As usual, feel free to use this thread to post about anything you’d like, including links to your own stuff if you want.
Meanwhile, here’s some stuff I’ve read lately:
Ally Work: Now Accepting Submissions for the First Erase Racism Carnival
The Carnival itself will premiere on May 20th.
Capitalism Bad, Tree Pretty: Happy six-month blogiversary
One of my favorite bloggers celebrates a milestone. Maia, who guest blogged at “Alas” last month, is one of my favorite bloggers; see this “greatest hits” post if you’d like to read some reasons why.
Woman of Color Blog: A Different Sort of Racist Email
Ay, perhaps I’ve just watched too much Sesame Street, but I feel bad for this woman. I feel bad that she’s all alone, and the only tool she has to express her displeasure at her situation is to spew hate.
Many of the comments discussing this post are excellent, too.
Ally Work: The Myth that Black Women Suck Up All The Welfare Benefits
Excellent post bouncing off of Brownfemipower’s “racist email” post (linked above). Read ’em both.
Midnight Bridges: Backstage at the Gender Performance
Interesting post about a couple in which both members are self-consciously “performing gender” as part of their generally (but differently) genderbending lives. This is one of my favorite posts I’ve read this week.
Persephone’s Box: Sex, Relative Sex Drives, Sexism, and an Apology For An Evening
Everything from dealing with conventionally sexist folks at a party to how conventional gender roles led the author to not take “no” for an answer in her high school days. Another of my favorite posts this week.
Blac(k)ademic: I’m Bored With The Oppression Olympics
The New Republic: Darfur Genocide FAQ
Useful background catch-up on Darfur genocide, for those who need it. Requires free registration, but you can try username and password “alasablog” and see if that works. Curtsy: Kevin Drum, who unfortunately is almost certainly correct when he says that no one in the world is willing and able to step in and stop the genocide.
Feminist African Sister: Is there a way that feminists should dance or not dance?
Forms of Thought: Tampon Shortage in Zimbabwe
So desperate is the situation that women are being forced to use rolled-up pieces of newspaper. Zimbabwe already has the world’s lowest life expectancy for women … 34 … and Khumalo believes these unhygienic practices could make it drop to as low as 20 because infections will make them more vulnerable to HIV. “It’s a time bomb,” she said.
Bitch | Lab: The War on Contraception
FattiePatties: Six Tips For Breaking the Dieting Habit
A short but excellent (by which I mean, well-written, compassionate, and sensible) anti-dieting post (this time on Fattypatties’ Amazon blog rather than her usual blog).
Capitalism Bad, Tree Pretty: Critique of “No Diet Day”
Echidne: On The High Newborn Death Rate Among African-Americans
Some solutions to this problem would not be expensive, if the political will for them could be found. Antenatal clinics have been found to work really well, and starting some in poor areas would do marvels. …Currently even the programs that have been shown to be effective are under the threat of termination, because the administration does not believe in government intervention in anything but warfare and laws to protect property rights.
Echidne: The lack of leading female pundits, and why it matters
Five O’Clock Bot: The Rise of the Reterosexual
A retrosexual is anyone who spreads lies in order to suppress sexual expression, anyone who foists their moldy morals on the rest of us. Anyone who wants the government to legislate private sexual pleasures.
Rod 2.0: Black, Gay Men and the Church
Good post and link farm. Curtsy: Rachel’s Tavern.
Pandagon: More on Kathleen Parker, Cathy Young and Rape
Washington Post: Plan to Give D.C. Vote in House of Representatives Advances
Thanks to “Alas” reader Lee for sending me this link.
Hullaballo: The War On Fucking
Good post on the conservative opposition to saving women from dying from cervical cancer.
Body Impolitic: On Healthism
There’s no moral obligation to exercise and eat right.
“Reverse Racism” Baseball Lawsuit Rejected By Court
Curtsy: Rachel’s Tavern
Woman of Color Blog: Trans Identities, Feminism and Me
Mombian: Breast Feeding World Record
3738 women in Manila yesterday set a world record for simultaneous breast feeding. Organizers say the event was meant to raise awareness about the benefits of breastfeeding.
BlackProf: Do White Meth Users Get More Compassionate Treatment Than Black Crack Users?
Pinko Feminist Hellcat: Rape Victim Forced to Bring Children To Visit Rapist Father In Prison
Talk Left: Making Sense in the Immigration Debate
Beat The Press: Sweatshops In Jordon Flourish Despite Language of Trade Agreement
Newswise: So-Called “Crack Babies” Grow Up As Well-Behaved As Other Kids, Study Finds
PunkAssBlog: John McCain Asks For Favors From Religious Right Dons
It’s kind of like the Godfather. They’ll help you get elected, and one day … and that day may never come [except it totally will] … they may ask you for a favor. And by a favor they mean giving them total and complete control over the American crotch.
