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

Other wacky stuff about Roberts' past

Posted on August 16, 2005 by Pseudo-Adrienne

The skeletons of Roberts’ closet ‘being dragged out for all to see fun’ never ends. Apparently when you’re a young attorney working for the Reagan Administration, years upon years later, you scare the hell out of people with all of the crazy memos and letters you wrote in that time. First it was your past extreme anti-Roe legal work, now its where you stand (or stood) on prayer in public school issues and economic based gender discrimination. (via The New York Times)

WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme Court nominee John Roberts showed sympathy for the idea of permitting prayer in public schools in 1985, according to a memo released on Monday, writing that a ruling to the contrary ”seems indefensible” under the Constitution.

As a young lawyer working in the Reagan administration, Roberts wrote he would have no objection if the Justice Department wanted to express support for a constitutional amendment permitting prayer.

Referring to a Supreme Court ruling issued earlier that year that struck down an Alabama school prayer law, he said, ”The conclusion … that the Constitution prohibits such a moment of silent reflection — or even silent `prayer’ — seems indefensible.”

The Alabama law, ruled unconstitutional by a divided court, mandated a one-minute period of silence for meditation or prayer.

Yep. No insidious, subliminal message of pro-religious indoctrination in public schools there. Nope, nope. Also in more disturbing ‘blasts-from-the-past’ with Roberts as a young attorney, as already mentioned his [then] views on gender discrimination and pay equity. Or are they still just ‘then’ opinions as a young attorney?

[…]Serving in a conservative administration, Roberts strongly opposed a district court ruling that had upheld a claim of ”comparable worth.” The suit was filed by women arguing they were victims of discrimination because they were paid less than men working in other jobs that the state had decided were worth the same.

”It is difficult to exaggerate the perniciousness of the `comparable worth’ theory,” Roberts wrote. ”It mandates nothing less than central planning of the economy by judges.”

Or the restriction and perhaps ending of economic based gender discrimination? A subterfuge for excusing economic based gender discrimination, anyone? Nevermind, this was “young attorney Roberts” we’re dealing with here, right?

Comparable worth has faded as an issue in the intervening two decades, but not so school prayer. It remains a perennial issue in which judges — and justices — are occasionally asked to determine where to draw the line between church and state.[…]

What else could be lying around in Roberts’ closet? Oh Roberts and you’re a disturbing young attorney working for the Reagan Administration self. How will you disturb us next?!

Help Send Sarah in Chicago to New Zealand

Posted on August 15, 2005 by Ampersand

From BitchPhD:

In comments to the crumpet post, frequent commenter Sarah in Chicago let on that (1) she’s homesick for New Zealand; (2) she hasn’t been home in 4 years; (3) her sister’s getting married next month; (4) she can’t afford a plane ticket.

So I thought. Hm. What if we did a blog fundraiser to see if we can buy Sarah a ticket back to New Zealand for her sister’s wedding? This blog gets about 5,000 readers/day. I did some googling and found a round-trip ticket from LA to New Zealand for under $800 (if purchased by Friday), and another round-trip from Chicago to New Zealand for a little over $1300.

I bet we can do it. If you can help Sarah get home for her sister’s wedding, even if only with a couple of bucks, please click on that paypal “donation” button over in the near right sidebar. Everything I get I’ll forward to Sarah (who I’m actually going to meet this weekend). Sarah says that if, in the end, we can’t raise enough to buy her a ticket, she’ll donate it to Planned Parenthood. But I’m sure we can do it. What do you guys say?

Sarah is also one of my favorite comment-writers here at “Alas,” and letting her see her long-lost sister seems like a worthy cause. So let me encourage y’all to go throw a buck or two into the “make a donation” button at BitchPhD.

Posted in Whatever | 7 Comments

Monday Baby Blogging – Leftovers edition

Posted on August 15, 2005 by Ampersand

No cool theme this week, just a couple of cute Sydney pictures that I haven’t found occasion to put up before now.

Sydney and Charles

I love this photo of Sydney and occasional “Alas” comment-writer (and my housemate/life partner/whatever) Charles. Clearly they belong to a club that’s far too cool to include a shmuck like me…

Sydney and Charles

Nothing to say about this pic, really, I just think it’s a good picture of Sydney looking pensive.

By the way, for those whose desire for bloggy photo cuteness runs more in the “kitty” direction – and Sydney herself definitely falls into that category, she shrieks “kitty” with high-pitched joy every time she sees a cat (much to the consternation of the cats) – go check out the kitten pictures on Obsidian Wings.

