Reverie

Sanitizing Language or Fighting the Good Fight? Guidelines for Determining and Dealing With Offensive Language

2011-04-02T14:44:00.005-05:00

Some feminist blogs have started having frequent kerfuffles over commonly used words that can be etymologically traced to negative attitudes towards categories of oppressed people. I used to be really caught up in dismantling subtle forms of discrimination in language, too, but I moved past that when I realized how exhausting and largely pointless it is. While it would be ideal if we could move away from problematic language, but because "problematic language" is such a wide category, I think it's wiser to pick our battles, both to avoid activist burnout and alienating potential allies.

The invocation of "alienating allies" is used to silence radical criticism by suggesting that we must dilute our advocacy to make it palatable to dominant classes of society. Yet, it is also a real concern - when a movement gets up in relatively minor issues (compared to larger structural concerns) with a mostly symbolic impact, and which provoke a high degree of hostility, it is worth considering whether this victory is worth the risk that people are turned off from the cause. In the case of language I think this is a particularly relevant concern - while it may be useful as a tool for illustrating the ubiquity of objectionable mindsets or for framing a policy debate in an advantageous way, it can backfire, especially when the language is the sole problem at issue rather than an indicator of a biased mindset affecting a larger point.

For example: If a person is arguing for a ban on abortion and decries the use of "abortion as birth control" by "dirty sluts," this indicates that their misogynist ideas about women who choose to abort is a reason for their anti-abortion views on policy. Drawing attention to this might illustrate that this person's opposition to abortion is less about "saving the babies" than punishing women for sexual expression this person does not approve of. In contrast, calling out a social-justice blogger who uses a potentially objectionable yet mainstream word in a sentence where it signifies its dictionary definition (such as "People who believe in this sexist idea are idiots!") is far less useful.

My general rule these days is that a word with problematic etymology is only objectionable if it is being used to convey the full weight of that problematic history. So, if a man calls a woman a bitch, as an insult and intending to hurt her, merely for having an opinion that it would be acceptable for her to have if she was a man, that's problematic. In contrast, non-serious sayings like "Bitch, plz!" are relatively harmless. Similarly, the word "crazy" is okay if it's being used to in the context of "Wow, what a crazy story!" but not if it's being directed at a person with a mental disorder to mark them as different/inferior and minimize the value of their opinion.

There are a couple of words that are in a place where their meaning is contested. The word "retarded" is used both to describe people with mental disabilities (in a serious fashion, by ignorant but not always unsympathetic people) and as an insult. Similarly, "gay" is both a self-descriptor by some LGB people and a generic negative taunt a la "that's so gay!" I think this is where we should concentrate our focus - the fight over the meaning of these words is still up for grabs, and most people are cognizant of both meanings, which means we can actually have an impact. But words like "idiot" no longer predominantly signify a medical condition, but is instead used as a generic synonym of "stupid." Combating the use of this word will likely do little to alleviate negative impressions of mentally disabled people, yet will aggravate many people who are not even aware of this word's previous denotations.

So there are two categories of words I object to: insults that directly carry unfair historical and oppressive baggage, and are used in that way towards an oppressed person; and (2) words whose meaning is still in flux, where the new meaning piggybacks off a negative connotation regarding the oppressed person the word previously described. I also tentatively add a third category - if a person IRL is bothered by my use of a word I do not consider offensive, I cease use of this word in front of that person. This rule doesn't translate well to online discussions, however, because anybody can be a party at any time. This is why the blog wars over language often result in circumscribing language in an escalating fashion, to the point where we have only one or zero words to describe a negative condition (such as only being able to say that a person lacks a positive quality such as judgement or intelligence).

This method of determining what to worry about and what to let slide has saved me an endless amount of anger and anxiety over relatively less important linguistic battles.

Queer Theory Spotlight: Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick

2009-12-09T15:31:00.004-06:00

Here's a paper I wrote on Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick's Epistemology of the Closet. Note that I obviously haven't dealt with every awesome thing she says, because she says a lot.

----

In the Epistemology of the Closet, Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick presents a subtle investigation of the cultural binaries underlying the modern definitions of homosexuality and heterosexuality. Her critique is situational, exposing the limits and possibilities of our conceptual tools for understanding homosexuality in the context of specific works of literature. She explores contradiction, revealing modern notions of sexuality to be far less stable than they appear at first glance. Yet, her intricate analysis is also performed in reference to the practical reality of gay and lesbian lives, creating space for her academic specificity to coexist with the movement’s larger political goals. Additionally, her lengthy cases studies of canonical literary works allow her to extrapolate her critique to encompass Western thought more broadly. In exploring the tensions and contradictions in modern understandings of sexuality, Sedgwick captures the nuanced character of the modern relationship to same-sex desire.

One of Sedgwick’s most revolutionary ideas is her reconfiguring of coming out as a process, rather than an event. She points out that even the most “out” gay person must constantly decide how much to reveal and when to reveal it upon encountering new people (Sedgwick 3). Whether mostly closeted or mostly out, gay men and lesbians must constantly assess whether or not the people in their lives are aware of their sexual orientation due to the cultural assumption that everyone is heterosexual until otherwise indicated [ie, compulsory heterosexuality or heteronormativity]. By definition, the problem is worst for those who wish to keep their sexual orientation a secret, because they cannot know who they have effectively hidden their sexuality from and who is simply pretending not to know (Sedgwick 4). This epistemologically disadvantages those whose sexual orientations fall outside the mainstream, because it places the burden of disclosure upon them while constraining their knowledge of what others’ potential reactions will be. This uncertainty causes the closet to be a source of anxiety, since identifying as gay marks a person as “different” from the presumed heterosexual norm and potentially renders that person vulnerable to homophobic violence.

From this analysis of the closet, Sedgwick proceeds to argue that the definitions of “homosexual” and “heterosexual” are not nearly as discrete as we assume (Sedgwick 3). She casts this binary means of understanding sexuality as contingent upon our present historical location, and contrasts it with previously held paradigms for understanding sexuality. For example, in ancient Greece, sex was considered appropriate when a person with more power penetrated a person with less, so “manly” sex incorporated the penetration of women, slaves, and younger boys (Edwards 21). Sodomy was conceived under legal and moral codes as a set of nonprocreative acts that constituted sexually deviant behavior that could be engaged in by anyone, not as an identity (Edwards 20). Under the “inversion” model, a man who desired other men was considered to have been born in the wrong body; on the inside, it was presumed, his soul was female (Edwards 27). Each of these models presents its own tools and drawbacks for those identifying with counter-normative sexualities, and its own interpretation of same-sex desire that can be contrasted with those of the present day. This historical exercise exposes the instability of the homosexual/heterosexual binary, because they demonstrate that the exact set of same-sex desires have been understood much differently at other times in Western civilization.

The homosexual/heterosexual binary model is further complicated by its internal inconsistencies. On the one hand, these definitions are presumed to be important only to the “homosexual minority”; but on the other, they are argued to be at the heart of a cultural conflict over societal values (Sedgwick 1). Sedgwick describes the former view as “minoritizing” and the latter as “universalizing” In her view, both sides of the binary are problematic but also provide space for liberation (Sedgwick 2). The minoritizing view is necessary to some extent because it is what allows gays and lesbians to identify as such, but it is also dangerous because the ability to compartmentalize same-sex desire onto a distinct minority feeds conservative fantasies of gay genocide. Similarly, the universalizing view saps the power of gay self-identification, but it also provides the opportunity to normalize same-sex desire as the natural impulse of many people across the spectrum of sexual orientation.

The recognition that sexuality is complicated and contingent allows Sedgwick to proceed with her analysis of Western culture. If sexuality is defined based on changeable historical and cultural factors, an analysis of homosexuality in Western culture must necessarily include a broad range of ideas, identities, and acts (Sedgwick 31). This argument provides the foundation for Sedgwick’s detailed exploration of the binaries constructed in literature by allowing her to cast subtle imagery, omission, and homosocial desire as intrinsic to the understanding of homosexuality in Western thought. Thus, she is able to argue that Nietzsche’s writings constitute homosocial writing by a man for other men, pointing out that he was quite clear that his idea of the superman did not include women (Sedgwick 133). This re-interpretation of male-male desire in Nietzsche’s writing makes her comparison between homosexual desire in Nietzsche and homosexual desire in Oscar Wilde possible (Sedgwick 134). In essence, the broadening of our understanding of sexuality is what allows Sedgwick to elucidate the complexities of Western culture’s relationship to same-sex desire.

Sedgwick’s project in Epistemology of the Closet is a foundational pillar of modern queer theory precisely for its usefulness in parsing historical and cultural definitions of homosexuality. However, like queer theory as a whole, this also opens Sedgwick’s work to the criticism that it is too dense and too academic to be applicable or useful in daily life. Marilee Lindemann summarizes these objections clearly, stating that “lately queer cultural work in the academy has come to seem a bit complacent, insular, and stuck in a rut” (Lindemann 761). Yet, despite her dense language and obscure literary expertise, Sedgwick is attuned to the real dangers faced by those whose sexualities are repressed, and to the manifestations of the queer movement on a political level (Sedgwick 4). Even Lindemann acknowledges Sedgwick’s profound effect on the way homosexuality is understood in contemporary American society, at least within academic and activist circles, pointing out that “Sedgwick has been the most visible proponent and theorist of queer critical style…that transform[s] cultural criticism into a performance art that is unabashedly personal and devastatingly political…Sedgwick deserves immense credit for helping to build a queer intellectual community within literary criticism.” Even if this opening of intellectual space for gay and lesbian thought were the sum total of her accomplishments as a critic, it would be an impressive intellectual legacy. Loosening the constraints on thinking sexuality, as well as opening space for actual gays and lesbians at American universities, is important work because this history remains largely unthought.

Works Cited:

Edwards, Jason. Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick. 1st ed. USA & Canada: Routledge, 2009. 175. eBook.

Lindemann, Marilee. “Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Witch? Queer Studies in American
Literature.” American Literary History 12.4 (2000): 757-70. Project Muse. 30 Nov 2009.

Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky. Epistemology of the Closet. USA: University of California Press, 1990. 258. Print.

Blogs, Questions, and Privilege

2009-11-21T18:23:00.003-06:00

There is a developing norm on some feminist websites where it is considered an abuse of privilege to question a disadvantaged person about issues and experiences pertaining to the group they are considered a part of.

I believe that this norm is based two good points:

1. It is exhausting to constantly answer the questions of ignorant, argumentative, privileged persons when you're trying to have a discussion about a specialized minority issue. For example, it's super-annoying to have to explain why men and women should be treated equally when you're trying to have a tactical discussion with other feminists about, say, whether or not you'd support the passage of healthcare reform if it included the Stupak language on abortion.

2. Expecting to get your questions answered in detail if a person wants to get you on their side of the issue is a manifestation of privilege. It's not a minority person's responsibility to educate you every single time an issue relevant to them comes up, because they are not a spokesperson for their group, and their privacy should be respected. Just because a commenter notes that they are transgendered does not give anyone the right to inquire about how sex reassignment works and whether or not that person has had said surgery.

But the other side is also based on good points:

1. It's extremely frustrating to try to navigate a complex issue you have no personal experience with unless you dialogue with someone who does have that experience. Sometimes talking to another person and hearing personal stories can clarify things for you in a way that reading a book or a website can't.

However, I don't think it follows from this that asking questions should be prohibited. Rather, I think a better remedy would be to freely allow the asking of questions, provided they are respectful, and simply allow people to choose whether or not they would like to answer it.

This allows the clueless privileged person to seek answers, and possibly learn something, without placing an undue burden on the underprivileged person. The beauty of things like comment threads is that we can decline to continue participating at any time. We can decide where to use our resources, and what wastes of time we'd like to indulge in. People belonging to an oppressed group should get these same rights to not participate in conversations or portions of conversations which they consider trying and basic. I sometimes choose not to argue with people once it's established that our worldviews are drastically different because I don't always feel like going through the entirety of my ethical and political values every time a political issue gets mentioned. I feel like this is a reasonable recourse - if you're offended or annoyed by a basic question, just skip over it or link the person to the relevant resource. I think we should all try to keep the conversation from being derailed by not responding to a sincere comment just to snark about privilege.

This allows the underprivileged person to determine the ground rules for interaction - they can decide to engage only with people who have certain basic assumptions in common with them. This can be done on a case-by-case basis - sometimes people have the patience to explain the basic tenets of feminism or whatever movement is at issue, and sometimes they don't.

But we all need to be a little more compassionate, and a little more personally strong. Everybody carries some kind of privilege, so we should all think before we ask and be reasonable in our expectations of others. We should try to recognize that even if we feel bad when people are abrasive to us for asking a question we think is reasonable, that anger probably comes from valid sources. However, it's not just the question-askers that need slightly thicker skins - it's also the questioned. Recognize that it can be painful to learn that what's normal for you hurts many groups of people. Recognize that it is extremely difficult to begin processing the life knowledge, history, and diversity of a minority group you have never closely encountered. A lot of people who speak offensively do have a kernel of interest under their aggressive language. Why is this person trolling your forum, instead of another? Probably because the topic is interesting to them (at least to fight about), and probably also because it's easy to get a strong reaction.

The way I see it, no one should be expected to answer questions, and no one should be derided for asking them, either. But if it happens, either way, people should move on instead of making a big deal out of it. Because big fights over "censorship" derail the thread far more than the original question, lowering the level of dialogue and increasing frustration all around.

An End to the Feminist Sex-Wars: the Pornography Edition

2009-10-30T16:18:00.004-05:00

I decided today that I see porn a lot like I see vegetarianism. The meat industry currently mistreats animals in a number of horrific ways, and produces an unhealthy product full of additives. Even if you don't think there's anything wrong with killing animals, these are issues that need to be dealt with and there are a number of personal choices one can make in order to make their relationship to this problematic industry more ethical. The meat eater can choose to stop eating meat, or to consume only free-range organic meat. The farmer can choose more ecologically sustainable and more humane ways to farm. In fact, every person at every level of the meat industry can do something to minimize the worst consequences of that industry.

Likewise, the porn industry is a problematic business in its current manifestation. The current mainstream porn industry puts out some pretty fucked up materials, IMO, and outside the mainstream porn industry there's still the problem of sex trafficking. These things are problematic even if you don't object to the basic idea of videotaping people having sex. And like the meat industry, people with all levels of involvement with the product of pornography can shape the way the industry operates.

We should all do what we can, from whatever our social location, to change the dynamics of the contemporary American pornography market. To the extent that it is possible, everyone should try to maximize enthusiastic consent and subvert the currently heteronormative and misogynistic themes of mainstream porn. In some cases this will mean working against the current industry; in other cases it might mean working with the people currently involved in the industry. (Notice the difference in phrasing - work AGAINST the INDUSTRY, but work WITH the PEOPLE involved in that industry.)

Performers: Consider your motives for being involved with porn, and how they relate to feminism (ie, the liberation of people currently being unfairly fucked over by society). Use this self-reflection to identify things in the industry that are screwed up, and things that rock. Discuss these issues with your fellow sex workers. Speak up when you can, so that those of us on the outside can listen, become less ignorant, and be better help to both you (the freely choosing sex worker) and those who are less fortunate (those who are trafficked or coerced, including by economic circumstances). If you have an interest, get involved in producing porn that's to your tastes and the tastes of others not currently represented. Refuse to work projects which make you feel uncomfortable or which you think contribute to negative representations of sexuality. Above all, make sure you are treated with respect, and that your work treats others with respect. We can't all always do these things, and as a non-sex worker I'm sure there are some things I'm way off about, but what I'm saying is - do what you can (just like we should all do what we can to make our own work environments better places!).

Directors/Producers: Go above and beyond to make sure you're responsive to your workers' needs and that your work environment is non-coercive. Compensate your workers fairly. Listen to them. Produce visions of sexuality which are erotic for their transformative power, appeal to markets traditionally less engaged in the porn industry, and which creatively break the script of misogynist and heteronormative traditional porn.

