Alas, a Blog | Feminist, anti-racist, pro-fat, plus whatever else we feel like talking about.

Links to Here and There

Posted on November 2, 2005 by Ampersand

I’m off to Florida to visit my parents. I’ll probably be blogging again once I’m over the jet lag, but in the meanwhile I’d better clear some links off my desktop…

The US May Be Backing Down on Dalfur
The Debate Link points out recent moves that suggest we’re preparing to live and let live with genocide.

Being Gay In Nambia
Obsidian Wings quotes extensively from a great Washington Post article about being Gay in Nambia.

Gallagher and Blankenhorn Respond
Maggie Gallagher and David Blankenhorn have separately responded to a post of mine about the (in my opinion) changing positions of anti-SSM folks over the years. I will respond sometime in the next several days.

Sometimes I Can’t Fucking Stand White People.
Occasional “Alas” poster Sydney lets off some steam.

McMarten Revisited
Twenty years ago, children who attended McMarten preschool were abused by police, prosecutors, parents, media, and psychologists, who collectively bullied the children into making up horrific accounts of sexual abuse by satanic cultists, leading to many ruined lives and unjust criminal prosecutions. Unfortunately, some feminists – including some prominent ones – were on the wrong side, as anti-feminist Cathy Young points out.

And I Am Not Lying, For Real
I’ve really been enjoying the stories told on And I Am Not Lying. Particular favorites: Movies and TV Led Me Astray Once Again, about trying not to be an asshole in a world that seems full of assholery, and The Night Was Fierce and Fabulous, about attending a (mostly) drag queen party. Nice photos, too.

Bat Boy: The Musical
(Currently listening to.)

While there is no right not to be looked at, that doesn’t mean it’s always right to look.
Hugo discusses questions of feminism, ethics, objectification, and checking out good looking people on the street.

Xander Patterson For Multnomah County Commission
My favorite local water commissioner – and one of my favorite local politicians – has his eye on a slightly higher rung of the ladder. Go, Xander, go!

Creating a Fair Voting System in Ohio
Daniel Tokaji discusses the subtle issues of making voting more convenient while still trying to achieve fairness and honesty.

The ~~End~~ Change of Gay Culture
Warren has a thoughtful post about the mainstreaming of gay culture.

They Hate Queers! They Really, Really, Really Do!
The Log Cabin Republicans provide an impressive list of queer-bashing quotes from conservatives. Hat tip: PurpleScarf.

Icelandic Women Strike For Equality
Women began the working week by abandoning their offices, classrooms and kitchens to join a remarkable strike for equal wages. Marching through Reykjavik and other Icelandic towns, they banged pots and pans and shouted, “Women, let’s be loud!” and “Equality now!”

The Case Against Health Savings Accounts (HSAs)
What puzzles me is that, in the past, I’ve heard HSAs described as “donut-shaped” – that is, the first thousand or so is covered by the HSA, the next thousand or two is paid by the consumer, and after that it’s paid for by HSA. That’s a much better design than what’s described in this critique, because it wouldn’t discourage preventative care – although, of course, a lot of the critiques would apply to the donut-shaped accounts.

The Conservative Case for Same Sex Marriage
Dale Carpenter, guest-blogging at the Volokh conspiracy, makes the right-wing case for marriage equality. The above link takes you to all of Dales’ Volokh posts; so far, he’s doing an excellent job.

Posted in Whatever | Comments Off

Alito, Husband-Notification, and Choice For Men

Posted on November 2, 2005 by Ampersand

Cathy Young at The Y Files defends Alito’s argument that the government can require married women to inform their husbands before they can have an abortion:

For the record, while I am staunchly pro-choice, I think that spousal notification is a painfully complex issue.

Until lesbian couples have equal marriage rights, the term is “husband notification.” Calling it “spousal” notification is Orwellian; there will never be an instance in which a male “spouse” needs to sign a form swearing he’s notified a female “spouse” of his medical decisions.

