Bill Maher Was Obviously Not Breastfed

If the post below didn't rile you up, I bring you the always-so-charming Bill Maher on the subject:

Another Blanket (Yawn)

By Sarah Werthan Buttenwieser

Latest from the nursing-mothers-are-legally-protected-to-breastfeed-in-public front:
this law is unfamiliar to the manager of a Kentucky Applebee’s. A story that ran in the Lexington Herald describes the dispute between a breastfeeding mom and the restaurant manager. Asked to cover up and offered a blanket to do so, little separates this seemingly ubiquitous story from being like the others. (And maybe that’s the point: even once protected by law, it’s such a hidden one that no one feels compelled to follow it). The nursing mom, Brooke Ryan, however, had a copy of the law in hand, pointing out to those in charge that she was within her rights to breastfeed in public—and without a blanket. In going public, Ryan compared her situation to Rosa Parks’ on the bus, except with a blanket.

A discreet breastfeeding mom (and we who have done it for years believe women if they say they are discreet) isn’t a public eyesore. Whether Ryan’s actions were staged, it matters not. While the nod to Parks might seem extreme, an articulate woman like Ryan demanded a simple, and I think fitting thing from Applebee’s: an apology.

Meantime, the June story is resurfacing now because on September 8th, a series of Nurse-Ins are being scheduled at Applebee’s restaurants around the country.

These stories don’t make big headlines necessarily beyond the local angles. Perhaps, though, on a national stage, it’s our duty in supporting women’s experiences from being invisible to keep taking note.

Unbelievable

Really, truly amazing!

Watching the Post Reveal a Breastfeeding Campaign Gone Lame

By Sarah Werthan Buttenwieser

It’s only a conspiracy theory if they’re NOT out to get you.

This could apply to breastfeeding advocates. A recent story in the Washington Post revealed that with help from a former head to the Republican National Committee turned lobbyist, formula companies were successful in getting political appointees from the Department of Health and Human Services to tone down their pro-breastfeeding campaigns. Rather than depict the ills of formula with asthma inhalers and insulin syringes, the ads instead showed more “friendly” images of
dandelions and cherry-topped ice cream scoops to show how breastfeeding can help stem childhood obesity.

Representative Henry Waxman, investigating the matter in the wake of former Surgeon General Richard Carmona’s claims that the White House pressured him to make certain policies, called the softening of the breastfeeding campaign ads a “credible allegation of public interference” with potential “serious health consequences.” The US breastfeeding rate did not increase with the kinder, gentler ad campaign and lags well behind Europe. While the original ads were to scare women into breastfeeding, the final product became ads that tried to encourage women into breastfeeding by extolling its benefits, an approach the company hired to consult on the campaign predicted would be unsuccessful, and, not incidentally, was unsuccessful.

The Post article chronicles how formula companies were able to assert themselves such that HHS officials tried to “be fair” to the companies, rather than press hard for public health concerns. This story has made its way across the blogosphere. While some newspapers, including the Kansas City Star, picked up the Post story, other outlets have yet toreport upon it. Breaking just before Labor Day (no pun intended), the jury’s out about whether the story will travel further. Its narrative echoes other complaints about public health, but also management writ larger (think, Katrina, Iraq, oil drilling). My question: will the story follow in those footsteps of mismanagement due to pandering to big business or will the story not be as prominently featured because breastfeeding seems to be shunted to “women’s” issues rather than a national concern (even if the public health implications might loom
large).

What?

This is just too bizarre for me...
I'm sorry to rip directly from Feministing, but sometimes it's too good to pass up.

Full Frontal Feminism

Ok, I somehow missed Jessica Valenti promoting her book Full Frontal Feminism on Colbert this summer (how?!?!?) In case you did as well:



I haven´t read FFF yet, but I am a big fan of Feministing so I can´t wait to get my hands on a copy. Just one question, Jessica, why the back-breaking heels when talking about unattainable beauty?

(Real) Kids Really Do Say the Darndest Things

By Sarah Werthan Buttenwieser

Sometimes, the beauty of how children’s minds work (at least brilliant ones like those belonging to my kids) is just perfect. Case in point: my nine-year-old son Lucien told my husband this fact (well, this construction of truth): Don Imus is gay. “Where’d you get that?” asked Hosie (my spouse/his dad).

“Don Imus hates women,” replied Lucien. “So he must be gay.”

Okay, I know, I know, hating women does not equal loving men, etc. However... Well, just pass it on.

This is just charming:

Then, on a radio talk show the next day, Richardson apparently excused his response by saying, "that he didn't understand the question because of jet lag." Quipped Jon Stewart on last night's 'The Daily Show,' "yes, apparently the governor had just flown in... from the 1950s."

Golden Girls Gone Wild

In hopes of returning to the blogging world with a bang, I bring you Golden Girls Gone Wild! You heard right. Art curator Lenora Claire bought a nude oil painting of Bea Arthur by Chris Zimmerman and was inspired to create an art show with the (mostly erotic) theme. There's a small review and a bunch of photos of the opening in Hollywood here. Thank you for being a friend!

Susan B. Anthony of Pole Dancing

Stephen Colbert, I love you.

Buying In

Alex Williams' article in today's New York Times, "Buying Into the Green Movement" does an excellent job of describing a phenomenon (or should I say trend) of the "light green" movement. That is to say, a pervasive trend of heavy, "green" consumerism. I especially love the fact that the author points out how absurd it is to have raspberries in the winter at Whole Foods!

It’s as though the millions of people whom environmentalists have successfully prodded to be concerned about climate change are experiencing a SnackWell’s moment: confronted with a box of fat-free devil’s food chocolate cookies, which seem deliciously guilt-free, they consume the entire box, avoiding any fats but loading up on calories. -Alex Williams

Malalai Joya is Suspended from Parliament

Malalai Joya has been suspended from Parliament in Afghanistan. Please click here to read this important article.

Let's Talk About Sex

"Let's Talk About Sex" by Atul Gawande, published in the New York Times on May 19th is an informative read, and since it's in TimeSelect and I'm not supposed to re-publish it, I will link to it here.

My Humps

Better late than never...
This is the (unbelievable) video by the Black Eyed Peas of the song "My Humps"


And this is a really great/sad parody of said video by Alanis Morissette


I think it speaks for itself!

A Hot Squabble (And Getting Warmer)

As it's been awhile since I posted, I think that this priceless confrontation is a good way to get the blog-ball rolling.

A Post-Valentine’s Reflection

By Sarah Werthan Buttenwieser

Winter, in Northampton, Massachusetts, really started on Valentine’s morning with a snowy, sleety dump. That same morning, a man dropped off an arrangement of flowers just inside our mudroom door. Now, this is not an unexpected occurrence on this particular day, especially given that my dear husband is out of town for work. So, I stepped into the mudroom and bent down to pick up the flowers. What was unexpected was the background noise. My kids were protesting, quite loudly: “Don’t touch that! We don’t know that man! What if it’s a bomb?”

It took many assurances from me—papa always sends flowers on Valentine’s Day if he’s gone, we get flowers there all the time, Harrison’s mom works at that store and probably made the arrangement—to quell their fears. For just a moment after the scare, they did literally stop and smell the roses.

What ran through my mind was this: the incalculably high number of hidden costs exacted by this so-called “War on Terror.” I felt like shaking a hand toward those who have lead the charge to twist horrific acts of violence on 9-11 into a larger conspiracy that has wrought so much more bloodshed and violence and fear than those who dreamed up the hijack suicide missions could ever have imagined possible. Some observers now deem civil war too simplistic and even too mild a term to describe the seemingly intractable violence in Iraq (and beyond). From the reality on the ground to the palpable sense of unease experienced by those at a very, very far remove from any actual violence, assurances from our leaders that our actions are rendering the world a safer place—for Iraqi or American citizens—seem nothing short of magical thinking, and that’s a generous interpretation.

Meantime, by Cupid’s big day, smack in the middle of February, the sun was already shining longer—on sunny days—and in so doing, nudging our minds toward spring. Winter barely began at the point we often first believe it’ll soon be over. The recent report issued by the United Nations’ International Panel on Climate Change constitutes as definitive a declaration as scientists ever make that the earth is
warming and that humans are responsible for this detrimental development. Their urging that we humans reform our habits and reprioritize so that we save our species and other species and the planet could not be more clearly exhorted or more simply put. If we wanted something to fear, we’ve got it. And yet, without bloodshed, we
can—as many already are—start to repair these wrongs, and thus slowly allay these fears.

