Good morning!
I seem to be in a bloggy mood lately. I can't remember the last time I wrote this consistently within a month. I think that can be attributed primarily to my job sitting at a computer with very little to do. I'm hoping that my occupational situation will change soon and I won't have this problem, but I'm not holding my breath.
Anyway, I wanted to jot down a quick note about a quote that I just find overall annoying..."Woman was taken out of man; not out of his head to top him, nor out of his feet to be trampled underfoot; but out of his side to be equal to him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be loved."
Now, I know this quote comes from a place of benevolent paternalism, but that doesn't make the sexist implications any less real. We all know the creation story this comes from...even if you aren't Christian or from a Christian family, you've probably heard it because our society is so saturated with Christian beliefs. I'm not going to get into a feminist analysis of the Christian creation story, mostly because that doesn't really interest me and also because it's been done. (But I will note that I love the bumper stickers that say "Eve was framed.")
The problem I have with this quote is that it is all about equality...(not to top him, not to be trampled underfoot, but to be equal) and then also says that the woman must be protected. These two premises are inherently contradictory. You cannot be equal to someone and also expect to be protected by him/her. If you need to be protected, you are at a disadvantage.
I've had this discussion with friends before. The argument they put forth is that you can be in an egalitarian heterosexual relationship where the woman's opinions and actions are respected and validated, but she still seeks to feel protected and safe with her male partner. (It's sort of confusing for me, personally, because I do feel safe with Ronald, but I don't seek to be protected...so I feel like there's a difference.)
But whenever this topic comes up, I insist that the relationship cannot truly be egalitarian because there is still this protection factor going on. And my particular friend who I was talking about this with insisted that wanting to be protected by her boyfriend didn't make their relationship any less equal. I can't say there's a right answer in all of this, but it certainly makes me think. I respect my friend and her relationship greatly. I don't think either one of them unfairly exercise power over the other. But when this theme of the protection of women comes into play, it still concerns me.
I guess it goes back to what benevolent paternalism is really all about...it doesn't matter if the sexism comes from a place of genuine concern for women as opposed to a hatred. If you believe that there is something inherently fragile about them, that's a problem. Benevolent paternalism is certainly less scary than misogyny...but sexism is sexism.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
I'm Awesome Day
In our society, as women, we are so frequently encouraged to disparage ourselves. It starts at a very young age, and in a way such that most girls don't even realize they're doing it. However, once it is brought to our attention, we suddenly realize just how prevalent it is.
"My hair's a mess."
"Ugh. I feel so fat today."
"I look like crap."
"My boobs are so small."
"My ass is huge."
How many of us have said things like this? How many of us heard other women saying these things? During my time with Girls Inc. of Indianapolis, I developed a program which is one of my proudest professional accomplishments. It is called Redefining Beauty. It's goal is simple: to teach girls to appreciate the bodies they have and to find non-appearance based ways to value their own beauty.
For one of the activities in this program, we examined these "bad body thoughts" (examples of which are listed above.) I asked girls how many of them have heard another girl or woman say something bad about her body. Without fail, every girl, every program raised her hand.
The facts were sobering, but not surprising. We, as women, continuously put ourselves down. (And myself, the developer of a program aimed at alleviating this very thing, included.) What's further interesting about it is how the negative comments are almost always totally body focused. When we look at it this way, we see that this self hatred is really about LOOKS. We've really got to be about redefining beauty...recognizing the whole litany of things that make us who we are and not (just) focusing on our bodies.
I want to start a movement...I want it to be called "I'm Awesome Day" (or something.) I want women across the world to take a moment to pause and reflect upon their strengths. In this spirit, I sat down and wrote 50 reasons why I'm awesome, below.
You should try it. It's strangely fun and therapeutic. And disappointingly hard at the same time. But either way, I think it's healthy...not only to remind each of us of the beautiful, unique person we are, but also to do some introspection. Do it! Have your own I'm Awesome Day.
1) I have passions that motivate me (social justice issues).
2) I am dedicated to life long learning.
3) I'm an excellent paper-writer.
4) I'm a loving wife.
5) I rarely give up on anything or anyone.
6) I'm incredibly loyal.
7) I have great taste in movies.
8) I take my education seriously and truly appreciate it.
9) I'm organized.
10) I'm funny.
11) I'm smart.
12) I'm a natural at parallel parking.
13) I can make beautiful jewelry (with the right supplies and resources!)
14) I'm a natural leader.
15) I'm fiercely independent.
16) I have great grammar.
17) I make wise decisions and I'm responsible.
18) I'm great with kids.
19) I'm not complacent.
20) I can do a hilarious Cher impression, but I only reveal it to my most trusted people.
21) I am a clean(ish) person. Getting better at least.
22) I'm a lovey drunk...but I don't drink often and when I do, it's never to excess.
23) I'm capable of putting myself in other people's shoes.
24) I properly use cliche's---and not too often.
25) I can find the beauty in others.
26) I value ethics over success.
27) It might take a while, but I can admit when I'm wrong.
28) Once I admit I'm wrong, I know how to apologize.
29) I have a fantastic shoe collection.
30) I'd rather be with people than be alone, but I 'd rather be alone than with the wrong people.
31) I choose love over hate.
32) I'm a critical thinker.
33) I'm realistic.
34) I have hopes and dreams for a great future.
35) So long as you deserve it, I will trust you.
36) I don't settle.
37) I make a mean baked mac n cheese.
38) I love to learn about new cultures.
39) I'm open minded...not as much as I could be, but I'm working on it.
40) I am confident.
41) I like to try new things...like foods and activities.
42) I value different view points, but I will make you logically defend your opinions.
43) I can logically defend my opinions.
44) I don't judge people on their race, gender, religion, socioeconomic status, looks, or sexuality. I let you show me who you are.
45) I try to be as helpful as possible.
46) I don't lie, but I'm not unnecessarily tactless either.
47) I'm not afraid to be different.
48) I don't define myself solely by my relationship to other people (wife, sister, daughter, etc.) but I do strive to be the best I can be in those roles.
49) I love fully.
50) I advocate for myself and others when I see what I feel is an injustice.
"My hair's a mess."
"Ugh. I feel so fat today."
"I look like crap."
"My boobs are so small."
"My ass is huge."
How many of us have said things like this? How many of us heard other women saying these things? During my time with Girls Inc. of Indianapolis, I developed a program which is one of my proudest professional accomplishments. It is called Redefining Beauty. It's goal is simple: to teach girls to appreciate the bodies they have and to find non-appearance based ways to value their own beauty.
For one of the activities in this program, we examined these "bad body thoughts" (examples of which are listed above.) I asked girls how many of them have heard another girl or woman say something bad about her body. Without fail, every girl, every program raised her hand.
The facts were sobering, but not surprising. We, as women, continuously put ourselves down. (And myself, the developer of a program aimed at alleviating this very thing, included.) What's further interesting about it is how the negative comments are almost always totally body focused. When we look at it this way, we see that this self hatred is really about LOOKS. We've really got to be about redefining beauty...recognizing the whole litany of things that make us who we are and not (just) focusing on our bodies.
