DruBlood
Home
Dramatis Personae
Archives
Contact
Feed the Bleed
Amazon wish list
Cole’s birthday - 10/24
Monk’s birthday - 12/2
Dru’s birthday - 1/5
Search
Archives
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
Categories
all my isms
anarchism
Animals and Pets
Art of Protest
audblog
austin
Being Mom
blog
Book Talk
civil rights
class war
Consumption
corporation watch
crushing
Day in the Life
deep introspection
Divorce
eating
Family Stuff
Fat Politics
Feminism
free press
geography
Green Machine
holidays/special occasions
Home Improvement
Homeschooling
humor
I am a nerd.
Important People
Lactivism
Linky Links
listening to
listy lists
Lit-Richer
living
Love & Stuff
lyric links
Memories
monk speaks
music
no war!
observations
politics
privilege
race
random news items
rant
reading
reading2kids
reminiscing
social justice
sxsw
Take Back Your Birth
Terrorism
The Spectacle
Those Crazy Kids
Travel
work
worker's rights
Special thanks
adam host
julie template queen
kd general lusciousness
pea guru
Powered byMovable Type 1.5
Imus
April 10, 2007
I am tired of reading reports about Imus' racist comments that are couched in this language of "black people are angry."
Seriously...what the fuck is up with THIS:
"[Howard Kurtz was quoted on NPR as saying] he thinks Imus is NOT bigoted, and he thinks most listeners understand that, but several major groups of black and women journalists have called on the networks to fire Imus..."
Relegating the offense Imus' racist bullshit inspires to the realm of "women and minorities" is just the same bullshit racism that makes it ok for someone to make the fucking comments in the first place. And what the fuck is up with this "Oh, he's an ass to everyone, therefore it's ok." bullshit? I am going to start walking around and kicking everyone in the shins, and no one better arrest me, because I'm not kicking any one racial/political/cultural/orwhathaveyou group any more than I am another!
Shit fucking A. It is all OVER the media, too, this "Well, what do you have to say to these black leaders" line.
I guess I am just glad I am a woman, and am therefore justified in my anger. Oh, thank you, holy media...for giving me something to be justifiably pissed about!
frickin' frackin' fuckin' a!
Wow.
July 8, 2006
I'm Totally Psyched About This Abortion! | The Onion - America's Finest News Source
[link via feministing]
Root Causes of Misogyny
May 23, 2006
Belledame raises some interesting points here:
Here's the deal, though. One of the legacies of patriarchal culture (current "mainstream" U.S. version, at least, as handed down from Biblical morality via Calvinism and Victorianism) is the expectation that Twoo Luv conquers all. A good woman can save a man from his beastly impulses, in a romantic, monogamous, dyadic relationship. Traditionally, marriage; lately, that particular expectation, maybe not so much (depending on where you are and what your background is). Otherwise, though, it's all still very much there. We could talk about the heternormativity of that dictate all day, and probably have done, and will do, especially wrt how it affects women, not to mention queer folk and other sexually "alternative" people. Don't bet on the Prince. An orgasm is a gift you give yourself. Free yer ass and the rest will follow. Love/sex is not a scarce commodity. And so on.But there's a particular twist to the man's expectation in this patriarchally normative set-up, in that the *other* dictates he's received are: You don't have emotional needs. You don't turn to other men for tenderness, and women (except, *maybe*, for That Special Someone, assuming you ever find her), are there primarily for service/combat. So essentially, you're putting an awful lot of expectations on one woman; and very likely you don't even know that you *have* those expectations. They get reified into concrete "shoulds" like "laugh at my jokes" and "have sex __ number of times per __" and so forth. (And of course it could also be that woman in this equation is going off her own reified expectations of what "caring" looks like from a "traditional," sexist perspective...which may include such things as buying presents and spending money, yes. Bottom line: no one's able to ask for what they actually need. cue bitterness all around).
It's something I am really considering in the context of whether or not monogamous relationships are even possible. I just feel like monogamy sets us up to expect too much from each other, and that bitterness is what ultimately ensues.
It is interesting that I note within myself lately both a resignation to the fact that I have a special affinity for men who "have issues" and yet I feel myself desiring less and less to "fix" them, and instead focusing on how we fit together, flaws and all. It's a lesson I wish I had learned sooner - as I could have sidestepped a ton of unwanted chaos in my life.
"The Look"
April 6, 2006
Janine posted a little something about Dr. Leary and post traumatic slave syndrome:
you know *the look* that all black women can give a child, whether hers or not, that will stop whatever behavior it’s aimed at? i know you know cause we all have it. dr. leary reminds us of how we don’t let our children play unchecked in public. white children are free to run about in a bank, for example, but we don’t allow our children to exhibit that kind of behavior in public and use *the look* to curb it instantaneously. her theory of PTSS posits that that behavior is an adaptive response to slavery when it wasn’t safe to let our children romp like that.
And it made me think about the conversation that erupted on this blog awhile back about children in public spaces and the expectations people have of parents to control their children.
I'm pretty sure we talked about how privilege interacts with child-rearing, and how lower-income mamas and mamas of color are more apt to feel pressure to force their children to behave in a certain way in order to feel "acceptable." But I had never considered the further-reaching implications of this. I really didn't tie it in with slavery and safety and an ingrained cultural response.
I think this raises way more questions than it answers, so I guess I need to read Dr. Leary's book.
Thank you.
April 4, 2006
Despite the obviousness of the lesson, it is seemingly not taught or encouraged out in the real world where we all live. As young white men, you sit at the pinnacle of opportunity and privilege. All the power in the world can be yours, but as the old saying goes, with great power comes great responsibility. You may be faced with situations where causing harm is an option. You may be faced with situations where refusing to cause harm may cause you to lose face. You may be faced with a situation where you know you can easily get away with causing harm to another living being. And when the road ends here, my sweet boys, I beg you to remember my words, and the example of Hugh Thompson: It is your duty to protect those who can not protect themselves.
[link via bark/bite]
Kicking ass. Taking no names.
