Saturday, March 13, 2004

In Praise of Old People

A fellow graduate student recently remarked, "It's so difficult to get tickets to any of the cultural events around here because so many old people get all of them early." Although I emphasize with him (I've been hard-pressed trying to get tickets too) this only illustrates all too well why we "whippersnappers" shouldn't underestimate the elderly.

There's a lot nitpickers and economists alike could find to complain about in the over-the-hill population. They continue to drive when their reflexes have deteriorated. They're stubborn and set in their ways. They're a tax on the health care system and the younger members of their family. Some of them dress funny. And others may have taken the youth-obsessed culture a little bit too much to heart and have dressed up like teenagers. And at worse, they regress back to the point of infantilism. Many of these reasons, though, can be thought of as fears about aging. People don't want to lose control. They don't want look into that mirror of the inevitable future.

But older people aren't sacks of potatoes with a mouth. They're people who have been around for a while. They're wiser and if not that, at least they have more experience. They're living bits of history--something a textbook or a video could never replicate. But is this really the reason that we go on living for a couple more decades after our reproductive fitness has declined to zero?

Other animals don't have the benefit of social security checks, but that doesn't explain why after they produce their last offspring, they soon die. In the extreme case, there are insects that emerge into their adult forms for one day. They mate like mad, lay the eggs, then die. There is no such thing as old age for our six-legged friends. One theory on why humans have a longer life much past the reproductive peak is that it confers survival advantage to an individuals offspring. This makes sense if one thinks about it--some insects don't take care of their offspring, instead they let their eggs fend for themselves. Humans on the other hand are more social animals and take care of their offspring for far longer. First hand evidence are college kids. Theoretically, they're old enough to go out into the world by themselves, but in reality most of them still have some sort of financial support from their parents.

In a recent Nature article by Lahdenpera et al. (PubMed abstract) this group explores the fitness benefits conferred to the offspring of post-reproductive women. The grandmother effect was first proposed by George C. Williams in 1957 (Evolution, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 398-411):

In the human male and in both sexes of other animals, reproductive decline is a gradual process, as is the senecence of other systems. In the human female, however, it is rather abrupt, and some special explanation is required. At some point during human evolution it may have become advantageous for a woman of forty-five or fifty to stop dividing her declining faculties between the care of extant offspring and the production of new ones. A termination of increasingly hazardous pregnancies would enable her to devote her whole remaining energy to the care of her living children, and would remove childbirth mortality as a possible cause for failure to raise these children. Menopause, although apparently a cessation of reproduction, may have arisen as a reproductive adaptation to a life-cycle already characterized by senescence, unusual hazards in pregnancy and childbrith, and a long period of juvenile dependence. If so, it is improper to regard menopause as a part of the aging syndrome.

Lahdenpera et al. propose that the grandmothers become "helpers" by both taking care of their children and grandchildren, thus giving both survival advantages. They give experimental evidence to the theory through statistical sampling of two pre-modern populations in Canada and Finland. Controls for various factors such as age, offspring sex, geography, socio-economic status were taken into account by using a general linear model. From the data, both sons and daughters who had mothers living past menopause were able to raise more children to adulthood independent of wealth. However, less grandchildren were born if the grandmother did not live in the same place and a grandmother's beneficial effect to survival did not kick in until after the child was weaned.

Well, what about men? By just eyeballing some numbers, we can immediately see that men don't live as long as women (although there are articles trumpeting that the lifespan gap is narrowing). Williams also mentions this in his paper. Unfortunately, there is no "grandmother effect" equivalent in males because they are exposed to more risks such as fighting each other and spending too much energy on courtship displays.

Cross-posted at Syaffolee.

Thursday, March 11, 2004

Mad Kane Hires An Ombudsman

For years I've been flooded with emails challenging the accuracy of MadKane.com. At first I did what most publications do -- I ignored them. But as time went by, I realized that something had to be done. So in keeping with recent trends and in the interest of sound journalism, I've appointed an ombudsman who'd like to be known only as "Bud." Here's part of Bud's first report:



  • The poem entitled Dubya's Poetic Injustice states that during George W. Bush's Election 2000 campaign, Bush promised to be a "compassionate conservative" and to have a "humble foreign policy." After this poem was published, we learned that Bush was "crossing his fingers" whenever he made those promises, so "they didn't really count." We regret this error.

  • According to a State of Disunion crossword puzzle clue, President Bush believes that raising twins is even harder than waging war. While Bush did in fact make that statement, he has since changed his mind and now acknowledges that waging war is "an itsy-bitsy bit harder than raising twins." We are sorry for failing to keep up to date on this issue.