My middle son, Lucien, sees the connection clearly: saving the environment and peace do go together, hand-in-hand. He often draws posters about saving the earth. If not invariably then frequently a peace sign or a phrase about stopping the war makes its way to the same page. His desires for a clean earth and a friendly one are rooted in
love. He’s funny and warm and eager to relish what is good in this world. Although he thinks, more than most eight-year-olds perhaps, about the world’s hardships, such as war or poverty or pollution, what’s clear when he’s drawing is that hope trumps fear. His desire to make change comes from the simple fact that he trusts most people are
good and want the best for each other. Save for potential bombs, that is. Certainly, when I experience my own waves of fear—about the terrible toll of war or degradation to our planet—I try to remember that hope is more durable than fear and if love doesn’t quite conquer all, it certainly conquers much more than hate or revenge ever could.

Watch Yer Mouth

From the folks at Watch Yer Mouth:

calling all feminists, queers, people of color, women, radicals, and all you other rad folks out there--
Watch Yer Mouth is a new publication brought you by three burning bodies trying to get their minds and mouths involved... we are looking for poetry, essays, short stories (true or fiction or anywhere in between), drawings, photographs, and any other two-dimensional art you can think of.

our first issue is coming out april 21; submissions are due by april 1, 2007. start writing, thinking, dreaming, drawing, and collecting your work now! we will continue collecting submissions on a rolling basis after our first issue comes out.

know of any radical-minded bodies that might be interested? pass this along to them!
unfortunately our ability to support you monetarily for your thoughts and art is impossible right now; but you will receive a free copy of the zine and a warm welcome into a community of bad asses.

for more information, or to connect to other burning bodies out there in the universe, email watchyermouth@gmail.com

watch yer mouth. watch yer words. watch em rip the world apart and put it back together again...

YouDoit

By Ilana Panich-Linsman

Time Magazine named You the person of 2006. With the already enormous and ever-growing popularity of user-created content sites like YouTube, MySpace, Wikipedia, etc., we are entering into a more democratic state of media -- with infinite possibilities.

With these modern tools of communication come certain responsibilities. There is no longer an excuse to ignore racism, sexism, homophobia, and ignorance in main-stream culture. YOU have the power to write about it, respond to it and do something about it at your fingertips.

Take a look at how Beau Sia, a poet in New York, has used the power of YouTube to get his response to a racist event in the media heard. This is the 18th most viewed video this week:



Mr. Sia clearly explains that it is not simply the racist comment that was offensive to so many of us, but mostly Rosie's ignorant and defensive response to her critics.
Beau Sia has taken it upon himself to start a dialogue with the YouTube community, (who is, let's face it, a lot of us: Beau's video currently has 332,892 views and about 4,500 comments), and with the popularity of the video, elicited this response from Rosie:

2 day i found
beau sia
poet
on you tube

with great delivery
wonderful editing
set in a school room
he spoke

an open letter to all the rosie o’donnells

“ching chong ching chong
is not an accent
it is a racist interpretation of a language
often associated with
being buried alive in a mine shaft”

“i would never make fun of who u r
and then make u feel wrong
for just trying to inform u
of y i shouldn’t say
whatever it is i am about to say
about plus sized lesbians”

“so listen 2 me
because i dont think ur evil
i dont care if ur mean”

“learn from this rosie
apologize darling
tap into the humanity
i know that u posses”

2 beau
an open response
to ur informative creative
and quite beautiful video

i apologize
for any and all pain
caused to any and all
by my comments
ignorance
lack of compassion - empathy
understanding

u r right
i didnt get it

i know
my intent
was not to harm
yet obviously i did

there ya have it

and beau
before u refrain from all observations
comments or comedy
in any context or capacity
about the queer community
in all it variations

arttst 2 artist beau
say whatever it is u need
i trust
after seeing u 4 all of 3 minutes -
ur soul is in the right place
ur aim is 2 enlighten
not debase
as is mine

peace out
rosie o’donnell - plus sized lesbian

And while Rosie could have taken a little more time to say, compose a more thoughtful letter or use a spellchecker, she obviously understood the gravity of her racist remark and defensive response to that remark, and apologized for it.

So, can we, as individuals that comprise this online community, take it upon ourselves to make it our RESPONSIBILITY and our priority to use the tools of modern communication be critical, analytical and to challenge the main-stream norm? Let's see to it that we all employ the resources available to us, as Beau Sia has done, in order to earn our Person of the Year title.

Bad Guy and the Good ‘Ol Boys Who Love to Hate Them

Check out Bad Guy and the Good ‘Ol Boys Who Love to Hate Them In Memory of Molly Ivins in the Berkeley Daily Planet by (our very own) Sarah Werthan Buttenwieser.

Honoring Molly

By Sarah Werthan Buttenwieser

If someone asked me when I was a little girl what I wanted to be when I grew up, I wouldn’t have answered “kick-ass op-ed writer.” In fact, I wanted to teach deaf people, and my grandmother, Helen Buttenwieser, herself a pioneering lawyer, told me I was too young to know what I wanted to do. Given that she’d done something outrageous in terms of career, you’d think she’d have wanted to encourage her granddaughters (in fact, although liberal, she didn’t consider herself a feminist). I
must have been about eight at the time. I’d read all about Helen Keller, and darn it, I knew. It turned out that a couple of years later I learned sign language and that I spent much of middle school and high school volunteering at the Pennsylvania School for the Deaf. I think I actually did what I set out to do.

A couple of years back, a flurry of media frenzy over the paucity of female op-ed writers kicked up. By then, I’d begun to write some opinion pieces of my own, and I took those columns—and the numbers themselves, which were in the first two months of 2005, 19.5 percent of op-ed pieces at the Los Angeles Times written by women, 16.9 percent at the New York Times and 10.4 percent at The Washington Post—as a
challenge, a call to pen-mightier-than-sword arms. That, I thought to myself, is what I want to do; I want to do my part to raise the number of women op-ed writers, at least by one.

I came to this goal honestly. Besides wanting to teach the deaf, as a child I loved to make up stories and to read stories. Writer flitted in and out of favor as potential work. And political activism was in my blood. I organized from forever: shows with the cousins, children’s rights initiatives in elementary school, everything from protests to a support group for children of divorce to blood drives in high school, reproductive rights work in college and throughout my twenties, and on... The writer and the organizer/activist come together into one when writing opinion pieces.

The opinionated women writers I most admire are those who bring themselves into their work, melding belief and voice and life experience, including Anna Quindlen, Ellen Goodman, Katha Pollitt, and of course Molly Ivins.

Losing Molly Ivins is to hear only silence where once was a booming voice, one that championed women and peace and justice and common sense and salty wisdom and never ignored the power of humor to help call it like you see it. The world’s just not as good without her. But she inspired many of us, and with our unique voices—mine’s less salty—I believe that she encouraged us to assert our strong female voices. I certainly feel additional urgency to use mine.

Molly Ivins

''We are the people who run this country. We are the deciders. And every single day, every single one of us needs to step outside and take some action to help stop this war. We need people in the streets, banging pots and pans and demanding, 'Stop it, now!'' -Molly Ivins in her January 11th column.


Molly Ivins, activist, columnist and Smith alumna died today at age 62. Read her obituary in the New York Times.

The Berkley Daily Planet is compiling a collection of columns and articles that are critical of Bush and our current war in Iraq as a tribute to the late Molly Ivins called the Molly Ivins Tribute Project. You can also read about it here.

More Contraception, Fewer Abortions

by Carol Towarnicky

From the Wednesday, Jan. 24, 2007 issue of the Philadelphia Daily News. Click here to see the original article.

PLANNING parenthood is the right thing, the moral thing to do. Most Americans, whatever their faith or lack of it, believe this. Eighty-nine percent of women of childbearing age use some form of contraception.

It is such a given that some of our fellow citizens are quick to judge those they assume have had children they didn't plan for.

Writing sympathetically of mothers who struggle to feed or house their children is sure to prompt letters or e-mails calling them irresponsible for having kids in the first place.

At the same time, a Harris poll last spring found that support for Roe v. Wade, which decriminalized abortion, is at its lowest point ever - 49 percent in favor, 47 percent against. They are ambivalent about abortion in part because of a brilliant framing of the issue by anti-choice forces. Perhaps they are troubled by the fact that there are 1.3 million abortions in the United States each year, the highest rate in the developed world.

(Note to those who shy away from calling abortion "sad" or "tragic" for fear of adding to the ambivalence: Can't we agree it's better not to have an unintended pregnancy in the first place?)

Thousands of people took part in the March for Life marking the 34th anniversary of Roe on Monday. What I want to know is why they weren't examining their collective conscience to acknowledge their own contribution to the number of abortions?

No pro-life organization I know of actually supports increased access to contraception. The farthest they go is neutrality on the subject. In fact, many anti-abortion activists do their best to make birth control harder to get.

