Monthly Archives: March 2011

On a related matter …

Sort of related to the previous post, Echidne discusses, how some people dismiss the abuse women deal with online—in this case in the context of girl online gamers—as no big deal. It’s guys being guys, trash talking their opponents. Which ignores that “You asshole, I think you got a small dick lol” is a different kettle of fish from a woman being told someone wants to cut her to bits and rape the pieces.
Similarly, Satoshi Kanazawa, whose writing I discussed here, asserted in another article that it’s ridiculous to make an issue of sexual harassment—guys talk trash to women just like they belittle and talk trash to men, so it’s really very non-sexist.
Apparently it did not occur to Kanazawa that men’s reaction to someone cussing them out and calling them names might not be the same as when a woman hears she’ll have to give a blowjob to get her performance raise (and since the latter guy may be dead serious, it’s not really the same thing at all).
Once again, it’s a failure to imagine how the world looks from a position other than the one you occupy.

1 Comment

Filed under Politics

Different viewpoints

A couple of weeks back, I was browsing a blog post suffused with nostalgia for blacksploitation movies—which I admit to being quite fond of myself—and laughing at the idea some black groups had actually criticized the movies as not representing black life in America. Yeah, right—like Schwarzenegger and Stallone action films represent reality? But you don’t see white guys protesting, do you?
The problem with this, as I pointed out (but never went back to see how things went from there) is that us white guys don’t depend on Rambo or Terminator to capture us on screen. During the eighties (I’m picking that decade because that’s when the two stars seemed to embody action films) we also had Michael Douglas as a power broker in Wall Street, Tom Cruise as an angry Vietnam veteran (Born on the Fourth of July), Steve Martin as a lawyer possessed by Lily Tomlin (All of Me) and Jeff Bridges as a saintly ET (Starman).
Back in the seventies, the same range applied to white roles. Blacksploitation, on the other hand, was pretty much the whole ball of wax. Mean streets, crime, cops, PIs such as Shaft and freelancer troubleshooters such as Pam Grier in Coffy. No millionaires or upper-class types except in supporting roles (despite the fact there were black millionaires around well before I was born). Very few family dramas, with occasional exceptions such as Sounder (which was set in the 1930s, not the present). I’m not saying the films were bad (my DVD collection proves I like a lot of them), just that it’s kind of a limited range.
As the late comics writer Dwayne McDuffie said once, when you have only a couple of black or minority characters in any medium, it’s not possible to represent the full range; no one character (or character type) can capture the whole black (or Latino or female) experience. So it’s understandable the lack of more diverse roles bothered some people. The problem isn’t the films that were made, it’s the films that weren’t made.
I can’t imagine what it’s like to be conscious that there’s nobody on screen who represents your people; I’ve never had that problem. I can’t imagine what it’s like to have no-one representing you at all, except in walk ons, or the endless black maids and manservants in thirties and forties films. But I’ve heard enough people talk of the experience (or the thrill of finding a doll that had their skin color) to know it matters.

3 Comments

Filed under Politics

Let’s be clear about Obama’s birth certificate

He’s already produced it. The governor of Hawaii has endorsed it. There were even announcements in the local paper at the time. So either we’re dealing with a conspiracy of Illuminati-class subtlety or Obama’s an American-born president (hint: Do not pick choice number one).
I think the reason the birther myth has such tractcion is that for some Republicans, there is no such thing as a legitimate Democratic president. It’s not about race; as the Daily Howler points out, if there’d been any way to accuse Clinton of being born overseas, it would have been on the articles of impeachment. In their eyes, the idea there can be a legitimate president they didn’t vote for defies all logic and reason.
And for some of them, the certainty of birtherism does defy all logic and reason. Two of the main birther websites assert that even if Obama fetched his original 1960s birth certificate out of whatever state archive it’s kept in, they’d still have lots more questions before they’d accept him (birther Orly Taitz has acknowledged there’s no evidence that would convince her).
But as Bob Somersby at the Howler points out at the link, it’s also due to the fact that we have prominent people such as Donald Trump running around asserting Obama hasn’t proved his case, and the pundits and interviewers not pointing out that he has, and Trump is full of crap. If the myth keeps getting spouted and not refuted, no wonder people believe it.
It’s an excellent post, and I recommend you click on the link.