April 4, 2006
Cheryl has an awesome post about Feminist Alliances up at women's space:
Life has taught me that when we, as women, stand up to ANY institution of male heterosupremacy — not just pornography, not just prostitution, not just sadomasochism, ANY: capitalism, racism, classism, the military, war, agribiz, the meat industry, patriarchal medicine, big business, psychology, the institutions of marriage and the family, the pro-life industry, the fashion, beauty and diet industry, heteronormativity, patriarchal religion, in any meaningful way, we are going to suffer for it. We are going to pay for it. Male supremacy will take us out if it can.
I concur wholeheartedly, and, too...I think we need to create spaces where we can call out racist/sexist/heteronormative/etc. behavior without invoking defensiveness. I keep thinking if people would only learn to listen and acknowledge our own imperfection without denying someone else's experience of it, we'd all be better allies.
I think I'll even have 6 year old Elsa make some calls today.
March 24, 2006
(click to make it bigger)
[image via Jhames and Redheaddread]
Just...I love twisty is all.
March 23, 2006
Hot Mama at I Blame The Patriarchy
The thing is, in a world where women are the sex class (by which I mean Planet Earth), even morphing mamas are expected to display themselves according to male standards of fuckability as defined by pornography, and those who fall short are subject not only to public censure and ridicule and fat jokes, but to the ultimate horror: not being hot enough for Husband.Whether MIM and Husband find eternal bliss in their personal oasis of mutual hotness—and really, if it makes them happy, �buena suerte!—is of little consequence to this patriarchy-blamer; it is the larger stupidity of the sexist beauty mandate illustrated by this pair that smegs me off. Check out this agonizing post at a blog called The Homesick Home, wherein author L. has put on a few pounds and now endures her husband’s silent disdain.
She's so freaking dreamy!
It's Blog Against the Strawfeminist Week
March 22, 2006
Ilyka is breaking it down for those who need the breakdown.
[link via feministe]
There are no words I can add to this.
March 11, 2006
and I'm having a difficult time choosing a category, as well.
[link via feministe]
Ain't patriarchy a bitch?
March 1, 2006
I've been (half) joking around a lot lately about how I've been hanging out with boys too much. I think it's kind of jarring, after having spent the last several years of my life in such a femme-centric world, to have to deal with people who, however well-meaning they might be, just don't (and won't ever) really know what it's like to be a woman.
So, I think I need to invite RJ and his wife over for dinner some night soon. He might be a man, but at least he gets it:
Not to discount a woman's ability to be a judge of character--I'm not saying that all women should be afraid of all men equally all the time. I'm saying that women have the right to suspect any man at any time. All the best intentions in the world don't get you (or me) off the hook, fella. As long as we live in a patriarchy, you're a suspect, a calculated risk, a potential threat to be weighed and evaluated.Ain't patriarchy a bitch?
Indeed, it is. Thanks, Robert.
The All Girl Army Wants YOU
February 28, 2006
The All Girl Army wants YOU!All Girl Army/ The Young Feminists Project is looking for a few good women to create, nurture and enjoy a women's community targeted to young women internationally, who identify as feminist, between the ages of 10 and 23.
Thoughts on the weekend...history, social issues, and my mental/emotional state.
February 19, 2006
I spent the weekend at the Historians Against the War convention at UT, which was kicked of ceremoniously with a brilliant keynote one-two of Andrea Smith and Howard Zinn. I thought both of them gave compelling presentations, and I jotted down copious notes in spite of having to deal with really cramped quarters. At some point, I will share my notes from that keynote and from the rest of the event, but I think I really just want to write about my experience of the event in general.
First of all, DAMN, people are impatient. Including myself. The first person who approached the mic for Q&A rambled on a bit about the lovely performance activism she is doing, and within a minute, the audience was telling her to get to the point, in a not very nice way. I felt myself feeling the same way - and it happened multiple times throughout the weekend. By the 3rd or 4th time I really began to grow uncomfortable with the whole method of mob silencing that was happening & I was pleased when some with louder voices would counteract the "Shut up and ask a question" crowd. I wondered, too, why I wasn't the person counteracting, considering I was one person feeling uncomfortable with it. So, one lesson learned at the history conference was that I need to find my voice and use it.
The panels and the speakers throughout the event were informative, intelligent, and remarkable. I did kind of wish there was a way to include dissenting voices among the crowd to get a richer discussion, but in my heart of hearts I knew a) that wasn't really the point of the conference and b) it is rare for that kind of dialog to take place in a non-threatening way - particularly when there are elements of the crowd who find it necessary to silence even the voices of agreement.
At lunchtime, I situated myself in the far corner of the room to avoid all human contact. I guess I'm in that kind of mood lately. I dunno. I sat eating and pretending to write in my journal, but really I was observing everyone. Mr. Zinn was sitting two tables away, facing me...so I laughed to myself about the fact that I was practically eating lunch with one of the greatest historians of our time. I thought about maybe going back to school to study history. And then two nice boys joined me and we talked briefly about last night's speech and education and whatnot. It was a nice, pleasant conversation & allowed me to feel good about the fact that I didn't avoid human contact altogether, in spite of my best efforts to the contrary. Ha!
I was exhausted when I arrived home Saturday night, but I went out to dinner with J anyway. We went to Swad and it was pleasant, but there was dis/ease. I get the feeling it is painful for him to hang out with me, and that painfulness is maybe exacerbated by the fact that it's NOT painful for me. Or maybe he's just in pain in general. I don't know/can't claim that it has anything to do with me at all, but the dosa and chole bhatura and sev potato puri was fabulous, and it was nice to see J as he has been ill for a bit. He even helped me to fix a computer problem I have been having. I couldn't find the R. Kelly videos I told him I was going to make him watch with me, which was kind of a bummer, and he left early in the evening...which was probably good because I was so tired & sort of overwhelmed with being around people.