  • In Dubya's Don't Blame Me Song the lyricist itemizes several things as not being George W. Bush's fault, including the jobless rate, 9/11, the mission accomplished banner, and the lack of WMD's. We have since learned that many more things weren't the President's fault and we regret our lack of comprehensiveness.

The rest of
Ombudsman Bud's first report is here.

Monday, March 08, 2004

My Beatles Birthday and International Women's Day

I'm celebrating both here,, where..

Today is International Women's Day. I remember well when, in the mid 70s, during the first International Women's Year, so many of us young American women counted on the energy of our IWD efforts to truly change our worlds.

In her speech at the First International Women's Year Conference, Betty Ford reminded us that "The long road to equality rests on achievements of women and men in altering how women are treated in every area of everyday life." From where I sit and read and watch, we haven't moved very far down that long road in those 30 years since.

Instead, each week there's some additional TV program touting the miracles that plastic surgery works on the lives of poor, plain, unloved females. Instead, more and more women strive to unleash the power of Victoria's Secret, buying into yet another misleading fantasy about what it is to be truly female and powerful, attractive and persuasive.

Today, while other places in other parts of the world at least acknowledged the importance of what this day symbolizes, American voices were mostly silent and unaware..........

Friday, March 05, 2004

"The Passion" is rooted in controversy

The National Catholic Reporter has tried to put paid to one of the controversies over actor Mel Gibson's reportedly reactionary movie, "The Passion of the Christ." Gibson and others in his circle claim the Pope, John Paul II, approved the film's interpretation of the death of Christ, saying: "It is as it was." However, other persons in positions to know deny the Pope made such a statement.


Vatican reporter John Allen explains the episode from its beginning.


I sympathize with those weary of the controversy surrounding the alleged papal reaction, "It is as it was," to Mel Gibson's film "The Passion of the Christ. Not even the most rabid ultramontanist believes papal infallibility extends to movie reviews, so the film will rise or fall on its own merits, apart from anything John Paul thinks. Moreover, the increasingly farcical he said, she said nature of the story is hardly edifying.


Yet there are times when a story is important not so much for its content as for what it reveals about the players involved, and the institutions they serve. Such is the case with the pope's alleged comment, and I'm afraid it doesn't reveal much flattering about anyone.




Allen explains how he believes the 'confusion' arose.


Here's how we got here.



On Dec. 5 and 6, a Friday and Saturday, John Paul II watched “The Passion of the Christ” in his private apartment along with [papal secretary Archbishop Stanislaw] Dziwisz. On Monday, Dec. 8, Dziwisz received [Steve McEveety, the movie's producer] and his wife along with Jan Michelini and Alberto Michelini, Jan’s father. Their conversation took place largely in Italian, a language McEveety and his wife don’t speak. The Michelinis afterwards translated for McEveety what they believe they heard Dziwisz say, namely, that the pope’s reaction to the film was, “It is as it was.” Later that night, McEveety screened the movie for Navarro.


That the Michelinis had access to the pope is not difficult to explain. Alberto Michelini is a well-known Italian journalist and politician, who in 1979 accompanied the pope on his first trip to Poland.


. . .For the record, both Alberto Michelini and Navarro are members of Opus Dei.


Members of Gibson's inner circle promoted the claim the Pope had smiled on the film. The Vatican, through Dziwisz, issued a statement Jan. 19, denying that had occurred. Gibson's people still say they have information proving their claim of approval by the Pope is true, but haven't released it.


Allen is inclined to hold the Vatican more responsible for the controversy over the alleged statement by the Pope, than reporters, who he feels were misled.


The Vatican has made, as the expression goes here, the worst brutta figura. It comes off looking bad. Even if officials were acting for the noblest of motives, they have stretched the meaning of words, on and off the record, to their breaking point. Aside from the obvious moralism that it’s wrong to deceive, such confusion can only enhance perceptions that the aging John Paul II is incapable of controlling his own staff, that “no one is in charge” and the church is adrift. These impressions are not healthy in a time when the church’s public image, especially in the United States, has already taken a beating on other grounds.


Dean of religion Dwight Moody has been thinking about another controversy related to the film -- the claim that it is anti-Semitic because it assigns blame for the death of Jesus to Jews. He warns readers the relationship between passion plays and hatred of Jews is well-established.


“The Passion of Christ” hits the big screens Feb. 25. Mel Gibson is the writer, director and producer of this movie. He weaves material from a medieval mystic into the biblical narrative of the last 12 hours of Jesus’ life.


The Gibson movie has received much more attention than the Bratcher movie. Many Catholic and Evangelical leaders have attended preview showings and have come away with glowing endorsements.



Others are not so sure.


Passion plays have a long history of anti-Jewish bias. For centuries, the worst time to be a Jew in a Christian community was during Holy Week, when passion plays incited the religious fervor of the people. Too often this fervor was directed against the Jews who were called “Christ killers.” About a decade ago, the Vatican released new guidelines on passion plays, including a prohibition on assigning blame for the death of Jesus.


