Webpages open on Amp's desktop, right now

  • In Tennessee, a gay dad is ordered by a court to not expose his son to “the gay lifestyle,” whatever that may be. On the bright side, a lower court’s decision to send the father to jail for coming out to his son has been overturned on appeal. (Thanks to reader Tor for the tip). Boy, those blue states really are more tolorant!
  • Trish Wilson points out that folks in bible-belt states are just as likely to get divorced as anyone else. Kinda pokes a hole in the theory that divorce would go down if only more people were fervently anti-divorce.
  • Tim Wise makes a convincing case that Marcus Dixon, who is black, is in prison for having consensual sex with his white girlfriend. Wise argues that this reflects badly on cross-racial adoption, because white parents can’t teach their black children enough fear and distrust of the justice system to prevent those children from being railroaded. (My summary is an oversimplification; I recommend reading the whole thing.)
    Don’t misunderstand. I’m not suggesting the Joneses were wrong to take Marcus in. Nor am I saying that white parents should never adopt or become guardians for black children or other children of color. I am only saying that before white parents decide to “rescue” black and brown children from homes they consider dysfunctional (and which may well be), perhaps they could take a moment to consider their own dysfunction: the kind that doesn?t manifest itself in terms of poverty or daily neighborhood violence perhaps, but which manifests as ignorance, as a Pollyanna-like optimism about the power of love alone, and an uncritical trust in America – the kind most people of color long ago learned to temper with caution.

    For while Marcus Dixon is first and foremost a victim of an overzealous prosecutor playing to white fears, and a racist father of the girl with whom he had sex, he is also the victim of white naivet’ and good intentions.

    Well, maybe. It’s an interesting point. But then again, I can’t help but notice that black children of black parents get railroaded by the cops and DAs all the time, too.

  • Sara at Diotima is the last person I’d expect to launch a defense of Martha Burke, which just goes to show that the world is full of surprises. Amy Philips had taken offense because Burke wrote that “some women” don’t recognize the discrimination they experience. Burke, Amy wrote, “doesn’t speak for me, and that I’d feel much less oppressed if she’d shut up and let me speak for myself.” Sara responds:
    But if one allowed the truth about women to be defined merely by adding up women’s subjective experiences, you could never make any judgments about when things are bad for women. After all, women also fought suffrage and other legal changes that brought equality to women; their personal experiences shouldn’t have been allowed to paralyze the women’s movement because they were just wrong. So while I remain in more or less complete disagreement with Martha Burk’s specific agenda, I don’t really find anything objectionable in the principle that there are women who are unaware of the problems that women face.
  • This Armed Liberal post on gay marriage – “Why I Support Gay Marriage, and Why I Will Never Be Angry at Those Who Do Not” – is excellent, both for its plea for mutual civility and for his real-life-based explanation of why “gays should just rely on private contracts” isn’t an answer.
  • Mad Magazine makes fun of George Bush. Hey, I’d buy one. Via Marshmallows & Bile.
  • Carpe Datum has a good so-called-liberal-press post, pointing out that this opening paragraph would never, ever appear in the mainstream press:
    For a brief time during his speech on Sunday, President Bush seemed to be hewing to a New Year’s resolution to stick more carefully to the facts on taxes, the budget and more. But old habits die hard.

    Yet virtually the same paragraph opens an AP news story about Democrats and no one blinks.

  • Here’s an interesting article in Haaretz about American feministJudith Butler in Israel. Butler is best known as a gender theorist – both for her theory that gender is created by everyone doing drag, and for her famously inaccessible writing style – but I hadn’t realized she was also an active critic of Israel.
  • Echidne of the Snakes has been rockin’ lately. Two of my recent favorites: her discussion of college admissions (why are folks who oppose affirmative action for minorities okay with affirmative action for whites legacy admissions?), and her post about the wage gap.
  • So I was reading an Expository Magazine review of a quilting exhibition, which thankfully included lots of pictures. I was particularly impressed by “Improvisation,” by Judith Reilly (who I assume is not the same Judith Reilly who starred in Night of the Living Dead).

    A very colorful quilt

    A bit of searching turned up Reilly’s website, which has many more quilt reproductions. All of them are too darned small, however.