Yes, it’s the woman’s body. It’s also the man’s future child…

It’s not the man’s future child if she’s getting an abortion, because the “future child” Cathy refers to will never exist.

I don’t believe we can expect men to be equal partners in child-rearing while denying them any say in reproductive decisions.

The claim that men have no say is not only mistaken, it belittles men’s agency.

Do you really think I have no choice whether I have sex or not? No choice over if the form of sex I have will be coital or not? No choice whether I use birth control or not? Men are not helpless children, incapable of making sexual choices – but that’s the level Cathy’s analysis reduces us to.

Nearly half a century ago, Kurt Vonnegut skewered the belief that it’s wrong if some people have abilities everybody doesn’t share, in his short story “Harrison Bergeron.” That story is very relevant to the “choice for men” debate.

If my partner is female, she has an ability I lack – the ability to abort. (She also faces risks I don’t). But the fact that other people have inherent abilities I lack, doesn’t make me a victim, and doesn’t mean I lack liberty.

Is it fair that women have an ability men lack? It’s not fair in the sense that the government in Harrison Bergeron-land understood “fairness,” which seems to be the sense Cathy uses.

But in another sense, our system is fair, because it treats women and men the same: Everyone has the right to choose what to do with the reproductive abilities they have, and everyone is responsible for dealing with the choices they make.

Paternal consent, in my view, goes too far in infringing on the woman’s bodily autonomy; paternal notification, on the other hand — with exemptions when there is domestic violence or other complicating factors — may not be such an onerous measure.

Cathy makes an interesting slip here – she uses the word “parental” where she should use the word “husband.” I’m sure it was an honest error, but it’s ironic, because the “husband notification” laws Cathy favors really do treat husbands like fathers – and wives like children.

(It turns out I was the one making an honest error – Cathy said “paternal,” not “parental.” So I’ve definitely got some egg on my face. :-) However, I still feel Cathy’s term was inaccurate; the law in question would only apply to married fathers, not to fathers in general. “Husband notification” is therefore the more accurate term.)

The majority opinion, disagreeing with Alito, explained very well what’s wrong with husband notification:

The husband’s interest in the life of the child his wife is carrying does not permit the State to empower him with this troubling degree of authority over his wife. The contrary view leads to consequences reminiscent of the common law. A husband has no enforceable right to require a wife to advise him before she exercises her personal choices. If a husband’s interest in the potential life of the child outweighs a wife’s liberty, the State could require a married woman to notify her husband before she uses a post-fertilization contraceptive.

Perhaps next in line would be a statute requiring pregnant married women to notify their husbands before engaging in conduct causing risks to the fetus. After all, if the husband’s interest in the fetus’ safety is a sufficient predicate for state regulation, the State could reasonably conclude that pregnant wives should notify their husbands before drinking alcohol or smoking. Perhaps married women should notify their husbands before using contraceptives or before undergoing any type of surgery that may have complications affecting the husband’s interest in his wife’s reproductive organs. And if a husband’s interest justifies notice in any of these cases, one might reasonably argue that it justifies exactly what the Danforth Court held it did not justify — a requirement of the husband’s consent as well. A State may not give to a man the kind of dominion over his wife that parents exercise over their children.

Section 3209 embodies a view of marriage consonant with the common law status of married women, but repugnant to our present understanding of marriage and of the nature of the rights secured by the Constitution. Women do not lose their constitutionally protected liberty when they marry.

Hat Tip: Scott at Lawyers, Guns and Money, whose entire post is well worth reading.

Posted in Choice for Men, Supreme Court Issues | 134 Comments

WAL-MART: No Fat Chicks

Posted on November 1, 2005 by BStu

Giving us all yet another reason to fight for universal health care in the United States, a recent memo from Wal-Mart indicates that the business strategy to deal with rising health care costs is moving rapidly towards discriminating against sick people. Or, at least people who look like they must be sick like old people and fat people.

