Single Motherhood And Crime In One Graph

At the Atlantic, sociology prof Philip Cohen provides this graph:

Looking at it from the perspective of 1990, it was easy to assume a strong causal relationship between the rise in single motherhood and the murder epidemic. By my reading of the research, it is true that children of single mothers are more likely to commit crimes. But other factors are more important.

Contrary to Mitt Romney, it seems unlikely that increasing marriage is, in the current situation, the best way to reduce violent crime.

Posted in Families structures, divorce, etc | 39 Comments

Now Selling Signed Copies of Hereville!

Hey, folks. What with Chanukah and that other holiday coming up soon, I wanted to let you know that I’m selling copies of Hereville. Go here for all the details, or if you’d rather not see the details, you can go directly to my Big Cartel page.

Of course, you can also buy unsigned copies from all the usual booksellers. :-)

Posted in Hereville | Comments Off on Now Selling Signed Copies of Hereville!

Open Thread: Maddox and Sydney Protest Outside WalMart!

I haven’t posted any pictures of Maddox and Sydney in a while, but I couldn’t resist posting this picture from the Oregonian’s website.

I had a wonderful Thanksgiving – we had 20 at dinner (Maddox and Sydney included), lots of turkey, ham, at least 15 pies, mushrooms, potatoes, brussel sprouts, and conversation. Plus, we have a new (well, used, but new to us) stove, which worked SO much better than our old stove did. (Imagine, being able to cook with all four burners!) I hope that everyone here had a great day yesterday, whether you celebrate Thanksgiving or not.

This is an open thread – post what you like, when you like it, wearing clothing just as loud as your loved ones can take. License for self-link love is legally given.

Only ten links, because hey, it’s a holiday weekend, aynnit?

  1. Governor Christie: It’s Bad Enough I Said The Word “Twinkie” Behind This Podium
  2. Republicans ‘Test’ For Voting Fraud, Wind Up In Custody
  3. Good article by Jennifer Jenkins on what ridiculously overextended copyright does to intellectual and creative commons
  4. How the 2012 election polling really was skewed for Mitt Romney
  5. The Twinkie Defense, or What Does “Uncompetitive” Mean?
  6. Why rich guys want to raise the retirement age
  7. Grandfather Of The Year Nominee. And damn, he looks good.
  8. Airport Security Is Killing Us – Businessweek The more people are driven (p.i.) to cars instead of planes, the higher the death rate.
  9. Dear Mr. Obama, the “Grand Bargain” is neither Grand…nor a Bargain – New Economic Perspectives
  10. Grantham To Climate Scientists: ‘Be Persuasive. Be Brave. Be Arrested (If Necessary)’

By the way, that’s Sydney on the left and Maddox on the right. I think. The two of them have been mistaken for twins, so it can be hard to tell. Sydney is now nine, and Maddox is seven. Probably there are folks reading this post who were reading this blog when they were born. Weird.

Posted in Baby & kid blogging, Link farms | 37 Comments

Unclear on the Contraception

This notion that birth control pills are now “free,” as Romney claimed in his conference call to donors, needs to end. They are now simply covered by health insurance, which many of us pay for via hefty monthly premiums. We’re actually getting something for our money. Imagine that!

Posted in Sex, Syndicated feeds | Tagged | Comments Off on Unclear on the Contraception

On The Case of Catholic Charities in Illinois: It’s Fired City Clerks All Over Again

During a Bloggingheads discussion between Maggie Gallagher and E.J. Graff, Maggie attempted to make the case that same-sex marriage turns some religious Americans into second-class citizens, or at least has given them good reason to fear they will become second-class citizens. The main example Maggie used to illustrate this was the closing of Catholic Charities in Illinois.

So what happened in Illinois? From The New York Times:

The controversy in Illinois began when the state legislature voted in November 2010 to legalize civil unions for same-sex couples, which the state’s Catholic bishops lobbied against.[…]

Catholic Charities affiliates received a total of nearly $2.9 billion a year from the government in 2010, about 62 percent of its annual revenue of $4.67 billion. Only 3 percent came from churches in the diocese (the rest came from in-kind contributions, investments, program fees and community donations).

