Words Words Words

In another post, I noted that while my students make fun of feminists wanting to change the spellings of words, and that their examples are hyperbolic, there is real significance to the connections between words, identity, power, etc. Case in point, this conversation between me and my daughter (aged 2.5 years):

Me: We re going to be late, hurry up kid!

Her: I'm not a kid!

Me: You're not?

Her: No, I'm not a kid. I AM A GIRL!!!"

She then goes on to tell me that several of her boy friends are "kids."

I spent some time trying to explain that kids can be both girls and boys, but the gender neutrality of some nouns is not the easiest thing to explain to a toddler. This is the sort of thing that my dad would insist I am over-reacting about, just a cute toddler malapropism, but I think there is something significant here. I hear in this anecdote my kid's realization that "girl-ness" is not the default, neutral term, but rather the particularized term, meant to reflect the non-default position. Boys don't have to just be boys, they are also kids, they inhabit the default term.

On perhaps a more fundamental level, I am staggered that at this age she is already making pronouncements about gender that are meant to say something about identity. She really believes she is saying something important about who she is with the "I am a girl," proclamation.

Even a 2.5 year old realizes the deep significance of language and it's capacity to shape our understanding of ourselves and our world. Don't tell me feminists are quibbling.

I expected you ladies to intuit this post

I completely failed to blog in support of The Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, because I am a complete and total asshole, and I haven't even mentioned the fact that it got voted down until now.

I think the best writeup I've seen was, as is so often the case, Dahlia Lithwick's.

Short version: no, we won't pass a law that explicitly requires equal pay legislation to be interpreted the way it always has been. So when the Supreme Court, in is wisdom, decided that women who don't know they're being discriminated against by their employer within six months of that first unequal paycheck--even if their employer forbids them from discussing salaries, and even though it's kind of hard to demonstrate a pattern of discrimination with only six month's worth of data--well, too bad, ladies. That's how it is from here on out.

The Republicans justify this by saying that women just need to be better trained.

In mind-reading, apparently.



If you can't read minds yet, however, you can check here to see how your senator voted. If you doubt your senator's ability to read minds, you can then call 202.224.3121, ask to be connected to your senator's office, and either tell them you appreciate their supporting the bill or are disappointed in them, and that you hope they'll continue to support it (or change their vote), without amendments, when it comes back up again in a few months.

On the other hand, why worry?

Today is Free Cone Day.

Yes, I realize it's ironic to be all "here's some free corporate advertising!" following the post below. And that B&Js, while admirable as far as corporations go, is still blah blah.

But since my motherfucking health insurance company, as predicted, has failed to ensure that my prescription refill arrived--via the "handy" mail-order prescription service!--before it ran out yesterday, so I'm now basically hoping (1) they'll deign to approve my "emergency" refill request at the pharmacy and let me pay another full copay for seven days' worth of medication, and (2) that this will happen before the headaches, dizziness, and loss of willpower kick in, well, fuck it: ice cream it is.

Financial Responsibility is an oxymoron

I wanna drag this comment up from the end of the looong and mostly abandoned (I think) recent comment thread about money, because I think it nicely encapsulates the individualist vs. social critique that dominated that discussion (as well as being eminently admirable, both in its story and in its generosity of spirit). Sara wrote,

there's knowing, as a fact in your head, that the academic job market is crap when you're 22 or 23 or 24 and full of love of the field and fervor for learning.

And there's knowing, 5 or 6 years on, after several years of being used as cheap labor by an overscheduled, distant professor, given very little guidance or support, living in a rathole, eating cheap, drinking bad beer and running up debt -- that the job market is crap.

(if I sound bitter, I'll say that my husband and I got through his grad school debt free, I tightwadded us through his 6 years of postdoc debt-free, managed to have our kids while he was a postdoc (research associate, technically), and have arrived at him having a Real Job and us having a house. We don't have a lot of disposable income, but we have attained the middle class, finally, at nearly 40. He loves his work, I love living in university towns and working touchy-feely social science jobs, and we're happy generally with how it all turned out)

We made it, but we've watched folks around us declare bankruptcy, drop out, move to trailers in the Arizona desert, leave academia for high school teaching, leave academia for HR work, and in one notable case, leave academia via suicide. We also have seen his colleagues patent new discoveries, get top-level jobs, speak to major elected officials about world-altering things, and publish books.

But those who achieved the iconic academic brand of success are far outnumbered by those who didn't. And those who succeeded in traditional terms are not always the ones everyone thought would be the hotshots when they were all 24.

I think that Sara's story--tightwadded it through grad school, had kids postdoc, finally achieved m/c status at 40--is a perfectly acceptable one, and *should* be considered not only "acceptable" but quite normal. America would be a better place if we, as a culture, expected to scrimp a lot in their 20s and 30s, to postpone gratification, to keep their eyes on the prize, and to be content with modest m-c existences in midlife. And of course, as Sara points out, this is the "iconic academic brand of success": the nostalgic story of a past that was never *quite* so idyllic or universal as we like to pretend it was.


There are a lot of reasons why the nostalgic ideal isn't quite as desirable as we like to imagine. Sara points some of them out herself--moving to the desert and living in trailers, teaching high school, working in HR. None of those things are inherently bad, but they are all disappointments if your goal has been academic achievement and employment, or even if you've internalized--as we are supposed to, after all--a certain vision of professional life. Very few people encourage children to dream of living in a trailer when they grow up, or working in HR. And of course there's that suicide, which (Sara seems to imply) is an extreme, but not incomprehensible, reaction to that kind of disappointment, an inability to see beyond those norms once they've crumbled.

Sara doesn't point out, but I will, that the story presented *also* depends very very heavily on another, highly gendered norm. It seems pretty clear that Sara provided a lot of un- and underpaid labor to "help" her husband get through graduate school. Which is something that people who love to point out that in the 70s we had more modest expectations of how big our first houses were, of how much "stuff" we needed to own, etc., often conveniently forget. But shouldn't.

Basically, I think it is quite tricky to simultaneously value a culture of achievement, growth, and productivity *and* a culture of modesty, saving, and satisfaction with ordinary things. The "traditional" way to do this was to think of men as homo economicus, the producers and achievers whose labor helped the country grow, and of women as, literally, homo sapiens--the "better half" of humanity whose wisdom tempers the *economically* valuable masculine ideals with the opposing, feminine ideals of modesty, etc.

The point being that, even if you're willing to completely overlook the sexism operating here (I don't mean in Sara's life specifically, but in the underlying contrasts of this "iconic" narrative of academic achievement) you've still got competing incompatible ideals. Which is how ideology works, and what the word "ideology" means. And let's admit it: this isn't just an academic ideal. The economically "rational" story--the "individual" simultaneously builds a career and starts a family and eschews consumer debt and begins saving to buy a house--is pretty unrealistic, and almost always depends on other, unacknowledged expectations. "Someone" is helping by taking care of young children, being supportive, saving money by sacrificing time. Cook at home rather than eating out! Be willing to live in less expensive housing (which is often less convenient)! Mend things rather than replace them!

As any single parent will tell you, it is astonishingly difficult for one person to fulfill *both* the economic and support roles, unassisted. Indeed, I think most single parents know that it is, in fact, impossible: one relies on extended family, or friends, or social services, to provide the "support" while one works for pay. Making the other decision--to play the support role yourself, while looking to welfare to provide the money--isn't really an option any more.

Which gets me to where I'm going with this. America pretty much expects everyone to "pull their own weight," financially speaking. Most social policy--affirmative action, public education, urban planning, job retraining, home ownership programs, etc.--is designed to "help" people create wealth or at least earn a living wage. That is, we believe that people should be economically self-sufficient, and that people who aren't should be helped to attain economic self-sufficiency.

And I personally think this is a good thing, for the most part: being economically dependent is a risky way to live. But. If we're honest, we should realize that fostering a sense of economic ambition *is at odds with* fostering a sense of economic conservatism. And I'm using that word deliberately. People do *not* make money or acquire wealth without help. And when the support system--health insurance, lending programs, government services--don't do their jobs, well guess what? Individual Americans are going to find it harder and harder to do *their* jobs.

And we're gonna complain about it. Which we damn well should. Because unlike an old-fashioned wife, health insurers and banks and the federal reserve are not going to support us out of love. They *should*, since they are, after all, human institutions, created by humans *for* humans. But in the brave new world of economic rationalism, it's all about accountability. Complaining is one way of demanding that our support structures be accountable.


(By the way, did anyone hear the "Marketplace" story about IBM workers being "reclassified" yesterday? When IBM professionals start planning protests because their employer isn't holding up its end of the bargain, it makes me hope that maybe we're starting to wake up from the nightmare where individuals have responsibilities while corporations and governments have options, and where the only "choice" we're offered is between taking whatever's offered or going hungry.)

After I've written my book, situations like this will be easy

Silly woman. The answer's quite simple: "This is a shop that sells sexy things for grownups."

Big deal.

A question to be contemplated

Which is more irritating: the glut of annoying student emails at exam time, or the glut of random internet strangers telling professors who complain about said emails that they have no right to complain and obviously hate their students?

The Lives and Times of the Idle Rich

This is what we did yesterday. Click on the picture for more.

Free Advice

Do you think there is an outside chance that you might be one of my students? If so, for the love of God, stop emailing me questions that reveal you have not yet begun your final paper, due tomorrow. I promise you, 'twould be better for you to not have the answer to that question than for me to know you've not begun writing.

Money money money money

What would you think of a family that had $103,245.11 in debt?

Sounds like a hell of a lot of debt, doesn't it?

Until you look at the breakdown.

$48,815.56 Large part of home loan

$12,439.49 2nd part to home loan

$12,692.22 Student loan

$11,840.03 2nd student loan

$3,204.36 Credit card husbands

$292.71 Credit card self

$4,744.88 Personal loan home improvements

$9,215.86 Ford Focus 2004

Soo.... one (inexpensive) car, a house, college educations. And less than $3500 in credit card debt. And yeah, what was probably a dumb "home improvement" loan, but less than $5k in home improvements? Is pretty damn modest.