CEOs: Give your directors and producers the latitude to do those things. Make sure your company is in compliance with the relevant laws (for example, on child porn or access to porn for minors) AND with the spirit of those laws. Make donations to organizations that support the victims of sexual abuse.

Retail: Be a "feminist sex shop" that makes sure to sell a range of products, which means remembering women and LGBTs when thinking about what people might like to buy. Stock "feminist" porn, or at least only buy from companies who best fit your progressive standards.

Consumers: Evaluate your use of porn. If you can get your fix by writing erotic stories, daydreaming, drawing your own sexually explicit images, making your own porn videos, etc. do that instead of buying it! If you believe that your use of mass-produced porn is necessary or inevitable or whatever your reasons are, vote with your dollars. Vote for companies that respect their performers. Vote for films that are hot for reasons besides domination. Even if you also vote for some of the stuff that's around now, make the extra effort to seek out more progressive versions. Or better yet, pirate the objectionable porn and spend your money on the films you think contribute positively towards human sexuality.

Porn outsiders: Listen to the people inside the industry. Listen to porn users. Try to integrate those experiences into your analysis of porn. Do research. If you don't need or want to use porn, or think it's wrong to do so, then don't use it. Don't use the law or the weight of academia to further silence marginalized people. Promote the acceptance of healthy human sexuality through means other than porn, like in your own sex life and the way you talk to others about sex. Discuss porn with others and explain why you choose not to use it, or at least healthier ways of using it.

A crazy right-wing wacko crystallizes why abortion rights MUST be part of the feminist agenda

2009-09-29T21:41:00.006-05:00

Can we all basically agree that feminism, however you may define it, must include the freedom to choose our sexual and romantic partners freely, the freedom structure ourrelationships according to how they work for us, and the freedom to decide whether or not we want to have children? Because, to me, the freedom to make those choices is so intimately tied with the meaning of feminism that calling a world where women's sexual/romantic partners are chosen without their consent, or where women are forced to have children they don't want, "feminist" is a mockery of the concept of women's liberation. I just can't see how you can be in a relationship arrangement you don't want and can't get out of, or subjected to a relationship dynamic you feel is oppressive, or forced to carry and bear children you actively object to having, and be "free."

Feminist pro-lifers will probably point out that those things are not a package deal; that adoption is sufficient to give women choice over whether or not they want to have children; that there is a humane, feminist agenda which protects both women and ensures almost all fetuses.

That's something I can respectfully disagree about in theory, but in practice those sorts of gray shades seem to evaporate before me. Practically speaking, the anti-choice movement pushes a strong norm of the traditional, nuclear family. They push conservative sexual norms, and a large faction pairs that with suspicion of condoms and other forms of birth control. It is really, really hard to figure out how to get along with people who want to force-fit everyone into such a small mold.

This is well-documented in Christina Page's How The Pro-Choice Movement Saved America. It's visible in every public political debate over abortion, reinforced by TV ads, news coverage, crisis pregnacy centers, conservative school districts...everywhere. But I had an "ah-ha" moment when I saw it written as in the plain, nasty language only a commenting web-troll is willing to use. FYI, this is what I see when I look at the pro-life movement in the United States.

The context was of a discussion of some jackass's remarks about how people should get married between 22 and 27, and how cohabitation is teh evilest thing ever. Some troll jumped in to suggest promoting the view that cohabitation is immoral in the interests of ultimately getting the government to break up cohabitating couples for the sake of teh children.

The "for the sake of the children" argument is itself problematic, because it carries the risk of marginalizing the worthiness and humanity of the mother (whose interests must be subordinated to her children, we are constantly reminded, or she is not a good mother). It also makes the ass-backwards assumption that the endpoint of all relationships is children, which is oppressive because it makes the choice to be a child-free, independent individual suddenly seem hostile to basic social life (even though, in reality, not all people make good parents, not all people want to be parents, and people who do not want to be parents often do not make as good of parents).

A Troll on Feministing will be our example. He says (emphasis mine):

"While I am more or less opposed to no-fault divorce, I don’t see it as being the big issue. If two people absolutely cannot get along, they should be able to break up. While I don’t think it should be a fast and easy process, it should not be made difficult by making the parents fight against each other. My problem is really more with remarriage after divorce; did you read the paper I linked to about the Cinderella effect? Besides, premarital cohabitation does not make couples less likely to divorce. I don’t think that the end of any romantic relationship is necessarily children. I would like to think that the end of any sexual relationship is. Things work out better when this is the case; the out-of-wedlock birth rate is extremely low, far more children are born in-wedlock and get to grow up with both parents, fewer children are put up for adoption, etc."

See how two people in a marriage automatically become parents in his mind? This erases couples for whom marriage is not about procreation (whether by choice or economic necessity or due to to heterosexist legal codes), and also, by elevating procreation to an imperative, contribute to dissapproval of family structures that don't abide by this rigid definition.

And that's a lot of people. Think about it. Every divorced parent, every remarried parent doubly so, every couple who chooses not to have children, every unmarried couple with children, every single parent. And implicitly, every gay parent (because the nuclear family requires a father and mother) and potentially any lower class or non-white parent (because the nuclear family is supposed to be middle class and located in suburbia - everyone knows those inner city minority kids have broken homes!).

Inevitably, people will arrange their lives in ways that don't fit this nuclear family model, and we can see that it's currently a whole fuckton of people. So what could they possibly propose to do about this grave problem of families that look different than the traditional American norm? You can see the clear logic of patriarchy: Control reproduction. How? By controlling sex (because birth control just lets people do what they want). But this seems impossible. How could you possibly enforce something done behind closed doors like sex? Well, if it's to be enforced, the population has to police itself. But how do you make people police sex? Well, everyone's got to be really fucking afraid of what's going on in everyone else's bedrooms, for one thing, which means amping up the scare tactics about STDs is a good place to start (bonus points if you can scare people out of using condoms, to ramp up STD rates and hopefully stop sex!). Except, it's hard to be really concerned about your neighbor's sex life unless it affects yours. So maybe we should start talking about the women in your life. And even better than just having you police women's sexuality, we should get women to police their own sexuality...

The dominoes start to fall. Calling women whores doesn't stop anyone, and it's becomming less effective since this obnoxious feminism thing. So, declare feminism dead. So, support rape apologist culture to teach women to fear all but their one special protector man. So, take away condoms and ostracize people with STIs. And then, make every instance of sex a possible instance of procreation, literally realize the agenda of sex-for-procreation-only by taking away all forms birth control. Condoms are already gone, so take hormonal birth control, take the morning after pill, take away abortion. Because what else could underpin this empire? What punishment could possibly be more extreme in the disincentive it places on women having sex than risking forced pregnancy for every sex act?

And then the picture starts to look really clear. 'Cuz it's all part of the same big picture. All those things are perpetual causes and symptoms of patriarchy, and of the controlling narrative of the American nuclear family. Abortion's not just a fragment of it. It's one of the biggest, baddest tools for controlling sexuality and the family, specifically demolishing women's freedom, and also marginalizing anyone else who doesn't fit the mold. But equally importantly, it is part of a system of oppression that reinforces existing societal power dynamics, at the expense of women. It makes the reduction of women to biological vessels possible, or rather it literally manifests the already-existing sexist narrative.

So what's a possible solution? I think things might get better if feminists shape the discourse on both sides. Pro-life feminists could push hard for contraception and comprehensive sex ed, lots of exceptions (for rape, for the mother's mental and physical health, for the mother's life) - and find ways to make these exceptions workable and accessible for those who need it, economic support to women financially unable to care for children (or heck, all women - if you're going to make us have them, why should we have to pay for them?), universal access to pre-natal and post-natal care for the mother and child, along with the whole rest of the feminist agenda. Because it will take a lot - a LOT - of work to rehabiliate the anti-choice narrative into a compassionate, wholesome, women-respecting movement, or even to make it just a bit better.

I'm willing to compromise with pro-life feminists, but the feminism had better be there in the pro-life part too, because if it doesn't I'm not budging. In order to create a feminist society, feminist pro-lifers have to get a hold on the pro-life movement's discourse and agenda, or us crazy leftys have to win on this issue. Because it's not just one issue - the debate over abortion reflects every facet of the feminist conflict with the patriarchy in a light to glaring for me, at least, to ignore.

Cross-Post: The Filthiest Book Report You’ll Ever Read, or My Artifact Selection: Grant Morrison's The Filth

2009-09-04T16:59:00.003-05:00

Here's another cross-post from my lit class blog. In this short essay, I present research questions for cultural artifact I will study for the semester, and justify my choice of artifact.

-------------

Grant Morrison’s The Filth is a graphic novel that comes with a warning label. Covering nearly the entire back cover and the first two pages inside, The Filth’s warning is almost clinical in its rigorous coverage of the many reasons you might be better off if you opt to return this book to the shelf. Although the book’s warning is more mocking than genuine, it is still a text any sensible censor would strike from a reading list intended for polite society. With its grungy artwork, repulsive characters, and sadistic plotlines, at first glance The Filth might seem to be a low-culture artifact with no redeeming qualities. However, a more thorough reading turns up questions deserving of further inquiry.

For instance, why is it that the most cherished fantasy the protagonist can dream up for himself is the life of a lonely old man named Greg Feely, who spends his days feeding his beloved cat and masturbating to hardcore pornography? And even if this rehabilitation of the despised archetype of the neighborhood sex offender is for good reason, why is it so important as to merit the novel’s opening panels? From this inauspicious beginning, The Filth continues to wade further into the muck. Rather than complementing Greg Feely with more noble characters, it highlights people like Anders Klimakks, the pornstar famous for shooting black sperm, and Tex Porneau, the wealthy hardcore director who engineers giant sperm monsters for his latest flick. A sex scene is never more than a chapter away, and neither is graphically illustrated violence.

Yet, although The Filth glorifies its own power to provoke disgust in the unsuspecting reader, it is also fascinating. Each sub-plot is carefully constructed to reveal an insight about human nature or the society we have built. The unattractive Greg Feely somehow moves from pathetic to likeable as he grapples with his identity as an agent of the sketchy organization known as the Hand, whose mission is to preserve the Status Q. Even the novel itself is a subject in its far-reaching critique, with an entire storyline premised on drawing attention to the eerie realness of absorbing comic book worlds by repeatedly breaking the fourth wall.

For me, The Filth is interesting because of the complex ideas woven into the words and images that make up the graphic novel. Although the “filthy” subject matter may be titillating, the elusive hypotheticals posed by each of the book’s chapters are far more worthy of study. The first time I flipped through The Filth, I was both appalled and fascinated, unable to look away until I had devoured the entire graphic novel. Subsequent re-readings have not yet failed to uncover new material to ponder, and the opportunity to investigate the text for a class allows me to delve further into these questions.

Although The Filth is not widely recognized by anyone besides comic book aficionados, it is still relevant. Its medium, the graphic novel, is a cornerstone of mass communication. It was published in late 2002, and its commentary actively engages and responds to contemporary society and mainstream culture, if only to subvert them. The author, Grant Morrison, has worked with both DC and Marvel, writing issues of classic series like Spider-Man, X-Men, and Batman. For these reasons, The Filth qualifies as pop culture.

Covering issues as blurry as the nature of reality, the role of authority, and the sanity of our collective desires and anxieties, The Filth presents a surreal study of the way we have designed our world. By choosing this book as my artifact, I hope to shed light on a text I find extraordinarily challenging and appealing. From the first few lines of its warning label to the last panel of the last page, The Filth is a puzzle waiting to be unraveled.

Cross-Post:: Pop Culture Favorites

2009-09-04T16:49:00.002-05:00

I'm currently maintaining a blog about interpreting pop culture for my literature blog. I'll be cross-posting everything I write for that class here, since I think it's mostly pretty interesting stuff.

This first one is just a warm-up analyzing elements of pop culture I like and interact with often. These favorites were picked off the top of my head in class, so they're not necessarily my all-time favorites, just stuff I like.

-----------

Favorite Movie: Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas

What attracts me to this movie is that there is so much detail and so many strange situations to analyze. The more one watches it, the more there is to see. It made the list because it's a movie I've watched several times recently, so it was fresher in my mind than Fight Club, which is the other movie I was considering. It influences me because I think the representation of gonzo journalism is interesting, which probably makes me more inclined to like other movies about crazy countercultural figures.

Favorite Music: Fiona Apple

I'm attracted to Fiona Apple's music because her voice is beautiful and her lyrics are expressive. I can feel the rhythmic pulse of her music, and I love the way her clear, deep voice cuts through the rest of the music and stays with me. It influences me because it influences my other musical tastes - almost anyone who makes music which is similar to who is likely to be someone like. Lily Allen and Tori Amos are good examples of this, because they are talented female singer-songwriters who remind me of Fiona Apple in some ways.

Favorite TV Show: Law and Order

I like Law and Order because it's a serial crime drama that I can have on in the background while I'm doing other things, but also because it poses some interesting questions about society. The original Law and Order creates many scenarios where what was originally a criminal trial becomes a political show trial, or where police action falls in a gray area constitutionally. I like pondering these situations, because it gives me an opportunity to test out what I think.

Favorite Ad: Freecreditreport.com sing-alongs

I love this commercial! It's so catchy. The lyrics are extremely clever, the music is simple but stays in my head all day. There's also something about a sad bicyclist singing about how a credit report could have gotten him a car, or a depressed waiter dressed like a pirate mourning his dead-end economic situation, that catches my attention when it comes on TV. This commerical influences me because it's effective, and I spend the rest of the day with "F to the R to the E to the E to the C to the E-D-I-T. Re- to the -port to the dot to the com, baby" stuck in my head.

Favorite Comic: Dilbert

I used to read this in the Sunday paper every day. I like how it mocks corporate culture, and demonstrates the sheer meaninglessness of many requirements of work. Although I don't have an office job like Dilbert, I do go to school. While college is much better than high school, sometimes activities and classes still seem like they won't be relevant to daily life, and sometimes dealing with administrative people is annoying and time-consuming. Dilbert is a fun outlet for these feelings, pointing out the absurdity of official bureaucracies and mindless assignments.

The List Overall:

I'm not struck by any major commonalities between the things I chose, but there are some slight trends. I chose to interact with all of these pieces of media because the resonate with some experience I've had, or because they are unique enough to fascinate me. Sometimes I read or watch things simply because they are readily available, which is definitely the case with Dilbert, Law and Order, the Freecreditreport.com commericals, and even Fear and Loathing (because we own the DVD, so it is cheaper and easier than renting a movie).

Just when I was beginning to stray from radical feminism...

2009-06-04T05:55:00.005-05:00

...I stumbled upon this really, really creepy site, and all of the justifications for kink started to look a whole lot like equivocation (I hope they're not...). I'll go through just one article, highlighting the most offensive and problematic parts, and maybe you'll see what I mean.

The subject of this article is "submission spanking." That doesn't sound too bad (standard kink, right?) until you read what it is:

At....times...an HOH [Head of Household] will decide to spank his woman "just because." A "just because" spanking is more accurately known as a submission spanking. A submission spanking can be administered to the woman at any time. But she is not given a submission spanking because she has misbehaved. Therefore it is not a punishment spanking. A submission spanking is also not part of the woman's regular Maintenance Discipline spanking. Nor is it a scheduled maintenance spanking that the woman receives on a regular basis. A submission spanking can be given at any time, not only when the woman is scheduled for her maintenance or reminder spanking. Therefore a submission spanking is not maintenance. Nor is a submission spanking the same thing as a Preemptive Discipline. It is not given in advance of a scenario where the woman has previously demonstrated her tendency to misbehavior. It can be given at any time but it is not connected to a specific future situation for the woman.