Posted in Baby & kid blogging | 15 Comments

Self-esteem and privilege

Posted on August 15, 2005 by Nick Kiddle

One of the things I love about blogging here at Alas are the insults. Wholehearted agreement is pleasant, but nothing strokes the ego like the knowledge that you’ve made such an impression on someone that he wants to hit back any way he can.

And insults are such good sparking-points for new essays. Consider this screed:

“I don’t know what more I could have done without sacrificing my self-esteem…”
And there’s another issue – you’re so stuck up your own rear-end you can’t see beyond your own nose. Other people are less important to you than your ‘self esteem’. “Hey hunny, I just had a real hard day at work.. I’m ready to flake out, could you make me a drink please?” – “Hell no, that would lower my already oh-so fragile self-esteem, and I’m not here to bow to your patriarchial demands of coffee-making, you chauvinistic bastar…”

I suspect this comment was born out of hostility towards all feminists – or maybe all women – directed at me simply because I made a convenient target. But beyond the inflammatory phrasing, notice the way I’m quoted in a misleadingly selective manner. Notice how a general comment is extrapolated to a situation completely unrelated to the situation I was discussing. And above all, notice how the mere mention of “self-esteem” serves to light the blue touch-paper of this guy’s hostility.

The full sentence of mine that he partially quotes is “I don’t know what more I could have done without sacrificing my self-esteem and my plans for the future on the altar of his personal convenience.” My plans for the future are immediately dismissed as unworthy of consideration, perhaps because they don’t arouse the same fury as my self-esteem. After all, intelligent people can make plans for the future, but only silly, selfish women care about their self-esteem.

I used the ill-defined term “self-esteem” to stand for a whole host of wishes and desires that would have unbalanced the structure of the paragraph if I’d listed them in full. My desire to explore my gender until I can find an expression of it that seems honest. My desire to express my emotions without being told I was “too intelligent to believe that”. My desire to enjoy my favourite foods and drinks without being made to feel as though I was committing some bizarre kind of self-abuse. Little things which, taken together, make me the person I am as opposed to a robot or blow-up doll.

I haven’t always seen my self-esteem as important. Many times in my life, I ranked it below the approval of others, hiding who I was or giving up what I wanted for no better reason than that friends, family or society in general felt it was inappropriate. It’s only after this last year of hardship and introspection that I’ve come to see that what I am and what I want matter: that my self-esteem is not something to be sacrificed lightly.

It struck me, while contemplating that hostile comment, that self-esteem isn’t a word the privileged need to use. If you have the power to impose your desires on those around you, with society’s seal of approval, your desires aren’t a matter of your self-esteem, they’re simply the natural order of things. It’s only if your desires are minimalised and brushed aside by those around that you need a word to stress the importance of being yourself.

If a man wants sex with a woman, if he wants to decide for her whether she should continue or terminate a pregnancy, if he simply wants her to attend to his wants before her own, he doesn’t use the language of self-esteem. Instead, he states outright or, like the commenter above, implies, that he deserves this, that he’s earned the right, that it should be that way. If the woman wants to assert herself and claim back the right to make these decisions for herself, the language of “rationality” won’t serve her. She falls back instead on the language of self-esteem.

So it’s hardly surprising that someone so openly hostile towards a woman who claims those rights would be filled with contempt for self-esteem. It’s in his interest to undermine it and make it appear frivolous and without value. For if we’re allowed to start believing that self-esteem is something worth defending, something too valuable to sacrifice to the convenience of others, his power starts to crumble. I must be put in my place, mocked and accused of rank selfishness lest anyone begin to take my self-esteem seriously.

Posted in Anti-feminists and their pals, Feminism, sexism, etc | 61 Comments

Trina Schart Hyman 1939-2004

Posted on August 15, 2005 by Ampersand

I was having lunch with Shoshanna, the blogger behind Dreams Into Lightning, last week, who mentioned that children’s book illustrator Trina Schart Hyman had died of cancer late last year. I somehow hadn’t known that.

Like most Americans of my generation, I saw tons of Hyman’s illustrations while I was growing up (she was a mainstay at Cricket magazine during its heyday) (“heyday,” in this context, is a word that means “when I was a kid”). But I first became aware of her as an artist to study when my friend Jenn Manley Lee mentioned Hyman as an influence on her work.

Hyman has become one of my favorite illustrators; I love the way her strong linework interacts with soft colors, letting her work be both misty and rock-solid at the same time; her always-spot-on body language; her amazing way with textures and patterns. In recent years, she also showed a strong feminist streak in her work, a change which (predictably) pissed some folks off but which delighted me.

