So the new TSA regulations for airport security = Government-Sanctioned Sexual Assault and Extreme Government Infringement on Privacy.
The new regulations demand that fliers - regardless of age - must go through a "naked machine" that uses radiation to view someone naked under their clothes. An image is taken and kept on file with the government. If fliers refuse to do this, they are taken aside and in front of everyone, are pat down with a new extended procedure which involves the cupping and squeezing of breasts and genitalia with full hands. It is not guaranteed that the security guard with be of the same gender as you. Gradually, these new procedures and machines will be added to airports across the country in compliance with the new regulations.
There is no choice but photographed naked or touched, there is no choice but photographed naked or touched, there is no choice but photographed naked or touched. There is no possibility to say no. The government does not hear no. The government says that no means force.
Not only do they mean that adults are subject to having a naked photo on file with the government, but they also mean children will have nude photos on file as well.
Not only do they mean that adults are subject to having a full genital and breast pat down (and squeeze), but they also mean children will be pat down too.
This is a blatant violation of sexual assault laws, child sexual molestation laws, and child pornography laws.
This is a blatant violation of basic human rights.
This is a blatant and highly personal invasion of privacy by the U.S. Government. Never mind police entrappment, illegal video cameras, and wire tapping: now they have the right to your body and there's nothing you can do about it.
Already, there are parents telling personal stories about what their children had to go through and how they felt they could do nothing, as parents and protectors, to stop it. There are sexual assault survivors talking about how they pleaded with security guards to stop and cried while they were pat down in front of thousands of fliers, reliving their assault all over again. There are individuals telling their personal stories of not having a choice and regreting not doing anything. There are individuals telling their personal stories of refusing both and being threatened with civil suits when they walked out of the airport. The pot is beginning to stir, but is it enough?
I don't know what you plan to do about it, but I plan to do my research and refuse the procedures even if it lands me on a train (or threatened with a civil suit). I plan on protesting it (and I've got some ideas up my sleeve for flight day). Wouldn't it be even more effective if everyone joined?
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Judith Lorber's "Gender Inequalities" Feminist Theory Anthology - A Really Really Long Rant About Why This Book is Problematic for Historicizing Feminist Thought and Finding Contemporary Contribution
I think a good place to start is Lorber’s outline for defining and characterizing Radical Feminism. Though the outlines introducing each section throughout the book are supposed to be just that – outlines, which break down and simplify the content and key points – there is such a thing as oversimplification. Oversimplification occurs in an outline through definitive statements. I.E. “sexual exploitation in pornography and prostitution” is an identified source of gender inequality for radical feminists and further, “anti-pornography campaigns” are part of their politics for ending gender oppression (121). Hmmm… I’m pretty sure not all radical feminists are anti-porn, just as I’m sure that not all feminists are radical or anti-porn. Specifically, I’m pretty sure there are some radical feminists who specifically identify themselves as sex radical feminists or feminists who identify as radical pro-sex feminists (this is not to say that pro-sex feminists cannot be anti-porn because they can, in fact, be both). Lorber makes an even greater oversimplification with her characterization of “third-wave feminism” at the end of the book. But I will get to that later!
I’m not going to lie, Lorber’s outlines are a bit of a turn-off. Sure, she is trying to explain what different strands of feminist theory are and how they work, but I’m not so sure she is doing an effective job of that. Do we have to understand feminist theory as dichotomous and explicitly individual, or can we explore various theories as intersections of feminist thought?
Truthfully, I think a better understanding of various feminist theories and approaches to eradicating gender inequality is possible without the outlines. If not for the fact that Lorber tends to make definitive statements in the outlines and vastly oversimplifies the way in which the various theories work and overlap – if not for the fact that she separates feminist thought into neat little piles – then for the fact that she does not seem acknowledge that these piles are not piles at all, I find it difficult to appreciate Lorber’s book in its entirety. Further, I find it entirely ineffective for providing an appropriate foundation for understanding histories of feminist thought.
In her prologue, Lorber mentions that she wishes to show “how the various theories have diverged and converged in the second wave of feminism as a political movement” (ix). Does she actually do this at any point in the book? Did she intend on doing this through outlines, segmenting, and a couple of articles for each section? She briefly explores how the theories relate to each other in her conclusion but spends much of her time discussing that state of current feminist theory. Sure, the two relate to each other, and the theories and articles she presents in this book serve to contextualize the present. However, she doesn’t effectively, if at all, discuss the present! Again, more on that later. What’s important here is that Lorber states that she wants to show how the theories can blur, yet she continues to separate them into nice little boxes as much as possible. She even includes texts that demonstrate this grey area, but she never discusses this. For example, in Morgan’s new adaption of “Goodbye to All That”, she concludes by saying “Can we women find [our voice]? Can we do this for ourselves? ‘Our President, Ourselves!’” (131). Morgan asserts that the strength of women and gender equality lies in having a woman president. This is entirely liberal feminist, but she is classified as a radical feminist in Lorber’s book. At another point in Morgan’s article, she seems to bash women for not voting for Hillary Clinton (129). This would lend itself nicely to cultural feminism (a branch of radical feminism, but not radical feminism itself). Bullet two of “Redstockings Manifesto” states that “every such relationship is a class relationship, and the conflicts between individual men and women are political conflicts that can only be solved collectively” (124). While it is possible this was meant to mean women collectively, the previous statements lead me to believe that they meant men and women must work together to solve their individual relationship problems as a social whole because the individual problems are a manifestation of the whole. Further, the manifesto states “we call on all men to give up their male privileges and support women’s liberation in the interest of our humanity and their own” (125). Both of these statements suggest a need for men to join the struggle; they suggest a need for male feminism and demonstrate another blurred line in feminist theories. These things are only problematic if there is no recognition of blurred lines.
Lorber situates her book as being dedicated to the various feminist theories that were debated and converging in “second-wave” feminism. She opens her book by contextualizing the “waves” as a brief overview. “First-wave” texts are not included, as she states. If the book is only concerned with the “second-wave”, why is the third even mentioned?
Lorber states that she wishes to show the contributions that feminism has made to achieving gender equality, as well as what she believes is left to be done (ix). If you’re going to show what is left to be done, wouldn’t it be effective to include more “third-wave” theory…you know, to show what IS being done? “Third-wave feminism” is certainly included in her book, but in a section all by itself entitled “Third-Wave Feminism”. Why is it separated? Why does it exist as a separate MONOLITHIC feminist theory rather than as a section divided up into contemporary perspectives on the feminist theories included throughout the rest of the book? Why isn’t it divided up into perceived newer contemporary theories or approaches like “riot grrrl”, “pro-sex feminists”, “men feminists”, and “black feminists”? Has this generation of feminists not equally contributed to feminist theory or feminism in general? Is it not considered an equal component of feminist movement? Is “third-wave feminism” just considered a generation of feminists, unlike the other “waves” which tend to be understood as generations of feminists…who have created and contributed to different strands of feminist thought?
