Wednesday, August 09, 2006

Guys Gone Wild: War, Nation-making and Boobies



My mind is a soup, so bear with me.

Lately, two articles have become linked in my head: one, the recent LA Times Magazine article about the sleazy Girls Gone Wild mogul, Joe Francis, who has issues with coercing/forcing young women into sex and exhibitionism and two, the continuing narrative about the American soldiers who gang raped a girl, killed her, set her body on fire and killed three other members of her family to cover their rape/murder (which I describe in stark terms because they are stark actions. Let’s not be squeamish when we’re talking about these things.)

(And if you Google ‘Steven D. Green’ you can read the news stories on this case.)

On the surface, these stories bear no relation to one another: one is a slightly distasteful domestic story of an entrepreneur who seizes his capitalist moment and cashes in on our culture’s desire for celebrity and sex. The other is at the center of a larger global narrative of nation-making, democracy, terror, and military might. But if we scrape the surface, we’ll see these stories are not so different, after all. Both highlight masculine aggression, the ideological equation of libidinal release with cultural/capital supremacy, and both see such supremacy happening at the expense of women and their bodies. In these narratives, women are not merely objects, they are channels through which our men establish their identities. Female bodies are what predatory men need to fix their hypermasculine identities.

What does it take to create a Joe Francis or Private Steven D. Green? The acceptance of aggression as within suitable boundaries of human behavior. The LA Times piece opens with Francis assaulting the reporter over the hood of a car, her hands crushed behind her, her body pinned underneath Francis while surrounded by an acquiescent crowd of his bodyguards, male onlookers and armed law enforcement who realize too late that what they’re looking at isn’t a joke. Later, in addition to Francis’ own verbal and physical abuse of the reporter, Hoffman relates incidents of Francis verbally, physically and legally forcing women to his will. (That’s what his videos are all about: the moment a young girl must have her will bent to that of Francis, his camera man and to the implicit threat of the inevitable circle of drunk, aggressive men demanding to see her breasts.) And in Iraq, you have a group of men in a high combat area, all of them heavily armed, who’ve been fighting and see no end to the fighting; you have Private Green who’s on record saying “I want to kill and hurt a lot of Iraqis.”

You also need a cultural mindset that justifies whatever feeds a sense of supremacy, of over-weening masculine Privilege. Francis actually says it:
“I hate to get too deep and philosophical here, but only the guys with the
greatest sexual appetites are the ones who are the most driven and most
successful.”

This ‘drive to succeed’ will inevitably permit him to create a world that’s saturated with his view of sex and commercial exchange. The soldier’s success is a little more complicated; while there is individual motivation to avenge fellow soldiers’ deaths (the reports concentrate on testimony of the unit taking on heavy casualties and members of the unit being under combat stress, leading to Green’s confessed desire to kill Iraqis), there is a national motivation to ‘stay the course’, to be resolved in the face of any brutality, either inflicted or endured. At stake is national pride. Our vision of the world is so monumental, we cannot flinch; we cannot relent. In our national discourse, our soldiers are like gladiators, the ones carrying democracy at the point of a gun. ‘My country, right or wrong.’ Isn’t that the phrase?

But we also see what happens in such an atmosphere of masculine privilege: the brutality at Guantanamo Bay and the cruelty at Abu Ghraib (whose events were also highly sexualized.) And what is war but a nation giving itself permission to be its most brutal, its most desensitized? We saw what happened in Cambodia during covert operations during the Vietnam war, what happened in the central part of Africa during the tribal purges, what happened in Bosnia and Serbia – nationalist fervor manifesting itself in the systematic rape of women.

And so, to finish creating a Joe Francis and a Private Green, you need the body of a woman. It’s helpful if the woman is rendered helpless, by alcohol, by her age, by the fact our country has invaded hers. It’s also useful if she’s seen as Other (gendered Other, racially Other, nationally Other, politically Other). For Francis, what’s important is that the young woman is merely a tool for his own gratification. (Women who approach him to appear in his videos ‘sadden’ him.) She has no agency, no right to her own body; she’s just a pair of breasts. She’s worth nothing more than a t-shirt or baseball cap, though her image makes him a mogul. For Private Green and his fellow soldiers, the 14-yr old Abeer Qasim Hamza was just an Iraqi. Worthless. An object. This girl was a receptacle for their rage, fear and hatred that, through their act of violating her, allows them to become a picture of American manhood.

Before the NYTimes changed the headline to ‘GI Tells Why He Testified in Rape-Murder Inquiry’ it read ‘Iraq Incident was Fueled by Whiskey, GI Says.’ What a cop out. Whiskey may have given the soldiers dutch courage, but that narrative is not about boys getting a little bit out of control, like their frat went on a pantie raid. Let's readjust our lens a little bit. I see the guys who surround Joe Francis – the cameramen, the club owners, the bodyguards, the cops, the bystanders, the producers, the guys who buy the fracking tapes – then I see the soldiers who went on that raid on that Iraqi house and I cannot help but see them in the same way: predators.

Monday, August 07, 2006

boys will be boys? or war is hell?

i don't know how many people are following this but it's a story that turns my stomach: a disturbed GI takes it into his head to 'kill Iraqis' and so gets guys from his platoon to gang rape and kill a young girl, setting her body on fire to conceal their crime - and kill her entire family besides.

Iraq Incident Was Fueled by Whiskey, G.I. Says - New York Times

what are we doing there?

our hubris has turned us into (there's no other word for it) savages.

Sunday, August 06, 2006

it's sunday afternoon, a rare day that i've been able to enjoy without 'running errands' or otherwise being outside in a heatwave.

i've stumbled across two articles today in the 'paper' that are sort of like bookends to one another; one looks at the declining number of men without college educations marrying and the other looks at women, with educations, entering financial services and what they encounter - as well as the adjustments some firms are having to make because of them:

Facing Middle Age With No Degree, and No Wife - New York Times

Wall Street's Women Face A Fork in the Road - New York Times

what's interesting to me about both these articles is how they avoid the tone of a fake 'crisis' (unlike the Times' previous shoddy Opt Out articles, for which one of these is a tonic) and they show how the idea of what's 'traditional' is changing because people (men and women alike) are saying up front 'this isn't working for me.' and their rejection is saying something about the way our worlds, social and corporate worlds, are organized.

when looking at the low trends of young women entering financial services it's offered that 'Generation Y cares less about money if it comes at too high a price, ...throwing a wrench into Wall Street’s past assurance that it could demand cultlike devotion from employees in return for fatter paychecks than any other profession.' instead, younger men and women (even those who'd like to return) are demanding something less insane than working around the clock to the detriment of their personal/family lives.

and the guys featured in the marriage piece - they seem ok with their status, whatever their reasons for remaining single (financial stbility, fear of divorce, can't commit.) to the pressure of marriage, the effort and expense of it - they're saying no. while the article makes a lot of the stats showing how the pool of available women has shrunk for these men, their own personal stories tell a different story - they just don't want to marry. it's working for them.

of course it makes me think what life will look like down the line when most folk in my generation will be living as roommates, unmarried and pretty well happy about it. it'll be unlike life as we've known it (or heard about from our parents and grandparents). my friends and i joke about it: we're through with lovers and husbands (or maybe not), we're living in some hip elderly commune somewhere, getting all nostalgic about U2 or Wilco.

that'll be sort of interesting.

Wednesday, August 02, 2006

i'll believe it when i see it: the 'oops' plan

dead horse, beaten.

if unintended pregnancies and abortions are to be avoided, then a full range of contraception is necessary for a woman's sexual and reproductive health.

Soon no prescription for morning-after pill?

a doozy:

"You might have an 18-year-old girl who decides that rather than practice safe sex and plan responsibly, 'I no longer have to worry about it. I can just go to the pharmacy,' " said state Rep. Ron Stephens (R-Troy), a Downstate pharmacist for 31 years.
Stephens, who is morally opposed to the morning-after pill and refuses to fill such prescriptions, said selling Plan B over-the-counter compromises patient safety by "taking the doctor and the pharmacist out of the equation."

love how the majority of adult women are held hostage to this hypothetical dumbass 18-yr old AND love how now Rep Stephens is blathering about 'taking the doctor out' of the process when he and his pals think it's just fine for doctors and pharmacists to refuse to dispense plain old birth control.

which is it, doc? you WANT women to have access to prescribed birth control or you DON'T?

(if people just want other people to stop having sex outside of christian monogamous marriage, you've had millions of years to nail it and it still hasn't worked. congrats.)