Illustration from Snow White by Trina Schart Hyman

Posted in Popular (and unpopular) culture | 16 Comments

Katha Pollitt on Feminists For Life

Posted on August 13, 2005 by Ampersand

From Katha Pollitt’s current Nation column (and via Tennessee Guerilla Women):

It is indeed feminist to say no woman should have to abort a wanted child to stay in school or have a career–FFL’s line is thus an advance on the more typical antichoice position, which is that women have abortions to go to Europe or fit into their prom dress. You can see why their upbeat, rebellious slogans–“refuse to choose,” “question abortion,” “women deserve better”–appeal to students. (But what do those students think when they find that the postabortion resources links are all to Christian groups and that FFL’s sunny pregnancy-assistance advice includes going on food stamps or welfare?) Exposing the constraints on women’s choices, however, is only one side of feminism. The other is acknowledging women as moral agents, trusting women to decide what is best for themselves. For FFL there’s only one right decision: Have that baby. And since women’s moral judgment cannot be trusted, abortion must be outlawed, whatever the consequences for women’s lives and health–for rape victims and 12-year-olds and 50-year-olds, women carrying Tay-Sachs fetuses and women at risk of heart attack or stroke, women who have all the children they can handle and women who don’t want children at all. FFL argues that abortion harms women–that’s why it clings to the outdated cancer claims. But it would oppose abortion just as strongly if it prevented breast cancer, filled every woman’s heart with joy, lowered the national deficit and found Jimmy Hoffa. That’s because they aren’t really feminists–a feminist could not force another woman to bear a child, any more than she could turn a pregnant teenager out into a snowstorm. They are fetalists.

There are two approaches to reducing abortion – supply-side, which tries to reduce abortion by making it unavailable, and demand-side, which tries to reduce abortion by making women less likely to want abortion. In my view, the only genuinely feminist approach to reducing abortion is the demand-side approach. If you favor banning abortion, then you favor a system in which fetuses are saved by eliminating women’s rights; you’re weighing women’s rights and fetal rights, and deciding women’s rights matter so little that it’s not unreasonable to dismiss them entirely from the equation. Rather than seeking a solution that respects women’s rights and fetal rights, they say that women’s rights are so totally overwhelmed by the presence of a fetus, they might as well not exist at all. That view is simply not compatible with feminism.

A coherent pro-life feminism would, in my opinion, take a demand-side approach to reducing abortion; this approach respects both the need to reduce abortion and to protect women’s rights.

(There is, by the way, absolutely no evidence showing that the supply-side approach actually works. In practice, demand-side approaches work better; the countries with the lowest abortion rates are countries in which abortion is legal, the use of birth control is strongly encouraged, and there are generous government programs supporting single parents (usually mothers) and their children. So giving up on banning abortion does not mean giving up on protecting the greatest number of fetuses. If pro-lifers were both sincere and evidence-based in their approach to reducing abortion, that’s the sort of policy they’d be arguing for.)

Posted in Abortion & reproductive rights | 130 Comments

Cindy Sheehan and our leaders' poor performance

Posted on August 12, 2005 by Pseudo-Adrienne

Cindy Sheehan. She reminds us what democracy is a lot about. Opposing ideas and open, passionate political discourse between those opposing ideas, especially between elected officials. Do you see any of this now on Capitol Hill? Do you see the Democrats or even moderate Republicans really opposing the neocon-Republicans or Dubya? No. What you see are a bunch of cowardly politicians willing to silently submit and surrender themselves, their ideals, and their voting-base to the Republicans and Dubya, without so much as a gripe. Like a bunch of whipped dogs. Where’s the opposition from them? It doesn’t exist. So it’s up to the citizens to be the real opposition party–to do the job our leaders are supposed to, but forget about them. Citizens such as Cindy Sheehan who obviously knew better than to wait around for a politician on the Hill to listen. She took the dusty streets, in Crawford, Texas, to voice her outrage. To express her opposition. Could she be more of a perfect example of how we need to rely more on ourselves to get our message out there–and not wait on some ready-to-cop-out politician from the Hill to even consider listening to us? Or better yet, elect better leaders who would truly represent us at all times, and not just when it was convenient for them. Democracy does not flourish when one side is silent and submissive. Remember, how are leaders are supposed to act in a democracy? Where do we find better leaders? (via Tennessee Guerilla Women and originally Huffington Post)

If democracy only works when there is open discussion of opposing ideas and policies, and if the opposition party, in this case the Democrats, has hand-cuffed, blind-folded, gagged, and hog-tied itself to a failed invasion and occupation in the Middle East, where will the expanding majority of Americans look for a representative, a spokesperson, a voice for their anger, frustration, and distrust at being misled?