I think Lorber would say yes, the “third-wave” is just a generation of feminists devoid of real thought and contribution. It appears, to Lorber, that “third-wave” is insignificant with a lot of potential. She seems to acknowledge that there is work to be done and that feminism is still alive to complete this work, but she doesn’t seem to understand contemporary feminism or find it appropriate. She wants to show what is left to be done, but she is she really completing that task? By stopping at “third-wave feminism”, isn’t she merely assuming that absolutely no work has been done since the second? Further, by characterizing “third-wave” as monolithic and in a radically oversimplified way - claiming that “third-wavers” see completely different sources of gender inequality, rather than seeing the “typical ones” and then some – she is CLEARLY stating that contemporary feminist theory is off target. She only includes articles that address issues of intergenerational feminism, where to go from here, and contemporary inclusion rather than articles that are addressing the current political and social issues that this generation faces, such as reproductive justice, balancing work and family, effective forms of activism, overcoming stigma associated with “the f word”, marriage equality, gender expression equality, sexual agency, and sex education. Where are those articles?! Where are the articles from the topics she lists on her outline of what “third-wave feminism” is? Further, why is Kimmel included in a section entirely separate from “third-wave” when men’s issues are mentioned in the “third-wave” outline? Why is he, and other authors, included in the main body of the book (that is dedicated to “second-wave” according to Lorber)? Why can’t he be considered a part of the current generation? He is a part of the current generation!!!
Besides those two articles addressing current tensions with history in the “third-wave” section, the only writings that Lorber includes that were written during the “third-wave” are articles written by women considered to be part of the second like Morgan, and Mohanty and Butler who are really more on the cusp, and people who are writing in the now but are so sophisticated and academic that they get the privilege of being associated with serious theory and the “second-wave”, like Kimmel. Why do we need a “second-waver”, like Morgan, to talk about contemporary issues? Not at all to say that they can’t, but why allow them to speak for this generation rather than with it? Why marginalize younger voices who are the up and coming future of feminism – the ones who are entering feminism and trying to find their voices – while valorizing the older voices? Doesn’t it make sense to have a balance between the two? You know, let them speak together????
Lorber states that “third-wave feminism is both a continuation of and a break with second-wave feminisms” (283). She goes on to briefly discuss this feminism in what I believe to be a highly appropriate and culturally sensitive way. So why does her book do the exact opposite? Further, why does she contradict herself throughout the book by saying things like “third-wave feminism, which also emerged in the 1990s, is a movement of younger feminists who grew up with feminism…they reject the idea that women are oppressed by men…they assume that gender equality is the norm” (4)??? She makes grand overarching, and inaccurate, claims about “third-wave feminism” and then refutes them with more accurate and diverse claims.
I feel that this is the theme of Lorber’s book: make a grandiose, definitive statement about a particular group of feminists, refute the claim either with your explanation or with the article you included to demonstrate that group of feminists, and then leave everyone confused as to how you can go on and on contradicting yourself while attempting to demonstrate feminist diversity. She does this with the Radical Feminists, the Marxist and Socialist Feminists, the Liberal Feminists, the “Third-Wave Feminists”, and I’m sure she’ll continue to do it with the other feminists. The confusion and overarching claims make it exceptionally hard to take Lorber seriously or appreciate the work she has laid out for us.
I think it all boils down to questions of production: Why did Lorber pick the people she did? Are there better choices? Why isn’t Adrienne Rich included in Lesbian Feminism? She is, after all, considered the mother of Lesbian Feminism, isn’t she? What about Judy Grahn, who is close behind? Why wasn’t Angela Davis in the Socialist Feminists? Why are some feminist theories left out, like Cultural Feminism and Ecofeminism? It seems that Lorber wanted to paint a biased picture of second-wave, devoid of truly radical theories (minus Redstockings, which is really the only radical text that is included). She didn’t even include the radical texts of Robin Morgan and instead, put in a newer writing of hers relating to the last presidential election. Why isn’t “third-wave” treated as a generation of feminists with various contributions to feminist thought rather than as an overarching theory or a monolithic generation devoid of theory? Why aren’t more of the issues laid out in her outline included in the texts she chose for that section? Why does she start by saying she wants to show the contributions and differences of “second-wave feminism”, move to slandering the “third-wave”, contextualize the histories of feminist theories that “third-wave” rests on, put “third-wave” in opposition to the second (in the sectioning off, and in the limited article choices), and then minimize the “third-wave” immediately before saying that “third-wave” contributions of diversity and multiplicity have strengthened the current period of feminist movement?
She makes no sense to me!!!!
Needless to say, Lorber’s book has entirely distracted me from fully absorbing the individual contributions to feminism – the individual author’s, their individual perspectives, and their individual writings. I think these essays would better show the complexities, convergences, and divergences of situated feminisms if they stood alone. In categorizing the essays without acknowledgement of the ways in which they do jump back and forth between categories, Lorber creates a dichotomy out of the theories. It’s challenging to see them in conversation with each other because the format encourages me to see them in opposition to each other. Bottom line – Lorber needs to stop categorizing EVERYTHING. Perhaps the one thing she effectively does is demonstrate that categorizing everything clearly does not work. Most importantly, if Lorber intended on discussing where we have been and where we have left to go, perhaps we could answer her question for her by suggesting that we need to move away from categorizing and pitting feminists against feminists, individuals against individuals, theories against theories. We need to move away from these separations and encourage recognition of intersections, dialogue, and cooperation.
I’m not going to lie, Lorber’s outlines are a bit of a turn-off. Sure, she is trying to explain what different strands of feminist theory are and how they work, but I’m not so sure she is doing an effective job of that. Do we have to understand feminist theory as dichotomous and explicitly individual, or can we explore various theories as intersections of feminist thought?
Truthfully, I think a better understanding of various feminist theories and approaches to eradicating gender inequality is possible without the outlines. If not for the fact that Lorber tends to make definitive statements in the outlines and vastly oversimplifies the way in which the various theories work and overlap – if not for the fact that she separates feminist thought into neat little piles – then for the fact that she does not seem acknowledge that these piles are not piles at all, I find it difficult to appreciate Lorber’s book in its entirety. Further, I find it entirely ineffective for providing an appropriate foundation for understanding histories of feminist thought.
In her prologue, Lorber mentions that she wishes to show “how the various theories have diverged and converged in the second wave of feminism as a political movement” (ix). Does she actually do this at any point in the book? Did she intend on doing this through outlines, segmenting, and a couple of articles for each section? She briefly explores how the theories relate to each other in her conclusion but spends much of her time discussing that state of current feminist theory. Sure, the two relate to each other, and the theories and articles she presents in this book serve to contextualize the present. However, she doesn’t effectively, if at all, discuss the present! Again, more on that later. What’s important here is that Lorber states that she wants to show how the theories can blur, yet she continues to separate them into nice little boxes as much as possible. She even includes texts that demonstrate this grey area, but she never discusses this. For example, in Morgan’s new adaption of “Goodbye to All That”, she concludes by saying “Can we women find [our voice]? Can we do this for ourselves? ‘Our President, Ourselves!’” (131). Morgan asserts that the strength of women and gender equality lies in having a woman president. This is entirely liberal feminist, but she is classified as a radical feminist in Lorber’s book. At another point in Morgan’s article, she seems to bash women for not voting for Hillary Clinton (129). This would lend itself nicely to cultural feminism (a branch of radical feminism, but not radical feminism itself). Bullet two of “Redstockings Manifesto” states that “every such relationship is a class relationship, and the conflicts between individual men and women are political conflicts that can only be solved collectively” (124). While it is possible this was meant to mean women collectively, the previous statements lead me to believe that they meant men and women must work together to solve their individual relationship problems as a social whole because the individual problems are a manifestation of the whole. Further, the manifesto states “we call on all men to give up their male privileges and support women’s liberation in the interest of our humanity and their own” (125). Both of these statements suggest a need for men to join the struggle; they suggest a need for male feminism and demonstrate another blurred line in feminist theories. These things are only problematic if there is no recognition of blurred lines.