Wednesday, July 26, 2006

modern life

now i know why maureen dowd writes those crazy, dreadful, 'men don't want to date me because i'm a feminist' columns every so often.

trying to be all profound week after week can blow, especially when you have a real-life job that's important to you, your sister and brother in law are coming into town this weekend, you still haven't cleaned your room, you have to pay the housecleaner (with something), buy some beer, and you have NO idea how you're going to entertain houseguests for three days.

it's hard to muster the intellectual energy to think of something sharp or funny or snarky to say about the modern state of religion in our culture when you also have to figure out when you're going to return the phone calls of a friend with whom you may stay in new york next month during a trip with your father, the calls of an irate pseudo-ex who doesn't want to be an ex anymore, the calls from friends wondering where you are and when you all can hang out. (we can hang out when i can find some time on my calendar!)

it's also hard to get up any gumption when things in the middle east resemble a crusty pie imploding from the inside, when things over here sort of look like one of those pleasure cruises slowly taking in water, when things all over kind of make you feel like you want to say, 'dear jesus, just send that flaming meteorite anytime at all. really. stick a fork in us, we're done.'

i can't help writing what i'm about to write next, as churchy and 'devotional' as it sounds: i keep going back in my head to that moment in church on sunday, listening to that small group of ordinary men up in the choir loft sing the holst/mcdonald piece, watching their quiet pleasure in it, listening to their worship and feeling full of something. and whatever it was, it stayed with me all week - while i crossed the bridge at wacker and michigan, rumbling on the crowded rush hour bus, it was with me, giving me pause.

even now, while i watch the clock and know that i have to get up in 6 hours to run an early morning meeting and i'm so busy my head hurts to think about it, even now i'm taking just a little rest from all that to think about the hymn again:

'with my heart i'll ever worhip you; my voice will sing your praise for your everlasting mercy and grace for every day.'

i guess when international peace is elusive, we take what we can get.

Monday, July 24, 2006

deacon on duty

a glorious chicago morning.
the sky above michigan avenue is the blue of a robin's egg. the breeze from the lake brushes my face. i'm rushing across the avenue, the yellow cabs at the red light impatient to speed southward, through the front door, fussing with my magnetic deacon's badge, the click of my heels snapping across the flagstones. the usher at the narthex door smiles, handing me my program. her eyes flick to my nametag and she says my name.

through the door, a brisk walk down the center aisle. no hiding off to the side and back for me. other deacons at their stations give little waves. i stop to say to the deacon board co-moderators, two nice guys (who seem to live at the church), and then i slip into my row, hoping i don't get boxed in when i have to leave early to get to my church tour position at the narthex when service ends.

the organ begins to tune. then, bach.
...
we're in the middle of our responsive psalm reading. (i'm still amazed that they have to print the page numbers of bible books in the program. who doesn't know where to find psalms?)
one of the pastors from the presbytery is reading swiftly. we read just as swiftly.

he reads, "For a day in thy courts is better than a thousand."
then he stops.
a long silence ensues: congregation waiting patiently for visiting pastor to realize he has half a verse more. pastor just as patiently wondering why the congregation has fallen silent. congregation now stubbornly determined to wait out the pastor. pastor still befuddled. the silence grows uncomfortably long. i'm fascinated at the standoff.

then the men's choir up above softly prompt, "I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, Than to dwell in the tents of wickedness" and we, the congregation, gratefully read our part. the service rolls serenely on.
...
the lights are dim as the guest pastor gives the installation sermon for our new associate pastor A-. we've all finally deciphered his twangy tennessee accent. (like how it takes a few minutes to unravel a northern england accent in a film.) he's in the middle of an anecdote about successful pastors who engage the heart and mind.

a man writes a letter to john wesley saying, 'dear dr. wesley, God don't need your book-learnin'.' to which john wesley writes: 'my dear sir, God may have no need of my book-learning, but neither does he need your ignorance.'

i am the only one to laugh out loud.
...
the offetory hymn, a slow, swelling, majestic song, is one of my favorites ('sovereign lord, creator, righteous one', gustave holst, arr. mary mcdonald). the men's choir sways gently, stretching their mouths to sing the words; some of them have their eyes closed and there is pleasure on their faces. just as it ends, the asian man on the bottom row looks up at the grizzled tenor standing above him and they exchange a nod and smile proudly.

i want them to sing it again. then instantly think i want this sung either at my wedding or my funeral, whichever comes first. then think, what wedding??
...
all the ordained officers huddle at the chancel laying our hands on our new associate pastor A-. the man's suited shoulder in front of me is padded. whoever is touching mine is weaving just slightly on their feet and every so often they firm up their grip on my shoulder to steady themselves.

i drift in and out of the prayer aware that i need to pull up my pants.
...
leading the church tour, trying frantically to remember the names of the figures on the stained glass, what the frog represents on the chancel, and who makes the tapestries for the sanctuary.

but i get the japanese story right. one day i'll remember what the frog means.

Tuesday, July 18, 2006

who says the rapture can't be funny?

Today, while the Flaming Bag of Poo called 'work' flamed on, I enjoyed a brief email exchange with friends:

Friend -
I have an interview on Monday and am looking for volunteers to practice with me...it's been ten years. Any takers?

Okay, while I know neither of you are conservative Christian right wing republicans I was hoping you may know how long I (who am I kidding - "we") will have to wait for the second coming?

This is the order, right? WWIII, then a Jesus party, then suffering on earth, then the second Jesus party? So how long is that suffering part? I just think I need to plan...

Ding -
Though I'm no longer a fundamentalist, I know exactly this timeline - I even took a class in it.

Rapture Agenda:
1. Trumpet
2. Jesus in the clouds
3. Rapture
4. Worldwide confusion
5. Anti-christ (also heralded by rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem and the resumption of sacrifices)
6. Tribulation of remaining folks, most likely Lutherans, UCC, Episcopalians and Presbyterians (approx 40 years or so, during which we get that dreaded 'mark' or die)
7. Jesus again
8. Judgment
9. Fiery ball of destruction

I think steps 8/9 are interchangeable. So I think you've got some time, there.
Work is kicking my ass all over the place but I'm willing to ask questions like 'where do you see yourself in ten years'? That won't be depressing at all.

Friend -
Thanks for the detailed timeline...now I can actually answer the ten year question with 'rebuilding the temple in Jerusalem.'

Thursday, July 13, 2006

You Better Work it!*

*[am I the only one who remembers RuPaul’s dance floor classic?]

Let’s talk about work. (Since this week at the office has exploded all over me like a flaming bag of poo, I thought Work would be an appropriate subject for this go-round.) And let’s think about the work that doesn’t get done when we try to say that ‘values’ and ‘faith’ is the same thing. The two aren’t interchangeable, though they are related; this is the problem I have with the way these two terms are used in our public political discourse because I think that while Faith and Values are good in themselves they may not be the best way to create social change or solve a problem. Rather, I think the solution rests in Work.

When I say Work, I mean the difficult labor of making change. It is the process (be it small or large, on a local or national level) through which a discernible difference can be made in someone’s material circumstance. Does this mean that a person’s spiritual change can't also manifest in social change? Brian McLaren doesn't think so; he posits that Christ’s gospel is really so revolutionary, it has immediate and radical implications for both private and public life – a truth that has been tamed in our church tradition so that the Gospel resembles nothing more than nicey-nice verses telling us all to love one another.

(Full disclosure: I’m only on page 40 of McLaren’s book. Sigh. I keep putting it aside to read my new serial killer thriller.)

Let’s back up. Last week I posted about Obama’s speech on the Democrats' need to engage more people of faith in an authentic way and not to shy away from issues of faith. While I agreed faintly, I disagreed, strongly, that we should be concentrating on Faith as Electoral Strategy. Instead, I wanted us to start looking at their Work, not as an Electoral Strategy (which puts a box around progressive work), but because it’s what has to happen.

Lately, the ‘religious left’ story has popped up in all sorts of places. Here , here , and here . And, even here . Adele Stan, in the American Prospect piece, writes:
At the root of all of the great faiths are fundamental beliefs in compassion, justice, love, and charity. We have the right -- dare I say the duty? -- to express ourselves as moral agents without the imprimatur of ecclesiastical authority.

Spoken the right way, arguments for the embodiment of these values in our civic life can ring with the divine provenance granted to them by believers. And indeed, religious activists -- especially our ministers, priests, rabbis, and imams -- are vital to our movement. But to expect them alone to create a moral counterforce to the destructive fear mongering of the right is not only unrealistic, it’s an expectation rooted in abdication of our own role as moral agents.


I want to concentrate on the word ‘movement.’ It’s a political word. It’s a word that brings to mind force, power (both of the people behind it and that which it is battling), and largeness – the largeness of the idea behind the movement and the largeness of the goal of the movement. For me, it’s a much more relevant and piercing call than one to Faith and Values. Yes, I have faith in Christ and through Him all things are possible; yes, I want to evangelize an ideology (which is what ‘values’ are) of equality, tolerance and grace. But to what end and do I really believe all that?

I am reminded of a church song that says “They will know us by our love.” For me, being progressive has always been about the fundamentals of love writ large. There is grace for everyone. We care for our fellow man, our fellow worker, our fellow struggler because they matter. They are not insignificant and they are not here simply as chaff for the fiery destruction of the world – nor are they meant to be soulless fodder for a corporate war machine.