I was invited to a party, which had been making me nervous all week. The person who invited me is someone who I really enjoy hanging around, and actually would love to go to a party with at some point, because he always makes me feel at ease...but I just have not been feeling the whole "large crowd" thing lately & I was balking. So there was this dynamic of me feeling torn that I wasn't going to get to see my friend, but fairly certain that I would have a crappy time going to a party that was making me feel extra-super wishy washy about giving a definitive answer. I did SAY no to the party several times, but I'm fortunate that my friend is pretty sensitive about how I'm feeling, so even though he heard no, I think he sensed my feelings of hesitation and kept asking (because normally he accepts my boundaries pretty readily, actually, which is why he's so very very dear to me) - but the thing is that in addition to the original party, he was now going to be attending a fucking FRAT party, and all of the reasons for me not wanting to go were suddenly increased 5 million fold & not only that...suddenly the very idea was making me feel upset and agitated. I told my friend I was just going to go to bed, but when I laid down to sleep, I started feeling really upset about the whole party/meat market atmosphere.
I dunno...it started to really get to me that what I look like - and what others look like to me - dictates to such a great extent whether or not we ever really get to know them on a deeper level, whether we are even talking about a relationship level or not. Plus, it made me feel all shaky and weepy to think that going to a party is an exercise in dressing myself up to be judged and evaluated and deemed worthy/unworthy by random strangers in a room. blah! I'm not quite sure what actually precipitated all of this. I can't really say it has anything to do with hanging around in a room full of history nerds all day. And it's not even that I don't feel like I "measure up" or whatever...it's just the very act of feeling like other people are measuring me...in mass quantities...that started to ook me out a bit. Maybe, too, you know...I'm 36 years old! I guess to a certain extent I feel like my friend is inviting his mom out to a party with him, which seems kind of silly.
At any rate, I was able to express these feeling abruptly to my friend and get them out enough to where I was able to actually fall asleep, but it's still bothering me today that I felt so weird about it. Part of me feels totally justified in feeling that way, and part of me is like "Whatever, lady - it's just another background for whatever you experience...why get all bent out of shape." And I wonder if I would have refused to go last month or if I will refuse to go next month or the month after that. I spent much of the day today trying to figure out when I have last been to a party - like a house party of someone I don't know - and I just can't remember. And then I started trying to remember when I have ever actually met anyone worth knowing at a party, and I can't remember that, either...so I don't feel so bad. But, then, I do recall having been to some parties with friends and just enjoying the experience...so maybe that's the key. But, I guess going to a party with a male friend who is scouting for a relationship is probably what was making me feel like it wouldn't be such a good idea.
I dunno. I've already spent way more energy on this than it probably deserves, but I'm just sort of interested in why being asked to a party evoked such a strong, reactive emotional response in me. So I'll probably think about it more, but if anyone out there has any thoughts about that, I'd love to hear them.
Today I woke up late, but managed to only miss the one speaker in the whole event who made me feel impatient and irritated. There were only about 5 people on the 3-hour panel this morning, so there was lots of time for discussion in the end, and I really enjoyed hearing from all of the regular people in the room. One woman mentioned that the closest she has ever been to going to university was attending university conferences & I wanted to stand up and applaud her as she mentioned that it might be good for the panelists to consider that there are lots of people who don't have degress who could benefit from what they are saying. Then the ever-present Carl Webb made the important point that we need to bring this stuff off-campus and share information and solidarity with those who don't ever set foot on campus. I requested more resources for younger children, which is something I'm probably going to write about later, as so much of the historical research and documentation is geared towards high school and up - and even in our very good library, there are still tons and tons of books that teach the kind of history that I have to go back later and say "Oh, by the way, everything in this book is either wrong or told from a perspective that invalidates what really happened."
And now I am home. And it is fucking cold out there. And I have a million bajillion things to do, but I just want to curl up in a little ball under all of my covers and think through all of the events of the week - both educational and emotional - and breathe, and listen to music, and think, and allow myself to feel all of it, and work through all of it, and come out on the other side with some ideas about how to deal with it all.
But first I need to make myself a fucking sandwich, because I am HUNGRY!!!!!!!!
Lived experience versus rhetoric - an open letter to 16 volt.
January 31, 2006
Dear 16-volt dimbulb,
You can attempt to assail my "rhetoric" as much as you desire, but the fact is that this is not a rhetorical blog. When I write about my feelings about love and divorce and relationships and poverty and injustice, I am writing about my lived experiences and my interactions with life, and that cannot be assailed. You cannot know how I feel about a man or all men or any man. And your lack of that knowledge causes your own rhetorical arguments to ring with a dissonance that is deafening to me.
When I started this blog, I wanted to avoid political content except as viewed through the lens of personal experience. Granted, I haven't always done that. Sometimes I immerse myself in media and bring you my impersonal response to politics. But, for the most part, I bring you me here. This is intentional. The good thing is that I've become impervious to people who attempt to assault my status as a human by using my own honesty about my personal situations as a weapon against me. It's actually that very tendency - the tendency for people to invalidate honesty or discourage subjectivity or shun emotion, nurtured by the patriarchy, that is what I am fighting against.
So, you go on raging against your little feminist windmills, dude. I'll keep living, loving, experiencing, and writing about it. With or without your approval. With or without your understanding. With or without your consent. I guess in that way I am ambivalent towards you...but I'm not looking for any validation from you anyway, so I suppose it doesn't matter.
Oh, Thank you Anarchocyclist!
December 6, 2005
This is an awesome post about the many ways in which women exist on the bottom of the capitalist food chain, and is summed up nicely in this little snippet:
If women have guaranteed resources to get nutritious food, shelter, etc, then they will not be as susceptible to the power that men hold over them in our society.
But you should read the whole thing.
This is freaking GENIUS.
December 1, 2005
Who says a pharmacy isn’t a kid-friendly place? Some of these pharmacists like children so much, they want you to have the ones you didn’t even mean to have! And when you think about it, pharmacies are awesome places for young children to run and play, especially behind that door marked PRIVATE (Go on in! These folks don’t care about privacy!) which leads to a wonderful land of bottles and jars to shake shake shake. Plus plenty of childproof caps to challenge them, hundreds of colorful little beadies to count, lots of new words to learn (Say it: “Meth-o-trex-ate.”) and no shortage of arthritic elderly friends to trip up. Really, it’s like a Montessori school with Muzak.