Moody prefers to view the death of Christ as multi-faceted. According to how one approaches it, responsibility can be placed on all the parties, humankind and even Christ himself.


Religion scholar James Martin has been interested in Opus Dei for years. He is considered an authority on the organization. Understanding OD may mean understanding why and how these controversies arose.


Opus Dei Is the most controversial group in the Catholic Church today. To its members it is nothing less than The Work of God, the inspiration of Blessed Josemaría Escriva, who advanced the work of Christ by promoting the sanctity of everyday life. To its critics it is a powerful, even dangerous, cult-like organization that uses secrecy and manipulation to advance its agenda. . . .


His [Escriva's] group grew rapidly, spreading from Spain to other European countries, and in 1950 received recognition by the Holy See as the first “secular institute.” Over the next two decades The Work, as members call it, moved into Latin America and the United States.


Escriva, who was sainted shortly after his death, is said by his critics to have been anti-Semitic and have ". . . pro-Nazi tendencies."


Martin's criticisms of the sect, based on interviews with members and former members, emphasize the secretive, cult-like behavior of Opus Dei and its manipulation of college students.



The controversies that have dogged the movie reflect those that have been associated with Opus Dei. The unsubstantiated claim of approval by the Pope seems typical of Opus Dei leaders' arrogance and overreaching. Nor is the charge of anti-Semiticism new.


It is tempting to say the allegation of anti-Semitism will be resolved when the film is released. However, that platitudinous perspective is not necessarily so. Instead, the matter may become more pregnant than it is now.


Note: This entry also appeared at Mac-a-ro-nies.


Thursday, March 04, 2004

File under D for Duh

According to a University of Helsinki study published recently in the American Journal of Public Health, obese women, especially those with higher education or in upper white-collar positions, earn an average 30% less than their thinner counterparts. Read the whole article here, or if that link doesn't work, try here.

Might I just say: Welcome to the wonderful world of double-whammy prejudice!
Like simply being a woman in this society isn't enough of an uphill battle, those of us who have the effrontery to be not only women but also fat women get socked in the pocketbook as an additional punishment for our heinous crime of corpulence. It ain't news to me, honey.

Cross-posted on my blog.

Tuesday, March 02, 2004

Political Dish Crossword Puzzle

I had such a good time creating my first interactive crossword puzzle (about Bush's State of the Unon speech) that I decided to do another. I hope you enjoy my Political Dish crossword puzzle.

Okay, sisters.

Does anyone know what the difference is between The Diva Cup and The Keeper? Both are "menstrual cups" that serve as an eco-friendly alternative to tampons and pads, but I can't decide which one is better. I'm pretty sure The Keeper has been around longer, but I don't know that for sure. Does anyone know more about this than I do?

Monday, March 01, 2004

AWOL Jobs

Jobs are AWOL, and so's my brain. I say that because in my flu-frazzled state I forgot to mention my latest satirical poem. It starts:

AWOL Jobs
By Madeleine Begun Kane

Our jobs are disappearing
To nations far and wide.
While Dubya has no plan at all
To stem this risky tide.

His people make up numbers
Of jobs they will produce.

The whole poem is here.

Saturday, February 28, 2004

Act for Justice

From The Armchair Activist and Human Rights Campaign

STAND FOR EQUALITY


The fight is on. I am calling on you and everyone you know to stand up for making justice for all a reality in the US. Please follow this link and take action to demand an end to the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment (aka Unequal Rights Amendment) and a beginning for marriage equality.

My goal is to recruit 1000 people to the Million for Marriage effort. Please join us.

from all facts and opinions

Friday, February 27, 2004

In case you're considering seeing the move

I posted my review of The Passion of the Christ here.

But even more to the point is my response to a question raised in the comments to that post that ends with this:

The mindset that made this movie is the same one that caused feminist Monique Wittig to write:

“There was a time when you were not a slave, remember that. You walked alone, full of laughter, you bathed bare-bellied…You say, it does not exist. But remember. Make an effort to remember, or, failing that, invent”.

And so I was not surprised when the image of evil had a wickedly female face. I was not suprised when a snake slithered from around her feet and, of course, the Christ stomped on it.

The women in the film cry a lot, watch a lot, constantly flit around the edges of the action.....

No wonder we still have to invent.

Wednesday, February 25, 2004

Biblifying the law of the land.

I got the following from my son's website, out Oregon way. He says it's being emailed around, but this is the first I've seen it. It sure does make the point -- at least it should to anyone who doesn't look at the world through a two-inch pipe.