But I’m suspicious of Faith and Values language because I don’t tend to believe the person who’s using it. The conservatives use it to hide their power and the left is using it to hide our rage. So let’s use a different language. Let’s use a language that was just fading from use when I was born – the language of a revolutionary love. Let’s start getting real about identifying who has power in this society, and who doesn’t. Let’s start being real honest about whose interests are behind which policies and who’s getting screwed by those policies – and how all of that must change. Let’s start thinking about a movement that’s less ‘Can’t we all get along?’ and more James Cone (as quoted in Sharlet’s piece in The Revealer):
‘authentic love is not ‘help’ — not giving Christmas baskets — but working for political, social, and economic justice, which always means a redistribution of power. It is a kind of power which enables [the oppressed] to fight their own battles and thus keep their dignity.’ [emphasis mine]


But since redistributing power means that those with privilege – class, race, and gender privilege - must confront it and then willfully step away from it, (thus personifying the whole ‘first shall be last’ thing in the Beatitudes), I have little hope such justice will occur any time soon.

We of the left seem to have forgotten that the personal is political – and that all politics are local. Instead let's forget electoral strategies. We already know that nothing trickles down, least of all change. Let’s get mucky on the bottom, on the street, in those grassroots we theoretically love. Understanding and evangelizing the ideological behind the ordinary is how we must affect change; it is how we must create a cultural shift. It’s not trendy, clean, or easy. It’s fracking hard. It means actually penetrating the communities we want to change; it means actually educating people about and implementing real, tangible, meaningful social change while transcending shallow election tactics that are only relevant every four years. It means ORGANIZING.

I do not accept the answer ‘it’s too much work’. It’s not Work when you mean it.

Wednesday, July 12, 2006

what making an effort will give you

my new year's resolution was to Make an Effort. i thought it would be a good way to end complacency, laziness and get my life in order. who knew that Making an Effort would be quite so effective?

i look at my calendar now and whimper. my free and open spaces are beginning to disappear with the alacrity of conservatives reacting to michael moore.

my current boy situation aside (which actually isn't that big a deal since expectations were so low - in short, he didn't want to meet my friends and act like a normal grown up), this week is going to give me a stroke.

work has, to put a fine point on it, exploded all over me like a flaming bag of poo. i stepped into my new position officially last week and, man, is the learning curve fast and steep. our government affairs contact said to me, as she handed me her copy of the IL general assembly directory, 'don't worry. in a year, you'll be great. flashcards are useful.'

holy crap. flashcards. and - a year?!

i have to learn names, committees, titles, interest areas - for city, county, state, and federal level officials (elected and appointed).

what the hell. those past 7 years of frolicking were nice. who needs friends, family and boys? not me.

i have the illinois general assemby and the cook county board to keep me warm.

(of course, i'm secretly thrilled. it's like i'm in my own personal episode of 'west wing.' love it.)

Monday, July 10, 2006

i'm over here!: christian alliance for progressives

yay!

every thursday (or thereabouts) i'll be posting over at the christian alliance for progressives blog. check it out here.

my first post is up (which i cross-posted below somewhere); the discussion soon veers off into abortion land. notice how i actually manage to keep my temper! do go and visit. (especially if you're a progressive woman. i think it's a bunch of guys - not that there's anything wrong with that, but come on! where are the women?!)

Mainstream Baptist posts there every week, as well as Faithful Progressive, Jesus Politics and De Sententia.

they're a great bunch of folks over there - faithful, learned and progressive.

(i know. and then there's me. already i got called vulgar and blasphemous!)

Thursday, July 06, 2006

here is a little bit of the history of contraception in this country. it's a short history. contraception has only been legal for less than a century.

less than a century. we have had full control over our reproductive organs for less than a century. the originating article she refers to can be found here.

key quote:

A woman's bodily integrity, her moral autonomy, her health, her very life depend on whether she has access not just to the right to reproductive freedom but also to the health care and education services that make rights meaningful. Circumstances do not change that principle. Nor is the human right to reproductive self-determination divisible. You either have it or you don't.

i find that apalling and amazing. and it's even more amazing that there are those who think that we shouldn't have this right, that we shouldn't use contraception (no matter our circumstances) at all. from the pill to Essure, women are to reject it all because biology is destiny.

looked at as part of women's history, medical history or any kind of cultural history, it's clear to me that this war on contraception isn't just about religion (it almost never is.)

it's about gender and about finding ways to penalize women who step outside of conscripted roles of wife or mother. we need to start asking ourselves, when a woman can't control what her body does (or does not do) who will control it? who makes the rules about what we can do with our internal organs?

this retrogressive return to a time before fracking modernity makes me angry.

(and for those who really don't get why i'm angry or who feel that i'm just some freak-ass feminist, it's about history. do some archival research into women's health, medical opinions on women's health and bodies, marriage laws, property laws and even legal rights from the 19th century backward and you'll be amazed at how little we've progressed, in terms of attaining the level of legal personhood that men have always been privileged to enjoy.)

Wednesday, July 05, 2006

mclaren's new book: already i'm skeeved out


today, i received my review copy of mclaren's new book, Jesus' Great Big Secret (or something like that.)

i want to like mclaren, i do. he's a man who asks questions and i've always thought that by asking questions, at least you're not some guy's patsy. i also admire the effort it takes to rear up against a heavy orthodoxy like christianity; i admire the guts it takes to bear the brunt of criticism (since i do it so badly.)

but i tried to get through his book A Generous Orthodoxy and i confess i only made it halfway. i tried twice and each time, i failed. it was too muzzy. the book made me feel like i was drinking a glass of old wine. (and, let's face it - i thought it was boring. i mean, i've muddled through french feminist theory and this was worse than that.)

i fear his new one is even muzzier (though shorter.) already, in just the few pages of his introduction, i'm feeling the old fundamentalist in me squirm uncomfortably when he says:

They - I should say 'we' - feel that there's a missing puzzle piece without which the big picture won't snap into place. There's a hidden door somewhere behind a curtain or bookcase, and through that door there are rooms we've never imagined.

They - we - have this hunch that there's a secret we don't yet get. (xiii)


um, no. while i will cop to the fact that there are mighty things i question, there are aspects of doctrine (regarding sexuality and gender) that make the 21st century subject in me go, Hmmm - while there's all that, i do not doubt that my faith (and the basis of my faith) is complete.

he writes that his dissatisfaction is prompted by an 'intuition' that there is something more to jesus' message; i am curious to know what exactly is insufficient about christ's message now? why the need for an extrasensory perception when we're supposed to have the gift of the Holy Spirit?

and then this leads me to wonder what's missing so that mclaren needs all this extra stuff to fill it.

is it naive to just hold onto the sufficiency of His grace?
in the middle of all the things that throw me into doubt, this is the only thing that relieves me.

in the back of my mind i am hearing my dad's voice: 'apostate! heretic!'
i won't go so far as that (i'm only on page 25, after all) but i'll admit that there are red flags popping up and bells ringing all over the place as i read this.

i'll share more, of course, as i go through. and it's interesting i'm having this reaction - me, the woman who'd rather chew glass than go back to being an evangelical baptist.

Tuesday, July 04, 2006

sex: for responsible adults only

wanna know where i stand on birth control, abstinence-only education, and sex ed?

go here and here.

and read this post on responsibility and the following discussion for extra clarification of my stance on reproductive rights.

(as in: i have a legal, state-given right to control my reproduction - no one else.)
i just got back from 5 days in michigan, on holiday.
i'm relaxed, tanned and glad to be back.

judging from comments, however, maybe it's too soon to say that.

(and PV, you're still banned.)

Thursday, June 29, 2006

What Happens When There Is No Plan B?

i have no idea why i missed this article but the story this woman tells is compelling - and a damning finger in the face of those who are now trying to curtail a woman's access to ALL forms of birth control.

unbelievable:
"Although I've always been in favor of abortion rights, this was a choice I had hoped never to have to make myself. When I realized the seriousness of my predicament, I became angry. I knew that Plan B, which could have prevented it, was supposed to have been available over the counter by now. But I also remembered hearing that conservative politics have held up its approval."

read more below.

Dana L. What Happens When There Is No Plan B?

Wednesday, June 28, 2006

must be election time: the values argument. again.

here's a novel idea for democrats: how about actually DOING something, instead of just worrying about the frame for your message.

as a progressive woman of faith, i'm getting just a little tired (yes, tired of even beloved obama) trotting out the tired 'we have to compete in the churches with the religious right.' my advice to the dems is a bit more...feisty. as a progressive woman of faith i'd like to see my fellow democrats stand in front of something without flinching when the crap starts to fly. as a progressive woman of faith i'd like to see some policies on the ground that demonstrate our progressive policies are the best for us and this country.