Best. Protest Idea. Ever.
[link via Redneck Mother]
Victim Blaming 101
November 21, 2005
To be absolutely sure of her safety a woman should probably wrap herself in a blanket, drink nothing but water and say NO in a gruff tone whenever a man walks by.
I Blame the Patriarchy
November 10, 2005
I'm not sure how I missed The Maiden Aunt Explains Patriarchy, because I've been reading twisty every day. You should read it. Because I said so.
And the rich white guy outranks everybody.
I would point you to this article, but Robert seems a little too angry and embittered.
November 8, 2005
Just kidding. Well, actually...he does seem a bit angry and embittered. But I happen to like angry embitterment a great deal...it's way better than the snooty entitlement I'm used to reading on male-authored blogs, so I'm going to point you to it, anyway.
Gender-neutral thinking about pregnancy simply reinforces "men" as the default model of "human." If we think of pregnancy as just another medical condition, what we get is not nice, clean, Enlightenment-style equality. What we get is good old-fashioned patriarchal thinking that premises all law and philosophy on the model of men. That is, men are the norm, women are the aberration. Men are that against which all else is to be measured. Men are "normal people." Women are "something different."To see how skewed that is, imagine if it were inverted. What if we woke up one day and women were the legal and philosophical norm, and being male made you an aberration? What if people seriously pissed off about injustice were labeled not "hysterical," but "peosical?" What if pregnancy and childbirth were regarded as innate, human activities/situations, ones literally required for the continuation of human goddamn life on this planet, and not debilitating medical conditions that would earn disability payments were it not for the fact that it was considered self-inflicted? What if the inability to menstruate was seen as a personal liability, and periods and Kotex were as openly displayed and discussed as sneezing and Kleenex?
WNBA Player Is Gay
November 7, 2005
Thanks to Afro Netizen for pointing out This article about Sheryl Swoopes' coming out:
But Swoopes's announcement has been met in the sports press with what the Associated Press correctly described as "a shrug of indifference." San Jose Mercury News columnist John Ryan wrote, "Let's face it: On the list of shocking headlines, 'WNBA player is gay' falls somewhere between 'Romo took steroids' and 'Steinbrenner is angry.' "
I'm not a fan of basketball, so this is news to me. What interests me about this article is the indirectly stated assumption that women in sports TEND TO be gay, so it's no big deal. That's an incredibly sexist assumption right there, on top of all of the rest.
Insidious Victim Blaming
November 5, 2005
This afternoon, I was having a silly conversation with a friend about people (men) we would feel comfortable setting our siblings & younger female friends up with. We were choosing from a limited pool of younger men we knew, and one of the men in the pool gives me major red-flashing-light potentially abusive/control issue/serious problems with women warning signals.
I said this to my friend, and she said "Oh, I don't see that the way you do...and, anyway, my sister wouldn't put up with that shit."
This was someone who knows my history with the ex fairly well. Knows what I went through...knows what I am still going through. Needless to say, I was taken aback. Somewhat breathless about it, actually. I was like "You know...I'm not generally the kind of person who would 'put up with that shit' either...and, yet, I DID."
I'm sure it would have sounded judgmental except for the fact that I was also sort of amazed with myself because I KNOW I've heard similar things said about similar situations and felt like "Yeah....all that man needs is a good woman to set him straight."
A good woman. Because, you know, it's the fault of the woman if the man is abusive or controlling. If only she would demand that he not abuse or control her, he would stop. If only *I* had been less submissive/forgiving/enabling/co-dependant (GOD I FUCKING HATE THAT TERM) I would never have been in that situation.
And yet, I was. And, to some extent, I still am. You just don't walk away from that kind of relationship with kids as collateral and also walk away from the control issues and the abuse. I'm having to set and enforce my boundaries time and time and time again. I suppose that's my fault, too.
You know. If I stop to think about all of the subtle, pernicious ways in which we blame women for their own oppression, I think my head will explode. This is a big one, though. So I'm going to say it now to anyone out there who is in a relationship with a controlling or abusive man, and perhaps as a bit of self-affirmation, as well. IT'S NOT YOUR FAULT. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU. YES, AS A MATTER OF FACT, IT IS ALL ABOUT HIM.
There. I feel better now.
Normally, I associate the word "carnival" with the smell of vomit and cotton candy.
October 19, 2005
So I much prefer the carnival of feminists:
Welcome! to the first Carnival of Feminists. In this show there are no captive animals or "freak" displays, but plenty of passion, lots of fun, and more than the odd bit of juggling of life.
Donations Needed for Abortion Clinics
October 19, 2005
Media Girl links to an article with heartbreaking stories about women who are in need of abortions, but are having trouble getting them due to demand surpassing funding capacity in the wake of Katrina.
Suggestions for donations are included in the post.
NOT having children is the choice
September 25, 2005
Someone referred me early on in the conversation about parenting in public spaces to this article by Bitch Ph.D. I only just now found the time to go there and read it. Here's an excerpt:
To be fair, the commenter who said that was responding the weak argument that we have a social obligation to take care of children because they are the next generation and will pay for our retirement, run our nursing homes, etc. etc. Again, I say no. We have a social obligation to children because CHILDREN ARE PART OF SOCIETY. As they are young and dependent, the obligations of adults towards them are greater than theirs towards us. But see, they do grow up (if our obligations are fulfilled), and then they take on social responsibilities too, including caring for us when/if we ourselves become dependent. This is a nice thing, but it is not the REASON we should take care of children, it is merely the logical consequence of doing so.
I think I'm done with that conversation now.