Few people outside these movements realize this. Anti-birth-control people don't dare come out and say that contraception is a sin - that would be a surefire way to turn off the overwhelming majority of Americans who use it. Instead, they bear false witness about the safety and effectiveness of birth control.

They claim that government funding for contraception for poor women is used to provide abortions, which simply isn't true. In fact, family planning funding is subject to strict regulation and auditing - oversight missing on government-funded abstinence-only and "alternatives to abortion" programs.

Pressure from religious-right investment funds have scared away pharmaceutical companies from doing research on better and more convenient contraceptive methods. Under the Bush administration, government-funded abstinence-only programs withhold the truth about contraception and even pass on false claims of health dangers.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has included false information on its Web site suggesting that condoms are not effective in preventing the spread of the HIV virus that causes AIDS.

The FDA was also complicit in a transparent attempt to delay making emergency contraception available over the counter for more than two years, even though it met all the requirements.

The campaign against planned parenthood culminated a few days after November's election when President Bush appointed Dr. Eric Keroack as director of the program that oversees 4,600 clinics providing family-planning services to low income women.

Keroack turns out to be a crackpot who maintains that people who engage in premarital sex use up a hormone, oxytocin, that prevents them from forging strong marriages. On top of that, Keroack headed a group that refused to provide contraception even to married couples.

AFTER SIX years of this insanity, finally there's a smart response: Legislation introduced in the U.S. Senate this month would increase family-planning funding to the level it would be if it had kept up with inflation. And - get this - the "Prevention First" legislation would ensure that the information given out by our own government about birth control is medically accurate.

Truth and responsibility is the right thing, the moral thing.




Praying With the News: On C-Span last week, Wisconsin Rep. Tammy Baldwin was filling in at the speaker's chair, occasionally pounding the gavel for order. An out lesbian presiding over the House. Thank you, God, for allowing us to reach this moment. Amen.

Real “Women?”

By C. Bradford

Upon graduating from Scripps College, an all women’s liberal arts college, this past May, I had idealized thoughts of what the “real world” would be like. True, I already knew that many of my imaginings could not come to pass anytime soon. For example, seeing President Bush step down and a woman step up would make my political dreams come true, (which are already on the way with Nancy Pelosi now in power!) At the same time, I could not help but make what I thought to be “realistic expectations” for what lay in store. What follows is an example from the real world about how real women do not support each other, and instead tear themselves (and each other) down in their attempts to gain a competitive edge.

In June, I began a postbaccalaureate program at a competitive school in the Pacific Northwest in order to enter a master’s program. I am thrilled to finally be studying what I am really passionate about, and living in the Northwest (one of the most laid-back, liberal places on the West coast, complete with people walking around in Birkenstocks and socks) is very refreshing compared to the stuffy Southern California attitude. I was ready for a change, and I knew that I could not have chosen a better place to begin my life-after-Scripps.

At the orientation meeting, I was excited to find out that twenty out of twenty-two people in my program were women. After all, I had just graduated from a powerful women’s college, and my four years there had reinforced my opinions about valuing and respecting women in all aspects of life. After going through one-by-one and hearing a brief synopsis of my classmates’ backgrounds, education, why they love the field, and their middle name, I was proud to be part of this group of amazing women (and two men) and was excited to begin classes.

But things are not always as they seem. I first began to doubt my expectations soon after the introductions were made and people were milling around eating and drinking, when I realized that everyone was keeping track of how much everyone else was eating. One girl practically yelled across the room at me, “Oh my God, you’ve had like a thousand Teddy Grahams! How are you so skinny?” as if she expected me to gain all that weight right before her very eyes. Or maybe she expected me to blow up like Violet from Willy Wonka once she started chewing three-course-meal gum. She then proceeded to impersonate a fat person by puffing out her checks and extending her arms at her sides, saying that that is what she would like if she had eaten all those Teddy Grahams, (like a thousand). I was shocked that she would venture to do something that stupid in front of everyone, especially since we had just met. It was even more disturbing that she had been monitoring my vast consumption of the free food provided (true to form of any Scrippsie), and would judge me for it.

Throughout the next few weeks, similar instances like this happened with the other women in the program. They were not limited to food and eating, for example, all of the women would dote on the few men in the program, acting flirty and touchy-feely with them. I felt like I was constantly up against a jury that never ceased to make judgments about me and each other. I did not understand; I was accustomed to being surrounded by women, but these were a very different sort than I was used to.

The structure of the program does not easily provide for real, meaningful relationships, either. The courses were lecture-based, and grades were almost completely derived on scores from three standardized tests. After the tests were scored by a computer, they would post all the scores corresponding to our seven digit ID number. This way, everyone could guess what number matched what person, and how she did on the test. This, along with the occasional “group” projects, where people would form cliques at the first mention and then remain attached at the hip, dictated our grades. The whole situation seemed to foster competitiveness, and before I knew it, people started paying attention to all the extracurricular activities outside of school that we were engaging in. It was a giant contest to see who could be the best, and who would “take your spot” in graduate school.

It was every woman for herself, and I felt like I could not do anything without receiving some sort of scrutiny from the firing squad. Eventually, my roommate Shannon, who is also in the program, and I started to isolate ourselves from the group because we did not enjoy the constant judgment which seemed to be attached to all friendships among the postbacs. This separation from the group caused some rumors to go around, including one that Shannon and I were lesbians. We laughed because that seemed to be their only reason, and poor explanation, for why two women would be such close friends. After that rumor died, another one started that explained our lack of interest in bonding with the group by assuming we were snobs. Now, there is another that we are too dorky for the group. All in all, we do not fit in, and it seems as though we never will.

Then I got to thinking about the women in my program and women in general (that is, outside of Scripps), and I decided that we are practically two different species: one type encourages feminism and equal opportunities, recognizing that it is important to support all women because we are all in it together. The other type is fake, and likes to pretend that they are in it for the same reasons, yet at the same time, they work behind your back, constantly judging and putting down other women to make themselves feel better and to get ahead in the game. Given this situation, my species seems to be endangered, which is something that I never expected to find.

At a pre-grad school Q & A session with one of my favorite professors, the topic was raised of women in the field. To my relief, she started off on a tangent about how women in the field need to stick together and support each other. Oftentimes dealing with the doctors in related fields, mostly men, our opinions get put to the wayside and discarded, even though they are just as valid, relevant, and possibly more knowledgeable given the circumstance and reason for diagnosis and treatment. Her tangent was greeted with inky skepticism and vacant stares. That was so depressing. How could they not be aware of our potential as a field of educated women? Was I the only one who was reassured and comforted about this epiphany? That yes, a Scripps view on life and womanhood can exist in the real world? No one else said a thing, and as I looked around, I tried not to let the others affect my giddy excitement and rediscovered meaning of the word “woman.”

The more I think about the women in my program, the more I realize how different I am. It seems to me that they all get along very well with the men in our program, and yet refuse to get close to another woman except on some sort of superficial and phony level. If the women in this “ranked number two in the nation” program act this way towards each other, then think of how other women must behave toward one another. I am not one of these women who seem to feel that it’s somehow necessary to become a man in order to survive, and if that defines what being a woman in the “real world” really is, then I don’t want any part of it.

Resolutions That Matter

"Thanks, Al Gore" collage by Ilana Panich-Linsman

What are your energy-saving resolutions for the new year? Check out 2006 Top Green Tech Ideas by Kelpie Wilson, t r u t h o u t's environment columnist.

Comedy At Its Worst

By Danielle Roper

I chose to study Political Humour and Social Transformation because I truly believe that it can be a space for marginalized people to speak out and that Humour can be an instrument of change. However, like every profession, the comedy industry is not immune to society’s inequities and comedians often have to buy into prejudices or stereotypes about certain groups of people to be successful. An Argentine cartoonist, Daniel Paz told me that in order for a joke to be funny, it must be based on a common social norm or assumption that everybody shares. So if you want to make a joke about your mother-in-law, you have to use all the stereotypes and associations that the public has about the mother-in-law in order for the joke to be funny. Basically, a joke requires that you use notions about gender, race and sexuality so that people can laugh. He told me that a joke is always a result of a cultural, social, and political context as well as the ideological norms of any given society; And the comedian must know this to make people laugh. Comedians themselves are not immune to having racist, sexist or homophobic views of different groups of people. So when Mr Paz told me this, I knew he was right but when I saw Micheal Richards' (Kramer from Seinfeld) racist outburst at a gig at a local comedy club, I thought, geez, did he really have to be that right about it?
Find video below:



