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

Thanks

Posted on December 29, 2009 by Jeff Fecke

I just wanted to say thanks to everyone who’s wished me well over the past day. I obviously have had better days, but all things considered I’m feeling fairly positive about the outlook for the future.

I’ve done a lot of reading in the last day, and one thing that I am grateful for, other than the support of friends and readers, is that I’ve been exposed to feminist thought. I know, it seems strange to bring that up in terms of testicular cancer, but I’m serious. One of the recurring themes I’ve seen in my readings is the concern that losing a testicle will make one “less of a man.”

This isn’t a silly fear; we metaphorically refer to manly gumption as “having balls.” We talk freely about men being “neutered” or “castrated” when they’re silenced or marginalized. The testes, even more than the penis, are the metaphorical seat of manliness in popular culture. And so for many men, the loss of a testicle, even in the service of preventing death from cancer, is a traumatic psychological experience.

Fortunately for me, I’ve been exposed to the idea that what defines a person is not their gonads. I am no more “manly” with two testicles than I will be with one, and if cancer takes that one someday, I’ll still be no less manly. Who I am is not dictated by my genitals. And while there are no doubt a few MRA types who will find my demicastration appropriate, I will simply remember that I know an awful lot of humans who have never had testicles, who nevertheless embrace life without fear, who exhibit all the best of “manly” characteristics — bravery, loyalty, intrepidity — despite not being men at all.

And so I know that the loss of a testicle doesn’t make me lose my identity, any more than the loss of my gall bladder has made me a different person. That knowledge is a gift. Yes, it’s scary to face the potential of cancer, and I’m not looking forward to surgery. But at least I do not need to fear that I am going to come out of surgery somehow less worthy than I was before.

Posted in About the Bloggers, Feminism, sexism, etc, Sexism hurts men | 15 Comments

Well, I Can't Argue With That

Posted on December 29, 2009 by Jeff Fecke

Fox News go-to guy on terror and long-term terrorist supporter Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., says something that is, in fact, true:

The fact is while the overwhelming majority of Muslims are outstanding people, on the other hand 100% of the Islamic terrorists are Muslims, and that is our main enemy today.

The fact is that while the overwhelming majority of Americans are outstanding people, on the other hand 100% of the idiot Republicans in Congress are Americans. They are, fortunately, only the enemies of reasoned discourse.

Posted in Conservative zaniness, right-wingers, etc. | 4 Comments

A Point of Personal Privilege

Posted on December 28, 2009 by Jeff Fecke

So those of you who follow my twitter feed (and for those of you who don’t, you are welcome to) may have noticed that last night my tweets weren’t so much…fun. This is not because the Vikings managed to lose yet another winnable game on the road, though that of course doesn’t help matters.

No, last night I went into the doctor with pain in my…er…boy parts. The doctor sent me directly to the emergency room, where I got an ultrasound, which showed I likely have testicular cancer.

So that’s not fun.

I know next to nothing right now, other than that tomorrow morning I get to make an appointment to go to see a urologist who will be removing my faulty gonad forthwith. I know nothing beyond that; I assume I’ll find out shortly.

At any rate, this is of course not the most fabulous news, but it is what it is. The good news — and it is good news — is that testicular cancer is extremely treatable, and the vast majority of men who suffer from it are treated successfully, even if the cancer has metastasized. So the odds are in my favor. And there is still a chance it isn’t cancer at all, but just a painful benign tumor, in which case the gonad has to come out, but treatment afterward won’t include any not-fun things like chemotherapy or radiation.

All that said, I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t a bit scared by this; cancer is not something you ever want to get. But something’s going to get all of us in the end. I’m just hoping that something, in my case and yours, is extreme old age.

So please, do forgive me if posting is a bit light over the next few days; I’ll update as I have updates. Oh, and men, since this is something I never bothered to do, let me suggest you listen to Mr. Tom Green here.

Posted in About the Bloggers | 33 Comments

Translating Classical Persian Poetry: Farid al-Din Attar's "Ilahi-Nama"

Posted on December 28, 2009 by Richard Jeffrey Newman

One of eight major works that can reliably be ascribed to Attar, Ilahi-Nama (Book of God or, sometimes, Divine Book) has, according to Encyclopedia Iranica, been translated once into English, by John A. Boyle in 1976, and once into French, by F. Rouhani in 1961. Four of Attar’s eight works—Ilahi-Nama is part of this subset—are mystical narratives, each one dealing with a different aspect of Sufi thought and experience. Ilahi-Nama’s subject is zuhd, or asceticism, which Sufis understand to mean a disciplined stance of detachment and indifference towards one’s desires so that one will not be ruled by them. This focus on the interior world of human emotion differentiates Ilahi-Nama from the other of Attar’s poems with which it is often compared, Manteq al-tayr (Conference of the Birds), his best known work in English. The two poems are similar in form (they are each frame stories) and message (the key to enlightenment exists within each human being, not in the external world), but the framing narrative of Manteq al-tayr, an allegory about a group of birds in search of a king, is essentially a critique of people’s need to find a master who will lead them on the path to true understanding. Ilahi-Nama, on the other hand, is about learning to master oneself.