2 Comments

Filed under Politics

Libya

Obviously any comment on the news in Libya would be out of date almost at once. Just today, for example, I see Qaddafi is claiming deposing him would be a win for al-Qaeda and the US is now considering arming the rebels rather than just providing air cover. So instead let’s talk about general principles and some of the arguments circulating on the topic of intervention.
•If you oppose intervention, you obviously don’t care about democracy in the Arab world or all the innocent people Qaddafi is butchering.
This one’s bullshit. By this logic, any time we don’t intervene in anything, it’s proof we don’t care. The people advocating for a Libyan intervene aren’t proposing protecting protesters in Yemen or overthrowing Saudi Arabia’s repressive theocracy; we’re not fighting to stop what may become genocide in the Ivory Coast, so presumably they’re as they accuse Libyan-intervention critics of being.
•We can’t intervene everywhere, so we have to go in where we can.
A more reasonable position, but flawed, because it doesn’t explain where the place we decide We Can is Libya. Why not the Ivory Coast or Yemen (Saudi Arabia, given the inflammatory aspects of us occupying the Mecca and Medina regions, would be a No We Can’t in most situations)? Or Zimbabwe where Robert Mugabe has been oppressing his political enemies for years?
Looked at in that light, the argument this is a noble humanitarian endeavor is harder to sustain. Probable reasons include Libya’s oil and that Qaddafi has been on our shit list for years (in contrast to allies Yemen and Egypt, where it seems we’re letting things play out as they will), despite being officially rehabilitated a few years ago when he dropped his WMD program.
•The lack of a clear end game isn’t an issue: We had one in Iraq and look how that turned out. Improvising as we go along is better policy.
I’ve read variations of this argument in a couple of places, and I don’t think it holds up. Sure, things frequently don’t turn out the way we expect, but that’s all the more reason for saying thus far and no farther, to avoid getting sucked in further as we keep doing, over and over. Heck, since they rarely turn out better than we expect, it’s a good reason not to go in at all.
It’s worth keeping in mind that no matter how we do this, it’s not going to be a bloodless intervention, and some of that blood will be civilians, the people we’re supposedly protecting (as discussed on slacktivist). Some of it will be our own people. And at this point, we don’t know for sure that the rebels won’t turn out to be as big a problem as the Afghan mujahedeen became) or how our intervention may change things. As the blogger Hilzoy once put it, violence is not a short cut to your destination; it changes the place you end up. Ditto intervention.
Finally, while it’s easy to talk about “we go in when we can,” I honestly don’t think we can. I mean come on: We have local governments replacing asphalt roads with gravel and closing libraries; in Washington, they’re debating slashing Social Security, the EPA and Planned Parenthood (admittedly, these are more political agenda items than sound budgeting decisions). But pouring money into a new military venture which we certainly don’t have to fight—that’s a-OK?
The arguments for intervention do not, I think, hold up.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

The same under the skin?

When I performed in Merry Wives of Windsor a few years ago, one of my co-actors was completely stunned by how much the subplot — Anne Page’s desire to marry a man her parents didn’t approve of — seemed like something out of a modern play.
As I’ve mentioned before, it’s difficult to get into the ways people of the past are so different from us: Their fears, their faith, their bigotries and hates. At the same time, they also have a lot in common: The experiences of men in battle have been quite consistent throughout history, as detailed in Richard Holmes’ Act of War.
Trying to find the balance between the two can be difficult, even if you’re not striving for deep historical realism. In the first place, there’s the image you want to create: People in the past slouched, relaxed and used the slang of the day, but many films have portrayed ancient Romans/Greeks/Babylonians standing stiffly and declaiming rather than talking.
People in the past also have nasty attitudes: If you’re going to do a reasonably accurate job, they’re not going to share current perceptions. Hugh, the protagonist of I Think, Therefore I Die, which I’ll finish next month, loathes Catholics as oppressive agents (or dupes) of the tyrannical theocrat in the Vatican; that’s certainly a common English perception for the 17th century, but I felt quite uncomfortable with his vehemence at times. Even if you go back forty years, you can find decent, respectable good-guy types who think the color line should never be crossed or that women should totally stay in their home. The Aztec heroes of de Borchard’s Servant of the Underworld don’t bat an eye at human sacrifice.
I’m inclined to agree that in any time, human nature remains constant (and yes that is a very general observation): We want sex, we scrabble for status, we worry about feeding our children or hiding our secrets. The way it’s expressed, though, may be very different. The modern world may have many people as devout as the Christian stylites who spent months sitting on pillars to prove their faith, but devotion to God just doesn’t manifest that way any more. In the 19th century, an adult courting a 12 year old girl with her parents’ consent was respectable (you could get married at 14 in Victorian England); today it’s a symbol of either neurosis or pedophilia.
I’d like to end this with some kind of useful rule for figuring out How To Do It; as I write so many stories set in the past, I could use one. But I don’t have one, so I’ll just have to work it out as I go along.

