Tuesday, August 29, 2006
For the Love of Wolves
I find wolves to be compelling animals. They are beautiful, intelligent, and devoted to family. So it's enough to make me want to cry when I find out that Idaho would like to eliminate their wolf population. Please sign this petition to urge the Fish and Wildlife Service to say no to Idaho's outrageous slaughter request.
Friday, August 25, 2006
Just Hope You Don't Need It in an Emergency
FDA Approves Plan B's Over-the-Counter Sale
As you may have heard, Plan B emergency contraception, was approved for over-the-counter (OTC) sales. However, it is only being made available to women (and men) over 18 with valid IDs, and it is being kept behind the pharmacist's counter. This is seen as only a partial victory by women's advocacy groups, such as NOW (who is already hitting me up for money to help their campaign--don't they know I'm broke?). After all, a woman who needs EC doesn't want to have to ask a pharmacist who may be more inclined to give out lectures than medication. And in fact, the issue of whether anti-abortion pharmacists and religious hosptitals have the right to refuse provision of EC is still wide open.
According to Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America, this is a detrimental decision for women, families, parents, and girls. Apparently it will encourage promiscuity and lead to more unplanned pregnancies. Yeah, what? That's like saying condoms help spread disease. These people don't seem to understand that women have sex without wanting to get pregnant, and they will continue to have sex whether they are well-prepared and well-educated or not. (Men will too, but the risk of pregnancy is significantly less for them.) The recent decision of the CDC to treat all women as "pre-pregnant" comes from the fact that the US has a higher infant mortality rate than most other industrialized nations and half of all pregnancies are unplanned, increasing likelihood of bad habits during pregnancy (Pregnant Forever). I would suggest that the reason other nations have fewer problems is because they have contraception readily available, and strong sex ed programs that are not geared towards eliminating teen sex.
Forcing women to continue with unplanned/unwanted pregnancies is, in my opinion, a form of rape. Rape is a horrendous crime because it forces a person into a position where she (usually) is bereft of control/possession of her own body. Forbidding women easy access to contraceptives, and yes, even abortifacents, does the same thing. The statement made is that the government (or for places with parental consent laws, a girl's parents) has more say over a woman's body than she herself does. Control over one's own body is an inherent right of every individual. If we say that a woman has to continue with an unwanted pregnancy, what is to keep us from saying that people are obligated to donate blood, bone marrow, or a kidney to a person in dire need? After all, the decision not to donate could mean the death of an individual, whereas I would argue that a fetus is not an individual, and so is not deserving of the same consideration we give to, shall we say, post-birth humans? But I think most of us would have serious issues with proposing taking body parts from people against their will, so why should it be considered appropriate to hi-jack a woman's womb?
I don't advocate promiscuity, unsafe sex, or abortions. But I have absolutely no right to forbid those things to anyone. And the fact is that latter two would happen far less often if we stopped trying to lock sex behind the counter and just made condoms, birth control, the embattled hpv vaccine, and EC readily available.
As you may have heard, Plan B emergency contraception, was approved for over-the-counter (OTC) sales. However, it is only being made available to women (and men) over 18 with valid IDs, and it is being kept behind the pharmacist's counter. This is seen as only a partial victory by women's advocacy groups, such as NOW (who is already hitting me up for money to help their campaign--don't they know I'm broke?). After all, a woman who needs EC doesn't want to have to ask a pharmacist who may be more inclined to give out lectures than medication. And in fact, the issue of whether anti-abortion pharmacists and religious hosptitals have the right to refuse provision of EC is still wide open.
According to Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America, this is a detrimental decision for women, families, parents, and girls. Apparently it will encourage promiscuity and lead to more unplanned pregnancies. Yeah, what? That's like saying condoms help spread disease. These people don't seem to understand that women have sex without wanting to get pregnant, and they will continue to have sex whether they are well-prepared and well-educated or not. (Men will too, but the risk of pregnancy is significantly less for them.) The recent decision of the CDC to treat all women as "pre-pregnant" comes from the fact that the US has a higher infant mortality rate than most other industrialized nations and half of all pregnancies are unplanned, increasing likelihood of bad habits during pregnancy (Pregnant Forever). I would suggest that the reason other nations have fewer problems is because they have contraception readily available, and strong sex ed programs that are not geared towards eliminating teen sex.
Forcing women to continue with unplanned/unwanted pregnancies is, in my opinion, a form of rape. Rape is a horrendous crime because it forces a person into a position where she (usually) is bereft of control/possession of her own body. Forbidding women easy access to contraceptives, and yes, even abortifacents, does the same thing. The statement made is that the government (or for places with parental consent laws, a girl's parents) has more say over a woman's body than she herself does. Control over one's own body is an inherent right of every individual. If we say that a woman has to continue with an unwanted pregnancy, what is to keep us from saying that people are obligated to donate blood, bone marrow, or a kidney to a person in dire need? After all, the decision not to donate could mean the death of an individual, whereas I would argue that a fetus is not an individual, and so is not deserving of the same consideration we give to, shall we say, post-birth humans? But I think most of us would have serious issues with proposing taking body parts from people against their will, so why should it be considered appropriate to hi-jack a woman's womb?