I want to start a movement...I want it to be called "I'm Awesome Day" (or something.) I want women across the world to take a moment to pause and reflect upon their strengths. In this spirit, I sat down and wrote 50 reasons why I'm awesome, below.
You should try it. It's strangely fun and therapeutic. And disappointingly hard at the same time. But either way, I think it's healthy...not only to remind each of us of the beautiful, unique person we are, but also to do some introspection. Do it! Have your own I'm Awesome Day.
1) I have passions that motivate me (social justice issues).
2) I am dedicated to life long learning.
3) I'm an excellent paper-writer.
4) I'm a loving wife.
5) I rarely give up on anything or anyone.
6) I'm incredibly loyal.
7) I have great taste in movies.
8) I take my education seriously and truly appreciate it.
9) I'm organized.
10) I'm funny.
11) I'm smart.
12) I'm a natural at parallel parking.
13) I can make beautiful jewelry (with the right supplies and resources!)
14) I'm a natural leader.
15) I'm fiercely independent.
16) I have great grammar.
17) I make wise decisions and I'm responsible.
18) I'm great with kids.
19) I'm not complacent.
20) I can do a hilarious Cher impression, but I only reveal it to my most trusted people.
21) I am a clean(ish) person. Getting better at least.
22) I'm a lovey drunk...but I don't drink often and when I do, it's never to excess.
23) I'm capable of putting myself in other people's shoes.
24) I properly use cliche's---and not too often.
25) I can find the beauty in others.
26) I value ethics over success.
27) It might take a while, but I can admit when I'm wrong.
28) Once I admit I'm wrong, I know how to apologize.
29) I have a fantastic shoe collection.
30) I'd rather be with people than be alone, but I 'd rather be alone than with the wrong people.
31) I choose love over hate.
32) I'm a critical thinker.
33) I'm realistic.
34) I have hopes and dreams for a great future.
35) So long as you deserve it, I will trust you.
36) I don't settle.
37) I make a mean baked mac n cheese.
38) I love to learn about new cultures.
39) I'm open minded...not as much as I could be, but I'm working on it.
40) I am confident.
41) I like to try new things...like foods and activities.
42) I value different view points, but I will make you logically defend your opinions.
43) I can logically defend my opinions.
44) I don't judge people on their race, gender, religion, socioeconomic status, looks, or sexuality. I let you show me who you are.
45) I try to be as helpful as possible.
46) I don't lie, but I'm not unnecessarily tactless either.
47) I'm not afraid to be different.
48) I don't define myself solely by my relationship to other people (wife, sister, daughter, etc.) but I do strive to be the best I can be in those roles.
49) I love fully.
50) I advocate for myself and others when I see what I feel is an injustice.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Yay Superbowl Time!
So last night was the Superbowl, one of the most fruitful times for feminist fodder. And the feminist world is abuzz about the ads this year.
I don't have to add much. The best points have already been made. And interestingly, the Focus on the Family ad was super blah. (I still insist that the problem is how CBS went about this whole thing and not the content itself.)
But what I will add is that it seems advertising companies responded to the outcry from last year which was one of the raunchiest and most offensive Superbowls I've seen ad wise. (Some may argue that Janet's boob was the raunchiest thing to happen in a Superbowl, but I didn't mind that as much...so whatev.) Point is that the message seems to be, "Ok, you don't like it when we strip women and have them shake their asses and shower for men's pleasure. Prefer not to have *that* form of misogyny? COOL. We'll give you another form: The type that shows what wimps the men are who care about the feelings and societal position of women. You don't wanna be THAT guy do you? GOOD. Now buy our shit and keep your balls."
SIGH.
At least some of us know men who really do care about what women think and feel and experience in life. And they are not beaten down or emasculated. They are actually intelligent, respectable individuals, capable of looking beyond their own experience.
I don't have to add much. The best points have already been made. And interestingly, the Focus on the Family ad was super blah. (I still insist that the problem is how CBS went about this whole thing and not the content itself.)
But what I will add is that it seems advertising companies responded to the outcry from last year which was one of the raunchiest and most offensive Superbowls I've seen ad wise. (Some may argue that Janet's boob was the raunchiest thing to happen in a Superbowl, but I didn't mind that as much...so whatev.) Point is that the message seems to be, "Ok, you don't like it when we strip women and have them shake their asses and shower for men's pleasure. Prefer not to have *that* form of misogyny? COOL. We'll give you another form: The type that shows what wimps the men are who care about the feelings and societal position of women. You don't wanna be THAT guy do you? GOOD. Now buy our shit and keep your balls."
SIGH.
At least some of us know men who really do care about what women think and feel and experience in life. And they are not beaten down or emasculated. They are actually intelligent, respectable individuals, capable of looking beyond their own experience.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
CBS and the Anti Choice Ad
So, the feminist blogosphere is all a-buzz about the Superbowl advertisement which will be telling the story of how Tim Tebow's mother chose* life and now her son is an amazing football star and blah, blah, blah. The real problem, feminist bloggers have asserted over and over again, is that CBS previously held the position of disallowing "advocacy ads" but suddenly changed their position and allowed this spot. In fact, they are a lot more intimately involved with this adverstisement than it first appeared. (Keep in mind that they've denied PETA, MoveOn.org, and The United Church of Christ in the past, and a gay dating website this year.)
Naturally, I found this annoying, so when I saw friends posting a link on Facebook for people to write to CBS standing up against this choice, I sent the email and also posted the link. Then the opposition on Facebook started to speak up...even though the article I posted said:
1) CBS can air the commercials of anyone who is willing to pay. It's their decision.
What's wrong with this idea is that it supposes that CBS is simply catering to the money provided to pay for the ad (which is a reported $3 million spent by Focus on the Family. Think what $3 million could have done if it was actually spent helping women...) However, the fact of the matter is that in the past CBS has denied the groups I mentioned above the opportunity to air their advertisements. Was their money not as good? Was CBS some different kind of business then that didn't care about profits? CBS is clearly picking and choosing when and when not to air ads and promoting a particular agenda over others. That's what the problem is.
2) CBS is a business and will act in their best interests...
I quote, "the Superbowl has a bigger demographic of Christian families [than] leftist feminists." This argument rests on the premise that CBS is just being smart and catering to the interests and beliefs of the people who watch the Superbowl. (Now I might actually believe this when it comes to vetoing material they might see as damaging to their image, like...oh...say tons of advertisements with scantily clad women in them. But that's not what CBS is doing, is it? They're actually specifically promoting certain material, but I digress.)
I can hardly wait to address everything that is wrong with this perspective:
A) First of all, are you really suggesting that someone cannot be both a leftist feminist and a Christian? Or be pro-choice and a Christian?