I mean, crap. These are not people who are living high on the hog. At all. This is a very unassuming middle-class family by the looks of it: two adults and three kids with one car and a small house? Would that more of us lived that modestly.

Something's broken, people, and it isn't just that individual Americans are irresponsible spendthrifts.



(This post is in no way intended to excuse my own spending habits, which are pretty lame and I'm not proud of them, okay?)

Republicans lie and steal elections

Seriously. Why else would Republicans who said they'd support a bill to help local governments do recounts vote against letting it come up on the House floor?

When New Jersey Democratic Rep. Rush Holt’s Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act came up for a vote in the House Administration Committee on April 2, the Republicans on the committee gave it their unanimous support. But two weeks later, those same Republican members voted against moving the bill to the House floor. It would have taken a two-thirds vote to push the bill to the floor; with most House Republicans opposed, the bill didn’t make it that far.

Let's just say it again: the Republicans are refusing to even vote on whether election results should be verifiable. Why?

The White House and its lackeys say that it's because of the cost. The logic of that: they aren't willing to spend government money ensuring the basic foundations of democracy.

As if there were any purer use of government funds.

The real reason, of course, is because they want to be able to continue to talk a lot about bullshit like flag pins without actually having to *do* anything patriotic. And possibly, as Apo says, because they fully intend to cheat.

But I have to admit, I actually am more outraged by the rationalization--that free and fair elections are too expensive--than I am by the probable explanations.

And of course this news comes out on a Friday.

Fuckers.

I should be more ashamed of this than I am

On the way home from picking Pseudonymous Kid up at school today, we stopped at my favorite taqueria for tacos and Hostess cupcakes, and then we went to the bank where I cleaned out PK's savings account to cover my overdrafts.

Collectives

I’ve been thinking about collectives. The Big Bitch invited me to be part of this one, which makes me feel incredibly flattered, given the other folks hanging around here, and like I have a new stake in a thoughtful community. Every time I tried to think about the Schvarts piece, I got stuck on the impact to collectively-identified groups, particularly the feminist and anti-choice crowds. The continuing primary has me thinking about the long-term effects on the Democratic party and those identifying with it. With all this on my mind, I want to share a recent teaching experience where I needed something to say about community and couldn’t find it. (The tone of this anecdote is going to be a bit more earnest than is my general preference, but humor me)

I teach undergraduates, one of the countless tangible and concrete benefits of getting a PhD. And almost every semester a version of this scene goes down: the term “feminism” comes up incidentally (I’m not teaching gender stuff) and my students eschew any and all associations with it. Then I say, “Whaddaya mean none of you is a feminist?” The Spring 08 version of the conversation happened just a few weeks ago, in a classroom that demographically (24 women and 2 men) made it even more depressing than usual.

So, they then start in on their standard lines about why they aren’t feminists, and these are always the same. You know them. The many variations of, “I’m not a feminist, but X” where X is always some basic feminist principle (e.g. I believe in equality for women, I think women are disadvantaged in the workplace, I think that gender norming is detrimental). Having stated these feminist beliefs, they go on to spew misogynist stereotypes about feminists. Feminism implies extremism, they tell me. This semester, the stereotypes skewed heavily towards man-hating and wanting to change the spelling of women to “womyn.” So I launch in on my standard “where do you think those stereotypes come from” angle, do a little watered-down Backlash kind of thing and try to conclude with some “be he change you want to see” business about how their refusal to embrace and embody the term does nothing to dispel the silliness they see attached to the term (and I could do a whole thing about spelling and language and consciousness and power and so on, but that’s a little higher on the pyramid than we are ready for in this room, you know?). “I understand,” I say, “that y’all don’t want to be perceived as extremists, but you can effect the extent to which the term means that. You can identify as a feminist and demonstrate how varied its signification can be. More importantly, you can actually throw in behind your commitments to the feminist ideals you earlier espoused, one of which should be making sure ‘feminism’ is not a bad word.”

At this point, I think I’ve given them a way to reclaim the term and to negotiate some of the antifeminist bullshit they see attached to it. And yet, they are glazed over. And here it occurs to me: they don’t want to reclaim the term. They don’t give a shit about its relegation to extremism or connoting fringe-y type ideas. They don’t think they need this term. This isn’t exactly news, the insular attitude of the products of third-wave feminism, but it bums me out regardless.

Later that night, I shared some wine and this story with a friend, who insightfully helped me realize that, yes, part of the problem is privilege and taking-for-granted-ness, and another part is the still-sheltered position of the undergraduate who hasn’t, for example, tried to balance career and mothering and realized that society is fuck-all structured to help her. But the other part, the part I hadn’t thought of, is the part that involves knowing the value of a collective.

When these young women (and men) say, “I don’t need to identify as a feminist, I already believe X,Y, and Z,” they are saying that they see no value in collective identification. It does not mobilize them or expand their perceptions or confer strength or bolster confidence. It merely reduces them to a member of an “ism,” one whose tenants can be nominally severed from the ideology itself. In part, this is individualism run amuck, but it is also a real poverty of imagination, one that can only see collective identification as hegemonic.

So I’m trying to think about how, in the future, I can approach this idea with the notion of collectives in mind. What do you say to undergrads to help them understand the work collective identification can do? One thought (this one also catalyzed by my wine-drinking friend) is that you simply draw their attention to the collectives they already identify within. What does it mean to you to be an X University student? How about to be a member of Y sorority? Beyond just an aspect of self, does it mobilize you in any direction? Does it give you more confidence? Or more of a voice within particular contexts? And so on.

I wonder, will this help? There are other angles to play, but one I don’t especially favor for undergraduates is the first-world/third-world thing, the one that says “you can take all these rights for granted but other women can’t and therefore need feminist ideologies to think about more fundamental rights, etc. In my experience, it is hard to confer the nuance of that sort of reasoning so as to avoid racism, American exceptionalism, etc.

So I guess I want to turn to this community and ask if y’all have thoughts about how to convey the value of collective identification, particularly re: feminism, to young people who think they are beyond it. Do you have a way to articulate what identification within this particular group could mean to college students? Or experience from you own identification as a feminist undergraduate, how that sense of collective signified for you?

Wednesday links

1. Fetching Dr. King's Coffee.

2. Kareem Abdul Jabbar gets it.

3. Teach the Facts:

We are here to support a 21st century sex education curriculum for MCPS students. While continuing to stress the importance of abstinence for teens, we support a new curriculum that will expand upon the old one by providing our students with current knowledge about how to protect themselves, based on the latest science and advice from the medical and scientific communities. Also, based on mainstream science, we support a new curriculum that recognizes that sexual orientation is not a choice, and that homosexuality is not a disease.

They also have a blog.

4. Has Clinton's Campaign Caused a Feminist Reawakening? We can only hope.

5. The Science of High Heels. Don't approve of my admiring Pucci and Prada? Tough toenails.

6. Why shoe-blogging (and other fluff) counts as feminist.

So there's a distinct purpose to feminist/womanist women bloggers publicly telling stories about their lives, talking about the minutiae of womanhood as well as sharing personal anecdotes and experiences that have nothing whatsoever to do with being a woman, except insomuch as it's a woman telling the story. We're filling in all the cultural gaps left by the deficit of women's voices.

Nicely said, Melissa.

7. Men Who Explain Things.

Men explain things to me, and to other women, whether or not they know what they're talking about. Some men. Every woman knows what I mean. It's the presumption that makes it hard, at times, for any woman in any field; that keeps women from speaking up and from being heard when they dare; that crushes young women into silence by indicating, the way harassment on the street does, that this is not their world. It trains us in self-doubt and self-limitation just as it exercises men's unsupported overconfidence.

This syndrome is something nearly every woman faces every day, within herself too, a belief in her superfluity, an invitation to silence, one from which a fairly nice career as a writer (with a lot of research and facts correctly deployed) has not entirely freed me.

8. Racism and medical care.

This study, published last summer in the Journal of General Internal Medicine, was the first hard evidence that doctors' clinical decision making is influenced by race, and that those decisions stand to do harm.

Does this mean that doctors are racist? No. In fact, the discrepancy between explicit and implicit biases in the Harvard study suggests the opposite. But it's clear deeper biases exist, and for several reasons.

Not consciously racist, no. But unconsciously racist, yes. Regardless, it's yet more good evidence for why deliberate and conscious attempts to compensate for racial bias--even when people think they don't *have* racial bias--is vitally important.

9. Moreover, The life expectancy of (poor, rural) American women is down for the first time since the 1918 flu epicdemic. You're going to be hearing a lot about how this is because of the "poor choices" poor rural women make--they should eat less, smoke less, blah blah blah. The linked article points out that *stress* is probably a major factor. There's certainly work out there that shows links between stress and obesity and stress and smoking. Not to mention, duh, poverty itself is a risk factor for bad health.

10: This is depressing as fuck: America has 25% of the world's prisoners. Either Americans are a particularly criminal people, or our justice system is fucked. up.

11: Ding sent me this link to an interview with Michael Pfleger about Obama, race, and America. All I have to say is that if there were more priests like that, I'd still be a practicing Catholic.

12: Follow up to the SF Longshoreman's anti-war Mayday plans:

In New York City, the NY Metro Area Postal Workers Union voted for a two minute "period of silence" in support of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU). The National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC) Branch 214 in San Francisco also voted to support the ILWU stoppage with a two minute period of silence. The San Francisco Labor Council issued a resolution of support for the ILWU action and stated that it "encourages other unions to follow ILWU's call for a 'No Peace-No Work Holiday' or other labor actions on May Day, to express their opposition to the US wars and occupations in the Middle East”.

Politics and the Media

Surely by now you've all heard about the way the Pentagon groomed military "analysts" to go on television and pretend to be independent commentators, when their real job was to shore up the administration's line on Iraq. If you haven't, go read it.