There are a number of problems with these two paragraphs that should be immediately evident. First, the "Head of Household" gets the male pronoun while the person being disciplined is explicitly and specifically a woman. Moreover, she is not just a woman, but "his" woman. The possessive term seems to be intended in all it's traditional, sexist glory, depicting a woman who is an adjunct to her male partner rather than an individual human being in her own right. The obvious implication of this language is that there are no male bottoms and no female tops, just men and women falling into neat, traditional sex roles. The other obvious implication of this language is the complete erasure of same-sex desire and genderqueerness - for this author, there are only men and women in heterosexual relationships. GLBTs don't even get a passing reference as some sort of misguided deviation or evil scourge - they literally do not exist in this narrative, a possibility that is not even present enough to be thought.

But that's just language, right? Who cares about a few pronouns? Language is fluid, and we can always read queerness and feminism into this submission spanking idea, right? Maybe this is just a particular man's description of what gets him and his wife off, with some linguistic blinders on.

Well, let's keep going. Surely the article will all be uphill from here.

Why therefore should a woman ever be given a submission spanking? It might seem at best, unfair and at worst, random and cruel. Yet many women receive submission spankings and many women benefit greatly from them. A submission spanking is administered to a woman whenever her HOH wants to remind her of her submission. There is no specific reason for the spanking. It is not given for misbehavior nor for maintenance nor for preemptive reasons.

Hear that? It's not random or cruel, it's just done for no reason and to remind her of her submission! It's even for her own benefit. Why, you ask? I'm sure if we read on they will give us a perfectly reasonable explanation, right?

Often an HOH will administer a submission spanking to his woman based on his masculine instincts. He will instinctively sense that his woman needs a firm reminder of her submission to his authority, or a firm reminder of the need to be obedient, respectful and honest in her behavior. Rather than waiting until the next scheduled Maintenance Discipline spanking, he instead decides to give her a sound submission spanking. The most important aspect of a submission spanking is that it teaches the woman submission...a submission spanking will help to improve her submission...Submission lies at the heart of the Loving Domestic Discipline lifestyle because submission is the key to a woman's femininity.

Oh. He really did just say that, didn't he? He said that men administer submission based on their "masculine instincts" and that submission is "key to a woman's femininity." I guess he really does think that men and women are static, monolithic categories with pre-defined traits. That's pretty bad, but when you consider the implications of assuming that sex roles are based on some kind of fact, it becomes clear that this guy is implying that having a penis makes you "masculine," which means "dominant," while having a vagina makes you "feminine," which means "submissive." That would mean that penises are inheretly instruments of domination and that vaginas are passive receivers of male domination, making all heterosexual sex an act of men dominating women (and you thought Dworkin was crazy for suggesting as much).

But, whew, at least he didn't actually say that part! That would have been really bad! Let's keep reading.

Any woman who values her own femininity will understand the role that submission plays for a woman. Submission is the central fact of femininity because a woman's experience of sex is based on simple submission. During sexual intercourse, the woman is passive, not active. She is submissive, not dominant. She parts her thighs to enable her man to penetrate her sexually. Without her submission, there is no sexual intercourse, there is no pleasure and there is no love.

So...if you get penetrated, you're feminine, which equates to being passive (not active) and submissive (not dominant). Being active and dominant is for men, not women, and that simple fact is rooted in biological truth and is the foundation for any kind of pleasure. Because both men and women get lots of pleasure when the woman just lays there with her legs open while the man does his stuff, obviously. It's not like having an active, engaged sex partner results in creative or mutually satisfying sex, or anything...

But more important than the lousy sex this guy is pitching is the fact that he says there cannot be love between men and women unless the woman submits to a man sexually. Well, fuck. And here I was thinking love was about mutual respect and equality, and appreciating the unique human being that you are supposedly in love with. I wonder what the outcome of this mind-boggling image of love in which the woman is the adored, passive object and the man is the active subject is. Don't we have a word for people who think men are in charge of initiating sex, and the woman has to agree just because he says so, because he's the boss and she has to do what he says?

...oh yeah. The word is "rapists."

It can't get any worse than that, can it? An ideology which comes dangerously close to (perversely) requiring rape as the sole possible foundation of love. There's nothing else that can be said after the articulation of such an ideology, is there? He can't have anything more to say, because he's already reached gold-medal sexist asshole status.

Wait, you mean there's more??

All heterosexual sex depends on the woman's submission to the man. A woman cannot penetrate a man. Penetration is an active process. Being penetrated is a passive one. Being penetrated is inherently submissive. When the woman submits sexually to her man, she is affirming her own femininity and fulfilling her role as a woman. Unless she obtains a sex change operation, there is no other genuine role for a woman except submission. The only valid role for a woman who is true to her own femininity is a submissive one. Denying her submission means denying her femininity. Even more importantly, it means denying her womanhood.

So not only is this required submission (rape) the foundation of femininity, but a woman who does not subscribe to these notions is denying her womanhood, and a woman who does not submit sexually is not a true woman. Moreover, submission through penetration is a woman's "only valid role" - and here I thought women could be doctors, lawyers, police officers, firefighters, soliders, senators, CEOs, friends, sisters, WalMart employees, and a host of other important roles in the public sphere. Guess I was wrong, and the most important role Hillary Clinton has is not Secretary of State, but rather owner of a passive, penetrable vagina. In fact, apparently she isn't even a "valid" Secretary of State - it's just a distraction from her true role as the extra skin around a vagina.

And did you note that interesting aside about how a woman can't penetrate a man? He seems curiously ignorant of strap-ons, and if he hasn't heard of that one, I'm willing to bet he's never heard of the many other sex toys designed to give men pleasure through anal stimulation of the prostate glad. Apparently, the only way this article could even allude (however vaguely) to gay sex and transexual operations, is in the context of reinforcing the universality of the idea that penetration = submission.

But we've gotten off topic with all of this business about women's proper sex roles. That was just a summation of what you should already know about men and women (after all, it's only natural!). The point of this article is why you ought to start giving your wife submission spankings (remember, the ones for no reason except to remind her of her inherent need to submit and obey?).

Let us return to the topic of submission spankings. The purpose of a submission spanking is to remind the woman of her submission. It is a technique that validates her womanhood by reminding her of her submissive nature. An HOH can give his woman a submission spanking whenever he feels that it would be beneficial for her to be reminded of her submission. So although a submission spanking might seem like a random, "just because" kind of punishment, it is actually quite targeted and purposeful. It is not an exercise in random cruelty because it is administered with a specific goal in mind. The primary goal is to improve the woman's submission. For a woman, this is a matter of deep importance. Anything that helps her submission also helps her as a woman.

So, the spanking really isn't random, after all. It has a targeted, purposeful, specific goal: to improve a woman's submission. It's to remind her that her Head of Household (how progressive, that it can be her boyfriend or live-in male partner, and not just her husband!) can do whatever he wants to her whenever he feels like it (especially inflict physical pain by hitting her). That's not domestic violence or spousal abuse, though. It's Loving Domestic Discipline, because it's good for women if you routinely hit them for no other reason than to remind them that you can.

An important part of female submission is feminine obedience. Obedience forms a natural and central part of a woman's relationship to her HOH. It is a traditional woman's marriage vow to promise to obey her husband. Women obey their husbands because they accept that there can be only one leader in a marriage and in a family. It is like a plane - even though there is a pilot and his copilot, only one of them can fly the plane at once. If they both struggle to force the plane in different directions, the plane will eventually crash. Therefore the pilot is given greater authority, which means that his decisions will always override those of the copilot. When an HOH feels that his woman is having problems with her obedience, he may decide to administer a submission spanking. This spanking will help his woman to return to a more obedient mode of behavior, so that unnecessary friction is reduced and so that progress is enhanced. Obedience benefits the woman greatly. It also benefits the relationship and, by logical extension, the entire family.

In case you had any lingering doubts, maybe thinking that it's possible to have a more equitable relationship than the one described here, the author has taken it upon himself to explain why it just doesn't work if you treat women like they're equal to men. If you treat your woman like she is capable of making decisions, your marriage will crash and burn! Your family will fall apart! Because, you see, instead of a marriage being about the joining of two individuals who love each other, it's really about making women more obedient. 'Cuz it's just too messy when you have to actually take someone else's will into account. Much simpler if 51% of all human beings become property instead of people. (Remember, that's a family value, folks!)

(Keep reading, we're not finished yet...)

Naturally, if the woman is guilty of blatant disobedience, she deserves a fully fledged punishment spanking so that she can be punished for her offense.

Naturally.

But not all disobedience is severe enough to require a punishment spanking. Some women exhibit minor disobedience, or the early signs of nascent disobedience. It is for her own good that her HOH will decide to give her a submission spanking. This spanking will remind her not only of her submission but also of her obedience. It will remind her that obedience is required from her at all times, not just when she feels like it.

So in case you were wondering, this is not just some fucked up consensual roleplay of a backwards mideval nightmare. Obedience is required from your woman at all times, not just when she consents to play the game. This isn't a game, after all, it's a biologically required natural order. Women's feelings are not important here.

It is also valid for an HOH to administer a submission spanking to his woman even when she has not displayed any signs of disobedience. She does not need to exhibit any disobedient behavior, even the most subtle, for her HOH to justly and rightfully administer a submission spanking. He has the right to remind his woman of her obedience. If she is already behaving in an obedient manner, a submission spanking will help to reinforce her obedience. It is not a punishment for behaving well. It is a reinforcement of her obedience.

Yeah, beating your wife into submission is your right! It's totally just! She doesn't even have to display even the most subtle sign of rebellion, she just has to have a vagina. (Gee, this is starting to make the 50s look like a feminist utopia, isn't it? At least back then a woman had to actually do something wrong to get hit, and you were an asshole if you didn't give a shit about your wife's feelings.)

Another important reason why a submission spanking can be useful is because it reminds the woman of her HOH's authority. It reminds her that she is subject to his authority at all times and in all places. It is the HOH's authority that gives him the right to discipline his woman as he sees fit, for her own good. It is the HOH's authority that facilitates his leadership. It is the HOH's authority that protects and cares for his woman and his family.

If, at any time, a woman shows signs of forgetting that she is subject to her HOH's authority, she may benefit greatly from a submission spanking. This will teach her that she is subject to his authority because she is a woman and because she owes him her submission.

Note that a woman does not have to even be aware of the fact that she is forgetting her HOH's authority. Sometimes it can be an unconscious act on her part that betrays her lax attitude to her HOH's authority. This does not excuse her and should not prevent her receiving a submission spanking for her own good. The loving HOH will always administer a submission spanking whenever he feels that it is in his woman's best interests to receive one. As the leader, he is responsible for his woman's behavior and for his family's wellbeing. He can administer a submission spanking to reinforce his woman's awareness that she is subject to his authority. This is a positive affirmation that he is in charge and will act for the best interests of everyone.

Yeah! Beating your wife is good for the family's well-being! Remind that bitch who's in charge! We can't have her accidentally thinking for herself or believing that there might be some time or place where she can escape her husband's authority and be her own person for half of a second. That would be too lax, and it's all for her own good that you're being strict, right? RIGHT!

Why is a submission spanking not cruel? Some people might believe that a woman should only receive punishment spankings for her misbehavior. They believe that no other types of spankings are acceptable. Other people accept the need for Maintenance Discipline on a regular basis to help build the woman's submission, obedience, respect, honesty and femininity. Many people understand that Disobedience Discipline spankings are necessary to ensure a safe and effective disciplinary process. Even though she may not like it, a woman will generally realize that disobedience during discipline cannot be tolerated and must be punished. Some people think that a Preemptive Discipline is like punishing the woman before she has committed the offense, which therefore means they will not practice Preemptive Discipline spankings. Others understand that the woman truly benefits by having her misbehavior prevented before it can happen, which is the goal of Preemptive Discipline.

But not everyone understands the need for submission spankings. Since they can be applied at any time, by unilateral decision of the HOH, submission spankings may seem unreasonable to some people.

And they would be cruel, if one thing were not true: that a woman always benefits from a submission spanking. She always makes positive gains in her submission, her obedience and her respect for her HOH's authority. She is given a direct and profound experience of her own femininity every time she is disciplined by her HOH. This is not a negative outcome. It is a highly positive one.

So, some people (I think we call them "feminists" or "halfway decent human beings" or something) think all that's cruel. I know some of them may punish the adult human beings that they're married to (err, I mean the passive vaginas-waiting-to-be-penetrated that we call wives) by hitting them when they do something wrong, but this guy is here to tell you that they're morons and softies. Being hit by your HOH just to reinforce his dominance over you is good for you, and it's a highly positive experience! After all, it might prevent you from misbehaving later.

Sometimes a woman will be given a submission spanking but will subsequently misbehave. Often she will attribute this misbehavior to a sense of rebellion or injustice at being subjected to a submission spanking even though she had not committed any feminine misbehavior.

Is this an indication that the submission spanking has failed in its goal? Does it suggest that, instead of building her submission, the submission spanking has instead stimulated her rebellion? No, not at all. The feminine misbehavior that might follow a submission spanking is the result of a deeper issue she may have around submission. The submission spanking has revealed a deeper problem that needs to be addressed via a punishment spanking or a Maintenance Discipline.

Feminine misbehavior following discipline should never be viewed as a failure of the disciplinary technique or of the HOH's approach. It is simply a sign that the woman needs further discipline to help bring her to a more submissive frame of mind, to return her heart to its natural, loving and submissive state.

That's right, you heard him - you women may think it's natural to feel like you've suffered an injustice if you get spanked for no reason, but that's just because you're not in your naturl, submissive, loving frame of mind. In fact, feeling like there's something wrong with this whole situation is just an indication that you need to be punished more harshly - after all, it has been revealed that you have an unreasonable, deep-seated aversion to being hit arbitrarily by someone who's supposed to love you. You must have been brainwashed by all those feminazis who told you that you deserved to be treated like a person instead of a dumb animal. (Although, really, this treatment is worse than what we do to animals - hopefully you don't, for instance, rape your or spontaneously beat your dogs.)

So, now that we know what you (the man) are supposed to do for your woman, we should probably talk about how to decide between a long, hard spanking, and a shorter, lighter one.

How should a submission spanking be administered to a woman? This varies from HOH to HOH. It also varies from situation to situation, so there is no particular technique that is cast in stone. There is no single technique from which you should never deviate. There are many different ways of administering a submission spanking. The choice of which technique to use will depend on the HOH's assessment of his woman's needs at a particular point in time. As always, the ultimate decision is his alone. He knows his woman best and he knows what is best for her. That is why he has the right to discipline her for her own good at any time...As a general rule, of course, a longer spanking is always better for a woman than a shorter one. A longer spanking has a lasting effect on her. It is more likely to bring her to tears. It is more likely to teach her the lesson in submission that she needs to learn or of which she needs to be reminded. It will leave her with a sore bottom that reminds her of how important it is for her to always submit to her HOH.Therefore, many HOH's prefer to administer a long submission spanking to their woman. They want to leave her with an effective, lasting reminder of her submission. They want to be sure that the woman learns her lesson.

I don't get it. If it's better for your woman to be beaten to tears and left in pain that continues even after you stop hitting her (so that she's reminded to submit to your authority all the time), why would you ever administer a shorter spanking?

At other times, however, an HOH may prefer to administer a shorter submission spanking. A short submission spanking is good for a brief reminder discipline that does not take too long. The HOH may not have much time available. Giving his woman a short submission spanking will make use of whatever time he does have, so that she can benefit in her submission.