B) If we are going to agree that the majority of people who watch the Superbowl are "Christian families," (and let's go with the assumption that a majority of them are already anti choice) then do they REALLY need an advertisement extolling the virtues of not getting abortions? I thought advertisements were to persuade someone to buy a certain product, believe something, or do something specific, that they might not otherwise do. Then isn't the Superbowl an incredibly silly, and perhaps even inappropriate place to air this? I mean, there aren't public service announcements telling people to breathe air, for a reason. Hmm...something just isn't adding up.
C) Furthermore, if we're going to start talking about the demographic that actually watches the Superbowl, (and let's continue with the theme of extremely sweeping generalizations) then couldn't we say that the majority of people watching the Superbowl are actually most likely MALE and therefore have no legal say in the actual decision to carry a baby to term or not (according to legal precedent.) Doesn't this make this an even more foolish choice as far as catering to your demographics go? Unless, maybe, you have a certain agenda and you want to promote a very specific viewpoint. Hmm again...
3)...It's not like they're the government, after all!
This follow up to #2 is under the argument that CBS can cater to their audience while the government would have to be more diplomatic to all viewpoints and people. This is laughable, because it rests on the premise that the government does treat all people fairly. (Because, you know, access to education and legal marriage, to name a few, are the same for ALL people, right?) But beyond that, I don't think that CBS is like the government, or should be held to a government like standard...but I do think that the media holds a special place in American society, CBS included. They are part of the long standing tradition of at least attempting to be partial and unbiased. (Even though we usually know which way each media source slants.) It's just sad to me when the media is so incredibly transparent about its political agenda and isolates already marginalized groups.
So while I'm on the topic...I thought I'd mention the Sarah and Bristol Palin In Touch magazine cover, that proudly declares they chose* life. Of course, I would wager that most women who do choose* to have their babies don't regret their decisions and love their babies and would never come out and say "I wish I had an abortion." On the other hand, however, I know there are women who also do not regret their abortions, despite the fact that we are told that all women who have them do. Just some food for thought.
Point is they had a choice...
*Special emphasis on this particular word :)
Naturally, I found this annoying, so when I saw friends posting a link on Facebook for people to write to CBS standing up against this choice, I sent the email and also posted the link. Then the opposition on Facebook started to speak up...even though the article I posted said:
"CBS has decided to air an anti-abortion ad during the Super Bowl, despite years of refusing to run "advocacy ads" by progressive groups. Whatever your opinions, the Super Bowl is not the time or place for an abortion debate. Please take a stand with me and go here: www.amplifyyourvoice.org/SuperBowl"
Here's what the central thesis of the outcry against this posting was...followed by my ideas on why these theses are foolish.1) CBS can air the commercials of anyone who is willing to pay. It's their decision.
What's wrong with this idea is that it supposes that CBS is simply catering to the money provided to pay for the ad (which is a reported $3 million spent by Focus on the Family. Think what $3 million could have done if it was actually spent helping women...) However, the fact of the matter is that in the past CBS has denied the groups I mentioned above the opportunity to air their advertisements. Was their money not as good? Was CBS some different kind of business then that didn't care about profits? CBS is clearly picking and choosing when and when not to air ads and promoting a particular agenda over others. That's what the problem is.
2) CBS is a business and will act in their best interests...
I quote, "the Superbowl has a bigger demographic of Christian families [than] leftist feminists." This argument rests on the premise that CBS is just being smart and catering to the interests and beliefs of the people who watch the Superbowl. (Now I might actually believe this when it comes to vetoing material they might see as damaging to their image, like...oh...say tons of advertisements with scantily clad women in them. But that's not what CBS is doing, is it? They're actually specifically promoting certain material, but I digress.)
I can hardly wait to address everything that is wrong with this perspective:
A) First of all, are you really suggesting that someone cannot be both a leftist feminist and a Christian? Or be pro-choice and a Christian?
B) If we are going to agree that the majority of people who watch the Superbowl are "Christian families," (and let's go with the assumption that a majority of them are already anti choice) then do they REALLY need an advertisement extolling the virtues of not getting abortions? I thought advertisements were to persuade someone to buy a certain product, believe something, or do something specific, that they might not otherwise do. Then isn't the Superbowl an incredibly silly, and perhaps even inappropriate place to air this? I mean, there aren't public service announcements telling people to breathe air, for a reason. Hmm...something just isn't adding up.
C) Furthermore, if we're going to start talking about the demographic that actually watches the Superbowl, (and let's continue with the theme of extremely sweeping generalizations) then couldn't we say that the majority of people watching the Superbowl are actually most likely MALE and therefore have no legal say in the actual decision to carry a baby to term or not (according to legal precedent.) Doesn't this make this an even more foolish choice as far as catering to your demographics go? Unless, maybe, you have a certain agenda and you want to promote a very specific viewpoint. Hmm again...
3)...It's not like they're the government, after all!
This follow up to #2 is under the argument that CBS can cater to their audience while the government would have to be more diplomatic to all viewpoints and people. This is laughable, because it rests on the premise that the government does treat all people fairly. (Because, you know, access to education and legal marriage, to name a few, are the same for ALL people, right?) But beyond that, I don't think that CBS is like the government, or should be held to a government like standard...but I do think that the media holds a special place in American society, CBS included. They are part of the long standing tradition of at least attempting to be partial and unbiased. (Even though we usually know which way each media source slants.) It's just sad to me when the media is so incredibly transparent about its political agenda and isolates already marginalized groups.
So while I'm on the topic...I thought I'd mention the Sarah and Bristol Palin In Touch magazine cover, that proudly declares they chose* life. Of course, I would wager that most women who do choose* to have their babies don't regret their decisions and love their babies and would never come out and say "I wish I had an abortion." On the other hand, however, I know there are women who also do not regret their abortions, despite the fact that we are told that all women who have them do. Just some food for thought.
Point is they had a choice...
*Special emphasis on this particular word :)
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Fuck-Me-Feminism and Textsfromlastnight.com: A Guilty Pleasure and a Sobering Mirror on My Generation
Spot the pun in the title! Anyway...as with most people of my general demographic, I regularly read the website textsfromlastnight.com. It's raunchy. It's hilarious. It's disturbing. And it's incredibly anti-feminist.
So obviously this poses a challenge for me. While I frequently find great joy out of reading the utterly ridiculous things that appear on the site, I am also frequently disgusted and ashamed. Textsfromlastnight.com is the epitome of a guilty pleasure for me. I read it...I laugh...and I feel incredibly guilty.
Let's take for example, this gem, which appeared today:
"she asked if i had a condom...i said yes...when we finished it wasnt on...told her it was at home on my dresser."
How can I think that's funny? Truth is, I don't. I think that's INCREDIBLY disturbing. Honestly, I think that doing shit like that should be illegal...I mean, that's a consent issue, for sure. On the other hand I also think that the woman (girl most likely) in the situation obviously wasn't doing everything she could to actually protect herself, namely LOOKING AT HIS PENIS but that's neither here nor there, and I'm not out to blame the victim.