I do have one more point to make. While I was hanging laundry, it occurred to me that part of the reason this conversation makes me feel so frustrated and defeated is because the very idea that people without children can dictate how children should behave and how much control parents have over that behavior is so incredibly fucking dismissive of a parent's very real experience in raising children. The only other experiences I have had with people so completely denying and dismissing my (actually fairly well-educated) reality in favor of their perception of how reality (which, by the way, that they have absolutely no, or at least very little, experience with) should be is when I am dealing with any of the other forms of oppression (i.e. racism, sexism, etc.)
What the child-free adults in this discussion don't seem to be able to understand and respect is that parents (who are, I should remind you, by and large, Women) are experts on child-rearing. If you can't respect that very simple reality, I have to wonder where doubt in the validity of that expertise comes from. I have to wonder, and I believe I know the answer. It comes from sexism. It's born of oppression.
Argue away with that...I'm out. Take care.
There is no way I could have said this better
September 14, 2005
Pandagon: Katrina was caused by.....single mothers
Oh, great...here comes the left wing "put the women in their place" brigade.
August 14, 2005
I have been trying to figure out how to articulate the feeling I'm getting from some of the (decidedly male) reactions to the phenomenon that is Ms. Sheehan and her form of protest/grief. Then I read this post by Redneck Mother:
An email loop I'm on was apoplectic this weekend after a guy wrote a vicious screed attacking a fellow list member for mentioning that she was going to Camp Casey. Another dude jumped on board to second that emotion, and some women on the list (including, I must say, me) shut them down.
And, I gotta say, I was still feeling a little stung about the earlier quoted post by Bellman, when I read this post by David Scott Anderson:
I have come to the conclusion that Progressives have hurt their own cause more than helped it by the form of our dissent. Rather than taking an aggressive political and legal course to address our grievances, we create circus side shows that as much alienate those who we would seek to sway, as convince anyone of the justness of our cause.
And now I'm just spitting mad.
Listen up, Men. Just because it seems to be more difficult for you to grasp the depth of emotion involved in this situation does not mean what is happening in Crawford is a "circus side show" or a "media whoring" event or a "publicity stunt."
What I'm seeing in reactions like these from both the left and the right (and I'm not going to link directly to anyone on the right, but amanda does a good job of calling out John Cole in this post*) is the same argument that emotion is somehow inferior to logic, without the acknowledgement that emotions ARE logic.
Fuck that. Fuck all of that. Maybe I've got my uterus-colored glasses on, but I'm seeing all sorts of male privilege in these posts, and I'm not liking it. It brings me back to an earlier post by Robert Arjet where he was talking about (abusive/insensitive) men and their refusal to do the emotional work, and the tendency for men to dismiss emotion, and therefore put women in their place, by accusing people (mainly women) who express strong emotion of being manipulative.
Yes, Camp Casey is a spectacle. Yes, it's a protest against the war. Yes, it's a media show. And, yes, DAMNIT, it's a raw, emotional fucking deal. I know there are radical fathers out there, but I'm not hearing the same thing from men that I have heard from women. Women who cried when walking past the crosses representing our fallen soldiers. Women who jumped at the chance to take a trip to Crawford Texas from Massachussetts like it was a fucking game show prize. Women who have husbands and children in Iraq and have to deal with the constant worry that comes with that. Women, like me, who are trying to raise their boys to be honorable men...and who don't feel like feeding those honorable men to the war machine when they turn 18. Women who are sick and fucking tired of having MEN define the word HONORABLE in such a sick, fucking, twisted way. This is gritty, emotional stuff. And it's about fucking time someone stood out in the heat and said "Look at us! We are here, and we aren't going to hide conveniently behind the flag (OR some crusty old hippy protestor dude) just because you tell us to."
What Cindy Sheehan represents to me is a mama who has, quite fiercely, decided that she has had enough. And fuck you for trying to put her in her place. I think Robert, actually, nails it when he identifies the perfect place for Cindy Sheehan and the other military families who are courageous enough to take a stand in spite of the cynical naysayers who want us to attempt to "logic" our way out of this war. That place? Shackled to George Bush like Jacob Marley's chains.
And suddenly I had this image of a crowd of grieving mothers, fathers, children, trailing behind Bush everywhere he went. He would have to drag them around the country behind him like a human ball and chain. Like Jacob Marley, with his tangle of chains and cashboxes and ledgers. Far from escaping his sins, he'd be condemned to drag them along behind him.
Let's keep in mind here that this is a legitimate protest being forwarded by people with legitimate grievances against an illegitimate war. I am not going to tolerate so-called "progressive" men trying to minimize this woman's efforts by asserting their perceived authority about "right" and "wrong" ways to draw attention to the issues we, as mothers, as women, as parents, as people face.
If you've got a better idea for stopping this war - turn off your fucking computer, get off of your fucking ass, gather the necessary resources and FUCKING DO IT. But for fuck's sake, in the meantime, have the decency to shut the fuck up and let people do what they feel is necessary without spouting your bullshit about "substance" and "spectacle."
P.S. Aldon Haynes says it much better, and with less froth. If that's what you prefer.
ETA: Oh good fucking Lord, will you SHUT UP, already.
She is a mother, not a person, and only then will she have the power and moral authority to challenge the ruler. As a person, she is nothing. As a mother, she has the moral authority of all mothers through the ages.[...]
That's why she is having no effect (none / 1)
She is not effective, because she is one person.
As a universal archetype, she has power.
As an individual, she has nothing.
And, while yr at it..."frame" my left one. GodDAMN I can't fucking stand strategists.
*And my response to John Cole went something like this:
Pardon me while I muscle through the testosterone here and bring up a point that hasn't been raised in the comments:
This isn’t about Cindy Sheehan. Andrew, Atrios, all the folks at dKos couldn’t give a SHIT about Cindy Sheehan. This is about galvanizing support against the war, and not a whit about Cindy Sheehan and her ‘questions.’ And for some of them, this isn’t even about galvanizing support against the war- it is just pure politics.
I know that us womenfolk don't count as much as those lefty men you mentioned there, but for me and many other women on the web (and, most likely, many men) Cindy Sheehan is a human being who is in a really painful place and she would sincerely like answers to her questions. Additionally, she would sincerely like Bush to stop using her son's death to justify a war.
