This is pretty fabulous, really. Taken from Dan (not Dave, NB) Savage's blog.
More at imvotingrepublican.com.
--------
Funny thing happened to me today. I was commenting to someone I work for that I need to go to the dentist, a problem since I don't have health insurance. She was surprised (she, of all people, shouldn't be), and said that I really should have some, and don't I know that if I get in a car accident, I'll have to go into bankruptcy? Thanks. As if my assets really need protecting (Babe excluded). Then she followed this up with, "Well, you could always get married." Ah yes, changing one's civil state for the dental insurance. I seem to live in a very different Virginia than she does... And this happened just after I read this post from TNG.
--------
Thank you to Vanity Fair for your cover article on Angelina Jolie.
I added some links to blogs and stuff, so if any of the four people who read my blog think of anything I missed let me know. (Unlike the other blogs you apparently read, I do welcome comments. Not abusive ones.)
By the way, the problem with a blog is reading what you wrote a week ago, and realizing where you could change it to make the argument stronger, the social commentary wittier, the spelling correcter....
Kay. I'm really really done with procrastinating.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Friday, June 6, 2008
She's back!!!
After a "two month" (three month, but who's counting) book leave, my very favorite NY Times columnist Judith Warner is back. So glad to have her. Yes, the rest of them do in a pinch (I've grown quite fond of reading Gail Collins, in fact), but I really like Warner because she is frank about her feminist lens and she tends to connect the larger movements of politics to everyday life, which I find compelling and refreshing. Politics metasticises when examined in its own hermetically sealed world.
I was particularly impressed with her opening salvo--a connection between the Sex and the City movie and the misogyny directed in Hillary's direction during the campaign. (Yes, I use misogyny rather than sexism--sexism, in my view, is gender-based discrimination ; misogyny is gender-based vitrol--accusations leveled at a person as a representative of the female sex). Warner, who has been on the sidelines and not writing during much of the primary season, points this out:
In a culture that’s reached such a level of ostensible enlightenment as ours, calling a powerful woman “castrating” – however you choose to put it – ought to be seen as just as offensive as rubbing your fingers together to convey a love of gold coinage when you talk about a Jew. It’s nothing other than an expression of woman-hate — and the degree to which such expressions have flourished, in the mainstream media and in the loonier reaches of cyberspace this year, has added up to be a real national shame.
It is not simply that the pundits, the creators of such novelty items as Nutcracking Hillary figurines don't think that Hillary would be a good president. It's that they use her as a effigy for women. As Warner points out, Clinton has been portrayed in the media as the nagging wife, the betrayed wife, the ball-buster... These I particular sweeping characterizations of women are as old as Cicero. And until we acknowledge that there is a problem in a calm rational voice, it's not going to go away any time soon. on the XX Factor (Slate.com's blog featuring women journalists from various newspapers) pointed this out when Obama made his race speech.
At some point, it will be less of a big deal that a woman runs, that a person of color runs. For now, a woman still wears pants-suits, and not just a suit) and a man of color is exceptional if he is "articulate." (For the record, I would be far more exceptional if I were articulate too).
Until then, I'm glad that Judith Warner is back to add her voice to pointing all of this out.
I was particularly impressed with her opening salvo--a connection between the Sex and the City movie and the misogyny directed in Hillary's direction during the campaign. (Yes, I use misogyny rather than sexism--sexism, in my view, is gender-based discrimination ; misogyny is gender-based vitrol--accusations leveled at a person as a representative of the female sex). Warner, who has been on the sidelines and not writing during much of the primary season, points this out:
In a culture that’s reached such a level of ostensible enlightenment as ours, calling a powerful woman “castrating” – however you choose to put it – ought to be seen as just as offensive as rubbing your fingers together to convey a love of gold coinage when you talk about a Jew. It’s nothing other than an expression of woman-hate — and the degree to which such expressions have flourished, in the mainstream media and in the loonier reaches of cyberspace this year, has added up to be a real national shame.
It is not simply that the pundits, the creators of such novelty items as Nutcracking Hillary figurines don't think that Hillary would be a good president. It's that they use her as a effigy for women. As Warner points out, Clinton has been portrayed in the media as the nagging wife, the betrayed wife, the ball-buster... These I particular sweeping characterizations of women are as old as Cicero. And until we acknowledge that there is a problem in a calm rational voice, it's not going to go away any time soon. on the XX Factor (Slate.com's blog featuring women journalists from various newspapers) pointed this out when Obama made his race speech.
At some point, it will be less of a big deal that a woman runs, that a person of color runs. For now, a woman still wears pants-suits, and not just a suit) and a man of color is exceptional if he is "articulate." (For the record, I would be far more exceptional if I were articulate too).