Lorber situates her book as being dedicated to the various feminist theories that were debated and converging in “second-wave” feminism. She opens her book by contextualizing the “waves” as a brief overview. “First-wave” texts are not included, as she states. If the book is only concerned with the “second-wave”, why is the third even mentioned?
Lorber states that she wishes to show the contributions that feminism has made to achieving gender equality, as well as what she believes is left to be done (ix). If you’re going to show what is left to be done, wouldn’t it be effective to include more “third-wave” theory…you know, to show what IS being done? “Third-wave feminism” is certainly included in her book, but in a section all by itself entitled “Third-Wave Feminism”. Why is it separated? Why does it exist as a separate MONOLITHIC feminist theory rather than as a section divided up into contemporary perspectives on the feminist theories included throughout the rest of the book? Why isn’t it divided up into perceived newer contemporary theories or approaches like “riot grrrl”, “pro-sex feminists”, “men feminists”, and “black feminists”? Has this generation of feminists not equally contributed to feminist theory or feminism in general? Is it not considered an equal component of feminist movement? Is “third-wave feminism” just considered a generation of feminists, unlike the other “waves” which tend to be understood as generations of feminists…who have created and contributed to different strands of feminist thought?
I think Lorber would say yes, the “third-wave” is just a generation of feminists devoid of real thought and contribution. It appears, to Lorber, that “third-wave” is insignificant with a lot of potential. She seems to acknowledge that there is work to be done and that feminism is still alive to complete this work, but she doesn’t seem to understand contemporary feminism or find it appropriate. She wants to show what is left to be done, but she is she really completing that task? By stopping at “third-wave feminism”, isn’t she merely assuming that absolutely no work has been done since the second? Further, by characterizing “third-wave” as monolithic and in a radically oversimplified way - claiming that “third-wavers” see completely different sources of gender inequality, rather than seeing the “typical ones” and then some – she is CLEARLY stating that contemporary feminist theory is off target. She only includes articles that address issues of intergenerational feminism, where to go from here, and contemporary inclusion rather than articles that are addressing the current political and social issues that this generation faces, such as reproductive justice, balancing work and family, effective forms of activism, overcoming stigma associated with “the f word”, marriage equality, gender expression equality, sexual agency, and sex education. Where are those articles?! Where are the articles from the topics she lists on her outline of what “third-wave feminism” is? Further, why is Kimmel included in a section entirely separate from “third-wave” when men’s issues are mentioned in the “third-wave” outline? Why is he, and other authors, included in the main body of the book (that is dedicated to “second-wave” according to Lorber)? Why can’t he be considered a part of the current generation? He is a part of the current generation!!!
Besides those two articles addressing current tensions with history in the “third-wave” section, the only writings that Lorber includes that were written during the “third-wave” are articles written by women considered to be part of the second like Morgan, and Mohanty and Butler who are really more on the cusp, and people who are writing in the now but are so sophisticated and academic that they get the privilege of being associated with serious theory and the “second-wave”, like Kimmel. Why do we need a “second-waver”, like Morgan, to talk about contemporary issues? Not at all to say that they can’t, but why allow them to speak for this generation rather than with it? Why marginalize younger voices who are the up and coming future of feminism – the ones who are entering feminism and trying to find their voices – while valorizing the older voices? Doesn’t it make sense to have a balance between the two? You know, let them speak together????
Lorber states that “third-wave feminism is both a continuation of and a break with second-wave feminisms” (283). She goes on to briefly discuss this feminism in what I believe to be a highly appropriate and culturally sensitive way. So why does her book do the exact opposite? Further, why does she contradict herself throughout the book by saying things like “third-wave feminism, which also emerged in the 1990s, is a movement of younger feminists who grew up with feminism…they reject the idea that women are oppressed by men…they assume that gender equality is the norm” (4)??? She makes grand overarching, and inaccurate, claims about “third-wave feminism” and then refutes them with more accurate and diverse claims.
I feel that this is the theme of Lorber’s book: make a grandiose, definitive statement about a particular group of feminists, refute the claim either with your explanation or with the article you included to demonstrate that group of feminists, and then leave everyone confused as to how you can go on and on contradicting yourself while attempting to demonstrate feminist diversity. She does this with the Radical Feminists, the Marxist and Socialist Feminists, the Liberal Feminists, the “Third-Wave Feminists”, and I’m sure she’ll continue to do it with the other feminists. The confusion and overarching claims make it exceptionally hard to take Lorber seriously or appreciate the work she has laid out for us.
I think it all boils down to questions of production: Why did Lorber pick the people she did? Are there better choices? Why isn’t Adrienne Rich included in Lesbian Feminism? She is, after all, considered the mother of Lesbian Feminism, isn’t she? What about Judy Grahn, who is close behind? Why wasn’t Angela Davis in the Socialist Feminists? Why are some feminist theories left out, like Cultural Feminism and Ecofeminism? It seems that Lorber wanted to paint a biased picture of second-wave, devoid of truly radical theories (minus Redstockings, which is really the only radical text that is included). She didn’t even include the radical texts of Robin Morgan and instead, put in a newer writing of hers relating to the last presidential election. Why isn’t “third-wave” treated as a generation of feminists with various contributions to feminist thought rather than as an overarching theory or a monolithic generation devoid of theory? Why aren’t more of the issues laid out in her outline included in the texts she chose for that section? Why does she start by saying she wants to show the contributions and differences of “second-wave feminism”, move to slandering the “third-wave”, contextualize the histories of feminist theories that “third-wave” rests on, put “third-wave” in opposition to the second (in the sectioning off, and in the limited article choices), and then minimize the “third-wave” immediately before saying that “third-wave” contributions of diversity and multiplicity have strengthened the current period of feminist movement?
She makes no sense to me!!!!