I don't advocate promiscuity, unsafe sex, or abortions. But I have absolutely no right to forbid those things to anyone. And the fact is that latter two would happen far less often if we stopped trying to lock sex behind the counter and just made condoms, birth control, the embattled hpv vaccine, and EC readily available.
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Book Recommendation
I've recently started reading A Very Short Introduction to Animal Rights by David DeGrazia, part of Oxford's "A Very Short Introduction" series. It's very readable is quite good at explaining the basics philosophies behind the animal rights movement (as well as behind those who are opposed to it). I think you'll find it helpful whether you're a dvoted vegetarian who wants to be able to make better arguments or someone who is still trying to learn more about the decision to support animal rights.
Saturday, August 19, 2006
The Other Blog
Yes, Aine Bina is a two-timing sort of blogger. At any rate, I posted a meme at the other blog about books. The other blog is for trying out html stuff, or giving book recommendations, or whatever I want to blab about but doesn't really fit in with the whole social commentary theme of this blog.
Thursday, August 17, 2006
The Color Green: Representing Environmentalism or Nausea?
Aine Bina has finally gotten around to reading an article from the June 4, 2006 issue of the New York Times that has been sitting on her night stand. The article, which perhaps should be described as editorial journalism, was featured in the "The Way We Live Now" column of the NY Times' Weekend magazine and is called "Mass Natural; With Wal-Mart going organic, where will organic go?" and was written by Michael Pollan. I am giving you all this info rather than a link to the article because a) I *gasp* have the article in hard copy, so I would have to actually *bigger gasp* work to find such a link and b) NYT is quite stingy about letting just anyone access its articles in full on the web.
The title is a pretty good indicator of what the article is about. On the surface, the news of Wal-Mart, or Evil Incorporated as I affectionatley refer to it, deciding to go organic is a major coup for environmentalism. As The Grist wrote in a recent editorial on green crusaders failing to applaud progressive actions taken by the traditional enemies of the environment: "But that self-same Wal-Mart is embarking on a comprehensive sustainability program that includes emission reductions and organics -- the whole shebang." But as Pollan will reveal to us, dig a little deeper and suddenly Wal-Mart's decision to go organic is deeply troubling. Wal-Mart's decision to go organic should not be interpreted as a company's sudden impulse to be a more caring type of corporation. The fact is that recently green has become cool. Vanity Fair did its green issue this summer, and the Washington Post devoted a Sunday Source to it this past month. I was flipping through a recent issue of "Glamour" and they had some suggestions on small steps to becoming greener. So if Wal-Mart wants to keep up with trends in consumer culture, they have to start satisfying demands for Green veggies.
Wal-Mart still wants to deliver it's products at "great" low prices. So they're promising that organic products will only cost 10% more than their non-organic counterparts. The fact is that the Green movement has never promised you cheap goods, just responsibly priced goods. So if Wal-Mart insists that it can deliver organic products cheaply, then one has to ask what the cash register price fails to reflect. For starters, if Wal-Mart is going to deliver on promises for cheap organics, it is going to have to get the products from where it's cheap to grow them. Check the labels on some items around your house: a tv, a souvenir from your recent trip, the tag in your shirt. Found anything made in Asia yet? (Actually, my shirt was made in the USA. Kudos to Wet Seal) So lets ignore for a moment the worker abuses that may be/probably are going on in the countries where we produce our fabulously cheap goods. If you've looked at any websites like myfootprint.org or climatecrisis.net, you know that transporting goods (or people) over great distances causes a significant amount of environmental damage. Why do we love organic again?
As Pollan says "To [get organic food prices to a level just 10% above non-organics] would virtually guarantee that Wal-Mart's version of cheap organic food is not sustainable, at least not in any meaningful sense of that word." This isn't just a theorhetical projection; the evidence for non-sustainable, cheap "organics" is already there. Pollan points out the existence of so-called organic feed-lots. To produce cheap organic milk, agribusiness sets up huge factory dairies, often in the desert. Rather than being fed on grass, these organic cows are fed a diet purely of organic grain, which not only negatively affects the cows, but actually affects the nutritional value of the milk that you drink. Organic milk produced by these cows is lacking in beta-carotene and "good" fats. Is that really what we think of when we choose organic? And sure, guidelines for growing organic meat requires that animals have access to the outside, but agribusiness often meets these requirements by cramming animals into too-small, grassless, shadeless feedlots or, in the case of some poultry producers, screened-in porches which really only provide access to a view of the outside.