In Illinois, Catholic Charities in five of the six state dioceses had grown dependent on foster care contracts, receiving 60 percent to 92 percent of their revenues from the state, according to affidavits by the charities’ directors. […]

When the contracts came up for renewal in June, the state attorney general, along with the legal staff in the governor’s office and the Department of Children and Family Services, decided that the religious providers on state contracts would no longer be able to reject same-sex couples[…].

After losing a lawsuit against the state, the Church decided to get out of the foster care business rather than place foster children with same-sex parents. “The Dioceses of Peoria and Belleville are spinning off their state-financed social services, with the caseworkers, top executives and foster children all moving to new nonprofits that will no longer be affiliated with either diocese.” In the other areas, Illinois will contract with other private agencies to take over.

Six thoughts on this:

1) This is exactly like the case of City Clerks who refuse to help same-sex couples.

In their private lives, religious Catholics are free to snub gay and lesbian people all they want (although most Catholics would do no such thing! But my point is, they’re free to). They can refuse to go to dinner with a lesbian couple, refuse to drink Starbucks coffee, refuse to see the touring company of “Chicago,” and write blogs arguing that Ellen and Portia aren’t really married – whatever.

But Catholic Charities, in its dealings with foster children, is a paid agent acting on behalf of the state. Just as a city clerk is not free to refuse services to lgbt taxpayers, Catholic Charities, when acting for the government, cannot refuse services to same-sex couples. Just as the government isn’t allowed to discriminate, the government’s paid agents aren’t allowed to discriminate.

If a government agent, be it a city clerk or Catholic Charities, refuses to perform their job duties, then they can’t reasonably expect to hold on to their position. As the judge in Illinois told Catholic Charities, “No citizen has a recognized legal right to a contract with the government.”

But – contra Maggie – just because state and local governments (and their agents) are not allowed to discriminate, it doesn’t follow that private citizens need to fear being fired en mass if they don’t like SSM. That’s just fearmongering.

2) Foster children have a legal right to have their best interests put first.

The question should always be, “who are the best parents available to take care of this foster child?” Catholic Charities was instead asking “who are the best heterosexuals available to take care of this foster child?”

Unless there is never an instance in which a particular same-sex couple would be the best available match for a particular foster child, then it’s irresponsible and harmful to children to ask the former question, rather than the latter question.

3) Anti-gay policies harm lgbt foster children.

Quoting Lambda Legal (written before the judge’s decision):

The dioceses’ refusal to license gay and lesbian prospective foster parents sends a message of exclusion, not only to the couples themselves, but to lesbian and gay youth in state care, who are particularly vulnerable. Gay, lesbian, transgender, and gender-nonconforming adolescents are disproportionately represented in foster care populations because they often experience rejection by their own families. If the dioceses’ lawsuit succeeds, these children would be told by the authorities caring for them and by their government that they are morally unworthy ever of forming families of their own, and that their future relationships in adulthood—no matter how loving, how committed, or how responsible—will be inferior to those in other families.

4) There was no bait-and-switch.

Both Maggie, in the Bloggingheads dialog, and Bishop Paprocki in the Times article, imply that they were “given the impression” that civil unions would have no effect on Catholic Charities in Illinois.

Yet two months before the civil unions bill was passed took effect, Catholic Charities lobbied hard for SB 1123, which would have amended the Illinois civil unions bill to exempt Catholic Charities and other religious child-care organizations from Illinois’ non-discrimination law. (The amendment died in committee). Clearly, Catholic Charities understood well ahead of time that the civil unions bill would put them in conflict with anti-discrimination law.

5) What about religious freedom for those who favor marriage equality?

The self-appointed spokespeople for religious freedom rarely, if ever, acknowledge the many religious people and leaders who favor marriage equality. The real threat to religious liberty is when more powerful religions force their religion’s rules on all of society, as happens when same-sex marriage is banned. Religious freedom is increased by legal recognition of SSM.

6) Does religious freedom require ending legal protections for LGBT people?