Pandagon: Hate The Artist, Like The Art
Eschaton: List of What Very Nearly All Lefty Bloggers Agree On
Counterpunch: The Misuses of Anti-Semitism
Little Green Footballs: Ayaan Hirsi Ali Interview
I agree with all the well-known critiques of LGF, but nonetheless I think this interview, with a atheist-muslim-feminist critic of trends in modern Islam, is interesting to watch. It’s in English after the introduction is over with. Curtsy: Kesher Talk.
The Onion: New ‘Anti-Abortion Pill’ Kills Mother, Leaves Fetus Alive
Curtsy: Pandagon.
Hoyden-About-Town: How A Mention on an “Alas” Link Farm Led Indirectly to a “Boing Boing” Post
I know this is always how stuff percolates up the bloggy food chain, but nonetheless: Neato!
Iron Blog: Formal Debate in Blog Format
I just ran across this blog, which hasn’t been updated in years. But debate fans like me might enjoy browsing the archives.
****PLEASE NOTE****
“Alas a Blog” is heavily moderated. If you have trouble posting comments here, please try commenting on the exact same post at Creative Destruction instead.
Pingback: Egg and Sperm
Pingback: Totally free diet pill
Pingback: Majikthise
Pingback: feminist blogs
Pingback: FeministBlogosphere
Thanks for the linkies. :)
Thanks for the mention. And I love that Iron Blog site. I wish it was still up and running. What a brilliant idea.
I’m not sure if I’m doing the link farm thing right ;o)
but here goes, below:
An activist in Cleveland has been called “delusional” for wearing an anti-Bush tshirt. She was beaten by cops for putting up anti-Bush posters, held incommunicado by the police at the hospital, and rushed to trial by a judge who repeatedly said that she must have mental problems. Read more below:
http://worldcantwait.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1534&Itemid=61
Thanks for the link, Amp! I was just excited to actually see the links in the chain for once.
Thanks for the link!
Damn cool:
Cindy Sheehan an anti-war Green instead of DiFi, who seems to be hell-bent on challenging Hilary for a shot as America’s version of Maggie Thatcher. :p
Sorry. That should be “Cindy Sheehan ENDORSES,” etc. Amp, I want preview back. :/
Pingback: jay sennett jaywalks
Two Spiegel interviews with Ayaan Hirsi Ali:
“We Must Declare War on Islamist Propaganda”
‘Everyone Is Afraid to Criticize Islam’
Leonard Weiss on why the recent nuclear deal with India brokered by the US is “the wrong deal with the wrong energy source.”
Fred Halliday analyzes the current state of the women’s movement.
Shirin Ebadi and Muhammad Sahimi on how hardline overtures on the part of the US has undermined democratic reform in Iran
Daniel Schulman on information warfare/US propaganda efforts in the GWOT.
Gary Younge on how grass roots social movements in the US are frustrated/stymied by lack of representation in the political mainstream.
Hi Amp and everyone,
What do you all thnk about my compromise proposal to end the marriage debate. I’m hoping for comments at eggandsperm blog.
Same-sex couples give up conception rights and the word marriage, but get federal recognition of civil unions. which would be exactly like marriage but without conception rights. Traditional marriage defenders give up some federal money for same-sex couples, but define marriage as a man and a woman.
I don’t think that is too much to ask for either side, and yet both sides reap very significant benefits that they are unlikely to achive any other way, and meanwhile waste time and resources fighting it out. Civil unioned people can still say they are getting married, but technically, in the fine print, it would be a civil union, without the right to combine gametes and create offspring together. It wouldn’t effect sperm donation, IVF, adoption, etc. All it would ban is something that they probably will never be able to do anyway.
Please discuss this compromise seriously, there are couples that could use social security right now, and no one thinks that it would be ethical right now to combine two sperm or two eggs.
Oh, and please consider adding eggandsperm to your blogroll. I guess its a single issue blog, eh?
… it would be a civil union, without the right to combine gametes and create offspring together.
The right to “combine gametes and create offspring together” is in no way linked to marriage currently. You have the right to do so whether you are married or not. Therefore I find your compromise as not at all relevant to the world in which we live.
The fact that your view on marriage has only the teensiest thread (if that) connecting it to reality makes it hard to discuss your proposal seriously.
But Jake, two men or two women would lose the right that they currently have to combine their gametes. Married or not, they would not have the same rights as a both-sex couple. And if they did marry, their marriage would be the only marriages in the world that did not have a right to attempt to combine gametes. They could be called marriages, but it would change marriage, it would mean that marriage no longer protected a couple’s right to conceive children.
Linking it to marriage is really the only way to accomplish the main goal, which is to stop genetic engineering. You don’t even want to ban same-sex conception, if I recall correctly, so your response is a chickenshit way to bury the real issue here. You should admit that it isn’t marriage that you are insisting on, but conception rights for same-sex couples. If that’s not true, if you are willing to relinquish conception rights, then you should be willing to acknowledge the difference by accepting a different name for the relationship.