Needless to say, Lorber’s book has entirely distracted me from fully absorbing the individual contributions to feminism – the individual author’s, their individual perspectives, and their individual writings. I think these essays would better show the complexities, convergences, and divergences of situated feminisms if they stood alone. In categorizing the essays without acknowledgement of the ways in which they do jump back and forth between categories, Lorber creates a dichotomy out of the theories. It’s challenging to see them in conversation with each other because the format encourages me to see them in opposition to each other. Bottom line – Lorber needs to stop categorizing EVERYTHING. Perhaps the one thing she effectively does is demonstrate that categorizing everything clearly does not work. Most importantly, if Lorber intended on discussing where we have been and where we have left to go, perhaps we could answer her question for her by suggesting that we need to move away from categorizing and pitting feminists against feminists, individuals against individuals, theories against theories. We need to move away from these separations and encourage recognition of intersections, dialogue, and cooperation.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
The International Socialist Organization - Uneducated, Misinformed, and One Big Ball of Entirely False Assumptions!
In a classroom, I feel I'm the only one present with a working-class background due to assumptions of class and student status. I get put into a room full of like-minded socialists and because of my general affiliation with a university, am immediately shunned as middle-class.
To top it all off, I was inadvertently additionally shunned for "being trained to think differently" with my education in both Sexuality and Women's Studies. I say inadvertently because this specific individual had no idea what my educational background was and simply gave both disciplines as an example of how all academics have a hard time seeing capitalism as a root cause of the current political climate in the U.S. Yeah, let that marinate for a second...
• I have a BA in Women’s Studies and am a MA in Gender and Women’s Studies.
• I have a Certificate in Sexuality Studies.
• I am sitting in a weekly meeting of the International Socialist Organization.
• I clearly think capitalism is a root cause of the current political climate in the U.S...
o Despite my “being trained to think differently”.
Never in a million years did I expect a room full of self-identified Radicals and Socialists to assume so much of an individual’s identity and life experience.
In this particular branch of this particular Socialist organization, there is a general belief in a clear and strict dichotomy between academics and activists. Even though this organization has a branch within the university. Even though this organization emphasizes educating themselves and others through the same history and classical theoretical foundations that academics frame their own work on. Even though this organization acknowledges the Marxist theory that social class does not determine social consciousness.
Even though both their ideologies and realities do not seem to match the dichotomies they vehemently believe in, this particular organization asserts that all academics are middle-class and in opposition to activists who are working-class. The classed identities of academics and activists can never blur, and no individual can be both an academic and an activist.
To that, I first say – Can an individual be both a scholar and an activist?! ;)
I also say – What the fuck?!
This rigid dichotomy that is propped up by both academics and activists is pure hatred and a major setback to all facets of social change. There are several foundations for this dichotomy but the predominant one – the notion that academics have no field experience and that activists are all field experience with no basis in fact or analysis – discourages cross-pollination. Further, it discourages new alliances and individuals from joining forces with groups and ideologies that prop up this standard.
The activist/academic dichotomy has particular ramifications for Gender and Women’s Studies Departments and Socialist organizations. Why the ISO so adamantly believes that socialism and feminism cannot go together – and further, why Gender and Women’s Studies as a discipline would encourage a way of thinking that is entirely outside of socialist thought – is beyond me. Exactly what kind of thinking do GWS departments encourage, and how does it distract from socialist ideologies? How does it prevent feminists and feminist academics from identifying capitalism as a primary institutional social problem?
Perhaps the ISO sees feminism as looking at gender and nothing else. Perhaps the ISO has had no exposure to feminism or GWS – certainly not enough to know that, particularly GWS programs, are looking more and more at issues of class – certainly not enough to know that capitalism is routinely criticized in GWS classrooms.
The ISO has been completely unexposed to feminism and therefore, their own socialist history. If they truly read as much as they acclaim, if they truly understood and had grounds for their claims that GWS programs train their students to think differently so that one may not see capitalism as an underlying cause for the current political climate in the U.S. and further, the social structures, then they would know that there is a long and rich correlation between socialism and feminism within both academic thought and activism.
Feminism has danced with socialism since socialism first made its way into the political arena. Though many women felt ostracized from socialist thought because it was dominated by men, women certainly identified with socialism. Most importantly, women contributed to socialist thought in under-recognized ways.
It is evident that the ISO needs to brush up on their reading. Some great feminist and socialist authors throughout almost 100 years of history include:
Alexandra Kollanti
Angela Davis
Emma Goldman
Barbara Ehrenreich
Donna Haraway
Nellie Wong
Clara Zetkin
When finished, perhaps we can discuss the ways in which feminism and socialism do, in fact, have the ability to think together and to contribute to one another.
Yes, the two ideologies that cannot go together. Yes, the two identities that cannot go together. Yes, the two histories that are seemingly distinct. They go together!
To humor you: There are specifically two feminist theories that are split with socialism.
1. Marxist Feminism: Marxist feminism generally asserts that capitalism plays a primary role in women’s lives and the oppression of women and therefore, needs to be eradicated and replaced with a more socialist society in order to achieve gender equality. It relies on Marxist theories and incorporates a stronger gender analysis of such theories.
2. Socialist Feminism: Socialist feminism is a broader version of Marxist feminism. It argues for the eradication of capitalism as a primary factor in women’s oppression while taking a radical feminist position regarding patriarchy. Socialist feminism tends to believe that both patriarchy and capitalism as institutions perpetuate women’s oppression, so both need to be eliminated in order to achieve liberation from economic and cultural forces.
It doesn’t get any more blatant than that. Feminism and socialism intricately go together – in theory and in practice. Gender and Women’s Studies – as the mother to these academic feminist theories – is innately connected to socialist thought. Clearly – ever so clearly – GWS does not teach its students to think differently from socialists.
In conclusion, feminism is about correcting the oppression of people through equality and equity while examining this oppression primarily through the lens of gender. Socialism is about correcting the oppression of people through economic equality and equity. The two may be different in foundation and theories, but there are places where they converge. Most importantly, they share ideas of oppression and visions of the future.
If nothing else, both socialism and feminism are founded on theories that were written by dead academics who were also activists; these theories are contemporarily used by both camps. Take a hint!
Disclaimer: While my status as an academic - which was assumed based on little information - was wrongly assumed to be disassociated with activism. Most of my work involves the convergence of the two. I will also state that while I am educated, my class background was also entirely wrongly assumed.
To top it all off, I was inadvertently additionally shunned for "being trained to think differently" with my education in both Sexuality and Women's Studies. I say inadvertently because this specific individual had no idea what my educational background was and simply gave both disciplines as an example of how all academics have a hard time seeing capitalism as a root cause of the current political climate in the U.S. Yeah, let that marinate for a second...
• I have a BA in Women’s Studies and am a MA in Gender and Women’s Studies.
• I have a Certificate in Sexuality Studies.
• I am sitting in a weekly meeting of the International Socialist Organization.
• I clearly think capitalism is a root cause of the current political climate in the U.S...
o Despite my “being trained to think differently”.
Never in a million years did I expect a room full of self-identified Radicals and Socialists to assume so much of an individual’s identity and life experience.
In this particular branch of this particular Socialist organization, there is a general belief in a clear and strict dichotomy between academics and activists. Even though this organization has a branch within the university. Even though this organization emphasizes educating themselves and others through the same history and classical theoretical foundations that academics frame their own work on. Even though this organization acknowledges the Marxist theory that social class does not determine social consciousness.