This is why, to quote Kermit the Frog, it isn't easy being green. The more converts we get, the more big corporations want to cash in by providing goods labeled "organic" and "locally grown" without in any way affecting their bottom line. And if obeying only the letter of the law and ignoring the spirit of the law isn't enough to keep it cheap for companies, they'll lobby to change the letter. In the past year the Organic Trade Association lobbied on behalf of Kraft Foods (a part of Phillip-Morris, which I affectionately refer to as "The Devil's Henchment"), to make it easier to include synthetic ingredients in products labeled organic. Pollan tells the story of a chicken producer, Fieldale Farms, which persuaded their Georgian congressman to add a provision into an appropriations bill which would allow the substitution of conventional chicken feed if the price of organic feed exceeded a certain level. The rule was eventually repealed, thank goodness. Because if so-called organic producers can continue to label their goods "organic" without actually producing them in an organic way, what good does that do any of us?
The Grist has some hope for the future of a better, kinder, greener, Wal-Mart. So the point here isn't really that Wal-Mart is intrinsically evil and will ultimately fail to in any way help the environment, but rather that one can't become complacent, and you should always do your homework.
The title is a pretty good indicator of what the article is about. On the surface, the news of Wal-Mart, or Evil Incorporated as I affectionatley refer to it, deciding to go organic is a major coup for environmentalism. As The Grist wrote in a recent editorial on green crusaders failing to applaud progressive actions taken by the traditional enemies of the environment: "But that self-same Wal-Mart is embarking on a comprehensive sustainability program that includes emission reductions and organics -- the whole shebang." But as Pollan will reveal to us, dig a little deeper and suddenly Wal-Mart's decision to go organic is deeply troubling. Wal-Mart's decision to go organic should not be interpreted as a company's sudden impulse to be a more caring type of corporation. The fact is that recently green has become cool. Vanity Fair did its green issue this summer, and the Washington Post devoted a Sunday Source to it this past month. I was flipping through a recent issue of "Glamour" and they had some suggestions on small steps to becoming greener. So if Wal-Mart wants to keep up with trends in consumer culture, they have to start satisfying demands for Green veggies.
Wal-Mart still wants to deliver it's products at "great" low prices. So they're promising that organic products will only cost 10% more than their non-organic counterparts. The fact is that the Green movement has never promised you cheap goods, just responsibly priced goods. So if Wal-Mart insists that it can deliver organic products cheaply, then one has to ask what the cash register price fails to reflect. For starters, if Wal-Mart is going to deliver on promises for cheap organics, it is going to have to get the products from where it's cheap to grow them. Check the labels on some items around your house: a tv, a souvenir from your recent trip, the tag in your shirt. Found anything made in Asia yet? (Actually, my shirt was made in the USA. Kudos to Wet Seal) So lets ignore for a moment the worker abuses that may be/probably are going on in the countries where we produce our fabulously cheap goods. If you've looked at any websites like myfootprint.org or climatecrisis.net, you know that transporting goods (or people) over great distances causes a significant amount of environmental damage. Why do we love organic again?
As Pollan says "To [get organic food prices to a level just 10% above non-organics] would virtually guarantee that Wal-Mart's version of cheap organic food is not sustainable, at least not in any meaningful sense of that word." This isn't just a theorhetical projection; the evidence for non-sustainable, cheap "organics" is already there. Pollan points out the existence of so-called organic feed-lots. To produce cheap organic milk, agribusiness sets up huge factory dairies, often in the desert. Rather than being fed on grass, these organic cows are fed a diet purely of organic grain, which not only negatively affects the cows, but actually affects the nutritional value of the milk that you drink. Organic milk produced by these cows is lacking in beta-carotene and "good" fats. Is that really what we think of when we choose organic? And sure, guidelines for growing organic meat requires that animals have access to the outside, but agribusiness often meets these requirements by cramming animals into too-small, grassless, shadeless feedlots or, in the case of some poultry producers, screened-in porches which really only provide access to a view of the outside.
This is why, to quote Kermit the Frog, it isn't easy being green. The more converts we get, the more big corporations want to cash in by providing goods labeled "organic" and "locally grown" without in any way affecting their bottom line. And if obeying only the letter of the law and ignoring the spirit of the law isn't enough to keep it cheap for companies, they'll lobby to change the letter. In the past year the Organic Trade Association lobbied on behalf of Kraft Foods (a part of Phillip-Morris, which I affectionately refer to as "The Devil's Henchment"), to make it easier to include synthetic ingredients in products labeled organic. Pollan tells the story of a chicken producer, Fieldale Farms, which persuaded their Georgian congressman to add a provision into an appropriations bill which would allow the substitution of conventional chicken feed if the price of organic feed exceeded a certain level. The rule was eventually repealed, thank goodness. Because if so-called organic producers can continue to label their goods "organic" without actually producing them in an organic way, what good does that do any of us?