Oh. Sorry, I forgot that men get to have real lives in this circus. Of course it's reasonable that men may too busy to thoroughly spank their woman to tears ever time they hit her. Don't worry, though, busy men - you may still be able to make your wife cry in a short amount of time if you try real hard and practice hitting her often (and if it doesn't work, it's because she's not submitting well enough):

In some cases, the HOH will be effective enough in the way he disciplines his woman that he will be able to bring her to tears, even with a submission spanking of short duration. This is obviously a highly positive outcome for her as a woman. The more obedient and submissive the woman is, the more likely she will be brought to tears by a relatively short submission spanking. So it is a combination of the HOH's disciplinary skill and the woman's submission that determines her ability to be brought to tears, as a general principle.

And there you have it folks...a perfectly reasonable, modern take on spanking!

(Now, do I mean to imply that all BDSM is as fucked up as this? 'Course not. I'm sure there are plenty of people who really are safe, sane, and consensual about something as relatively tame as spankings. It's a pretty mainstream fetish these days, and at any rate consent makes a big, big, big difference. But aren't there are some eerie parallels between this and, say, Second Life Goreans? Or lifestyle BSDMers? After reading this, do you really still think all the radical feminists are out to get you when they implore that you investigate your kinks? Isn't it more likely that they see this kind of thing and fear that maybe society's obsession with spanking shares some of the same elements of titillation as this crap? Isn't it possible that at least one of the kinksters you know is just the teensiest bit turned on by this abuse, even if they proclaim their disgust for it and would never actually go about doing it? If you're still not buying it, go read the comments...this article is not some elaborate joke, it's something that people are actually doing...)

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go puke my guts out.

Radical feminism vs. Sex-positive feminism

2009-02-22T13:56:00.006-06:00

There are two factions often presented as directly opposing within the blogosphere, and even though I have personally witnessed many attempts by both groups to understand where the other group is coming from, it is clear that they have firm ideological differences over a number of issues. And yet, both of those streams of feminist thought are important to understanding and creating a feminist sexuality.

Sex-positive feminism is great for saying what women can do. It's a response to the old conservative culture which demands that women be virginal, sexless, passive, and traditionally beautiful. It's the freedom to say "yes" to anything.

For women coming from really repressed families, churches, and schools, it can be very liberating to be told that they're allowed to do whatever they want to sexually. Even for women with relatively liberal parents, it's likely that they were told to only have sex with people they really care about, or with their boyfriends/girlfriends. That mantra can also get old, and it's natural for women to respond with "Who are you to tell me when I should give my consent? I can do whatever I want, and to prove it, I'm going to do it!" Sex-positive feminism backs these women up. It assures them that it is okay to make whatever sexual choices they want to make. It opens up the entire spectrum of sexuality to women, saying that all options are on the table and that they're welcome to choose any of them without fear of repraisal. It frees us from the oppression of rigid standards and lack of choices.

Sex-positive feminism is better at dealing with queer sexuality than radical feminism. I'm not sure if this is because queers are usually far more oppressed by conservative sexuality than porn sexuality, or because there are more queers in the sex-positive movement, or simply because sex-positive ideology is founded upon radical openness and therefore more receptive to ALL non-traditional sexual identities. Regardless, sex-positive feminists are among the first to point out when an analysis of sexuality fails to consider the queer perspective, and they often challenge radical feminists to apply their analysis to queer couples (or trios, or four-somes, or...).

Sex positive feminism initiated important discussions of consent, and has acheived gains like spreading the notion that whenever a woman doesn't want sex and says "no," regardless of the situation. They helped create the idea that there is such a thing as marital rape, and provide grounds to argue that a woman has the right to say no to sex even if it has already started (ie, you can say "stop" and he has to stop). Radical feminism further developes these discussions of consent raised by talking about situations in which women technically consent, but in which their choices are not quite so clear.

It's also great at arguing the pro-choice position. I don't think I need to explain this in too much detail - they both share a focus on choice and increasing women's sexual options. Sex-positive feminism is definitely doing good work in terms of women's right to choose abortion, availability of contraception (including Plan B), etc.

On the flip side, it's not as good at critiquing classism and individualism. A critique which uses "choice" as a cornerstone implicitly accepts the notion of the free and autonomous rational individual as also a cornerstone. That concept is based on the masculine philosophical tradition, and it implies that the way to combat patriarchy is simply for men and women to make different choices. It undermines our ability to critique culture, because culture is seen as only a conglomeration of individual choices. Although sex-positive feminists can critique ways in which capitalism limits choice (therefore providing ground to argue for things like the Hyde ammendment), it is hard for it to dispute capitalism as a system since they share philosophical groundings.

The guiding principle of sex-positive feminism is "if you like it, and you're not hurting anyone, go for it!" It's sexual libertarianism. It breaks down the double standard by saying women should be able to have sex on their terms, even if that means casual sex or rough sex, or anything else that's customarily forbidden or considered "gross." It's about women's sexual freedom, any time, any where, and in any way women say they want it.

Radical feminism, on the other hand, is great for examining what we should or shouldn't do. It's a response to the postmodern porn culture in which women must be lascivious, kinky, uninhibited to the point of being willing to do anything men demand, porn-star look-likes, and always sexually available. It's the freedom to say "no" to anything.

Radical feminism responds to a world that sex-positive feminism unintentionally created. Cultural patriarchy has warped sex-positive feminism's message of "women can do anything" into "women have to do anything, or they're prudish stick-in-the-muds." Now that we're all allowed to do anything, it's become acceptable to ask for anything and expect to receive it. If sexuality is okay on any terms as long as women consent, then porn must be okay; stripping must be okay; sex work (prostitution) must be okay; BDSM must be okay; etc. The women involved in those activities chose to do so, and questioning their choices is taboo.

The problem is, this often glosses over the context in which those choices are made. Radical feminism asks the questions sex positive feminism considers inappropriate to ask: Why do women want to do this? Are these choices good for women? How do these choices operate differently in the real patriarchal world compared to the theoretical feminist world? How might we change these choices and the way these acts are practiced to make women happier and the world more equitable?

Radical feminism enables critiques of sexual objectification, because it says that treating women as objects is not good and not ethical even if the woman says it's okay. It enables critiques of BDSM, pointing out that beating women until they're bloody is probably a bad way to express desire even if the women say they're into it. It helps us criticize porn, strip clubs, and prostitution, by wondering how sexuality can be free if our choices are dictated by a want or need for money, and by wondering how catering to what men are willing to pay for could possibly be a healthy way to express one's sexuality. These modes of critique are opened because radical feminism looks at the effects of our choices instead of simply our right to make them.

Some of these critiques are very important. Mainstream porn pretty obviously objectifies and subordinates women. It captures only contrived moments of sex, not the contextual relationship dynamics or the way that the distinct and fully human people engage in sexual acts together. We ought to ask ourselves, is this a healthy way to view sexuality, as if it's in some kind of bubble isolated from the rest of life? Radical feminism says probably not, and definitely not if this kind of sexuality involves images of men hurting or humiliating women, because that creates a culture of violence. Sex-positive feminists do a reasonably good job of saying why porn ought to be legal, but radical feminists address questions like "Should we watch porn?" and "What types of porn are probably bad for our sexuality even when they're consensual?" They argue that the solution to the bad porn that exists now is not just "make feminist porn" but also "stop watching sexist porn." Some even argue that it's dumb or bad to watch porn at all, which is definitely compelling in light of the trash that's out there right now. They point out how the porn industry coerces women, how pornography creates anti-woman environments, how trading money for sex cheapens sex, how porn creates a continuum of "interesting/kinky sex vs. boring/vanilla sex" that pressures women to do things they don't want to do and cuts off more creative ways of seeing "interesting vs. boring" sex.

Radical feminism also helps us sort through all of the choices we're given by sex-positive feminism. It can be confusing to know what you want out of a relationship if you're free to do anything. It can be exhausting to navigate the dating world when there are no longer any rules. It's hard to know where to set your personal standards. Radical feminism can offer guidance, suggesting ways of relating to one another that are equitable and suggesting standards that might help you find fulfilling relationships.

It also allows us to radically reject capitalism and masculine philosophy. We can critique the traditional familial organization not just on the grounds that women weren't asked whether or not they wanted to be home-makers, but also on the grounds that our economic system disadvantages stay-at-home women. We can talk about the value of different kinds of labor, and talk about why some women make their economic choices, and use those answers to critique the overall economic system. If women choose to stay home because they want to spend more time with their kids, doesn't that suggest that our work system demands too much of our time and is too exclusionary of family concerns for the middle class? If women choose to work long hours because their families can't survive otherwise, doesn't that also suggest that our work system demands too much of families straddling the poverty line? The critique applies to those without families, too. Perhaps workaholism manifests because of the structure of the workplace and the family.

In essence, radical feminism goes beyond questions of choice to ask why people make the choices they do. It allows us to examine the ways in which sexuality is warped by the cultural environment in which we grow to sexual maturity, and points to areas in which "choice" oversimplifies. It breaks down the double standard by demanding everyone be responsible for their sexuality, and by saying that not every woman who chooses not to engage in certain sexual acts is doing it because she's inhibited. It frees us from the oppression of having too many loaded choices.

The sex-positive critique often misses the point when it response to the radical feminist critique, because it reads radical feminism with the same lens as it reads 1950s conservativism. The two modes of feminist critique are responsive to different sides of the virgin/whore sexual double standard (with sex-positivism critiquing the identities available to "good girls"/virgins and radicalism critiquing the identities available to "bad girls"/whores). We need both sides to open ourselves up to authentic sexuality, because both aspects oppress us. Because some people feel the constraints of one side of the double standard more strongly, they identify with one mode of critique more strongly.

Ultimately, we need a sex-positive radical feminism. So here's to hoping we can combine the two!

I'm SO EXCITED for the Obama administration!

2009-01-16T12:17:00.003-06:00

Both Obama and his administration seem to promise some serious changes in domestic and foreign policy. Thus Bush years are finally over. So far, it looks like "change" wasn't just a campaign slogan. While we will definitely be disappointed in our new president at some ventures, he was definitely the best possible choice and I am PSYCHED about having him and his cabinet in office.

Here are some highlights in the administrative nominees:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton - I wasn't originally that excited about Clinton, but she does have a pretty solid human rights record (particularly in terms of women's rights and gay rights), and she's promising that issues like human trafficking are going to get the attention they deserve. Does this mean we might get a more humane US foreign policy? YAY!

Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis - Supports labor unions, green collar jobs, workers' rights and more, and has a personal background that indicates that this support is sincere. She also has a history of supporting right to work and fair trade.

Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services Tom Daschle - healthcare

Head of the Office of Legal Counsel Dawn Johnson - After Bush's abuse of the OLC through John Yoo, this is a position that needs to be filled by a progressive legal scholar. And Dawn Johnson is exactly that! In fact, she's "widely known as a fierce advocate for human rights and accountability, a defender of constitutional limits on executive power, a vocal critic of the Bush Administration's opinions on torture, and also a strong pro-choice advocate." THREE CHEERS FOR THIS NEARLY PERFECT NOMINEE!

Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack - Vilsack's not perfect, but he is for cutting subsidies and GM labelling.

Middle East Envoy Daniel Kurtzer - An experienced diplomat and former ambassador to both Egypt and Israel, Kurtzer also has a quality rare in American officials - he has a balanced view of the Middle East peace process, looking at both Israeli and Palestinian concerns. Though the crazed American right may paint him as an evil Israel-hater, I find his history of neutrality is pretty compelling. I mean, listen to the guy. He sounds pretty smart to me.

And, even more thrilling, Obama is working on finding ways to overturn some of the worst Bush policies. Some things Obama's got in the pipeline right now:

Overall? THRILLING!

Abortion, Part 2: Why abortion is a feminist issue

2009-01-10T15:53:00.002-06:00

In a world where the Republican vice presidential candidate of the most recent election cycle belongs to a group like "Feminists for Life," it is obvious that there are women who consider themselves feminists and who are anti-choice. On the other hand, there is a vocal group of feminists proclaiming that the right to have an abortion is a key tenet of feminism and an important reproductive right.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say, sure, there are a few ways in which it is possible to be a feminist and an anti-choicer at the same time. If you genuinely respect women's bodily integrity and reproductive rights, but believe that abortion is an instance of competing rights claims in which the right to life automatically outweighs all other rights in all cases, you can probably be anti-choice and still be a feminist. No one is 100% feminist, and excluding anti-choicers from our movement regardless of the genuine desire by some of them to fight for the feminist cause is an unfair move.

However, I believe it is impossible for the anti-choice position or the anti-choice movement to be feminist. Additionally, there are many ways typical pro-choicers use sexism as a tool for acheiving political gain and as a crux for some really offensive arguments, and I would expect anti-choicers who consider themselves feminists to call out the sexism within their movement (just as I expect leftist feminists like myself to call out sexism like the photoshopping of a certain ass-backwards Alaskan governor serving in the second slot on the Republican ticket this election cyle into a flag bikini or the placement of her face on a demotivation poster stating "VPILF").

I'm going to start with explaining why I believe the anti-choice position is intrinsically anti-feminist, and then move on to the trends within the anti-choice movement which rely upon sexism or further sexism.

Why opposing legal abortion is inherently anti-feminist

Anti-abortion laws are institutionally sexist.

Sexist arguments can be made by people who are not necessarily misogynistic, cruel, or unethical. In the same way that laws can be institutionally racist or blacks can be subtly discriminated against, laws can be institutionally sexist and women can be subtly discriminated against. If a law or structure has a disproportionately negative effect on women, it is discriminatory against women and thus sexist. An argument, a perspective, a legal position, a law, etc. can all be sexist without all of its supporters personally hating or wishing to discriminate against women.

Anti-choice policy is institutionally sexist because the legislation it seeks to implement (ie, the banning of abortion) affects only women. Only women have the reproductive equipment to get pregnant, because only females have uteri. This means that any laws dealing with pregnancy and abortion disproportionately affect women and restrict their choices. This makes them institutionally sexist. The reason this is bad is because these disproportionate regulations impose often severe consequences (unwanted pregnancy, health risks, emotional trauma) on a group of people determined by their genitalia.

Misogynistic trends and beliefs frequently found within the anti-choice movement

While not inherent to the anti-choice position, there are a number of disturbing sexist trends that practically manifest themselves in anti-choice advocacy. While there may be ways to conceive of a pro-choice position that does not fall into these traps, it's pretty difficult and that's not the way things generally shake out. So while objections that it "doesn't have to be that way" may be true in some sense, they miss the point.

First, the leadership of the movement disproportionately defers to men.

Those who shape the public discourse on abortion are mostly men, because men hold more positions of power and influence. Newspaper op-eds about abortion are almost exclusively written by men, and the overwhelming majority of these men are anti-choice. Religious sects with strong opposition to abortion (such as Catholicism and fundamentalist protestantism) also are often lead exclusively by men, because women cannot serve as priests or ministers in those religions, and thus cannot be spokespeople representing the church in a sanctioned and official capacity. This is made even more problematic by the fact that within a patriarchal society, the opinions of men are given greater weight in the first place. This means that women's voices are drowned out by the noise being made by men.

Those who make abortion laws are also primarily men. This is because women are underrepresented in the legal decision-making bodies which decide these pregnancy laws. 7 out of 8 (88%) of the Supreme Court Justices are male. 448 of 535 (84%) of the members of the House of Representatives are male. 84 out of 100 (84%) of Senators are male. The problem with this is that it compounds the injustice of the inherent sexism within the movement and the institutional sexism of the anti-choice position, because the decisions are rendered by a group of people who have exactly a 0% chance of experiencing being pregnant or fearing that you are pregnant an unwanted child. Women's perspectives, again, are limited out, on an issue which is of vital important to women.

Second, anti-choicers frequently demonize women's sexuality.