Even though both their ideologies and realities do not seem to match the dichotomies they vehemently believe in, this particular organization asserts that all academics are middle-class and in opposition to activists who are working-class. The classed identities of academics and activists can never blur, and no individual can be both an academic and an activist.
To that, I first say – Can an individual be both a scholar and an activist?! ;)
I also say – What the fuck?!
This rigid dichotomy that is propped up by both academics and activists is pure hatred and a major setback to all facets of social change. There are several foundations for this dichotomy but the predominant one – the notion that academics have no field experience and that activists are all field experience with no basis in fact or analysis – discourages cross-pollination. Further, it discourages new alliances and individuals from joining forces with groups and ideologies that prop up this standard.
The activist/academic dichotomy has particular ramifications for Gender and Women’s Studies Departments and Socialist organizations. Why the ISO so adamantly believes that socialism and feminism cannot go together – and further, why Gender and Women’s Studies as a discipline would encourage a way of thinking that is entirely outside of socialist thought – is beyond me. Exactly what kind of thinking do GWS departments encourage, and how does it distract from socialist ideologies? How does it prevent feminists and feminist academics from identifying capitalism as a primary institutional social problem?
Perhaps the ISO sees feminism as looking at gender and nothing else. Perhaps the ISO has had no exposure to feminism or GWS – certainly not enough to know that, particularly GWS programs, are looking more and more at issues of class – certainly not enough to know that capitalism is routinely criticized in GWS classrooms.
The ISO has been completely unexposed to feminism and therefore, their own socialist history. If they truly read as much as they acclaim, if they truly understood and had grounds for their claims that GWS programs train their students to think differently so that one may not see capitalism as an underlying cause for the current political climate in the U.S. and further, the social structures, then they would know that there is a long and rich correlation between socialism and feminism within both academic thought and activism.
Feminism has danced with socialism since socialism first made its way into the political arena. Though many women felt ostracized from socialist thought because it was dominated by men, women certainly identified with socialism. Most importantly, women contributed to socialist thought in under-recognized ways.
It is evident that the ISO needs to brush up on their reading. Some great feminist and socialist authors throughout almost 100 years of history include:
Alexandra Kollanti
Angela Davis
Emma Goldman
Barbara Ehrenreich
Donna Haraway
Nellie Wong
Clara Zetkin
When finished, perhaps we can discuss the ways in which feminism and socialism do, in fact, have the ability to think together and to contribute to one another.
Yes, the two ideologies that cannot go together. Yes, the two identities that cannot go together. Yes, the two histories that are seemingly distinct. They go together!
To humor you: There are specifically two feminist theories that are split with socialism.
1. Marxist Feminism: Marxist feminism generally asserts that capitalism plays a primary role in women’s lives and the oppression of women and therefore, needs to be eradicated and replaced with a more socialist society in order to achieve gender equality. It relies on Marxist theories and incorporates a stronger gender analysis of such theories.
2. Socialist Feminism: Socialist feminism is a broader version of Marxist feminism. It argues for the eradication of capitalism as a primary factor in women’s oppression while taking a radical feminist position regarding patriarchy. Socialist feminism tends to believe that both patriarchy and capitalism as institutions perpetuate women’s oppression, so both need to be eliminated in order to achieve liberation from economic and cultural forces.
It doesn’t get any more blatant than that. Feminism and socialism intricately go together – in theory and in practice. Gender and Women’s Studies – as the mother to these academic feminist theories – is innately connected to socialist thought. Clearly – ever so clearly – GWS does not teach its students to think differently from socialists.
In conclusion, feminism is about correcting the oppression of people through equality and equity while examining this oppression primarily through the lens of gender. Socialism is about correcting the oppression of people through economic equality and equity. The two may be different in foundation and theories, but there are places where they converge. Most importantly, they share ideas of oppression and visions of the future.
If nothing else, both socialism and feminism are founded on theories that were written by dead academics who were also activists; these theories are contemporarily used by both camps. Take a hint!
Disclaimer: While my status as an academic - which was assumed based on little information - was wrongly assumed to be disassociated with activism. Most of my work involves the convergence of the two. I will also state that while I am educated, my class background was also entirely wrongly assumed.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
"what can you do with a Gender and Women's Studies major/degree?"
a list of job titles of Women's Studies alumni from the University of Wisconsin
4th grade teacher
academic adviser
academic coordinator
accommodations specialist
account executive
acupuncturist and chinese medicine practitioner
administrative assistant
admissions advisor
artist
branch manager
buyer
case manager
education research specialist
editor
features editor
manager/retailer
productivity
attorney
branch trainer
broadcast associate
business administrator
candy maker
career counselor
case manager
chemistry teacher
civil rights
recruitment specialist
clerk
clinical social worker
clinical speech pathologist
clinical systems specailist
co-anchor/news 5pm and 10pm
communication specialist
community organizer
computer programmer/analyst/tech
conferences and meeting manager
convention coordinator
cook
customer service manager
costumer service
technician
development director
director
director of advancement services
director of casting
director of patient and employee relations
drug and alcohol counselor
educator
e-media project manager/writer
english professor
english teacher
esl instructor
executive director
family service center generalist
family skills specialist
history fellow
freelancer
graduate program coordinator
grad student
grant writer
group social worker/program coordinator
health unit coordinator
home coordinator
homemaker
human capital intern
human resources generalist
imaging analyst
instruction coordinator/central library
interim asm director of staff and programming
internet specialist
investment associate
law student
lead instructor/marketing assistant
leasing agent
lecturer
librarian
lounge supervisor
major gifts assisttant
manager
manager of nutrition policy
marina manager
marital and family therapist
marketing
marketing study director
massage therapist
medical assistant/molecular biology
membership services assistant
multicultural international student advisor
national account executive
new product development
nurse
nurse practitioner
offender classification specialist
office manager
cps social worker
supervisor
outdoor air quality educator
outdoor educator
outreach specialist
owner
paralegal
pediatrician
performance improvement assistant
personal trainer
phd grad student
physician/obgyn
planning and evaluation associate
policy processor
political intern
pr specialist
prepared foods clerk
president
probation and parole agent
program assistant
program attorney
program officer/human rights
project coordinator
psychologist
public health clinic aide
public relations
publicist
publisher
quality assurance
rabbi
radiation therapist
real estate salesperson
realtor
reception
reference and instruction librarian
regional manager
regional sales director
registered nurse
research assistant
reservationist/sales
resource planning and development
retail manager
school social worker
science teaccher
scrub tech
secondary teacher and teach for america
sign language interpreter
social worker
special assistant state public defender
special education teacher
statewide victim assistance coordinator
stay-at-home mom
strategic account manager
student
support staff
synerG/young professionals coordinator
teaching assistant
tax consultant
teacher
teacher on special assignment
writer
tech support
tech writer/translation coordinator
tv producer
therapist