The framing narrative of Ilahi-Nama is about a caliph who asks his six sons what they desire most. The first son says he wants the daughter of the king of the peris (faeries); the second wants to learn the art of magic; the third son desires Jamshid’s cup because it will reveal to him the secrets of the world; the fourth seeks the water of life; the fifth son covets the ring Solomon used to control demons; and the sixth son wants to master alchemy. As each son gives his answer, the father tells stories to illustrate, first, how shallow and materialistic the son is for wanting what he wants and, second, how the son should understand his desire so he can use it on the path to enlightenment. None of the sons, however, accept their father’s lessons at face value, arguing that he has misunderstood their desires and that the lessons he wants them to learn, therefore, are misguided. When the father tells his first son what has come to be known as “The Tale of Marjuma,” for example—about a beautiful and righteous woman who, after her husband leaves on pilgrimage to Mecca, must fend off a series of men who are so overcome with lust when they glimpse her beauty that they will stop at nothing to have her—the son accuses his father of wanting to eliminate sex. “God forbid[!]” the father replies, explaining that “The Tale of Marjuma” illustrates how sex, properly comprehended and entered into, is a first step on the path to enlightenment:

But when your desire achieves apotheosis,
sex gives birth to a love without limits;
and when this love is pushed by passion to the edge
of its strength, spiritual love emerges; and when
spiritual love can grow no further, your soul
will vanish into the Beloved’s endlessness. (My translation)

Given that the surface of the narrative in “The Tale of Marjuma” feels more like a Perils-of-Pauline-type story in which the depraved and debauched men get their comeuppance than one about the spiritual nature of sexuality, the son’s misreading of the tale is an easy one to fall into. Such a reading, however, fails to account for, among other things, the fact that not all the men who try to possess the woman give in to their desires without a struggle. They are, in other words, neither evil nor merely slaves to their desires; they are human and flawed and, more to the point, they are, in the end, able and willing to repent. Indeed, they must repent, for God has punished them with a paralysis from which—in an irony that is at the core of the story’s meaning—they can be healed only by confessing to the woman everything they did to her. Continue reading →

Posted in Iran, literature | 1 Comment

After 14 Years, Abused Woman Finally Granted Asylum

Posted on December 28, 2009 by Ampersand

Rody Alvarado, whose case was blogged about on Alas multiple times a few years ago (such as here and here), has finally been granted asylum in the US.

In order to demonstrate a valid asylum claim, an asylum seeker must prove that he or she has a well-founded fear of persecution based upon his or her race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. It’s not enough for a victim of domestic violence to seek asylum based on fear that she will face recurrent violence if she returns to her country of origin. She also has to prove that her persecution is tied to one of the five statutory grounds. That’s historically been difficult to do, since these grounds do not include gender (or sexuality, for that matter), since domestic violence is often viewed as a relationship issue rather than a larger societal problem, and the final decision is left to one immigration judge’s discretion.

In Alvarado’s case, her lawyer successfully argued that her abuse was not just an interpersonal issue, because women in Guatemala face persecution on several societal levels and victims of domestic violence aren’t provided adequate protection by the state. Indeed, Alvarado repeatedly sought protection from the authorities but was told the abuse was a domestic affair. Under circumstances like these, simply being a woman could be considered membership in a persecuted social group.

Since U.S. law relies heavily on precedent for its interpretation, Alvarado’s victory could have a huge impact on future asylum cases involving domestic violence. Additionally, the Obama administration has said it is working on regulations that would create a clear pathway to asylum for victims of domestic violence who flee their home countries. The Bush administration, by comparison, fought hard against domestic violence being considered a valid claim for asylum.

Eastsidekate at Shakesville has more commentary on this case.

Posted in Immigration, Migrant Rights, etc, In the news, Rape, intimate violence, & related issues | 2 Comments

Moff's Law

Posted on December 27, 2009 by Jeff Fecke

Via Racialicious, I was directed to this jeremiad, which wins the internet:

Of all the varieties of irritating comment out there, the absolute most annoying has to be “Why can’t you just watch the movie for what it is??? Why can’t you just enjoy it? Why do you have to analyze it???”