1 Comment

Filed under Short Stories, Writing

R.I.P. Diana Wynne Jones

Jones, one of my favorite authors, died of cancer last week.
If you read my Books I’ve Read posts, you know I’ve been working through her novels in order. It’s a shame the number will no longer grow.
I first stumbled across her work when Charmed Life, her seventh fantasy novel (her first was a satiric political story, Changeover) popped up in paperback in the U.S. (she’s English) in the early eighties. I loved it.
The story of how Cat and his sister Gwendolyn are taken from their quiet English village to study magic with the toplofty enchanter Chrestomanci is a treat. Chrestomanci himself is a great character, a mix of a British headmaster’s sternness with the Fourth Doctor’s unflappable confidence in the face of peril. The other characters, even the mean-spirited Gwen, are quite well, ordinary, but they fit with the magic perfectly.
That mix of magic and everydayness is Jones’ greatest strength; it’s what makes Archer’s Goon such a great read, for instance, or the magic-in-school story Witch Week. Or Sophie, who’s down-to-Earth personality helps anchor Howl’s Moving Castle amidst all the supernatural elements and the Wizard Howl’s fondness for playing drama queen (as DWJ herself once put it).
Her handling of family dynamics is also exceptional. A recurring story element is that your relative’s unpleasant or irrational behavior actually makes sense once you hear their side of it (the flip side of that is a relative such as Gwen or Aunt Maria who turns out to be far nastier than their kin realize).
One delightful side effect of Harry Potter’s phenomenal success is that the rising tide lifted DWJ’s boat too: Her work has become much more visible in the US since J.K. Rowling started, presumably because Potter fans were looking for something similar, or publisher suddenly realized “Hey, this sort of thing sells!” It made it easy to round out my collection (only her most recent and her one unpublished fantasy remain) and I imagine it didn’t hurt her bank account.
She’s brought me a lot of joy, and I’m looking forward to rereading everything else she’s written.

1 Comment

Filed under Personal, Reading

Assorted links

If anyone tells you Obama is a socialist, Glenn Greenwald lays that nonsense to rest.
•A female British medic wins the Military Cross for bravery.
•Florida’s governor hates Obamacare, but he’s fine with his family company profiting off Medicare.
•A history of right-wing taxophobia.
•Why do we worry about other nations having WMDs? According to some members of our government, because it makes it impossible to attack them (I’d heard this argument before, but this blog post goes into damning detail).
•Remember how our government invoked the oppression of women under the Taliban as one reason for invading Afghanistan? Well, about that

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

Why would anyone object to breathing polluted air?