Many justifications for anti-abortion laws rest upon the idea that it is right, just, and acceptable to punish women for their sexual choices. Many anti-choice advocates believe that women who get pregnant and have to stay pregnant due to abortion laws deserve what they got because it's their own fault they're pregnant. This is usually supported by beliefs like "women shouldn't be having sex before marriage anyways" and "consenting to sex means consenting to its consequences." While these don't sound so bad at first, those statements generally imply that birth control is primarily or exclusively the responsibility of women (since it's the woman's fault she's pregnant), that female sexuality is particularly wrong (because only female sexuality is punished by forcing them to carry a nine-month pregnancy to term; male sexuality is not biologically punished at all), that women shouldn't have sex for pleasure (because they should have been more afraid of the consequences and been able to restrain themselves; no mention of men restraining themselves), and that pregnancy is not the fault of or concern of men. Hopefully I don't have to explain why any of that is sexist bullshit and an extension of the double standard under which female sexuality is treated more harshly than male sexuality? Also, this point is reinforced by the religiosity of many anti-choicers. The Bible has a whole bunch of misogynist sexual laws. See here, here, here, and here for a taste (and no, these are not objective sources, but the evidence is direct quotations from the Bible).

Third, the physical consequences of pregnancy are nearly always downplayed.

Anti-choicers frequently disregard the physical damage done to women. A perfect example of this is the so-called "partial birth" abortion ban that was recently upheld by the Supreme Court. This ban outlawed a particular method of abortion (intact dilation and extraction, or I. D&X for short). This procedure was used almost exclusively for late-term abortions of infants with fatal birth defects like anencephaly. The "Partial-Birth Ban" did not prevent abortions or change the term during which the abortion was had, but rather forced doctors to use a less effective means of abortion, endangering the mother to no gain for the fetus.

Also, anti-choicers almost never consider the magnitude of the physical changes and risks ANY pregnant woman experiences. To be anti-choice is not simply to say a woman must give birth (an exceptionally painful experience, I'm told), but also that she must endure morning sickness, fatigue, lack of mobility, weight gain, permanent alterations in body shape, lactation, increased risk of hemmroids, possibly blood clots or cardiac arrest, and other severe side effects. Yet, the wishes of a woman not to endure these side effects are dismissed, belittled, and considered her own problem. What the fuck?

Fourth, discussion of women's emotional experiences with (forced) pregnancy is nearly always excluded.

Anti-choicers frequently disregard the emotions of women in several ways. Discussions of the personal trauma of forced pregnancy are absent, as are the narratives of women who are terrified by the prospect of pregnancy. Anti-choice laws and advocacy ignore the concerns of women carrying fetuses with congenital birth defects, and only sometimes account for the fact that a fetus is a constant reminder of rape for a rape survivor and a continual re-violation of her body for a whole nine months. Their solution of "adopt, adopt, adopt" ignores the biochemical response of a woman to pregnancy and birth. Even if you know you cannot keep a child, your body screams at you that it is your child and you want it in your arms NOW. Yet women are expected to simply "suck it up" and give the child over. I have read horror stories of adoption that were far crueler than any abortion story. On the other hand, choosing to keep a child is an enormous financial, social, and emotional commitment that may prevent a woman from having a career or finishing school. Yet anti-choicers often steamroll over these objections, calling fear of pregnancy "selfish" and demeaning women's emotional responses to pregnancy. This suffocation of women's stories and the de-personalization of women who decide to abort that is characteristic of the anti-choice movement is a judgment upon a situation that at least half of the anti-choice movement will never have to make (since they are male). Ignoring emotion in legal thought is simply another way of excluding the reality of women's lives from the discussion. Even if that's not sexist (which it probably is given patriarchy's subordination of pathos to logos) it's asshole-ish.

Treatments of post-abortion trauma are patronizing to women.

The characterization of women suffering post-abortion trauma (which is a myth by the way) often denies women agency and responsibility for their own decisionmaking. Women are described as being intuitive mothers who are reluctant to "murder" their "children" but are coerced into doing so by evil abortion advocates and providers. Never mind that everyone who works at Planned Parenthood is trained to provide all options to women who come seeking abortion counseling (unlike "crisis pregnancy centers"). Never mind that information encouraging women not to have abortions is at least as prevalent and probably more so than information about abortions. Never mind that women are smart enough to make their own, sensible decisions.

Obviously sometimes people make decisions that they regret. However, that doesn't mean they were mislead or incapable of deciding things for themselves. I have no doubt that some women regret their abortions, but that means that those women misread their feelings on the issue or later decided that a different choice would have been better, not that they're somehow mentally ill or that the choice they made is inherently evil.

Plus, a whole lot of the post-abortion guilt that some women suffer is imposed by society. When you have preachers calling you a murderess and politicians telling you that you're part of a system that murders millions of babies a year, don't you think that might be a cause of some anxiety? When you're afraid to tell friends, family members, and partners about your abortion, because you think they'll judge you and it will do irreparable damage to your relationship, don't you think that's a cause of concern? I think shaming has a whole lot more to do with post-abortion regrets than some kind of natural, intuitive motherhood does. (Women aren't just mothers-in-waiting, nor should motherhood be treated as some kind of totalizing characteristic that subsumes women's identities.)

It all comes down to, can't we examine the risks and decide on our own?

(A great resource for those interested in the "pro-life movement"'s connections to reactionary anti-sex movements should see How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America, by Christiana Page.)

Well, that's it for this installment of my abortion series...the next one will tackle common arguments against legal abortion.

How To Acheive Happiness

2009-01-10T15:29:00.002-06:00

The Basic Formula For Happiness

The basic formula is easy.

Figure out what makes you happy.
Do it.
Be happy about the outcome.
Find a way to deal with the negatives.

However easy it may be to outline the formula, however, lots of people seem to have trouble following it (even me, at times, and it's my theory!). For different people and at different times, different steps will be the hardest. However, if you can pull those three off, you are in a good place.

Step One: Figure out what makes you happy, or what might make you happy.

Step one is all about exploration and trial and error. It is about finding things that could possibly make you happy, and seeing if they work for you or not.

There are many places to get ideas. First, you can check out what makes other people happy. You can do this by reading about other people, talking to other people and asking them what their favorite things to do are, or observing when people seem like they are at their happiest. You can look to examples in the media, blogs, close friends, family members, acquaintances, etc. Look for hobbies, actions, and attitudes towards life that you think could possibly work for you. It is most helpful if you look at people who are like you in the ways you want to continue being and who are different from you in ways you think you might like to be. For example, if you are quiet and are okay with that, observe or talk to quiet people for ideas. Or, if you are quiet but would prefer to be more outgoing, use outgoing people as models.

Second, you can look inside yourself. Surely there are some things, however small, about your life that you enjoy. Think of ways to make those things happen more, or ways to get more involved in those activities. Also figure out what you are unhappy about, and identify the opposite as a possible way to make yourself happy. For instance, if getting poor grades makes you unhappy, do everything in your power to get good grades. Or, if being lonely makes you unhappy, look for ways to get involved and meet new people.

Remember, these ideas do not have to be for sure; they are just possibilities you think are worth looking into further. Come up with a list, if that is helpful to you. Come up with a plan, so that big things you want to learn how to do are broken up into more manageable steps.

Step Two: Do it.

This is the "trial" part of trial and error. Once you have some ideas, it is time to put them into practice. Choose one possible thing (or many) that could make you happy and try it. If you want to mountain climb, sign up for climbing lessons. If you want to make friends, start talking to people. If you want to help people, volunteer. If you want to learn things, check out a book on an interesting topic and read it. If you want to rebel against your parents, decide on the appropriate level of rebellion and do it.

You have to go into things with the right attitude, which means believing that any new thing you try could work out, and trying it with your whole heart invested.

You may have trouble working up the courage to do them. If that's the case, it's helpful to remember that "the biggest risk is never risking anything at all." You are inevitably going to be taking a risk, and the only one you never learn anything or grow from is playing everything safe. Life is about garnering experiences, and while cutting yourself off from the world may temporarily insulate you, it will drive you crazy eventually. By trying something new, you at least have a chance of escaping the otherwise inevitable boredom and depression.

Step Three: Be happy about the attempt.

If you have tried something new for the right reasons, give yourself some serious props. It's hard to try new things and simply making an effort deserves congratulations. No matter what the outcome of your attempt, you've proven to yourself that you're serious and capable of changing your life.

Treat successes as precious discoveries of your self. Think of the key to your happiness not as one big secret you have to find out, but rather as a series of clues that will ultimately help you build the best life for you. Life is much more like a set of legos than it is the SAT. Life is not a series of tests where everything has a single right answer. Instead, you get tiny pieces of possibility and it's up to you to assemble your own dream from the little colored fragments.

Don't regret what you did. Remember, you did it for all the right reasons. Trying to divine your true nature and figure out how to be happy is a fair and legitimate purpose towards which to direct your efforts, and screw anyone who tries to tell you differently. You deserve to be happy, and as long as you're not intentionally going out of your way to hurt other people, you're doing the right thing.

So don't regret it, even if it doesn't go as planned. Accept failures as part of the development process. You have to fail in order to know what you don't like.

Be satisfied with the result. You've now identified a possible route to happiness and tried it out. If you see something in this path, keep experimenting with it. If you didn't, discard it and try something else.

Step Four: Find a way to deal with the negatives.

Even after you've basically figure things out, there are going to be downsides, both to your overall approach to the world and in specific daily occurrences. You're going to feel bad about something at some point, and you need to have a go-to strategy for dealing with it or you're going to obsesses over the negatives and it's going to poison the happiness you could be having.

First of all, you shouldn't always try to be immediately happy in every single moment. Sometimes you just need to be down. Sulk, be sad, be angry, flip out. Hiding hurt feelings only suppresses them, leaving you up happy in your core self and make on the outside. It's one thing to bite your tongue and wait for an appropriate time to express yourself; it's another to deny yourself the right to feel your own negative emotions. Part of happiness is learning the balance of life. Sometimes balance means a little bit of positive and a little bit of negative. Sometimes it means excess in either direction.

Use the negatives as a spice for life. Let pain and misery teach you empathy and how to appreciate the good times when you have them. Feel the power of whatever torment you're feeling, and use its artistic potency as a way to access your creativity. Chaos generates infinite possibilities, so use the opportunities provided to you to seek new places within yourself and in the external world. Everything in life is ultimately two sided, and you need both sides to appreciate everything in total.

Usually, it's best to first determine if there's anything you can do to fix or change the situation. For example, if you procrastinate a major project and aren't able to get it done in time, you should do things like work on it furiously and turn it in as soon as possible or talk to your teacher/coach/boss/whatever to see what you can do to either get it done faster or make up for the mistakes you've made. Apologize to anyone you've hurt or inconvenienced. Even if it's not your fault (for example, say another person promises to give you a ride somewhere but neither shows up nor answers their phone), do your best to rectify the situation and calm down anyone you inadvertently upset.

After you've done everything in your power to fix the situation, do what you need to do to accept the situation and move on. Dwelling on something you can't change will only make you miserable. There are a number of strategies for coping with the remaining bad things, and you should do what helps you the most. I'll give some examples of ways I know that help some people deal:

Working out or otherwise exerting yourself physically: it gets your endorphins going, gives you an outlet for frustration, and helps you be healthy and look hot as fringe benefits (meaning you also get the satisfaction of having done something productive)
Philosophically or religiously justifying the situation: this can take the form of meditating, reading existentialist literature, attending a religious service, trusting in god, trusting in yourself and coming intellectually and emotionally to terms with what happened, etc. The big benefit to this is that you're actually *dealing* with the issue at hand.
Complaining: sometimes verbalizing everything you're upset about helps you process it. Whether you're writing a letter to someone that you'll never send, yelling to an empty room, or getting sympathy from friend, complaining is an outlet. Remember, though, that complaining too frequently to the same people can stress them out, so be wise in who you complain to and how often.
Sleeping, taking a bubble bath, going for a mani-pedi, or other relaxing activities: you can physically and emotionally soothe yourself by doing something calm and relaxing.
Distract yourself: this can mean anything from playing video games to reading a book. anything that engages you but has nothing to do with your problem can work.
Talk to a doctor: if you feel like nothing you can do will make you happy, you may want to see a doctor. Psychotherapy tailored to your needs and perhaps a medication to correct a chemical imbalance may be in order. Be careful with chemical fixes, though.

Overall

Really, taken as a whole, this is just one big strategy for living life. Not everyone's going to feel the same way. Maybe you want to follow a more concrete and rigid blueprint. But this works for me. Good luck!

You are never responsible for being raped.

2008-12-28T00:24:00.003-06:00

Rape prevention efforts (especially those I've noticed on my college campus) nearly always focus on helping the would-be victim doing something to prevent herself from being victimized. The idea is that if women take self defense classes, don't drink anything that's been out of their sight, refuse to wear skirts to parties, don't "advertise" their bodies with skimpy clothing, and never walk alone outside at night, there won't be any more rape.

Well, I have a problem with this approach. A lot of problems, actually.

This approach presumes that women get raped because of some personal thing about them. If a woman's raped at a party, it's because she was carelessly drinking. If she's raped in an alleyway, it's because she should have known better than to be in such a dangerous place. If she's raped unlocking the door to her apartment, it's because she didn't fight back hard enough or well enough.

Um, no.

Women aren't raped because they're stupid and generally fucked up, women are raped because rapists are violent and generally fucked up.

Why should it be incumbent upon women to alter their daily life patterns so as not to tempt rapists? Why should women's choices be controlled by the fear of rape? Why should it be my responsibility to make sure people don't rape me? Shouldn't it be other people's responsibility to just not fucking rape me??

I get that most of these efforts mean well, but they are patronizing as hell. As if women didn't already know it isn't smart to do things like getting drunk and passing out in a stranger's bed! But to translate such common-sense practices into a larger rape-prevention strategy turns simple wise decisionmaking into an obligation. You are obligated to worry about your safety at all times and make choices based on safety as your paramount consideration, and if you fail to meet this obligation, well, no wonder you got raped. That's absurd - no one should have to pay such slavish, infinite attention to making sure their basic human rights aren't brutally violated. Because, really, at the end of the day, even if you make a stupid choice (like getting so wasted you leave yourself vulnerable), people still shouldn't rape you.

If every woman followed the tips given out on these well-meaning fliers, we wouldn't have lives, or at least we'd be closed off to a particular fast lane of life that men are allowed unfettered access to. If men can drink, walk by themselves, and generally live their lives without having to alter their behavior out of fear of being assaulted, any rape prevention strategy that presumes women who do those things to be foolishly endangering themselves for doing them is completely unfair. It places women in a box in which they can only do that which is considered "safe" for them to do, and creates the implication that the penalty for failing to stay in that little box is getting raped. (This seems to support the thesis of one of my favorite bloggers, Nine Deuce, who considers rape a form of terrorism.)

Also, I should point out that this strategy totally sucks in practice. While there may be a few not-terribly-invasive changes you can make to make yourself less of a target of a random violent attack, most rape is perpetrated by people you know. Staying away from frat parties won't help you if the guy who came over to watch movies with you takes advantage of being alone in your house and rapes you, or if your dinner date slips a roofie in your lemonade. Wearing only turtlenecks and long pants as soon as you hit puberty won't stop your sicko uncle or cousin or father or grandfather from sneaking into your room your at night to touch you in ways you don't want to be touched. Taking a self-defense class won't mean much if your attacker catches you by surprise or is carrying a gun - in fact, it may get you into more trouble. All of this basically means that this strategy does not only aid the cultural trend towards blaming the victim, it does very little to actually stop acts of sexual violence.

I don't know how we prevent rape at a societal level. The legal system is obviously fucked up on this point and so is the culture. But the one small tactical suggestion I have to offer is to shift the cultural blame from victim to perpetrator, one person at a time. For me, this means not being afraid - I will do what I damn well please and I dare anyone to try to stop me. It also means calling out victim blaming when I see it, and explaining to others that nobody is ever "asking for it."

Technology is bad.