  • A CNN story, “Where Do Cancelled TV Shows Go?” I was particularly struck by the last paragraph, about a creator whose grateful for “pirating,” since without illegal copies the network would prevent his work from ever being seen by anyone. Thank goodness creators are protected by copyright law!
  • Amptoons comments alumni John Isbell is posting on Open Source Politics again: A brief discussion of the second amendment, and a poem about experiences of racism. Check ’em out.
  • Amy at The Fifty Minute Hour has an excellent post about the Drug War and U.S. foreign policy (the specific example she’s using is Ghana).
    In the end, the problem is that we’ve set up a situation where Ghana and other countries like it can’t win. They have little choice but to take our money, because their only alternative is to keep scraping by and never have the chance to improve their country. But we’ve given them no viable, sustainable alternative to drug production to keep them going in the long term. We’re asking them to give up their most profitable export, but we’ve cut off most other options for trade. We flood markets, both in Ghana and in nations who might trade with them, with subsidized agricultural staples, making farming a profitless option. We refuse to support infrastructure development, because new roads and faster transportation make drug trading easier too, and our first priority is to stop marijuana production, not to make Ghana better off. If we were to focus on bringing Ghana and other African nations into the global economy, growing pot would become less attractive, but we’re not willing to make our primary goal ancillary, even if it would work better in the long run. After all, we have to take a “hard line” against a plant that has never killed anyone and has kept its producers from being stuck in poverty forever. We’re sacrificing real principles, like helping the poor and improving the quality of life for millions of people, in favor of made up principles, like stopping people from ingesting psychotropic substances. Ghana will get its money, but that money will never help the people of Ghana so long as the government has to use it to destroy what may be their best chance at escaping poverty.

    Read the whole thing.

  • The Village Voice has an article about the lack of female writers (both reviewed and reviewing) at the New York Times Book Review. What’s sad is the Times is apparently much better than its peers (although the Voice article doesn’t mention this). The Times Book Review apparently has 33% female bylines; other liberal intellectual mags, like The New York Review of Books and the New Yorker, would have to increase female bylines enormously to reach a one-third level. (Via Intl-News.com).
  • I don’t normally respond to emailed requests for links, but Intl-News.com is actually doing a good job collecting and updating news story links. Check it out.
  • Ironic headline of the month: A pro-life news website complains that “Biased reporting on Abortion-Breast Cancer Link Still A Problem.” In other news, O.J. complains that the murder rate is too high. Via After Abortion.
  • Just when you thought there was nothing to like about Joe Lieberman, he goes and proposes improvements to US Domestic Violence law. I particularly like his proposals for making restraining orders more available and effective, and for helping abused women financially. Via Diotima, who is suspicious of Lieberman’s motives.

.

Posted in Link farms, Same-Sex Marriage | 6 Comments

Masculine and Feminine in 1844

While researching something else, I came across a magazine article from 1844 which had one of those “this is masculine, this is feminine” lists. A few of the dichotomies were ones that still seem pretty familiar today – masculine intellect versus feminine understanding, masculine justice versus feminine mercy, etc.

Many of the other “masculine/feminine” dichotomies seem positively dadaesque today, however.

Masculine Feminine
Talent
Language
Laws
Honesty
Belief
Food
Prayer
Time
Genius
Music
Commandments
Honor
Faith
Drink
Praise
Eternity

Remember, folks – men might be talented, but women are geniuses. After all, what’s “feminine” and “masculine” is immutable biology, and never, ever changes over time or culture..

Posted in Feminism, sexism, etc | 26 Comments

Screw blogging, I'm off to the movies!

Well, I was going to post a lot more today, but then Phil suggested that we go see Big Fish instead.

Since I’m slacking off and not providing you with links to follow, I suggest that you go visit Wampum’s post listing the 2003 Koufax Awards Best Post Nominations. Every nomination includes a link to the post in question, and man, there’s a lot of great reading there. (I’m happy to say that four Alas posts – one each by Bean and PinkDreamPoppies and two by me – are included on the list).

(The other thing that kept me from posting more today was water on the floor seeping out from the furnace room, which turned out to be due to frozen water in the water-dumping tube attached to the smaller furnace. I know I’m a homeowner because my first thought, on finding out where the water was coming from, was: “Great! That’s under warrenty!”).