Her message is plain, and it's a message I, as a mother of boys, find very comforting. I want to make DAMN SURE that if my boys are ever sent to fight in a war, there is a DAMN GOOD REASON. And that the leaders of the country I live in do not use their HONOR against them and mislead them into fighting a war that is more about feeding a capitalist machine than protecting our country.
I am raising my sons to be good men. George Bush, or any other leader, does not deserve to use them to acquire or maintain wealth. And if he or whoever is leading our country at the time that they become men choose to fight a war of liberation, they better make damn sure that is clear to the troops BEFORE they send them over, so my sons can make a choice as to whether or not they wish to fight for that cause.
This is what I believe to be Cindy Sheehan's message. And, such as it is, it's pretty fucking unassailable. I thank her for her honor. In fact, I love her for her strength.
This sounds hauntingly familiar...
August 7, 2005
Thus, the liberal retreat from race was rationalized in terms of realpolitik. The argument ran like this: "America is too racist to support programs targeted specifically for blacks, especially if these involve any form of preference which is anathema to most whites. Highlighting racial issues, therefore, only serves to drive a wedge in the liberal coalition, triggering white flight from the Democratic Party, and is ultimately self-defeating." That this reasoning amounted to a capitulation to the white backlash did not phase the political "realists" since their motives were pure. Indeed, unlike the racial backlash on the Right, the liberal backlash was not based on racial animus or retrograde politics. On the contrary, these dyed-in-the-wool liberals were convinced that the best or only way to help blacks was to help "everybody." Eliminate poverty, they said, and blacks, who count disproportionately among the poor, will be the winners. Achieve full employment, and black employment troubles will be resolved. The upshot, however, was that blacks were asked to subordinate their agenda to a larger movement for liberal reform. In practical terms, this meant foregoing the black protest movement and casting their lot with the Democratic Party.
Choice BEGINS at conception
August 4, 2005
I've been thinking a lot about all of the discussions around abortion and choice, with a healthy dose of my current Life Situation, and The Event That Shall Not Be Named that occurs tomorrow. (Um, that would be my divorce. Don't ask why it can't be named...I just felt like being spooky and mysterious for a minute there.) And I got to thinking about the politics of choice, and how it affects us...affects all of us...differently and at different points in our life.
Certainly, as a pro-choice feminist, I believe that women have the right to choose whether or not they would like to carry a pregnancy to term. Even more obvious is the fact that women have the right to choose whether or not pregnancy begins. And still more rudimentary is that a woman (any individual, really) has the right to choose whether intercourse actually happens in the first place.
But the reality is that choice BEGINS there. In our society, once the choice has been made to conceive and carry a child to term, women's choices diminish rapidly. Or at least become more superficial, and are far more difficult (or impossible) to legislate. For instance, a woman CAN choose to give her child up for adoption, but what kind of a choice is that, really, for most women who have spent 9 months nurturing a growing being in her body - with all of the emotional and/or hormonal attachments that are complicit in that relationship?
Once the choice is made to keep the child, our choices as women become more subtly dictated by the way the media and society at large portrays and judges our behavior and our relative success as parents. In hyperbolic terms, certainly there is a stigma around "deadbeat dads", but it's nowhere near the unspeakable horror of a mom who runs off and leaves a child with its father. But more commonly what the media does is blame the mother for anything bad that happens to children without mentioning the other parent who should be there as backup and is generally mysteriously absent from blame.
The divorce process seems to compound this bias. MRA's will have you believe that assumed maternal custody is unfair to men, without even addressing the ridiculousness of quantifying "financial support" from the non-custodial (typically male) parent as a fixed percentage of income. Men who think that paying a female primary custodian of his children 25% of his salary every month is somehow a raw deal need to consider that taking care of children is never a fixed percentage of the custodial parent's income. Not that I would trade their presence in my life for all of the financial compensation in the world, but I only WISH I could PLAN on only spending a percentage (and a really fucking low percentage, at that...I'm sure with all things considered I spend about 60-75% of my income on child-related expenses.)
Not only that, but the non-custodial (generally male) parent in this situation still has more choice than the custodial female. He can, for instance, leave. He can choose to stop paying (and I have discovered through, erm, my research, that it is ridiculously easy for a man to choose to Just. Not. Pay. And then attempt to force the other parent to subsidize his non-payment later, through other means.) Or he can simply use the power of these choices as an implied threat over the custodial (usually female) parent to keep her in line before, during, and after the divorce. If she ever gets up the nerve to go through with a divorce in the end, anyway*.
And there are so many other nominal choices that are put forth as if they are options for all women, but are really only available to the wealthy or those of us who are fortunate enough to have supportive communities to help us facilitate choice. These choices include, but are not limited to: breast or bottle, stay at home/work at home/work outside the home, public/private/home education...etc...
It's not necessarily women's biology that causes these choices to hold so much sway, but it's our entire social structure. You can pass all of the legislation you want to keep abortion safe and legal, but for women who choose to bring a pregnancy to term, that choice is only the beginning. Isolated, as we are, in our family units, we frequently end up having to make sacrifices in the name of our choice. Sacrifices which would be unnecessary under a system that offered real choice.
*This is such a rich topic for me, I need to come back to it later. Suffice to say that the process of divorcing my husband has caused me to feel very real fear for women who are in a position of financial and/or emotional and/or parental (as in, in need of another parent to help with childcare) dependence on their husbands.
"Family Values"
August 4, 2005
The lone cowboy myth is especially warped when it is applied to families with small children. But it serves its purpose by letting some pretend that their unwillingness to spend money on families is ethically justified.I wish the liberals and progressives spoke up more about these false family values of the right. I wish they pointed out how our public places are not designed for families, how our jobs are hostile to parents and how the gradual fraying of all safety nets endangers families with children.
Robert Arjet responds.
