hospital with crippling stomach pains, according to his family. After 10 hours, he collapsed dead on the floor. No one noticed, his father, Akilah Oliver, said.”

I had a brief hiccup with my insurance coverage the day I decided to go into the ER, and it looked like I might not be covered at all. (Now, I’m covered by two health care plans.) I almost didn’t go in. My mother told me I had to go in, that they’d find a way to fund it if I were sick. We are extremely well-off for the United States, but I doubt that even we could find a way to pay $250,000 if I didn’t have insurance and needed a marrow transplant.

I’m watching my reactions as I read this Pandagon thread. I am so scared. I probably don’t have MS. I’m repeating this to myself as a mantra. My other mantra involves facts about MS. If I do have MS, I have all the indicators of a good prognosis. I am young, white, and female. If I do have MS, it’s extremely likely that I have the type that remits, instead of the type that progresses until you die. Hell, 15% of people who have MS never suffer a second attack.

And there are drugs! One of my fiance’s professors told him about two people she knows with MS, who were diagnosed in their thirties, and who now, in their fifties, have been kept symptom-free with drugs. I called one of my friends who is in medical school, and he told me to remember that both MS and diabetic neuropathy require lifestyle changes, but may not affect life quality.

Even in the worst case scenario, I’ll be okay. That’s not enough to keep me from worrying or being depressed, but it’s good news. Nevertheless, I’m a basket case as I wait for my blood test results.

I can’t imagine how much worse it would be if I didn’t know how I was going to pay for the medical expenses of my doctor visits, my blood tests, my MRIs, my visits with the neurologist and/or dietician. Without insurance, would I be able to afford those drugs that could keep the multiple sclerosis in check, preventing me from losing the use of my limbs, my speech, and my brain?

I don’t understand how anyone can oppose universal health care. A libertarian in that thread is spouting off strange talking points. Some are demonstrably false. Countries with socialized health care do not have more bureacracy than we do; they have less, because hospitals don’t have to deal with insurance claims. They don’t have longer wait times than we do. They don’t force patients into predetermined courses of treatment. The cost in taxes is more, but studies have shown that while taxes are higher in many countries with socialized medicine, the American middle class ends up screwed with their lower tax rate — because we have pay not only our taxes, but we also have to pay through the nose to privately fund things that countries like Sweden provide for free. We end up paying a huge amount more, just so we can claim that we have lower taxes.

One of his talking points is that he doesn’t feel he should be forced to help people who are less fortunate. Does he understand that he’s talking about people who will die without his help? Help that he will benefit from, because he as a middle class American would pay less if taxes were higher but provided more services? Someday, he may have a medical emergency, and god forbid he should be denied his insurance. He may bankrupt himself and his whole family. If he chooses to finish treatment, he might lose his home. We might force him, as we force others, to choose between the basic necessity of shelter, and death.

Meanwhile, he can’t even imagine those scenarios. Over and over again, he talks about the undue burden that would be placed on him if he had to help other people. He can’t imagine himself in their shoes. If he can imagine their pain, he doesn’t care. What a strange, frightening lack of empathy. What a limited view of the world.

My empathy is heightened right now, because of course this medical issue has me sensitized to issues of my own mortality. It’s odd to move from the life in which I thought of myself as healthy, to the life a few days later when I realize that I could have a progressive and debilitating illness.

I don’t want to be going through this. I want to feel safe and well again. Hopefully, my diagnosis will be benign, and soon I will be feeling safe and well again. Even if I have MS, I am sure that eventually my sense of weakness, fear and vulnerability would dull, and my illness would become just another part of my life. That’s another thing I’ve been repeating to myself for the past couple weeks. Studies show that paraplegics are just as happy one year after their injury as they were before it occured. People are amazingly adaptive; anything can become ordinary. If they are equally happy after that, then I will surely be equally happy even if my diagnosis is MS.

I am so amazingly lucky to be worrying only about my health. If I were worried that I was about to bankrupt my loved ones, and that I wouldn’t be able to afford life-saving care, this painful experience would become a constant waking nightmare. Any person who would wish that on other people is both monstrous and lacking in empathy.

UPDATE to post on Egyptian Ban of Female Genital Surgeries: Ban Intended to Salve Westerners, Not to Prevent FGS

Posted by Mandolin | July 8th, 2007

I wanted to include this information in yesterday’s post on Female Genital Surgeries, but my googling failed to provide the source. Enormous thanks to Ampersand for turning it up, based on my vague description.