(hello, paid family & medical leave; hello, increasing the eitc; hello, increasing the minimum wage; hello, broadening access to higher education.)

unfortunately, we don't see too much of that when we're too busy watching our politicians genuflect and share their conversion experiences. thanks very much but i remember my own conversion experience; i was thirteen, brushing my teeth one sunday morning. i didn't feel anything so i accepted jesus a few more times that day, just to make sure. (ah, the joys of growing up baptist.)

and i'm reminded of my baptist childhood watching the dems 'try on' faith just to rack up some votes with the same awkward earnestness that's really just a fear of going to hell.

not to say that the democratic party should ignore issues of faith; rather, they should realize that having faith doesn't make you an easy mark for a con. and that's what this feels like to me - a con. it's great that suddenly everyone wants to talk about jesus, but i'd rather see you manifest jesus in what you do rather than trundling down to some black church on the south side and clap on the 1 and 3 instead of the 2 and 4. (y'all know what i'm talking about.) those of us in those churches know exactly what those visits mean and for any politician, black or white, that kind of hospitality is eventually going to dry up. you are pimping us out.

eventually the whore gets tired, you know?

this is what's disappointing about obama's speech; he gets awfully close but fails to put his finger on the pulse of the problem: the left can't make much ingress into these communities of faith now because, at last, folks are waking up to the fact that they've been played. after two election cycles and the dems still haven't brought home any of their promises, who's going to look better? the people who say what they mean and act on it. sure, their message is narrow and awful and retro and won't look after the interests of regular folk, but it feels right. it has the feeling their conversions didn't. instead of talking about the discourse of faith, obama needs to say how faith is about how you WALK - and then tell the dems they need to start walking if they want to see anything fruitful.

if the left really wants to be the party of change, then BE the effing party of change.
fracking grow a set and be like jesus: walk into the temple and raise some hell.

Obama urges Democrats to embrace faith Chicago Tribune

dangit! timing is everything!

aargh!
too bad this isn't going to be the same weekend as my trip to newark in august!!

but if you're in the area, you should go.
and then write me an email and tell me how great it was. (sigh)

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

enough about you.

you may already know i work for a women's organization, a moderately-progressive and feminist organization. while many different people work for us, our staff is a rather self-selecting lot. we've been around for over 100 years, we all know what our mission is and we all like that over 80% of the staff have ovaries. contrary to stereotype, ours is a surprisingly even-keeled environment* and the team i work with is a good one - it's high performing and we're particularly mission-focused. so it was a surprise when, during a meeting yesterday, the only male staffer on the team got his Hanes in a bunch and just walked out.

context: we were discussing the idea of instituting a series of feminist salons, home-based discussion groups, and one of us was in the middle of explaining the history of the salon.

staffergirl: during the 18th and 19th centuries, prominent women opened their homes to artists, politicians, thinkers, writers to discuss current events. it was a way for women to enter the public sphere, become politicized, and it would be a good idea for us to engage people now -

stafferguy: excuse me, what people? (cupping his ear with his hand)
staffergirl: uh, young women. we think it would be a good idea to engage young women in these discussions and -
stafferguy: which people? (the cupping thing again)
staffergirl: women.
stafferguy: i'm sorry. i'm sorry. i just don't like it when you forget that not all of us are women. (bundles up his lunch and starts to walk out)

staffergirl: i'm sorry, but - don't go - this is what those groups were! i'm sorry, i didn't mean to offend -
stafferguy: but you did, staffergirl. you did. (door firmly shuts and stafferguy is gone.)

the rest of us sit there a little abashed and stunned.
into the silence, i say, 'i'm sorry. we are a feminist organization. we are a women's organization. hegemony is tough.' i shrug and sip my diet pepsi. after a few seconds, our discussion continues without stafferguy. but at the end the manager wants to talk about it.

everyone is silent. then i and a recovered staffergirl say that, sometimes, a person who enjoys a certain amount of class and gender privilege has to acknowledge that it's not all about him all the time. if he is going to be a feminist man, then he has to recognize that sometimes that requires him to not be the center. sometimes, there are limits.

i said we see this limit in other political groups; while there are alliances between feminists of color and not, at some point there has to be a recognition that sometimes our interests divide and sometimes, we brown feminists aren't going to be thinking about what our white sisters might feel or want. in another instance, while we progressive straights can certainly be allies with our gay friends, we have to take a back seat when it comes to that community defining what's best for their interests. sometimes, the dominant discourse has to learn when to shut up.

in other words, sometimes the Other doesn't want the Master around.


[*this is not to say our workplace is perfect. some women have sniffed that it could be 'more woman-supportive' but for me, having come from at least two corporate, testosterone-heavy firms, working in an all-female office is like running on the beach during one of those 1970s kotex commercials. it's that refreshing.]

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

staying the course, even if it kills us. literally.


resolve for the sake of being resolute is not necessarily an admirable quality. it just means you're either too dumb or too slow to know when to change directions or reevaluate your situation. if we believe in human fallibility we must believe at some point that not all decisions will always be correct, for the context surrounding those decisions (both at the time and afterward) will change.

but here we are, at the mercy of an administration that will create:

'a central line of attack against Democrats from now through the midterm elections: that the withdrawal being advocated by Democrats would mean thousands of troops would have died for nothing, would give extremists a launching pad from which to build an Islamo-fascist empire and would hand the United States its must humiliating defeat since Vietnam.'

i guess some GOP self-awareness would be a little too much to ask. perhaps it is entirely outside the realm of reality that someone on their side stand up, raise their hand and say, 'hey, guys. guess what? these thousands of troops have died for nothing - really. and it's funny you mention vietnam...'

but i guess what we're seeing is the power of mythology - the mythology of democracy (apparently, we, the most democratic of nations just can't fuck up the course of democracy faster), the mythology of american moral superiority and even the myth of american strategery. in religious parlance i guess you could describe this historical moment as The Moment Our Government Began to Name it & Claim it. if you're not familiar, name it & claim it is the spiritual voodoo that says the reality you create is the reality on the ground; name your desire, claim it in the name of jesus and see your blessings follow. to my non-theological brain, it's the low-rent version of Providence.

it's also a neat religious trick but when you're actually naming/claiming off the bodies of dead soldiers and civilians, it's just a little gross.
...
a couple of nights ago, on the daily show, they showed a clip from the debates on the non-binding resolution to 'support our troops.' i remember most clearly a representative saying that he was glad that Murtha hadn't been involved in the vote to intervene in the second world war or we'd all be speaking german or japanese right now.

these are the people who are making global, life/death decisions for us, the american people. these are the ignorant blowhards who have the power to make this 'war' on terror a perpetual state of existence for us, until it no longer registers and becomes a low hum in the background of our lives. (it already has become so, hasn't it?)

at least they have family values.

Tuesday, June 20, 2006

i knew stress was good for something...

we were told to be fruitful and multiply but clearly, post-lapserian peoplekind didn't know about stress back then or there'd have been a caveat: 'be fruitful, but only with therapy.'

Stress can make women infertile

[h/t feministing - check out their rather good paranoiac reading of future research]

Thursday, June 15, 2006

pitch call: holy muse

i know you're out there: budding writers, impassioned essayists. if you want to write but have no idea where to submit, here's a place: Holy Muse

it's a digital magazine that just launched and they're looking for contributors.
pitch call below (if you're interested, just go to the site and contact the editors):

If you're interested in any of the themes below, we'd love if it you could send
us a quick line or two summary of the idea by June 21st (for August Issue) and
July 21st (for September Issue). We'll let everyone know the next day who should
proceed. We are only trying to be organized so three of you aren't writing on
the same topic and it ends up that we can't use two of them after you've taken
the time to write.

We'd love to have finished pieces for the August 1 release by July 15 and pieces for the September release by August 15.
...
August In the middle of hurricane season, we're talking about what else... the environment. Big oil, global warming, stewards of the planet, that whole deal... you know it well. Green peace vs green paper. Main articles(where you really tell us how you feel - 1500-2000 words). Bush bashing is easy -feel free to bash but at least have some good substance as well - what we as "truth seekers" are to do in regards to our decaying planet. If it's even decaying...

September It's back to school. Good stories, or opinions about homeschooling, religious schools/education, public schools - why they're good, why they suck - and of course, the whole evolution/creation debate. Should we care, why, and about what
in regards to the existence/creation of the world. Again, for the big articles
1500-2000 words but if you've got some quick thoughts, let us know.

BOTH ISSUES We're always looking for good gripe pieces, media reviews, and/or
anything else that might be on your mind. We're pretty open and you're all great
writers who have good things to say, so if you've got something brewing around,
let us know.

Tuesday, June 13, 2006

why never to date a pastor

this made me snort:

Where breakup books excel, however, is in detailing breakups worse than yours. In Love Hangover: Tips for Christian Singles, for example, the author describes being dumped by a pastor who explained only, "God told me to do this."

yikes.

[thanks to bookslut]

Thursday, June 08, 2006

amen, brother

this post below is a truer post about prayer than i've read in a while - and it's from one who is probably what we're comfortable calling an Unbeliever. i don't know if the eventual change from 'god' to 'God' has significance, but the intellectual change (if not spiritual) within the author is more important than typography.

he writes:

I looked up prayer in the dictionary. I looked up prayer in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Interesting, but I didn't feel down with submitting myself to the will of a being I probably didn't believe in.

Finally, I decided that I would just try to say things that were true. The main problem with even this strategy is that it's just about impossible not to be disingenuous when you think you might be talking to god. It's all about making a good
impression, and it takes a while--I think it took me a good 30 or 45 minutes of trying to slyly bullshit god--to turn off the part of your brain that's always calculating, the part that makes you act humble to get more dessert, or less cancer, or whatever.