The circumstances suggest it should be a Senate or House Democratic leader, a recognized authority on foreign policy constantly seen on the Sunday talk shows, certainly one of the many “leaders” lining up to seek the Democratic Party’s nomination for president in 2008.

Meanwhile, the caskets keep coming home…with no public official to greet them or to respect them. They are the forgotten dead and they represent thousands more of the even more forgotten wounded.

But wait. There is someone to hold the emperor to account. There is someone willing to look ridiculous, to be mocked and made a fool of, to challenge the conventional wisdom of the court.

She, unfortunately, is not a Senator. She is not a party leader. She is not in the regular establishment Rolodex of the Sunday talk producers. Yet, she holds the highest office available in a republic, that of citizen.

And to the embarrassment of both Republican and Democratic establishments, she takes that office more seriously than they…the silent “leaders”…do theirs. When the last Marine leaves Iraq, dead or alive, she can claim more credit than them all. Because of the courage of one brave woman, she quite possible will have had more to do with finally bringing this great nation back to its senses… and to its principles.

Remember her name. It is Cindy Sheehan.

Kick the Dems out of Congress and replace them with individuals like Cindy Sheehan, who would take a stand, protest, and have a strong voice of opposition that would lead to the kind of open and spirited debate and even struggle between elected officials you would see in a democracy. Our leaders ultimately come from us–the citizenry. Who from among us would do a better job in representing us when they reached the Hill, is a question we must ask ourselves the next time we cast our ballots.

Posted in Conservative zaniness, right-wingers, etc., Elections and politics | 60 Comments

NARAL pulls ad and there's some other crap

Posted on August 12, 2005 by Pseudo-Adrienne

NARAL Pro-Choice America has decided to pull its anti-Roberts ad due to all of the “controversy” (oh spare me–rolls eyes), which unfortunately with all of the reactionary shrilling over the ad, even by pro-choicers and liberals, has distracted just about everyone (including us pro-choicers and lefties) from the reality and the focus of this campaign.Which is, duh, exposing the threat Roberts’ poses to women’s reproductive rights (and at least NARAL did their job in that department as I don’t see some other pro-choice liberal bloggers who criticized the ad doing their part). Media Girl has a question or two regarding this debacle…

NARAL ad or no ad, the question remains:

Who is this John Roberts? And what are his attitudes about women?

And the broader question hangs over this all:

What kind of country are we creating by flirting so closely with the enslavement of women?

People like to call us all sorts of names for bringing this up. Some people just wish we’d go away, so the boys can get back to talking about guns and money. But this is a fundamental question. You either believe a woman’s body belongs to the woman, or to the government. No quibbling. No blowing the question off. It’s time to take a stand, or shut up, sit down and accept the consequences.

Damn straight! Also, like Media Girl, I too was disappointed by Jon Stewart’s subtle sexist comments directed towards the voiceover-woman on the NARAL ad on last night’s episode.

[…]And I have to admit, after Jon Stewart’s mocking, I couldn’t see much gain in pushing the ad further.

Stewart’s last jab was to make fun of the voiceover woman, and makes a lowbrow suggestion she hook up with “trailer voiceover man.” That was a fucking offensive joke — yeah, the uppity chick just needs to get laid, right, Jon?

Et tu, Jon? Maybe he’s a fan of the frat-boyish bloggers over at the DailyKos.Yep, sticking it to an “uppity woman with opinions” ought to shut her up with her damn “pet causes.” Gee, how many of these supposed “progressive” and “liberal” guys are nothing but over-grown frat-boys (or closet Republicans)? As for the FactCheck.org issue (here’s their analysis of the ad) see this post over at BitchPhD, and even Scott Lemieux’s posts here and here.

*Update*: Check out this post over at Bush v. Choice to see more on NARAL’s decision to change its ad campaign. Though the reason should be obvious to everyone. Focus on Roberts and quit bickering amongst ourselves! Duh.

*Second update*: See NARAL’s response letter to Senator Specter, who adamantly requested NARAL to pull the ad.

Posted in Abortion & reproductive rights, Elections and politics, Feminism, sexism, etc, Supreme Court Issues | 52 Comments

I agree….

Posted on August 12, 2005 by Pseudo-Adrienne

…With what Jessica over at Bush v. Choice has to say about Senator Barbara Boxer’s statement about Roberts, and how she (Boxer) would *gasp* not vote for Roberts, if she believed that he wouldn’t support women’s reproductive rights as a Supreme Court Justice. I think like her too.