2008-12-23T02:22:00.006-06:00

Technology allows us to mediate human communication, reducing the complex interplay of social signals like vocal tone, facial expression, body gestures, eye contact, and physical touch to simply a stream of text or a disembodied voice. Interactions that should be normal (eye contact and physical touch) become unusual and therefore awkward, leaving people hungry for intimacy but simultaneously too unskilled to know how to be intimate. We become used to abnormal, unnatural ways of relating. We are constantly editing our speech and our thoughts, typing and deleting, never speaking from the heart alone.

It allows us to isolate ourselves in a world which is ultimately not real. Surfing representations of the world alone in our bedrooms replaces actually going out and experiencing the world. Created reality is always perfect, always exactly what we manufacture it to be and always evolving to meet our needs. Sometimes the fantasy becomes so tempting that people literally live only for it, producing WOW and Second Life geeks as well as forum regulars obsessed who measure their own worth in terms of internet popularity (whether in the form of VB rep point, "prommie" status, name recognition, blog hits, or any other artificial measure).

It creates a constant stream of distraction, so that you can always reject the situation in which you are physically located. Your attention is spread thin, so that you never give anything your undivided focus. People text or IM or do work on the computer while they hang out in person. They talk on the phone instead of speaking to those next to them at the bus station or in line for Starbucks. We talk to twenty people at once about nothing online instead of talking to three in person about something meaningful. There's so much information available that we have to take shortcuts, causing universally shallow knowlege to replace thoughtfulness and expertise. There will always be more information to access, and since it's easier to read a Wikipedia page about a possible experience, we often default to that and lose the adventure of actually going out and doing.

Social networking becomes a burden and an obsession rather than a simple change of media, because the omnipresence of aquiantances creates an expectation of interaction inappropriate to the fleeting nature of the relationship. Checking your online world becomes a daily chore rather than something spontaneous; every day (probably more than once a day) you must check your email, your Facebook, your own blog, the blogs you read, your forum cites, news headlines, your favorite bands Myspaces, your text messages, and so on... There is an ever-expanding, infinite number of obligations awaiting you in technology.

We are placed in a position of constant control, where we are responsible for our surroundings and we need to fix everything that doesn't fit our vision of how the world should be. We lose our ability to cope with strife and difficulty because we are used to "fixing" technology away. Our detatchment from nature is also a detachment from the rhythms of life, and with that comes a loss of understanding of natural ups and downs.

It is bad enough that we live in constructed worlds where temperature control is assumed and bland manufactured surroundings are the norm. It is bad enough that nature shocks our color-starved eyes and bores our overstimulated and fidgety minds. It is bad enough that we split the creation of goods into capital and labor, production and product, and that we mass-produce everything until there is no such thing as "unique."

But what is really frightening is the way the increasing omnipresence of communications technology begins to run our lives, like an addiction. The immediate gratification of receiving a message acts like a drug, triggering our senses without any real value gained. We become addicted to technology, increasingly dissatisfied but trapped in perceived inevitability and the inability to let go. The more alienated we become, the more we cling to technology, convinced that it is our only means left to plug into the world around us. But it is the wrong solution, and the consequence of our misdiagnosis is that we treat the symptoms of our addiction with an even greater dose of our drug of choice. We consume more and more of it as it destroys us from the inside, unnoticeable at first and then later consciously sought.

The way out is to scale back, devalue technology, and opt out of the crazy overstimulation of the technological culture. We need to return to in-person interactions, localized knowledge, and non-mediated experiences with the world. We can move through steps - first, realizing that technology is bad for us; second, shutting down the addictive, constant checking of our technological worlds and artificial selves; third, reducing our use of technology; fourth, cultivating a sense of self and center that is exclusive of technology; fifth, creating an atmosphere in which technology is rarely if ever used, where we ride the ups and downs of nature.

In this fifth stage, we are cold in the winter, hot in the summer, but we accept this as the natural changing of the seasons. We miss people when they are away, but we devote ourselves wholly to re-aquainting ourselves with them when they return. We spend most of our times outdoors, and sheltered areas are considered stifling if occasionally useful. Essentially, there is no longer a distinction between man and nature because they are the same.

There is no such thing as a "slut."

2008-09-25T16:05:00.004-05:00

I've been pondering the sexual double standard for quite some time, particularly the standard which says boys who have sex a lot are awesome and girls who have sex a lot are pathetic. I've thought about a lot of different solutions, ranging from applying the "slut" label to boys to attempting to reclaim the word "slut," and I've finally reached a solution.

I will simply deny the existence of "sluts."

There is no such thing as a slut. "Slut" is just a word the patriarchy invented in order to demonize women's sexuality. It forces sexually active women into a category that assumes they're having sex for the wrong reasons and assigns an automatic negative connotation to the fact that they're having it at all.

There is no such thing as a slut, only women who have lots of sex.

Some women like having lots of sex. Some women like casual sex. Some women take a “why not?” approach to sex.

That’s all perfectly fine. It does not mean their daddies didn’t love them, it does not mean they’re trying to fill an emotional hole, it does not mean they’re nymphos, it does not mean they were sexually abused and are now compensating, it does not mean they are man-stealers, it does not mean they hate other women, it does not mean they have such low standards they’ll sleep with anyone, it does not mean they are desperate, it does not mean they’re “ugly” or “fat,” it does not mean they’re incapable of saying no, it does not mean they deserve to be raped, it does not mean they are conniving, it does not mean they’re stupid, it does not mean they don’t have morals, it does not mean any other negative slur or stereotype you can come up with.

Each woman has her own identity and her own opinions on sexuality. Each woman makes her own choices. Each woman is making those decisions from the particular context in which she lives, informed by her experiences and beliefs. Some women prefer to reserve physical intimacy for those who they are emotionally close to, while others are more liberal about sharing their bodies. Some women like to have sex frequently, while others prefer to wait for someone they truly love.

All of those decisions, all of those choices, are okay. They are all absolutely, categorically okay. No woman’s sex life is anyone’s business besides her own. It is not the business of other women, or of men. Yes, clearly she should be honest with her partners, but her sex life still belongs to her. No one else can make claims on it; it is her business, her decision, her prerogative. She may choose to share that, and make collaborative decisions or decisions which take others into account, but it is fundamentally hers and she can revoke the permission to have input in her sexual decisions at any time. She holds the final say. She is the ultimate judge of her sexuality and can overrule anyone.

Yes, there are sometimes components in a woman’s decisionmaking process that are a product of negative circumstances beyond her control. Victimization may cause her to push people away, or it may cause her to feel that she has no right to say no. The fact that rape and sexual assault happen is tragic, and not to be taken lightly. Especially when a woman feels she has lost agency, it can disadvantage her and hurt her in the process. However, it is not her decisions, or the circumstances she allows herself to be in, that should be judged. Her behavior is not the problem. The abuse she has suffered and her feelings of inadequacy, fear, etc. are bad. But her sexuality is not bad. It is never bad, however she uses it or allows it to be used. It is not her fear of saying no that is the problem; it is the partner who does not care if she feels pressured that is the problem. The users should be demonized, not the used.

Yes, even a woman who has not been abused may construct her notions of sexuality around patriarchy, male pleasure, and power, and these can put her in a place where something she believes is empowering actually ends up weighing on her. But can we really blame women for seeking power in one of the very few ways patriarchy offers (some) women? Is it wrong for her to feel powerful when seducing men? I would argue that we need to reconceptualize our notions of power and sexuality, but sometimes that is difficult and/or unavailable. It is problematic to criticize women for decisions made from within the constraints of patriarchy, where every choice is lose-lose. Again, the problem in this case is a larger structural disadvantage to women, not the women’s choices and beliefs per say. Everyone has different survival strategies, and so long as women are not abusing other people in the process, they should receive the benefit of the doubt.

So whenever I hear someone say “she’s such a slut,” or “I saw this one slutty girl over at Jason’s house,” or whatever, my response will be, “I don’t believe there’s any such thing as a slut.”

I’ve already tried it, and it works pretty well. Even if people initially respond with “What??”, they quickly get it. “Yeah, that double standard does really suck,” has been the most common response I’ve gotten from women.

In closing, there is no such thing as a slut.

Flairs That Annoy Me

2008-09-24T12:12:00.034-05:00

All right, I'll admit it. I have a (not-so-secret) obsession with the pieces of flair application on facebook. I can page through thousands of digital buttons at a time, and I enjoy rearranging my flair board for any and all occasions. I'm always pleased to see a notification in my inbox that someone has sent me a new flair.

However, as a long time flair user (LTFU), I have several pet peeves about flair. Actually, there are some flairs that genuinely piss me off. Here's a list.

1. Flairs calling people stupid while using incorrect spelling or grammar. Also, people having so little taste as to publically display insults which could reasonably be considered offensive.

Other versions of this flair include "your gay."

2. Twilight flairs which suggest that Twilight is real life, preferable to real life, or that Twilight characters are a model real life ought to mimic.

I've also several flairs suggesting that "Edward" is better than all the real boys, so the flair's creator would rather just obsess over (perfect) Edward.

It's really creepy, in that I-reject-reality-because-I-prefer-my-own-fantasy kind of way. Sorry, but the ultimate meaning to life is not Twilight, and perhaps the reason you prefer a poorly written tween fantasy novel over real life is because you keep avoiding reality instead of interacting with other (real) people. It is the saddest, most pathetic thing I can think of that someone would appreciate a fluffy illusion like that over actual existence.

3. I always hate it when people concede that killing animals and eating them is wrong, but think it's okay to do it anyways. This flair is just the epitomization of that, in a particularly asshole-ish way. Unfortunately, it's a pretty popular flair.

4. Flairs suggesting that Palin is feminist. Actually, pro-Palin and pro-McCain flairs in general. It's one thing to be a conservative or vote Republican; it's another entirely to be super-excited about a ticket of two uninformed idiots, at least one of whom is also a delusional psycho (Palin). Also, attempts to girl Palin up, as if femininity were the same thing as feminist credentials. Oh, and the "young John McCain war hero" buttons are also pretty obnoxious.

5. Sexist Anti-Palin flairs (or sexist Pro-Palin flairs -- sometimes it's hard to tell the difference). I hate the wolf-slaughtering, lying, pro-rape asshole running as the Republican VP just as much as (more than) anyone, but her "fuckability" and "bitchiness" should NOT be issues.

6. Racist, inaccurate, and otherwise stupid or offensive anti-Obama flairs.

Yes, these are all real. More silliness:

I fucking wish Obama was a commie. Maybe we'd get single payer healthcare then.

7. Political apathy flairs.

You know, I'd understand if there was some real objection communicated. Anarchism, problems with the two-party system, lack of representation for one's viewpoints, etc. But these all list fictional characters, and seem to suggest that there are no meaningful differences between McCain and Obama.

Also, here's one that combined pet peeves #2 and #7:

*stab* *stab* *stab*

8. Flairs that reinforce negative behavioral cycles within girl culture. Self-depreciating, slut-bashing, and boy-dependent flairs just make me sad.

I've also seen one that said something along the lines of "I call her whore and she calls me bitch...we're best friends!!"

9. Smoker-bashing and most anti-drug flairs. Yes, smoking is bad for you. Yes, anyone who blows smoke in your face without your permission is an asshole. No, that does not give you an excuse to get in other people's business. Also, it's totally cool to abstain from smoking, drinking, or doing drugs. Being healthy is awesome. But again, that doesn't mean you should be a dick to people who don't make the same choices. Even the nice ones are kind of annoying... it's a bit pretentious to put it on your flair board, ya know? Like putting up a "4.0 GPA all the way!!!" flair or something.

I will, however, concede that this one is funny. Exemptions for all funny (and non-douchey) anti-drug flairs.

10. This flair:

Set aside this flair's violation of pet peeve number one for a second (dad's instead of dads, screwy capitalization). What the hell is this flair even talking about? Is it pro-gun? Anti-gun? Apathetically trying to be funny? Plus, it seems to imply that women need protection and that harsh interferences into your daughter's love life is just "part of being a dad" (it's not). Also, why only pretty daughters? Do ugly daughers not count? They're not worth protecting?

This flair is kinda fucked up all the way around.

11. Certain kinds of religious flairs. This is another case where some versions are fine. If you have a cross in front of a sunset, or some kind of other symbol of your devotion to God, more power to you. It's the creepy, conversion-focused, or otherwise dumb religion flairs that get on my nerves. Consider: (left to right, "prayer is an excuse for inaction" flair, "God: militarism edition" flair, "Creepy stalker God" flair numbers 1 and 2, "Conservative political justifications misunderstanding" flair, "Wing nut homeschooler misunderstanding" flair, "obnoxious conversion" flair, "I'm in the majority, but I'm still a cool pissant countercultural rebel" flair, and "oblique god-based homophobia" flair.)

Here are some that combine pet peeve numbers 9 and 11:

And finally, in contrast, here's the right way to do religious flair:

12. Fallacious anti-abortion flair.

13. Self-referential flair suggesting that your friends < flair. Also, hard to read flairs with tiny letters and/or dark backgrounds.

This concludes today's list of semi-trivial things that annoy Brittany.

A Response To "Man Law"

2008-09-09T01:22:00.004-05:00

I realize that lists of "man laws" are supposed to be funny, and if they were limited to tasteless crotch-scratching jokes and social rules governing the sanctity of beer, I'd probably just ignore them the way I do any other tasteless joke. However, most "man law" is based in sexism and/or shows a blatant disregard for women. It's obnoxious and comes off as mean-spirited joking rather than being all in good fun.

I'll start by responding to the "laws" themselves.

1. Men are NOT mind readers.

Fair enough. However, a lack of psychic abilities does not mean you have carte blanche to disregard the thoughts and feelings of others just because they're not explicitly stated, nor does it get you out of housework. Even a moron knows "I'm fine" doesn't mean "I'm fine" when the person saying it's in tears, and if the dishes are clean when you open the dishwasher, put them away. That's what we do.

1. Learn to work the toilet seat. You’re a big girl. If it’s up, put it down. We need it up, you need it down. You don’t hear us complaining about you leaving it down.

Two arguments. First, you use the toilet seat down half the time, too. We never use it up. That means leaving it down is the most likely to suit the needs of most people. Second, and more importantly, it is WAY grosser for you to leave the toilet seat up. It means we might accidentally sit in pee or put our butts (and genitals) in toilet water. Also, lifting the seat up requires touching a place that your urine probably splashed; putting the seat down only means flicking it down and letting gravity do the work for you. It's easy, so just do it.

So, please put the seat down when you're done.

1. Sunday sports. It’s like the full moon or the changing of the tides. Let it be.

If that's really your thing, it's cool. I'm glad you have something you enjoy. But keep it in perspective, okay? It is not the end of the world if you miss a game and it's not an excuse to be an ass to everyone around you. Also, a little bit of give and take is appreciated. If I'm a good sport about you watching the game every Sunday, you should be a good sport when I want to watch my show on the big screen (that means not ridiculing shows I like in addition to letting me watch them -- basically, treat us the way we want to be treated, since that's what you expect out of us when you're watching the game). And remember, you can always ask us to watch the game with you. Maybe we like sports too.

1. Crying is blackmail.

No, it's a response to cruelty, and most of the time we can't help it. If you're going to scream at us, we're probably going to cry. Learn to disagree respectfully, and you won't have to worry about it.

1. Ask for what you want. Let us be clear on this one: Subtle hints do not work! Strong hints do not work! Obvious! hints do not work! Just say it!

This is one of those male/female communication gaps. We need to meet in the middle in order to fix this. We'll try to be straightforward, you try to pick up on what we mean without us having to beat you over the head with it. Remember, we're conditioned from childhood to look to others' needs first, and to be unobtrusive. We are constantly picking up on the subtle signs that YOU want or need something, and attempting to help out before you have to ask. That's why it's frustrating when we do tons of little things to make your life easier, and you never notice and thank us or do the same in return.