Until then, I'm glad that Judith Warner is back to add her voice to pointing all of this out.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Why aren't civil unions good enough?
I have long been critical of marriage, including gay marriage. But I can admire the great good fortune of others. So, in honor of the good people of California (who, in 18 days will be able to join a patriarchal system that has more to do with the movement of capital and privilege through society than with sentiment), I wrote them a little explanation of why they're so lucky and we in less enlightened parts consider ourselves less so.
Cheers, California--congratu-frickin-lations.
And New York, not to be outdone, is getting into the act in a very interesting way...
A few years ago, I saw the following sign quoted (I'm paraphrasing from memory, unfortunately). I think the website said that it was hung in a men's club in London.
This was on a website of humorous quotes, and is amusing because instead of changing the rules of the club to fit reality, the club is changing the name of the animal and therefore, the animal can be in the club. It's silly.
In a way, this is kind of what they are trying to do by calling unions between two members of the same sex a civil union rather than a marriage. With a civil union is a clear contract between two people. They are responsible for x, y and z. They are allowed these privileges as a result.
But what a civil union doesn't grant is society's relationship to the couple. And I am not talking about whether or not some people are homophobic and don't think that they should be married. I'm talking about Society with a Big S.
Marriage is historically about the binding of a man and woman "into one flesh". One political unit. One economic unit. Public/private, active/passive, soul/body, all united. And in the common law tradition, this is particularly pronounced--the woman became a femme covert and no longer had a legal identity outside of her relationship to her husband.
As a result, she couldn't buy or sell property nor take out a line of credit without his permission. She could also not testify against him in court (nor he against her, incidentally).
Now the property laws have been greatly relaxed almost to a point of financial independence. In the United States, women began to have autonomy over their property starting in 1853 and as of the 1970s were able to get credit cards in their own name without the signature of their husbands. In fact, in Maryland, at least, spouses are not legally responsible, any longer, for each other's debt.
Married couples don't have full autonomy from each other, of course. A house bought by one spouse is owned by the other, for example. And still, a spouse cannot testify against the spouse in a court of law. Because they ultimately are regarded as one flesh.
So what does this have to do with civil unions? And dogs who shall be cats?
Well, the law--and society, for that matter--is pretty sure of where marriage partners stand in relation to each other. The rules might frequently change, they might be challenged in court and in the pages of the NY Times, but there is a certain day of beginning of a changed civil state and a certain day of termination, and it is very clear what the responsibilities and privileges of each party in the marital relationship (in effect, the two spouses and Society) are.
A civil unions is also a legal construction. But unlike marriage, it is not accompanied by as pronounced a social construction. It does not have the legal clarity that marriage enjoys and nor does it have the same historical weight behind it (because, while marriage did mean different things in different times and places, there is almost always a social structure that the society recognizes as marriage).
So do people in civil unions ALWAYS get to visit a partner in the hospital? Does a house belonging to one of the united also NECESSARILY belong to the other? May people in civil unions NEVER testify against a partner?
Does society consider them bound in one flesh?
Why create out of thin air a new legal construction that is separate and not necessarily equivalent when a legal and socially clear mechanism already exists? The result will be both burdensome on legislators, who may feel the need to retrofit the statutes pertaining to marriage to civil unions as well. But most of all it is also not backed by the same social and philosophical weight that marriage enjoys and is therefore a socially inferior and legally murkier state.
Cheers, California--congratu-frickin-lations.
And New York, not to be outdone, is getting into the act in a very interesting way...
A few years ago, I saw the following sign quoted (I'm paraphrasing from memory, unfortunately). I think the website said that it was hung in a men's club in London.
No dogs are allowed in the club. Any assistance animal is a cat.
This was on a website of humorous quotes, and is amusing because instead of changing the rules of the club to fit reality, the club is changing the name of the animal and therefore, the animal can be in the club. It's silly.
In a way, this is kind of what they are trying to do by calling unions between two members of the same sex a civil union rather than a marriage. With a civil union is a clear contract between two people. They are responsible for x, y and z. They are allowed these privileges as a result.
But what a civil union doesn't grant is society's relationship to the couple. And I am not talking about whether or not some people are homophobic and don't think that they should be married. I'm talking about Society with a Big S.
Marriage is historically about the binding of a man and woman "into one flesh". One political unit. One economic unit. Public/private, active/passive, soul/body, all united. And in the common law tradition, this is particularly pronounced--the woman became a femme covert and no longer had a legal identity outside of her relationship to her husband.