Then read this post at the Weblog with an explanation for why mainstream journalism sucks. I'd also like to highlight something Adam said in comments there. People complain about mainstream television and print journalism a lot, but few are able to articulate solutions for how to fix the situation, myself included. But Adam Kotsko is pretty smart, and he says:

To [solve] the specific problems listed? Nationalize the health care industry, along the lines of a single-payer system funded by tax revenues; incorporate the question of contingent academic labor into accreditation processes and increase government funding of public universities to mid-century levels; disallow the ownership of media or publishing agencies by corporations, preferably by making said agencies formal non-profit entities (along the lines of Harper's) or at the very least private, non-public[ly]-traded firms (like they were before the trend toward corporate ownership). A nationalized broadcast news service along the lines of the BBC or CBC would also be great.

None of this stuff is "radical" and none requires a proletarian revolution. In other countries, some version of these things has been tried and succeeded. If it's "impossible" in America, it's because capital has so irretrievably corrupted the political system.

I think fundamentally changing the face of the American media is the single most important thing we can do to change the direction of this country. Vigorous public debate and rigorous scrutiny of government action are the lynchpin of democracy, and trying to have a robust democracy with the media outlets we have is just untenable.

I was thinking about those things this morning, and how I wish that I felt there were some real intellectuals in government, who could come up with ideas to change the way we live and govern rather than just provide more of the same, when I read this story at the NYT.

From cable news star to White House press secretary and back again: Tony Snow, who worked at the Fox News Channel for 10 years before serving as the Bush administration’s chief spokesman for 17 months, is moving to CNN to be a political contributor.

This is what we get.

Above the law, part 2

If you missed this weekend's NYT story about how, precisely, the Pentagon used retired generals and military contractors to propagandize the American public, you have a duty as an American citizen to go read it. Personally, I found the multimedia presentation of the evidence a little easier to follow, though. And yes, propagandizing the public is illegal (pdf; see page 5.)



H/t the Unfogged commentariat. Also, you might be interested in Adam Kotsko's thoughts about deregulation and media economics (which he totally stole from me, the bastard), which he expands on here (I believe the thoughts in that second link are entirely his).

What you would produce if you were trying to parody sexism

Here is the latest issue of TNR, via Feministe. I have nothing to say, except to reprint the letter I just sent TNR.

To the Editors:

I am appalled by the cover image and story advertised on your latest issue. The sexism apparent in both your choice of an extremely unflattering picture of the Senator and characterization of her competing narratives as "voices in her head" and her campaign as a "psychodrama" is more like the coverage of famous women we see on woman-bashing celebrity gossip sites, rather than in serious political magazines.

Your magazine has suffered a sharp decline in quality and intellectual credibility over the last few years, but poor judgment though the editors may have, stupid they are not. As such, I can only conclude that you are aware of the extremely sexist and misogynist overtones of this portrayal, and chose to proceed anyway, not only in spite of, but because of that aspect. That you would allow, nay, endorse, such a characterization, in what I can only imagine is an attempt to stir up controversy and sell more issues, is worthy of scorn.

I hereby conclude that in printing such a cover story, they are demonstrating that they, as an institution, support Senator Clinton and want her to win—such characterizations do nothing but help her. Or maybe I'm wrong, and they really are stupid, and don't understand that.

Above the law, part 1

Remember SCHIP?

As election season approaches, I'm starting to see signs for my own personal representative, about whom I have blogged before, douchebag that he is. He's being opposed by three different Democrats, dammit. No wonder he keeps getting reelected.

Well, it turns out that the Bush administration policy that Gallegly--and a bunch of other assholes--supported, denying states the ability to use the State Children's Health Insurance Program funds to cover people above the poverty line--were violating Federal law.

The Bush administration violated federal law last year when it restricted states’ ability to provide health insurance to children of middle-income families, and its new policy is therefore unenforceable, lawyers from the Government Accountability Office said Friday.
....
At issue is the future of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, financed jointly by the federal government and the states. Congress last year twice passed bills to expand the popular program, and Mr. Bush vetoed both.
....
The letter told states what steps they needed to take to be sure the children’s health program would not displace or “crowd out” private coverage under group health plans. The White House cited the policy as a justification for rejecting a proposal by New York State to cover 70,000 additional youngsters.
....
The legal opinion was requested by Senators John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia, and Olympia J. Snowe, Republican of Maine.

Just the latest little bit of evidence that today's Republicans couldn't give a shit about federal law if it gets in the way of their agendas--in this case, the agenda to sacrifice the interests of "we the people" on the altar of the corporate bottom line.

H/t Feministe.

Things I learned while getting a PhD

Are we posting recipes and/or cool tips? Let me pass on a few valuable things I realize I learned while in graduate school (but not necessarily from graduate school):

1) Whatever you are making with pinto beans, a dip or a salad or whatever, just stop and use black-eyed peas instead. You will not regret this.

2) On your average (American) college campus, there is nowhere good to change a diaper

3) It seems sensible to put together a massive bibliography, like, say, for a dissertation, gradually, but in actuality it is perfect work to do all at once while you watch American Idol and are emotionally detached from the project.

4) Academics are, on the whole, not as progressive as they fancy themselves.

5) In pretty much any humanities-type class (and very possibly a few science ones as well), Stoker’s Dracula more or less teaches itself. You can do whatever you want with this book. Do yourself a favor and get it on as many syllabi as possible.

6) Not as many people are reading blogs as you think should be.


And that about sums it up. Updates if I realize I learned anything else of value.

hippie breakfast

I have a theory about breakfast: either you are a savory (egg) breakfast person, or you are a sweet (grain) breakfast person. Yeah, yeah, there's exceptions--maybe you love your eggs, but you'll go a long way for a cinnamon-raisin bagel. But *in general*, I think people tend to lean one way or the other.

I myself am a sweet breakfast person, when I bother to eat breakfast at all. I like the carbs in the morning: pastry, french toast, granola and berries. My exception is yogurt and berries, ideally in a blender, but that's still "sweet," if not grain-based.

A lot of the time, though, your carb breakfasts seem kind of pathetic if you're out for brunch: who the fuck goes out to brunch and orders goddamn oatmeal and yogurt? If it's something that's easy enough to make myself (i.e., requires virtually no preparation at all, which might be the attraction of the sweet carby breakfast, come to think of it), I'm not going to pay someone else to plop it in a bowl for me. So generally I'll order french toast and bacon, or something like that.

But. There's this breakfast joint in Minneapolis that's absolutely fucking amazing, and one of the absolutely fucking amazing things they do right is make a "porridge" that I order every damn time. Sometimes, when I'm home in California, I fantasize about this goddamn porridge. Which is based on wild rice, and has nuts and dried berries and god only knows what they do to it, but my god, it's good.

So yesterday I was puttering through the expensive yupped-up organic-type grocery store in town, which I visit about once a month to stock up on yer yupped-up organic-type groceries (primarily produce and bulk grains, neither of which you can get at Trader Joe's. Oh, and also Nancy's cream cheese, which I've introduced PK to and which he, being the brilliant child he is, recognizes as vastly superior to all other cream cheese.)

Anyhoo, so in the bulk grains section there was this "organic mixed wild rice" stuff. I like wild rice, and I kind of eyeballed it, thinking "hmm, what could I make with that?" And then it hit me: I could try to reproduce the porridge from Hell's Kitchen.

So I bought a couple cups of the organic mixed wild rice, and then I puttered about getting some dried cranberries and organic pumpkin seeds, finished my shopping, came home and made a damn good dinner of ribeye steak,* roasted carrots, grilled artichoke hearts, and a big puffy oven-baked pancake thing (the introduction of which into my repertoire I blame entirely on M. LeBlanc, to whom I am grateful, as it is much quicker than rice or potatoes). Anyhoo, so while the carrots were roasting I started on the porridge, which cooked while I did the rest of the dinner, and then after eating I finished it up by stirring in the cranberries and pumpkin seeds and some other goodies I found in the pantry.

We had some this morning. It's not quite the same as the stuff at Hell's Kitchen? But goddamn, it was good. I actually wanted seconds.

*PK had requested steak for dinner as I was heading out to the grocery store, and I spotted a couple of grass-fed organic slaughtered by being petted to death rib-eyes and thought, okeydoke, there's dinner. Never let it be said that I do not spoil my child rotten.

A Bitch of a Good Porridge

wild rice mix (you actually *can* get this at TJ's)

2x as much water as rice

1/2 as much milk as rice

some nutmeg (I used about 1/2 tsp, I think)

salt


Bring the rice, water, milk, salt, and nutmeg to a boil on the stove--not the regular way, by boiling the water first and then adding the rice, but by just tossing it all in a saucepan. Then turn it down and let it simmer, covered, for about 45 minues. Basically the proportions are a guideline: I used 2 cups of rice, 4 cups of water, and 1 cup of milk and it turned out about the right texture (soft but with some tooth to it), but I'm sure one could use more milk and less water, etc. You want more liquid than you would usually use for rice, is the point. And obviously keep an eye on it and give it a stir occasionally; it would suck if it burned, 'cause wild rice is expensive.

Once it's a proper porridgey consistency, take it off the heat and add whatever variety of dried fruit and nuts you've got in the house. I added:

1/2 c. dried cranberries

1/2 c. dried blueberries

1/2 c. pumpkin seeds

1/2 c. walnuts, which I toasted in a pan along with the pumpkin seeds before stirring them into the porridge.


You can, of course, eat it immediately, or you can do like I did and make it while you're cooking dinner, then put it in the fridge overnight and reheat it in the microwave the next morning. Stir in some warm milk and some honey (or brown sugar, or maple syrup, or whatever). Way tasty, especially for such a hippy-type breakfast.

Roast Carrots

carrots

olive oil

salt and pepper

fresh dill or parsley or rosemary, if you like


Cut the carrots in 2-inch long slices and put 'em in a bowl. Pour some olive oil over them and salt and pepper them generously. Add the rosemary, if you're using it, then stir it all up so the carrots are coated. Put them in a single layer in a pan or on a baking sheet in the oven at 400° for 20 minutes. Stir in the dill or parsley at the end, as they're more delicate than rosemary.

Obviously if you put these in and then get started mixing up the puffy pancake, thte timing works out pretty nicely. Plus, since you're turning the oven up when you put the pancake in, the carrots will finish roasting a little quicker, though they might be slightly softer.