Posted in Site and Admin Stuff | 2 Comments

Strange bedfellows: Confined Space on "men's rights" show

Last week, I blogged a link to Jordan Barab’s excellent worker-safety blog Confined Space, and also to a New York Times series of articles, “When Workers Die,” that Jordan had recommended.

I also emailed a head’s-up to men’s rights activist and radio host Glenn Sacks. As I’ve said about Glenn in the past, I think his inability to view men as anything but victims (not to mention his knee-jerk anti-feminism) are mistaken. Nonetheless, I’ve debated him online and in email enough to know he’s a nice guy, capable of civil disagreement, and worker deaths are one of the few issues he and I (sort of) agree on.

Anyhow, Glenn was interested enough to have Jordan as a guest on his show. If you’d like to listen, the show can be heard online here. With all due respect to Glenn, it sounds like he has some technical problems – Glenn’s voice is waaaaay too loud relative to Jordan’s, so I kept having to fiddle with the volume. Nonetheless, there’s some interesting stuff there. If you don’t have time to listen to the whole show, Jordan first appears at 12:20, and what I thought was the most interesting segment begins at 39:10.

Also, speaking of Jordan, be sure to read his post describing “The Top Fourteen Health and Safety Stories of the Year.” And congratulations to Jordan for Confined Space’s richly-deserved nomination for a best single-issue blog Koufax award..

Posted in Site and Admin Stuff | 1 Comment

Angels in America a flop, according to IWF

I’ve been reading the Inkwell, the IWF’s (Independent Women’s Forum) new weblog, faithfully. So far it seems to be a cookie-cutter Republican blog; “the party line, the whole party line, and nothing but the party line.” Despite the connection with the IWF, the Inkwell doesn’t seem especially focused on women or on (anti-) feminism.

One thing about the Inkwell is unexpected: the writers seem obsessed with Tony Kushner, gleefully reporting “low” ratings for Angels in America over and over, and expressing hopes that Kushner’s new musical (Caroline, or Change) will be a flop.

Does anyone else find this strikingly petty? There are many artists and novelists whose politics are too right-wing for my tastes, but I don’t sit around saying “boy, that Sarah Michelle Geller is a Republican – I sure hope her next movie flops miserably!” That would be ridiculous.

By the way, The Inkwell used a biased standard in declaring Angels a flop: they compare it to stuff like a CBS Christmas special and Fox’s The Simple Life. But that’s meaningless: aside from the fact that serious drama isn’t expected to match the ratings of fluff like The Simple Life, there’s also the obvious fact that many fewer households receive HBO than receive CBS and FOX.

The actual measure of success is: How did Angels do compared to other made-for-cable movies? According to the December 11 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

The first installment of HBO’s much-praised miniseries, “Angels in America,” was seen by 4.2 million viewers Sunday — making the first half of the six-hour drama the year’s most-watched made-for-cable movie.

That’s not even including HBO’s broadcasting of the same material in six one-hour segments. Overall, HBO estimates that 7.8 million viewers watched Angels in its first week (New York Times, 12/22/03), putting Angels miles ahead of any comparable made-for-cable movie in 2003.

So, unsurprisingly, the IWF folks are once again “factually disabled.” But that’s beside the point – to sit around wishing failure on an artist because you don’t like their politics is ugly, and would be ugly even if they had gotten their facts straight..

Posted in Anti-feminists and their pals | 20 Comments

The efficacy of abstinence-only education, Pt. 1

I’ll be writing in more detail about this later (probably in a day or two), but recent findings in Minnesota, where the State funds an abstinence-only sexual education program for its public schools, seem to be suggesting that the program is not effective.

The findings, in the form of an evaluation report, can be found here (.PDF format, 225K), an article on the findings can be found here, and the program’s website is saynotyet.com.

The key paragraphs in the article I linked to are:

The Minnesota researchers surveyed 413 kids who were taught the abstinence-only curriculum at one school in each of three counties. They found over the course of the year that the rate of those who said they were sexually active increased from 5.8 to 12.4 percent, and that the rate of those who said they would probably have sex before finishing high school increased from 9.5 to 17 percent.

That is still lower than the average rate of sexually active adolescents in those counties, researchers said. But the abstinence-only message would have been viewed as a success if the rates of sexual activity and sexual intentions among the ENABL group had remained about the same in each year, researchers said.