Now the question is not whether or not his outburst was racist, I mean that goes without saying right? Like duh! But what is important to consider is that he felt that he could say it. That outburst probably would not have happened had he been performing in front of an all black audience or if the owners of the club were black. Kramer felt that the comedy club as a public space was a white space that belonged to him and other white people. So the intimidation and attack on the black man is not just a personal feud between two individuals at the comedy club, it is the establishment of his authority and control over a public space that must only be accessible to whites. The ‘interruption’ of the black man at the comedy club is more than a distraction in a comedy routine; The black man’s mere presence is an intrusion upon a white hegemonic public space and a public threat to Kramer’s white authority over that space.
Perhaps the most obvious display of white solidarity and privilege is the fact that the owners of the club allowed him to perform the very next day and have not released the official copy of the video showing his entire performance. Had a member of the audience not videotaped and leaked it out, we probably would not have known about it. The comedy club’s position or their failure to publicly take a position on the issue is important because Kramer as a performer is also representing them. A comedy club is a business which has policies about what can and cannot be said at their show so not taking a stance or remaining silent is to endorse his racist behaviour.
However, let us not forget that there were white people who walked out at the performance and who were also disgusted by his behaviour. So it is not that all white people sat there in support or his racism, there were those who allied themselves with the people of colour in that moment.
Lets take a look at his apology:



There are several problems with the ‘apology’: 1. He has not come out to the media himself and apologized. Why is Seinfeld giving him the opportunity to do so? Is it not Michael Richard who should have come forward and done it himself? 2. The terminology of the apology: Who are Afro-Americans? At any rate, African-Americans are not a ‘community’ they are individuals and ought not to be clumped into one group. Also, given that they are citizens like everybody else, he as a public figure with fans etc, owes the Black man and the public an apology for his actions. 3. The ‘I’m Not even a Racist remark.’... I won’t elaborate on this, I think you all get it.
Additionally, given the laughter from the audience and then the thunderous applause after his apology, it is safe to say that his apology is not being taken seriously and has prompted no real discussion about his racism.

But what about what the African Americans had to say:

African American response:



What I think is of most importance, is that a white woman is defending the African Americans in this scenario. This is important because white women have a long history of functioning as/positioning themselves and being positioned by white men as mediators between people of colour and white people. So if you watch a movie like King Kong, which is really a conversation about civilization and barbarianism where civilization- read white, refined city etc- defeats barbarianism- read gorilla/animal with black cannibal natives from the wilderness- you’ll notice that it is a white woman who is kidnapped by the gorilla and who understands him in the end of the movie. A white woman in that movie as mediator and investigator of the ‘unknown’ or ‘incomprehensible’ becomes the site of negotiation between the powerful and powerless who does not have the legitimacy to speak for himself. In this scenario, two black men with a white female lawyer mirrors King Kong to me because she as mediator is speaking for the black man who has no authority to speak for himself. Don’t get me wrong, it is strategic to have a white woman represent the black man because it shows that white people were impacted too and that white people stand in solidarity with people of colour. However, it also falls into an endless cycle where in order for black people to challenge white authority they cannot do it directly, they must be spoken for or represented by a white person. What is a stake is who has the authority and the legitimacy to directly challenge white privilege and in this scenario, blacks do not possess such authority.

I also want to comment on the fact that one of the black guys in his interview on the Today Show referred to Latinos as Mexicans. When are we going to get with the program and realize that all Latinos are NOT from Mexico and should NOT be referred to as Mexicans? They are LATINOS! While it is true that they (the African-Americans)have internalized stereotypes about Latinos, their own prejudices do not have the same systemic impact that white prejudice has because they live in a white dominated society. This doesn’t mean that clumping Latinos is okay, it just means that it does not have the same impact.
Similarly, calling Kramer a ‘cracker’ at the show is not okay either but given the fact that racism as a system that historically and presently privileges white people and oppresses people of colour, black prejudices do not have the same consequences for whites. In other words, blacks also have their own prejudice against white people but do NOT possess the power to enforce that prejudice in a systematic way.

Perhaps the biggest problem with this horrific display of anti-black racism is that no one sees it as the display of a larger problem: systemic and systematic racism. Micheal Richards/Kramer has internalized prejudices against black people but we only acknowledge that racism exists when hate speech occurs. Even though statistically, people of colour do not have equal economic, social and political access we only think America has racism when white people use racial slurs or epithets. So the conversation switches to why all comedians should stop saying 'nigger' and 'bitch' without thinking about how a whole system is set up that privileges whites and disadvantages people of colour. The discussion on hate speech is not about dismantling white privilege in a systematic way, it is about making that privilege less visible. So we end up thinking when hate speech stops then racism no longer exists instead of thinking how can we dismantle the myth of the meritocracy.
©Danielle Roper

All videos coutesy of www.youtube.com

Point of interest:
Check out the latest article about the killing of an unarmed black man by police officers before his wedding: http://la.indymedia.org/news/2006/11/189611.php

You can read more of Danielle's articles on her own blog, The Long-Legged-Short-Torso Diaries. Danielle currently lives in Argentina.

Moving Forward and Giving Back (A More Convenient Truth)

By Ilana Panich-Linsman

I spent May to August adjusting and readjusting my bum on my bicycle seat. My friend Colin and I went on a grueling cross-country journey from the Atlantic to the Pacific, on bicycle, raising money for Hurricane Katrina victims.

My decision to make the trip evolved gradually. At first, I was part of a crew, not biking, but documenting through photography what was sure to be an adventure of a lifetime. Then I realized that I could probably do it.

In the months leading up to our departure, all of my energy, time, and money was spent preparing for the trip. There was the fundraising. There was the promotion. I had to find the right bike(s) at the right price. We had to get all the right camping equipment. My local REI
practically knew my name when I walked in the door. We made countless lists: things we had to do/buy/plan/map. And, after my daily hours were logged planning, I had to go to the gym and train. My daily life was consumed with preparation. I felt exhausted but excited.

The trip began and we hurt and we whined and we rubbed cream on our butts and took ibuprofen by the bottle. I kept thinking (because there's not much else to do when you're on a bike for 8-12 hours a day) about my reasons for biking all these miles. I wanted to make a
difference in the lives of people who lost homes, dignity, and families during Hurricane Katrina. I wanted to accomplish something for myself. I wanted to document just how wonderful/interesting/beautiful/unique/sad this country and this trip were.

In Missoula, Montana we took two days off to cool our heels, eat sushi and see a movie.

"I heard this was good," Colin, my partner in crime said, pointing to the movie theater marquee. I had never heard of “An Inconvenient Truth.” Actually, I was surprised Colin had heard of it — considering we had been limited to only each other's company for weeks.

We sat in the theater, enjoying our respite from the heat and our few moments without the responsibility of our bikes and our belongings. (bikes were locked outside the theater and our belongings awaiting us at our campsite) We watched intently as Al Gore clearly and plainly explained not only global warming, but also, inadvertently, the purpose of our trip.

You see, never before Missoula had I considered why the trip seemed the right thing to do. I knew about global warming (well, I knew it was happening — somewhere out there). I knew about Katrina and I knew that by making myself extremely uncomfortable for an entire
summer I was somehow doing something good for the world and myself. But I hadn’t put the pieces together.

Al Gore pulled all the aspects of our trip together into one neat package. Our trip was symbolic. It was a symbol of the solidarity we felt with our fellow Americans who were victims not just of a natural disaster, but also of our government. The trip was a symbol of our personal futures, and the future of our nation. After all, as Mr. Gore explains, if not for global warming caused by the world's pollution, Hurricane Katrina may not have been quite so devastating.

We traveled East to West, just as our forefathers and foremothers did hundreds of years ago. We literally saw what western expansion looked like. We saw the land of this truly beautiful country rich with history. We saw that this same land, once home to Native Americans, was now paved over and clogged with thousands of RVs. These were the RVs that nearly ran us off roads, and the very same RVs that contribute to global warming.

We were taking a stand against global warming and for the first time I knew why that was important. And when people asked Why Bikes, instead of saying Why Not? I could tell them how biking positively changes the world. Even if just a tiny bit.

It was a sad trip in many ways. We saw how the country's lack of protection for its land and its people have caused overdevelopment, the worst excesses of corporate America, poverty, and sadness. But we also saw a land rich with people who encouraged us on our journey and
literally picked us up if we were down.

We learned that each of us determines our future relationship with the earth. It is up to us to inform ourselves, and others, about the human footprint on this earth.

With our bikes beneath us, and our bums only slightly more comfortable, we pedaled to the future: a place where we might save our mother earth by joining the crew that will lead to sustainable energy. Moved by the generous humanity I saw on this trip, I am inspired to help others when they’re down.

