Links here, links there, links everywhere

Posted on September 23, 2005 by Ampersand

My desktop is getting cluttered with links that I won’t have time to blog about….

Heidi at Letters of Marque on What Women Want: “In short, what this particular woman wants is a wife. And I resent (in a vague sort of way) the fact that socially and actually, it’s harder for me to get a wife than it is for a man to do so.”

Hilzoy does a terrific job refuting claims that the Violence Against Women Act is pork spending. (Sheesh!)

And also at Obsidian Wings, Edward points out that the US – in its immigration law – does expect married couples to actually share romance and affection. This conflicts with the claims of anti-same-sex-marriage folks who, ridiculously, have claimed that there is no connection between romantic love and marriage at all.

Kieran at Crooked Timber presents some data on wives and/or mothers in the workforce

From an essay on gender and Katrina in the Chicago Tribune: “And yet there is another equally important and starkly apparent social dimension to the hurricane disaster that media coverage has put in front of our eyes but that has yet to be “noticed”: This disaster fell hard on one side of the gender line too. Most of the survivors are women. Women with children, women on their own, elderly women in wheelchairs, women everywhere–by a proportion of what looks to be again somewhere around 75 or 80 percent.” I’d like to see more on this; I’m not sure if this writer is working from solid data or subjective impressions.

Some more ignored victims of Katrina, via Professor Kim: Latino immigrants, American Indians, and prisoners.

Anti-Feminist watch: Cathy Young, in my opinion the most intelligent anti-feminist journalist out there, has a blog.

Lucinda Marshall says it wasn’t just hysteria; women probably were were raped in Katrina disaster areas. Read her article, and her interview with Judy Benitez of the Louisiana Foundation Against Sexual Assault. “Some have suggested that since there are not yet official reports of rapes in the Superdome or elsewhere during the hurricane aftermath, then clearly it is just so much histrionic rumor. The idea that because something cannot be measured, it does not exist is ridiculous.”

You know, I can forgive Yahoo and Google and Microsoft cooperating with China’s censorship program – I’d rather folks in China have censored access than no access. Plus, these folks would have faced censorship regardless of what US corporations do. But now Yahoo has cooperated with China police to throw a journalist in jail for ten years. There are some compromises that no one should be willing to make for money or access; Yahoo has now made it clear that had they existed in Nazi Germany, they would have been eagerly leading the SS to hidden Jews if there was a buck for them in it. They’ve moved far beyond disgusting. Hat tip to Tennessee Guerrilla Women, who links to a WaPo editorial on the subject.

Also at Guerrilla Women, Congressman Stacey Campfield – who is white – wants to join the Black Congressional Caucus. “The East Tennessee Republican says that when he was told that he could not join the Black Caucus because he is white, he thought, ‘What? Whoa!’” There are also quotes from some of Campfield’s semi-literate emails; he sounds like a generic right-wing troll, but he’s really a GOP congressman!

And once again at Tennessee Guerrilla Women, a new British study suggests that men die sooner in more patriarchal societies than in more egalitarian societies.

Las Vegas Weekly has a story about the UFCW union hiring underpaid, no-benefit workers to picket Wal-Mart. The story writer obviously has an anti-Union bias, but unless she’s outright lying then she has a point. Unions of all people have no excuse for mistreating workers.

You know, I somehow missed linking to the genuinely ridiculous Focus on the Family “Is Your Child Becoming Homosexual?” piece last month, which many bloggers made fun of, including Balloon Juice. If you want a good laugh combined with an undercurrent of dread about how genuinely warped by hate these so-called “Christians” are, give it a look. (Focus on the Family, perhaps in response to the widespread mocking, has seemingly taken the original page down).

Bush has given the Saudis a pass on their participation in international sex slave trading. Ecuador and Kuwait were given free passes, too. As Mark Kleiman comments, what’s a little slave trading among friends?

Scott at Lawyers Guns and Money has a good post pointing out the obvious: despite their claims that they’re concerned with “activist judges” and the like, when it comes to opposing queer couple’s interests, anti-SSM folks are concerned with substance rather than process.

Ann Althouse has an excellent post defending the use of foreign court opinions by American judges.

