Li'l Cthulu

Radical Rage

On feministblogs I came across A Radical Profeminist, which is a blog written by a male (pro)feminist that is meant to provide a space for radical feminist discussion. Julian the proprietor notes in a comment: "This site is not for men. It does not exist to take care of men, to help men get it... This site is so that women know that radical feminism can be understood and argued by men... so they can argue with other men, so women don't have to always be the ones to do it."

The problem with feminism is that it is such a huge body of discourse. There are almost as many definitions of feminism as there are people (feminists and non-feminists and anti-feminists combined). My favorite is the one on this bumper sticker.
As far as I know from studying this sociologically, there are three main branches of feminist thought. To oversimplify, Liberal Feminism, which is what I generally subscribe to, holds that men and women should be equal (and indeed that all people should be equal, regardless of race, class, creed, etc). Cultural Feminism holds that men and women are inherently different, and that these differences should be celebrated. And Radical Feminism holds that women are different to the extent that they have been historically oppressed by patriarchal socio-political systems, and therefore women need to counter this imbalance with radical action.

What caught my attention was the comments to a post Julian wrote about the comments on another post at a different site. I haven't read much of this other post, but I gather that it is a bunch of idiot misogynist trolls spouting off under the guise of a "men's rights" forum. Some of the trolls took offense to something Julian wrote, and an avalanche of ignorance, hate, and threats resulted. Apparently, the writing that set them off was a conversation in which Julian noted that women might well feel safer in a society with 90% fewer men, which they extrapolated meant that Julian was in favor of killing off 90% of all existing men in the world. (Anybody read Y The Last Man?) This must have represented an extreme betrayal of their gender to them, thus their bitterness and bile. This is what drives a lot of homophobic hate and violence: "You're gay? that means you must be rejecting the hegemonic, traditional definition of masculinity that defines my identity, calling into question its essential validity and static nature! how dare you, now my taken-for-granted world is revealed to be a socially-constructed and illusory veil, and my identity is meaningless... that is unless I beat your homo ass and lynch you! That'll teach you what's real and reinforce the psychological anchor of my masculinity!" So yeah, I expect that same phenomenon is behind much of the blind rage in the first set of comments.

The second set of comments, the ones on the post about the first post, are perhaps more interesting to me. Especially those by an angry lesbian V (who, at one point, I wondered is perhaps a parody of a radical man-hater?), taking a very radical stance that basically can be summed as: all men are evil, inferior, and deserve to be treated violently.
Some examples:
"Wow, I can't imagine any woman who had intelligence and income ever wanting men in the house to begin with." This is kind of demeaning to hundreds of millions of women who choose to have men in their lives. And it seems to ignore the significant number of women who have positive relationships with men, in which the men are subordinate.

"I want men to know what I really think of them too. I view them as meaningless animals at best, or dangerous rapists at worst, but compared to women, men really are quite inferior in every socially sophisticted way imaginable." OK, at least she's honest.

"You can't be humane to men, you have to be very aggressively violent to them... Being nice to men never got me anywhere! The tougher I was, the better off I became, and now I am passionate in my show of complete scary contempt toward men in public places... Since all men are guilty it is open season! You need not worry about that silly concept known as an "innocent man" because all men are guilty and deserve to be attacked for their past history... But a lot of women can't summon this level of contempt or hatred, and that's a shame."

This kind of generalizing is staggering. It's not as bad as the men's rights forum commenters, but it's still not what I usually expect from a feminist. For me, feminism is about being sensitive to everyone's individuality, not about pre-judging people based on their gender. Now that V has dehumanized, demeaned, and objectified men as a class, she has opened herself up to Nmbr's criticism: "The society you want is a direct mirror of the society you don't want. How does this attitude solve any problems? What is its future?"

And this is what I don't get about extreme radical feminism. One should be the change they want to see in the world, but why would the change you want to see be an oppression flip-flop?