Expendable Organ: Prayer

oh, and if you can spare a prayer for him, please do.

Tuesday, June 06, 2006

committee of pain

as anyone who's ever worked in a church knows, com'tee work can either be an uplifting experience that makes you want to run around a grassy knoll with arms outspread OR it can be the gaping maw of hell.

guess what kind of com'tee i'm on?
oh, i'm sorry - guess what kind of com'tee i'm chairing??

(roll of eyes here)

the Person who totally guilt-tripped me into taking this position deserves flaming hot pokers to be inserted into her arse. you hear me, Person?

pokers!!
arse!
(obscene gesture with fingers here)

Thursday, June 01, 2006

it's been a while...

but here are the highlights:
the guy i dumped back in january came back and, surprisingly, i rejected him again! some things are left better to die.
yes, i will be going to new york with my dad at the end of the summer. (and new jersey!)
yes, i've been working my arse off.
no, i don't think i'll ever have fun again.

and my sister, cruel cruel wench that she is, said to me recently, "You might as well get used to saying you're 37 now. It's right around the corner." Thus plunging me into a startling and deep pit of anger/depression - depranger. bitch!

off for drinks at NoMi with some presbyterians.

Friday, May 26, 2006

the obvious and the gay

over here is a study that says that poorer americans may be more stressed out than others.

really?

(h/t: Shakespeare's Sister)
...

in honor of this city's IML festival, i'll probably post something later about the FMPA again. it's time. again.

but i'll have to do it later. i need to get a mani/pedi.

Tuesday, May 23, 2006

just under the deadline

a while ago a friend told me he thought i wrote better when i didn't give myself a whole bunch of time to ruin it with thinking. that made sense to me, at the time. (and he was an editor, after all)

but what that really means is that i've trained myself to procrastinate till the VERY last minute.

i'm exhausticated.

but the piece for Geez mag is finished, i'm actually happy with it (until i reread it tomorrow) and if they use it, huzzah!

Friday, May 19, 2006

new planetary system: a conversation


scene: a cab, on the way home from marshall field's with the roomie.

roomie: so did you see the emails today between me and K-?
ding: no. i was busy all day. i barely checked email.
roomie: dude! you don't know about the new planets?
ding: the new what?
roomie: the new planets. dude. they discovered a new planetary system.
ding: shut up. a whole system? are you sure it just wasn't a bunch of stars or something? and how far away are they?
roomie: a whole system. behind venus or something.
ding: shut up. that close?? there was an entire planetary system within our own system, hidden behind a planet? what??
roomie: i don't know. i can't remember the details of the article. but i was saying to K- that this is how it begins - they discover a new planetary system and then, boom, Battlestar Galactica happens.

ding: (laughing) you are so crazy. but you have a point. how cool would that be? we get invaded by aliens in this new planetary system. that would change a lot.
roomie: politics, religion - everything. the fundamentalists would crap. it would blow everything out the water. everyone would have to come together to face the invasion.
ding: true. who would care about the clash of cultures, christianity versus islam, when there are aliens who want us for food?
roomie: they wouldn't necessarily be bad.
ding: it's always bad. every twilight zone episode has shown us that earthlings are terribly naive and then we get eaten by the invaders. and i could see the christian right telling us the alien invasion is actually satan.

roomie: all i'm saying is that there is a new planetary system and no one thinks this is an issue.
ding: that's ok. you'll be our chicken little.

CNN.com - Three new planets found around sun-like star - May 18, 2006

friday is my new best friend

i have a day off today.

i so need it. the past few months at the office have been insane. phase 1 of a project just finished and i am so glad, i could do a dance (and the dance would look like that eileen dance on seinfeld - don't get me wrong. i have rhythm. but my joy requires total goofy dancing this very minute); i was taking work home, working 12 hour days and i was just exhausted.

so now i'm home, in my bedroom, emailing, reading the paper and getting ready to go outside and get some coffee and go to the bank down the street. when i get back i have to start writing that article for Geez. (bad freelancer, bad!)

isn't friday great?

Monday, May 15, 2006

this is how you evangelize: cylon fundamentalists and the coolest show ever


my roomie and i are new to 'battlestar galactica'. (she hates that i tell everyone how much we love this show.)

i mean, i remember the old show with lorne greene walking around in shiny robes and richard hatch and dirk benedicts with guns strapped to their thighs. (oh, how many pictures of those two did i have taped to the inside of my book case? i loooved apollo.) but all i really remember from the old show were the really bad firefights and, actually, i think most of my memories are mixed up with Buck Rogers.

anyway, to catch up with everyone else who loves this show, my roomie and i spent two weekends renting season one and season two (damn them for splitting up season 2!) and we've immersed ourselves in the whole mythology.

yes, we're dorks! i love science fiction! space opera is the best!

things we love:
that starbuck is a woman - this is a HUGE improvement and we love it.
the fight scenes are so much better!
lt. gaeta is hot

i'm fascinated with how BG treats religion; i sense that there's a fairly complex 'theology'/mythology behind the whole narrative and we get a glimpse of it when the President goes on one of her drug induced visions or when the really annoying blonde Cylon babe (she's SO annoying) ups her Cylon-witnessing gambit with Baltar. or when adama and the president get into one of their faith v. military maneuvering discussions. i love it.

but is this religious war supposed to be analogous to our christian/islamic clash of cultures or just a basic christian/heathen thing?

and there are other questions:
how can the cylons have religion if they're machines?
what is their religion? and how did they get it?
and the humans worship greek mythology? huh?
what's the deal with kobol, again?
can someone please explain this to me??

Sunday, May 14, 2006

Saturday, May 13, 2006

this week in prebyterianism

so i'm a deacon. we have an all day retreat next weekend and i am going to need loads of patience and caffeine to get through it.

and i'm about to step into a com'tee chair position that i can just tell is going to make me lose my temper and snap in the middle of a meeting. why i agreed to this, i don't know. yes i do! as a favor to my roommate who was vacating the position! argh. i knew i should've said no. i hate meetings. and i hate meetings that last more than one hour. and all we presbyterians do is meet. about everything.

has NO ONE heard of email?
or at least meeting at a bar so i can smoke?
...
this morning (and let's not even think about why i was up at 6.45 am on a Saturday) i found an email from a guy wanting to ask me questions about feminism and blogging for some article he's writing. he's probably some undergrad who has to write a paper.

but i thought his questions were useful so i'm posting them and my answers here:

# When did you start your blog?
I started ChurchGal about 3 years ago; I’d already had another blog up and running but I really wanted a separate space to talk about religion, faith and feminism in a more specific way.

# How many visits the site every month (if you don't know, then your estimate)?
I really can’t say. I don’t have a site meter (I really should get one of those) but I’ve noticed that I am getting more unique visitors since I joined a Progressive/Moderate Christian web-ring.
Sometimes the only way I have of measuring visits is through comments – some topics get big hits (anything having to do with sex or reproductive rights) and some get nothing (feminist theory and cultural semiotics, let’s say.)

# Do you know how many feminists blogs are out there - how many do you know?
There are many of us. Many, many, many. There is a huge list of women, feminist bloggers over at What She Said! I read Bitch, Ph.D regularly; I Blame the Patriarchy is another must-read and Angry Black Bitch is simply phenomenal. From there, of course, I read other writers and it’s astounding how many really good, smart, intellectually fierce women are writing!

# Why do you blog?
I first began blogging to get out of writer’s block; but then, when Bush became President the first time, it became a place for me to vent my anger and frustration at the direction my country had taken. I wanted to be public in my anger, my vitriol, my contempt for this administration.

But now I blog because it’s good intellectual practice. Based on some comments, I’m realizing that there is a lot of intellectual/educational work yet to be done to raise people’s consciousness. For instance, I plan on writing soon about Oprah Winfrey’s talk-show as a skillful cover for her contempt for the suburban housewife; I can guarantee someone will ask me why I hate housewives and what I have against Oprah? Or, when I talk about ‘patriarchy’ people ask me why I have an issue with ‘men’, not realizing patriarchy is a system, not a collection of guys – though men benefit primarily from patriarchy. Blogging makes me realize that not everyone went to college or university the way I did.

Being in dialogue with people (even with people who don’t agree) forces me to really assume a strong stance on some issues and really defend that stance. It’s like being back in school with a really demanding professor.

# Why do you think these blogs have become so popular?
They’re free. Well, not all of them, but generally they’re flattening access to authorship. Instead of discourse being generated by a few culturally elite, now everyone’s creating it. It’s truly populist – from the teenage girls with their Hello, Kitty templates to the serious academics like Juan Cole or Michael Berube – and then women like me, too. My father, a Baptist minister, has a blog!

# Does "equal status" between the sexes exist?
It depends on how you define ‘equality’ and ‘status’.

# If no, is that why you blog?
I don’t blog to even a score between men and women. I blog primarily because I love writing and I write to live. If I didn’t write, I’d go insane. But there is also a part of me that blogs to give voice to the more political or academic Me. It was something that had disappeared for a while and now it’s back and it never would have reappeared if it hadn’t been for blogging.