As certain politicians work diligently to prevent marriage between two people of the same sex, others of us have been busy drafting a Constitutional Amendment codifying all marriages entirely on biblical principles. After all, God wouldn't want us to pick and choose which of the Scriptures we elevate to civil law and which we choose to ignore:

Draft of a Constitutional Amendment to Defend Biblical Marriage:
* Marriage in the United States of America shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.)
* Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)
* A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)
* Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)
* Since marriage is for life, neither the US Constitution nor any state law shall permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9-12)
* If a married man dies without children, his brother must marry the widow. If the brother refuses to marry the widow, or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)
* In lieu of marriage (if there are no acceptable men to be found), a woman shall get her father drunk and have sex with him. (Gen 19:31-36)

I hope this helps to clarify the finer details of the Government's righteous struggle against the infidels and heathens among us

Thursday, February 19, 2004

primpin for the Lord

Who made the rule that you don't put mascara on false eyelashes, anyway? Certainly not The Lord. According to ordained minister and former theme-park hostess Tammy Faye, Jesus was a fun guy and wouldn’t have minded this or any of the other decorative liberties taken by one of his favourite accomplices.
The issue of cosmetic restraint is just one of the many beguiling questions tackled by Reverend Tammy Faye Messner in her new self-help text I Will Survive... And You Will, Too! The recently released book, whose author is firmly positioned front and centre as Inspirational Celebrity Survivor, also offers friendly advice on the correct handling of regret, love, loss and wigs.
There are also some recipes.
One topic the book doesn’t directly address is the demise of the PTL, or Praise The Lord, phenom she helped build with her former husband Jim Bakker.
During the 1980s, Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker reigned as televangelism’s glitziest and most likeable couple. Despite accusations of tremendous high-living that included reports of wardrobe items being flown cross country in a private jet at a six figure cost and gold-plated plumbing fixtures, the all-crying, all-singing duo struck a chord with millions of ordinary credit-card carrying Christians.
From her home in North Carolina, with dogs Muffin and Tuppins nipping at her hot pink heels (“I painted my shoes the most gorgeous colour with nail polish!”), the Reverend explains the homespun appeal of the PTL Club.
“We were a husband and wife that loved life and we were real. I came on the air mad at Jim many times. And I told people “I’m mad at my husband today. I’m really mad at this guy today!” I’m a brutally honest person, and I think that works for people.”
“You know, life’s not perfect and we let people know that our life wasn’t perfect either.”
The world beyond Christian television learned just how imperfect the Bakkers’ lives could get when in 1987 Jim resigned from PTL following a scandal involving ministry employee and future Playboy playmate Jessica Hahn.
Allegations of shenanigans with Bible Study babes aside, the worst was to come.
Television viewers may recall the offer of lifetime partnerships to "Heritage USA", a Christian vacation park in Fort Mill, South Carolina. These partners were promised free accommodations pending availability in return for their donations. It was found that PTL did not keep its pledge and was accused of knowingly desisting from building rooms for guests and partners.
In 1988, Reverend Jim Bakker was indicted on several counts of fraud and one count of conspiracy. He was initially sentenced to 45 years of prison.
By the time Jim was paroled in 1993, he and Tammy had divorced.
So, does the new downsized, self-help propelled Tammy feel differently about prosperity preaching today?
“No, I don’t. The bible says that the worker is worthy. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being able to live in a nice home and drive in a nice car.”
Tammy Faye explains that nice digs are, very often, the by-product of a Christian life. “That’s one of the exciting things about serving God. He will help you to prosper. I don’t think that’s wrong.”
The Reverend contends that media reports of their lavish lifestyle were grossly exaggerated. Their so-called mansion, she insists, was a lakeside shack with rotten floorboards.
“We were very handy and we fixed that house up and that’s where we lived almost the whole time we were at Heritage USA.”
All monies, she said, went directly to build the Ministry of Fun that was Heritage USA. “God’s people willingly paid for it.”
“We didn’t misuse that money. They said we took millions of dollars.” Indeed, that’s what they said.
The Reverend, who is still on agreeable terms with her former husband, is eager to clear this matter up – despite no question about the scandal having been asked. In a final effort to elucidate she offers, a little unhelpfully, “We didn’t live any different than anybody else who was at our economic level.”
One has to wonder if, at any interval, Tammy’s faith was tested. No, she says, it never really was, but she did find one instruction a little hard to take.
“The Bible says: In all things give thanks for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you and that was the hardest verse in the bible for me to get my head around.”
While she may not have always been able to give thanks for the dark times, she acknowledges that her experiences can help her help others as she does in her latest instructional manual.
“I was sent to earth just to help people. I’ve been through almost everything a person can go through. I’ve been through cancer, I’ve been through great loss.”
“I went to the top. The very top you can go. Except maybe president of the United States.”
She has, she says, visited the bottom in the last decade. And now she is residing “somewhere in the middle”.
This middle ground, for a High Trailer artefact like Tammy Faye, definitely seems fertile.
Beginning in the year 2000, Messner began to stalk the terrain truly befitting any oddball American who might have been written by David Lynch.
Her first legitimate stop in Weirdsville USA was the Sundance film festival for her own premiere. The camp, faintly artsy and wildly sympathetic documentary The Eyes of Tammy Faye narrated by former Drag Superstar RuPaul introduced her to a gay congregation. Despite the fact that she thinks gay marriage is wrong and that homosexuality is a sin (“But no worse than any other sin. I’d rather talk to a homosexual than a liar or a cheat.”) her flock of fruits is growing.
The film, she says, “changed my life”.
In the last year or so, she’s shared a bill in San Francisco with John Waters. “He’s a nice man,” she says of the celebrated oddity “he just has a dirty mouth and a dirty mind. So after he finished, I said to the audience ‘I got a mop and I’m gonna clean up after John Waters!’”
I ask if an Internet rumour that she will duet with Marilyn Manson has any substance. “Well, no honey. What happened was he came into town to do a concert and he asked if he could meet with me. Well, I’m not gonna say no! So we met at a television station and we talked about God for two hours.”
She has also been talking God recently with moustachioed porn protagonist Ron Jeremy. She and Jeremy have been teamed with former CHiPs television star Erik Estrada and eighties white rap embarrassment Vanilla Ice for a Big Brother style reality experiment called Surreal Life.
The Reverend is thrilled about the premiere of her new show on America’s WB. “I have a 64 foot billboard up on Times Square and I ‘m on all the buses in New York.”
She cites Surreal Life as “one of the top ten experiences of my life”. Somehow, it’s hardly surprising that several of Tammy’s fondest memories have been caught on tape.
Tammy Faye is an American original. She’s met everyone and is up for anything. Her next collaboration or scripture meeting could involve anyone from Michael Moore to Paris Hilton. Or both.
“When I was a little girl” says Tammy Faye “I would be riding up and down on my bike in International Falls Minnesota I had one prayer: God please don’t let my life be boring.”
“Honey, He answered that prayer.”