Sen. Barbara Boxer said she would vote against John Roberts’ nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, if she remains convinced he doesn’t support abortion rights.

Boxer, fearing a more conservative court could lead “to the days of back alley illegal abortions,” said pointedly of President Bush’s pick to succeed Justice Sandra Day O’Connor: “Judge Roberts cannot duck this issue.”

“I need to know exactly where he stands and I need to know whether he would fight to protect the rights and freedoms of the American people,” said Boxer, D-Calif. “If I don’t believe he will, I won’t vote for him.”

Now, if she really does that, I will really like her. A pro-choice Democrat that acts and votes like a pro-choice Democrat?! What a rarity these days for that to happen. Or the Democrats, especially pro-choice Dems, doing something other than selling-out.

Posted in Abortion & reproductive rights, Elections and politics, Supreme Court Issues | 4 Comments

Iraqi Women's Rights Around the Blogosphere

Posted on August 10, 2005 by Ampersand

In the comments of Pseudo-Adrienne’s post yesterday, Asher of Dreams into Lightning posted some quotes from other blogs about the situation for women in Iraq, which I liked so much that I’m totally swiping it and posting here.

A couple of recent items:

Mohammed at Iraq the Model

In spite of the heat and the dust that’s covering Baghdad for the 2nd day, more than a hundred Iraqi women representing NGOs and active groups gathered to declare their demands in equality and a civil family and personal affairs law.

The women set a large tent in Al-Firdows square which witnessed the fall of Saddam in April 2003. Under this icon of freedom the women held their signs and demands high.

I met some of the activists who talked enthusiastically about plans for more protests and conventions to show their disapproval of the constitution’s draft because they’re afraid that religion might hijack the constitution and deprive them of their rights.

I’ve also noticed that signs that required two to hold were held by a male and a female in a sign of equality; I liked the idea! …

Full post, with pictures, at the link.

Kat at The Middle Ground:

The Iraq Constitution is in the process of being written. Several drafts have been sent to the public for input in preparation for the referendum on August 15, 2005. As the negotiations continue, questions about the base of law and the role of Islam and Shari’ah continue to be points of contention. Many women in Iraq will be affected if Shari’ah is adopted as the sole source of law or if it is adopted as a major source of law and its implementation is left up to the different regions of Iraq.

Some regions are effectively controlled by major religious parties, both Sunni and Shia, which advocate traditional and restricted roles for women. The laws that would be enacted under Shari’ah would impact women negatively including such issues as custody of children (usually given to the men regardless of the reason for divorce or separation), divorce (which gives women limited if no rights in divorce, regardless of the condition of their union and allow men free reign to divorce at will for little if any reason and can impact her and her children’s financial situation), inheritance (depending on whose version of Shari’ah, widows could be left with less than 50% of their husbands property and wealth, regardless of the number of children she has to support while the remaining inheritance would be given to his brothers, father, uncles and cousins; for women already living in poverty, this could be devastating), and voting rights and representation within the government.

These are but a few of the issues facing women in the new Iraq. Other issues include laws to protect women from abuse, honor killings and unfair and inhumane punishment for the crime of “adultery” which includes pre-marital sex and rape. …

Follow Kat’s links to the American Islamic Congress and Women’s Alliance for a Democratic Iraq.

Plus, this post on how people can help, from Dreams Into Lightning. I’ve changed it a little, though, so blame the content on me, not on DIL:

1) Write your senator and representative asking them to support these organizations with additional funds or statements of support for women’s rights. (If you are not in the United States, please feel free to write your parliament member or other government representatives to give support to these organizations.)

2) Donate funds directly to any of the women’s organization’s listed below.

The Organization of Women’s Freedom in Iraq
Women’s Alliance for a Democratic Iraq

3) If you work for a company or are a member of an organization, particularly any organizations for women within your country or region, ask them to provide assistance, either financially, materially (ie, donating time, media assistance, printing, supplies, etc) or politically.

Some may be concerned that this assistance will come too late. It is never too late. Changes to the constitution are being made as you read this and will be made up to the last moment before the referendum. Even after the constitution is written and the referendum passed, women’s rights in Iraq will still be an issue and these women will need our support.

(The original post on DIL also suggested donating money to the Independent Women’s Forum, an anti-feminist, pro-Republican think tank with no special Iraq expertise, and some other organizations that weren’t as appalling as the IWF but also didn’t seem very focused on women in Iraq. I deleted those links and stuck in a link to OWFI instead.)

Posted in Iraq | 35 Comments