As a result, she couldn't buy or sell property nor take out a line of credit without his permission. She could also not testify against him in court (nor he against her, incidentally).
Now the property laws have been greatly relaxed almost to a point of financial independence. In the United States, women began to have autonomy over their property starting in 1853 and as of the 1970s were able to get credit cards in their own name without the signature of their husbands. In fact, in Maryland, at least, spouses are not legally responsible, any longer, for each other's debt.
Married couples don't have full autonomy from each other, of course. A house bought by one spouse is owned by the other, for example. And still, a spouse cannot testify against the spouse in a court of law. Because they ultimately are regarded as one flesh.
So what does this have to do with civil unions? And dogs who shall be cats?
Well, the law--and society, for that matter--is pretty sure of where marriage partners stand in relation to each other. The rules might frequently change, they might be challenged in court and in the pages of the NY Times, but there is a certain day of beginning of a changed civil state and a certain day of termination, and it is very clear what the responsibilities and privileges of each party in the marital relationship (in effect, the two spouses and Society) are.
A civil unions is also a legal construction. But unlike marriage, it is not accompanied by as pronounced a social construction. It does not have the legal clarity that marriage enjoys and nor does it have the same historical weight behind it (because, while marriage did mean different things in different times and places, there is almost always a social structure that the society recognizes as marriage).
So do people in civil unions ALWAYS get to visit a partner in the hospital? Does a house belonging to one of the united also NECESSARILY belong to the other? May people in civil unions NEVER testify against a partner?
Does society consider them bound in one flesh?
Why create out of thin air a new legal construction that is separate and not necessarily equivalent when a legal and socially clear mechanism already exists? The result will be both burdensome on legislators, who may feel the need to retrofit the statutes pertaining to marriage to civil unions as well. But most of all it is also not backed by the same social and philosophical weight that marriage enjoys and is therefore a socially inferior and legally murkier state.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Stuff White People Like: the Book
Within the last week, it occurred to me that there's a cultural phenomenon that totally passed over my consciousness within the last few months. I quickly rectified this by reading just about every entry on the absolutely brilliant blog, Stuff White People Like--a hysterical anthropological analysis of current liberal yuppie, monied culture. I highly recommend it. And yes, there are some features of this culture to which my friends and I aspire.
That said, I think it is absolutely hysterical and a little ironic that there will be a Stuff White People Like: The Book, brought to you by RandomHouse--otherwise known as The Man itself.
Seriously, when you think of the consolidation of the media, there are about 5 big publishing houses (RandomHouse, HarperCollins, Penguin Putnam Trade, Doubleday and LittleBrown) publishing the majority of the "bestsellers." It's a bit ridiculous.
Nevertheless, congratulations, Christian Landers. I hope you enjoy your moment in the cultural sun.
That said, I think it is absolutely hysterical and a little ironic that there will be a Stuff White People Like: The Book, brought to you by RandomHouse--otherwise known as The Man itself.
Seriously, when you think of the consolidation of the media, there are about 5 big publishing houses (RandomHouse, HarperCollins, Penguin Putnam Trade, Doubleday and LittleBrown) publishing the majority of the "bestsellers." It's a bit ridiculous.
Nevertheless, congratulations, Christian Landers. I hope you enjoy your moment in the cultural sun.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Pearl-girls and Trans-boys--a twist on convention?
Here's an interesting article from the NY Times's Magazine on transmen (a new phrase for me)--that is, a transgender person transition from female to male. It's a good article, and an interesting discussion about transmen on women's college campuses.
It's interesting that they published this particular article (my impression is that it is a segment of a longer work-in-progress) because it is in fact couched in terms of an update on the battle of the sexes. The subject of the article is Rey, a transmen who decided to go to Bernard, still Columbia's sister college, and switched to Columbia after a week. While the author nicely dissects the problems of a transmale or gender-queer person in a specifically gendered space, it is problematic that she relies on friction between men and women and in order to do so, she reinforces gender stereotypes.
Bernard College, where Rey matriculated for a week before transferring to Columbia College, is "one of the last girls-with-pearls bastions;" indeed "the women on campus seemed to Rey to be socially conservative and archly feminine." (Sounds like a certain green-and-pink-festooned college I know.) Bernard doesn't have a culture of accepting more than one version of femaleness--the pearls and Cup and enormous-white-wedding-to-the-perfect-boy-that-Daddy-pays-for kind. (Do they use "Daddy" in New York?). This is a very self-protecting culture. It is alienating to not conform and sometimes deathly (but frequently painful) to.