The Grist has some hope for the future of a better, kinder, greener, Wal-Mart. So the point here isn't really that Wal-Mart is intrinsically evil and will ultimately fail to in any way help the environment, but rather that one can't become complacent, and you should always do your homework.
Friday, August 11, 2006
The State of the Blogger
My gentle readers (affectionately known as "you three"), Aine Bina is developing a stomach ache of massive proportions. The Israeli-Lebanon crisis is the cause of my gastro-intestinal woes. This is not an entry, like the last one, that speaks directly to the issue, but rather to the fall-out of the issue. Specifically, my personal fall-out. I am a Zionist. I support Israel's right to exist and its right to defend itself. But that does not mean that I think it is without failing or fault, or that I wish to give it a carte blanche to do whatever it wants. First, no country is without failing or fault, and there is no reason to expect that Israel should be any different from the rest of the world. Second, I do not wish to engage in the sort of rampant ethnic chauvinism that so frequently breeds terrorists and hate-mongers. Yet I find myself in a difficult position. It seems that there is no such thing as a fair and unbiased report of the situation. Of course, it is hard to know what is fair and unbiased when one is already biased. I would not wish to become one of those people (and I personally know at least one) who says "This person holds the same opinions as I do; at last, an unbiased account." And yet it seems very difficult to find the unique person who truly sees the situation for what it is. I expect to recognize this person (or organization) when they can present criticism of all parties involved, because it is false to set up this dichotomy as one of brutal oppressors and brave, pure freedom fighters. It is equally false to look at this as a situation of racist, selfish terrorists and an embattled bastion of democracy and goodness, though that one rings closer to the truth for me in many ways. It isn't that I think Israel is always completely blameless in its actions, but I do think that the major instigators like Hezbollah and Hamas claim to do things in the name of downtrodden Muslims when they really couldn't care less. I don't think Hezbollah's goals are universal health care and a Utopian Middle East free of religious prejudice and intolerance. I don't think Hezbollah expects anyone to think that. It would be so easy to just take the hard-line Zionist stance and insist that Israel is only defending itself and has made no wrong moves in this conflict or in its history at all. But that would be wrong of me. Just as it is wrong of Muslims to say that Hezbollah's actions are justified or that the civilians of many Middle Eastern countries aren't in many cases as horribly oppressed by their own "compatriots" as they are by some great, evil, Westernizing force. There is always a greater complexity to international issues. Always. More so in the Middle East, which has been a center of strife for as long as humanity has kept written records. And it's greatly distressing that I feel as if there is no one that I can trust on this issue, least of all myself.
Once again, Aine Bina finds herself wishing she could move into some nice log cabin in the woods and pretend the world does not exist.
Once again, Aine Bina finds herself wishing she could move into some nice log cabin in the woods and pretend the world does not exist.
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
You Say Opinion, I Say Deliberate Misrepresentation
Huh. That's not as catchy as "to-MAY-to, to-MAH-to." Oh well. Check out this here propaganda:
Lebanese Prime Minister's Seven Point Plan for Peace.
Lest you accuse me of indiscriminately calling all critics of Israel anti-Semitic and all criticisms propaganda, allow me to explain what bugs me about Faoud Siniora's "End This Tragedy Now." Siniora's essay has a complete lack of accountability for the UN or for the Arab* countries in the Middle East. He states "the peoples of the Middle East. . . aspire only to live in freedom and dignity**." Actually, Hezbollah quite adamantly insists that what they want is to wipe Israel of the map. So does the official, internationally recognized government of Iran; one of its ministers made a public statement to that effect just recently***. Hamas, which is the "political" party currently in charge of the Palestinian Authority, is squatting on Israel's doorstep with the same ideology.
I do not condone Israel's botched campaign against Hezbollah; too many civilians have died. Israel is getting sloppy, and their warnings to civilians (a courtesy not extended by Hezbollah to Israelis) are not sufficient. Yet Hezbollah has also targeted civilians in Israel. In fact, for this specific conflict, they started it. And Hezbollah does not truly care about Lebanese civilians. If they did, they would not launch their rockets at Israel from the backyards of Lebanese villagers, thus making innocent families targets for Israeli retaliation. It is not a new strategy for Middle East terrorist groups to use civilians, including, and perhaps particularly, children, as shields.
Siniora also proposes "land for peace," which was a frequent strategy of Israel before the most recent Intifada. In fact, PM Barak offered to meet 95% of Palestinian demands for land and statehood--an offer that was rejected because it did not include Jerusalem. Yet nowhere in his piece does Siniora state an agreement to the disarmament of Hezbollah. The Lebanese and other Arab nations are apparently eager for peace, so long as it doesn't actually involve compromise on their part. Oh, silly me. . . they must feel it is a compromise just to "allow" Israel to continue existing.