Later, Julian says: "I have often read V's comments and wondered "Wow. How are people going to respond to THAT?" And I end up saying "fuck it" to myself, because her militancy, her groundedness in a position no other woman I know takes with men is inspirational to more people (women) that we can possibly know. And her writings may come off as "outlandish" or absurd at first, but they will simmer in the minds of women who know they have buried their rage and put up with far too much from men, interpersonally. And if women can find validation, support, and feel less alone with their rage when coming here, that's a good thing indeed."

OK, fair enough. That's why I like Julian's blog, it is accepting of a wide range of feminisms. I think it is important for people like me to try to understand people like V, and A Radical Profeminist provides a place to do so. I get that V and women like her have experienced and seen atrocities commited by men, and probably realize that these things are institutionalized in a patriarchal society, and that radical action is required to change it. But it seems to me, in my privelaged position as a white male, that people need to see each other as individuals and strive to extend empathy and consideration to one another. Non-violence HAS worked as a strategy to institutionalize civil rights, and I don't see why it can't work in the service of radical feminism, too. But I do have to recognize people like V's rights to express their perceptions and opinions, and I'm glad Julian provides a place where I can access this kind of discourse.

Mayor Barrett Wants You...

...to be counted!

Haas plus Cthulu

Happy Marriage to Jason!

also, this



(thanks Chesto! this warmed my cold, black heart.)

Good On Lena Taylor (Plus, Prayer & Politics Pt 2)

Props to Senator Lena Taylor for writing a bill to "repeal a provision in the state's child abuse and neglect statute that exempts parents from prosecution in some faith-healing cases," which exemption is allowed by the 1996 Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act. This is largely a response to this recent case: by now we've all heard of Leilani and Dale Neumann, who's 11-year-old daughter recently died of highly treatable diabetes. They decided to eschew actual medical treatment, and instead to rely exclusively on prayer to safeguard their daughter's life. They viewed the situation as some sort of ghastly "test" God was putting them through, and they seem to have expected God to miraculously intervene.

First of all, I can never resist this argument, and no faith-healing apologists have ever been able to counter it: couldn't God work through other people, such as doctors? If you believe in a God capable of miracles, wouldn't you, in fact, have to be pretty arrogant to assume that you know exactly how His miracles are realized? An omnipotent God ought to be able to use all people like puppets, to accomplish His plan.

But back to the Neumanns. This is not only "neglect." This is ABUSE; it is about parents exerting power over their children, who cannot defend themselves. Sure, they can choose to be martyrs for their own religion if they want, but they cannot impose this choice on someone else, even their own daughter. According to the rules of our society, once she is born she is a separate person with her own individual rights!

Drek The Uninteresting scores a slam dunk on this topic:

"...a parent has coercive power over their children, pretty much any way you slice it. Likewise, if I were to kidnap someone and hold them prisoner I would also have coercive authority over that person. Now, imagine that I denied a person whom I kidnapped the medications necessary to treat their diabetes and, as a result, they died while I was holding them. If I were to go to trial, I would doubtless be charged with manslaughter at the very least, and quite possibly negligent homicide if not murder outright. Moreover, when it came time for sentencing, I should expect to be hit even harder because I let my prisoner die slowly through neglect. I would be labeled as a heartless monster for such behavior..."

But of course, the Neumanns got off with a very light sentence: 1/50th of the prison time they were eligible for. This seems to be because of their religious defense: God wanted them to keep the doctors away from their dying daughter. But, as Drek points out, then why can't religious terrorists get off light when God tells them to blow someone up? Exploding is a quick, unexpected death; diabetes is a slow, painful one. The point is, as a matter of public policy, we need laws that are that are primarily sympathetic to science, and that are also logically consistent with regard to different religions.