Wednesday, February 18, 2004

Ralph & Rove

It looks like Ralph Nader is poised to announce another run. I guess he found this email persuasive:

From: Karl_Rove@Whitehouse.gov

To: Ralph_Nader@Spoiler.org

Subject: What will it take?

Hey Ralphie. How ya doing? Long time no talk.

I didn't think we'd need you in '04, but things aren't going as well as I expected.

The rest of Karl Rove's email to Ralph Nader is here.

Tuesday, February 17, 2004

Allow me to introduce myself: I'm the Antichrist, apparently

When I left work at the end of the day Friday, I got a little reminder of what a multitudinous milieu of attitudes and thought processes we're living in. I walked across the parking lot to my car, and when I got close saw a frozen gob of spit on one of my windows. No mistaking it. I couldn't see any other frozen substances of any kind on my car; just this one loogie, hocked across one of the back windows on the driver's side. That's the spot where I have fastened, on the inside of the window, a fairly innocuous pro-choice bumper sticker. Hmmm. Coincidence or conspiracy?
A quick check of the window on the other side of the car, the window that displays the sign commenting on the war in Iraq, showed spotless, clear glass, so I assume that the person who left the iced-up editorial comment is a one-issue expectorator. Tsk. That must get pretty boring.
As usual, I'm left to reflect: is this a great country, or what?! Seriously. Freedom of expression. Freedom of expectoration. Goddess Bless America!