enrollment management
vice president
w-2 first year ally
county area director
webmaster
4th grade teacher
academic adviser
academic coordinator
accommodations specialist
account executive
acupuncturist and chinese medicine practitioner
administrative assistant
admissions advisor
artist
branch manager
buyer
case manager
education research specialist
editor
features editor
manager/retailer
productivity
attorney
branch trainer
broadcast associate
business administrator
candy maker
career counselor
case manager
chemistry teacher
civil rights
recruitment specialist
clerk
clinical social worker
clinical speech pathologist
clinical systems specailist
co-anchor/news 5pm and 10pm
communication specialist
community organizer
computer programmer/analyst/tech
conferences and meeting manager
convention coordinator
cook
customer service manager
costumer service
technician
development director
director
director of advancement services
director of casting
director of patient and employee relations
drug and alcohol counselor
educator
e-media project manager/writer
english professor
english teacher
esl instructor
executive director
family service center generalist
family skills specialist
history fellow
freelancer
graduate program coordinator
grad student
grant writer
group social worker/program coordinator
health unit coordinator
home coordinator
homemaker
human capital intern
human resources generalist
imaging analyst
instruction coordinator/central library
interim asm director of staff and programming
internet specialist
investment associate
law student
lead instructor/marketing assistant
leasing agent
lecturer
librarian
lounge supervisor
major gifts assisttant
manager
manager of nutrition policy
marina manager
marital and family therapist
marketing
marketing study director
massage therapist
medical assistant/molecular biology
membership services assistant
multicultural international student advisor
national account executive
new product development
nurse
nurse practitioner
offender classification specialist
office manager
cps social worker
supervisor
outdoor air quality educator
outdoor educator
outreach specialist
owner
paralegal
pediatrician
performance improvement assistant
personal trainer
phd grad student
physician/obgyn
planning and evaluation associate
policy processor
political intern
pr specialist
prepared foods clerk
president
probation and parole agent
program assistant
program attorney
program officer/human rights
project coordinator
psychologist
public health clinic aide
public relations
publicist
publisher
quality assurance
rabbi
radiation therapist
real estate salesperson
realtor
reception
reference and instruction librarian
regional manager
regional sales director
registered nurse
research assistant
reservationist/sales
resource planning and development
retail manager
school social worker
science teaccher
scrub tech
secondary teacher and teach for america
sign language interpreter
social worker
special assistant state public defender
special education teacher
statewide victim assistance coordinator
stay-at-home mom
strategic account manager
student
support staff
synerG/young professionals coordinator
teaching assistant
tax consultant
teacher
teacher on special assignment
writer
tech support
tech writer/translation coordinator
tv producer
therapist
enrollment management
vice president
w-2 first year ally
county area director
webmaster
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Lady Pop Icons: Musicians or Soft-core Porn Stars???
Do we see pop icons like Britney Spears, Beyonce, Lady Gaga, Christina Aguillera, the Pussycat Dolls, etc. as musicians or soft-core porn stars? Are they serious singers full of talent that should be taken seriously for their skills? Or are those skills masked with their bodies? Can these women make it in the mainstream music business without taking their clothes off? Or do they have to strip in order to play with the boys?
Further, do these pop icons WANT to be naked and dance like this? Do they want their music and identity to be all about sex? OR Do they want to be taken seriously as musicians and singers? Do they want people to look past their bodies and hear what is coming out of their mouths?
And most strikingly, WHY CAN'T THERE BE A BALANCE?! Why can't these women balance the focus on the body with the focus on the music? Why can't they pose sexy sometimes and pose normally other times? Why can't they switch up the outfits and put on a pair of jeans?
I feel like those questions can't really be answered until we look at the music industry itself. Without being a part of it, it is my understanding that various record labels - namely those of pop culture and more mainstreamed music - require these sorts of sexual identities as part of contracts or sales deals. They find a woman with talent who is pretty, sign her up for a record deal, and over time, encourage her in many smaller ways to become sexier and sexier. If you look at various artists, they all start off "fairly innocent" and as their success increases, their clothes come off. Other record labels don't seem to have this problem. Indie music, country music, etc. don't have this issue with their female artists. So generally, I feel like it's very much imbedded in the culture of pop and mainstream music. It's in the record labels, the people that run that show and own the music, the women's thirst for fame, the pressure from viewers and fans to be a certain way, awards shows, MTV, magazine companies, etc. It's coming from all over really, but a culture in which these particular singers/musicians must be hyper sexualized has certainly been created.
I think my views of this particular aspect of mainstream music and its industry can be summed up in two fairly recent events:
1. Beyonce's song "Single Ladies" won some kind of music award for best single of 2009. (I won't even pretend to know exactly what it was. I only remember hearing about it.) Beyonce didn't receive the award; the MAN who wrote it did. Beyonce is touted as being an "independent woman" because of her songs and such, but a closer look into the industry - just looking at one of her CD's and who writes and photographs everything, you can see that she is 100% "ran by" men. So truly, we can't really say she's an "independent woman" when men are writing her "independent woman" lyrics and creating the image for her.
2. Lady Gaga has an alternative music identity. She once went by her real name, Stefanie, and produced an album entitled, "Red and Blue". Not unlike her current albums, she wrote all of the songs. However, these songs were more piano based and had a Vanessa Carlton meets Michelle Branch vibe to them. And they were not about hook ups and fame. She wore little make-up and presented herself as herself rather than a parody of pop culture and icons. Her identity as a musician was 100% different than it is today. Her musical identity of Stefanie is almost entirely unknown, while Lady Gaga is known around the world. So what happened? What caused NYU's School of the Arts educated Stefanie to do a complete 360 and morph into Lady Gaga? Was it change and growth that comes with young adulthood? Was it a change in musical taste? OR Was it the inability to get her musical career off the ground otherwise?
Perhaps the bigger question here is - what kind of world is this particular culture of music creating for young girls? How does that impact young boys and their relations to young girls? We can't deny that, while this pop music is not AIMED at young girls, it is largely young girls who follow and appreciate it. And it is largely young girls who are impacted by it, and this impact carries into many facets of adulthood.
When "Single Ladies" goes from this:
To this:
We should be concerned.
We should hold this pop culture accountable for their actions as being negligent towards children for the pure and simple fact that this culture is well aware of their audiences.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Settling for Great Change - Health Care Reform
Health Care Reform is a huge positive for our country, no matter what form the bill comes in. However, this particular bill, with all of the changes and compromises it has undergone in order to be passed, is not a complete positive in my opinion. It’s both a yay and a nay in my book. Yay because of change. Nay because I'm not sure it's adequate change. Is this truly a socialist move, aimed at redistributing power via access to health care more equally amongst all? Or is this just another capitalist vendetta that will privilege some individuals and corporations over others while masquerading as equality? It's exciting to see this happen, but it's scary that we don't know what it means. So I'm on the fence. I'm on the fence because it's possible that this change won't do much to actually change the lives of the People it's intended to change.