Puffy Pancake Type Thingy

per person (you can skimp a little if necessary: I tripled this recipe for the three of us, and there was definitely pancake left over):

1 tablespoon unsalted butter

1 egg

1/4 cup milk

1/4 cup all-purpose flour (maybe add a tbsp of cornstarch, if you're serving this with savory foods)

1/8 teaspoon salt


Melt the butter in a cast-iron skillet on the stove. Throw the other ingredients into a blender (or whisk in a bowl), then pour them into the melted butter. Put the skillet into the oven at 475° for about 12 minutes (longer, obviously, for bigger pancakes. Keep an eye on it; once it's high and puffy with maybe a little melted butter on top, it's done). You really do have to pretty much serve this right away or it'll lose all its puff, so don't start it until everything else is virtualy done. Does a nice job of sopping up meaty pan drippings....

I cooked the rib-eye steak and artichokes following the directions in this video. I, personally, did not have the pan hot enough, so it took a little longer than the video suggested, which threw my timing off and made the puffy pancake go flat. So I highly suggest that you not fool around on the "pan must be HOT" instructions therein (or that you be willing to just cover the meat and let it rest next to a warm stove while the pancake bakes).

Obama supports parental consent laws for abortion

I'll admit it, I'm a little behind in my blog-reading. Things have been busy, and I think I have 453 unread items in my Google Reader. So forgive me if I'm wrong, but I haven't seen anyone talking about this. From this story on Politico:

Consider the question of whether minors should be required to get parental consent — or at least notify their parents — before having abortion.

The first version of Obama's questionnaire responds with a simple "No."

The amended version, though, answers less stridently: "Depends on how young — possibly for extremely young teens, i.e., 12- or 13-year-olds."

By 2004, when his campaign filled out a similar questionnaire for the IVI-IPO during his campaign for U.S. Senate, the answer to a similar question contained still more nuance, but also more precision. "I would oppose any legislation that does not include a bypass provision for minors who have been victims of, or have reason to fear, physical or sexual abuse," he wrote.

The evolution continued at least through late last year, when his campaign filled out a questionnaire for a nonpartisan reproductive health group that answered a similar question with even more nuance.

"As a parent, Obama believes that young women, if they become pregnant, should talk to their parents before considering an abortion. But he realizes not all girls can turn to their mother or father in times of trouble, and in those instances, we should want these girls to seek the advice of trusted adults — an aunt, a grandmother, a pastor," his campaign wrote to RH Reality Check.

Could this be any more clear? He said that he would oppose legislation that doesn't have a judicial bypass. It's worded in such a way that he's trying to make himself sound pro-choice, but this is not a pro-choice position. Parental consent laws that exist do, in at least some states, already have judicial bypass provisions. For instance, in Texas, there is a parental consent/"notification" law, with a judicial bypass. And then there is a whole organization devoted to helping minors get these judicial bypasses, because how are you supposed to navigate the court system when you are a minor, pregnant, desperate to end the pregnancy, with no money to hire a lawyer and the inability to confide in your parents?

Parental consent laws are a way to restrict access to abortion, period. Politicians are not in the business of advising people on how to live their lives, they're in the business of deciding what our laws should be and how our money should be spent. So when Obama says that he thinks young girls should talk to their parents about abortion, and then says that he will oppose legislation that doesn't contain a judicial bypass provision, what he's saying is that he wouldn't oppose legislation that did include a judicial bypass provision.

And that is not acceptable to me. I voted for Obama, I have volunteered for his campaign. I will obviously vote for him in November if he is the nominee and for Clinton if she is. But I am going to be very, very, angry if no one holds his feet to the fire on this.

schvarts

And it's fascinating that she had to "[state] to three senior Yale University officials today, including two deans, that she did not impregnate herself and that she did not induce any miscarriages." And that the reactions in the comment thread below were almost entirely about whether she had the right to do this, whether it was "responsible," and whether it was art. In other words, we absolutely cannot get past our sense of ownership of women's pregnancies.

In a way this is a good thing (and probably, to some extent, unavoidable in intelligent social animals).

And in a way, it's very very fucked up.

Good for her. Like I said, definitely an "A." I, for one, am proud to have been part of her project.

Absolutely Fascinating

This story'll be everywhere by the end of the day: artist videotapes and displays self-induced miscarriages.

Beginning next Tuesday, Shvarts will be displaying her senior art project, a documentation of a nine-month process during which she artificially inseminated herself “as often as possible” while periodically taking abortifacient drugs to induce miscarriages. Her exhibition will feature video recordings of these forced miscarriages as well as preserved collections of the blood from the process.

My first thought was, "ha, finally the feminist strawwoman comes to life: someone who gets pregnant on purpose so she can have an abortion!"

But it's actually sort of an interesting project. I like the quoted responses from a couple of fellow students:

Sara Rahman ’09 said, in her opinion, Shvarts is abusing her constitutional right to do what she chooses with her body.

“[Shvarts’ exhibit] turns what is a serious decision for women into an absurdism,” Rahman said. “It discounts the gravity of the situation that is abortion.”

Jonathan Serrato . . . said he found the concept of the senior art project “surprising” and unethical.

“I feel that she’s manipulating life for the benefit of her art, and I definitely don’t support it,” Serrato said. “I think it’s morally wrong.”

Again, facile responses jump to mind: morally wrong art! "Abusing her constitutional right to do what she chooses with her body"! You could parse those statements for hours.

But really, it's a fairly basic kind of conceptual art piece. (Which isn't meant as a criticism of the artist; frankly, I'm a shitty art critic, especially of this conceptual stuff, so for all I know this is brilliant.) The artist is manipulating her body, recording the process, and presenting the recording and physical signs of that manipulation to an audience. What's the relationship between sign and symbol? What's the relationship between signifier and signified? What *is* signified? Etc. Etc.

And of course she's doing a piece that only a woman could do (okay, maybe not. But generally pregnancy is the province of women, for now). People tend to have pretty visceral reactions to art of this type (e.g.: "people probably shouldn't be mutilating themselves for the sake of art (and by 'probably' we mean 'absolutely')"), but I don't think it's a real stretch to say that a deliberate pregnancy/miscarriage piece is going to get way more than its fair share of attention. As, indeed, women's bodies in art have done pretty much since forever.

So there's that angle, as well. Not to mention the obvious "creation" resonance. The aesthetic object as "child" of the artist is a pretty well-worn trope; here Shvarts is bringing that metaphor to life (if you'll forgive my belaboring the point. Hah!). Is displaying the object somehow wounding to it, or to the artist? Is the creative process painful? Is it fully under one's control? Should it be? What happens when art's attempt to imitate life turns life itself into art?

I have to admit, the piece as described makes me uncomfortable. But I'm not sure that that's at all a bad thing. I'd probably give her an A.

Oh, and some advice to make sure her number's unlisted.

No Comment

Click to read.

Wednesday link love

1. New (to me) mamablog with a clever name: Hog Dog Log Blog Bog. Try saying *that* three times fast.

2. Survey! Help a graduate student out. No comments to this post, in the interests of not skewing survey results.

3. We *do* matter!

4. Speaking of which: Interesting study over at Corrente about Sexism and the Gender Gap in the 2008 elections. Link is to part 3 of the study; parts 1 and 2 are linked therein.

5. MayDay Labor Action against the war. Go, the longshoremen! They're calling on immigrant workers and other labor-friendly types to join them. Check it out.

6. Women Make Movies.

7. Essay contest for Colorado students, grades 6-11. Deadline is this Friday. Winners get to go to the convention in Denver, expenses paid. If the winner reads this blog, and if I get press passes (dammit, I am supposed to find out ANY DAY NOW), I will buy the winner lunch.

8. Dr. Susan Wicklund on Book TV. Dr. Wicklund wrote This Common Secret, a memoir of 20 years as an abortion provider.

8. The Index on Censorship is having its Eighth Annual Freedom of Expression Awards Ceremony on the 21st, in London. This year they have have four women nominated for the Guardian Journalism Award, the Bindmans Law and Campaigning Award and the Book Award in recognition of their outstanding work in their fight for human rights and freedom of expression.

Two women have been nominated for their outstanding defense of freedom of expression. The Bindman Law and Campaigns Awards is given to lawyers or campaigners who have fought repression, or have struggled to change political climates and perceptions:

- Asma Jahangir, who has been raising issues in regards to human rights in Pakistan for years.

- Lydia Cacho, an activist and veteran investigative journalist, committed to exposing the plight of abused and exploited woman and children in Mexico.

Manana Aslamazyan is Nominated for the Guardian Journalism Award in recognition of her outstanding commitment to journalistic integrity in defence of freedom of expression. This award recognizes journalism of determination and bravery, often representing a different point of view in the media.

Edna Fernandes is nominated for the T R Fyvel Book Award which honors freedom of expression through literature. Her book Holy Warriors: a Journey into the Heart of Indian Fundamentalism explores India’s religious mix based on a series of face-to-face encounters.

You can find out more information about the awards and the nominees through the link.

9. Facebook sexism, directed against a teacher. Trustees fire the teacher, saying that the kids are "just blowing off steam." Yes, raising feminist boys is worthwhile.

10. Personal request from a friend working on the Obama campaign in Philadelphia:

I'm asking Obama supporters for help with something. Like a lot of people, I have been doing voter registration for Obama the past week. They have many, many volunteers working around the clock at the Sansom Street headquarters, and they need lots of equipment and supplies but don't have cash on hand. Over the past three days, I've gone to the store for them and spent $750 of my own money for things like food and drinks, tables, desk lamps, combo printer/copiers, fans, power strips, staplers, pens, markers, etc. It would be great if I could get them $250/day worth of supplies until the primary, about $7,500 total, but I can't personally swing that. I'm asking everyone I know to contribute and to ask people you think might be able to help to contribute. Please help out if you can and spread the word. I'll take paypal, checks or cash.

If you want to help, hit the paypal link to your right, put "Obama Philly" in the "for" field, and I'll make sure the money goes where intended. Ack! Forget it! Message from a friend of a reader:

"Bitch Ph.D.'s Paypal link is not set up to take the necessary information required by the FEC for campaign contributions. I appreciate her good intentions, but this pitch is going to wind up getting that volunteer and the Obama campaign in SERIOUS trouble. For example, I'm maxxed out on the primary. My giving one more penny is illegal. Laundering it through someone else's account doesn't make it less illegal, it makes it more. Someone needs to stop this right now. Really."