In their grasping at straws to argue that marriage equality is a threat to religious freedom, SSM opponents constantly invoke examples from states – like Illinois – that don’t even have marriage equality. What’s being discussed in Illinois, at heart, is a conflict between a religious group and anti-discrimination law. SSM opponents frequently cite similar cases from other states that don’t currently recognize same-sex marriage.

These arguments from SSM opponents logically amount to a claim that when lgbt people have rights – when anti-discrimination laws exist, when domestic partnership exist – that’s incompatible with religious freedom.

If we take arguments like Maggie’s seriously, SSM opponents don’t just require same-sex marriages to be banned in order to be free. For SSM opponents, freedom requires that lgbt people have no legal protections. For SSM opponents, freedom means government agents actively discriminating against lgbt people.

And if (as I suspect) that’s not what Maggie and other SSM opponents really intend to say, then they should change their arguments.

SSM opponents paint a vision of marriage equality and religious freedom as hopelessly opposed, like fire and water. Either lgbt people accept permanent second-class citizenship, or religious people do. I reject that narrow vision.

Compromise is not only possible, it’s commonplace. We can see that in marriage equality states like Massachusetts, millions of SSM opponents live in freedom; their churches have not been forced to shut down (or host gay weddings), their jobs haven’t been lost, etc.. Once the law treats people equally, mutual tolerance becomes much easier.

Posted in Same-Sex Marriage | 93 Comments

I Got Your Book: Linky links!

Tu Books is looking for authors of color!

Ken Liu’s story is lyrically beautiful

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat. Nnedi continues to rock out. 

Letter to the black babies of the future.

Pre-WWII black SF. 

Black mermaids.

Black Lit Magazine talks SF/F

Mother/Daughter struggles in Parable of the Talents.

I Got Your Book: Linky links! — Originally posted at The Angry Black Woman

Posted in Syndicated feeds | Comments Off on I Got Your Book: Linky links!

AlterNet Launches Comic Section

Some very cool news: AlterNet has begun publishing political cartoons, and today is my debut on the site. Check it out! And if you’re feeling spunky, share or leave a comment.

Posted in Syndicated feeds | Comments Off on AlterNet Launches Comic Section

Three comments on the Tony Harris kerfluffle

1) You’re embarrassing us, Tony.

Just for the record, as a professional comic book creator, a lifelong comics fan, and someone who attends comic book conventions, I am happy to be sharing a subculture with cosplayers. Cosplayers don’t have to prove they are “true nerds.” They don’t need admission to the club, because they’re already in it.

I’m also not embarrassed to be sharing my subculture with what Tony Harris calls “a LOT of average Comic Book Fans who either RARELY speak to, or NEVER speak to girls. Some Virgins, ALL unconfident when it comes to girls…” I don’t agree they’re the norm, but yeah, there are some guys like that at cons. They’ve got problems to overcome, but who doesn’t? Many of them are really nice, albeit socially clumsy. ((I don’t deny, by the way, that there are some guys at cons who are really shy and socially clumsy, and who are also mean, misogynistic, and rude. But the problem there isn’t the shyness or clumsiness, it’s the other stuff.))

But do you know who I AM embarrassed to share my subculture with? Tony Harris. Because he wrote this.

Hey! Quasi-Pretty-NOT-Hot-Girl, you are more pathetic than the REAL Nerds, who YOU secretly think are REALLY PATHETIC. But we are onto you. Some of us are aware that you are ever so average on an everyday basis. But you have a couple of things going your way. You are willing to become almost completely Naked in public, and yer either skinny( Well, some or most of you, THINK you are ) or you have Big Boobies. Notice I didnt say GREAT Boobies? You are what I refer to as “CON-HOT”.

It is humiliating for me to read that and realize that I’m sharing a profession and a nerd culture with the author.

And unfortunately, Tony Harris doesn’t stand alone.

2) Which comic book culture do you want to be part of?