1. Yes and No are perfectly acceptable answers to almost every question.

Not when we're in a relationship with you. I understand that men culturally use fewer words and see less point in aimless chatter, and it's fine if you want to be alone sometimes. However, if you are always blunt and never talk to us about what's going on in your life, it seems like you don't want to talk to us, be around us, or include us in things that are important to you. If we really mean that little to you, why the fuck are we in a relationship?

1. Come to us with a problem only if you want help solving it. That’s what we do.
Sympathy is what your girlfriends are for.

No. We don't need you to solve our problems by telling us what to do. If you want to help us, suggest things. Help us brainstorm. But let us vent a little first; it's hard to fix things when you're too furious to think straight.

1. Anything we said 6 months ago is inadmissible in an argument. In fact, all comments become Null and void after 7 Days.

No. If an issue is resolved, there's no reason to bring it up. If it's not resolved, it's still a problem, and it's valid to bring it up. It's especially fair to use long-term examples when you dismiss our concerns by saying things like "oh, that was just one time, don't whine," and "I've never done that" or "What are you talking about? I've never treated in a [insert negative adjective] way!"

1. If you think you’re fat, you probably are. Don’t ask us.

It's hard to love your body when the beauty standard requires starvation and plastic surgery, so sometimes we need to hear that we're beautiful in order for us to feel confident in a world where we're surrounded by airbrushed stars. If we ask, "Do I look fat in this?" that means, "I'm feeling ugly. Please tell me that you are still attracted to me even though I'm not a carbon copy of Carmen Electra." If the outfit is really awful, just say, "Honey, you know I think you look great no matter what you wear, but I really love it when you wear [describe something more flattering]. I think that would be perfect."

1. I am in shape. Round IS a shape!

Wait, so its intolerable for us to be fat, but it's fine if you do it? No way. We make an effort to look nice for you; you should do the same for us. At the very least, don't hold us to standards you won't make the effort to meet yourself.

1. Whenever possible, Please say whatever you have to say during commercials.

This is basic politeness. However, we are more important than the TV and if we're treated as secondary to the Simpsons, we're gone. You shouldn't mind - more time alone with your favorite programs, right, loser?

1. Christopher Columbus did NOT need directions and neither do we.

If Columbus is your role model, we've got bigger issues. But not asking for directions when you're lost is obnoxious and inconveniences everyone. It's one thing to try to figure out the way on your own. It's another thing to get us really fucking lost and to be too arrogant to fix your mistake. If you get us there the right way, cool, we'll shut up. If you can't, you're going to drive where the nice lady at the gas station tells you to.

1. If it itches, it will be scratched. We do that.

Fine, but wait until the appropriate time, or be discreet. You don't see us scratching at our crotches or asses or boobs in the middle of polite company, and believe it or not, they itch sometimes too.

1. If we ask what is wrong and you say ‘nothing,’ We will act like nothing’s wrong.
We know you are lying, but it is just not worth the hassle.

This makes you an asshole. If you don't care about me, stay out of my life. Kthx.

1. If you ask a question you don’t want an answer to, Expect an answer you don’t want to hear.

There is no excuse for being mean to someone you claim to love. You can let someone down gently, so have the decency to do so.

1. When we have to go somewhere, absolutely anything you wear is fine… Really .

This is good to know. If you want us to believe you, say it like you mean it, and not like you're just trying to get us out of the door. (P.S. Don't lie, we know you can tell the difference between a ball gown and sweatpants.)

1. Don’t ask us what we’re thinking about unless you are prepared to discuss such topics as baseball or golf.

You really don't have any other interests beyond that? Okay, that's cool. You're not the guy for me, though. You should date a girl who likes talking about those things, and I'll date a guy who likes talking about a more diverse range of topics.

1. You have enough clothes.

1. You have too many shoes.

First of all, it's my goddamn money and I'm going to buy what I damn well please. Second, you have too many golf clubs. And third, when society starts judging men the same way they do women when it comes to appearance (AND starts requiring the same ridiculous beauty rituals), you can maybe say this. Until then, shut the fuck up.

1. Thank you for reading this. Yes, I know, I have to sleep on the couch tonight; But did you know men really don’t mind that? It’s like camping.

Women who use sex as a bargaining chip are women who are in a bad situation. Either their partners are terrible in bed, or they're in a relationship where the only way they can get equal consideration of their thoughts and feelings is by bribing their partners with sex, or both. Guys, this means you are doing something SERIOUSLY WRONG. Treat your partner like a human being, start trying to do what she wants you to do in bed, before this charade goes any farther. There's absolutely nothing preventing you from having an equitable relationship in which you have sex because you both want to, rather than as part of some fucked up game.

I hate this list for a number of reasons. The numbering of this list is pretentious. As if every relationship demand you make is so important as to be number one. The list itself is childish, and boils down to a whole bunch of excuses for not behaving like a decent human being. It condemns women for following gender norms (buying shoes) while also condemning them for not following them (being fat), and also reeks of double standards. Even nice men often think this is funny because they secretly think it makes sense. Some women actually buy into this and accept the raw deal presented. It's also screwy because it assumes that a relationship is about games playing, and that women are conniving bitches, which is insulting to all of the real, live, complex women that actually exist.

But do you want to know the REAL REASON why all of these man laws piss me off? Because they're all based on some bassackwards ideas of gender relations that belong in the 1800s, not the 2000s. They show a total lack of understanding of women, and present a really stupid relationship model in which the man does what he wants and the woman tolerates him while not getting what she wants. That's fucked up, and I would not be party to a relationship founded upon any of these principles.

I'd dump any asshole who actually believed any of this in a heartbeat, because I have self-respect. I hope you'd all do the same.

Abortion, Part 1: Terminology & Issue Framing

2008-09-06T15:11:00.005-05:00

I'm going to do a big multi-post series on abortion, and I figure since my terminology alone is likely to confuse or infuriate people, I'll explain that first. In explaining what words I choose to frame the debate, I will reveal some of my basic assumptions about abortion and the political issues surrounding it, and I will argue for the way I believe the debate should be framed.

Terms about pregnancy and that thing that either gets aborted or born:

These terms are unlikely to piss anyone off too much. They're just simple definitions of scientific terms for easy reference.

Zygote - Single-celled fertilized egg

Blastocyst - The clump of cells formed by the division of a fertilized egg before the moment of implantation in a woman's uterus

Embryo - The clump of cells formed by the division of a fertilized egg from the moment of implantation to the 8th week of pregnancy

Fetus - The clump of cells formed by the division of a fertilized egg from the 9th week of a pregnancy on; I personally use this as a generous catch-all term when I'm speaking about that thing inside a woman's uterus during a nonspecific period of time during her pregnancy

Baby/Child - A born human being

Pregnancy - The time period from when an embryo implants in a woman's uterus until that organism leaves the uterus

First trimester - Period of time before month 4 in a pregnancy

Second trimester - Period of time from month 4 to month 6 in a pregnancy

Third trimester - Period of time from month 7 of a pregnancy until the pregnancy ends

Viability - When a fetus ejected from the womb can probably survive; generally around 5 months

Terms describing political and ethical positions:

This is where people are going to start objecting.

Pro-choice - Political position that abortion should be a legal choice for women

Anti-choice/Pro-forced pregnancy - Political position that abortion should not be a legal choice for women

Pro-life/Anti-abortion - Generally understood as a synonym for "anti-choice"; I use it primarily as a word for people who believe that one should not choose abortion because we should "err on the side of life". These people can either be pro- or anti-choice.

Birth-to-death pro-life/Cradle-to-grave pro-life - People who hold consistent "err on the side of life" beliefs on abortion, welfare, animal rights, the death penalty, euthanasia, etc. I have much more respect for these people (although I still strongly disagree with them) because at least their opinions are based on a consistent and typically thoughtful ideology.

Pro-abortion - People who believe one should err on the side of choosing abortion or who would personally choose abortion in the case of an unwanted pregnancy

As a clarification, I define these terms in these ways for the sake of clarity and nuetral framing of the debate. Pro-choice and pro-life are probably the most emotionally neutral terms for most people, but I really don't think they provide an accurate way to characterize the possible positions within the abortion debate, and I think that even those terms skew the debate in a political way. (Because it implies that pro-choice is pro-death and that pro-life is anti-choice, only one of which is true. To be for a legal right to choose abortion does not automatically mean you are for abortion/death. To be against a legal right to choose abortion does automatically mean that you are against a choice.)

The reason I feel so strongly about this wording is because I think the debate is mischaracterized in the status quo. Characterizing the sides of the abortion debate as "abortion is bad" vs. "it should be legal to choose abortion" obscures the difference between something being bad and something being something that should be illegal.

Think about it this way. There are a whole lot of bad things out there (excessively drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes, saying mean things to your spouse, intentionally hitting yourself in the head, teaching your kids that women are inferior, refusing to be friends with people of other races, focusing your entire life on accumulating money rather than forming relationships, etc) that are not and probably should not be illegal. Winning "X should be illegal" requires more than just "X is bad." You have to win that it is better to have X be illegal than to have it not be illegal, and that X would be reduced in a world where it was illegal, and that the government has a right to outlaw X, to name a few things.

Terms about abortions, terms people believe apply to abortion, and types of abortions:

This will also make some people angry, but again, my point here is to start with even discursive ground.

Abortion - termination of a pregnancy

Murder - "the unlawful killing of a human person with malice and aforethought" (thus, in several ways, NOT applicable to abortion)

"Partial-birth" abortion - Made-up, non-medical political smear term invented by the religious right to create images of baby-murdering. Defined by US statute as "any abortion in which the fetus is extracted 'past the navel [of the fetus]... outside the body of the mother,' or 'in the case of head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother,' in order to cause death of the fetus."

Intact Dilation & Extraction - "a surgical abortion wherein an intact fetus is removed from the uterus via the cervix. The procedure may also be used to remove a deceased fetus that is developed enough to require dilation of the cervix for its extraction."

Relevant US court decisions, justices, and laws I may reference (and which may clear up some major misconceptions):

Roe v. Wade - Held that there is a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Ammendment which made most anti-abortion laws unconstitutional. Basically, it established a woman's right to have legal abortions. It also established viability of the fetus as the point at which abortion can be outlawed, unless the mother's health is endangered.

Casey v. Planned Parenthood -Restricted abortion rights by decreasing the time period in which a fetus can be considered viable from 28 to 22 weeks, decreased the scrutiny required for abortion restrictions, and holding that the following abortion restrictions were acceptable: parental consent, informed consent, and 24-hour waiting periods. It did, however, rule that spousal notification was unconstitutional. The plurality decision was written by justices O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter. I'm a bigger fan of Blackmun and Steven's decisions, but that's just me...

Okay, that's all I have for this beginning post. More framing issues will be addressed in my next post about anti-feminism within the abortion debate.

To those who agree with vegetarians but still eat meat

2008-08-13T00:22:00.009-05:00

I'm not the type of vegetarian who berates her friends for eating meat in front of her, and I'm certainly not presumptuous enough nor pure enough myself to seat myself on the moral high ground in an animal welfare discussion. However, when the subject comes up (and it does come up), I share my thoughts and feelings on meat eating and explain why I do not eat meat. Sometimes these discussions extend into a debate over ethics, and sometimes they're limited to personal sharing.

Either way, these discussions often end up at a point where rational argumentation breaks down (not always - some people have firmly thought through reasons to continue eating meat). People say things like, "I agree with you, but I just couldn't do it." Or, "I love animals, but I don't care enough/like meat too much to become a vegetarian." In my experience, those statements boil down into too primary objections: (1) What you're saying might be factually true, but emotionally I am unable to believe it, and (2) I can't make that big of a change.

The first objection is one people are often ashamed to admit, but I don't think they should be. Not only is our culture predominantly meat-eating, but the meat industry has spent trillions of dollars mechanizing meat production and packaging it in such a way that it seems appetizing. We are constantly told by advertising how "beef is what's for dinner" or how amazing those chicken fries taste. This is reinforced by a wider culture that assumes you eat meat and that meat is an essential component to a good meal and a healthy diet.

The effect of these two forces is that modern meat is perceptually distant from the animals that had to die to create it, and this that this is taken as the norm. No one should feel bad because they default to a powerful cultural norm.

However, if you are persuaded intellectually that meat is bad, it's pretty hypocritical to continue to eat meat just because it's normal and is what you're used to. Most people in this situation recognize the hypocrisy of their position, and it makes them angry, defensive, and guilty. Again, these feelings are a normal response to being on one side intellectually (anti-meat eating) and the other side emotionally (pro-meat eating).

So what's the solution? Should we just heap on the guilt-tripping until people cave under the weight of their own shame or avoid us at all costs? Some groups think so. They'll show you bloody photographs and read aloud graphic depictions of appalling living conditions until you've been brow-beaten into changing. The hope is that once you've changed the way you're behaving, your emotions will follow, and the guilt will recede.

In all fairness, this sometimes works. I've spoken to several people who made the change to vegetarianism because of a horrifying PETA video and went on to become activists. Making the right decision for the wrong reasons doesn't mean you're doomed to continue to do it for the wrong reasons. Sometimes changing behavior IS the best way to change thinking, and if your guilt stems from being hypocritical, bringing your behavior in line with your thinking gets rid of the hypocrisy and should therefore get rid of the guilt.

Unfortunately, this method can cause a lot of stress to the person in question, and it can also create horrors like the reactionary, defensive, pro-meat tormentor who harasses vegetarians minding their own business*, or the reactionary, defensive, anti-meat tormentor who harasses meat-eaters minding their own business**.

So, to those of you who are at that crucial point between thinking vegetarianism is right and feeling that it's right, I'd like to take a different approach. I want you to know that your feelings are VALID. The place you are at is understandable. Your meat-eating past is not a badge of shame, and changing now does not mean you were bad or hypocritical in the past. It is never too late to revise your opinions or your behavior. You are NOT responsible for the entire culture or the attitudes you grew up with.

However, you are responsible for what you do from here on out. You are responsible for what you are aware of. Each serving of meat you consume from now on is a choice. You are in charge of what goes into your mouth.

My solution to the emotional disconnect between thinking vegetarianism and feeling meat eating is to begin changing your emotional response to meat and vegetarianism. You have to WANT to be a vegetarian, or you're going to be miserable and maybe won't stick to it.

One way to begin reprogramming yourself so that you are comfortable with going vegetarian is to choose to look at the photos of the situations animals are in. Some may be sensationalized, but there's a lot of accurate information if you choose to look.

An alternate method is to attempt to reconnect the disembodied "food" from the living animal. Sometimes, we have too see, touch, and begin to understand an animal before we can begin to care about it. The juxtaposition of beautiful animal and food helped me remember that the meat on my plate had to die to get there:

To feel vegetarianism, remind yourself of what you are really eating. Remind yourself next time you eat a bite of meat that you are eating a pig, a cow, a chicken, a fish. Remind yourself next time you play with a dog or cat that in many places it is just as normal to roast them as it is to roast beef. Just keep your eyes open, and stay aware of your feelings. Are they consistent?

Maybe those feelings aren't consistent. Maybe you really DO love animals, and it hurts you to imagine them dead or to see them bloody. Don't internalize that hurt and turn it into guilt - just stop the behavior that's provoking those feelings. Just stop eating meat. Take the next step forward.

Maybe at this point you've come to the second objection, like I did. You WANT to stop eating meat, but you don't think you can. You feel guilt because you cannot go back to thinking of meat as a mere food object, but it seems like too big of a change to become a vegetarian.

My advice to you is this: It's NOT too big of a change and you CAN do it.

Personally, I believe the difficulty of going vegetarian is overrated. I went from being one of the "Vegetarians are right, but I still like and eat meat" people to being a vegetarian in the course of a few seconds during a classroom discussion. I decided I was a vegetarian, and quit meat immediately. With the help of the plethora of meat substitutes available in today's grocery stores, old vegetarian staple foods, and a lot of spaghetti, I made the transition relatively easily. All it takes is that initial leap of faith that you CAN do it. You CAN find a plant-based diet that works for you.