If anyone's sent money, my apologies; I'll bounce it right back to you.

If Michelle runs in eight years, anyone who bitches about "dynasty" voting gets smacked.

"I want people to know when they look at me, to be clear that they see what an investment in public education can look like."

AMEN. Dear god, I love this woman.


Thanks to Taddyporter for the link.

elitist? yawn.

I should start keeping track of all the 'negritudes' the MSM keeps trotting out (or some other campaign keeps trying to play out.)

First we had the Magical Negro: 'Oh, Obama will solve everything and save us from ourselves!'

Don't forget the Unqualified Negro: 'It's 3 o'clock in the morning. Do you want some Negro answering the phone?'

Then we had the Angry Negro: 'Oh, Obama's a student of a hate-filled pastor! He must be soooo angry!'

And now we have the Uppity Negro: 'Who the fuck does that Negro think he is?!'
(Jack & Jill Politics has a neat discussion here.)

Which Negro will appear next? I'm breathless with anticipation.

More bitching for you!

Guess what I'm doing these days? Writing mutual fund reports. Yes, I'm as surprised as you are, believe me.

Anyhoo. Since reading spreadsheets (spreadsheets! Ye gods!) is taking up way too much of my time--and deadlines for picking up courses next fall are fast upon me--I have called on yet another bitchy PhD to join the club.

Ms. Dr. Sybil Vane will start posting here soon, and no, she doesn't have a blog of her own so you'll just have to wait to meet her (if you don't already know her from the comments section). I promise that she is smarter than I am and has actual PhD-type employment, so with any luck we'll return to having more academicish commentary here again.

Or, you know, maybe not. Everyone knows you can't tell a bitch what to write; we'll all just have to wait and see.

You're goddamn right I'm bitter. Bitter enough that I'll become a single-issue gun-nut voter if it means I can shoot the people at Aetna

1. Aw, crap, I'm almost out of my Effexor, and I've run out of refills through Aetna's handy! convenient! bullshit! required! mail-order prescription system (motto: your inconvenience saves us money, so suck it up, chump). Call and make an appointment with the doctor for Friday.

2. Doctor gives me a 90 day prescription for the mail-order assholes, plus a 30-day prescription at the pharmacy, to tide me over while the mail-in mail-order paperwork and shipping takes its sweet time.

3. Friday afternoon: go to pharmacy to fill 30-day prescription. Pharmacy says it'll be ready in a couple of hours. Go home, figure you'll pick it up the next day.

4. Saturday afternoon: Pharmacy explains that the insurance company will only allow them to fill it for two weeks, but that I am to pay the standard 30-day co-pay.

5. Saturday evening: go online. The health insurance company's website is "down for scheduled maintenance." Of course.

6. Sunday afternoon: go online. The link to the prescription site says that you can fill new prescriptions online once you've signed up. I know I've signed up--at least, I've used the online prescription refill "service" before--but apparently it uses a different password/id, which I have no memory of ever setting up. Go to the "contact us!" link. Decide that it'll be faster to call tomorrow than to use the stupid email form. Write self a note to make sure that you don't forget to do this first thing Monday, since obviously you've now lost three days of your two weeks worth of meds, and your memory is that these assholes take a while to process "new" prescriptions.

7. Monday: call the number on the prescription web site. Conversation follows:

B, resolved to be polite since after all, it is not the fault of the customer service employee that their employer sucks: Hi, blah blah new prescription don't know my login information.
Customer Service Guy: You're supposed to click on "contact us" and request help through the online form.
B, resolve weakening quickly: Yes, and it also says that I can call customer service. That's you.
CSG: Okay, so, what's the problem?
B: I don't know my login info, and I need to fill a prescription.
CSG: I can't give you your login info. You'll have to use the email form.
B: Can you take my prescription order? The site says I can order by using this phone number.
CSG: Yes, I can do that. Which prescription do you want to refill?
B: This isn't a refill. It's a new prescription.
CSG: Then you have to submit it through the mail.
B: The site says I don't!
CSG: If it's new, you do.
B: Okay, fine. I'll print out the form and send it in. In the meantime, I have less than two weeks' worth of medication, and my experience is that you guys might take longer than that to fill a new prescription. But you won't give me more than two weeks at the pharmacy.
CSG: You have to call customer service about that.
B: *You* are customer service.
CSG: No, I'm just customer service for the prescription refill service. You want customer service for your particular Aetna plan.
B: And of course you're not going to connect me to them.
CSG: I can't.
B: But you're all the same company.
CSG: Yes, it's all the same company, but there are different branches.
B: And none of you can connect to any of the others.
CSG: No, you'll have to call them. The number is on your card.
B: Great. (Hangs up.)

8. Call the Aetna Choice Pos (choice! Haha, someone's got a sense of humor!) plan number. Go through chirpy computer system, because it's not enough to have to deal with recalcitrant actual human beings; no, Aetna values its customers so highly that it wants you to deal with the humiliation of being put through your paces by a machine, first. To wit:

Chirpy Computer System: Hello, you have reached Aetna Choice Pos Customer Service. Are you a healthcare provider, or a customer?
B: (Waiting to be told which button to push.)
CCS: Please say "healthcare provider" or "customer."
B, growling: Customer.
CCS: What are you calling about?
B: . . . .
CCS: Please say what you are calling about. For instance, you could say "I have a question about my benefits," or "I am calling about a claim," or "I would like to speak to a customer service representative."
B, ready to strangle someone: I would like to speak to a customer service representative.
CCS: You said that you would like to speak to a customer service representative. Is that correct?
B, through gritted teeth: Yes.
CCS: Who is the primary policy holder?
B: Mr. B.
CCS: Mr. B. is the primary policy holder, is that correct?
B: Yes.
CCS: What is Mr. B.'s social security number?

Seriously, this went on for several more questions before the fucking system finally hooked me up with an actual person.

Actual Human Being: Hello, this is Aetna Customer Service, how can I help you?
B: Okay, look. I'm trying to get a prescription filled, and I know you're going to tell me to call the prescription service, but they told me they couldn't help me and that I should call here. I have a new prescription for a medication I've been taking but have run out of refills on. Because I knew that it might take a while for the mail order service to send the medicine, I had my doctor write me a prescription for a month's worth from the pharmacy. Only, when I went to the pharmacy, they told me that you guys told *them* they could only fill two weeks' worth, because I'm supposed to go through the mail order service. So I went home to try to do that online, and the site was down. Then the next day, I went to try again, and apparently there's some separate userid and password I'm supposed to have for the mail order service, which I've used before but I have no memory of having a separate userid and password number. So I needed to call you guys to find out what my userid was, but that was Sunday and you were closed, so I called today, and the guy at that number told me that I can't fill the prescription online because it's "new," and I have to do it through the mail, only I've only got ten days' worth of medication left, and in my experience it might take longer than that for you guys to fill the prescription, so what in the world am I supposed to do? And by the way, I am sorry to sound so angry at you, because I know it is not you, personally, who are at fault here, but the situation is very frustrating.
AHB: Well, we only give exceptions to the two-week limit for people who don't already know they're supposed to be using the mail-order service. You already knew, so we can't give you an exception.
B, deciding that the "it's not your personal fault" restraint is unwarranted: Yeah, okay, so your answer is that it's my own fault. Fine; it's my own fault. I fucked up. Nonetheless, I need the medication.
AHB: Well, it might come through in time.
B: Yeah, and guess what? It might not.
AHB: In emergencies we can give you two weeks' worth of medication for the regular month's co-pay.
B: So you're telling me that if I order, and the medication doesn't arrive in time, I can go back to the pharmacy and get another two weeks' worth by paying another co-pay?
AHB: That's right.
B: Finally, an answer. Okay, fine. (Hangs up.)

9. Print out form. Fill it out, grumbling about how much of your fucking time these bastards have wasted and now you have to spend *more* time filling out this motherfucking form. Rant at PK, who is home sick from school (irony! Ha!) about how you pray to fucking god that by the time he grows up the country will have a single-payer system so that he will not have to waste his fucking time and get all pissed off trying to get the goddamn health insurance company to fill his goddamn medications. Explain to him briefly, in answer to questions, that health insurance sort of works two ways: first, they pay for your health care, in exchange for which you pay them about $5k/year. Most of the time, they pay less for your health care than you pay them, so they make money; but if you are unlucky and get hit by a car, or get cancer, then they will pay for it. Second, the health care company wants to make money, so it charges you knowing that most people won't use all their care, and it forces you to do some things, like get prescriptions, in certain ways so that it costs them less. But that despite how annoying it is, and despite the fact that *probably* you spend more on insurance than you would if you just paid the doctor yourself, you have to have health insurance *just in case*, because if something really bad happened, there would be no way in the world you could afford it.

10. Finish filling out form, xerox prescription so you have a copy just in case!, bung the entire package into an envelope, and take your small, powerless, petty "revenge" by affixing a Darth Vader stamp to the outside. Consider writing a pissy letter to Aetna before telling yourself "yeah, right" and imagining a hollow laugh. Decide to write pissy blog post instead.

Ah, America. Where even if you're upper middle class, you still have no real power. Feel grateful that you at least *have* health insurance, bitch, and enjoy the superficial consumer goods that distract you from recognizing your real dependence.

Land of the free, my suburban ass.

A little perspective

World Defense Spending. LGM posts more numbers, but I figure the first two really makes the point.

1 United States $ 583,283,000,000
2 France $ 74,690,470,000

I'm told the certificate should take 6-8 weeks to arrive in the mail

Earlier today I finally got to pull the most awesome classic mom move ever.

"You know, I spend a lot of time and energy trying to find things for us to do as a family that I think you guys will enjoy, and it would be really nice if I didn't have to practically beat you with a stick to get you to come along. I'm speaking primarily to you, Pseudonymous Kid. From *you*, Mr. B., I would really appreciate a little old-fashioned "PK, you need to be more respectful of your mother" stuff and maybe a little help, if it's not too much trouble, getting us all moving on things that I've been planning on for weeks, instead of this "we can get going after I do x, y, and z" stuff, okay?"