I will make no claims to impartiality. I am a Zionist, and it can be hard to recognize Israel's faults when it seems that the whole world is reluctant to acknowledge the contributions to violence and conflict made by other nations in the Middle East. If one has legitimate criticism of Israel, then by all means it should be expressed intelligently. But in order for there to be a true path to peace, all the nations of the Middle East must accept accountability and agree to compromise for lasting peace.
*I am actually quite unclear as to whether descriptions of Arab-Israeli conflict include Iran. It is technically a Persian nation, speaking farce rather than Arabic. However, it is deeply entrenched in Middle East conflict and was an early addition to the Islamic Empire, giving it a long history of Arab influence.
**And of course, if the peoples of the Middle East really aspire to live in freedom and dignity, I'd say they need to take a close look at their own governments. Iran recently declared the Center for Defense of Human Rights, founded by a Nobel Laureate illegal. Apparently human rights watchdog need proper permits, even if the Iranian constitution doesn't actually say so (forget that the CDHR applied for the permits repeatedly and never got a response).
***They're also Holocaust deniers. Hey homosexuals, disabled persons, Gypsies, blacks and even some Christians who opposed the Nazi regime: that must make you feel great about Iran!
Lebanese Prime Minister's Seven Point Plan for Peace.
Lest you accuse me of indiscriminately calling all critics of Israel anti-Semitic and all criticisms propaganda, allow me to explain what bugs me about Faoud Siniora's "End This Tragedy Now." Siniora's essay has a complete lack of accountability for the UN or for the Arab* countries in the Middle East. He states "the peoples of the Middle East. . . aspire only to live in freedom and dignity**." Actually, Hezbollah quite adamantly insists that what they want is to wipe Israel of the map. So does the official, internationally recognized government of Iran; one of its ministers made a public statement to that effect just recently***. Hamas, which is the "political" party currently in charge of the Palestinian Authority, is squatting on Israel's doorstep with the same ideology.
I do not condone Israel's botched campaign against Hezbollah; too many civilians have died. Israel is getting sloppy, and their warnings to civilians (a courtesy not extended by Hezbollah to Israelis) are not sufficient. Yet Hezbollah has also targeted civilians in Israel. In fact, for this specific conflict, they started it. And Hezbollah does not truly care about Lebanese civilians. If they did, they would not launch their rockets at Israel from the backyards of Lebanese villagers, thus making innocent families targets for Israeli retaliation. It is not a new strategy for Middle East terrorist groups to use civilians, including, and perhaps particularly, children, as shields.
Siniora also proposes "land for peace," which was a frequent strategy of Israel before the most recent Intifada. In fact, PM Barak offered to meet 95% of Palestinian demands for land and statehood--an offer that was rejected because it did not include Jerusalem. Yet nowhere in his piece does Siniora state an agreement to the disarmament of Hezbollah. The Lebanese and other Arab nations are apparently eager for peace, so long as it doesn't actually involve compromise on their part. Oh, silly me. . . they must feel it is a compromise just to "allow" Israel to continue existing.
I will make no claims to impartiality. I am a Zionist, and it can be hard to recognize Israel's faults when it seems that the whole world is reluctant to acknowledge the contributions to violence and conflict made by other nations in the Middle East. If one has legitimate criticism of Israel, then by all means it should be expressed intelligently. But in order for there to be a true path to peace, all the nations of the Middle East must accept accountability and agree to compromise for lasting peace.
*I am actually quite unclear as to whether descriptions of Arab-Israeli conflict include Iran. It is technically a Persian nation, speaking farce rather than Arabic. However, it is deeply entrenched in Middle East conflict and was an early addition to the Islamic Empire, giving it a long history of Arab influence.
**And of course, if the peoples of the Middle East really aspire to live in freedom and dignity, I'd say they need to take a close look at their own governments. Iran recently declared the Center for Defense of Human Rights, founded by a Nobel Laureate illegal. Apparently human rights watchdog need proper permits, even if the Iranian constitution doesn't actually say so (forget that the CDHR applied for the permits repeatedly and never got a response).
***They're also Holocaust deniers. Hey homosexuals, disabled persons, Gypsies, blacks and even some Christians who opposed the Nazi regime: that must make you feel great about Iran!