For all that I believe eating meat is wrong, the actual act of eating it is not complex, and neither is stopping. You just don't do it. I realize this sounds a little like Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No," but it really is that simple. If you don't want to do it, if it makes you feel bad to do it, just stop. Meat isn't addictive and you're not going to be ostracized for it. In the grand scheme of things, it's a dietary choice. When deciding what to eat, you simply select something which is not meat.

Okay, so maybe now you believe me. You CAN do it. But how?

There are a couple of strategies. The first is just what I suggested. You stop eating meat, and start picking out other foods. Buy some meat substitutes, look up some vegetarian recipes, and see how little change you can possibly make. Order pancakes or pasta or boca burgers at resturaunts, and cook whatever veggie foods you like at home.

A second option is to slowly transition. Begin cutting down on your meat intake. Eat one fewer meat-based meal a day, and work your way up. Plan it out the way that works for you. Ease vegetarian meals into your diet. Even cutting down makes a huge difference in the financial pressure on the meat industry. One fewer meat-based meal a day means 360 fewer in a year.

A third option is to switch to eating meat only when free-range or other humanely slaughtered meat is available, and go vegetarian the rest of the time. This can be a transition phase or just a way of solving some of the biggest issues with meat eating without totally giving it up. It will also help pressure the meat industry in the direction of humanity and sustainability, which are improvements over the status quo even if animals still die.

A fourth option is to eat meat only if the social situation demands it. For instance, you eat turkey on Thanksgiving and if there is only pepperoni pizza left, you eat it. This way, you don't have to deal with the social ramifications of being a vegetarian, and you don't have to worry about offending people or making them go out of their way. This, too, can be a transition phase. The downside is that you have to be a strong person to know when it's really vital that you eat meat and when it can be skipped with only minor inconvenience.

So perhaps you have one concern left. Being a vegetarian is WEIRD, you might think. Only hippies are vegetarians, and I'm apolitical/a Republican/just not that crazy. People will assume my refusal to eat meat means I think they're bad people. All of my red-blooded American friends are going to think I'm an idiot, and I'll be constantly forced to justify myself to others. Waiters will look at me funny when I order boca burgers, and my mother will be insulted when I refuse her Thanksgiving turkey.

Unfortunately, I can't completely dismiss these concerns. There will be uncomforable moments. Some people have trouble understanding vegetarianism, or react strongly because they aren't ready to deal with the issue seriously yet.

But MOST people aren't like that. Most people don't care what you eat as long as you leave them alone, and most people will understand if you explain (non-threateningly) why you are a vegetarian, even if they don't agree. Most waiters could care less what you want to eat, and I garuntee you they've heard weirder requests. Even moms can understand that their child loves them even if they don't eat their turkey (maybe you could make tofurkey together!).

Being a vegetarian doesn't make you a hippie or mean you have to join PETA or the Communist Party (although certainly some people choose to do one or both, and if communism or anarchism is your gig you may want to check out freeganism). You don't have to be political to decide that eating meat is a bad idea. You are personally choosing not to buy meat and not to eat meat. For the capitalists out there, you are voting with your dollars, and allowing the market to respond to demand by non-meat-eaters to provide other options. You're holding companies responsible by buying only products you approve of, which is precisely the idea of the free market.

After a while, you may even forget you've lived any other way.

-------------------------------
*These people are just jerks. Even if they're right and eating meat is totally acceptable, there's no reason NOT eating meat is NOT okay.

**These people are not necessarily just jerks. They're militant for a cause they believe in. I can respect that, but it seems clear to me that some people cross the line into harassment, and that's not okay. We should treat other well-intentioned human beings with at least a minimum modicum of respect.

"Right" and "Left" are meaningless as political terms

2008-06-13T01:47:00.006-05:00

In nearly any discussion of politics, the terms "left" and "right" are thrown around as if they have exactly one meaning and everyone knows what that meaning is. However, those words do not have static definitions and do not always refer to the same thing, often leading to confusion. To see what I mean, let's go through some ways that people organize and interpret the political spectrum.

The first definition, and the easiest on-face is the one I learned in basic civics class. It looks something like this:

The terms on this spectrum were defined like this:

Radical - Seeks immediate change through any means necessary
Liberal - Seeks change, but slowly and incrementally
Moderate - Accepts some changes, but refuses others
Conservative - Would like to maintain the status quo
Reactionary - Would like to change things back to the way they used to be

On this political spectrum, politics is organized as a line and the terms "left" and "right" are easy to understand. Radicals and liberals are the left, conservatives and reactionaries are the right, and moderates are the center.

However, this spectrum poses a problem in that it is difficult to distinguish between radical and reactionary. The classic example of this is the discussion over whether Martin Luther was a radical or a reactionary. In some ways, he was a radical, because he sought drastic changes to the Catholic Church. In others, he was a reactionary, because he was attempting to return to what he perceived to be Christianity's Golden Age.

This scale also becomes problematic when one attempts to place political ideologies on it, because it requires empirical claims of whether a change is "new" (and therefore radical) or a return to a previous state (and therefore reactionary). For instance, if a person wishes to live in a society where there is no government and everyone shares, a debate would have to be had over whether or not humanity lived like that previously before it could be determined a radical or a reactionary position. Also, the spectrum does not fit very well with the political labels people give themselves. For instance, libertarian socialists might claim that previous human societies had lived in the way they are suggesting, but would scoff at being called reactionary.

This political spectrum also makes some value claims that might not be fair. For instance, it implicitly links violence with radicalism, even though an ideology of perfect nonviolence through the immediate abolishment of the military and immediate establishment of a Department of Peace would be a radically different change and not a liberal one.

It turns out that the elementary civics model is not very simple or clear after all, so we must look elsewhere to discover a sound way of sorting the left from the right. One popular way of doing so is through the political compass:

There are many variations of the political compass, but they all share two basic axes. The Left/Right axis deals with economics, placing communism at the far left and capitalism at the far right. The Up/Down axis deals with individual freedoms, placing authoritarianism at the top and libertarianism at the bottom.

On face, this seems like a very logical way to organize politics. It is easy to distinguish Soviet communists (communist and authoritarian) from democratic socialists (communist and libertarian) and neo-conservatives (capitalist and authoritarian) from paleo-conservatives (capitalist and libertarian).

I have only two small objections to use of this scale, which is way better than the first one.

My primary concern is that the political compass is difficult to use in everyday political analysis. Compass locations are usually expressed as coordinates. This poses a problem because not all political compasses are the same, and even the standard politicalcompass.org version is not easily translatable to laypeople. You can't expect Joe Citizen on the street to understand what the hell you're talking about if you say "Oh, I'm a (-7.88, -6.00)" upon being asked your political affiliation, and there's no way to explain it to him without explaining the entire concept of the compass.

My secondary concern is that the political compass is still too simplistic. Individual rights and economic policy are only two aspects of political thought. Other important aspects include the role of the state in general (ie, does the economic leftist prefer to maximize or minimize the role of the state in creating communism?), the usefulness and nature of the democratic process, and questions of methodology (is violence acceptable in the pursuit of political change?). Distinctions between Marx (who says we should increase state control, which would ultimately lead to stateless voluntary communism) and Bakunin (who says we should straight-up start trying to create stateless voluntary communism) are lost. Where does one place Marx on the political spectrum, anyways? Is he on the communist authoritarian end because he supported state control as an intermediate step, or the communist libertarian end because his goal was the withering away of the state?

Still, though, the political compass seems like a pretty good idea. The only objects I can think of are that it hasn't been publicized well enough (which is solved by simply publicizing it) and that it doesn't bear fine academic distinctions (but no political spectrum is likely to do any better, since the entire point is that spectra are simplifications and categorizations of politics).

Maybe in order to determine if a political compass is good enough, we should look at other options, which include my personal favorite: the political circle. Here are two examples:

The Political Spectrum

Now, why exactly do I like political circles?

I like political circles because they demonstrate the deep interconnectedness of fascism and Soviet communism. Both are extremely statist philosophies, and they are much more similar to each other than, say, Soviet communism and Western European democratic socialism or fascism and classical conservativism. Circles show that if you go far enough left, you wind up on the far right.

However, one problem with circles is that they don't allow the kind of differentiation between rights and economics that compasses do. Liberalism is just plain old liberalism (whatever means) and conservativism is just plain old conservativism (whatever that means).

In order to demonstrate the different layers of social and economic policy in relation to the political circle, here is a ridiculously complicated picture that explains basically how I think of politics. I dub this monstrosity the "political concentric circles".

Here's what it means.

Both circles span from center, to left, to right, and back to the center again, following the basic concept of a political circle. This supports the idea that the extreme right and the extreme left are very similar in nature.

However, this diagram features TWO circles. The outer circle (blue) shows the political spectrum of pro-government or authoritarian politics, and the inner (green) circle shows the political spectrum of anti-government or libertarian politics. Thus, Stalinism and fascism are located on the outer circle, whereas all kinds of libertarianism are on the inner circle.

At the intersection of both circles, and at the center point of both political spectrums, is centrism. This is where the political moderates are located, at the in-between point of everything else on the diagram. The point on which centrism is located spans both circles.

There are two other philosophies which span both spectrums, and those are represented by the liberalism and conservativism lines. There are many strains of liberalism, some of which are authoritarian and some of which are libertarian, and the same is true of conservativism. Thus, the line for each crosses through both circles.

Confused yet?

So, we've looked at a whole bunch of political spectrums, each more complex than the last. However, where does all of this careful analysis leave us? Precisely nowhere. Each system of coding has its own way of describing and sorting out political philosophies, and there is no universal system. What's left and what's right depends on what your definitions of "left" and "right" are.

For these reasons, I think we should stop trying to put politics into boxes and simply discuss what we think on any given issue. General terms can simply consist of the names of one's political party (ie, Democrat) or ideology (ie, Marxist). It's much, much easier that way.

Freedom and Domination

2008-06-11T21:22:00.009-05:00

I believe that freedom is intrinsically good. Since I think it's intrinsically good, it's hard for me to explain exactly why freedom rocks, but here's my attempt. First of all, freedom allows a person to choose exactly what direction they'd like to be in. This mans that whatever condition is best for individual people and the world, freedom allows us to seek it. Freedom is a blank slate upon which individuals can write their desires. This is why it's the default value, because it's the only one that allows other values to spring forth unrestricted. Second, freedom allows us to change course if necessary. The lack of restraint means that people can move in different directions as they learn. If someone acts one way and figures out that it is a bad way to behave, they can change if they are free. This means that the process of trial and error can happen without impediment in a world of freedom. Third, people are empirically happier when they believe they are free and have a choice. Having the choice to opt in or out of a circumstance often makes it bearable, whereas anything forced is likely to be resisted. This is evidenced by the fact that people often want most to do what is forbidden.

The flip side of freedom is domination, which I define as any encroachment upon freedom that cannot be justified. Domination is bad because it is the reverse of freedom. If you reverse any of the reasons freedom is good, you get an argument for why domination is bad.

In light of that, these are my principles on freedom and domination.

All hierarchy, authority, and control, must be justified. I'm not opposed to a hierarchal structure in every instance, but it has to be absolutely necessary, because freedom is intrinsically good. There are clearly some forms of dominance which are justified by a given circumstance -- for instance, if a person is dying but unable to give consent to emergency medical treatment, it is justified to attempt to save their life because a decision either way would be coercive, but saving their life gives them the opportunity for future choice. There are also clearly some forms of dominance which are not necessary -- for example, white supremacy. Most structures fall somewhere in between, so it is important to develop the skills to analyze what degree of top-down control is needed, and to learn how to purge unjustified authority from our lives and governments. Sometimes people may opt to live under more stratified living conditions out of personal preference (joining a commune that has particular rules, BDSM, etc.), and that's fine as long as they're free to break the agreement at any time and aren't being compelled by material circumstances.

Noam Chomsky says this even better: "I think it only makes sense to seek out and identify structures of authority, hierarchy, and domination in every aspect of life, and to challenge them; unless a justification for them can be given, they are illegitimate, and should be dismantled, to increase the scope of human freedom. That includes political power, ownership and management, relations among men and women, parents and children, our control over the fate of future generations (the basic moral imperative behind the environmental movement, in my view), and much else...the burden of proof has to be placed on authority, and that it should be dismantled if that burden cannot be met. Sometimes the burden can be met. If I'm taking a walk with my grandchildren and they dart out into a busy street, I will use not only authority but also physical coercion to stop them. The act should be challenged, but I think it can readily meet the challenge."
Compulsion by coercive material circumstances is dominance. This means that if a person is forced into something because of pressure being applied to them, it's not a free choice and shouldn't be considered one. An easy example is that of a person forced to have sex at gunpoint. Even if they submit without protest, it is rape, because their only other option is to die. An example that is more difficult for people to understand is that of economic coercion. A person may work under employment conditions that are miserable, because they would be unable to pay their bills otherwise, is not freely choosing their working conditions. They are being dominated.
Cooperation (even economic cooperation) does not have to be coerced. I would think this is fairly obvious, but it seems that most people assume that economic cooperation, at least, must be forced in order to happen. Empirically, they are totally wrong. There are examples of mass societal voluntary economic cooperation (anarchist Catalonia), small-scale voluntary economic cooperation (communes, rooming together, marriage), voluntary cooperation in producing a modern product for free (the free software/open source movement, blogging), prehistoric voluntary economic cooperation (early Christian apostles selling all of their belongings and giving them to the poor), etc. Whether or not this is viable long-term and on a large scale for a modern state/society is another question, but it is certainly possible for people to work together economically without domination. The choice is not as simple as domination by wealthy capitalists or domination by state communists; there is a third option, and it is viable enough to be at least attempted or partially implemented. Interpersonal cooperation can also be completely voluntary. If someone gets hit by a car, most passerby would call an ambulance. If a child gets lost, many communities will comb the town to find the missing person.
Domination is not justified by superficial differences. This also ought to go without saying, but considering the prevalence of racism, sexism, etc. it's one worth mentioning. Liberation must include, be founded upon, and be supportive of, liberation of oppressed groups. This includes racial minorities, ethnic minorities, women, GLBTIQs (gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgendered/transexual people, intersexed people, queers), and probably some others I'm forgetting to mention. In some instances, differentiation based on identity categories such as those might be useful in seeking liberation (for instance, the creation of women-only safe spaces or scholarships for Black youths), but oppression based on those identity categories is never justified because gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. do not implicate a person's ability, humanity, wants, or needs.
It may not be possible to eradicate domination, but it is possible to substantially decrease it. Life does not operate on a theoretical level. Domination and the interplay of power relations are intrinsic to the world we live in, and even if it were possible to get rid of them, it wouldn't be likely to happen any time soon. However, the relative inevitability of domination does not mean that we can't make headway. Altering material circumstances, law, and social norms can all open up possibilities for freedom, and so can "safe spaces" or "countercultures." We do not have to submit to domination, but rather can refuse it macropolitically (a Supreme Court ruling in favor of free speech), macrosocially (cultural acceptance of women living independently), micropolitically (state law requiring parental notification for abortions), and microsocially (structuring your family relations to be more free and cooperative).

The intrinsic valuation of freedom, along with these related principles, color the lens through which I analyze philosophy, politics, history, social relations, etc. They act as a background for almost all of my other thought.

First Post

2008-04-02T23:26:00.001-05:00

I'm beginning a blog. I suppose that is obvious since this is a blog and I'm writing it. But I am specifically beginning a blog as a dumping ground for all of the thoughts that racket around in my head every day. It will be updated when I feel like it, and will cover the topics currently occupying me.

Basically, these posts are long and boring and I don't expect anyone to read them. I'm just writing some essays for the purpose of organizing my thoughts on a bunch of different subjects.