If you have posted such a comment, or if you are about to post such a comment, here or anywhere else, let me just advise you: Shut up. Shut the fuck up. Shut your goddamn fucking mouth. SHUT. UP.

First of all, when we analyze art, when we look for deeper meaning in it, we are enjoying it for what it is. Because that is one of the things about art, be it highbrow, lowbrow, mainstream, or avant-garde: Some sort of thought went into its making — even if the thought was, “I’m going to do this as thoughtlessly as possible”! — and as a result, some sort of thought can be gotten from its reception. That is why, among other things, artists (including, for instance, James Cameron) really like to talk about their work.

The entire post — which began as a comment on Annalee Newitz’s brilliant Avatar commentary — is worth reading in full, and I will be invoking Moff’s Law going forward any time someone argues that I should stop analyzing a movie because “it’s just a movie.”

I haven’t seen Avatar yet, in no small part because I don’t really know if I have the patience to put up with three hours of white-guy-saves-too-perfect-to-live-indigenous-people-from-other-white-guys. I may eventually go, because I’ve heard universal praise for the visual and technical effects in the film, but I’m not sure that wizardry is being used in service of good.

More to the point, though, is that James Cameron quite obviously wanted this to be a talked about movie. He could have pretty easily created a dumb-but-visually-stunning movie about plucky soldiers fighting mean aliens. (Heck, he already has.) Instead, he made a movie that by all indications is Trying To Say Something Important about nature and indigenous people. So it’s not exactly a stretch for people to want to question what the movie is saying, and to argue that Cameron’s characterization of the native peoples in Avatar literally dehumanizes them, and ends up reinforcing racism rather than working to destroy it.

Art is supposed to say something to us, even the art that wants us to shut our brains off to enjoy it, like, say, the Transformers franchise. Sometimes what it says is subtle, sometimes it’s subtle as a freight train. But it’s meant to affect, even if just to divert people from their humdrum lives. Because of this, it’s only natural for people to react to how they were affected by art by telling people how they were affected by art. If they’re artists themselves, they may even go further, and create art that is a response to previous works, as Avatar can be seen as a rejoinder, not just to the old, overtly racist treatment of aboriginal peoples as savages, but to Cameron’s own treatment of non-humans in Aliens.

That’s what art is supposed to do — spur discussion, spark creation, and yes, engender criticism. Of course, all too often — and especially when that criticism strays into questions of gender or race — people don’t want to hear that there are problems with films they liked. They want to ignore the flaws in a work of art. That’s their privilege. But it doesn’t mean the rest of us should follow their lead. Art is about communication. And that communication should not be one-way only.

Posted in Race, racism and related issues | 14 Comments

How To Reform The Filibuster

Posted on December 26, 2009 by Ampersand

The government can function if the minority party has either the incentive to make the majority fail or the power to make the majority fail. It cannot function if it has both.

Ezra has a series of filibuster-related posts up today with are worth reading, beginning with an overview.

This might seem an odd moment to argue that the Senate is fundamentally broken and repairs should top our list of priorities. After all, the Senate passed a $900 billion health-care bill Thursday morning. But consider the context: Arlen Specter’s defection from the Republican Party earlier this year gave Democrats 60 votes in the Senate — a larger majority than either party has had since the ’70s. Democrats also controlled the House and the presidency, and were working in the aftermath of a financial crisis that occurred on a Republican president’s watch. This was a test of whether a party could govern when everything was stacked in its favor.

The answer seems to be, well, not really. The Democrats ended up focusing on health-care reform’s low-hanging fruit: the bill the Senate ultimately passed does much more to increase coverage than it does to address the considerably harder problem of cost control, it strengthens the existing private insurance system and it does not include a public insurance option. And Democrats still could not find a single Republican vote, which meant they had to give Nebraska a coupon entitling it to a free Medicaid expansion and hand Joe Lieberman a voucher that’s good for anything he wants. If the Senate cannot govern effectively even when history conspires to free its hand, then it cannot govern.

There’s an interview with a political scientist, who “published a study showing that about eight percent of major bills in the 1960s faced filibusters or filibuster threats and 70 percent of bills in the current decade did the same.” The point being, the filibuster has not, historically, been a routine supermajority requirement.

There are two interviews with currently sitting Senators about how the filibuster rule might be restored to what it originally was — a guarantee that no bill could be passed without some opportunity for debate.

First, Senator Tom Harkin, who wants it known that he was actively in favor of fixing the filibuster even when his party was in the ~~majority~~ minority, brings back a proposal that he and Joe Lieberman (!) came up with in 1995:

The idea is to give some time for extended debate but eventually allow a majority to work its will. I do believe there’s some reason to have extended debate. If a group of senators filibusters a bill, you want to take their worries seriously. Make sure you’re not missing something. My proposal will do that. It says that on the first vote, you need 60. Then you have to wait two days, and on the third day, you need 57 votes. And then you need to wait two days, and on the third day, it’s 54 votes. And then you’d wait another two days, and on the third day, it would be 51 votes.