PROS
• the gender rating will be gotten rid of so that women cannot be charged more in premiums and costs than their male counter-parts
• all women can receive their preventative gynecological health care without co-pay
• power will be taken away from private insurance companies – apparently they will be told what services they are required to cover (including preventative care), they will not be allowed to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, and will have to be pay a specific premium for patient care rather than being allowed to make up their own small percentage
• Medicaid will be extended to all “poor adults” rather than just the poor and disabled, elderly, pregnant, or minor
• Medicaid can offer abortion coverage if in the cases of sexual violence or health risk (which is also a con because it continues to legislate sexuality)
• employers providing insurance are required to provide domestic partner benefits
• community health centers will receive increases in funding
CONS
• an increase in funding for abstinence-only education is included in the bill
• abortion coverage does not exist except for with private insurance companies that provide it because they wish to and even then, the insurance company has to pay for the service with patient premiums rather than taxpayer subsidies
• undocumented individuals are completely excluded from health care reform – they can’t even buy insurance with their own money, they can buy private insurance but not insurance within the system that is being created (due to federal subsidies)
• Planned Parenthood – though it is a community health center – will receive a decrease in funding because of the sex education that it provides as well as the fact that these services that are directed towards the poor will now be available to the poor everywhere, ideally
• the majority of people will not see significant declines in premium costs
• the individual mandate requires that all have insurance and if they do not, they have to pay a fine of $695 per person per year – and of course we know that with inflation, this number will only increase in future years
So the undocumented individuals not being included in the plan – I get not paying taxes and therefore, not paying into the system and not receiving the benefits. But let’s face it, if immigration was made easier, they could pay into the system. And with more people paying into the system, it becomes cheaper and provides better services. So what the hell is that all about?! Also – not being able to buy your own with you own money????
As for the plan working to take away power from private insurance companies...really? It doesn’t look like it’s doing much at all to move in that direction. Yes Medicaid is still there and Medicaid is what really needed the reform because that is the program that should be working for the majority of amerikkkans (as the majority of amerikkkans are working-class rather than middle-class, even though amerikkkan politicians and therefore, citizens, like to claim that we’re all middle-class. apparently “work” is a dirty word...). But there are still people who do not qualify for Medicaid and have to have private insurance or will choose to have private insurance for whatever reason; those people, fairly certain, will continue to get screwed. I mean, when corporate personhood was just strengthened through legislation not more than a month ago, how can you honestly expect a couple of provisions to take away power from private insurance companies? CORPORATE Personhood / Insurance COMPANY. Same? DUH!!! And let’s not forget that while the plan is intended to take away power from private insurance companies, it seems to allow for a funneling of money into pharm corps. Again Pharmaceutical COMPANY. Yeah...
Finally, people are complaining about taxes. People have always complained about taxes. You know what, you can’t expect social programming and systemic services without paying into the system. There is nothing wrong or unamerikkkan about supporting your neighbor through the tax system. Pay your taxes and shut up! (of course, we do have a right to complain about the poor paying more than the rich, but that’s a whole other issue! and of course, we also have the right to complain about the system that maintains that)
Fortunately, I had the opportunity to go hear Obama speak last week here in Iowa City. (He stopped here to give a speech as this was his first stop on his health care reform tour back in the day.) I was hoping that he would side-step his highly rhetorical human rights speeches and start speaking to the people about what is happening up on capitol hill and how it affects us as citizens. Though he was eloquent as usual and entirely hilarious and charming, he never addressed my concerns. He spent about five minutes or so getting into the details of what will happen to health care during the remainder of the year and said it would take 4 years for the plan to be fully implemented. He discussed tax breaks for small business owners as a way to stimulate jobs in the economy, not being denied coverage based on a pre-condition, and the idea of excellent health care. Obama stated that this plan would provide adequate and excellent health care to all AND that the people on capitol hill would be using the same plan. THIS IS A FLAT OUT LIE that is validated through the fact that people on capitol hill do not qualify for Medicaid and therefore, have to have private insurance. Also, we’ve all heard the comments of conservative right wing republicans who are completely willing to deny abortion coverage to average women in the U.S. but are happy to have it available to their own wives (perhaps all they are allowed to do is lay on their backs...) through private insurance...the insurance that they have and will continue to have! Further, people who are on employer’s insurance are allowed to stay on it, so if members of congress stay on the insurance they are currently on, what makes anyone believe they will utilize this particular health care???? I don’t think so! We are allowing our government to create a health care plan that they would never in a million years use...
I don’t believe the bill is so entirely black and white. This is great because it means it’s accommodating more people and needs. As both a huge yay and nay, my concern is the general attitude regarding the bill among supporters. Obama said that is a step in the right direction and everyone else keeps saying that as well. I don’t know how many times I have been told to look on the bright side or to accept it for what it is and what could be in the future. Following McCarthyism, the era of Vietnam, this idea would never fly. No one would allow our People to trust our government so much as to assume that they will give us a little and continue to work for us afterwards. So why does it fly now? I have forever believed that a step in the right direction isn’t good enough; only the right direction is. We should never settle for less than we deserve as human beings. We should never settle because we think it’s better than the way things have been. Obviously, we take what we can get. But we NEVER think that it’s good enough when it isn’t what we bargained for – when it isn’t what we fought for.
The fact of the matter is, this bill is not black and white. It will benefit some at the expense of others. It will give women some rights while taking away or continuously denying them to others. It will try to elevate them. However, it will continue to deny women abortion, sex education, and birth control access thus, legislating their sexuality. Perhaps this legislation of sexuality will just manifest itself differently – for better or worse. Maybe it will continue to put the blinders on young women and effectively work to shut down the F word. Maybe it will continue to empower capitalism through money funneling.
Maybe someone should stand up and say this is not enough and hold the government accountable for the promises made to continue to change it. Make sure it continues to be revised! It is a step in the right direction but we deserve more than a step. And the money flow of citizen to government to rich to poor with taxes and subsidies and private funding doesn’t matter here. Change the structure of the system – change capitalism – if we can’t implement greater change otherwise.
PROS
• the gender rating will be gotten rid of so that women cannot be charged more in premiums and costs than their male counter-parts
• all women can receive their preventative gynecological health care without co-pay
• power will be taken away from private insurance companies – apparently they will be told what services they are required to cover (including preventative care), they will not be allowed to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, and will have to be pay a specific premium for patient care rather than being allowed to make up their own small percentage
• Medicaid will be extended to all “poor adults” rather than just the poor and disabled, elderly, pregnant, or minor
• Medicaid can offer abortion coverage if in the cases of sexual violence or health risk (which is also a con because it continues to legislate sexuality)
• employers providing insurance are required to provide domestic partner benefits
• community health centers will receive increases in funding
CONS
• an increase in funding for abstinence-only education is included in the bill
• abortion coverage does not exist except for with private insurance companies that provide it because they wish to and even then, the insurance company has to pay for the service with patient premiums rather than taxpayer subsidies
• undocumented individuals are completely excluded from health care reform – they can’t even buy insurance with their own money, they can buy private insurance but not insurance within the system that is being created (due to federal subsidies)
• Planned Parenthood – though it is a community health center – will receive a decrease in funding because of the sex education that it provides as well as the fact that these services that are directed towards the poor will now be available to the poor everywhere, ideally
• the majority of people will not see significant declines in premium costs
• the individual mandate requires that all have insurance and if they do not, they have to pay a fine of $695 per person per year – and of course we know that with inflation, this number will only increase in future years
So the undocumented individuals not being included in the plan – I get not paying taxes and therefore, not paying into the system and not receiving the benefits. But let’s face it, if immigration was made easier, they could pay into the system. And with more people paying into the system, it becomes cheaper and provides better services. So what the hell is that all about?! Also – not being able to buy your own with you own money????