I would estimate that 99% of the texts posted are anti-feminist. The website serves as a giant mirror for me, reflecting all that is wrong with my generation. The only feminism that is remotely present on the site is "fuck-me-feminism." I picked up that term on one of the blogs I read recently and I think it's amazing.
Fuck-me-feminism is the brand that "the man" likes. It's the type that says women should be sexually liberated but still SEXY and not lose their "femininity." It's the type of feminism that doesn't challenge any status quo other than the stigma on women being more sexually active. And let me ask you, what kind of feminism is that really? What's the point in sexual liberation if there aren't social institutions and real change behind it?
SIGH.
Either way, I keep reading textsfromlastnight.com because I can't help but laugh and stare in awe at the depravity. But at least I am viewing it through a critical eye and with a sad understanding of what is really happening here. And a reminder as to why I am a feminist and why feminism is still incredibly relevant.
So obviously this poses a challenge for me. While I frequently find great joy out of reading the utterly ridiculous things that appear on the site, I am also frequently disgusted and ashamed. Textsfromlastnight.com is the epitome of a guilty pleasure for me. I read it...I laugh...and I feel incredibly guilty.
Let's take for example, this gem, which appeared today:
"she asked if i had a condom...i said yes...when we finished it wasnt on...told her it was at home on my dresser."
How can I think that's funny? Truth is, I don't. I think that's INCREDIBLY disturbing. Honestly, I think that doing shit like that should be illegal...I mean, that's a consent issue, for sure. On the other hand I also think that the woman (girl most likely) in the situation obviously wasn't doing everything she could to actually protect herself, namely LOOKING AT HIS PENIS but that's neither here nor there, and I'm not out to blame the victim.
I would estimate that 99% of the texts posted are anti-feminist. The website serves as a giant mirror for me, reflecting all that is wrong with my generation. The only feminism that is remotely present on the site is "fuck-me-feminism." I picked up that term on one of the blogs I read recently and I think it's amazing.
Fuck-me-feminism is the brand that "the man" likes. It's the type that says women should be sexually liberated but still SEXY and not lose their "femininity." It's the type of feminism that doesn't challenge any status quo other than the stigma on women being more sexually active. And let me ask you, what kind of feminism is that really? What's the point in sexual liberation if there aren't social institutions and real change behind it?
SIGH.
Either way, I keep reading textsfromlastnight.com because I can't help but laugh and stare in awe at the depravity. But at least I am viewing it through a critical eye and with a sad understanding of what is really happening here. And a reminder as to why I am a feminist and why feminism is still incredibly relevant.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
1,000 Kudos to the Knowles-Carter Family
So yesterday I read a report that Jay Z and Beyonce will be known as Beyonce and Shawn Knowles-Carter.
How awesome is that?! Not only does their celebrity bring more attention to the prevalence of couples choosing nontraditional names for their family, but Jay Z is also a particularly interesting case. He is one of the most prominent men in an extremely male dominated and frequently misogynistic industry (hip hop). This choice highlights his respect for Beyonce as a person. I mean, come on...her name comes first!
I don't know anything about the egalitarianism of their relationship...but if I had to use this as an indication, I'd say they're probably in pretty good shape.
I really hope young people can take their lead as an example. Of course, if this story was half as covered as Tiger Woods or Jon and Kate's divorces, then maybe it wouldn't be so hard for the girls I've worked with to accept that I didn't take my husband's name.
How awesome is that?! Not only does their celebrity bring more attention to the prevalence of couples choosing nontraditional names for their family, but Jay Z is also a particularly interesting case. He is one of the most prominent men in an extremely male dominated and frequently misogynistic industry (hip hop). This choice highlights his respect for Beyonce as a person. I mean, come on...her name comes first!
I don't know anything about the egalitarianism of their relationship...but if I had to use this as an indication, I'd say they're probably in pretty good shape.
I really hope young people can take their lead as an example. Of course, if this story was half as covered as Tiger Woods or Jon and Kate's divorces, then maybe it wouldn't be so hard for the girls I've worked with to accept that I didn't take my husband's name.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Prescious and The Blind Side
Recently, a Facebook friend posted this status:
Now, I take issue with a few assertions of this status. Firstly, referring to the situations of Precious as a myth is just inaccurate. The challenges that Precious faces are real in every community. Later in the comments the original poster says, "My issue with the film is that it is kind of guilty of "piling on". Precious isn't just being sexually abused by her father, she's also being physically and verbally abused by her mother, is encouraged to abuse the welfare system, does not excel in school, is morbidly obese, etc."
I can see how Precious has been "piled on." However, many of the issues she's facing are interconnected. Abuse is more prevalent in low income communities, as are difficulties with school and welfare. Also, couldn't it be said that the character of Michael in The Blind Side is also piled on (homelessness, struggling in school, broken home.) Does the fact that Michael's story is "true" mean that his character is any less piled on? The depiction of Precious in the film is not a creation of the filmmakers' minds. She is from the author Sapphire, and the book "Push." The filmmakers simply translated Sapphire's story into a movie, and, I might add...they did an excellent job and stuck to the story that Sapphire wrote. (A story which seems to possess the insight of a person who has faced similar challenges in her own life.)
But here's the issue I take with The Blind Side that I do not take with Precious: How the characters achieve their varied levels of success. In TBS Michael becomes successful through the help and encouragement of a white family. In Precious, there is very little interaction from white people at all. Presicous' success is due chiefly to her own determination and the help of a black teacher, Blue Rain. Now, having not see TBS, I don't know if Michael displays the same determination, but I *do* know Precious did.
Also, the levels of success achieved are very different. TBS is a feel good movie about accomplishing success through fame and fortune. Precious is different...Precious doesn't become famous or rich or even truly self sufficient within the bounds of the book or film...she becomes things which are much more simple and often taken for granted. She becomes literate, she finds her voice, she gets herself and her children out of an abusive situation.
For me, this makes Precious a much more relatable and realistic story of triumph over tragedy. Even if it is a fictional account, I think it is something I can personally find more meaning in. Plus...and I don't know how quite to word this, but the people behind Precious (black writers, black director, black cast) in contast to TBS make me feel like it comes from a more authentic African American place.
Apparently there are some people out there who think that "Precious", a fictional movie that crams every possible negative myth about urban blacks into two hours, is empowering while "The Blind Side", a fact-based movie, is just another story from The Man about how the world is only a good place because of Whitey. There is a word describing these people: dumb.
I didn't reply to this status, because I wasn't out for Facebook debate, but it did cause me to reflect upon my own thoughts. I have heard people say that The Blind Side is another depiction of white people saving black people from themselves. And I'll admit, I tend to see that in the movie too, whether it is a true story or not. (Note: I haven't yet seen The Blind Side because *someone* wouldn't go with me...but I have a pretty good idea what it's about.)Now, I take issue with a few assertions of this status. Firstly, referring to the situations of Precious as a myth is just inaccurate. The challenges that Precious faces are real in every community. Later in the comments the original poster says, "My issue with the film is that it is kind of guilty of "piling on". Precious isn't just being sexually abused by her father, she's also being physically and verbally abused by her mother, is encouraged to abuse the welfare system, does not excel in school, is morbidly obese, etc."