The New York Times published a report based on a leaked internal memo from Wal-Mart’s executive vice president for benefits. While it does a lot of hand ringing about fatness and long-term employees, there was no indication that any active discrimination was being advocated. The closest is a misguided attempt to introduce physical labor to positions that wouldn’t ordinarily require physical labor like cashiers. Presumably based on the false assumption that fat people are sedentary and who will flee from physical activity.

Nevertheless, a memo like this will foster an environment of hostility towards fat employees as well as longer-term employees. It is likely that managers will feel pressured to avoid hiring fat applicants even if there is no overt expression of intent to discriminate. Not that an overt expression isn’t likely itself. Wal-Mart may just do a better job preventing leaks on that account. Even still, there is some thought that mandating physical labor unrelated to one’s job for the purpose of discouraging certain workers could be illegal. David Sclar makes note of an article in American Health Line that advances this argument, and it certainly seems like a valid legal concern.

An issue also worth noting is where would such health discrimination stop. If fat people are fair game, what about ethnic groups who have shown higher rates of some diseases? Or women given their possibility of pregnancy. It may seem absurd to think of it, but this is the next logical step from health-justified fat discrimination. If health care dollars spent on fat people are a waste, who gets to decide when it is worth it? Ultimately, this is either an economic concern which targets everyone or a moral concern which targets those considered morally undesirable. Neither outcome is one we should be comfortable with. Most especially when its individual companies making those decisions.

Increasingly, we are seeing big businesses understand that health care costs are making them less productive compared to nations where there is universal health care. The good outcome from this would be some visible support from the business community for a universal health care plan. The bad outcome would be what Wal-Mart is doing and creating a hostile environment for employees who look like they are unhealthy. Lets hope most companies fall towards the good outcome.

At the same time, it is a very good reason why fat activists shouldn’t give up fighting the “common sense” that being fat is unhealthy. It is not enough to just try to combat fat discrimination. What we see with stories like this is that the “fat is unhealthy” message fuels discrimination. This is what justifies it fat hatred for so many people. Even when the bigotry is obviously cosmetically based, such as Dan Savage’s tirades against Girl Love Handles, the prejudice is always defended by pointing how unhealthy fat is. Prejudice against fat people and the prevailing assumption that fat is unhealthy go hand in hand, and Wal-Mart shows us just what is at stake.

Posted in Fat, fat and more fat | 32 Comments

Progress Towards What?

Posted on November 1, 2005 by Ampersand

Here’s a cartoon I did for SEHN, the Science and Environmental Health Network. I had to make it a bit smaller than I’d like to fit it on my blog; a slightly larger version, which shows off the art better, can be found on the Z Magazine website.

If you can

For those of you unfamiliar with the precautionary principle, it has been summed up as:

“When an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.”

For more, here’s a good FAQ about the precautionary principle.

By the way, if you had to guess, what racial/ethnic backgrounds would you guess these two characters have? I’ve been having trouble getting the character on the left to register as non-white.

Posted in Cartooning & comics | 15 Comments

It's Justice Kennedy's Court Now

Posted on November 1, 2005 by Ampersand

Jack Balkin points out that if Alito gets confirmed, the person replacing O’Connor as the most frequent swing vote will be Justice Kennedy. So what will Justice Kennedy – the new most powerful Justice in the country – decide?

…To understand what Alito’s appointment means for constitutional doctrine, instead of focusing on Alito’s views (which one assumes are reliably conservative), one needs to focus on Kennedy’s. We know that the new median Justice supports abortion rights claims a little less than O’Connor (Kennedy voted to uphold restrictions on partial birth abortion), supports gay rights claims a bit more than O’Connor (Kennedy wrote the opinion in Lawrence), thinks affirmative action is largely unconstitutional (Kennedy dissented in Grutter), thinks most campaign finance regulation is unconstitutional (Kennedy dissented (in part) in McConnell) and has been more likely to permit government endorsements of religion and state financial support for religion than O’Connor (Kennedy dissented in Mccreary County v. ACLU and joined Mitchell v. Helms). On federalism, it’s a mixed bag: Kennedy joined Raich v. Ashcroft but dissented in the two most recent section five cases, Tennesee v. Lane and Hibbs.