And keep in mind that this is a compromise – you give up something and you get something in return. I don’t think anyone is going to just give same-sex couples federal recognition if they don’t get something in return.
And my poor blog never gets any attention…how about debating this over there? Jake, I appreciate you taking this as seriously as you do, to the extent that you at least respond. I’d like to ask you to stretch a bit though, and engage the subject a bit more, rather than looking for ways to reject it. Remember, in practical, real terms, same-sex couples get social security benefits, which are tangible and would help lots of older same-sex couples, and only give up intangible things. Everyone could still say “they are getting married”, but the official license would call it a civil union.
But please start this again at my blog, so other people will be able to see how this argument goes when they come to my site.
And everyone, Amp and everyone, please help Jake out.
Linking it to marriage is really the only way to accomplish the main goal, which is to stop genetic engineering. You don’t even want to ban same-sex conception, if I recall correctly, so your response is a chickenshit way to bury the real issue here. You should admit that it isn’t marriage that you are insisting on, but conception rights for same-sex couples. If that’s not true, if you are willing to relinquish conception rights, then you should be willing to acknowledge the difference by accepting a different name for the relationship.
John, you are so fucking far off the deep end – yet still somehow compelling.
The main goal is not, in the minds of most sane folks, to stop genetic engineering when the topic is marriage equality. To argue otherwise is inane. The main goal when the topic is marriage equality, in the minds of most sane folks, is whether or not equal rights should be extended to, or continue to be denied to, gays and lesbians.
I was going to comment (in #12) on how impressed I was that you were able to maintain a non-insulting, non-batshit crazy persona when you post here – but I guess I would have jumped the gun.
But let me address your bizarre position in that paragraph bit by bit:
Linking it to marriage is really the only way to accomplish the main goal, which is to stop genetic engineering.
The main goal of who, precisely? You are the only person that I have ever seen make the claim that stopping genetic engineering is the main goal of the anti-marriage equality crowd. Although I am willing to believe that there are others who agree with you, you can hardly claim that that is the main goal of the anti-marriage equality crowd and maintain any credibility. Going further, you have yet to articulate a coherent or sensible argument as to why linking your goal to marriage is the only way to achieve it. I have seen other people show you the alternatives to linking it to marriage.
You don’t even want to ban same-sex conception, if I recall correctly, so your response is a chickenshit way to bury the real issue here.
First, let me be join the multitude in saying, “Fuck You,” to you. Second, marriage equality is the real issue here, your bizarre and nearly unique obsession notwithstanding.
You should admit that it isn’t marriage that you are insisting on, but conception rights for same-sex couples.
Earth to John Howard, Earth to John Howard. Same-sex couples currently have conception rights. Everybody in the US has conception rights. So, if you look at reality for a moment, you will see that I have no need to insist on conception rights for same-sex couples. Sometimes a cigar is really a cigar.
If that’s not true, if you are willing to relinquish conception rights, then you should be willing to acknowledge the difference by accepting a different name for the relationship.
Here is another tough thing for you to grasp, but I’ll try one last time anyhow. My desire to extend equal rights to gays and lesbians (in this case in the form of the benefits & responsibilities accessible via marriage) does not mean that I am willing to take rights that they currently have away from them.
Honestly, John, when the future of cloning & genetic engineering of human beings arrives I’ll be willing to discuss it. In the reality of present day Earth, I will not do so when the issue of marriage equality is an actual possibility.
Actually, I’d be willing to debate your obsession with you outside the arena of marriage equality. The two are in no way linked and your obsession merely distracts us from the important issue at hand.
Someone begging for comments on his blog should consider allowing anonymous posters.
The main goal of who, precisely?
Of me. I am trying to accomplish my main goal by harnessing the opposition to gay marriage. It bothers me that all these states are passing laws against same-sex marriage and yet not passing laws against same-sex conception. Seems to me that anyone that voted to define marriage would have voted to limit conception to a man and a woman, but they weren’t given the chance.
Same-sex couples currently have conception rights.
I know they do, that’s why I am proposing a ban. Currently there is no ban, a scientist could attempt to do the Kaguya technique TODAY to produce a child for a same-sex couple. They’d need about 500 eggs and 400 surrogate mothers it the success rate is similar, but if they had the money, they could legally attempt it. You are insisting that same-sex conception not be banned, that it continue to be legal.
I don’t think you understand what a compromise is. Each side gives up something in order to get something of greater value to them. That’s what happens here. Your side gives up intangible things – the name marriage and conception rights – but gets federal benefits. My side stops genetic engineering and preserves marriage, but gives up social security benefits and stops opposing civil unions.
Thanks, idea, I’ve opened up anonymous comments.