“The incidence of teen gonorrhea in the United States is 70 times that in the Netherlands and France.” Well, thank goodness for abstinence-only education! (Via Majikthise).

Posted in Anti-feminists and their pals, Families structures, divorce, etc, Homophobic zaniness/more LGBTQ issues, International issues, Katrina, Link farms, Race, racism and related issues, Rape, intimate violence, & related issues, Same-Sex Marriage | 3 Comments

For Many Poor Black Girls, Teen Pregnancy Is A Rational Choice

Posted on September 22, 2005 by Ampersand

There’s a lot of talk about ending teen pregnancy (although by “teen pregnancy” most people really mean unwed teen pregnancy). Many people worry about unwed teen pregnancy as the cause of poverty, especially of Black poverty (something like 70% of current births among African-Americans are to single mothers). And they talk about teen pregnancy as if it were a pathology.

I think the pathology model is mistaken. Poverty is a cause of high teen pregnancy rates, rather than vice-versa. And poor black teens aren’t pathological; they’re rational actors, who make the best choice they can given the opportunities they have. When high rates of some population – in this case, poor girls and especially poor Blacks – get pregnant, then chances are getting pregnant is a good choice for their circumstances. If we want less pregnancy among poor black teens, then we need to reorder society so that poor black teens face a better set of circumstances.

Why is unwed teen pregnancy a rational choice?

1) For teens raised in poor (and statistically more likely to be polluted) areas, with lousy food and lousy medical care, their health will probably peak at around ages 17-19. That makes the teenage years a much better time to give birth than later years. Among poor black girls and women, the infant mortality rate is twice as high among those who wait until their 20s to give birth as it is for those who give birth in their teens.

2) For those who will be relying on an extended family of older female relatives to help with childcare and support, it makes sense to give birth when mothers, aunts and older cousins are younger and more able to offer assistance. Furthermore, grandmothers may feel more obligated to offer extensive aid to their 16-year-old pregnant daughter than to their 26-year-old pregnant daughter.

3) For middle-class whites, the opportunity costs (aka “what you give up”) of early childbirth are enormous; college and early career-building are made much harder by a baby or two in tow. Furthermore, the odds of eventually getting married and having a healthy child in wedlock are very good for middle-class teens who wait until they’re women to marry and have children.

For poor teens of color, in contrast, the opportunity costs of early childbirth are much lower. Poor teens can see that their odds of affording a good college followed by a high-paying, high-status career are low. And for poor black girls, the odds of finding someone suitable to marry during peak childbearing years – or even during their 20s – are much lower. So overall, poor girls of color have much less reason to delay childbearing.

Studies have shown that, for poor women of color, economic outcomes aren’t much different for girls who wait to become mothers in their 20s than they are for girls who become mothers in their teens. One study I read (which I’ve seen referred to by Arline Geronimus, but not by others) compared sisters who became mothers at different times in their lives, for example, and found that the future income was about the same regardless of the time of first birth.

At this point, therefore, it’s no wonder that so many poor teens see no reason to put off motherhood. Rationally, they’re as well off – or better off – becoming a mother in their teens.

If we want to change teen pregnancy, we need to change the circumstances of poor girls’ lives – and especially the lives of poor black girls – until their most rational choice is to put motherhood off until they’re in their mid-twenties and married. Circumstances that need changing include, but aren’t limited to:

1) The provision of easy-access, super-cheap universal health care. The model should be France’s, where anyone can walk into any general practitioner’s office and make an appointment without having to navigate any bureaucracies or pay out of pocket.

2) Middle-class, attractive jobs need to become widely available for poor folks.

3) There need to be far, far fewer black men of marriageable age in jail and prison.

4) Detriments to health that are especially common in areas where poor folks live – things like lead paint, poor quality food, pollution, etc – need to be effectively mitigated or eliminated.

5) College education and attractive career paths after college need to become likely possibilities for poor girls – even for those who are mediocre scholars. Just as such paths are now available for middle-class and wealthy boys even if they’re mediocre scholars.

6) Much, much more serious work fighting the racism and sexism that (among many other causes) holds back women of color. Affirmative action programs should be returned to their strong forms, which haven’t existed since before the Reagan administration.