EC: It Isn't Just For Women Anymore (Exactly)

By Sarah Werthan Buttenwieser

When I was an undergrad interested in women’s health care, my end-of-semester project for biology class was to study sperm. My friend (and lab partner) and I had solid reasoningsa for this: the kind of revolutionaries we wanted to be in the women’s health field were ones who created a viable male contraceptive (besides condoms, which we knew from experience males did not particularly like). This project, by the way, dates me because it was just at the early cusp of the AIDS epidemic back when sexually transmitted diseases basically meant gonorrhea, syphilis and herpes. Anyway, the point was that almost all research was going into new contraceptives for women (the sponge, for example), and some of it felt invasive or scary to us, personally. Certain IUD’s were facing recall. Depo-Provera and other long-acting drug fixes weren’t necessarily safe, but were being pushed and the pill had undergone some serious refining from its early days when the hormonal doses were way too high and had caused many problems. We noticed that female contraceptives had a way of being pushed before they were well tested, but that male contraceptives didn’t seem to reach the widespread testing phase. Obviously, we understood that like with condoms, compliance was an issue that worried those in public health; men, given their inability to get pregnant, perhaps would be less responsible than women about using contraceptives.

These days, condoms are, at least in theory, critical for both males and females.

Interestingly, now that Emergency Contraceptives (EC or Plan B, or the Morning After Pill) are going to become available over the counter in pharmacies (including, after a lawsuit, Wal-Mart), both women and men can buy them. The barrier now isn’t gender but age: you have to be eighteen to purchase EC (see this article in Women's ENews). Having said that, boyfriends, sisters, brothers or mothers can now obtain EC for women under eighteen (as long as they have picture ID). The other barriers may be cost (Medicaid won’t cover over-the-counter drugs), and ensuring that all pharmacists provide it (although now chains will, what about individual pharmacists at independent pharmacies?).

While more types of female contraceptives are widely available, no significant gains have been made in creating or marketing male contraceptives. And the rate for unintended pregnancy rate in the US remains high: forty-nine percent in 2001.

Woman Empowered (as consumers and comodities)

By E. Bestpitch

“The paramount obligation of a college is to develop in its students the ability to think clearly and independently, and the ability to live confidently, courageously, and hopefully.”*
Ellen Browning Scripps

The mission of Scripps College is to educate women to develop their intellects and talents through active participation in a community of scholars, so that as graduates they may contribute to society through public and private lives of leadership, service, integrity, and creativity.

The smells, sounds and sights of my alma mater are not yet unfamiliar to me. Only six months ago I was preparing for my departure from Scripps College, and a short two years before that I lived in this very dorm, Kimberly.

The Resident Advisors’ rooms are in still in the same spot, the familiar television room houses the same hotel lobby-looking furniture, and students’ doors are still plastered with pictures, stickers, and notes from friends. Nothing seems to have changed much at all since I left, with the exception of the wall decorations that the peer mentors** put up every year.

The year I lived in Kimbo, laserjet print-outs of classic Peanuts characters were plastered on the walls. We each got one character on our door, next to our name. My last year in school I lived in an ocean-themed dorm—construction paper cutouts of sand castles, beach balls, sea horses and fish lined our halls. Other themes which were considerably less tolerable included fairytale fantasies, replete with princesses flouting long hair, flowing dresses, and the signature helplessness that compels an inevitable heterosexual storybook coupling of a schlub-turned-dragon-slayer and a helpless heiress to unfathomable fortune.

Since I chose not to take part in the peer mentor program, I had no say in the decorating and thus did not complain. But as I recently traversed the halls of the school that granted me my Bachelor’s degree in Sociology, I could not help but fume over the colorful cutouts decorating my much-loved Kimbo. The images in the halls shocked and bewildered me for a moment, then angered me. Upon approaching the front hallway in this Vegas-themed dorm, I noticed cutouts of Prada and Gucci purses, shopping bags, a Visa Black credit card, novelty-sized diamond rings, and ornate high-heeled shoes.

Women are consistently depicted in commercial advertising as consumers, unrelenting in their attachment to products (the slogan “diamonds are forever” comes to mind), and also as the consumed—often as the reward for a (heterosexual) male using or purchasing a specific product. (Think of Axe body product commercials, wherein Axe users are depicted as literal magnets for females.)

Females are seen as both primary consumers as mothers and keepers of the house, as well as commodities in and of themselves. While these roles may seem contradictory, the fact remains: advertisers target females in their ads, playing upon traditional gender roles of women as caretakers while simultaneously attracting males to consumerism by depicting women as commodities to be possessed. Walking through Kimbo and seeing reproductions of advertisements that encourage a life of consumerism for the sake of being a commodity did not sit well with me. It bothered me not only from the perspective of gender but also of class.

It would be one thing to post construction-paper cutouts of the Target logo, Payless shoes, and cubic zirconium rings. But Prada and Gucci represent a consumer market that is limited to an upper-middle class status to which many students do not belong, and to which many do not aspire, myself included. For a school that boasts diversity, the dorm decorations chosen by peer mentors certainly alienate students who cannot and/or do not relate to upper-class consumerism. And as a school that extols the importance of female empowerment I have to wonder at the implicitly sexist quasi-advertising of high heels, Prada, Gucci, and diamonds—things that females consume in order to become more valuable commodities.

The mission of Scripps College is to breed a sense of integrity, creativity, compassion and thoughtfulness in our lives. Kimbo’s Vegas-themed decorations--staring students in the face every day—encourage an unequal and thoughtless brand of capitalism and promote a sense of materialism that lacks any creativity or compassion. While some students may recognize that this display is an undeserved lauding of vacuous consumerism, I undoubtedly believe that this re-creation of media-touted models of consumer and class practices comes from the subconscious consumer voice that commercials, billboards, and Hollywood have worked so hard to fuel within us. That scares me.

Funny how walking down a hallway that flaunted such richesse could make me feel so cheap.

*Scripps College mission statement, as laid out in their college catalogue.
** peer mentors are students who assume middle-management positions between other students and the resident advisors. Ostensibly their duties include resolving dorm conflict, counseling first year students as needed, and planning dorm-wide or school-wide events.

References
Female as consumer/commodity advertising images: http://www.ltcconline.net/lukas/gender/pages/consume.htm

A video depicting the female consumer:
http://ia300120.us.archive.org/1/items/Consumin1967/Consumin1967.mpg

A discussion of women as consumers and their consumer role in the economy:
http://www.unpac.ca/economy/consumers.html

For more information:
Leading author and lecturer on advertising and its effect on women as consumers and commodities
http://www.jeankilbourne.com/index.html

An article on female empowerment, consumerism, and the “metrosexual” phenomenon
http://hedonisticpleasureseeker.wordpress.com/2006/11/05/in-which-the-hedonistic-pleasureseeker-muses-on-female-empowerment-metrosexuals-and-consumer-culture/

Take Action: This Man Doesn't Believe in Birth Control

As mentioned in the NYT article previosly posted,

Eric Keroack was the medical director of five so-called "crisis
pregnancy centers" that oppose contraception and do not
distribute information promoting birth control. In Keroack's new
role, he will oversee hundreds of millions of dollars in federal
funding meant to provide access to contraception and
reproductive health information. This politically motivated
appointment is not in the health interest of women and families.

Please sign this petition to Secretary Leavitt and make your voice heard.

Dear Secretary Leavitt,

As an advocate for women's health and access to birth control and medically accurate sex education, I am outraged by the appointment of Eric Keroack to the position of deputy assistant secretary for population affairs (DASPA). Eric Keroack's role as the medical director of six so-called "crisis pregnancy centers" that oppose contraception and family planning calls into question his ability to administer the nation's family planning program. Keroack also has testified in favor of biased counseling provisions in the Massachusetts legislature and has produced numerous writings that promote politics over sound science and medicine.

As the new DASPA, Keroack will oversee Title X and have authority over hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding meant to provide access to contraception and reproductive health information. Title X has been crucial in helping millions of American women prevent unintended pregnancies and obtain reproductive health care for three decades.

The appointment of anti-birth control, anti-sex education advocate Eric Keroack to oversee the nation's family planning program is not in the health interest of women and families. Three weeks ago, Americans overwhelmingly rejected an extremist agenda, and sent a clear message that women's health care is a priority. I am asking you to do the same.

It's time to move forward with policies that can help prevent unintended pregnancies, including support for broader access to contraceptives and comprehensive, fact-based sex education. Because I care about commonsense solutions that protect women's health, like an affirmative Prevention First agenda that includes full funding for birth control, I urge you to replace Eric Keroack with a Title X administrator who is committed to protecting women's health.

Signed by:
[Your name]
[Your address]

Family Planning Farce

Published by the New York Times on November 24, 2006

Family Planning Farce

The Closet of Self-hatred

The closet of self-hatred by Ellen Goodman published by The Boston Globe on November 17, 2006.
A forbearing piece worth reading a few times over.
Enjoy.