I can see how Precious has been "piled on." However, many of the issues she's facing are interconnected. Abuse is more prevalent in low income communities, as are difficulties with school and welfare. Also, couldn't it be said that the character of Michael in The Blind Side is also piled on (homelessness, struggling in school, broken home.) Does the fact that Michael's story is "true" mean that his character is any less piled on? The depiction of Precious in the film is not a creation of the filmmakers' minds. She is from the author Sapphire, and the book "Push." The filmmakers simply translated Sapphire's story into a movie, and, I might add...they did an excellent job and stuck to the story that Sapphire wrote. (A story which seems to possess the insight of a person who has faced similar challenges in her own life.)
But here's the issue I take with The Blind Side that I do not take with Precious: How the characters achieve their varied levels of success. In TBS Michael becomes successful through the help and encouragement of a white family. In Precious, there is very little interaction from white people at all. Presicous' success is due chiefly to her own determination and the help of a black teacher, Blue Rain. Now, having not see TBS, I don't know if Michael displays the same determination, but I *do* know Precious did.
Also, the levels of success achieved are very different. TBS is a feel good movie about accomplishing success through fame and fortune. Precious is different...Precious doesn't become famous or rich or even truly self sufficient within the bounds of the book or film...she becomes things which are much more simple and often taken for granted. She becomes literate, she finds her voice, she gets herself and her children out of an abusive situation.
For me, this makes Precious a much more relatable and realistic story of triumph over tragedy. Even if it is a fictional account, I think it is something I can personally find more meaning in. Plus...and I don't know how quite to word this, but the people behind Precious (black writers, black director, black cast) in contast to TBS make me feel like it comes from a more authentic African American place.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
UnsportsLADY Like Conduct
Lately this story of the New Mexico soccer player, Elizabeth Lambert, has been all over the news for her incredibly poor sportsmanship which included punching, hitting, and pulling the ponytail of opponents. (BTW WHY isn't there a gender neutral term for sportsmanship?)
It was disgusting. If you watch the footage of the acts, it is really disturbing. Seriously, I in no way condone her actions and her suspension was absolutely just.
However...(you know there was a however) I really feel that this story has received an extremely high level of coverage simply because Lambert is a woman. Overly aggressive behavior is present daily in most male sports (at both the collegiate and professional levels) and we rarely see this much coverage about it. I'm actually surprised that the feminist blogs I follow haven't picked up on this.
My position is that we shouldn't tolerate violent behavior from any sports players, regardless of gender. But the prevalence of this story just highlights sexist ideals surrounding women's perceived role in sports and what is "appropriate" for men and women in general.
Jessica also brought the discussion about "Guyland" by Michael Kimmel and feminist pundit Courtney Martin's thoughts on it to my attention. I have some thoughts about this...but I've got to do some more reading before I officially comment.
It was disgusting. If you watch the footage of the acts, it is really disturbing. Seriously, I in no way condone her actions and her suspension was absolutely just.
However...(you know there was a however) I really feel that this story has received an extremely high level of coverage simply because Lambert is a woman. Overly aggressive behavior is present daily in most male sports (at both the collegiate and professional levels) and we rarely see this much coverage about it. I'm actually surprised that the feminist blogs I follow haven't picked up on this.
My position is that we shouldn't tolerate violent behavior from any sports players, regardless of gender. But the prevalence of this story just highlights sexist ideals surrounding women's perceived role in sports and what is "appropriate" for men and women in general.
Jessica also brought the discussion about "Guyland" by Michael Kimmel and feminist pundit Courtney Martin's thoughts on it to my attention. I have some thoughts about this...but I've got to do some more reading before I officially comment.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Vaginas, Al Franken, and Jon Stewart
The three aren't really connected in this post. I'm just saving time by updating about two things at once.
Now, you might think that this would mean that the origin for penis is sword, but it's not. It's "hanging like a pendulum; tail." So men get something that just describes the general look. Fan. Freaking. Tastic.
But to vote against something so simple as this...COME ON. You must really, truly hate women if you can vote against this. Jon Stewart gives it to 'em. And God Bless you, Jon.
- Vagina. It's a simple word: vagina. We all know what it means...Or do we?
Now, you might think that this would mean that the origin for penis is sword, but it's not. It's "hanging like a pendulum; tail." So men get something that just describes the general look. Fan. Freaking. Tastic.
- Al Franken and Jon Stewart. Al has sponsored an amendment on a bill that would end government contacts with companies that have clauses which disallow American contact worker/victims of overseas rape to prosecute their rapists and sue the contract companies. This is a no brainer, right? Of course you would want to allow women to be able to do that, right? How is it possible that they couldn't in the first place? Well apparently, there was a provision in the contracts that said that such claims would only be allowed to be heard through private arbitration. RIDICULOUS! Well, now that we've discovered this atrocity, we will all be OK with correcting it, right?
But to vote against something so simple as this...COME ON. You must really, truly hate women if you can vote against this. Jon Stewart gives it to 'em. And God Bless you, Jon.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
I'm trying to wrap my mind around this shit...
Fact of the matter is that I CAN'T.
The topic of "shit" is Roman Polanski. Somehow, despite being a feminist and married to a cinephile, I managed to not learn about the fact that Polanski once drugged and anally raped a 13 year old girl.
Here's more info, if you were clueless like me.
Well, since he fled in the 70's and he was recently arrested in Switzerland, the story is all over the news again and those of us who weren't alive in the 1970's are now able to hear all about it. The feminist blogs I read are a buzz, with elaborate, admonishing pieces.
Some celebrities, however, are defending him. (And quite a few to be accurate.) But I just. don't. get. it.
Here's their central thesis, according to that article above. "The argument here is that the director is 76 and that his life should be measured by his body of work, not a one-time lapse of morality."
ARE YOU SERIOUS? So now, when we go to a court of law, we can just bring forth evidence of our life's work and it won't matter what we do? Now, I may understand the idea that we don't want to ONLY remember someone based upon their negative acts, but the fact of the matter is that this pedophile never served time for his egregious crime.
Hey! You killed someone... But you know what, we're gonna drop these charges because you've got the voice of an angel. Oh, you're a pick pocket? That's ok! You're a great podiatrist. Hmm...you probably shouldn't have committed grand larceny, but you're really good at plumbing, so just so you won't forever be viewed as a larcenist, we'll ignore it just this one time!
It doesn't make any sense. I'm going to say it again: He drugged and anally raped a 13 year old girl, never denied this, and fled from the consequences for 32 years. That's a pretty fucking big and awfully elaborate and premeditated "one time lapse in morality." Too big, in fact, to be ignored just because of his "body of work."
The topic of "shit" is Roman Polanski. Somehow, despite being a feminist and married to a cinephile, I managed to not learn about the fact that Polanski once drugged and anally raped a 13 year old girl.