I used to wonder if I was the only liberal who thought this way. Then, a few days ago, I came across a reference to Arline Geronimus on a feminist econ list I read. She’s done a lot of research on rational choice and teen pregnancy; much of this post is drawn from her work.

Posted in Families structures, divorce, etc, Race, racism and related issues | 123 Comments

Culture Kitchen on Divorcing Democrats

Posted on September 21, 2005 by Ampersand

Dear Democrats,

You have taken me for granted for far too long. You’ve assumed that, because I’m a liberal leftist, there’s no way I’m going to vote for a Republican, and, by default, you can count on my vote. Well, guess what? I’m asking for a trial separation, and quite frankly, if you don’t get your shit together now, I’m going to be filing for divorce.

You’ve made the mistake of thinking that because there’s no one new in my life that I’m not going to leave. You forget that sometimes, people leave marriages even if they don’t have a brighter prospect on the horizon. Sometimes, they leave a marriage in order to save their own lives, souls, mental health. Consider me one of those people.[…]

All I ever seem to get from you is empty promises. That, and asking me if I have a few bucks in my wallet to cover you until payday. I give you the money and you go out and buy yourself clothes, shoes, and a car that make you look just like the other guy. If I wanted to be married to the other guy, well, shit, I’da married him. But I married you. You, who wooed me with your commitment to human rights, the dignity of all persons, and a burning desire for justice that set my heart on fire. Now, all I ever hear from you is, “Not tonight, honey. If we do it now, it’ll make us look like obstructionists. Or, the neighbors down the street might disapprove.” What happened to my brave spouse?

(Link via Media Girl).

I admire this letter, really I do. I want to be able to leave this relationship. I want not to be taken for granted.

But I’ve gone to bed with that cool rebel in his shapeless black suit and his snarling passion and his engorged movement. God he was good. He batted his eyes and then took me places I’ve never been before – like seeing a presidential candidate make a speech in which he full-on supported my issues (gay marriage and all!). It made me tingle, I swear, down to my toes; I had never been so fulfilled by a politician before. I swooned, I panted, I screamed until my throat was horse, I surged with enthusiasm.

And I began to think: Shouldn’t I be able to feel tingly like this all the time? Why haven’t Democrats ever made me feel that good?

I volunteered with a rebel Democrat, “Red Bev,” with her seductive socialist background and her come-hither “change from within” looks. She was running for Governor, and her policy stands were built like a brick shithouse, I’m tellin’ ya. We’d meet at her campaign office, and I grew so attached that I even met her in out-of-town hotels – it was like a whole campaign! And all along, she was telling me: this is working, we’re gonna win, keep at it, work harder, Amp, harder!

She lost. Lost, lost, lost. She was never even close – and she knew it all the time, she was just stringing me along. And the cool dude in the shapeless suit who said he was starting a movement? I never heard from him again until four years later, when he came panting around, still sounding the same, wanting to act as if I could forget all about what had happened four years earlier. The long-term movement I thought I was in love with had its way with me and then disappeared like it had never existed at all.

Say what you will about mainstream Democrats, at least they don’t break my heart.

Then Kerry came around, with his puffy hair and athletic build, and I knew he was playing me. “I’m electable,” he crooned into my ear; “do you want to be a sell-out winner or a purist loser?” He slid his hand down gently below my waistline, towards my warm spread wallet. I stared at the ceiling and thought of funding for the UN Population Fund.

Of course, that smooth talker had lied to me. Turns out the choice was between being pure and losing, and being a sell-out and still losing.

Anyhow, maybe I should be celibate for a while, too.

Posted in Elections and politics, Whatever | 27 Comments

A little critical of an "opt-out-revolution" article

Posted on September 21, 2005 by Pseudo-Adrienne

Jessica over at Feministing is a little perturbed over a New York Times article, sprinkled with the usual from the “opt-out-revolution” claim. The claim that women only go to the Ivy League schools, earn MBAs and doctorates, for the sole purpose of snagging a guy with the same degrees, so they can have the option of working only part-time or not at all, because naturally all of them will have children (and they’ll be the ones to stay at home with the kids, not the Dads). To quote Lisa Belkin as Jessica did to emphasize her point in her criticism: “Why don’t women run the world? Maybe it’s because they don’t want to.” Riiight. All women think alike and just want to stay at home, and raise kiddies, right? Now obviously there are women who would rather stay at home with their children instead of working outside of the home full-time and *do so*, and it’s their choice. I have no problem with that. But the assumption according to these “opt-out-revolution” articles and books, that all women ‘naturally’ want to work only part-time or not at all in order to be with their children, and that’s the only reason why they go to college–to snag some guy who will earn an MBA and “bring home” fat checks–is just your usual backlash crap against women (with children) working outside of the home.