“Given how much money is being spent, it seems like a really weak intervention,” said Connie Schmitz, the outside consultant with Professional Evaluation Services of Minneapolis. Schmitz, who headed the study, said it raises serious questions about whether sexually active kids are getting the information they need to avoid pregnancy and infectious diseases.

I’m not well-versed in the statistical evidence related to contraception vs. abstinence-only programs (this is part of the reason for the delay before I write more on this subject) but having been through both contraception-based and abstinence-only sexual education programs I can say that I’m not entirely surprised that the abstinence-only programs don’t seem to be working. When I was going through those programs they were viewed by myself and my peers as something of a long, boring joke. Those of us who were going to end up having sex had already decided to have sex and those of us who weren’t planning on having sex had already decided to abstain.

Then again, the programs I went through were filled with lies, lies, and more lies. For instance, we were taught that the AIDS virus could slip through “tiny holes” in condoms (remember that one? No, the Vatican was not the first to spout that crap), that 90+% of women who had abortions suffer from terrible, mind-breaking depression with most of those going on to kill themselves, and that no contraceptives were effective even in the slightest degree.

Maybe I just got a bad program that left me with poor impressions, but I’m not surprised that the program in Minnesota doesn’t seem to be doing all that well.

Report via Atrios.

Edited for clarity, 0:55 1/5/03..

Posted in Site and Admin Stuff | 25 Comments

Happy New Year!

I’m just poking my head back in to see how things are going. Amp seems to be holding the Alas fort down pretty well so I don’t feel so bad in letting you all know that I won’t be posting again until after the new year. After that, I’ll be back in force with… Um… Yeah, like, posts and stuff.

Happy New Year, everyone!.

Posted in Site and Admin Stuff | 4 Comments

White men love George Bush

I’ve sometimes joked that if I could make just one change to US laws, I’d bar white men from the vote. Which brings us to this LA Times article.

Recent polls underscore the challenge for Democrats with white men. In an ABC/Washington Post survey released last week, white men preferred Bush over an unnamed Democrat in 2004 by 62 percent to 29 percent, a head-turning 33-point margin; by contrast, white women gave Bush just a 10-point lead.

Bush’s strength among white men derives as much from his personal style as his policy choices, most analysts agree. Sparse yet blunt in his words, comfortable on his ranch, dismissive of ceremony, impatient with diplomacy, Bush fits “an old-fashioned male ideal, deeply embedded in our cultural mythology,” said Bill Galston, a former Clinton adviser now a professor of public affairs at the University of Maryland.

The ideal “is that a real man is a man of few words and determined, resolute action: like in [the movie] `High Noon.’ And Bush captures this almost perfectly and effortlessly.”

Good God, are men really that simplistic? If John Wayne could be dug up and stuck on political posters, would he take the vote?

I don’t think so – at least, he wouldn’t if Wayne was a democrat. It’s a fun story for a reporter to tell – “men like Bush because he’s the strong, silent type!” – but then why did the not-so-macho George Bush, Senior also benefit from a huge point spread among white men? And for that matter, why is it white men who favor Bush – are black and Latino men really much less concerned about manliness than us white guys?

I think the real story is much simpler: White men aren’t voting macho, they’re voting self-interest. Policies that help people of color and women – insofar as they’re effective at all – reduce the unfair advantage that comes with being white and male. From a self-interest point of view, it makes sense for white men to vote for candidates who want to turn the clock backwards on minority progress and feminist progress; candidates like Ross Perot and George W. Bush.

What’s warped about this, of course, is that once you add in the element of class, most white men would gain far more from having liberals in power. White men suffer from stagnant wages; white men suffer from unemployment (albeit not as much as blacks or American Indians do); white men benefit from unionization; white men’s children need decent classrooms; white men are better off with clean air to breath; white men, in short, are people just like everybody else.

But many white men don’t see it that way.

This is, of course, Nixon’s “southern strategy”; Republicans win by appealing to white male’s sense of frustrated entitlement. Too many white men beleive that they have a birthright of success. And if it doesn’t come true, some white men look to cast blame: who stole my god-given success? And ever since Nixon, the Republicans have won (some) white men’s hearts by saying “it’s the blacks! It’s the women! They stole your entitlement!”

Essentially, the Republican Party runs against civil rights – and wins.