Here's more info, if you were clueless like me.
Well, since he fled in the 70's and he was recently arrested in Switzerland, the story is all over the news again and those of us who weren't alive in the 1970's are now able to hear all about it. The feminist blogs I read are a buzz, with elaborate, admonishing pieces.
Some celebrities, however, are defending him. (And quite a few to be accurate.) But I just. don't. get. it.
Here's their central thesis, according to that article above. "The argument here is that the director is 76 and that his life should be measured by his body of work, not a one-time lapse of morality."
ARE YOU SERIOUS? So now, when we go to a court of law, we can just bring forth evidence of our life's work and it won't matter what we do? Now, I may understand the idea that we don't want to ONLY remember someone based upon their negative acts, but the fact of the matter is that this pedophile never served time for his egregious crime.
Hey! You killed someone... But you know what, we're gonna drop these charges because you've got the voice of an angel. Oh, you're a pick pocket? That's ok! You're a great podiatrist. Hmm...you probably shouldn't have committed grand larceny, but you're really good at plumbing, so just so you won't forever be viewed as a larcenist, we'll ignore it just this one time!
It doesn't make any sense. I'm going to say it again: He drugged and anally raped a 13 year old girl, never denied this, and fled from the consequences for 32 years. That's a pretty fucking big and awfully elaborate and premeditated "one time lapse in morality." Too big, in fact, to be ignored just because of his "body of work."
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
I'm back!
We'll see if I can get this sucker started again, now that my life isn't consumed with summer camp-y things.
Thought I'd just make a note about the local news headline I just heard while watching Oprah. The newscaster said, "The controversy over the gender of a runner. Hear the voice and decide for yourself!"
What? Really?
The story is about Caster Semenya, the 18-year-old South African runner who recently won a World Championship. Upon winning, her masculinity became an issue and her story has been everywhere. It raises some interesting questions, specifically what place do people who do not conform to the stereotypical dichotomy of gender have in athletics?
I'm really not sure what the answer is, and I'm not really sure what approach to take about it, as a feminist. On one hand, I don't believe that physical or biological markers are the making of gender, but what if such biological markers give some athletes a distinct advantage? Is that unfair? Does it even matter? Are we going to ban all biological/genetic advantages...(the example a coworker gave is Michael Phelps' atypical proportions which are credited with giving him an advantage in the pool.)
Whatever the decision is about this case and athletics...the point remains that the wording of this news report is so incredibly insensitive. "Decide for yourself." Since when did someone's gender become a matter of public opinion? What is the news story trying to prove? What does her voice have to do with it all really?
It just reeks of mockery.
By the by, I learned of a new term that I enjoy knowing: "Cisgendered" which means, when your gender and your biological sex are in sync. In other words, when you are not transgendered.
Thought I'd just make a note about the local news headline I just heard while watching Oprah. The newscaster said, "The controversy over the gender of a runner. Hear the voice and decide for yourself!"
What? Really?
The story is about Caster Semenya, the 18-year-old South African runner who recently won a World Championship. Upon winning, her masculinity became an issue and her story has been everywhere. It raises some interesting questions, specifically what place do people who do not conform to the stereotypical dichotomy of gender have in athletics?
I'm really not sure what the answer is, and I'm not really sure what approach to take about it, as a feminist. On one hand, I don't believe that physical or biological markers are the making of gender, but what if such biological markers give some athletes a distinct advantage? Is that unfair? Does it even matter? Are we going to ban all biological/genetic advantages...(the example a coworker gave is Michael Phelps' atypical proportions which are credited with giving him an advantage in the pool.)
Whatever the decision is about this case and athletics...the point remains that the wording of this news report is so incredibly insensitive. "Decide for yourself." Since when did someone's gender become a matter of public opinion? What is the news story trying to prove? What does her voice have to do with it all really?
It just reeks of mockery.
By the by, I learned of a new term that I enjoy knowing: "Cisgendered" which means, when your gender and your biological sex are in sync. In other words, when you are not transgendered.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Hiatus
I think Myranda and I would both be blogging much more if we weren't too busy all summer inspiring the next bunch of Indianapolis girls ages 6-14 to be strong, smart, and bold.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Sonia Sotomayor
It's been really interesting watching what I hope will be the first of a few supreme court nominations for Obama. The more I learn about Sotomayor, the more I like her. But what's even more interesting is the right wing's backlash against her.
Their biggest claim: She's racist! She's a bigot! (Coming from such open minded and socially conscious people as Rush Limbaugh.) Near as I can gather, this claim hearkens back to a statement Sotomayor made in a 2001 address, in which she claimed that she believed a Latina woman was better suited to make legal decisions than a white male.
Now, while it is dangerous to claim that someone's gender and race make them more suited than another to do anything, I get what Sotomayor was trying to say. White males are a MINORITY in America. There are far more people who are not male, who are not white, or who are neither male nor white. Therefore, the white male experience, although the dominantly presented experience in politics and media, is actually a minority experience and not applicable to most people. And yet, it's the experience that is forefront in our lives. It's the experience taught in history class, and it's the experience portrayed on T.V. Trust me, I get it. Maybe that makes me racist too? (And how come no one claimed she was sexist for saying that?)
Anyway, it's pretty much hilarious that the right wing would be making these claims. They always say these things when it's convenient for them, despite the outward exclusivity of their own political persuasion. Remember how all of us liberals who didn't like Sarah Palin were suddenly sexist? (All of us feminist liberals who thought a female vice presidential nominee shouldn't be a token...)
Speaking of tokenism, I was at first afraid that's what Sotomayor was. I had heard that there was an enormous outcry for both a Latino and a female nominee, so I figured that Sotomayor was a token nominee suiting those needs. But what I've read about her makes her seem like she's a big deal after all. I mean, she was a suggestion when Bush selected Alito in 2005.
And speaking of Bush's nominees, the difference between the right's outcry about Sotomayor now and the left's outcry about Harriet Miers (also in 2005) shows the difference between a token and a legitimate nominee. At the time, the left said "Hey wait a minute...Miers isn't qualified." And she subsequently wasn't confirmed. On the other hand, now, the right is basically saying, "Hmm...what little thing can we say against Sotomayor...anything? Anything? Bueller?" And then one person dug up this statement from 2001 and they jumped on the petty racism train.
Interesting. And I just love it how the racism card seems to be played against people who have actually faced racism their whole lives. (Remember Obama and the Jeremiah Wright scandal?)
Anyway, what I'm getting at is that because Sotomayor is a legitimate candidate, the right has resorted to a cheap smear campaign...but since Obama's facing a favorable congress, I'm not really worried.
What I am worried about, is that researching Sotomayor has reminded me in one small way that sexism is still alive and doing extremely well. (Not that I ever forgot.) When I googled her name to learn a little more, the first suggestion that came up as I typed S-O-N-I-A was "Sonia Sotomayor husband." This means that despite the fact that this woman has been nominated for the SUPREME COURT, people are more concerned about who her husband is.