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
Gendered Brains
Femme Mentale
I've never had any argument with the recenty studies of biology, neurology, and psychology that suggest that women and men have differently wired brains. Perhaps I was predisposed to accept this idea because my father and I are very much alike in our intelligence, yet he prefers math and science and I prefer humanities. However, these conclusions of gender differences in the brain often incur criticisms, particularly from feminists, it would seem. There is the feeling that "separate by definition is not equal", as determined in "Brown v. Board of Education," is as applicable to our biology as to our school systems. Yet I would say the issue is not in saying that women's strengths lie in social skills and humanities, and thereby putting them in an inferior position to men, but rather that our society has learned to value male/masculine traits above female/feminine traits. We live in a world where power is more laudable than family and cooperation, and the sciences are more necessary than humanities. Well, those of you who read my second entry know how I feel about the latter hierarchy. And in fact, we would all do a lot a better with more focus on cooperation and social building and less on obtaining power and money while we're at it. If we valued art and literature more than we valued our video games and our cars, we would live in a world that was cleaner and more beautiful. If we made statues of our mothers and nurses instead of our war heroes, we would show that we reverence creation more than destruction. That there is more bravery in bearing and nurturing life than there is in ending it.
It is the female brain that gives birth to language, that key human trait that makes all other accomplishments possible. It is the female brain that continues to nurture humanity even when our jealousies and hatreds seek to destroy it. It is wonderful that we have programs that encourage young girls and women to go into the sciences, but we should also develop programs that empower young women to feel good about their works of art and about their close friendships. In fact, I think much of why women suffer today, being twice as likely as men to report symptoms of depression, is that we have been separated from our gendered community. Women are being trained by culture to compete with each other, rather than create reliable, close social networks. We are told to look for our soulmates in our male spouses, rather than our sisters (biological or otherwise). And even more importantly, we are taught that our reproductive value lies only in our wombs, and not in our abilities to teach younger generations--an ability that is only strengthened in the crone stages of our lives, where the biological reproductive capacity of the maiden and matron years wanes.
Perhaps these studies can give new hope to our daughters. We can teach them that they are the equals of men, not because they can compete with them in masculinity, but because they have their own strengths, just as men have their own weaknesses. This may finally be the key to ending the struggles of women trying to fit into a man's world and beginning to allow a woman's world to emerge.
On another note, Joan Gould's Spinning Straw Into Gold is an excellent women's studies book on fairy tales.
I've never had any argument with the recenty studies of biology, neurology, and psychology that suggest that women and men have differently wired brains. Perhaps I was predisposed to accept this idea because my father and I are very much alike in our intelligence, yet he prefers math and science and I prefer humanities. However, these conclusions of gender differences in the brain often incur criticisms, particularly from feminists, it would seem. There is the feeling that "separate by definition is not equal", as determined in "Brown v. Board of Education," is as applicable to our biology as to our school systems. Yet I would say the issue is not in saying that women's strengths lie in social skills and humanities, and thereby putting them in an inferior position to men, but rather that our society has learned to value male/masculine traits above female/feminine traits. We live in a world where power is more laudable than family and cooperation, and the sciences are more necessary than humanities. Well, those of you who read my second entry know how I feel about the latter hierarchy. And in fact, we would all do a lot a better with more focus on cooperation and social building and less on obtaining power and money while we're at it. If we valued art and literature more than we valued our video games and our cars, we would live in a world that was cleaner and more beautiful. If we made statues of our mothers and nurses instead of our war heroes, we would show that we reverence creation more than destruction. That there is more bravery in bearing and nurturing life than there is in ending it.
It is the female brain that gives birth to language, that key human trait that makes all other accomplishments possible. It is the female brain that continues to nurture humanity even when our jealousies and hatreds seek to destroy it. It is wonderful that we have programs that encourage young girls and women to go into the sciences, but we should also develop programs that empower young women to feel good about their works of art and about their close friendships. In fact, I think much of why women suffer today, being twice as likely as men to report symptoms of depression, is that we have been separated from our gendered community. Women are being trained by culture to compete with each other, rather than create reliable, close social networks. We are told to look for our soulmates in our male spouses, rather than our sisters (biological or otherwise). And even more importantly, we are taught that our reproductive value lies only in our wombs, and not in our abilities to teach younger generations--an ability that is only strengthened in the crone stages of our lives, where the biological reproductive capacity of the maiden and matron years wanes.
Perhaps these studies can give new hope to our daughters. We can teach them that they are the equals of men, not because they can compete with them in masculinity, but because they have their own strengths, just as men have their own weaknesses. This may finally be the key to ending the struggles of women trying to fit into a man's world and beginning to allow a woman's world to emerge.
On another note, Joan Gould's Spinning Straw Into Gold is an excellent women's studies book on fairy tales.
Sunday, August 06, 2006
Sharing the blog love
There is an excellent essay on anti-semitism here. Truly well researched and organized, I could not have done better myself (which will probably be apparent after comparing this essay to any of my posts).