However, there is a secret part of me that likes to think that when people ask that idiotically sexist question, ‘Where are the women bloggers?’ I can raise my hand and say ‘Over here, you idiotic sexist!’

# Is this in your opinion the revival of the third wave? (Or is it really the fourth wave?)
I don’t even know what this ‘wave’ stuff is. For me, feminist bloggers are returning to our most basic, fundamental beginnings because we have to. I love how people talk as if feminism has made huge strides forward – it hasn’t. It’s alarming how much farther we have to go. Women are still extremely vulnerable to economic upset, our decision whether to conceive or bear children are under serious attack, and the last time I checked women in the U.S. only made up 14% of our political infrastructure despite being over 50% of the population. That’s huge. In some ways, blogging by feminists is a step to galvanize women to look at those conditions and do something about it – change something. Change anything.

I was in a meeting yesterday (and I work for a feminist organization) and a coworker said this about the use of the word Feminism: “It’s about as relevant today as abolition.” I laughed my ass off, but that’s a serious statement.

# How can this "wave" reach those not fortunate enough to own or have the chance to use a computer?
That’s an excellent question. My simple and completely ill-educated answer is to make sure we get those people computers. Information and education is power and if we want to empower the disempowered we need to make sure they have the means to free themselves.

Tuesday, May 09, 2006

fork and spoon! fork and spoon!

pinay of the world unite - a little canadian boy is being persecuted because he used a fork and spoon at the lunch table!

down with single utensil hegemony! down with it, i say!

JP: Luc Cagadoc: The DoubleSpeak (jp is all over this like a fork over a spoon)

why fork/spoon eating is good:
it is more efficient
you don't have to chase your food around your plate
you don't have to switch hands
it's perfect for scooping the meat with the rice
my mommy taught me to eat like this

AKBAYAN!

Sunday, May 07, 2006

the hypocrite housewife

i read this essay in the back of my roomie's latest Time mag while taking a morning constitutional and i had a suspicion that something was wrong.

1. the whiny victim tone. sweetie, you're not a victim. the image of ms. flanagan, homey homemaker, being marched back to the protective arms of the GOP while the mean girls of the Dem party hoot bad names and vulgar gestures because ms. flanagan is a nice girl who'd rather stay home than hold a picket sign is ridiculous. from all reports, ms. flanagan is just as privileged as her husband; she is an accomplished writer who earns money with her writing, and has a staff to help her do it. how many traditional housewives get that? (and, frankly, the notion that only SHE gets to have a dead mother whom she misses desperately is sickening and offensive.)

2. the sticking up for the white male. does the White Male (as signifier) really need another apologist? really? is it stigmatizing the WM to reveal the existence of those on the outside, rather than to always cater to those on the inside with ultimate cultural privilege? (like any other upper middle class white woman, she's uncomfortable with having privilege revealed and being called out on it.) i think it's interesting that she chooses to frame her argument like this, rather than say that the Dem party has abandoned the working man - which it hasn't and she'd be hard pressed to show that it has.

or perhaps her allegation would ring truer if she wrote that the 'beer-guzzling, union-dues paying' white guy got the shit scared out of him by the GOP when 9/11 hit. rather, flanagan makes the WM a victim like herself and we all know how much they suffer, don't we?

3. she's wrong. perhaps i'm watching the wrong Democratic party but i've always felt that the party has been abject in its pursuit of the Housewife. it's women like me the party's abandoned - single women, single women of color, single working men and women. in my particular case, the post-election backpedaling on the choice issue is one such example; discussion abounded that perhaps the language of reproductive choice was too scary for those housewives living in places like naperville; it was too angry. and where are the policies that look out for the interests of the people like me in the party - people who don't live in a subdivision, people without children, but still people who work hard and believe heartily in progressive causes? instead we watch as the party fumbles for its nerve and makes concessions to those easily upset.

so if anyone is being alienated by the Dems, it's not a housewife. and it's certainly not because of contempt. to muster contempt, a party must have vast stores of anger and the GOP spits it continuously while we swallow ours and hope no one notices.

TIME.com: We're Here, We're Square, Get Used to It -- May. 08, 2006 -- Page 1
Joan Walsh about Flanagan on the Huffington Post

Saturday, May 06, 2006

icky, but interesting: Father-daughter balls, coverture, and the double standard


the incestuous overtones aside, father-daughter balls are interesting. i think hugo's comment about old english law and 'coverture' is particularly apt, because it puts the 'father owns daughter' idea front and center, despite the sweetness and light of having daughters dance with their dads.

let's be clear; i think dads should spend a lot more time with their children. i don't think teenagers should be sexually active.

but, personally, if my dad had told me we were going to some funky 'pseudo-prom' together and dance to some christian rock-lite, i would have gagged. WHO wants to be in a clinch with their dad?? when they're in junior high or high school?? totally icky. (it's weird enough there's that whole 'first dance' thing at weddings.)

but why the focus on daughters and not sons? why no mother-son proms or balls? daughters are precious, but so are sons. right?
any policy, activity or ideology that focuses solely on controlling the behavior of girls and women and not boys or men makes my anti-authoritarian hackles rise with suspicion.

anyway, the post is good and the discussion is especially good - which is why i like reading hugo. his community is really sorta cool. (except when all the MRM-ers get on it. they blow.)

Hugo Schwyzer: Father-daughter balls, coverture, and the double standard

about coverture, and the language of covering, in case you were curious:

In English and American law, coverture refers to women's legal status after marriage: legally, upon marriage, the husband and wife were treated as one entity (and not in that swoony, romantic soulmate way, either). In essence, the wife's separate legal existence disappeared as far as property rights were concerned.

Under coverture, wives could not control their own property unless specific provisions were made before marriage, they could not file lawsuits or be sued separately, nor could they execute contracts. The husband could use, sell or dispose of her property (again, unless prior provisions were made) without her permission.
(Almost as if she didn't exist!!)

Sir William Blackstone, in 1765, said this about coverture and the legal rights of married women, in Commentaries on the Laws of England:

"By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the very
being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at
least incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband
: under whose
wing, protection, and cover, she performs every thing; and is therefore called
... a feme-covert...." [emphasis mine]

um, yeah. so by borrowing heavily on this language which legally served to erase women's individual. legal rights to property (which also gave access to other public rights), this father-daughter purity movement ideologically and symbolically erases the person at the center of all this purity and family unity - the daughter.

what do we call an institutionalized web of social practices that deliberately eliminate women from visibility? patriarchy!

Wednesday, May 03, 2006

missing the good stuff

this is what happens when you spend the entire weekend watching season 1 of Battlestar Galactica - you miss stephen colbert ripping the president a new one. to his face.

it rocks. it's uncomfortable. it makes you squirm. you want to look away. you can't believe he's saying it. and then you're glad he said it.

full transcript is at the end and if you can stand the video, you can catch it at crooks & liars. priceless!

The Blog Chris Durang: Ignoring Colbert, Part Two The Huffington Post

Tuesday, May 02, 2006

Ask your rep to Vote no on S.1955: why? because it's not 1955

as scintillating as wage equity is, here's an alert to protect some basic healthcare coverage for women (and some men). this will matter to you if:
you have a uterus
enjoy having a uterus
enjoy knowing your uterus' needs are covered by your health coverage

...
Click here to write to your senator: http://www.ppaction.org/campaign/benefits

If this current budget making its way through is carried, women in every state will lose benefits. It sounds like a bad joke, but it couldn't be more serious. S. 1955 would allow insurance plans to ignore important state laws that protect patients, directly affecting more than 90 million Americans. Chances are you're one of them.

That's why I'm asking you to write to your senator today anddemand that the federal government protect your health coverage: http://www.ppaction.org/campaign/benefits

You may have heard about this "Lose Your Benefits Bill" before, but now it has passed out of committee and the full Senate will vote on it. It's an insidious attempt by hardline senators to chip away at our basic rights. These lawmakers have tried before to restrict access to birth control and other health care you need. Their latest strategy? Force women to pay for these benefits out of pocket.

We've worked for decades to pass state laws that requireinsurance companies to cover birth control just like other medicines. This bill would trample those laws, but it doesn't stop there. Besides fair coverage for contraception, here are some of the other benefits that women could lose:
<> cancer screenings
<> mammograms
<> maternity care
<> the ability to go straight to your OB/GYN when you have a problem
<> the ability to stay with the same doctor throughout apregnancy
<> infertility treatment
<> osteoporosis screenings

And it's not just women who will be affected - the bill guts state protections for coverage for prostate cancer screenings, ambulatory surgery, emergency services, and more. To make matters worse, it will likely also increase the costs of health insurance for older and sicker people who need health insurance most.

Please take two minutes to speak out against this dangerous bill- the Senate could vote as early as next week. Contact your senator now:http://www.ppaction.org/campaign/benefits

Think of it as an investment - two minutes of activism now vs. hundreds or thousands of dollars in extra health costs for you and your family.