Ugh. Disgusting.
Here's hoping that Ms. Sotomayor is confirmed and can be a strong liberal voice on bench!
Their biggest claim: She's racist! She's a bigot! (Coming from such open minded and socially conscious people as Rush Limbaugh.) Near as I can gather, this claim hearkens back to a statement Sotomayor made in a 2001 address, in which she claimed that she believed a Latina woman was better suited to make legal decisions than a white male.
Now, while it is dangerous to claim that someone's gender and race make them more suited than another to do anything, I get what Sotomayor was trying to say. White males are a MINORITY in America. There are far more people who are not male, who are not white, or who are neither male nor white. Therefore, the white male experience, although the dominantly presented experience in politics and media, is actually a minority experience and not applicable to most people. And yet, it's the experience that is forefront in our lives. It's the experience taught in history class, and it's the experience portrayed on T.V. Trust me, I get it. Maybe that makes me racist too? (And how come no one claimed she was sexist for saying that?)
Anyway, it's pretty much hilarious that the right wing would be making these claims. They always say these things when it's convenient for them, despite the outward exclusivity of their own political persuasion. Remember how all of us liberals who didn't like Sarah Palin were suddenly sexist? (All of us feminist liberals who thought a female vice presidential nominee shouldn't be a token...)
Speaking of tokenism, I was at first afraid that's what Sotomayor was. I had heard that there was an enormous outcry for both a Latino and a female nominee, so I figured that Sotomayor was a token nominee suiting those needs. But what I've read about her makes her seem like she's a big deal after all. I mean, she was a suggestion when Bush selected Alito in 2005.
And speaking of Bush's nominees, the difference between the right's outcry about Sotomayor now and the left's outcry about Harriet Miers (also in 2005) shows the difference between a token and a legitimate nominee. At the time, the left said "Hey wait a minute...Miers isn't qualified." And she subsequently wasn't confirmed. On the other hand, now, the right is basically saying, "Hmm...what little thing can we say against Sotomayor...anything? Anything? Bueller?" And then one person dug up this statement from 2001 and they jumped on the petty racism train.
Interesting. And I just love it how the racism card seems to be played against people who have actually faced racism their whole lives. (Remember Obama and the Jeremiah Wright scandal?)
Anyway, what I'm getting at is that because Sotomayor is a legitimate candidate, the right has resorted to a cheap smear campaign...but since Obama's facing a favorable congress, I'm not really worried.
What I am worried about, is that researching Sotomayor has reminded me in one small way that sexism is still alive and doing extremely well. (Not that I ever forgot.) When I googled her name to learn a little more, the first suggestion that came up as I typed S-O-N-I-A was "Sonia Sotomayor husband." This means that despite the fact that this woman has been nominated for the SUPREME COURT, people are more concerned about who her husband is.
Ugh. Disgusting.
Here's hoping that Ms. Sotomayor is confirmed and can be a strong liberal voice on bench!
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Your Time With Kim --Your Time, Indeed, If You're Ignorant
Myranda has written about this radio show before, on her personal blog, but I want to bring Kim Iverson back up.
In case you are unfamiliar, "Your Time with Kim " is a nationally syndicated radio talk show hosted by Kim Iverson. It is played locally in Indianapolis on z995. The general premise is that her show is your time, as a woman, to get to talk and hear discussion about issues pertinent to women. You can find out more about her general show topics at her Wikipedia page.
Now, on one side I have to give Ms. Iverson some credit. She is under 30 and has a nationally syndicated radio show as a woman; a feat very few have accomplished. However, my admiration for her stops there because she has become popular on sexist premises. Her show segments are very narrowly tailored around topics which are stereotypically supposed to be interesting to women. Most nights they're not interesting, not in the least.
However, I do enjoy when current issues are discussed, using any medium. So every now and then when Kim discusses a topic with her listeners, I become morbidly curious. Once in a great while Kim says something reasonable. But usually, she spouts off her antiquated notions about family and dating, just like Myranda mentioned in her post.
Yesterday made me furious, however. She was discussing how a mother who doesn't believe in standard medicine is being prosecuted for homicide because her daughter died of a diabetic coma. Basically the mother believed that prayer was enough to save her daughter, and obviously it wasn't. Kim was defending the mother to the bitter end. I couldn't believe it.
The premise of Kim's argument was that we can't oppress other people with our religious belief that western medicine works. I could barely even follow her, it was so incomprehensible. She kept saying that in America we have the right to practice our religion. The mother wasn't negligent because she was *doing something* ...she was praying, and her chosen method of healing just wasn't working. She kept rambling about how every method of healing has a risk. Even doctors have failure rates, so the mother shouldn't be held accountable, just because her method failed. "Are we going to prosecute parents who seek medical attention and choose a doctor who doesn't save their child?" She also insisted that parents are allowed to choose a religion for their kids, and if that means bad things happen to them, then darn, but it's allowed because of religious freedoms.
Bullshit! Let's get a few things straight here:
1) Western medicine is not a belief. It is a fact! Diabetes, in this case, is an extremely manageable condition using western medicine. Not all disorders have the same success rates, but since this example is about diabetes, we can be almost 100% certain that her daughter wouldn't have died so young had she been treated by a doctor. Unlike the prayer method, we *know* that insulin manages diabetes.
2) This was a CHILD. Religious freedoms are such a difficult area here. If I had heard that the woman was trying to pray away her own diabetes and died, then so be it! But that child didn't have a chance to make an informed decision. She didn't even become old enough to choose her own religious beliefs. This atrocity was inflicted UPON her and she subsequently died at the age of 11.
3) Because she was a child, certain laws exist to protect her. In fact, neglect by definition in American law includes withholding necessary medical attention. Why should this case be any different that someone who simply ignored their child's symptoms? Where do we draw the line? What will we say is permissible just because of religion? What about radical Mormons and their child brides? What about religions that include human sacrifice?
The fact of the matter is that this should be a non-issue. This woman is being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and should be. Religious freedom in America does not extend to allowing the death of children. I'm sorry. It just doesn't.
All this isn't to say that prayer isn't an important and powerful force in healing. People whose families are suffering or who are suffering themselves frequently find much comfort and guidance in their faith. It can be a powerful force. However, those people are usually using prayer and faith in tandem with western medicine. God didn't make us the most intelligent species so that we could ignore the many wonderful benefits of our progressing technology. Just sayin'.
So, while this went off on a somewhat tangentially feminist topic, my point remains: Kim Iverson is an idiot and "my" time with her only makes me stupider. Now, if I could just stop being so lazy and turn the damn radio dial when I'm driving and she's on...I'd be set!
In case you are unfamiliar, "Your Time with Kim " is a nationally syndicated radio talk show hosted by Kim Iverson. It is played locally in Indianapolis on z995. The general premise is that her show is your time, as a woman, to get to talk and hear discussion about issues pertinent to women. You can find out more about her general show topics at her Wikipedia page.