Also, the article doesn’t mention the women who don’t have the financial means to even have this choice available to them. The article only focuses on privileged, “Ivy-League-ish” women. That’s another annoying point. But I’ll let the article and Jessica take it from here. (Citations from the article will be in italics and Jessica’s words are in regular text)

[…]Belkin wrote about all the high-class ladies with MBAs and such “opting out” of work to stay home with the kiddies. Today, Louise Story writes the same about women at “elite” colleges:

At Yale and other top colleges, women are being groomed to take their place in an ever more diverse professional elite. It is almost taken for granted that, just as they make up half the students at these institutions, they will move into leadership roles on an equal basis with their male classmates.

There is just one problem with this scenario: many of these women say that is not what they want.

Yawn. Sounds exactly like Belkin’s cringe-worthy quote: “Why don’t women run the world? Maybe it’s because they don’t want to.”

Another similarity between the two pieces is that both authors gloss over the fact that most American women don’t have the financial capability to make that kind of choice…even if they want to. Story only mentions this once:

It is a complicated issue and one that most schools have not addressed. The women they are counting on to lead society are likely to marry men who will make enough money to give them a real choice about whether to be full-time mothers, unlike those women who must work out of economic necessity.

Another thing that really pisses me off is the assumption that privileged women are somehow more worthy of examination.

[…]Sarah Currie, a senior at Harvard, said many of the men in her American Family class last fall approved of women’s plans to stay home with their children.

“A lot of the guys were like, ‘I think that’s really great,'” Ms. Currie said. “One of the guys was like, ‘I think that’s sexy.’ Staying at home with your children isn’t as polarizing of an issue as I envision it is for women who are in their 30’s now.”

Am I really supposed to be shocked that some guy “approved” of having a wife who stayed at home? (emphasis mine)

Do you really need that answered?

[…]Now, clearly I believe feminism is about choices, and that the work women do at home is just as important as work in the paid economy. (But somehow I don’t think that’s what this guy meant by his “sexy” comment.) But shouldn’t we be focusing on the women who don’t have the ability to make choices about their child care?

We should. But apparently pro-“opt-out-revolution” authors have a fetish for only examining the lives of privileged women, and assuming that all women are in the same situation, will make the same choices, because those “choices” will be available to them. And what’s with this other assumption that if *she* earns a MBA from some elite university and so does *he*, then *she* will automatically choose to stay-at-home with the children while *he* works outside of the home, all because they’ll presumably have the financial resources to make this possible?

And Echidne of the Snakes has some two-cents on this article.

[…]I can almost hear the gently purring threat there: We should weed out those applicants who plan to take any time off during their working lives, because they are going to waste the education and our investments in it. Because this would be hard to do based on what naive eighteen-year old students say, let’s just use sex as a proxy and weed out most women.

This is an argument that was once used to set maximum quotas on women in medical schools. It was believed that the expensive training, federally subsidized to boot, should be only available for a few women because allowing women to enter freely would fritter away the expensive education on people who will never wield the scalpel. Similar arguments are brought out all the time to “explain” why there are so few women in whatever area of the society you might look at.[…]

But I find it annoying how these stories are written, the woman deciding on her very own or at most thinking about her mother’s role in the family and wondering if she should replicate it or not. The writer could have mentioned how the media has been full of articles and books discouraging women by writing about the horrible difficulties of combining career and family (but only for women) and of articles and books about the solution of opting out (but only for women). The writer could have mentioned how the maternity leave is still about three months long and how very few companies allow highly educated people to work less than eighty hours a week. Or stressed a little more the 24/7 upbringing of girls into the care-giving role in this country and the almost total lack of societal support for this.

And for example, from the article…

“They are still thinking of this as a private issue; they’re accepting it,” said Laura Wexler, a professor of American studies and women’s and gender studies at Yale. “Women have been given full-time working career opportunities and encouragement with no social changes to support it.