Go Further

By Ilana Panich-Linsman

The film Go Further (2003 Sphinx Productions) by Ron Mann chronicles Woody Harrelson and an assortment of friends as they bicycle from Seattle to Los Angeles followed by a bio-fueled bus. Harrelson and company hope to inspire action and dialogue about sustainable living. The film is not only inspirational but humorous and appealing, with some brilliant musical performances.

The principal travelers (on bicycle or in the bus) include Harrelson himself (who speaks at colleges along the way), a yoga instructor, a vegan chef, an environmental activist and Steve, a self-described junk-food addict who eventually jumps on the bio-fueled bus and adopts the mantra, "Say no to corn dogs!" by the time the film ends.

Harrelson and his posse cycle eight hours a day, do yoga, and eat raw food as they travel down the Pacific coast speaking with students, organic farmers, solar energy experts and others. In one snippet of Harrelson's college lectures, the actor explains, "The most significant thing you can do for your environment? Look at your diet and demand organic."

The crew meets Anuradha Mittal, co-director of an organic farmers' market, Food First. "We live in a country where we've been told freedom really means having the choice of choosing between twenty different kinds of toothpaste," she says. "We have not been told that freedom really is knowing what we're eating, what is in a food, is it safe for us to eat."

This film was inspirational to me. I will be evermore conscious of my personal consumption habits, and eager to get the word out about our options in combating global warming. I sense that with the recent turnover in Congress, environmental activists throughout the country have the opportunity to speak out and educate now more than ever. U.S. citizens now face the responsibility of generating answers to questions surrounding the global warming crisis.

I don’t think perfection is the goal here. Individuals, though, can make an attempt to make better decisions regarding their personal environmental footprint. Whether this means recycling, buying locally grown food, switching off a few lights, unplugging some appliances or educating ourselves and our friends by seeing documentaries like Go Further or An Inconvenient Truth (which takes a more scientific look at the causes and effects of global warming). We can all do little things, the sum of which will amount to significant results.

Remember: Just say no to corndogs.

For more information about Go Further:
Sphinx Productions: Go Further

For more information about how you can take action against global warming:
Take Action

2006: The Year of the 'Macaca'

By FRANK RICH
Published: November 12, 2006 by The New York Times

OF course, the "thumpin' " was all about Iraq. But let us not forget Katrina. It was the collision of the twin White House calamities in August 2005 that foretold the collapse of the presidency of George W. Bush.
Back then, the full measure of the man finally snapped into focus for most Americans, sending his poll numbers into the 30s for the first time. The country saw that the president who had spurned a grieving wartime mother camping out in the sweltering heat of Crawford was the same guy who had been unable to recognize the depth of the suffering in New Orleans's fetid Superdome. This brand of leadership was not the "compassionate conservatism" that had been sold in all those photo ops with African-American schoolchildren. This was callous conservatism, if not just plain mean.

It's the kind of conservatism that remains silent when Rush Limbaugh does a mocking impersonation of Michael J. Fox's Parkinson's symptoms to score partisan points. It's the kind of conservatism that talks of humane immigration reform but looks the other way when candidates demonize foreigners as predatory animals. It's the kind of conservatism that pays lip service to "tolerance" but stalls for days before taking down a campaign ad caricaturing an African-American candidate as a sexual magnet for white women.

This kind of politics is now officially out of fashion. Harold Ford did lose his race in Tennessee, but by less than three points in a region that has not sent a black man to the Senate since Reconstruction. Only 36 years old and hugely talented, he will rise again even as the last vestiges of Jim Crow tactics continue to fade and Willie Horton ads countenanced by a national political party join the Bush dynasty in history's dustbin.

Elsewhere, the 2006 returns more often than not confirmed that Americans, Republicans and Democrats alike, are far better people than this cynical White House takes them for. This election was not a rebuke merely of the reckless fiasco in Iraq but also of the divisive ideology that had come to define the Bush-Rove-DeLay era. This was the year that Americans said a decisive no to the politics of "macaca" just as firmly as they did to pre-emptive war and Congressional corruption.

For all of Mr. Limbaugh's supposed clout, his nasty efforts did not defeat the ballot measure supporting stem-cell research in his native state, Missouri. The measure squeaked through, helping the Democratic senatorial candidate knock out the Republican incumbent. (The other stem-cell advocates endorsed by Mr. Fox in campaign ads, in Maryland and Wisconsin, also won.) Arizona voters, despite their proximity to the Mexican border, defeated two of the crudest immigrant-bashing demagogues running for Congress, including one who ran an ad depicting immigrants menacing a JonBenet Ramsey look-alike. (Reasserting its Goldwater conservative roots, Arizona also appears to be the first state to reject an amendment banning same-sex marriage.) Nationwide, the Republican share of the Hispanic vote fell from 44 percent in 2004 to 29 percent this year. Hispanics aren't buying Mr. Bush's broken-Spanish shtick anymore; they saw that the president, despite his nuanced take on immigration, never stood up forcefully to the nativists in his own camp when it counted most, in an election year.

But for those who've been sickened by the Bush-Rove brand of politics, surely the happiest result of 2006 was saved for last: Jim Webb's ousting of Senator George Allen in Virginia. It is all too fitting that this race would be the one that put the Democrats over the top in the Senate. Mr. Allen was the slickest form of Bush-Rove conservative, complete with a strategist who'd helped orchestrate the Swift Boating of John Kerry. Mr. Allen was on a fast track to carry that banner into the White House once Mr. Bush was gone. His demise was so sudden and so unlikely that it seems like a fairy tale come true.

As recently as April 2005, hard as it is to believe now, Mr. Allen was chosen in a National Journal survey of Beltway insiders as the most likely Republican presidential nominee in 2008. Political pros saw him as a cross between Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush whose "affable" conservatism and (contrived) good-old-boy persona were catnip to voters. His Senate campaign this year was a mere formality; he began with a double-digit lead.

That all ended famously on Aug. 11, when Mr. Allen, appearing before a crowd of white supporters in rural Virginia, insulted a 20-year-old Webb campaign worker of Indian descent who was tracking him with a video camera. After belittling the dark-skinned man as "macaca, or whatever his name is," Mr. Allen added, "Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia."

The moment became a signature cultural event of the political year because the Webb campaign posted the video clip on YouTube.com, the wildly popular site that most politicians, to their peril, had not yet heard about from their children. Unlike unedited bloggorhea, which can take longer to slog through than Old Media print, YouTube is all video snippets all the time; the one-minute macaca clip spread through the national body politic like a rabid virus. Nonetheless it took more than a week for Mr. Allen to recognize the magnitude of the problem and apologize to the object of his ridicule. Then he compounded the damage by making a fool of himself on camera once more, this time angrily denying what proved to be accurate speculation that his mother was a closeted Jew . It was a Mel Gibson meltdown that couldn't be blamed on the bottle.

Mr. Allen has a history of racial insensitivity. He used to display a Confederate flag in his living room and, bizarrely enough, a noose in his office for sentimental reasons that he could never satisfactorily explain. His defense in the macaca incident was that he had no idea that the word, the term for a genus of monkey, had any racial connotation. But even if he were telling the truth — even if Mr. Allen were not a racist — his non-macaca words were just as damning. "Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia" was unmistakably meant to demean the young man as an unwashed immigrant, whatever his race. It was a typical example of the us-versus-them stridency that has defined the truculent Bush-Rove fearmongering: you're either with us or you're a traitor, possibly with the terrorists.

As it happened, the "macaca" who provoked the senator's self-destruction, S. R. Sidarth, was not an immigrant but the son of immigrants. He was born in Washington's Virginia suburbs to well-off parents (his father is a mortgage broker) and is the high-achieving graduate of a magnet high school, a tournament chess player, a former intern for Joe Lieberman, a devoted member of his faith (Hindu) and, currently, a senior at the University of Virginia. He is even a football jock like Mr. Allen. In other words, he is an exemplary young American who didn't need to be "welcomed" to his native country by anyone. The Sidarths are typical of the families who have abetted the rapid growth of northern Virginia in recent years, much as immigrants have always built and renewed our nation. They, not Mr. Allen with his nostalgia for the Confederate "heritage," are America's future. It is indeed just such northern Virginians who have been tinting the once reliably red commonwealth purple.

Though the senator's behavior was toxic, the Bush-Rove establishment rewarded it. Its auxiliaries from talk radio, the blogosphere and the Wall Street Journal opinion page echoed the Allen campaign's complaint that the incident was inflated by the news media, especially The Washington Post. Once it became clear that Mr. Allen was in serious trouble, conservative pundits mainly faulted him for running an "awful campaign," not for being an awful person.