And there’s an interview with Jeff Merkeley (Oregon has really great Senators, incidentally), who has this suggestion:

…one question we’re asking is how do you get two-thirds of the body to agree to change the rules when there’s immediate pressure for the minority to protect themselves? Your rule changes could kick in in 6 to 8 years. Or you could have rule changes that are designed to trigger when the two sides are more or less even. So when there’s a 55-45 majority, it wouldn’t kick in, but it would at 52-48. Or think about with nominations. We’re really paralyzing the executive branch.

Back to quoting Ezra:

The danger of reforming the Senate is that, like health-care reform before it, it comes to seem a partisan issue. It isn’t. Members of both parties often take the fact that neither Democrats nor Republicans can govern effectively to mean they benefit from the filibuster half the time. In reality, the country loses the benefits of a working legislature all the time.

But members of both parties have become attached to this idea that they can block objectionable legislation even when they’re relatively powerless. This is evidence, perhaps, that both parties are so used to the victories of obstruction that they have forgotten their purpose is to amass victories through governance. Either way, a world in which the majority can pass its agenda is a better one, a place where the majority party is held accountable for its ideas and not for the gridlock and inaction furnished by the Senate’s rules.

Posted in Elections and politics | 29 Comments

The Jokes Just Write Themselves

Posted on December 25, 2009 by Jeff Fecke

So there was a failed terror attack today, and while that’s kind of scary and all, really, in this case, it’s mostly hilarious:

Per Ed Henry on CNN:

This administration has expressed skepticism of the color chart alert system. They’re concentrating more on improving security checkpoints and other measures at airports, not colors.

Susan Collins on Homeland Security committee says she’s expecting a briefing soon, wonders how the passenger got explosives on the plane to begin with, and if he actually does have ties to any terrorist organization.

Passenger Richard Griffith, who was on the plane, just said the explosives must have been in the guys pocket, ended up “in his crotch”.

Now that’s what I call a crotch rocket.

Naturally, it’s not good that the bomber, Abdul Farouk Abdulmutallab, got an incendiary device onto a plane. And I’m dreading what new and exciting forms of security theater our friends at the TSA will come up with to make us feel safe that the guy or gal next to us doesn’t have a bomb in their crotch.

But honestly, I’m not all that worried. After all, here’s what evidently happened:

Federal authorities have been told that Abdulmutallab allegedly had taped some material to his leg, then used a syringe to mix some chemicals with the powder while on the airplane, one official said. Officials described the device as incendiary rather than explosive, pending tests by forensics experts at the FBI. Incendiary devices generally deliver less of an impact than explosive devices.

A man who said he was on Flight 253, Syed Jafry of Holland, Mich., told the Detroit Free Press that he noticed a glow three rows ahead in the Airbus 330, then smelled smoke. The next moment, Jafri recounted, “a young man behind me jumped on” Abdulmutallab.

So the guy got some chemicals on that could have maybe started a fire, but weren’t explosive. That’s not particularly scary. Oh, sure, it would be frightening in the moment. But you can’t bring a plane down with an incendiary device. Not even close.

In a way, this is the sort of “attack” that proves that terror countermeasures are working. If this is the best al Qaeda and its sympathizers ((The guy evidently claims to be with al Qaeda, but there’s reason to think he might just be self-aggrandizing.)) can do…well, it’s pretty pathetic. Basically, they’re as frightening as your high school friend who discovered you can set hair spray on fire. Both could hurt someone, other than themselves. But that would be more by chance than by design.

No, this attack is not reason to panic. It’s reason to laugh long and hard at those who want to scare us, reason to invoke bad double entendres about this wannabe’s crotch fire, like the one in this sentence. And most of all, it’s reason to cheer the demise of al Qaeda, a truly terrible organization that now has been reduced to setting small fires. I just hope no terrorist decides to egg my house. That could be horrible.

Posted in In the news, International issues | 18 Comments

Open Thread, Dec 25th Edition

Posted on December 25, 2009 by Ampersand

I’m sure I’ve run this video before. I’m sure we’ve all seen it. I don’t care — I love it.

I’m at the studio right now, where I’ve just finished inking page 44 of Hereville. Later on I’ll go out to eat at whatever’s open and then see “Up In The Air” with some friends.

So, you know, post whatever you’d like. Let us know what you’re doing today, or just post links you like. As always, self-link-love is approved of by Joyce Elders.

Posted in Link farms | 6 Comments