Now back to Echidne…

But it is more fun to just make up a story and go and interview some people (mostly those who are not planning to work full-time) and then to suggest that this is a really severe problem for the elite colleges, one having its roots in the young women themselves.[…]

Sigh. The backlash crap never ends, does it? I wonder when I go in for my first interview in whatever career I choose by then–years from now–will my possible/future employer really pay attention at all to the interview, or will they be too distracted in thinking, “So when will she get pregnant and leave,” most of the time.

Posted in Anti-feminists and their pals, Families structures, divorce, etc, Feminism, sexism, etc, Gender and the Economy | 25 Comments

Calling a bluff and "basic standards"

Posted on September 20, 2005 by Pseudo-Adrienne

John Nichols of The Nation has suggested some “basic standards” for the pro-choice Senators on the Judiciary Committee who have hinted they’ll give Roberts a ‘free pass’ because he seems to be a “nice guy” with a satisfactory past judicial record. Let’s just say that Nichols emphasizes responsibility, on the part of the pro-choice Senators who would (and will) vote ‘yes’ in confirming Roberts and its consequences. Also carefully documenting what the nominee said and “promised” while under oath in front of the committee, and then observing how they actually rule as a Supreme Court Justice. You know, keeping an eye-out for perjury.

[…]Roberts told the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on his nomination that the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion is “entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis,” the legal standard that long-established court rulings should not be casually challenged.

When pressed, Roberts suggested that only in extraordinary circumstances–when the precedent has proved to be “unworkable” or “difficult to apply”–should the Court even consider overturning settled law.

Since the Roe v. Wade precedent has survived basically intact through three decades of legal and legislative assaults, and since it has not proved to be unworkable or difficult to apply, Roberts has effectively promised the Senate–under oath–that he will not seek as the Chief Justice to outlaw abortion or other reproductive rights.[…]

[…] But Roberts has clearly indicated a position with regard to Roe v. Wade. And that position is that, no matter what his personal opinions, he would not serve on the nation’s highest court as the sort of conservative judicial activist who sets out to overturn established law.

It appears at this point that a number of senators who support a woman’s right to choose will vote to confirm Roberts’s nomination, which in all likelihood will gain the approval of the full Senate. It also appears, from the comments of these senators, that many of them were impressed with Roberts’s performance before the Judiciary Committee–even if they would have preferred that the nominee be more forthcoming in response to questioning from Democratic and Republican senators.

While your correspondent continues to hold to the view that there are more than enough reasons to reject Roberts–beginning with his record on voting rights issues and certainly including his radical pro-business track record–he also recognizes political reality. In recognizing reality, however, it is important to set basic standards.

If and when senators who are supportive of reproductive rights cast their votes for Roberts, they ought make note of the nominee’s statements to the committee with regard to this issue. Get it in the record again. And then add to the record a notation that a nominee who intentionally lies to the Senate must necessarily be subject to impeachment and removal from office.

These senators should also make it clear that, if John Roberts turns out to be the judicial activist that some fear, and if that activism takes the form of an attack on what he has described as “settled” law, then they will move the impeachment resolution immediately. (emphasis mine)

Damn, and here my solution would have been to simply refuse to vote for any Democratic Senator (or anyone else) who would vote ‘yes’ for Roberts’ confirmation. Which I can pretty much count on doing since–sigh–Roberts is due to get a pass from the Senate in about a week, and then we’ll get Dubya’s other nominee. Or for a more extreme (and unrealistic) solution, depending on the mood of everyone else in the pro-choice movement especially dissatisfied pro-choice women, propose that the women of this country who value their reproductive rights and wish to be viewed as autonomous citizens in the eyes of the Law, form their own political party much like the feminist women of Sweden, or perhaps one similar to Canada’s ‘feminist initiative’ party still in progress. As already mentioned that would be the extreme and more than likely would not be successful anyway. But hey, let’s just watch how things turn out with Roberts on the bench…..and for me at least, despair all the while. And on a final note, a hat-tip to the New York Times for publishing a very powerful article about women and abortion–‘ Under Din of Abortion Debate, an Experience Shared Quietly’.