The macaca incident had resonance beyond Virginia not just because it was a hit on YouTube. It came to stand for 2006 as a whole because it was synergistic with a national Republican campaign that made a fetish of warning that a Congress run by Democrats would have committee chairmen who are black (Charles Rangel) or gay (Barney Frank), and a middle-aged woman not in the Stepford mold of Laura Bush as speaker. In this context, Mr. Allen's defeat was poetic justice: the perfect epitaph for an era in which Mr. Rove systematically exploited the narrowest prejudices of the Republican base, pitting Americans of differing identities in cockfights for power and profit, all in the name of "faith."

Perhaps the most interesting finding in the exit polls Tuesday was that the base did turn out for Mr. Rove: white evangelicals voted in roughly the same numbers as in 2004, and 71 percent of them voted Republican, hardly a mass desertion from the 78 percent of last time. But his party was routed anyway. It was the end of the road for the boy genius and his can't-miss strategy that Washington sycophants predicted could lead to a permanent Republican majority.

What a week this was! Here's to the voters of both parties who drove a stake into the heart of our political darkness. If you'll forgive me for paraphrasing George Allen: Welcome back, everyone, to the world of real America.

Seeds of Tolerance

By Ilana Panich-Linsman

The Seeds of Tolerance Contest
Current TV started a contest in June and asked contestants to make a video about the issue of tolerance. They’ve narrowed it down to six entries. The winner will receive $100,000 in cash and an additional $15,000 to donate to the charity of his or her choice. Two finalists will also receive $10,000 a piece. The awards will be presented at a film-screening event in Los Angeles in December.

The current video in the lead is "The Making of a Girl" produced by Jillian Buckley. In it, the founder of Girls Education and Mentoring Services or GEMS narrates the hypothetical life a young girl who is seduced into a world of sexual exploitation and abuse. GEMS is a “non-profit organization whose mission is to empower young women, ages 12-21 years, who have experienced sexual exploitation and violence to exit unsafe and abusive lifestyles and to develop their full potential. GEMS provides young women with empathetic, consistent support and viable opportunities for positive change."

Please watch the videos, vote in this contest and help support GEMS in its crucial mission. (The videos "Darfur Rising" and "One Nation Under Guard" are also excellent). You must register to vote, but Current TV is a great website to explore and participate in anyway, so go ahead, register, vote. Do your part in helping to support girls and women who have experienced sexual exploitation and violence.

Thoughts on the Fence

By Andrea Prudente

I would like to spend some time addressing what I will term moral or ethical “fence-sitting”. While I hesitate to refer to it as an affliction or syndrome, I believe it is a condition in our culture that, while it is not necessarily negative, it is usually not positive. What I mean by “fence-sitting” in this context is the practice of putting off forming opinions on, taking a stance about, or committing to a viewpoint or “side” (if there are sides) regarding important moral and ethical issues. Though it is sometimes difficult to discern in others (as its manifestations are often absences of manifestations), I have begun to believe ethical fence-sitting is widespread enough to warrant some serious consideration, if not on a social or academic level, at least individually. And if I am to be completely honest, this condition is of particular personal interest to me because I admittedly suffer from a mild case of it myself. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that I am a selective fence-sitter—while there are a handful of issues I remain undecided on, it is not my general practice or politics to do so (for some people, it is). In what follows, I would like to look critically at what I take to be the ins and outs of ethical fence-sitting—what makes it possible, why people do it, some logistical questions, and its implications. While I do not intend to arrive at any definitive conclusion or resolution, I think there is some merit in the process of simply addressing the issue.

There seem to be more or less two types of fence sitting. There is thoughtful and often somewhat tortured fence-sitting wherein a person is conscious of their state of limbo and is actively thinking about and seeking information regarding the issues at hand (I will call this an “active” state). Most of us usually feel the active condition temporarily when a new ethical issue is brought to our attention or comes to the forefront of the political arena and we realize that we should form an opinion on it. First, however, we must gather relevant information and perspectives. This temporary state of undecided-ness following exposure to something new is not what I call fence-sitting. Rather, it is remaining in this state of limbo for a prolonged period of time which constitutes fence-sitting (what counts as “prolonged” can be up for interpretation). The active sitter is highly conscious of their rather precarious position, and it concerned with making the relevant moves in order to eventually move off the fence.

Then there is what I will call “passive” or complacent fence-sitting in which we can imagine a person has set up their lawn chair and cooler and is in it for the long haul. They are on the fence, and they are fine with that and are not working towards forming opinions and making important moral and ethical value decisions. In some senses, they have chosen their position, and that position is on the fence. In general, I do not think that one person is one type of fence-sitter all of the time. Rather, it is probably more often the case that the same person might be actively on the fence about a few issues, and passively on the fence about a handful of others.

It seems important to make a side note here that I think it highly likely that ethical fence-sitting is less of a problem for individuals who adhere strictly to a particular religious code or doctrine. For them, they may often look to their doctrine for appropriate values and stances regarding the relevant moral and ethical conundrums. We may see forming ethical views and opinions as a privilege and a duty and in many ways a burden—there is generally a lot at stake and values and morals are a key element in personhood and identity. It would be fairly uncontroversial to propose then that strong religious faith eases this burden to some degree by shifting responsibility from the individual to a transcendent and higher power.

Let us turn now to situations in which moral fence-sitters are forced to make decisions. Life events and political processes can often put us in positions in which we must address our ethical viewpoints and act accordingly—not committing is no longer a viable option. Let me explain: a person who has postponed forming her views about abortion discovers that they/their mother/sister/daughter/friend/partner has become unintentionally and undesirably pregnant. Or a person who has yet to decide what they think about euthanasia is faced with an elderly or ill loved one who wants to end his/her life. Or we may put off addressing any number of issues until legislation about those very issues appears on our local, state, or national ballots. (Granted, some extreme and committed fence-sitters may choose not to vote rather than do the necessary legwork to establish their ethical viewpoints).

Those who have been actively on the fence regarding the issues at hand may be fully or at least partially prepared to make decisions in such circumstances. But for passive fence-sitters, since they have not been seeking information and working toward committing to a viewpoint, conditions which make it suddenly imperative to make a decision are highly problematic. Perhaps there are some people who make really wise and informed decisions under pressure and with serious time constraints. But I think it probably more common that the most educated decisions, particularly on issues of significant moral weight, are made after careful consideration and some time devoted to stepping back and addressing it from several perspectives in order to thoroughly exhaust all possibilities. Like procrastinating on writing a paper or studying for an exam, some of us are good at it, others are not, but all must admit that waiting until faced with an imminent deadline limits the amount of resources available and increases the possibility that we will do/write/say/decide something we may not have done had we taken the time for significant reflection.

There are of course many moral and ethical issues which may never be accompanied by an event or circumstance which might make it necessary for fence-sitters to dismount and take a stance. These issues include but are not limited to lifestyle and environmentally relevant choices such as eating vegetarian or vegan, transportation practices (using public transit, bicycling, driving a hybrid, driving a hummer, etc.), chemical and pesticide use, and many more. Though Mother Nature will probably eventually force us to significantly refine our ways of living, in the very near future it is less likely that fence sitters will be nudged into decisions by life circumstances or political events regarding vegetarianism, for example, as opposed to the issues mentioned earlier.

In our culture (and I might venture to say in cultures in general) there emerge seemingly morally neutral or default positions on particular issues. That is, there are these strange sort of precarious (and imagined?) safe spaces in which a person can position herself such that she, because she is positioned in line with the majority, can feel she has not made a decision or is morally neutral. In these situations, there is no fence to be on, but we pretend there is. On an issue such as abortion, one can legitimately be undecided. But on an issue like vegetarianism or meat eating, what would represent being undecided—not eating? So it happens that if there are two sides, let’s say eating meat versus vegetarianism, being on the fence is indeed being part of one side, namely eating meat. We are at least partially willing to grant a person “undecided” or “on the fence” status if she eats meat but does not advocate for carnivore-ism in general, nor against vegetarianism.

But isn’t this imagined morally neutral space sort of a delusion? Just because something is or has become the norm, doesn’t make it value-neutral. I may tell myself that, because the majority of my culture eats meat, my not being a vegetarian is not taking a position…but isn’t it? At the very least by eating meat I am saying that I am not significantly morally opposed to eating meat/factory farming/killing animals etc.. We may grant that “Not Against” does not necessarily signify “For” in that it is not diametrically opposite of “Against”. But I am inclined to argue that “Not Against” is just as legitimately a moral position as “Against”. That is, I think we would be deceiving ourselves if we were to consider “Not Against” as a non-position.