The author never referred to Rey using a female pronoun nor by his given name (at his request to protect his family). When discussing Rey as a thirteen year old, the author says that he was bat-mitzvahed and became a woman. (Not having met Rey, I likely would have used she at 13 and he at 18. It gives a clearer impression of the person we are discussing and illustrates more clearly the impact of the change.). In addition to being gendered male through pronouns, Rey is portrayed as a typical young man with typical boy living habits. He's messy and sloppy. He and his girlfriend Melissa discuss living together, but she's nervous--he's so messy. Never cleans up well after himself.
In this portrayal of the couple, the author reinforces gender stereotypes. Melissa is a typical female would-be nag, and Rey the sloppy male who just doesn't care how things look enough to clean them. This little difference between Melissa, gendered female, and Rey, gendered male, is emblematic of the author's treatment of the relations between the genders in the larger piece.
Rey's sojourn at the women's college, his acceptance by traditional feminine community, lasts for a week until he leaves for a community with a more accepting view of gender. The battle of the sexes is engaged, and woman--a sanctimonious version of femininity represented by the community of archly female women at Bernard--defeats man, represented by Rey who, while trans-, is always gendered male. The woman wins the day by being particularly rigid and cruel. The author reinforces gender stereotypes that portray women negatively and in doing so, she does the one thing that Rey rejects--puts his gender identity in a box.
It's interesting that they published this particular article (my impression is that it is a segment of a longer work-in-progress) because it is in fact couched in terms of an update on the battle of the sexes. The subject of the article is Rey, a transmen who decided to go to Bernard, still Columbia's sister college, and switched to Columbia after a week. While the author nicely dissects the problems of a transmale or gender-queer person in a specifically gendered space, it is problematic that she relies on friction between men and women and in order to do so, she reinforces gender stereotypes.
Bernard College, where Rey matriculated for a week before transferring to Columbia College, is "one of the last girls-with-pearls bastions;" indeed "the women on campus seemed to Rey to be socially conservative and archly feminine." (Sounds like a certain green-and-pink-festooned college I know.) Bernard doesn't have a culture of accepting more than one version of femaleness--the pearls and Cup and enormous-white-wedding-to-the-perfect-boy-that-Daddy-pays-for kind. (Do they use "Daddy" in New York?). This is a very self-protecting culture. It is alienating to not conform and sometimes deathly (but frequently painful) to.
The author never referred to Rey using a female pronoun nor by his given name (at his request to protect his family). When discussing Rey as a thirteen year old, the author says that he was bat-mitzvahed and became a woman. (Not having met Rey, I likely would have used she at 13 and he at 18. It gives a clearer impression of the person we are discussing and illustrates more clearly the impact of the change.). In addition to being gendered male through pronouns, Rey is portrayed as a typical young man with typical boy living habits. He's messy and sloppy. He and his girlfriend Melissa discuss living together, but she's nervous--he's so messy. Never cleans up well after himself.
In this portrayal of the couple, the author reinforces gender stereotypes. Melissa is a typical female would-be nag, and Rey the sloppy male who just doesn't care how things look enough to clean them. This little difference between Melissa, gendered female, and Rey, gendered male, is emblematic of the author's treatment of the relations between the genders in the larger piece.
Rey's sojourn at the women's college, his acceptance by traditional feminine community, lasts for a week until he leaves for a community with a more accepting view of gender. The battle of the sexes is engaged, and woman--a sanctimonious version of femininity represented by the community of archly female women at Bernard--defeats man, represented by Rey who, while trans-, is always gendered male. The woman wins the day by being particularly rigid and cruel. The author reinforces gender stereotypes that portray women negatively and in doing so, she does the one thing that Rey rejects--puts his gender identity in a box.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Don't they focus group these things before they air them?
I hadn't planned on commenting on politics so quickly. Or doing that bloggy thing where I just point to something that's interesting for the edification of everyone else. But I am.
This focus group display is interesting. It shows that the Clinton "3 AM Ad" interests those who like her already, turns off the people who are supporting her opponent and turns off those who aren't decided.
It's kind of like those "Parents, it's never to early to talk to your kids about drugs." It makes parents feel happy-gooey-like-they're-doing-something, and it makes kids listen to their parents less and be more likely to start smoking. Except that Phillip Morris meant to do that.
This focus group display is interesting. It shows that the Clinton "3 AM Ad" interests those who like her already, turns off the people who are supporting her opponent and turns off those who aren't decided.
It's kind of like those "Parents, it's never to early to talk to your kids about drugs." It makes parents feel happy-gooey-like-they're-doing-something, and it makes kids listen to their parents less and be more likely to start smoking. Except that Phillip Morris meant to do that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