(*PS: Thanks to Amp and Alas reader Samantha for the link to the still-in-progress Canadian ‘feminist initiative’ party site*)

Posted in Abortion & reproductive rights, Elections and politics, Supreme Court Issues | 9 Comments

Gay marriage isn't a radical step; it's just the next step.

Posted on September 20, 2005 by Ampersand

From today’s New York Times:

There’s nothing like a touch of real-world experience to inject some reason into the inflammatory national debate over gay marriages. Take Massachusetts, where the state’s highest court held in late 2003 that under the State Constitution, same-sex couples have a right to marry. The State Legislature moved to undo that decision last year by approving a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages and create civil unions as an alternative. But this year, when precisely the same measure came up for a required second vote, it was defeated by a thumping margin of 157 to 39.

The main reason for the flip-flop is that some 6,600 same-sex couples have married over the past year with nary a sign of adverse effects. The sanctity of heterosexual marriages has not been destroyed. Public morals have not gone into a tailspin. Legislators who supported gay marriage in last year’s vote have been re-elected. Gay couples, many of whom had been living together monogamously for years, have rejoiced at official recognition of their commitment.

As a Republican leader explained in justifying his vote switch: “Gay marriage has begun, and life has not changed for the citizens of the commonwealth, with the exception of those who can now marry who could not before.” A Democrat attributed his change of heart to the beneficial effects he saw “when I looked in the eyes of the children living with these couples.”

The anti-marriage equality people aren’t done in Massachusetts yet, of course; they have a new ballot measure to ban both same-sex marriage and civil unions, which the voters will get to consider in 2008. But a March 2005 Boston Globe poll found that 56% of Massachusetts voters favor same-sex marriage, and that percentage will only increase over the next three years. I expect that the numbers that favor civil unions, which the ballot measure will also ban, are even higher. Unless equality advocates in Massachusetts totally mess things up, I don’t see how they can lose in 2008.

The anti-equality line in Massachusetts has now been defeated in both the courtrooms and in the legislature. When it gets defeated in a voter ballot in 2008, what new excuse will equality opponents find to refuse to acknowledge legitimate government actions?

I was particularly struck by the Republican the Times quoted, who said “Gay marriage has begun, and life has not changed for the citizens of the commonwealth, with the exception of those who can now marry who could not before.” Damn straight. The odd thing about the fight for marriage equality is that, in and of itself, it won’t change very much.

Don’t get me wrong – for those lesbian and gay couples who want to get married, it’ll be a huge difference, and I’m outraged at the injustice done to same-sex couples unfairly barred from equality.

Nonetheless, marriage equality is not a radical change, in and of itself. Marriage equality is just the latest step of two long-existing trends.

One trend is the increasing gender neutrality of marriage; although there’s still a long ways to go, the “separate spheres” that once defined marriage have become overlapping spheres. Although stay at home dads are still a small minority, their numbers are increasing, and the idea no longer seems outlandish. The number of households in which both mom and dad contribute to the homemaking and the breadwinning has increased to the point that it’s probably the norm (although most mothers still do an unfairly large share of the shared labor).

There have been a number of laws that have changed as this trend towards greater sex equality has continued. Wives can now own property independently, have the right to refuse sex with their husbands, and women in general have many more protections from discrimination in the marketplace and workforce.

As marriage becomes less and less about “wives and husbands fulfill two strictly-bounded separate roles,” the rule that only women may marry men and vice-versa has lost its basis in our society.

The second trend, of course, is the increasing acceptance of sexual minorities as equal human beings and equal citizens. The increasing acceptance of queer equality has been going on since the Stonewall riot, at least, and marriage equality is just the latest phase of this long-term movement.

Both sex equality and queer rights are important long-term movements in our society – and both of them, over the last several generations, are radical changes. Same-sex marriage, however, is just one more effect of these larger social movements. Gay marriage isn’t a radical step; it’s just the next step.