Monday, May 01, 2006

another brain buster: do women work less than men?


over at this thread, PV has made a startling pronouncement: women work less than men, therefore, it's ok to pay us less.

when i recovered from my brain bleed, it took me the whole weekend to decompress from the intense discussion of female submission, so i'm just now getting to this little brainbuster.

do we women really work less than men?

i tried to count how many meals my mother planned and cooked for our family between kindergarten and my sophomore year in college: i estimated that was roughly 20,000 meals cooked in a 14-year period. and she had a job for roughly the same period, outside the home. and that still doesn't count the other types of labor she contributed: housecleaning, shopping, food preparation, accounting, household administrative duties, child care/rearing, home repair (my dad was sort of helpless with this), and gardening.

folks, this is all labor. it's work. if it wasn't work, then it would be called fun. since it's not called Fun, then it's Work.

in the april issue of The Economist there are a couple of articles that examine the role of women on economic growth globally in rich nations (i guess we just got rid of that whole First/Third World thing, huh?) and they come up with some interesting ideas:

- in rich countries, we do better in school, are getting more university degrees and are filling most new jobs
- since 1950 men's employment in the US has slipped 12 points to 77% while women's employment rate increased by 1/3 (in America this growth has stalled though there's hope that we can use this market share in new ways in the future, especially as male-dominated industries like manufacturing and manual labor shrink, giving way to jobs requiring more brain power than muscle power)
- women working around the world have contributed more to global GDP growth than new technology or nations like China or India
- women make better investors and make 80% of all consumer decisions
- greater partcipation by women in the workforce could help offset effects of an ageing population and support growth
- the under utilization of women in developing countries stunts economic growth rather than the opposite
- it is untrue that in countries where women work, birthrate shrinks in the long run; rather, in countries where the decline in fertility is high, female unemployment is also high.

needless to say, i think this problematizes at the very least, the idea that wage inequity is ok simply because we 'work less.' the only time my mother 'worked less' was when she got sick and stopped working altogether. and i don't know about you all, but i work my ass off.

ok, discuss! (rules for this discussion: it's not about divorce! in other words, let's try and stay on topic. and if your main source of information is from a guy who could be considered by most academic sources a 'nutjob', i advise using other, less crazy, sources!)

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

potato, potahtoe: you say responsibility, i say misogyny


The other day, I was called irresponsible. I’m a little puzzled. I mean, I pay taxes, have a job, go to church (I even believe in Christianity), vote, brush my teeth and wash my face. I’ve never been arrested, I’ve never struggled with addictions, and I’ve never even been fined for anything. I’ve never been a single mother (or even been pregnant), I’ve never been on welfare (though I’ve been laid off a couple times) and I’ve never had the police visit my apartment to shut down a raging party.

By the standards of most people, parents included, I am the picture of Responsibility. Wherefore this ‘irresponsibility’?

I suspect that when the word Irresponsible is thrown around or directed at women like me, it is not ‘sloppy living’ or ‘wastrel-ness’ that they really mean. No, I think, for a certain group of people (men who believe that women need to learn their 'place' – a problematic, gendered and racially charged word that should NEVER be used here), what is called 'irresponsibility' is actually a cover for another word, ‘misogyny.'

Isn’t language wonderful? We can say a word but actually be thinking something else entirely!

(The weighty word Responsibility reminds me of something from Foucault:
the panopticon. a structure to keep the human subject completely under surveillance and, through surveillance, control the subject .)

Of course I don’t think my life is irresponsible at all. I just define my responsibilities differently, according to my values. I put a very low priority on resting in my 'place.' You may even call me uppity. In this particular case, my irresponsibility stems from the fact that I ignore the ‘natural’ hierarchy established in the bible (God/man/woman on the bottom). I don’t just ignore that hierarchy; I think it’s irrelevant and bogus.

Like, am I subject to *all* men, or just the one I’m married to?
If I’m not married, is it my father I’m supposed to be subject to?
What if I don’t live with my father?
What if my father is dead?
What man am I supposed to be subject to then? Is it the next closest man in my family or just the one who lives across my hall?
Does this apply to just Christian women or would this also apply to slightly spiritual agnostics?
If it’s just Christian woman, are we subject to only the men in our church or perhaps men from visiting churches?
And what about men from other denominations?
Like, I’m Presbyterian – would this mean that a Methodist had mastery over me? Or a Catholic? And what about those free-wheeling Pentecostals?

See? Ridiculous.

If that’s real life, then every woman would be at the mercy of some whack-job simply because he had testicles. (And what do we call that? Patriarchy.)

And isn’t that what we’re really talking about? Patriarchal control. It’s all to put a woman in a tiny box and see her rattle around in it like a discarded toy. If you feel that a woman has a ‘place’ and should inhabit only two roles (wife and mother) in the human ‘chain of command’ you’re a straight up misogynist. You don’t respect women or value women; to you, women are objects to be mastered and used. And if that’s the ideology behind Responsibility/Irresponsibility, I’m willing to be that slacker.


(And I think it’s interesting that when you search for pictures under ‘women’ and ‘responsibility’ in Getty Images, they give you babies and marriage. haven't we progressed at all??)

Tuesday, April 25, 2006

happy equal pay day!

ah, what shall i do with that extra 28 cents my full dollar will bring me?
oh, the dreams!

yeah, hard to believe that, since the 60s and despite the federal law, women's wages have remained pretty darn flat - still earning only 71-77 cents on a man's dollar for comparable work.

but if you live in illinois and suspect that a wage violation has ocurred at your job, the Dept of Labor will sue for back wages!

all you have to do is call their hotline, file a complaint and they do all the work:
1-866-372-4365

(this is how i spend my lunch hours: at brown bag lunches with other women in the city, in the governor's office, listening to presentations from the department of labor and the dept of employment services. it's not exciting, but they gave us cake. lesson? we have GOT to learn how to negotiate salary.)

Monday, April 24, 2006

while i put the finishing touches on a post about the heavy word Responsibility here are two different articles about pregnancy and motherhood i thought were good contrasts to one another:

pregnancy as commodifier
working mothers in germany

Tuesday, April 18, 2006

i have thoughts on easter and holy week (and why every easter dinner should have beef in it) but right now i'm so brain dead from a hellacious work day (i was here at 7.30 am!!) that all i can think of is the dream i had this morning:

i'm on vacation with my entire family (mom, dad, married sister and her kids); we're in french polynesia (how do i know? it was tropical yet had good dishes and we all wore scarves really well). dressed to the nines (i was stunned at how chic i looked) i'm having brunch with my family when our hot franco-chinese pilot joins us. after brunch we flirt right in front of my mother (!!), he takes me back to his swank apartment full of pilot memorabilia (!!!), we open a bottle of wine and put on a record (!!!!) - and then my sister shows up because her kids want me to take them on a tour of polynesia.

this is why i don't live in los angeles anymore.

Wednesday, April 12, 2006

my dad and i talk about poverty and jesus


From Dad, re: my first post on Social Creeds, below -

I read your blog, you know. (LOL) What is biblical? Not daddy’s interpretation, rather the bible’s:
only that which is inspired by God written by those Apostles that wrote by means of the guiding hand of the Holy Spirit which is commanded for only Christians to follow.

(Just one way to put it)

Nowhere in the bible does Jesus command His followers to care for the poor of the world. As a matter of fact he says, "The poor you will always have with you." This does not imply that we ought not assist in feeding others and making their lives easier. Remember Helps Ministry day? That was my way of doing that. And, hey, it worked. The poor showed up every month and never got the spiritual lesson to help thyself!

Keep on thinking but never forget the value of remembering that which worked.


My reply to Dad, re: poverty –

i know you read my blog, dad!

and i know what you mean by biblical - that's not what i meant.

this is what i meant: you can argue that jesus does call for caring for the poor in his instructions to the young man to sell his goods and follow him, in his beatitudes that teach that the least shall be first and, at least in the parable of the banquet. now, is that the most important lesson? no - clearly, in his rebuke of the disciples (when they wanted the woman to sell her oil and give the money to the poor instead of washing christ's feet) he's rebuking them for not paying attention to the heavenly goals of his ministry - they're focusing on the wrong thing!

but the bible also calls us to be our brother's keeper, doesn't it? it exhorts us to exercise humility in the face of greater need and to be as christ was - a servant. if christ is humble enough to wash the feet of his disciples isn't there a moral lesson in this as well for us to wash our brother's feet? throughout his ministry he urges charity and compassion - as well as the spiritual lesson. there are more instances of jesus chastising an overwhelming dependence on material gain than the opposite.

and is 'help thyself' a spiritual lesson or a cultural lesson? really? i must have missed that in bible school, dad! if the argument can be made that christ didn't advocate for the poor the same argument can be made that he wasn't all about rampant individualism and self-sufficiency, either! everything about the bible says the exact opposite of self-reliance: we are to call on Him, we are to rest our thoughts and beliefs outside of our selves, relying totally on christ outside of our selves. we are, basically, to forsake mother, father, family, country and all for HIM. that's not self-reliance - that's ultimate dependence.

but peter also calls for us to display, among other things, brotherly kindness: "For he who lacks these qualities is blind or short-sighted, having forgotten his purification from his former sins."

so, you're right: the exact words "Take care of the poor" don't appear in the bible. But that doesn't mean that we ought not to.