*

Recently, I wrote about the many ways in which western intervention on the topic of female genital surgeries has backfired. Circumcision has been practiced on younger and younger girls. It has been forced into ever more covert circumstances, increasing the risk of fatal bleeding and HIV infection. Female genital surgeries have become, in some places, a badge of African pride, a defining part of African identity — and this is clearly traceable to ham-fisted Western efforts to eradicate it. Groups which never practiced female circumcision have taken it up, putting thousands more girls and women at risk.

On the surface, the Egyptian ban looks different. After all, the ban isn’t being imposed by colonial forces. It’s been internally generated.

Sort of.

First off, the ban is not what it has been advertised as. It is not a ban on “female genital mutilation.” It is not illegal for parents to seek their daughters’ circumcision. What has been made illegal is for FGS to be practed by doctors, in public or private hospitals.

The original form of this ban was conceived in 1996, after an incident two years earlier in which CNN showed footage of a thirteen-year-old screaming as her clitoris was cut out by a barber. Egypt was embarrassed by the footage, which outraged westerners, who in turn threatened to withdraw foreign aid.

In its original form, the ban would have forced physicians to educate any family that came to them with a request for female genital surgeries. Doctors were to apprise families of the health risks that make such procedures an enormously bad idea. If families insisted on carrying out the procedure, they would be taken to a hospital where the girls would be given proper anasthetic and surgical care, managing the enormous pain of having one’s external genitals removed and also helping to prevent the high rates of infection and death that result from amateur surgeons wielding non-sterile equipment.

American groups such as Equality Now rebelled against what they called the “medicalization” of clitoridecomy, and said they would give no foreign aid to hosptials where hte procedure was performed.

This led to a reconception of the ban, which prohibited clitorodectomy in public hosptials, although it was still permitted in private ones. Eventually, the ban was extended to include all licensed medical practitioners, although it left an out for “extreme circumstances.” This ban enabled Egyptian hospitals to retain foreign aid, at the expense of Egyptian girls’ health. Remember: this is a country in which 97% of women are cut. Even among the educated upper and middle classes where the incidence of FGS is reduced, the men who authored the ban almost certainly have modified daughters, wives, and sisters; the women were likely to have been cut themselves. They were aware that demand for the procedure was unlikely to lessen, a fact which they had attempted to address by building in educational and safety measures into the original form of the ban.

In 1997, this ban was challenged in a religious court which landed it back in the news. (All the scholars I’ve read agree that FGS is not required by Islam. However, there remain interpretations that suggest that FGS is part of a decent, observant Islamic lifestyle.) The ban managed to stand.

The newest form of the ban, the report of which on Pandagon and Feministe is what triggered this conversation, came recently in response to the death of a 12-year-old girl whose death (according to the Yahoo article) may have been linked to misuse of anasthetic. The new ban eliminates the “extreme circumstances” provision that remained in the previous ban. I do not have enough information to say whether that specific change will put more girls at risk.

This ban is not an internal attempt by Egyptians to try to change their own culture. It does not appear to be a response to a changing sentiment in which feelings about female genital surgeries have changed. Instead, it appears to be a ban made in the mold of the earlier colonial bans, in which westerners attempt to impose their feelings about female genital surgeries on a population over which they have (economic) power, without first examining the consequences of that ban.

Egytptians themselves first tried to implement a solution which is closer to the solutions that the activists who are involved in actually trying to change conditions on African soil have discovered to have a real, measurable effect on the practice. However, westerners prevented them from enacting legislation that would have ameliorated real world conditions, in favor of demanding an impressive, symbollic ban.

In demanding an immediate and complete solution, instead of acknowledging the reality that will involve years of hard work and moral ambiguity, westerners have unwittingly played into the hands of those who wish to continue female genital surgeries. The current iteration of the ban was never intended to actually eliminate female genital surgeries. It does not ban the common procedures wherein barbers wield razor blades on girls who lie prone, without anasthetic — even though it was a barber who conducted the mutilation that shocked the west when it was caught on video in 1994.

No, the current ban is intended to appease westerners, and is remarkably effective at doing so. A ban sounds like it’s accomplishing something. It sounds good when it is on the headline of a newspaper, or coming from the lips of a TV news reporter. It sounds decisive and impressive. It makes a good blog link. It creates a feeling of progress. We can say FGM is banned, and we can feel hope about the situation in Egypt. Enthusiastically, westerners continue to provide foreign aid because we feel that our activism has accomplished something.