Tild

Tuesday, February 10, 2004

good news gals

If you’ve ever hankered to find out just what the Messiah thinks of fragrance-free facial cleanser, fresh breath and Britney’s choice in footwear, help is finally at hand. Answers to these and assorted other contemporary spiritual questions, like “If God made pot, why can't I smoke it?” are now available online for a very reasonable $US14.99.
Revolve might look like an uptight life-style mag aimed at Teen girls too young to know the difference between cut-price fashion stock photography and legitimate street style. What this unlikely US best seller actually contains, apart from frequently perplexing advice columns and wholesome beauty guidance, is the complete New Testament.
Parcelled in the candy pink imagery and language endemic to magazines such as Seventeen or Tigerbeat, Revolve aims to bolster the faith of young Christian women and allow for ease of access to The Word. It also encourages a habit of good posture and advises against speaking with food in one’s mouth.
Thomas Nelson, the world's largest English language publisher of the bible, has craftily recognised that adolescent readers do judge the Good Book by its cover.
“Our research with teens showed that they found the bible too big or too freaky … to carry around” says the bible’s spokesperson and Brand Manager Laurie Whaley. She’s a member of the team responsible for making faith a more portable, and stylish, possibility.
In an effort to trade God to a teen-aged demographic, the company has added items such as a New King James Version with Compact Shoulder Strap and the thrill-seeking Extreme Teen Bible to its colossal product range in recent years. It was not, however, until the August 2003 publication of Revolve that the house effectively penetrated its challenging teen target.
Revolve is a marketing success story that was born of internet-based research. Maidens of the primarily Christian focus group complained that when confronted by the big, freaky bible they were simply at a loss to pick it up.
“When we asked teen girls ‘what do you read?’ we had the response ‘we read magazines’,” explains Whaley, a fantastically perky 29 year old Tennessee native, from her home in Nashville.
“Revolve was the number one selling bible of 2003” says Whaley. Current published estimates indicate that it retains its number one position to date. Although exact sales figures are unavailable, industry reports indicate that this new New Testament was a surprise hit nationwide and that a second six-figure print run has all but sold out.
Revolve has been so successful that a version for teenaged males, Refuel, is planned for release next month. “We’ve had some awesome emails from teen guys saying I’ve seen Revolve at my girlfriend’s house I would really like to get something for guys” says Whaley.
Whaley is thrilled by the success of a title that is sure to enjoy republication. She envisages, “an 18 month cycle for getting new editions. When we talk about content changes, obviously we’re not talking about the bible!”
Purist elders need not fret. This sassy New Testament will not revise the Last Supper to include a sponsored appearance by uber-teens, Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen. The New Century Version bible is unchanged; it’s just had a teeny makeover to draw out its inner beauty.
While the Greatest Story Ever Marketed will itself remain intact, there will be amendments to Revolve’s images and celebrity references in future editions.
The publication’s quizzes and reader advice sections that have proved such a hit with a young Christian audience will also be updated. It will be intriguing to see if Revolve’s editors can uphold the bravura standard set in the current issue.
In questionnaires that ask “Are you Crushing too Hard?” and “Are you Dating a Godly Guy?” (I checked, and I’m not) readers are marked for their chastity.
As instructive as are the quizzes, the genuine highlight for many readers of Revolve is the sidebar “Dear Abby” style column. “We have a feature called Blab Q and A. We answer questions from real teens on topics on everything from cloning and tattoos to oral sex to suicide to homosexuality and a variety of different things.” Says Whaley.
What, asks one question from a Real Teen, do you think about boyfriends tickling their girlfriends? “Tickling equals foreplay” counsels the anonymous Christian den-mother, whose knowledge of the Scriptures is so thorough that it extends to tickle-fight protocol. Tickling, needless to impart, must be rebuffed at all costs.
Similarly, thoughts of sex, an act described as “ a beautiful gift that God has given to married people”, in anything other than an educational way are sinful.
As for homosexuality: to employ the faux-hip parlance of Revolve, get outta here, girl!
Blab Q and A makes it clear “ that homosexuality is not the teaching of the scripture.” says Whaley
“God is going to love you regardless of your sexual orientation. But if you struggle with liking the same gender you might want to seek some help.”
There is much within Revolve that a progressive Christian might find repugnant. Reportedly, the first print run contained the axiom “God made guys to be the leaders. That means that they lead in relationships". Another questionable inclusion was this statistic “African-American teens are 40 percent more likely to have had sex than Caucasian teens." This may very well be the case. However, in a document so open in it scorn for promiscuity, the insertion of the fact is, at best, in poor taste.
The ugly conservatism of Revolve can be partially forgiven when one considers the needs of its target market. There are young women who, when confronted with the choice, would prefer tuition in virtue to the wanton, mid riff baring wriggling of Britney. Not every adolescent female is comfortable with the idea of life lived as a temptress in stretch denim. There are many gradations to choose, of course, between Vestal and Vixen. Kids, however, seem to be fond of extremes. It is the extreme temperament of Revolve that ensures it gels like teen spirit to some.
In a country equally adept at producing Christians and Target Markets en masse, Revolve just had to appear. Whether it is God’s handiwork or the greedy evildoing of Mammon is anybody’s guess.

Mass Distraction

I'm starting to lose track of all the Bush scandals. We have GuardServicegate, Plamegate, Oilgate, Harkengate, Yellowcakegate -- I'm sure I must have missed some. But of course none of this matters because -- horror of horrors -- John Kerry is a
Massachusetts Liberal!

Tuesday, February 03, 2004

Jackson apologizes for Super Bowl stunt

In the interest of research, I tried to interview a four-year-old boy about breasts. He was a tough nut to crack. First, he sang words that rhyme with breast. Some real. Some not. (We play word games sometimes.) Then he hung upside down from a chair and made faces. Just when I thought he might be about to express his outrage about the pictures of Janet Jackson's boob he had seen, he grabbed my iPod and I had to chase him around the room several times to get it back. So, I have no tearful remonstrations by a victim to report.