Posted in Same-Sex Marriage | 231 Comments

A couple of gender-neutral marriage related links

Posted on September 19, 2005 by Ampersand
  • I’m thinking that “gender-neutral marriage” may be the best term to use, better than either “marriage equality” or “same-sex marriage.” By “best,” I mean “most accurately describing what it is I advocate.” No matter what, the media is going to continue to call it “gay marriage,” of course.
  • I’ve wasted far too much time in the last few days debating in the comments section of Family Scholars, particularly in this thread. There is absolutely no chance that I’ll change the mind of folks like Jose, On Lawn, and the other homophobes who hang out in the Family Scholar comment section. But I still get drawn into these arguments. I tell myself that I’m doing it in case any fence-sitting lurkers read the thread, or to help develop good arguments that can be used by me or other gender-neutral marriage advocates at a later date. But really, I’m probably just addicted to argumentation.

    Anyhow, the thread is interesting for showing how many GNM (gender neutral marriage) opponents are opposed to the very concept of “homophobia”; peel their rationalizations away, and it’s clear that they’re real agenda is to erase the concept of “prejudice against homosexuals” from the language. It’s loathesome.

    (There’s also one interesting post about the origins of the word “sexism” buried in there – it’s post number 83. If I do say so myself).

  • Good article in The New Republic about the struggle for GNM in California. The writer, E. J. Graff, feels very confident about the future, and I somewhat-mostly agree.
Posted in Same-Sex Marriage | 13 Comments

Monday Baby Blogging: Sydney Feeds Bubbles to Bean

Posted on September 19, 2005 by Ampersand

So Bean was blowing bubbles at Sydney…

Continue reading →

Posted in Baby & kid blogging | 3 Comments

Last night, via New Orleans….

Posted on September 16, 2005 by Pseudo-Adrienne

Bush’s address to the nation. (shrugs shoulders) Well personally, after watching the speech all I was left with was a skeptical outlook, yet again. And how could I forget some cynicism to go along with that sentiment–but that’s just how I felt about the address. Media Girl said that she was “cautiously optimistic” about the speech, but still had a “healthy amount of skepticism.” The pundits are going to have a field day with it and I wonder how Bush’s ratings will do in the next few days. And I agreed with Echidne of the Snakes when she said “watch the money.” Hopefully all the hurricane relief-funds will be put to the specific uses–such as the rebuilding effort–the talking heads on the news, fundraising group reps., politicians, and President Dubya have assured us. Still, I have my concerns with what’s exactly going to happen to all of the millions of dollars being raised for this, how it will be distributed, spent, etc., and the very powerful individuals who are involved in this massive reconstruction and funding effort.

Posted in Conservative zaniness, right-wingers, etc., Katrina | 16 Comments

A Frightening First: Health Insurance Costs For Family Exceed Minimum Wage

Posted on September 15, 2005 by Ampersand

A frightening ‘first’ has been acknowledged in a recent Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research Educational Trust. It seems that for the first time in United States history, the cost of health insurance for a family of four now exceeds the yearly income of a minimum wage earner.

The LA Times has reported on this survey, that gives the amount of $10,880.00 as the cost for insuring a family of four, whereas the income for a minimum wage earner is $10,712.00. Tragically, this rise in costs of premiums has also seen a dramatic downward shift in the amount of businesses offering health insurance plans to their employee’s, which helps illuminate why it is that we are seeing so many people dropping off the insured statistic grid in the United States.

“When we consider that it is small business that drives the economy … to have that engine resting on the backs of millions of uninsured workers is a bad proposition for the U.S. economy,” said Peter Lee, president of the San Francisco-based Pacific Business Group on Health, an alliance of employers that buys insurance for big companies.

“This has to be seen as a wake-up call to policymakers and healthcare providers, as it puts an increasing burden on an already frayed safety net.”

Interestingly enough, most people would like to point the finger at litigation as the primary reason for this, but more information is emerging that shows the symbiosis between insurance companies and health care providers is causing a huge portion of the inflated costs. What are often referred to as ‘usual and customary costs’ paid to health care providers by insurance companies are at this point far less than the amount charged for the services, and it is being speculated that medical providers are in turn trying to make up the difference by ordering unnecessary tests, or office visits.

Regardless, the tag line of the reporting article rang menacingly true to me:

“We’re in a new universe of healthcare coverage, where it is a commodity only for the wealthy,” said Jerry Flanagan, with the Foundation for Taxpayers and Consumer Rights, a Santa Monica consumer rights group.

Posted in Economics and the like, Minimum Wage | 60 Comments