Friday, August 04, 2006
A Marriage of Equals, part II
"I've said it before and I'll say it again: democracy simply doesn't work," Kent Brockman, The Simpsons, "Bart's Comet"
I must say that I'm starting to agree. The Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments, was put in place after our wise, if imperfect, forefathers realized that they had to protect against the tyranny of the majority. They had to keep the mobs from exerting undue pressure on anyone who didn't agree with them, or was different from them. Yet, the framers, even with the foresight to protect speech, assembly, and even religion, failed to take into consideration how people of color or women were being trodden upon. Eventually minorities and women won their legal rights, though I would argue we are far from equal, and Native Americans would probably argue, and rightly so, that they have not been granted full rights--at least not the full rights of sovereign nations. However, homosexuals are still a deeply oppressed people. Anti-discrimination laws for homosexuals are not in place as they are for ethnic minorities and women, and we're all well aware that they aren't allowed to marry. And the battle for homosexual rights, including, and perhaps especially, the right to marry. Check out some articles:
Washington Upholds Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Virginia's Anti-Gay amendment
and finally:
New York and Georgia rule out Same-Sex Marriage
New York's majority opinion was ridiculous, as readers of Dan Savage's advice column have already been told. To say that discriminating against homosexuals makes sense, since heterosexual couples have children and therefore need marriage may very well be the dumbest statement. . . well there are a lot of really dumb statements floating around these days, but it's still imbecilic. Gay people have children, even in states that ban them from adopting, through sperm donors and surrogate mothers. Plus, straight people can get married whether they want/are able to have kids or not. And the Republican gov., as well as his likely GOP successor, say they would veto any legislation that would give homosexuals the right to marry. Apparently it goes against the religious beliefs of millions of New Yorkers. Which, even if true, is irrelevant, given the whole separation of Church and State thing we have going on. I mean, what if my religion demands that homosexuals marry? Where's my religious freedom?!
Georgia is backwards. We all pretty much expected it. And don't come whining to me if you're from Georgia (and my sitemeter suggests you are not). If you didn't want to be called backward, you shouldn't have passed that amendment.
Washington's supreme court seems to have come to same conclusion as New York's. The legislature is free to legalize same-sex marriage, but the supreme court doesn't have the power to overturn the current laws. Which I suppose is better than being out and out bigoted, but it just seems that legislating against people based on their own, private, non-larcenous, non-violent, love/sex lives is a blatant violation of the civil liberties that this country supposedly holds dear.
Of course, Virginia is probably the worst of all. They have laws prohibiting same-sex marriage and civil unions, but just in case a few loving, committed same-sex couples sneak over the border anyway, they're passing an amendment that will make it possible to undermine the wills, living-wills, and power-of-attorney arrangements that same-sex couples make. If I could find the specific text of the document, I would give you the link and more information, but so far, no go.
So, here's our democracy at work. The majority uses its power to oppress the minority. Scary. A thousand times scarier than same-sex marriage ever was.
I must say that I'm starting to agree. The Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments, was put in place after our wise, if imperfect, forefathers realized that they had to protect against the tyranny of the majority. They had to keep the mobs from exerting undue pressure on anyone who didn't agree with them, or was different from them. Yet, the framers, even with the foresight to protect speech, assembly, and even religion, failed to take into consideration how people of color or women were being trodden upon. Eventually minorities and women won their legal rights, though I would argue we are far from equal, and Native Americans would probably argue, and rightly so, that they have not been granted full rights--at least not the full rights of sovereign nations. However, homosexuals are still a deeply oppressed people. Anti-discrimination laws for homosexuals are not in place as they are for ethnic minorities and women, and we're all well aware that they aren't allowed to marry. And the battle for homosexual rights, including, and perhaps especially, the right to marry. Check out some articles:
Washington Upholds Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Virginia's Anti-Gay amendment
and finally:
New York and Georgia rule out Same-Sex Marriage
New York's majority opinion was ridiculous, as readers of Dan Savage's advice column have already been told. To say that discriminating against homosexuals makes sense, since heterosexual couples have children and therefore need marriage may very well be the dumbest statement. . . well there are a lot of really dumb statements floating around these days, but it's still imbecilic. Gay people have children, even in states that ban them from adopting, through sperm donors and surrogate mothers. Plus, straight people can get married whether they want/are able to have kids or not. And the Republican gov., as well as his likely GOP successor, say they would veto any legislation that would give homosexuals the right to marry. Apparently it goes against the religious beliefs of millions of New Yorkers. Which, even if true, is irrelevant, given the whole separation of Church and State thing we have going on. I mean, what if my religion demands that homosexuals marry? Where's my religious freedom?!
Georgia is backwards. We all pretty much expected it. And don't come whining to me if you're from Georgia (and my sitemeter suggests you are not). If you didn't want to be called backward, you shouldn't have passed that amendment.
Washington's supreme court seems to have come to same conclusion as New York's. The legislature is free to legalize same-sex marriage, but the supreme court doesn't have the power to overturn the current laws. Which I suppose is better than being out and out bigoted, but it just seems that legislating against people based on their own, private, non-larcenous, non-violent, love/sex lives is a blatant violation of the civil liberties that this country supposedly holds dear.