Meanwhile, Jackson has admitted there was a plan to expose her red underwear at the end of the steamy song she sang with Justin Timberlake.


In a statement released Monday night, Jackson apologized and said it was a last-minute stunt that went awry.


"The decision to have a costume reveal at the end of my halftime show performance was made after final rehearsals. MTV was completely unaware of it," she said. "It was not my intention that it go as far as it did. I apologize to anyone offended -- including the audience, MTV, CBS and the NFL."


Jackson's official Web site was bombarded with angry postings. Her spokeswoman, Jennifer Holiner, said a red lace garment was supposed to remain when Timberlake tore off the outer covering.


The most unattractive man in America, Michael Powell, is still claiming to be shocked (yes, shocked!) by the event. Unfortunately, Powell heads the Federal Communications Commission.


Powell promised an investigation, with potential fines of up to $27,500. If applied to each CBS station, the fine could reach the millions.


In response to multiple phone calls from the public, acting Houston police chief Joe Breshears reiterated that no criminal charges would be filed.


Despite the apparent premeditation -- the display coincided exactly with Timberlake singing, "I'm gonna have you naked by the end of this song" -- all involved denied that the peep show was planned.


"This was done completely without our knowledge," said Chris Ender, entertainment spokesman for CBS, which was deluged with angry calls. "It wasn't rehearsed. It wasn't discussed. It wasn't even hinted at... This is something we would have never approved. We are angry and embarrassed."


An examination of the FCC rules suggests the conduct may not violate them.


Over-the-air TV channels cannot air "obscene" material at any time and cannot air "indecent" material between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. The FCC defines obscene as describing sexual conduct "in a patently offensive way" and lacking "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value." Indecent material is not as offensive but still contains references to sex or excretions.


Furthermore, in the past, the FCC has saved severe fines for premeditated acts that explicitly break the rules. This one or two second event, that most viewers did not see clearly, is hardly that.


On Monday's Nightline, veteran newsman Ted Kopple observed that more people watched the exposure on TiVo and the Internet than caught the real thing. Doesn't that suggest that at least some of the folks cavailing about the behavior sought it out?


And, let's not let Powell off the hook. Michael Powell has plans, I suspect. Po-lit-i-cal plans. Just like the other parties in the saga is he out to exploit it. Here's an opportunity for him to reap name recognition the head of the FCC doesn't usually get. And, since ole lipless has been an unpopular FCC chairman, he will play this to the hilt.


At this juncture, I think there is enough blame to go around - including Jackson, Timberlake, MTV, CBS and the NFL itself, which does its share to encourage vulgarity. I still believe the entire episode has been blown out of proportion.


Note: This entry also appeared at Mac-a-ro-nies

.

Monday, February 02, 2004

Mad Kane Interviews Dick Cheney

Back in 2001 when I did my first interview with Vice President Richard Cheney, he told me his cave door's always open. And sure enough, it is. Here's my second interview with Vice President Cheney:

MADKANE: Mr. Vice President, welcome. Let's start with the rumor that you're about to be kicked off the Bush/Cheney ticket. Is there an imminent threat that President Bush will run with somebody else?

CHENEY: Absolutely not.

MADKANE: What about a dangerous threat?

CHENEY: No.

MADKANE: A serious threat?

CHENEY: Negative.

MADKANE: An immediate threat?

CHENEY: None whatsoever.

MADKANE: What about a mortal or grave or serious and mounting threat?

The rest of my 2nd interview with Dick Cheney is here.




Wednesday, January 21, 2004

Interactive State of the Union Crossword Puzzle

In honor of George W. Bush's 2004 State of the Union Address, I'm pleased to present my first interactive crossword puzzle:
State of Disunion crossword puzzle.