The best part is that I actually had tears in my eyes while I was saying it. I couldn't be more proud.

If you'd just agree, I'd shut up

Ever since I read this post at alternet about how white feminists don't want a real change in the social order, merely to have the same privilege as white men, I've been thinking about why I publicly identify so much as a feminist and less with other kinds of activism.

It's not because I don't have a desire to engage with other social problems. A couple of friends have asked me why I didn't fuse my feminist thinking with my legal career to try and pursue equality for women. There are two reasons. First, I think the law has, for at least a decade now and maybe ever since Roe, ceased being a useful tool to fight the patriarchy. What could I do? Represent victims of domestic violence in court? Sure, but retribution isn't going to erase what these women went through. Work for an organization that seeks to do impact litigation on discrimination in schools, workplaces, and churches? Sure, but there's already a glut of lawyers willing to do that work in relation to how successful such suits are. Second, I think that there are more pressing problems ripe for being addressed by legal action, namely, among others, the treatment of people in prison.

My work, unlike that of other women I know who have worked on prison issues, has not focused on women in prison. Women, when they are incarcerated, face unique and difficult challenges; they often flow from the same problems women face everywhere, which is that they are subject to rape and violence. No, all my incarcerated clients are men. I say this not be self-congratulatory, but because I am still trying to figure out why it is that I devote nearly every moment of my free writing and arguing energy to talking about feminism, and my whole workday fighting on behalf of a group that is uniformly men.

I suspect it's because I have hope that even today's jurisprudence, which is woefully limited as to the extent which it recognizes individual constitutional rights, may offer some protection for men suffering under the brutal and security-obsessed hands of their jailers and their governments. I have no such hope for women. As a somewhat clumsy conceptual framework, I'll explain the requirements for a class action case, which is the sort of case that you want to use to substantially alter the way a group of people is treated. The requirements: "One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all only if (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the Class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class" (Fed R. Civ. P. 23(a)).

It's those second and third elements of the test that are really problematic. Women of the world, no, even of the United States, face so many different manifestations of sexism that it's impossible to even catalogue them. The gender-related problems that a wealthy white woman, a poor Hispanic woman, and a middle-class black woman face overlap, sure, but they also wildly diverge in ways that often seem insurmountable to someone trying to address them all with a cohesive strategy.

How is my work as a feminist, such as it is, of writing and talking about sexism, usually in language, advertising, cable news, politics and personal relationships, help women who are working as maids for rich families in Los Angeles? Answer: it doesn't. I don't have any illusions about that. I can't do it all, so I do have to make choices; why do I choose this? Especially when I care about those people that my efforts can not and will not ever reach?

Because awareness is a real bitch. Once you've started to view the world through a feminist lens, it is simply impossible to take the lens off. You can put on other lenses, sure, but it's like wearing glasses over your contacts. And because I keep seeing sexism everywhere I turn, when I turn on the television, when I open a book, when I read the paper, when I talk to my friends, when I fight with my boyfriend, I can't help but point it out.

But here's where the rest of the world comes in. See, by and large, there always seem to be people in my space, whether it's on the internet, at school, or in my extended social circle, who don't like it when I point out sexism. Invariably, if I point out an example of it, it tends to be categorized in two ways: 1) it's so egregiously and obviously sexist that the person responsible is morally reprehensible and not even worth bothering over; 2) it's not sexist. Why can't I just shut up?

I can't shut up because every time that you protest too much, when you leap to the defense of a phrase or idea or image as soon as I impugn its rightness by calling it sexist, it just makes me feel more strongly that I have to continue to be a feminist thorn in the shoe of this oppressive culture of subtle subjugation. I would really like to devote more of my blogging and arguing energy to talking about capitalism, or the prison-industrial complex, or the systematic warehousing of black men by the American government.

But as long as you keep maintaining that no, housework doesn't have implications for gender roles, and no, , Hollywood isn't sexist, they're just responding to consumer preferences and no, Clinton's not being subjected to sexist attacks, and no, prostitution isn't problematic because in any job you become an object to serve an end, I will not be able to stop talking about the sexism and misogyny I see in the world.

Don't like it? If you'd just agree, I could shut up.

Vindicated: or, scenes from a marriage

Mr. B.: I don't think you have any idea how bossy you are.
Me: Fuck you.
Mr. B.: I'm serious! Do you?
Me: I'm only bossy when other people are incompetent, so shut the fuck up.

[Later]

Mr. B.: Where's my debit card?
Me: I handed it back to you ten minutes ago.

How to be a feminist boyfriend, part 1

I saw this post on Feministe, containing the following line: "In fact, you should write a book answering this question - “how to be a feminist boyfriend."

Genius. Publishers, agents, and other people with money: I am willing to write such a book! I've been looking for a good idea for a book for some time now. Alas, I don't think the money's going to come a-runnin', so I'll blog about it instead. Here's the first installment. Future installments to include, among others, the all-important topics of sex, contraception, money, her parents, your parents, movies, the television, and personal grooming.

Housework

Not being a jerk about housework involves much more than just doing what you're asked to. This is not the time to say "but sometimes I cook!" Obviously, if you're not doing your fair share, you need to work on that, and do so immediately. But since this is directed more at men who already have some awareness of gender issues, I'm going to dig a little deeper. If you truly want to understand how to make your housework a conflict-free zone, you need to start paying attention to mental work. Who's the person to say "we need more toilet paper," "I think the trash is getting smelly," or "we're having guests tomorrow so we better get this place in shape"? If your relationship is anywhere close to the average, chances are, it's your girlfriend. Luckily, doing more mental work is easy: 1) Pay Attention. 2) Speak out when you notice something that needs to be done. 3) Even better, offer to do it. A sentence like "I think we're running out of clean clothes, and there's no detergent left, want me to pick some up on the way home?" will be music to your lady's ears. If you claim that you somehow just can't notice what's going on with the house (and I don't really believe you; chances are you just don't give a shit), then look at it as a game. It's like those "how many coca-cola bottles are there in this picture?" kid's games.

If you and your girlfriend don't live together, you should direct your attention to the way she keeps her house, and imitate her when you're there. Does she take the dish to the sink right after eating? You do so too. Make the bed in the morning? If you're there in the morning and she's not, do it yourself. If she throws her towel on the floor after she takes a shower, feel free to go ahead and do it, but if she hangs it up, you better do it too. Just as you don't want people in your house being messier than you, don't be a slob in someone else's house. Since I know men are supposed to be good at math, here's a mathematical statement: For location = her house, your slovenliness ≤ her slovenliness. For location = your house, her slovenliness ≤ your slovenliness. Got it?

Arguments

When people get angry, they have a tendency to act like dicks. Try to break the mold by not being a dick. If your girlfriend acts like a dick, direct her to this advice. There are, of course, a lot of dick moves that people make, but I'm going to restrict my list to those that have feminist implications.

Dick Move #1: Being dismissive. Manifestations include "you're so emotional," "this, again?", eye-rolling, "are you on your period?", "you're overreacting," and more. You know, sometimes your partner may actually be overreacting, and in those cases, you should ask her to explain why she's upset, then say "I don't want to be dismissive, but I think your reaction is out of proportion to what you're reacting to. Or am I missing something?" Then maybe she can explain so her reaction makes more sense, or admit that it's disproportionate. If the latter, you can ask her why she thinks she might be having a disproportionate reaction. Maybe you guys can get to know each other a little better. But before you go down this line of argument, I suggest you listen patiently, rather than immediately going for the "you're so emotional" line of defense.

Dick Move #2: Being patronizing about her anger. Manifestations include "ooh, someone's angry," "getting a little testy, are we?" and "whoa, there, tiger!" Given that women are socially conditioned not to display, nay, not even to feel anger, you better believe that when your partner is angry, she means it. If her anger surprises you, say so: "I'm surprised you're so angry. What's going on?" If you expected it, then you can just proceed from there.

Dick Move #3: Get all hung up on intent. You know, what people mean to do is only a small part of evaluating what they actually do. You can say that you didn't mean to be sexist, or mean, or dismissive, but at some point you've got to break free from what you meant to do and evaluate how it looks from the other person's perspective. This also includes learning how to give a genuine apology: "I realize that I did something that hurt you, and I'm sorry." You may need some time before you can really be genuine, so don't fake an apology. Once you get some distance, make sure you own up.

Presenting Yourself to the World

Identify as a feminist. If you want to be a feminist boyfriend, first you have to be a feminist. Saying "I'm for women's equality" and " of course a woman can be president" is all well and good, but an important part of advocating for women's rights is being willing to say that you're in it with the people who are fighting in name.

Don't advocate for patriarchal naming conventions. Even if your girlfriend thinks she wants to take your name, tell her that you would rather she keep hers. She can, of course, do what she wants, but make it clear to her that you would be not only be open to her keeping her name, but you favor it. Same with kids: don't insist that your kids, future or imminent, take your name. Think about hyphenating, or better yet, actually consider giving the kids her last name. Imagine that!

Don't identify your partner only in relation to you. With your friends or coworkers, introduce her as "[first name, last name], my girlfriend/wife" (if they already know you're dating, skip that last part). When you talk about her when she's not there, the first few times you can explain your relationship, and after that refer to her by name.

Don't tolerate sexism. Being a feminist boyfriend is not just about how you treat your girlfriend. When you are around others, whether your girlfriend is there or not, don't tolerate sexist or misogynist remarks from your friends, family, or coworkers. Retorts that aren't overly earnest include "dude, what the fuck is wrong with you?" "sometimes I really wish you were funny" and "I'm sorry, is this a time machine? Are we in 1950?" "You know, women have the vote now and everything!" Most importantly, don't laugh. Cultivate a good sneer.

share my stress: federal budget crap trickles down

April is Sexual Assault Awareness month and here are some things to be aware of: the President's proposed FY09 budget contains massive cuts and eliminations to VOCA (Victims of Crime Act) and VAWA (Violence Against Women Act)-funded programs. Every year, it seems like the President makes a lame attempt to target these funds. What's his frakking deal? Anyway, nationwide, activists and organizations are lobbying their legislators hard to make sure these proposed cuts and eliminations don't happen. Our contacts say that there is little to no chance that the Congress will approve an outright elimination of these funds - especially during an election year, when the end of the Bush administration is in sight - but you never know. (I mean, come on. When have we ever been reassured that a Democrat-led Congress can/will 'hold fast'?)