Of course, Virginia is probably the worst of all. They have laws prohibiting same-sex marriage and civil unions, but just in case a few loving, committed same-sex couples sneak over the border anyway, they're passing an amendment that will make it possible to undermine the wills, living-wills, and power-of-attorney arrangements that same-sex couples make. If I could find the specific text of the document, I would give you the link and more information, but so far, no go.
So, here's our democracy at work. The majority uses its power to oppress the minority. Scary. A thousand times scarier than same-sex marriage ever was.
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
*gasp*
Much to my horror, I found myself applauding today's (8/2/06) Prickly City. Generally, I find Scott Stantis to be at least moderately annoying, though he could be worse. He could be a raving lunatic mouthpiece for the fundamentalist Christian right. Anyway, the strip says it all, though you may want to check out yesterday's strip for further clarification.
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Wafa Sultan
Wafa Sultan
This is a clip of Wafa Sultan's appearance on the Al-Jazeera network, dating from February. You may have already seen it on other weblogs, or been sent a link in an email forward. It has circulated quite a bit, though today is the first I've seen/heard of it.
It's interesting in two respects. One, it is a person of Muslim heritage, though Sultan considers herself a secular humanist, who is openly criticizing the actions of the Muslim world. I have no statistics, but my general sense is that I more commonly see Jews who speak out against the actions of Israel than Muslims who speak against the actions of Israel's Arab neighbors. I am biased though, as I am moderately Zionist and so the people coming out against Israel make more of an impression on me. I am not wholly supportive of Israel's actions, but I think they generally get more than their fair share of the blame, and I also think they are in an untenable position which sometimes makes it hard for them to do the most peaceable thing and still maintain a position of strength in a region that is hostile to them. Much of the reason they are in an untenable position can be blamed on the UN, a body that I have increasingly less respect for, which among other things refuses to allow Israel complete membership.
The other interesting thing about Wafa Sultan's interview is a statement that can be applied to all religious zealots, including Hezbollah and the American Christian Right. "You can believe in stones, but that does not give you the right to throw them at me." Believe as strongly as you want, but we no longer live in an era where conversions by the sword (or pipe-bomb, rocket, or even persecuting legislation) is acceptable practice. It is pure barbarism to force your beliefs on others. Frankly, if God wants converts, she has more than enough power to do it without using human weapons of destruction.
Wafa Sultan is Syrian-American psychiatrist. She and her husband immigrated in 1989. Her turning point was when she saw her medical professor gunned down by Muslim terrorists in the classroom. The New York Times published this article about her.
I may be posting more on the Israeli-Arab conflict in the future, but I may not. It's a huge subject that is incredibly divisive, and as it is still very much a hot-topic, I doubt if it's possible to find an unbiased treatise about the subject anywhere, and it requires much in the way of research on my part. So in other words, nobody hold their breath.
This is a clip of Wafa Sultan's appearance on the Al-Jazeera network, dating from February. You may have already seen it on other weblogs, or been sent a link in an email forward. It has circulated quite a bit, though today is the first I've seen/heard of it.
It's interesting in two respects. One, it is a person of Muslim heritage, though Sultan considers herself a secular humanist, who is openly criticizing the actions of the Muslim world. I have no statistics, but my general sense is that I more commonly see Jews who speak out against the actions of Israel than Muslims who speak against the actions of Israel's Arab neighbors. I am biased though, as I am moderately Zionist and so the people coming out against Israel make more of an impression on me. I am not wholly supportive of Israel's actions, but I think they generally get more than their fair share of the blame, and I also think they are in an untenable position which sometimes makes it hard for them to do the most peaceable thing and still maintain a position of strength in a region that is hostile to them. Much of the reason they are in an untenable position can be blamed on the UN, a body that I have increasingly less respect for, which among other things refuses to allow Israel complete membership.
The other interesting thing about Wafa Sultan's interview is a statement that can be applied to all religious zealots, including Hezbollah and the American Christian Right. "You can believe in stones, but that does not give you the right to throw them at me." Believe as strongly as you want, but we no longer live in an era where conversions by the sword (or pipe-bomb, rocket, or even persecuting legislation) is acceptable practice. It is pure barbarism to force your beliefs on others. Frankly, if God wants converts, she has more than enough power to do it without using human weapons of destruction.
Wafa Sultan is Syrian-American psychiatrist. She and her husband immigrated in 1989. Her turning point was when she saw her medical professor gunned down by Muslim terrorists in the classroom. The New York Times published this article about her.
I may be posting more on the Israeli-Arab conflict in the future, but I may not. It's a huge subject that is incredibly divisive, and as it is still very much a hot-topic, I doubt if it's possible to find an unbiased treatise about the subject anywhere, and it requires much in the way of research on my part. So in other words, nobody hold their breath.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