As for the plan working to take away power from private insurance companies...really? It doesn’t look like it’s doing much at all to move in that direction. Yes Medicaid is still there and Medicaid is what really needed the reform because that is the program that should be working for the majority of amerikkkans (as the majority of amerikkkans are working-class rather than middle-class, even though amerikkkan politicians and therefore, citizens, like to claim that we’re all middle-class. apparently “work” is a dirty word...). But there are still people who do not qualify for Medicaid and have to have private insurance or will choose to have private insurance for whatever reason; those people, fairly certain, will continue to get screwed. I mean, when corporate personhood was just strengthened through legislation not more than a month ago, how can you honestly expect a couple of provisions to take away power from private insurance companies? CORPORATE Personhood / Insurance COMPANY. Same? DUH!!! And let’s not forget that while the plan is intended to take away power from private insurance companies, it seems to allow for a funneling of money into pharm corps. Again Pharmaceutical COMPANY. Yeah...
Finally, people are complaining about taxes. People have always complained about taxes. You know what, you can’t expect social programming and systemic services without paying into the system. There is nothing wrong or unamerikkkan about supporting your neighbor through the tax system. Pay your taxes and shut up! (of course, we do have a right to complain about the poor paying more than the rich, but that’s a whole other issue! and of course, we also have the right to complain about the system that maintains that)
Fortunately, I had the opportunity to go hear Obama speak last week here in Iowa City. (He stopped here to give a speech as this was his first stop on his health care reform tour back in the day.) I was hoping that he would side-step his highly rhetorical human rights speeches and start speaking to the people about what is happening up on capitol hill and how it affects us as citizens. Though he was eloquent as usual and entirely hilarious and charming, he never addressed my concerns. He spent about five minutes or so getting into the details of what will happen to health care during the remainder of the year and said it would take 4 years for the plan to be fully implemented. He discussed tax breaks for small business owners as a way to stimulate jobs in the economy, not being denied coverage based on a pre-condition, and the idea of excellent health care. Obama stated that this plan would provide adequate and excellent health care to all AND that the people on capitol hill would be using the same plan. THIS IS A FLAT OUT LIE that is validated through the fact that people on capitol hill do not qualify for Medicaid and therefore, have to have private insurance. Also, we’ve all heard the comments of conservative right wing republicans who are completely willing to deny abortion coverage to average women in the U.S. but are happy to have it available to their own wives (perhaps all they are allowed to do is lay on their backs...) through private insurance...the insurance that they have and will continue to have! Further, people who are on employer’s insurance are allowed to stay on it, so if members of congress stay on the insurance they are currently on, what makes anyone believe they will utilize this particular health care???? I don’t think so! We are allowing our government to create a health care plan that they would never in a million years use...
I don’t believe the bill is so entirely black and white. This is great because it means it’s accommodating more people and needs. As both a huge yay and nay, my concern is the general attitude regarding the bill among supporters. Obama said that is a step in the right direction and everyone else keeps saying that as well. I don’t know how many times I have been told to look on the bright side or to accept it for what it is and what could be in the future. Following McCarthyism, the era of Vietnam, this idea would never fly. No one would allow our People to trust our government so much as to assume that they will give us a little and continue to work for us afterwards. So why does it fly now? I have forever believed that a step in the right direction isn’t good enough; only the right direction is. We should never settle for less than we deserve as human beings. We should never settle because we think it’s better than the way things have been. Obviously, we take what we can get. But we NEVER think that it’s good enough when it isn’t what we bargained for – when it isn’t what we fought for.
The fact of the matter is, this bill is not black and white. It will benefit some at the expense of others. It will give women some rights while taking away or continuously denying them to others. It will try to elevate them. However, it will continue to deny women abortion, sex education, and birth control access thus, legislating their sexuality. Perhaps this legislation of sexuality will just manifest itself differently – for better or worse. Maybe it will continue to put the blinders on young women and effectively work to shut down the F word. Maybe it will continue to empower capitalism through money funneling.
Maybe someone should stand up and say this is not enough and hold the government accountable for the promises made to continue to change it. Make sure it continues to be revised! It is a step in the right direction but we deserve more than a step. And the money flow of citizen to government to rich to poor with taxes and subsidies and private funding doesn’t matter here. Change the structure of the system – change capitalism – if we can’t implement greater change otherwise.
Monday, March 22, 2010
"Playboy Mommy" ~Tori Amos
In my platforms I hit the floor
Fell face down, didn't help my brain out
Then the baby came before I found
The magic how to keep her happy
I never was the fantasy
Of what you wanted me to be
Don't judge me so harsh little girl
So you got a playboy mommy
But when you tell 'em my name
And you want to cross that
Bridge all on your own
Little girl they'll do you no harm
Because they know your playboy mommy
But when you tell 'em my name
From here to Birmingham, I got a few friends
I never was there
Was there when it counts
I get my way
You're so like me
You seemed ashamed
Ashamed that I was a good friend
Of American soldiers
I'll say it loud here by your grave
Those angels can't ever take my place
Somewhere where the orchids grow
I can't find those church bells
That played when you died
Played Gloria
Talkin' 'bout Hosanah
Don't judge me so harsh little girl
You got a playboy mommy
Come home
But when you tell them soldiers my name
And cross that bridge all on your own
Little girl they'll do you no harm
Because they know your playboy mommy
And I'll be home
To take you in my arms...
To all the Mommies who think they aren't good enough parents - because society told them so, because the government told them so, because their children told them so. My Mommy is the best in the world. And she did it all for me.
Fell face down, didn't help my brain out
Then the baby came before I found
The magic how to keep her happy
I never was the fantasy
Of what you wanted me to be
Don't judge me so harsh little girl
So you got a playboy mommy
But when you tell 'em my name
And you want to cross that
Bridge all on your own
Little girl they'll do you no harm
Because they know your playboy mommy
But when you tell 'em my name
From here to Birmingham, I got a few friends
I never was there
Was there when it counts
I get my way
You're so like me
You seemed ashamed
Ashamed that I was a good friend
Of American soldiers
I'll say it loud here by your grave
Those angels can't ever take my place
Somewhere where the orchids grow
I can't find those church bells
That played when you died
Played Gloria
Talkin' 'bout Hosanah
Don't judge me so harsh little girl
You got a playboy mommy
Come home
But when you tell them soldiers my name
And cross that bridge all on your own
Little girl they'll do you no harm
Because they know your playboy mommy
And I'll be home
To take you in my arms...
To all the Mommies who think they aren't good enough parents - because society told them so, because the government told them so, because their children told them so. My Mommy is the best in the world. And she did it all for me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