Which brings us back to Lena Taylor. I am glad we've got people like her trying to craft evidence-based legislation for rational social policy. She's also working on the "Healthy Youth Act," which is a critical piece of how we provide sex-education. Cultural conservatives can't seem to stop jamming their fingers in their ears and humming loudly whenever anyone points out how much sex teens are having. Check out what the ludicrous "Wisconsin Family Voice" has to say. They're appalled that schools might include a discussion of icky gay homo stuff in the curriculum: "by getting 'sexual orientation' included in the... list, the homosexual advocates have prevailed. They have prevented schools from telling the truth about the dangers inherent in sexual activity with persons of the same sex. That right there makes this bill 'unhealthy' for youth. I’m starting to feel a Rep. Joe Wilson moment coming on. I want to shout, 'You lie!'" First of all, that's not true, the curriculum would include a discussion of risks involved in all kinds of sexual behaviors. Second of all, get over it you closet-cases! In contrast to their homophobic fear-mongering, Planned Parenthood provides some actual data here.

Rather than lying to our youth and keeping them ignorant, we need to educate them with medically and scientifically accurate facts so they can make informed decisions. Sex is not a big scary monster that kids need to scared away from, it's a natural part of human development and behavior. Get over it, and we'll be over here living in a rational society if you care to join us.

Prayer & Politics

There are about a bazillion ways religion interacts with politics in America. The religious right uses the power of networks to mobilize voters, and biblical inerrantism to advocate "traditional" or "family" values. Liberals invoke the "social gospel" as a reason for their activism, and use Jesus to justify their philosophies of equality and justice. Weber showed how the "Protestant work ethic" may well have led directly to our capitalist economy, and thus our place in the international political theater. Putnam showed how religious communities can cultivate civic skills and political capital in their members. I could go on and on, but the Washington Monthly's Political Animal just pointed out a new, seemingly anachronistic initiative of the Christian Right.

Something ironically called the "Liberty Counsel" is promoting an "Adopt-a-Liberal" prayer campaign. The point is to choose an influential liberal politician or media person, and pray for God to intervene in their lives and change their minds. The pre-approved subject matter for these prayers specifically consists of making these liberals reverse their positions on reproductive rights, gay rights, immigrant rights, and gun rights. I wish I had some statistics handy on how many and what kind of people believe in the efficacy of prayer. But the question also comes up in the comments at Political Animal. Predictably, there is a discussion on what prayer is or isn't and can or cannot do. Is it A) the fallacious belief in impossible magic powers? Is it B) merely directed thought, a way to focus on desired things? Is it C) a kind of re-orienting meditation that empties the mind and calms and detaches the individual? The answer I think is that prayer is different things to different people, but to the Liberty Counsel it seems to be option B. It represents a religiosity that attributes a specific political orientation to God (which I suppose is something most if not all religious people do, to a greater or lesser extent.)

What am I trying to say? I don't know, just an interesting phenomenon to note for later consideration. :)

Census News Summary

Newsweek has an excellent run-down of the political issues surrounding the 2010 Census, as well as a link to the dedicated Census news blog, MyTwoCensus. For the issues surrounding the entire history of the Bureau, check out The American Census: A Social History.

Newsweek touches on: advertising funds, unprecedented anti-government sentiment, racism, immigration reform and immigrant resistance, conservative pundits and politicians (Beck, Bachman, bloggers), the Constitution, the "White House's Coup" of the Commerce Dept., same-sex marriage reporting on a Federal form (when recognition of such is done on the State level), and dangers of the job.

news on the reproductive rights front

it seems as though the contours of the battlefield may be shifting, according to some polling noticed by Appetite for Equal Rights.

mom vs career

Here is an article explaining that Census demographers and various sociologists have found that the "motherhood vs. career" choice that American society imposes on women is largely a myth - except for the youngest, poorest, and least educated Hispanic and foreign-born women. Oh, and a ridiculous and tiny minority of the upper-crust elite. Most women, however, do not automatically "opt-out" of a career when they decide to have a baby. Or at least that is what can be gleaned from census data. A friend of mine wrote an academic article debunking the idea of opting out, using content analysis to reveal the disjuncture between media rhetoric and the reality of womens' lives. In other words, Desperate Housewives and The Secret Life of a Soccer Mom are not reflections of some profound American cultural trend.