Organizations like mine are in self-defense mode. Already, we're feeling the biting crunch of the FY08 cuts in the VOCA/VAWA budget. Programs (i.e., medical/legal advocacy, child sexual assault counseling, adult counseling, education and training sessions, and crucial hotline services) are on the chopping block. For real. This has been my world for the past few weeks, the reason why I've been away from the interwebs. I've been looking at a black hole and trying to figure out how to keep from going in. The folks on the front line of direct service are suffering more - as are the survivors we serve - but I have a tight knot in my belly right now.

If this funding is cut where the frak is this funding going to come from?

In my city, the Administration has made a pretty good effort at throwing some funding support behind domestic violence services but the same kind of fiscal and infrastructure support needs to be thrown behind sexual assault at the local level. Though hotlines like the one my organization operates in the city show no signs of decreased use, our local police departments report a decrease in rape reports and it looks like their administrative goal is to see those reports decrease further - as if that's a good thing. If sexual assault victims aren't going to the police, they're going to organizations like mine where they find the help they need to navigate both the medical and legal systems - if they can find us and are made aware of us.

So, this month, call your local rape crisis center or organization that helps victims and survivors of sexual and domestic assault and ask what you can do to get the word out and protect these funds. You know the drill: write those letters to your local papers, call your legislator and ask what she's doing to protect those funds, call your local city rep and ask what their plan is if the city rape crisis centers disappear. Keep your eyes and ears open about local events, press conferences, action items, and other stuff the public can participate in. You'll make some stressed out staffer somewhere extremely happy.

[Thanks for listening; now I have to call some indifferent aldermen and check on an epileptic dog. Stress!]

Shenk v. Wal-Mart, part three: guess it wasn't that cut and dried after all

The Rude Pundit, who is a better blogger than I am, has the follow up to this story.

A former Wal-Mart employee who suffered severe brain damage in a traffic accident won't have to pay back the company for the cost of her medical care, Wal-Mart told the family Tuesday.

"Occasionally, others help us step back and look at a situation in a different way. This is one of those times," Wal-Mart Executive Vice President Pat Curran said in a letter. "We have all been moved by Ms. Shank's extraordinary situation."

Or, more likely, by

thousands of angry blog responses and at least two online petitions to boycott the company.

In any case,

On Tuesday, Wal-Mart said in a letter to Jim Shank that it is modifying its health care plan to allow "more discretion" in individual cases.

Guess it just wasn't true that their poor widdle hands were tied by their "contractual obligations" and "fiduciary duty" to their other employees and/or shareholders owners.

Once in a while, if you don't let people weasel out of shit, they realize there's also a duty to pretend to be halfway fucking decent, too.

Wednesday links

If you haven't already heard about PZ Myers's being expelled from Expelled, have you been under a rock? Don't bother answering; just read the post. It's hilarious.

Why Aren't Black People More Grateful?. Read the whole thing.

Can America Handle a Little Truth? More on Wright, racism, and jesus christ am I ever sick of this topic. Plus the moment's passed. That said, this particular post is right on and still worth reading.

A U.S. government-funded medical information site that bills itself as the world's largest database on reproductive health has quietly begun to block searches on the word "abortion." Update here, with thanks to Ripley:

USAID, which funds POPLINE, found two items in the database related to abortion that did not fit POPLINE criteria. The agency then made an inquiry to POPLINE administrators. Following this inquiry, the POPLINE administrators at the Center for Communication Programs made the decision to restrict abortion as a search term.

I could not disagree more strongly with this decision, and I have ordered that the POPLINE administrators restore “abortion” as a search term immediately. I will also launch an inquiry to determine why this change occurred.

Petroleum and Patriarchy--absolutely fascinating.

No Child Left in School. Amanda Marcotte discusses (and links to some really informative fact sheets about) the real high school graduation rates. Required reading.

With apologies to substitute teachers everywhere

Me: So, Pseudonymous Kid, you have some math homework today?
PK: Yeah, I got it for pushing the teacher's buttons.
Me: . . . Why were you pushing the teacher's buttons?
PK: Because she isn't as nice as the regular teacher.

Completely free and unsolicited plug re. kids web sites

Some of you might remember the conversation prompted by my deciding to send my beloved niece online for her 13th birthday. One of the things that came up was "where are the cool progressive non-commercial online sites for boys?"

Well, it just so happens that PK subscribes to Spider and Ask magazines, part of the group of publications put out by the folks who started Cricket back in the day. Surely you guys remember the awesomeness that was (and is) Cricket. Anyhoo, Carus Publishing Group, i.e., the Cricket folks, inform me through various advertising paraphernalia attached to PK's magazines that they are launching kids' websites for each magazine in (if memory serves) May. No idea if these will be full-on social spaces or what, but I thought I would pass it along to those of you who, like me, have boys, and wish there were better spaces for healthy boyhood in the world.

Coming Out of the Menstruation Closet

I got my period when I was eleven. In fact, I believe that I got it during church, when I was eleven. I had been expecting it, and I had learned about it all the year before in a special girls-only lecture in my fifth-grade classroom, carried out by a woman I'd never seen before. In fact, I'd really learned about it all three years before, sitting in the stacks in my school library with a book about sex and reproduction. I'd looked up "sex" in the card catalog. See, I was a curious child, as most are, and having found some oblique references to sex in books laying around our house which I had devoured with dusty fingers on weekday evenings, I wanted to know more. I never got to the point where I was anxious for my period to come, although I'd read enough stories about menarche and "You're a woman, now, little Susie" to wonder, on the sight of first blood, whether I would be subjected to some kind of "talk" or a bouquet of flowers, or a crate of fluffy Always pads. I hoped not.

Whatever. I had to get back to Sacrament Meeting, so I stuffed some toilet paper in my underwear, readjusted my dress, and went to sit back down on the padded folding chairs and endure a talk about Listening To The Still Small Voice. I wondered if I would get blood on the fabric of my dress, or worse, the nubbly chairs. I waited, through the rest of the meeting and then Sunday School and then Young Women's, until glorious twelve-thirty when I could, starving, get the hell out of there. I examined my situation--I felt fine. I had read about cramps, and PMS, and bloating. Did I feel bad? No. I was hungry, and jonesing for some Chinese. I figured I should talk to someone about this whole thing, but I wasn't sure who. It was November, and the Cairo are was getting a little chilly, and I wore a jacket I'd stolen from the scraps in my older sister's abandoned closet.

My sister had left for college just a few months before, and my older brother had gone off to military school for his sophomore year. I was kind of desperately lonely in the house without them, and I'd promised God several times that if they could only come back I'd be the best little sister ever. Nevermind the fact that up to that point I'd been a pretty stellar little sister as it was. No, I was a religious child, and therefore filled with a deep sense of guilt and inadequacy! So it was just me and my dad, and I guessed that I should probably let him know. After church we'd stopped by his office to do something or other, and as we strolled out, past the jasmine tree with no blossoms, I told him. He kind of shrugged and asked me if I was okay, and I said I felt fine.

I think it took me 'til the next month's bleeding to get around to buying feminine "products." I was scared the first time, but I figured I'd just throw them in with a whole bunch of groceries from the store near our house and, hey, they could be for anyone, right? I stood there in the aisle wondering why my sister hadn't ever sent me to buy her pads--she had sent me on all kinds of errands, including buying her shampoo, picking up books from the library, and getting papers out of her locker. My high-school age sister loved nothing more than to lay in bed all day reading books and listening to extremely loud music on her headphones, so I was surprised that she was buying them herself when I was a willing errand-girl. I guess I decided that day that taking care of your period needs was just something you did yourself.

For the next six years, I did just that. I would ask my dad for money for pads (or tampons, once I switched), and he would give me some, and I would go to the grocery store, or the pharmacy just around the corner, and pick them up. When I started having cramps, I would pick up some ibuprofen 600 mg tablets from the selfsame pharmacy. The fall of my tenth-grade year, when the cramps really started to get intense, I had a ritual: I would come home right after school, and pop 1200 mg of ibuprofen, take a long, hot shower, and go to sleep. I'd wake up around six for dinner, feeling rested, clean, and not like total shit. My junior year, I don't remember much about my menstruational history except that one evening, during Model United Nations, I'd bled a spot of blood on my jeans and I knew it, and I heard two male friends of mine behind me looking and laughing about it, and was humiliated.

Fourteen years after I started bleeding every month, I feel like I've mostly gotten the hang of it. But the other day, I realized the extent to which having "gotten the hang of it" is only true within the limited context of our culture of concealment. Getting the hang of it means learning how to conceal it as best as possible, so no one ever knows you've got it. Where menstruating is embarrassing, and though almost every woman of child-bearing age menstruates, you still don't want any man not your intimate to know that you are actually bleeding right now.

A couple storefronts down from my office is a corner convenience store, and me and my coworkers go there all the time, to get drinks, snacks, or use their microwave. One of the cashiers there always calls me "honey", which I don't like at all, and the guys both set my creepometer off. And the other day I believe the other one was making a comment about my breasts, although when I tried to call him on it, he feigned innocence. So when I found myself at work with no tampons and a lot of blood, although the sensible thing would have been to run over there and buy some goddamn tampons already, I didn't want to. Because I felt like I knew those men, I didn't want to present a box of Tampax Regulars for purchase, even though I wouldn't have so much as batted an eyelash purchasing them from a male cashier at any other store. I waited until lunch, and I bought some when I got a sandwich from the grocery store.