Note that this will all probably be true even if Alito’s appointment is defeated and Bush needs to appoint someone else; there’s simply no way that Bush, with a Republican majority in the Senate, will nominate someone to Kennedy’s left.

Don’t get me wrong; I hope Democrats will do whatever they can to defeat the Alito nomination, for a few reasons:

* No one who thinks husband-notification laws are constitutional is fit for the Supreme Court;

* If the Democrats do defeat Alito, that would be another black eye for Bush, perhaps limiting how much damage he does in his three remaining years;

* And even if they can’t defeat Alito, the Democrats desperately need to begin having principles that they stand up for.

But no matter what happens to Alito, I think Jack is probably right about the immediate direction the Supreme Court will take. It’s Kennedy’s Court now.

Posted in Supreme Court Issues | 3 Comments

Samuel Alito

Posted on November 1, 2005 by Pseudo-Adrienne

Or “Scalito,” “Scalia’s Mini-Me,” or even “Strip Search Sammy” as I’ve seen some lefty, pro-choice, and feminist bloggers describe Bush’s latest SCOTUS nominee. Needless to say, it didn’t take long for groups such as NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood to hit my inbox with snippets from Alito’s judicial record.

Via NARAL Pro-Choice America….

Alito took pains to distant himself from the longstanding constitutional requirement that abortion restrictions must have exceptions when a woman’s health is in jeopardy. He did so when ruling on a law that effectively banned abortion as early as the 12th week of pregnancy and lacked an exception to protect women’s health. The health exception is a fundamental tenet of Roe v. Wade, and the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments about the need for the health exception this fall.[…]

Alito has argued that significant restrictions on a woman’s right to choose are constitutional. In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, Alito argued that all of the proposed law’s restrictions on a woman’s right to choose ““ including a spousal notification provision struck down by the Third Circuit and, later, the Supreme Court ““ were constitutional. Alito dissented in part because he would have gone even further than the rest of the court.

Alito would uphold state laws that place significant roadblocks in the way of women seeking abortion care. Alito concurred with the majority’s opinion in Casey that concluded that “time delay, higher cost, reduced availability, and forcing the woman to receive information she has not sought,” although admittedly “potential burdens,” could not “be characterized as an undue burden.” This opinion practically ensures that he would never find any burden to be undue.

From Planned Parenthood….

[…]In Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Farmer, the Third Circuit was asked to rule on an abortion regulation that did not contain a valid health exception for the life of the woman. Alito grudgingly applied the Supreme Court precedents in both Roe v. Wade and Stenberg v. Carhart to overturn the statute while refusing to endorse the reasoning of the Supreme Court in either case.[…]

The Supreme Court’s decision to hear Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood at the end of November spotlights the urgency of the threat to reproductive freedom. In this high-stakes case, the justices are expected to rule on whether a woman’s health will remain the paramount concern in laws that restrict abortion access. The ruling may have an immediate impact on women’s health across the nation and will determine whether a fundamental principle established in Roe v. Wade will remain the law of the land.

And SaveTheCourt.Org has a collection of reactions from some of the far-Rightwing leaders such as Dobson and Pat Robertson. Also Feministe has a few good posts on “Scalito,“ and so do Pandagon’s bloggers. Ugh…it didn’t take long for Dubya to whip this guy out on us, did it? Like my weekend and Monday morning weren’t depressing enough.

Posted in Abortion & reproductive rights, Conservative zaniness, right-wingers, etc., Supreme Court Issues | 47 Comments

Change of Tune, Part 3

Posted on October 31, 2005 by Ampersand

Over on marriagedebate.com, Maggie is disagreeing with Andrew Sullivan over whether or not David Blankenhorn – and, by implication, the entire anti-same-sex-marriage wing of the marriage movement – has shifted their views on marriage since the same-sex marriage debate became prominent. Maggie writes:

No-one who knows anything about David’s work could possibly imagine he invented an emphasis on the importance of fathers and marriage because he suddenly wanted to be mean to gay people:

Maggie, I think you’ve misunderstood what Andrew’s saying. No one denies that David – and you – have been saying fathers and marriage are important. Obviously, you’ve both been saying that for many years.