Meanwhile, 97 out of 100 Egyptian girls will have their clitorises cut out. Most of these procedures will happen in unsanitary conditions, without anasthesia, with equipment wielded by unpracticed hands. The imposition of this ban, instead of the earlier form favored by the Egyptian government, ensures that those surgeries will be brutal and dangerous.

On this side of the ocean, one of the most pernicious side effects of this ban is that it creates a sense of accomplishment in armchair western activists, because it gives off the air of a job well done. FGS is banned in Egypt — keep giving them money. Don’t look at the ways in which this ban fails to stop any female genital surgeries, and in facts makes the actual surgeries worse. Only look at the big, symbollic law.

This ban gets in the way of effective activism, because it appears to be doing something while doing nothing. It offers us a black and white solution, while conveniently hiding away the shades of grey that we we would have been required to face if the initial Egyptian proposals had been enacted. Westerners — perhaps all people — have a great liking for black and white thinking. We enjoy symbols. This is the kind of thinking that makes us think we can pound terrorists into submission with bombs. Drop bombs on them and they won’t dare to resist us! But of course we know that’s not the way things work. When you pound people with bombs, even the ones who were sympathetic to you become terrorists. You make the situation worse. This is true even when the goal is more feminist — you don’t get people to stop using burkhas by dropping bombs on them either. Instead, you end up with a lot of women who are wearing burkhas and terrified for their lives and their families. And you also end up with women who are veiling to show their solidarity to the women who are being bombed, just as you end up with women who practice female genital surgeries to show that they defy colonialist power. Via colonialism, the western world has treated Africa really shittily. They are understandably wary when we tell them something is “for their own good.” Why should they believe us if we’re willing to threaten to defund their hospitals and treat them like moral infants, instead of treating them like rational actors who we need to convince?

As liberals, we are supposed to be better trained in detecting these fallacies. After all, there have been studies showing that liberals are better able to conceive of ambiguities. We know enough about our culture to pick them up when they’re happening in our society. What makes us look at a foreign culture and suddenly see in two dimensions? It’s a bad habit, supported by racism and colonialism.

Using the threat of withdrawing foreign moneys can be an effective tool, as famously exemplified in divestment from South Africa. I’m not sure that it’s as reasonable to threaten to withdraw charity money as it is to withdraw business investments, but leaving that aside for the moment — probably there is a way to deal with our financial involvement in Egypt ethically, and to try to pressure their government to do something about female genital surgeries.

But we have to be smart about it, not act like big stupid bullies. Demanding that they do things exactly our way, instead of listening to their more knowledgeable ideas about how to change their culture — that’s stupid. Demanding that they change everything immediately and accepting no intermediate steps, thus putting them in a situation where it’s impossible to actually make productive change — that’s stupid. Dictating an end point instead of convincing people of your point of view — that’s stupid, too. And all of these things just complicate the post-colonial relationship between America and Egypt, and make it less likely that our word is going to count for anything. “STOP PERFORMING FGM!” means less than a statistic that shows clitoridectomy kills 15% more mothers and infants than intact childbirth. If we really want to accomplish our goals of worldwide health and prosperity for women, rather than just congratulate ourselves on meaningless and shiny symbols, then we’re going to have to stow away our arrogance for a while and actually look for practical, efficacious measures.

On The Air, Journalist Refuses To Lead News With Paris Hilton Story

Posted by Ampersand | July 7th, 2007

YouTube: Journalist Refuses To Lead News With Paris Hilton Story

Good for Mika Brzezinski!

What the video doesn’t make clear is that this is three different incidents, each taking place an hour apart; Brzezinski reads the news at 7am, 8am and 9am, and each time the producer handed her a script with Paris Hilton as the lead story. Each time she refused to read it; the first time simply refusing (the male co-hosts goading her on), the second time trying to set the script on fire (the male host physically grabbed the script from her hands), and the third time theatrically shredding the script.

Kinda a shame that the co-hosts (or whatever) on the program marred her protest by acting like sexist, condescending buffoons throughout.

Check out this interview with Brzezinski about the incident (apparently she’s gotten overwhelmingly positive reactions). And a thematically related Youtube Link, in which MSNBC makes it crystal clear what they think the real news of the day is.

Curtsy: Pandagon.