(the words "go to college, move out of your parent's house, get an education and become a productive member of society" aren't in the bible, either.
but that doesn't mean that it's not a good idea.)

Love and all that,
Ding

P.S.:
Other words and ideas that aren't mentioned in the bible but pose no huge biblical conflict because, heck, it's just a good idea:
health care, insurance, literacy, 401k, democracy, trial by jury, freedom of speech, public education, housing for the homeless, pasteurization for milk, airplanes, vaccinations, vacation time, anti-child labor laws


Dad’s reply to me –

Hey Girl of mine!

I got your point. I agree wholeheartedly. My thing is that, overall, the most important aspect of one's faith is being obedient to Christ first and foremost. I would never advocate forgetting the poor - those that have a greater need than me. You are correct; but to use the bible and the words of Jesus as a justification for social advocacy to me is pressing the button a little too firm. True; it is not about taking care of your business as it is advocating His which is clearly detailed in the scriptures. The text of 1st John 3:17 the Apostle writes: "But whosoever has the world’s goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him?" You are so correct. I know that the text is there; this was one of the primary ideas of the Christ. That is why I, too, can take communion.

My shabby life of material things is in no way a justification for me to be full and see any human being in need. I send money on a regular basis to the "Voice of the Martyrs," an agency that sends food and clothing to those Christians in Islamic countries that are being killed on a regular basis. My heart goes out to my brothers and sisters in foreign lands. I would also give the same to other needy people. I really do not have the resources to do that. Your church ministry is helping on a big scale and for that reason I praise God for your ministry.

It is not an issue of liberal vs. conservative. The greater issue is, as you would put it, Do we feel the pain of those who have nothing compared to the haves who are taking all that they can without regard of the feelings of others? This, I'm in agreement with you, is indeed a sin. You are my daughter. I do read you well. Know that I think that we are saying the same thing; but just a little differently. Good; so you do know what I mean as biblical. You see; I place that as the highest priority in that each of us will be allowed to enter in into the life to come on that basis alone.

Oh (LOL), one more thing. That one cannot perceive that the miracles of the scriptures could have taken place in no way verifies that they did not. It takes great faith to take, at first glance, all that you see in the text. I heard one guy say recently on TV that the miracles of the fishes and loaves was merely Christ taking a lunch bag of one young man and passing it around to over 5,000 people and they received the lesson about living for others so they took their own hidden lunches from their own waistbands and, since they learned the lessons of Christ, returned the lunch and then added their own. Justifying the myth of the miracle? Totally unlikely in that environment. Why, simply put, without the Holy Spirit dwelling in the sinful hearts of fallen man, ain't nobody gonna be that loving towards others - even in the presence of Christ. All of the miracles took place. I think that men make up excuses for things that they just find hard to believe.

Just my two cents; wow, look how much I've written. I must love my baby!


my father is vastly more conservative than i am in his theology and, yet, he fails to make me insane. i like talking with my preacher dad about christianity. (i mean, ok, he thinks the UN is a vast conspiracy ushering in the antichrist, but whatever.)
the point is that somewhere between Anonymous calling a desire for fairness Marxist/Socialist and me saying that an important aspect of christianity is about looking out for the less able, there has to be somewhere in between, where we can come together.

Tuesday, April 11, 2006

the carnival's here!

what's a carnival?
it's sort of a 'Best of' list of posts submitted by readers. there's the carnival of feminists (i love reading them) and now there's a carnival for the writing of women of color. excuse me, radical women of color.

read a point of view you mayn't have read before - that said, check your privilege at the door, cuz these women don't care about it.

radical women of color carnival!

damn you, black tie! damn you!

argh!!

i just had to turn down an invite to the hillary clinton event tonight.
why?

because i have nothing to wear!!

(to tell the truth, the very thorough security check scared the bejeebus out of me, too...who knows what kinds of petitions i've signed in my lifetime??)

Monday, April 10, 2006

Pro-Life Nation

Pro-Life Nation - New York Times

hm. interesting.

[update: discussion over at Bitch, PhD, here.]

Saturday, April 08, 2006

pass the wine and crackers


i love Communion.

i've always felt that it was special and good and there is something about the ritual that's so comforting to me. we don't celebrate the sacrament every week at my church, but to have that sacrament every week, to me, is an affirming and edifying pleasure.

two stories:

1.
when i was a girl, the women in my church jostled for the privilege to prepare the communion table. it was a simple mission-style table but when it was covered with the special, embroidered white linens, it took on mystery. the old pastor's wife (we called her Ama, because she was such a close friend to my family) would take me and my little sister after sunday school and show us how to fill the little glasses, where the bread was and which silver plate to put it on; she'd show us how to fold the linens, how to lay the white gloves.

and doing all this while the yellow light streamed in from our colored windows was special.

i grew up watching the women in the church, including my mother, dressed in white, serving the pastor (first old Jake and then my father), and wearing their dainty white gloves while my godmother obliterated some hymn from the choir. i watched the ritual and wanted to be one of those women to participate in that ceremony but i grew up and moved away before that could happen. (and now i'm a presbyterian and the process is so complicated you need a degree to navigate it.)

2.
the most moving communion service i've experienced did not happen on a particularly special day on the church calendar. i was sitting toward the rear on the sanctuary, ready to leave quickly so that i could prepare for my duties at the following service. perhaps it was the song from the choir, an arrangement from holst's The Planets.

but it was after the whole congregation had been served, when we were reciting the 23rd psalm, that the meaning of the service sunk into me - and it felt just like that, a deep penetration. maybe it was that i knew the psalm by heart and could say it with my eyes closed or maybe it was the slow, meditative way all of us were participating but the feeling i experienced was a combination of repentance, of awe toward christ and deep community with those around me.

Feminary: Disaster!
geez magazine sent out a pitch call for articles.
due monday.
and i have nothing.

i'm spent. i'm empty. i'm utterly devoid of imagination.
dammit.

Thursday, April 06, 2006

social creeds: would jesus be into collective bargaining?

so i'm doing some research for work and it takes me to the CME website where i start reading about their social creed. i'm also thinking about this because of something a commenter said about contextualizing my views about poverty in what jesus' ministry was (or something like that).

this is what the economic portion of the social creed of the CME is:

With full acknowledgment of stewardship under God and accountability to God, we stand for the acquisition of property by moral processes and the right to private ownership. We are thus obligated to evaluate each aspect of every economic order by the commands of Christ and judge its practices by the Christian gospel.

We believe that it is not only our duty to bring Christ to the individual, but also to bring the increasingly technological society in which we live more nearly into conformity with the teachings of Christ.

(a) Inflation. The Christian community is concerned with maintaining economic stability. We affirm that there exists a fundamental ethical challenge in inflation itself. We believe that inflation is detrimental to equality and casts an uneven burden upon our citizens, the greatest burden often falling upon those who are weakest politically and economically.

(b) Health Services. We stand for the provision of adequate medical care for all people, with special attention to the aging, the young and low-income individuals and groups. We support our government, individuals and foundations in required public health research, and we support legislation to meet these needs. We believe that adequate facilities with a professionally trained staff must be made available for the emotionally ill and the mentally retarded of every community. We also believe that churches may become spiritual centers of healing through worship, pastoral concern, and volunteer services for the emotionally ill.

(c) Wages and Working Conditions. Free collective bargaining has proved its values in our free society whenever the parties engaged in collective bargaining have acted in good faith to reach equitable and moral solutions of problems dealing with wages and working conditions. We do not support the opinion voiced in some quarters that strikes should be made illegal. To declare strikes illegal would be to deprive workers of their right to collective action and, even more seriously, would place in the hands of government the power to force workers to remain on the job.

(d) Automation. Through automation, a greater number of people face job displacement, economic loss, and obsolescence of their skills. We affirm that it is a Christian duty to provide for all people opportunity to earn an adequate livelihood, to avoid unemployment and waste of personal and economic resources. We believe that workers who are displaced by automation should be given opportunity for retraining.

(e) Poverty and Unemployment. We believe that the economic development which makes possible material plenty for all imposes upon us great moral responsibility, since physical, emotional and spiritual development of millions of people throughout the world is hindered by poverty. We therefore stand for the eradication of poverty everywhere.

(f) Christian Vocation. We believe that every employable person so far as possible should be engaged in some vocation to enhance the common good. This vocation should be viewed as a Christian calling for those who pursue it as well as by those who receive its benefits, and our daily work should be regarded as a sphere of service to God.


i guess i'm just wondering about the intersection of morality/biblicality (my word). in other words, this seems like a moral set of guidelines but could we call it biblical*? and if we con't call it 'biblical' per se, why isn't it still a good way to look at the economic world around us?

[what's 'biblical'? i don't even know anymore. clearly, the presbyterian biblical is vastly different from good old olivet baptist church biblical from childhood, which could be totally different from some other denomination...]

Monday, April 03, 2006

poo.

ohhh, my mighty bruins...
lost. to florida.

after all the busted brackets everywhere...this is what it comes to.