There’s the comic book culture in which women (and especially female cosplayers) are objects of suspicion. ((Cartoonist Colleen Doran tweeted, “Those kitty cat ears may be the end of comic book culture as we know it. Please keep wearing them. Thank you.”)) “What the hell are you doing here? Are you a real nerd or just pretending? Here, let me quiz you on Star Trek.” There’s the comic book culture in which a major artist posts in his public Facebook area that he finds most female cosplayers to be “quasi-Pretty-NOT-hot” and to have less than “great” “boobies,” and makes it clear that as a “rule” he considers most female cosplayers to be intruders in his space.

Or there’s the comic book culture in which we react to someone of either sex dressing up by saying “wow! You look really neat!” A culture that welcomes new people and assumes they belong there.

We can hang up a sign that says “Private, boys only, keep out!” ((As comics writer Gail Simone tweeted, “Remember, kids, it’s very important that we do everything possible to make sure new people don’t try to become part our medium/hobby.”)) A culture in which only the hardiest women will show their faces, because being treated like a suspicious outsider simply isn’t fun.

Or we can hang up a sign that says “We love our toys, and maybe you will too! Come in and share them!” A culture in which cosplayers keep on attending cons and making them more colorful and interesting for everyone. A culture in which everyone who loves nerd culture – even if they don’t love it in the exact way Tony Harris believes is the One Correct Way – can feel welcome.

Why would any thinking person want to live in the former culture, when the latter culture is an option?

3) A bit of fisking.

In a follow up comment, Tony Harris wrote:

So I am a Misogynist? Why?

Oh, has this not been made clear? Well, then, let me explain.

I’m not going to say you’re a misogynist, because I don’t know you, and I’m sure there are sides to you other than the ugly side you showed us yesterday. But I will say that your rant was very misogynistic.

Your rant was misogynistic because of the over-the-top display of bitter fury towards women you disapprove of; because of the sneering at women’s bodies and breasts that you deem insufficiently “GREAT” for your refined tastes; and because it was yet another attempt by a male nerd to play gatekeeper and declare which women are and aren’t True Nerds.

Because I frown upon Posers who are sad, needy fakers who use up all my air at Cons?

They’re not “sad, needy fakes.” They’re people having a good time while at a comic book convention, and for some reason that makes you furious.

And the air? Not yours. Everyone gets a share. (Jesus Christ, Tony, get a fucking grip.)

Sorry, while you Cos”Play” Im actually at work. Thats my office. Fuck you.

Hey, Tony, that’s my office too. So, speaking as an officemate, can I beg you to knock it the fuck off? Those people you’re sneering at are customers. Without them, neither of us will make a living.

Sure, most of the cosplayers aren’t there to buy my comics (or yours). But most of everyone at a con isn’t there to buy my comic (or yours). There are approximately a billion zillion comics available to buy at a con, and most fans aren’t going to buy more than a handful. We set up “office” for the chance to sift through thousands of fans to find the tiny percent who are looking for our stuff. (( But what about cosplayers who just don’t buy comics at all? Well, so what? Some action figure collectors go to cons for the action figures, and don’t have much interest in comics. Oddly, no one questions their interest in comics, or their right to share the air. Because they’re mostly men. ))

By the way, cosplay is one of the very few things at comic book cons that little kids can enjoy. That’s my future customer base, officemate, so please don’t dis something that’s actually making comic book conventions fun for them.

I actually dont hate women, I dont fear them either. Nor do I mistrust them. I do not portray or Objectify half naked women in my work. I never have. I have always been VERY vocal about my dislike of that practice, and that my view is and has been that T&A in comics is a Pox.

I don’t think I agree that T&A is a pox, but I think the way that T&A predominates in comics is a pox. ((By the way, why are there so many T&A posters featuring zombies at comic cons? I know a lot of artists like drawing both boobs, and rotting corpses, and apparently they figure that drawing both at once will be twice the fun. But, speaking as a con-goer, it’s just gross.)) So we’re not far apart on that.

More importantly, it’s great that you’re working to avoid misogyny in your comics. Really, it is. (I work at the same thing in my comics). I also think it’s great that you love and respect your mom, your wife, and your daughters, as I saw you mention in another Facebook comment. However, you seem to think that these things are inoculations – that because you’ve created some non-misogynistic comics, and you love the women in your life, that means that you’re immune from ever saying anything misogynistic, and anyone criticizing your words for sexism must be wrong.