I still worry about bleeding onto my clothes, or onto furniture. I still put the tampon in my pocket, or tuck it in my waistband if I don't have pockets for the walk from wherever I'm sitting to the bathroom, to make the change. I still don't think I would ask a female friend for a tampon within earshot of any dude not my boyfriend. And I'm twenty-five, for god's sake. Most of the men I know are pretty comfortable with The Woman Thing and not inclined to act like twelve-year-olds and giggle. But it's still awkward. It still feels strange to disclose to a male friend that I am grumpy as fuck because I have awful, awful cramps. The culture of concealment is strong, and it means that I can't buy tampons from the store right next to my office. In fact, there's a liquor store right across the street from my house that I've been going into for years and I don't think I'd buy tampons from there, either.

Why do I feel this way? It's utterly stupid. Because somehow my making these men aware of the fact that I am menstruating is going to make them briefly contemplate my vagina and then their heads will explode? Or is that I shouldn't impose my gross bleeding on other people because this is a Private Matter? And yet, I doubt I'm at all unique in having these particular thoughts. Like menstruation is a shame that we shouldn't impose on men. I never had anyone buy me pads or tampons until, I think, about three months ago. My boyfriend thought it was weird that I was like, "Are you sure? You don't mind?"

So here's a revelation. Menstruation isn't gross, or shameful. In fact, it's actually kind of boring. It's only "weird" or "should be private" if you think of men as the default human beings and women as some sort of otherworldy creatures with bizarre practices. It happens every month in about the same way. Sometimes it hurts a lot, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it's unpleasant and sometimes I forget that it's even happening. It's not that much of a pain in the ass except for the fact that there is this elaborate ritual of concealment that we have to play a part in, lest we offend the men. For my part, my concealment ritual is socially- and self-imposed (rather than by any actual men who've told me to shut up), and I think I'll try to let it go. So, world: I AM MENSTRUATING RIGHT NOW. And it doesn't particularly suck, and I don't particularly care what you think about it.

[Image and an excellent analysis of it from here]

Hey, Minnesotans

Especially Twin City folks who work with homeless folks, know homeless folks, or are homeless folks: here's an interesting job announcement from the Med Center with a fairly unusual preferred candidate profile.

Preferred Qualifications:
Currently or formerly homeless individual preferred. Preferred candidate is able to anticipate and resolve problems independently and able to seek guidance as needed. Preferred candidate is familiar with the homeless community shelters and agencies assisting the homeless community in the metro area. Able to work independently.

It also says that "high school diploma or GED" is a requirement, but I bet that anyone who's got some work experience/brains can get around that.

The full job description, along with contact info, is at the link.

Legacy

Very worth reading (and discussing): the Institute for Policy Studies report 40 Years Later: The Unrealized American Dream.

“For the vast majority of white Americans … the first phase [of the Civil Rights Movement] had been a struggle to treat the Negro with a degree of decency, not of equality … When Negroes looked for the second phase, the realization of equality, they found that many of their white allies had quietly disappeared." -- MLK

High school and college graduation rates are up for black Americans--though despite the popular misconception that affirmative action is "unfair", they're still much lower than graduate rates for white students.

2006 high school graduation rates: 91% for white students, 81% for blacks. In ten years--gosh, only half a century after MLK was assassinated--high school graduation rates for black students and white students should be equal.

2006 college graduation rates: 31% for white students, 19% for blacks. Expect equality by only 2087!! And make sure and kick the ass of anyone who tries to argue against affirmative action for college admissions. No one is qualified to have an opinion on that subject if they haven't done a little bit of research about how it actually works. The Shape of the River is easily available and doesn't take long to read.

So there are some hard facts about equality of opportunity: graduation rates are better than they were in 1968, gracias a dios, but they're still far from equal. What about economic equality--the real coin of the realm?

Poverty rates: a third of black children are still living in poverty--less than $21,027/year for a family of four. For white children, it's "only" 25%. Shameful, shameful, shameful.

Wages: In keeping with poverty rates, 1/3rd of black Americans make less than $9.60/hour. An additional 60% make what's called "middle wages," up to $28.79/hour.a range that seems to run the gamut from "poverty level" to what I would consider a decent lower middle class wage of $28.79/hour. 7% of black Americans make more than that. For whites, the breakdown is: 20% make poverty wages, 64% make "middle wages," and 16% make what most college-educated professionals, I'd wager, would consider "decent money."

Income disaparity: Black/white income disparities have virtually not changed at all since 1968. Blacks earn 57 cents to every dollar whites earn. Contrast this with the male/female income disparity, and how much relative attention feminists pay to both statistics, and you've got a decent little piece of evidence that (educated, white) feminists continue to be embarrassingly racist, n'est-ce pas?

Finally,* wealth--as opposed to simple income. Wealth basically means assets: your house, your savings, your investments, if you have any. And before you gripe that you don't have any investments, keep in mind that these statistics cross all age-levels, and include middle-aged parents and elderly grandparents as well as young 20- and 30-somethings that haven't really settled down yet, m'kay?

47.2% of blacks own their homes (which I infer means "are making payments on" as well as "actually own outright"). 75.2% of non-hispanic whites do. Factor in the sub-prime mortgage crisis and two little-known but important historical facts: (1) post-reconstruction violent racism--we're talking KKK threats, lynchings, and beatings, which were going on right up through the Civil Rights movement, people--were often about driving property-owning blacks away from their property so it could be snatched up for pennies by whites. Just like so many other things in American political discourse, what was *talked about*--"uppity blacks," whistling at white women, southern bigotry, "Confederate pride"--was rhetorical cover for what was really going on, which was straight-up race-based theft. (2) Redlining. In 1934, the National Housing Act--part of the Great Society (for white people) that helped the nation recover from the depression--offered FHA loans to (white) first-time homeowners. The act deliberately and explicitly "redlined" black neighborhoods and towns, meaning that FHA loans were not available in those areas. In short, the federal government and American banks embarked on forty years of helping white Americans build wealth while making damn sure that black Americans couldn't. And in the process, they also made sure that black communities remaind poor and "undesireable" because of a lack of local business ownership, a lack of community investment, and policies that ensured that only wealthy chain businesses could afford to operate in those neighborhoods.

The upshot is that whites, as a class--and this applies to a hell of a lot of us as individuals, too: did your grandparents own their own home? Did your parents use FHA loans to purchase their first house?--had over a century, post-slavery, to establish and consolidate wealth with the direct help of the government, private banks, and racist organizations like the KKK.

Point this out to the next youngun you hear fussing about how slavery was a thing of the past, and *I* haven't benefitted from racism, so why should I be held responsible for it? If your folks owned their own home, if they made middle-class wages, if they went to college, then they damn well *did* benefit from racism--consciously or no--and that benefit was certainly passed on to you in the form of educational opportunities, educational expectations, the ability to pay for shit like summer camps and after school programs, access to things like museums and music lessons, boy scouts or 4H programs, organized sports and community swimming pools, borrowing down payments from grandma and grandpa, knowing about financial aid forms because mom and dad filled 'em out back in their own day, and all sorts of other hard economic advantages.

Too often when we talk about racism we get lazy and talk about vague, implicit stuff, or stupid-ass stereotyping. That shit's offensive, no doubt, but it's all too easy to say "well, *I* wouldn't do that" or to get all hung up about intent--"I had no idea that was racist!" The real point that people need to understand about racial inequality in this country is that you can be well-intentioned, you can not have a racist bone in your body; but if you're white, you *still* benefit from the history and ongoing legacy (let's remember those sub-prime loans, people, and while we're at it, how good is the nearest grocery store?) of racism.

MLK was shot the same year I was born, and I know my parents made a big point, while I was young, of trying to raise me to be free of personal racism. But they couldn't do a damn thing about insulating their daughters from inheriting the benefits (since we were white) of systematic racism--and let's be fair, what parent, white or black, really wants their kid *not* to be able to draw on whatever assets they, the parents, have managed to accumulate? I would like my own Pseudonymous Kid to be free of personal racism, too; but at the same time, I know that the systematic racism that gives some folks advantages and screws over others isn't going to change unless we not only recognize it but keep on working not just to get rid of it, but to make up for its lasting effects.


*For the sake of this blog post. But do download and read the full report--it's quite comprehensible, has nice graphs and clear language, and I've only covered about half of it here.

Doesn't Miss a beat

I'm like the zillionth person in the world to declare my girlcrush on Rachel Maddow, but she really is spectacular. Here she is smacking down Joe Scarborough, who is an unmitigated douchebag, on his claims that John McCain "dances to his own drummer" and "doesn't care what the hardcore conservative base thinks".



Best moment:
Joe: Oh, because you know so much about the Republican base.
Rachel: Oh, so I should just shut up and let you talk about it?
Joe: No...

She really is flawless, doesn't miss a beat, doesn't let him shut her up with his "Rachel, Raaaachel...[head shaking]" and "Whatever"s. It's inspiring. Since law school is over I don't have much of a chance to debate with right-wing assholes, and I sure do miss it sometimes.

More about the Shenks, Wal-Mart, and Our Crappy-ass Health System

A follow up to this post--more details over at Wal-Mart Watch (aren't blogs neat?), including

that with recent media coverage and increasing pressure on Wal-Mart, there's still a chance that the company will reverse its decision to collect money from the struggling family. Write to Wal-Mart and tell them to forgive the Shank's debt, or make a contribution directly.

Does it suck to have to petition our corporate overlords for a little bit of noblesse oblige? Yes it does. But if it can help this one family while we figure out how to fix our damn country, well, it's worth taking five minutes, no?

Via The Rude Pundit, who also wants to hear from you if you have any evil ideas for something

that gets at Wal-Mart's bottom line, its stock price. And it's gotta be something that pisses a lot of people off.

Click on over for the man's email addy.

It's spring break, please kill me now

Pseudonymous Kid is on spring break this week, so I said "oh hey, let's drive up to Grandpa's for a few days!"

Let us just say that I haven't wanted a cigarette this bad since I quit smoking. And that I'm sure I'm behaving heinously because my face is really very bad at concealing horror and discomfort. And that I'm desperately casting around in my mind for *some* errand I just *have* to run in order to have an excuse to get out of the house for a few minutes. Maybe I'll go to the mall.

In short, you can, in fact, go home again. And it's just as fucking godawful as it was when you were 16.