But David, like you, nowadays argues that the only thing that justifies the state’s interest in recognizing marriage is marriage’s generative capacity.

That’s simply not compatible with the marriage movement’s “statement of principles”, which you drafted in 2000:

Marriage is a personal bond. Marriage is the ultimate avowal of caring, committed, and collaborative love. Marriage incorporates our desire to know and be known by another human being; it represents our dearest hopes that love is not a temporary condition, that we are not condemned to drift in and out of shifting relationships forever.

Five years ago, you and David advocated this; today, both you and David routinely dismiss statements along these lines as adult-centered.

Five years ago, you wrote that the state has an interest in supporting marriage because – among other reasons – “Marriage is a unique generator of social and human capital, as important as education in building the wealth of individuals and communities.”

Let’s put the particulars of that statement aside. What’s relevant to our discussion is that five years ago, you admitted that the state has multiple reasons to want couples to get and stay married, some of which were not exclusively about heterosexual reproduction. What the anti-SSM movement says today – that the only legitimate state interest in supporting marriage is its generative capacity – is incompatible with the marriage movement’s “statement of principles” circa 2000.

I know that you, David and others have written about the connections between generative capacity and marriage for years. But that’s not the only thing you wrote about. And the implicit admission made, in 2000, that marriage has dimensions in addition to generative capacity, and that there are legitimate state interests in marriage in addition to generative capacity, shows your position has changed over the last five years.

And that’s a shame, because your 2000 understanding of marriage was far more nuanced and realistic than the simplistic “generative or nothing” view you take today. As Andrew says, you folks were right in the first place.

P.S. And as for the question of if David wants to be “mean to gay people,” who cares? Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure David’s a nice guy – but what matters are his policy positions. What David personally thinks of gays is none of my business.

Posted in Same-Sex Marriage | 15 Comments

Monday Baby Blogging – Maddox is Tiny, Sydney is Manipulative

Posted on October 31, 2005 by Ampersand

Maddox week 2

A studio pic of Maddox in her Dad’s arms. So tiny!

Continue reading →

Posted in Baby & kid blogging | 10 Comments

Links about Marriage Equality

Posted on October 31, 2005 by Ampersand

Because God Created Adam and Eve, Not Adam and Dead Eve’s Sister
A terrific Crooked Timber post describes the heated 19th-century controversy over if widowers should be legally allowed to marry their sister-in-laws. The resemblance to the current marriage equality debate is sometimes uncanny.

Gays Can’t Marry Because Men And Women Are So Different
This anti-marriage-equality argument, by Noah at Gideon’s blog, is better-written than most of its genre, and Noah seems like a nice enough fellow. But the reason I’m linking to it is that it makes the connection between opposing marriage equality, and endorsement of sexism, screamingly clear.

Cathy Young on Marriage Equality Again – and Again, and Again.
Cathy Young at The Y Spot has put up a few new posts on same-sex marriage, all of which I pretty much agree with. The final post of the series, “Concluding Thoughts,” is the one to read if you’re only going to read one. I particularly liked her listing of the bad arguments used by each side.

UPDATE: Cathy informs me via email that it’s “The Y Files,” not “The Y Spot.” Oops.

Response to Maggie #481
Julian at Hit and Run has written a typically thorough and logical response to Maggie Gallagher’s posts on Volokh.

Novel Idea For TV Commercials: The Truth
PurpleScarf links to a series of pro-marriage-equality commercials, airing in Texas, which make the case for same-sex marriage by showing that same-sex couples really are ordinary humans.

Posted in Link farms, Same-Sex Marriage | 19 Comments