August 3, 2005
See, this is what I miss about comments. I am always posting half-assed little volleys like this, and more thorough people are able to respond intelligently:
Jeezus God in Heaven, I only wish Pataki were missing the point. He's an intelligent man--he runs the state of New York, ferpeetsake. What Pataki is doing here is a calculated political move. We're talking about a man who is contemplating a run for president in 2008. He's already made his first moves in that direction, so he knows that all the pundits are going to be watching him in that context.
Thanks, Robert.
Free Speech or Hate Crime?
August 3, 2005
I hate to give them any validity, and there is no way I'm posting a link, but this is utter bullshit.
Mr. Pataki....I think you are missing the point here.
August 2, 2005
Governor Pataki's Veto - New York Times
Mr. Pataki says that he supports the idea of easing access to the medication - the so-called morning-after pill - but that he objects to particular details of the bill, especially the absence of provisions that would prevent young women under 16 from having access to the drug.
You idiot.
Let me say it SLOWLY. They have already had SEX, and you still don't want them to have access to birth control. I can ALMOST wrap my head around the "birth control pills cause teens to have sex" argument (I said "almost") but...um...this? This just makes my head spontaneously combust.
Flo, Ick, and Misogyny
July 15, 2005
You really need to read Robert's post about "Ick."
Then you need to read Redneck Mother's post about Flo, which includes such genius writing as this:
The gist was this: We were about to become women, and Lord, it was going to be a mess. But with a little knowledge and some helpful tips about makeup and horseback riding, we were going to get through it.
Then you need to read Robert's follow-up post about Birth and ick. And *I* like it so much, I'm going to quote it here:
Men's squeamishness about menstruation serves, in a very fundamental way, to reinforce the concept that women's sexuality exists primarily for men's pleasure.
And since the whole Flo conversation is altogether too timely for me...I'm just going to head back to bed and let the kids watch PBS all morning.
Enjoy.
Insidious Privilege
July 8, 2005
Here's a snapshot of how privilege is woven into the fabric of parenthood and divorce.
You all know how excited I am about the fact that the guys can swim now. It's one of those things I have been working on with them for years, and one of those things that seemed to happen just when I decided to stop "working on it" and letting it be.
I was telling someone who is a marginal figure in our lives (more in my kids' lives than mine) about the excitement I was feeling, not just about the fact that they are swimming, but also about the fact that they seem to have overcome the major fear that was keeping them from swimming. The person responded "I bet it's really helpful that they have the pool at their dad's house so they can get more practice and more time in the water."
That comment cut me off right there and I made my departure, but was thinking about it all the way home and HAD to call that person back to confront what I felt was the total dismissive nature of the hard work that I've been doing with them.
I certainly don't want to minimize the work that L does with the children. He has been taking them out swimming and, in general, engaging them in more active pursuits. However, I have had those kids at the pool 3-4 days a week until my eyes can't stand the chlorine. I have talked about fears, I have encouraged them, I have told them stories, and I have bought them swim gear and paid for swim lessons.
It pisses me off that all of that effort on my part is equalized to L's efforts. And it pisses me off that I can't point out how fucked up that is without being accused of being over-sensitive and/or bitter. I am not bitter about L's contributions. What I am bitter about, in general, is the fact that my hard work is a given, and any effort he puts forth is heroic. My contribution is minimized, and his is magnified until they are some fucked-up form of equal.
In reality, I don't take any credit. I intentionally remove myself from the byline of their accomplishments. That, to me, is what being a parent is all about. I can give them the environment, the tools, and the time to achieve things, but I cannot credit myself for the achievement. It's not martyrdom, it's my nature AND my belief. Because of this, not only are my chilren not credited for their successes, but their father is. That's just messed up. And the fact that such a disparity breeds such disproportionate praise is the very definition of privilege.
Of course, when I confronted this person with my feelings on the subject, she told me I was "blowing it out of proportion" - which is a common practice of people who harbor unexamined biases. When I explained to her that part of the problem in my relationship with L was that I don't feel I was ever given credit for my hard work both as a wife and a mother - both before and after the break up, the person seemed to totally understand. She said "Single mothers often feel that their contributions aren't appreciated." But it was perplexing to me that she would get this, and still not see how offhandedly hurtful the "dad's pool" comment might have been. Due to the nature of my relationship with this person, I had to sort of just express my displeasure and let it drop. I certainly don't want people to have to be hypervigilant about the words they choose around me. At the same time, I would expect that when called out, a person would at least recognize the impact of their words and validate my feelings rather than acting like I was making a mountain out of a molehill. So, I'm sort of left with a bad taste, a ringing in my ears, and I can't help but wonder if this person is conveying a realistic vision to my kids in her dealings with them. In spite of all that I feel she has done to help them, I have to wonder if she's doing damage at the same time.
"Dip me in patchouli and call me a sensitive new-age guy"
July 7, 2005
Bark/Bite: Men, Divorce, and Beer
Were this just about a rejection of the adult world, it would be bad enough. But in so many of these situations the rejected "adult world" of responsibility and maturity becomes a rejection of an imagined "woman's world," and by extension, women. The fantasized world of boy-men includes an abandonment of not only responsibilities like bills and jobs and insurance, but also emotional responsibilites like caring and sharing and listening.
I don't think I have anything that I can add to this post. Except "Thank You."
Womanhood and Risk Management
June 16, 2005
Pinko Feminist Hellcat adds her voice to the discussion about women's role in rape culture. I was thinking about this very thing while I did the dishes this afternoon. About how frustrated and inarticulate I feel when attempting to decode and deconstruct people like Cleek in the comments at Pandagon. Something inside me says "what you are saying makes no sense, and it's totally obvious to me why it makes no sense, but I can't articulate it...perhaps because it is so obvious to me."
And then I think about all of the times in my life that I've put myself "at risk" in the eyes of these people who want to say that women need to "avoid risk." Of course, people only click their tongues at women who "take risks" when those risks result in someone else committing a crime against them. And I would imagine, statistically speaking, that risks are less likely to result in rape and more likely to result in having a nice time or enjoying oneself or opening oneself up to a new and pleasant experience or even, Meh, no big deal.