You may have heard of Earth Hour, in which participants try to minimize the energy the electricity they use. The right-wing response (chronicled by Roy Edroso) was Human Achievement Hour, in which they commit to turning on every light and burning as much energy as they can. Because that will accomplish—well, it will show them so there!
I’ve been meaning to post about conservative hostility to environmentalism ever since reading that the incoming House has replaced a program to use biodegradable cups instead of styrofoam in the cafeteria. Which made me think of one of Reagan’s first actions as president, removing the solar panels Jimmy Carter placed on the White House.
Practically speaking, removing solar panels already in place accomplishes nothing … unless your goal is to send an Up Yours to anyone concerned about the environment. Which Edroso’s article shows fuels a lot of right wing er, thought on this issue.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s possible to have legitimate grounds for opposing environmental efforts—protecting endangered species, regulating toxic chemicals in the air and water, and so on. If protecting the environment costs jobs, or results in massive over-regulation, those are legitimate objections (I will overlook for the moment that many of those conservatives so concerned about protecting jobs and keeping America competitive positively celebrate the right of corporations to send American jobs overseas).
But removing solar panels isn’t about either of those. Neither are some of the rants Edroso reports: People who claim that green marketing is perverting the free market (“They totally suckered the people”—in contrast to the utterly ethical marketing of nuclear and oil companies) or one blogger rejoicing that his office doesn’t recycle. Nor are right-wingers who dismiss solar power because it gets government funding but don’t bat an eye at federal aid to nuclear, oil and coal industries.
Part of it is the environmental movement’s own successes. Air and water quality is a lot better now than when I was born; in many parts of the country it’s easy to assume there’s no problem that requires government regulation any more. Sure, you read about toxic waste and leaking landfills, but everything looks fine, right?
Partly it’s that conservative/libertarian free market philosophy is absolutist: All regulation is bad. Even if it’s something we can’t really deal with as individuals (I can be an informed consumer when shopping for food, but I can’t choose the air I breathe), it should not be regulated! There’s also a strong vein of political correctness to libertarianism: Many advocates flinch from the idea that the free market might have bad effects like giving people cancer or melting the polar ice caps. The free market is magic! It only brings good things, just like Santa!
And for some (and some of the bloggers in Edroso’s article are quite clear on this) it’s just that environmentalism is a left-wing issue, born in the sixties and that makes it as offensive as they find independent women/gay rights/not invading other countries (views which are not, I should point out, universal even among conservatives). They hate it because it’s a liberal issue, and that’s all the reason they need.
And of course, for some on both left and right, the fact that corporations pull so many strings in Washington and the media explains a lot.
It’s not only the environment; Rush Limbaugh has had more than a couple of hissy fits over the existence of vegetarians and organic food in our society. Me, I think the right-wing should celebrate this—a perfect example of the free market bringing people something they want that actually makes life better—but the implied criticism that there’s anything wrong with factory farming seems to set conservatives afire (much like the guy who bitched about green marketing, as noted).
Somehow, I don’t think jobs and rational regulation have much to do with it.

2 Comments

Filed under Politics

Latest eHows

• Responsibilities of the Executor of a Will in Louisiana
•When Does a Revocable Trust Become Irrevocable?
•Colorado State Laws on Collecting Debts
•Can a Company Require You to Use Your Personal Phone for Company Business?
•Why File Taxes?
•What Can Be Used As Proof of Debt in Court?
•Why Is Expatriate Insurance Important?
•The Most Effective Way to Motivate Employees
•Lease Laws for Apartments in California
•The Ten Key Components of a Business Continuity Plan
•Can You Refinance a First Mortgage If You Have a Second Mortgage?
•What Is Depreciation & Amortization Used for?
•Eviction Laws for Not Paying the Rent
•Is There a Fee to Convert Chapter 7 to Chapter 13?
•How Does a Bank Foreclose on a Mortgage?
•Does Bankruptcy Appear on a Background Check?
•When Do You Not Have to Report Income on Taxes?
•How to Become a Judge in North Carolina
•If I Sue My Mortgage Company, Will This Stop the Foreclosure Process?
•Can I Stop Paying Into the Escrow on My Mortgage?
•How Soon After My Divorce Can I Apply for Bankruptcy?
•Is IRS Debt Unsecured Debt in Bankruptcy?
•Are Foreclosure Deeds Public Knowledge?
•Am I Responsible for Wife’s Credit Card Debt Prior to the Marriage in New York?
•About Domain Insurance
•What Kind of License Do You Need for a Business?
•What Happens to a Second Mortgage When the First Forecloses?
•Mortgage Help for the Unemployed
•How to Do a House Appraisal: Homework
•Do I Quality for Food Stamps?
•Required Withdrawals From an IRA
•Can I Get My FICO Score if There Is a Freeze on My Credit Report?
•Federal Capital Gains Tax Calculations for Real Estate
•VA Educational Benefits
•What Are the Maximum IRA Beneficiary Withdrawals?
•Can I Sell my House for Less Than I Owe?
•Should a Married Couple Without Children Have a Living Trust?
•Deed Vs. Quit Claim Deed
•Unfair Terms in Tenancy Agreements
•Can Personal Property Taxes Be Discharged in Chapter 7 Bankruptcy?
•Mass Marketing Vs. Niche Marketing in Real Estate
•What Are My Rights As a Tenant Who Is Under Foreclosure in Florida?
•Quitclaim Filing Procedures in Maricopa County, Arizona
•How Do You Get a Patent?
•What Is Conservatorship in a Divorce?
•COBRA Rights If Fired
•What Is Bankruptcy Law?
•Bankruptcy and Discharging the Debtor
•What to Do Before Applying for a Business License?
•About Income Limits for Roth IRA
•What Is the Meaning of “Deductible”?
•Can a Spouse Be Held Liable for Debts Discharged in Bankruptcy in Colorado?
•What Is a Short Sale Transaction?
•What Are the Challenges You May Face When Opening Your Own Business? • The Minimum Amount of Debt Necessary to File Bankruptcy
•Responsibilities of Cosigning a Mortgage With a Child
•Should You Contribute to a Nondeductible IRA?
•I Owe the IRS Money & I Am Unemployed
•Will I Get Discharged From Bankruptcy If I Owe Taxes?
•Bankruptcy Laws Regarding a Home in the State of Michigan
•Will Debt Settlement Affect a Credit Report?
•Wills, Estates & Succession Act
•Is My Investment Property Exempt in Bankruptcy Chapter 7?
•State Required PIP Insurance
•What Is Nonexempt Property When Dealing With Chapter 7 Bankruptcy?
•Can You Still Get Healthcare if You Do Not Have Insurance?
•To Whom Do I Report That I Am Having Trouble With My Insurance Company Covering Claims?
•Subordination Of Liens
•Legal Mileage Reimbursement
•IRA Contribution Limits Based on Income
•Do I Need a Business License to Start a Business?
•The Required IRA Withdrawal
•IRS Policy to Deduct Weight Control Treatment
•Can You Get a Tax Break on Publishing Your Own Book?
•What Can Be Taken When Filing for Bankruptcy?
•The Required Minimum IRA Distribution
•Minimum Required Withdrawal for an IRA
•Can a Chapter 13 Be Converted Into a Chapter 7 in Ohio?
•What Is the Minimum Income to Report IRS Taxes?
•How to Start & Operate a Business in the State of Oregon
•A Spouse’s Responsibility in Bankruptcy
•Pennsylvania Not for Profit Corporation Act