Now, on one side I have to give Ms. Iverson some credit. She is under 30 and has a nationally syndicated radio show as a woman; a feat very few have accomplished. However, my admiration for her stops there because she has become popular on sexist premises. Her show segments are very narrowly tailored around topics which are stereotypically supposed to be interesting to women. Most nights they're not interesting, not in the least.
However, I do enjoy when current issues are discussed, using any medium. So every now and then when Kim discusses a topic with her listeners, I become morbidly curious. Once in a great while Kim says something reasonable. But usually, she spouts off her antiquated notions about family and dating, just like Myranda mentioned in her post.
Yesterday made me furious, however. She was discussing how a mother who doesn't believe in standard medicine is being prosecuted for homicide because her daughter died of a diabetic coma. Basically the mother believed that prayer was enough to save her daughter, and obviously it wasn't. Kim was defending the mother to the bitter end. I couldn't believe it.
The premise of Kim's argument was that we can't oppress other people with our religious belief that western medicine works. I could barely even follow her, it was so incomprehensible. She kept saying that in America we have the right to practice our religion. The mother wasn't negligent because she was *doing something* ...she was praying, and her chosen method of healing just wasn't working. She kept rambling about how every method of healing has a risk. Even doctors have failure rates, so the mother shouldn't be held accountable, just because her method failed. "Are we going to prosecute parents who seek medical attention and choose a doctor who doesn't save their child?" She also insisted that parents are allowed to choose a religion for their kids, and if that means bad things happen to them, then darn, but it's allowed because of religious freedoms.
Bullshit! Let's get a few things straight here:
1) Western medicine is not a belief. It is a fact! Diabetes, in this case, is an extremely manageable condition using western medicine. Not all disorders have the same success rates, but since this example is about diabetes, we can be almost 100% certain that her daughter wouldn't have died so young had she been treated by a doctor. Unlike the prayer method, we *know* that insulin manages diabetes.
2) This was a CHILD. Religious freedoms are such a difficult area here. If I had heard that the woman was trying to pray away her own diabetes and died, then so be it! But that child didn't have a chance to make an informed decision. She didn't even become old enough to choose her own religious beliefs. This atrocity was inflicted UPON her and she subsequently died at the age of 11.
3) Because she was a child, certain laws exist to protect her. In fact, neglect by definition in American law includes withholding necessary medical attention. Why should this case be any different that someone who simply ignored their child's symptoms? Where do we draw the line? What will we say is permissible just because of religion? What about radical Mormons and their child brides? What about religions that include human sacrifice?
The fact of the matter is that this should be a non-issue. This woman is being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and should be. Religious freedom in America does not extend to allowing the death of children. I'm sorry. It just doesn't.
All this isn't to say that prayer isn't an important and powerful force in healing. People whose families are suffering or who are suffering themselves frequently find much comfort and guidance in their faith. It can be a powerful force. However, those people are usually using prayer and faith in tandem with western medicine. God didn't make us the most intelligent species so that we could ignore the many wonderful benefits of our progressing technology. Just sayin'.
So, while this went off on a somewhat tangentially feminist topic, my point remains: Kim Iverson is an idiot and "my" time with her only makes me stupider. Now, if I could just stop being so lazy and turn the damn radio dial when I'm driving and she's on...I'd be set!
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Thanks, But No Thanks, Secretary of State Todd Rokita!
First of all---It's been way too long since this blog has had some action.
Having said that, here's what I noticed today...
So this afternoon, I graduated with my master's. Secretary of State, Todd Rokita was the speaker at the SPEA (School of Public and Environmental Affairs) graduation. Republican Secretary of State, Todd Rokita.
It's no secret that I wasn't too happy as Mr. Rokita took the stage. But I gave him a chance...I mean, surely he wouldn't make it a political thing, right?
HAHA! Was I ever wrong. The first part of the speech was totally tame, and I was pulled in, actually paying attention. But then, he hit me with a one-two punch.
1) He kept saying things about how if you view the government they way he does, which is "the way everyone should" then you should believe that as public servants it is our job to put ourselves out of work. You know, the whole same small government rhetoric that the republican party spouts off without any consideration about how *impossible* that actually is. Whatever, fine. I disagree...but to each her or his own. But this statement wasn't good enough. He actually said, at SPEA's graduation, that his goal is a world where there are less SPEA grads. It was some thing about how the government should ultimately not need them anymore. But it was just weird and awkward and not fitting. Plus, SPEA is a blanket for many other programs, like nonprofit management! And if you really want smaller government then, you're going to have a larger nonprofit sector...which actually means *more* SPEA grads, just of a different type. It was like he didn't really do his homework about the program.
2) SEXIST LANGUAGE OH DIOS MIO! In the government section he said something about how a small government is what our "fathers" have intended. And he used "he" as his only chosen pronoun over and over. There were a few other very specific examples...It was almost too much to take. Seriously! When he went off on this politically charged tangent, I started to zone out, but again and again the language kept popping out to me.
You'd think SPEA would pick someone who would represent more people's opinions and who is more inclusive.
I'm really happy I'm done. I'm proud of me, damnit! But I'm not going to look back at my graduation ceremony its self fondly.
Having said that, here's what I noticed today...
So this afternoon, I graduated with my master's. Secretary of State, Todd Rokita was the speaker at the SPEA (School of Public and Environmental Affairs) graduation. Republican Secretary of State, Todd Rokita.
It's no secret that I wasn't too happy as Mr. Rokita took the stage. But I gave him a chance...I mean, surely he wouldn't make it a political thing, right?
HAHA! Was I ever wrong. The first part of the speech was totally tame, and I was pulled in, actually paying attention. But then, he hit me with a one-two punch.
1) He kept saying things about how if you view the government they way he does, which is "the way everyone should" then you should believe that as public servants it is our job to put ourselves out of work. You know, the whole same small government rhetoric that the republican party spouts off without any consideration about how *impossible* that actually is. Whatever, fine. I disagree...but to each her or his own. But this statement wasn't good enough. He actually said, at SPEA's graduation, that his goal is a world where there are less SPEA grads. It was some thing about how the government should ultimately not need them anymore. But it was just weird and awkward and not fitting. Plus, SPEA is a blanket for many other programs, like nonprofit management! And if you really want smaller government then, you're going to have a larger nonprofit sector...which actually means *more* SPEA grads, just of a different type. It was like he didn't really do his homework about the program.
2) SEXIST LANGUAGE OH DIOS MIO! In the government section he said something about how a small government is what our "fathers" have intended. And he used "he" as his only chosen pronoun over and over. There were a few other very specific examples...It was almost too much to take. Seriously! When he went off on this politically charged tangent, I started to zone out, but again and again the language kept popping out to me.
You'd think SPEA would pick someone who would represent more people's opinions and who is more inclusive.
I'm really happy I'm done. I'm proud of me, damnit! But I'm not going to look back at my graduation ceremony its self fondly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)