Here are some risks I have taken that could have very well ended up with me being raped:
When I was 17, I went to Michigan to visit a pen pal of mine. I stayed in his dorm for a week. I didn't know anyone else there but him. I had a great time and got to know a really special person whose friendship I enjoyed for many years. I did this all with my mother's consent, although...as a single mom, I'm sure she would have been condemned as harshly as me for "allowing her daughter" to take such a risk.
Many, many times, when I was 15 and 16, I would meet people at the teen dance club I frequented and hang out with them, often alone. Many of these people were men. I enjoyed their company and, thankfully, these particular male animals were the kind that didn't find it necessary to rip all of my clothes off in spite of the fact that there may have been an attraction in that direction and it might have been mutual. At the time, it would have seemed bizarre to not trust these people. They seemed nice, and I had a nice time with them. I am glad I was allowed to assume that the people I met had honest intentions, and was able to form friendships with men that did not involve fear or caution.
When I was 18, I moved out of my mom's house and into an apartment with a female friend and two men I had never met. Those were some of the best years of my life. Thank maude no one assumed that I was giving tacit permission for anyone to have sex with me because I was living with them. Thank maude, too, that I didn't have to assume that the men I lived with were people I needed to fear.
I can't even count how many times strangers in bands came through town and crashed on my floor...or how many people I have met out at clubs or elsewhere and invited over or gone out with to get to know better. Of course I didn't know them well when I invited them into my home or my life...And just about every experience I have had with strangers that I have invited into my life has enriched me in ways that the fear of rape could never take away.
Then, of course, there was the one time I invited someone to my house, and he wasn't so nice. I'm not sure I would exactly call it rape, but I was made to feel powerless and defeated by this person, and it was a pretty horrible experience.
Does this one experience make me an irresponsible person who "should have known better?" Was I "just lucky" all of the other times? I can tell you that the bad experience wasn't any different from any of the other experiences. I didn't get a different "vibe" from this person, nor did I feel particularly unsafe in his presence.
I refuse to believe that I, as a woman - or anyone, as human beings, should have to be held accountable for the bad behavior of other people. It's easy to look at a crime after the fact and judge the victim of the crime as being incautious. But hypervigilance isn't a fun state of mind, and blaming rape victims for their "incautious" behavior is tantamount to telling people that it is ALWAYS better to be "safe" than "sorry." When being safe doesn't even mean that you will never be sorry, anyway.
To me, it seems like the investment people have in telling women that they need to avoid "dangerous" situations is just another way to oppress women (duh!) I refuse to accept that. I refuse to lock myself up in my house at night, fearful of going for a walk around the block in my own fucking neighborhood not only out of fear that someone might violate me, but out of the corollary that I will be blamed for that violation after-the-fact.
I think about all of my positive experiences in the presence of men (and women) that could have turned out badly. I think of all that I have gained from these experiences, and the thought that I might have been compelled to miss out on these experiences for fear that "something bad" might have happened to me is even worse, in my opinion, than having suffered "something bad."
To belabor this point a bit longer, I have a son who is inexorably cautious, to the point of being occasionally counter-productive. I remember having observed this hypervigilance in him early on in his life, and I remember the first time I articulated concern about it to him. We were on a beach in California (I was in the middle of a road trip from Texas to Portland, down the California coast and back to Taxas, that I took the children on BY MYSELF which is also one of those zany risks that enriched my life immensely but that people thought was just plain weird at best and horribly dangerous and Not Worth The Risk at worst) and he was afraid of the water. I remember watching him standing on the shore, obviously wanting to play with his cousins in the water, but feeling tremendous fear about doing so, and crying. I told him something that I have had to repeat to him frequently in his young life. I told him that fear is healthy and normal and it can help you make informed choices, but you can't let fear hold you back from doing something that might feel good or teach you something or otherwise enrich you. I realized, as I was telling him this, that, like many mantras I repeat to my children, I was also reminding myself of the same thing.
I don't know if man can understand this, and it makes me angry, sad, confused, and frustrated all at the same time.
Coining a new phrase...
June 13, 2005
It's NOT about the pie fight, stupid!
Cry me a fucking river
June 13, 2005
I was about done with the whole Kos thing when Steve Gilliard jumped in with about the most assinine defense EVER:
Ok, who here works 80 hours a week for themselves?What you had is a lot of people talking about an issue they didn't understand. Oh, he's a sexist, oh he was nasty.
Grow up.
You are free to work 80 hours a week and start your own blog and deal with issues in your own way.
Steve, you can call me and my ilk "humorless scolds" if you would like, but 80 hours a week writing crap on the internet (for the good of the PARTY no less) is not something that constitutes hard labor or excuses thoughtlessness and idiocy. If anything, I would expect someone who gets paid to spend 80 hours a week writing crap on the internet would take more time and put more thought into what he writes so as not to alienate those he is allegedly working so hard to invite to share that "great big tent."
Then again, you are the idiot who accused me (and my "ilk") of being Ivory Tower intellectuals because I wanted to exercise my right to make a real choice. It's so funny how everyone who argues with you becomes more advantaged than you. I could tell you what I spend my 80+ hour work week doing, and we can compare the sizes of our penises that way, if you'd like...but yr simply not worth the effort.
Thanks to Ms. B and Lauren for raising my ire factor this fine afternoon. I just love being a whining, hairy arm-pitted, hen-pecking harpy on a monday.
metametablogging kos' bullshit
June 7, 2005
Media Girl has the best aggregation of Kos' anti-feminist "slip."
This whole thing pretty much gets to the heart of the women in blogging debate that comes up all of the time. When you boil all of the rhetoric down, what's left is the hardened mineral of misogyny lining the pot.
I think comrade Kos should be commended for bringing his sexist thoughts out into an open forum, thus encouraging the other cockroaches to crawl out from the patriarchal rock they were hiding under. Next time, it might be a better idea to wave a tentac