That’s not how it works, dude.

If you write a post saying that five times five is ten, then that’s wrong. And if a dozen people point out to you that “5×5=10” is wrong, it makes no sense to defend it by saying “but look at all these other times when I’ve done the math correctly!” Yes, it’s great that you did the math correctly all those other times. But that doesn’t magically mean that you didn’t mess up this time.

It would be better if you worked on understanding why everyone’s saying you screwed up, and learning not to screw up that way again, rather than just going on and on about how it’s completely unfair of us to say that “5×5=10” is wrong, don’t we even remember that time you said four times six is twenty-four?

UPDATE:

Just saw this comic drawn by sailorswayze on tumblr, and couldn’t resist including it here:

UPDATE 2: John Scalzi has an explanation for this bizarre phenomenon.

FOOTNOTES:

Posted in Cartooning & comics, Feminism, sexism, etc | 27 Comments

Tony Harris’s misogynistic rant translated into English

On Facebook, the excellent cartoonist Tony Harris (whose most famous project is probably that he was the original artist of The Walking Dead) delivers a misogynistic rant, which (translated into Gollum-speak) would be: Female cosplayers! we hates them!

I really want to post about this, but I’m also really pressed for time, so in the meanwhile I’ll recommend Donna Dickens’ post at Buzzfeed translating from Harris into English.

This is especially disappointing since one of the things I’ve liked about Harris’ work is that it seems less sexist than that of many comic book artists. Then again, I’ve been a fan of Dave Sim’s work forever, so I’m used to this sort of cognitive dissonance.

UPDATE: I mixed up Tony Harris with Tony Moore, and thus said Harris was involved on The Walking Dead. Actually, Harris has never worked on The Walking Dead. My bad.

Posted in Cartooning & comics, Feminism, sexism, etc | 13 Comments

Other Life Forms Release Party!

An orange and red book cover with a picture of a wireframe insect. Text: Other Life Forms: a novel. Julia Glassman. "Stunning, unflinching, and pitch-perfect"--Joan Silber.

Hey! I wrote a novel. And that novel is coming out this weekend! And you should come to the release party! There will be champagne and a zine-making table! You can win a free copy of the book! YAY.

Here’s the official invitation, copied from Dinah Press’s website:

Come join us for the release of Julia Glassman’s debut novel, Other Life Forms!  The celebration will include mini-readings at 1:30 and 2:30, a raffle for a free copy of the book, a zine-making station, and champagne and hors d’oeuvres.

Where: 
Chevalier’s Books
126 N. Larchmont Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90004

When:
Saturday, November 17
1:00-3:00 pm

About the novel:

Sylvie, a frustrated sculptor-turned-waitress, decides to play an unusual prank: she hangs missing person posters featuring her own face in order to see who might call.  But the prank takes an unexpected turn when a handsome stranger swoops in to save her from herself and a band of cocky artists and writers takes her under its wing.  Before she knows it, she’s literally the poster child for an avant-garde movement that quickly veers out of control.  Meanwhile, Sylvie struggles to come to terms with the death of her college sweetheart, a shy gamer, who, struggling to adjust to life after graduation, retreated to an online fantasy world and never returned.

Lampooning both the conservatism of Orange County and the privileged youths who rebel against it, Other Life Forms is a hilarious and deeply moving account of a late bloomer’s search for identity, a quirky meditation on what it means to be an artist and a woman when neither mode of being seems sustainable.

“Julia Glassman’s writing is stunning, unflinching, and pitch-perfect. She knows what is going on inside the dazed silences of her characters, and she moves with clarity toward a rare understanding.” –Joan Silber, author of Ideas of Heaven and The Size of the World

“Julia Glassman seems to know everything there is to know about those drifting years between college and adulthood when you feel that you could become anything and might become nothing. She has written a first novel of great compassion, sly humor, and graceful insight.” –Kevin Brockmeier, author of The Brief History of the Dead and The Illumination

You can preorder a paperback or e-book at Dinah’s website!
Posted in Fiction, literature | Comments Off on Other Life Forms Release Party!