I’d like to end by addressing the various reasons for ethical fence-sitting. First, taking a stance on significant ethical issues is almost always and inevitably accompanied by social conflicts and disagreement. It is the way of the universe that different people (intelligent people!) disagree on things, especially on things which involve high stakes and moral values. So one can imagine why someone, with a particularly strong aversion to conflict and confrontation, might try to refrain from taking stances and forming solid opinions on ethical issues—it may seem more costly to them to be vulnerable to conflict than to remain morally in limbo. Another option might be to keep one’s opinion to oneself. In either position, one could pose the counterargument that true friends and loved ones do not love you less if your ethical views differ from theirs. In fact, challenging and discussing our viewpoints is an important part of living socially and can serve to strengthen social bonds and moral convictions and prevent “living truth” from becoming “dead dogma”.

Another reason (excuse?) for remaining on the fence might be the desire to be highly informed and in possession of as much of the relevant information and background as possible before committing to a view. This is where my own personal fence-sitting falls. Like all decisions in my life, and perhaps even more so, I want my ethical values and opinions to be educated and solidly grounded—when someone asks me why I don’t eat meat or why I support the right to abortion, I want to be able to speak articulately and intelligently about that choice (partially for my own sake, and partially for the sake of inspiring others to follow suit). This may be a fairly legitimate reason if one is actively seeking the relevant information and perspectives which one thinks will aid in the process of coming to a decision. But it could easily be an excuse if a person says she is on the fence because she wants to get all the information, but is not interested in actually obtaining said information. (For the record, I think I generally fall into the former category).

And finally, why might so many people practice the art of ethical fence-sitting? Because we can. It is a luxury and a privilege to be sufficiently insulated from the injustices/risks/harms etc. accompanying the moral issues at hand such that it is possible to refrain from forming an opinion or taking a stance. To never experience an unwanted pregnancy, or not have any gay friends, or not live in a particularly polluted area, or not see poverty on a daily basis, or not see the cow get killed before it becomes a burger in your hand—it is this type of insular living that allows for people to remain uncommitted and uninvolved. I also think ethical fence-sitting is more or less feasible depending on the company one keeps. It is harder to remain on the fence when interacting regularly with people who are not and who are engaged in critical dialogue about complex ethical questions.

So how do we get people off the fence? Do we? Should we? Eventually I think fences collapse and social changes cause those imaged morally neutral spaces to decay. But should we wait for that? Should we wait for the ballot or the unwanted pregnancy or the terminally ill and suffering loved one to form important ethical opinions? Whatever we decide, it would serve us all well to consider our own relationship to the fence—if we discover that we are on it, let us carefully and frequently reflect on how and why we got there, what privileges that position embodies, and stop making excuses.

Oh So Pretty

By Sarah Werthan Buttenwieser

I once read that the best thing you could do for little girls is to refrain from commenting about how they look. At first blush, this might seem extreme. Stop for a moment and think about it; for many girls, how they look is not only the first thing people comment upon but the thing people comment upon most frequently. When you see a little girl, does something along the lines of “she’s pretty” or “what a cute pair of shoes” pop out of your (generally feminist) mouth? Once I started to notice what popped out of my (generally feminist) mouth, I realized that commenting upon clothing or hair is a pretty obvious icebreaker, in large part because so many girls are not so much dressed as decorated, coifed, and heavily accessorized. Unless they choose boys’ clothing (picture wide corduroy and khaki, loads of orange, dinosaurs, American ball sports, and some camouflage), girls these days aren’t left much choice. Peruse a children’s clothing catalogue and you’ll see a very pink and lavender, ruffled, flowered, flounced, cutesy selection of clothing replete with everything that supposedly characterizes girls: lollipops (sugar), sassy cuts like bell bottoms or midriff baring shirts or bikinis (spice), and horses, kittens, ballet dancers (everything nice). This point was driven home to me last year when my son, Remy, then three and I attended a fourth birthday party for his friend, Annie. Annie received not one, not two, but three purses. She also got jewelry and hair holders. The toys were limited to horses (which she loves), some dress up items, and collectibles. We brought books. No one gave her anything to do: no balls or puzzles or building toys or even art projects. I guess you could sum it up as pretty is as pretty does (or in this case, doesn’t).

Remy’s fourth birthday party loot, by contrast, included art supplies, building toys, a science experiment of a rocket that blasts off for real, a bicycle bell... You get the picture: active boys get active toys.

Ezekiel, now eleven, wanted long hair from the time he was in preschool. His younger brothers followed suit. Having been mistaken for girls for so long I can’t remember their gender being considered obvious, one thing that has been proven again and again; people do comment on pretty overwhelmingly as the icebreaker. They declare the boys, “sweet,” “adorable,” or in England this past summer, “darling.” Even on a beach vacation while wearing swim trunks, gender confusion persists. As girls, my kids are not only affirmed for being pretty but for being nice, friendly, good with younger children... Maybe boys identified as boys would be affirmed for these qualities. Often, after a person apologizes for seeing boy as girl, shifts in language define my child as “handsome,” “strong featured,” or “energetic.”

In actual fact, my kids are sweet, adorable, darling, handsome, strong featured and energetic. While I don’t think of them as extreme examples of gender neutrality, in an age attached to gender stereotyping, they really are. So, a challenge: next time you are about to make a pretty-based comment to a little girl, keep your (generally feminist) mouth shut for a moment. Then, see what else you might find to say.


Also by Sarah Werthan Buttenwieser,

Princesses Gone Wild

Room for Everyone: a Critique of Gender Binary Language

By E. Bestpitch

Historically, the universal person was always a "he" or "man." We read books to learn about mankind. Doctors, lawyers, technicians were referred to in textbooks and manuals as "he," whether females participated in these occupations or not. In fact, grammarians considered it incorrect to use anything but the "he" pronoun when referring to all of humankind, or a type of person generally. In the ‘60s, feminists advocated the use of gender-specific pronouns in order to increase fairness to women by acknowledging their role in historical and contemporary times. Since then, a politically driven reform to the English language mandated that the pronouns "he" and "she" would be used to refer to a specific gendered body, rather than having “he” refer to all gendered bodies. This is generally known as "gender fair" language.

While this language may be fair to those who identify as “she” and “he” by acknowledging both for their important roles in our society, the problem with these pronouns is exactly that: that they only recognize two types of people in our society—“he” and “she.” There are more than two kinds of gendered bodies. Yes, there are men and there are women. And there are genderqueers, genderfucks, androgynous people and many, many others who do not fully identify with “man/he” or “woman/she.” These are the folks who are now being ignored—disavowed from society through our binary language system. As a feminist, I fully support the goal that women be included in language and literature in order to recognize their achievements and contributions to our society. As a queer person, I am dismayed that people of all gendered expressions and identities are not being appropriately represented in text and everyday speech. This is why I advocate for the use of gender-neutral pronouns in our everyday lives.

Gender-neutrality in pronoun usage assures that people of all genders are being represented as we talk about people and humans in general. Using a gender-neutral pronoun (a popular one and my personal favorite is "zie," pronounced “zee”) not only eliminates a dominant gender (such as “he”) in language, but also prevents us from making assumptions about people’s gender identity without having asked. When was the last time you asked your friends what their preferred pronouns are?

To be truly fair to all of the variations of gendered bodies, gendered expressions, and gendered people, we must push our language further not only to include the socially constructed ideas of "man" and "woman", "he" and "she", but also to include all forms of gender expression in everyday language. The current dialogue around gender-neutral pronouns is generally used as one method to combat sexism in our patriarchal society. But all of the resources I have seen regarding gender-neutral pronouns avoid any discussion of a continuum of gendered expressions that cannot always be accurately described as "he" or "she.” Using gender-neutral language in everyday speech shifts the paradigm from gender binaries (s/he) to gender fluidities and allows for a wider range of genders to be respected and acknowledged in society.

In my quest for this "zie" revolution, I have come up against a slew of arguments, one in particular being that some want to be recognized by a specific gendered pronoun in order to associate with a social identity—a political, historical, and economical context—that adds meaning to their lives. I am certainly not trying to dissolve anybody’s personal identity; in fact, quite the opposite is true. I envision a society in which a person may be associated with a social group or identity of their choosing, rather than one in which a person is grouped with others based on assumptions about their personality, their look, their actions, their physical attributes. I, for one, am interested in being considered by more than the gendered pronoun that has been assigned to me at birth by the virtue of my genitalia, and I stand in solidarity with all the genderqueers, genderfucks, transfolk, and everyone and anyone else who does not fit in with societies traditional ideas of gender and sex by using gender-neutral pronouns.




RESOURCES

for more information on gender-neutral pronouns and their variations, check out wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_pronouns

for info on the history of gender-neutral pronouns, gender expression and language, and other resources, check these out:
http://www.rpi.edu/web/writingcenter/genderfair.html
Gender "fair" language

http://www.bartleby.com/64/5.html
American Heritage Book of English Usage: Gender

http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/language_gender,2.html
Women and language—social expression