Nixon saw his opportunity in the decline of the great civil rights movement and the killing of Martin Luther King Jr. He judged that the South, a solid Democratic bloc that had never forgiven Abraham Lincoln and the Republicans for the Emancipation Proclamation, was furious about 10 years of civil rights progress and was ready to turn on the Democrats, who had received faithful Southern support since before the Civil War. In the end, Nixon defeated the Democrats not because of their worst disaster, Vietnam, but because of their greatest accomplishment, civil rights.

So how can Democrats beat the Republicans, without Ross Perot helpfully stealing some of that White Male vote from the Republicans? Darned if I know. A poster at Economists for Dean thinks that bringing out the female vote is the key, and so suggests that so-called “women’s issues” need to become more central to Dean’s campaign.

Women are a majority of the population and the electorate. Women outnumber men in voter registration, and vote in higher numbers. In the 2000 election, nearly 8 million more women than men actually voted.

Women also overwhelmingly identify with the Democratic Party. In fact, the 2000 election demonstrated one of the largest gender gaps in history: 54% of women overall voted for Al Gore versus 43% for Bush. And, most compelling of all for the Dean campaign, 58% of working women voted for Al Gore compared to just 39% for Bush. […]

It’s imperative to give women a reason to get out and vote to capitalize on the electoral edge they provide for the Democratic Party. How is this done? The message to women must be steady and consistent to get them engaged with the campaign early and to keep them energized and motivated to vote on election day. […] Centering policy debates on values such as care of family, quality education and healthcare, protecting the environment and responsibly planning for the future can be a powerful organizing principle for the campaign.

Maybe. I’d certainly like to see a greater emphasis on “women’s issues.”

But I’m not sure if that’s enough. It seems to me that Democrats have to peel off at least some of those white men from Bush’s column; which means convincing them to vote their class self-interest, instead of their race and gender self-interest.

The real question is, can white men – too many of whom have stuck their heads firmly up their butts – learn to see self-interest outside of the Republican party?

(Several links via And Then….).

Posted in Elections and politics | 85 Comments

Cats falling down

I’m not sure what the original source of this video is – probably some godawful “funniest home video” program on FOX. Nonetheless, it’s a lot of footage of cats falling down, and I happen to find cats falling down funny..

Posted in Site and Admin Stuff | 3 Comments

Two Questions for Same-Sex Marriage Opponents

Earlier today, I responded to the first half of Eve’s National Catholic Register article, regarding “the bait and switch.” I was going to respond to the other half, regarding “marriage is for procreation,” but happily Gabriel Rosenberg has already done so very well.

What exactly is the harm in same-sex couples getting married. Eve says the harm comes in “sending the message” that men (hence fathers) are unnecessary in forming a family. I’m not certain what Eve perceives the consequence of this message will be. One possibility is that two women will decide it is possible to form a family without any men. They will marry and possibly start raising kids. Of course female-only couples are already doing this. To see any harm of SSM we would need to believe that (1) such families are inherently harmful and (2) as a result of SSM more women will decide to do this as opposed to marrying men or remaining single and childless for life. From a policy perspective, to oppose SSM one also needs to believe the harm created by these additional same-sex parented families is not outweighed by the benefit of giving the existing families the protections of marriage. This view would also seem to hold that it is better for a lesbian either to marry a man or to remain single and childless.

Read Gabriel’s entire post here.

Gabriel’s post reminds me of two questions I hope opponents of gay marriage will address.

First, what is the measurable harm of same-sex marriage?

Second, what is the mechanism?

Just to be clear, by “measurable harm” I mean just that. It seems likely that very soon there will be gay marriage in Canada and Massachusetts. What are the measurable, specific differences we should expect to see in Massachusetts as a result of Goodridge? Will divorce rates go up? Will there be an increase in single-parent families? Will absentee fathers be less willing to pay child support? Let’s hear some specifics.

By “mechanism,” I mean the chain of events leading from gay marriage to harm. We are told, over and over, that if A) Sally and Suzy get married, this will cause C) terrible harm to Ed and Edith’s son Ed Jr. But what are the specific, concrete steps by which A leads inevitably to C?

In short, does same-sex marriage cause harms that are measurable to everybody, or are the harms of gay marriage like the Emperor’s New Clothes, visible only to those who fervently believe in them?.

Posted in Same-Sex Marriage | 74 Comments