Leave a comment

Filed under Nonfiction, Writing

Scott Adams, Echidne, men’s rights and reactionary gender-blindness

Echidne of the Snakes discusses a now-withdrawn post of Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame) on his blog discussing Men’s Rights. I’m not surprised Adams took it down since it includes such gems (in the second part of Echidne’s discussion) as “The reality is that women are treated differently by society for exactly the same reason that children and the mentally handicapped are treated differently. It’s just easier this way for everyone. You don’t argue with a four-year old about why he shouldn’t eat candy for dinner.”
So women’s desire for equal pay, a right to control their fertility and that the legal system take rape seriously (to name three) are equivalent to your kid demanding a Kit-Kat? And the appropriate response is what? “No. Because I said so!”
Echidne does a terrific job dissecting Adams and Men’s Rights Advocates in general (here)—pointing out, for example, that when MRAs point out the raw deal men get in some regards, their solution is not to change the system, but that men staying top dog in other ways balances the scales (so it’s only fair for women to give up on all that equality stuff).
But one thing I would like to go into in more detail is her response to Adams’ complaint about the number of women-oriented government agencies and rules: “‘The growing number of government agencies that are primarily for women’ is not a development which started from a system in which men and women were absolutely and perfectly equally covered in the functions of the government. Those agencies for women are an attempt to balance the scales. Because the traditional definition of a human being pretty well matched the traditional definition of a man.”
This is a theme which crops up a lot on the right (as I blogged about here): If the goal is equality, then any attempt to remedy discrimination by giving “special treatment” to women or minorities, or fixing their particular problems, is discrimination too. Martin Luther King wanted us to be equal, right? So if a school system happens to be overwhelmingly segregated it, taking steps to change that—which means considering race in assigning students to schools—is the real racism (an outlook sometimes called “reactionary colorblindness.”).
Part of this argument is presenting the call for equality as if it exists in a vacuum. As Echidne points out, civil rights movements—gay rights, women’s rights, black rights—arose in response to discrimination and the way society rigged the game for white straight men. “Fighting for an end to discrimination” has different overtones from “fighting for equality” because it reminds us how badly the game was rigged.
I see this sometimes in arguments that feminism has turned all the men on TV into wips and losers: Women say they want equality, right? Portraits of stupid husbands on sitcoms are sexist, right? So since women aren’t fighting negative portrayals of men, that proves they really don’t want equality!
Because, of course, there’s no sexism on TV targeting women, so what else do feminists have to do? And men’s rights groups are soooo active in criticizing female stereotypes in the media, so there you are! (That was sarcasm).
It would be nice if we lived in a world where discrimination against women was so inconsequential, feminists could relax and work on other problems.
But we’re not there yet. So if you don’t like it that women’s rights still need to be fought for, tough cookies.

3 Comments

Filed under Politics, Undead sexist cliches