Tuesday, January 20, 2004

branded

In my country, there are well over one million unmarried adult females. Within this spinster surplus, there are many who have neither a respectable suitor nor a decent push-up bra. Rachel Greenwald wants her female readers to acquire these items post-haste. If both activity and bosom are elevated, she promises, a girl can find herself a husband in just 12-18 months.
Speaking from her home in Denver, Colorado, Greenwald, author of The Program: How To Find a Husband After Thirty, says “I do think all women can benefit from the purchase of a push up bra.” Although, she is quick to point out, this garment is not as vital to the search for a husband as is strict compliance to a 15-step marketing action plan.
A former marketing executive and Harvard Business School alumna, Greenwald is also a wife, mother and professed romantic. She is, therefore, uniquely qualified to articulate an idea whose awkward time has come.
The Program, which has recently found its way onto the New York Times Best-Seller list, represents the self-help intersection of commercial and intimate life. “You, the reader, are the ‘product,’” she writes, encouraging her husband hunters to create a Personal Brand. Her Unique Selling Proposition is, oddly, that we must each devise our own Unique Selling Proposition.
Quarterly performance reviews, packaging, telemarketing and budgeting are all techniques to be employed in pursuit of a husband-consumer. Greenwald, who also offers seminars and personal consultations in her curious breed of commerce-as-therapy, is adamant that these are useful tools.
While studying for her MBA, Greenwald began to her refine her marketing warfare techniques. By means of creative Event Management, she conquered a bloke to whom she today remains a preferred brand.
After Harvard, she worked extensively in marketing. At one time she “was the US Marketing Manager for Evian water.
A lot of people joked that if I could market a premium priced bottled water I could market anything”. Anything, including her own gender.
Business school and broad work experience “ gave me classic training to apply those principles to something more meaningful.”
She decided that guiding her sisters toward matrimonial bliss was much more fulfilling that peddling spring water to rich people. And so she became a Private Dating Coach and public speaker.
As Greenwald tells it, victory with her clients came so often and abundantly that a wildly successful book was inevitable.
With achievement, of course, comes critique. While Rachel Greenwald’s book has captured the notice of many strategic singles, it has also earned her harsh reviews.
“The media has marketed the book as an anti-feminist document. “ says Greenwald, who insists her intention is to help readers cultivate practical self-esteem and, in so doing, find A Man.
“When the book is really about is finding qualities that are unique and attractive about yourself and marketing those accordingly”, she explains.
Despite these pure motives, she has found that her instructional manual has polarised opinion. “If you look at the amazon.com reviews for the book, you’ll find comments ranging from ‘a waste of money’ to “five stars, it changed my life”.
Indeed, this and other media rage with assessments of Greenwald’s emotional business-management theory. Women seem to either love or hate the book that seeks to quantify a return on romantic investment.
Ironically, she says, polarising opinion is precisely NOT what devotees of The Program must do. In researching and developing her personal brand “a woman should generate a brand that has a broad appeal Women should not aim to polarise because the idea is volume.”
“If she has a polarising brand then fewer people will want to meet her.” Says Greenwald. “A high volume of prospects means that the odds are greater that one of those will be right.”
So, women should strive to offend as few, and please as many, men as possible. Difficult, unseemly or unladylike behaviour is forbidden in The Program.
Despite a liberal use of marketing industry terminology and the author’s assertion that she is anything but anti-feminist, the text does seem at times to ethically veer into the mid twentieth century. The good Greenwald student must be a perky people pleaser disinclined to argue and disposed to visit places like Antique Car Shows, computer expos or DIY furniture workshops in the hope of finding an eligible gent.
A Program Lady must be agreeable. (And not averse to the idea of fly-fishing, either.) Greenwald, a champion of mass-marketing, advises “If someone offers to fix you up on a blind date and you find out in advance that this person [is] wrong, you will still go on that date” . Each blind date is a chance to promote your brand.
In the pages of The Program, she warns readers that your “future husband may be divorced, he may have kids of his own, he may be shorter than you”. In short, stop whining, be grateful if a tiny polygamous bloke with a tribe of children looks at you twice and, above all, don’t be such a fussy britches.
The Program has emerged in its home country as arguably the most influential Find-A-Husband-Quick text since The Rules, written by Ellen Fein and Sherrie Schneider, was published in 1995. Fein and Schneider, in all their playful enthusiasm for body-suits, blow-waves and girlish deceit in general, quickly and justifiably became the least popular writers amongst feminist women since Norman Mailer.
Greenwald is eager to distance herself from The Rules. “The Rules is a set of tricks and gimmicks and its about acting in a false way to attract men. My book helps women think of creative and strategic way to meet more men.”
These strategies might include, for example, mass delivery of a Direct Mail campaign in the form of a photograph of the husband hunter accompanied by the greeting “This year, I would like to find someone wonderful to spend my life with. Do you know any single men you could introduce me to?”.
The Rules, and other manuals of the kind are “a deception” says Greenwald. Hawking your image to hundreds of people and begging for a date, by contrast, is an honest and creative tactic.
It’s simple, of course, to evaluate a book like The Program within a feminist context and find it ideologically wanting. The fact is, many women would quite like to find a nice bloke and no book providing advice on this topic is ever going to read like a manifesto for social change.
The truly striking thing about The Program is not its antique sexual politics. Nor is its most salient feature the stink of humiliation and despair that permeates many of its exercises.
What makes this book remarkable is its elocution of marketing and the emerging place this has in the personal sphere. That a popular work can easily talk about the development of a Personal Brand is significant. And mildly terrifying.
That anyone, male or female, can begin to think of themselves as a product competing for attention in the marketplace of love is troubling. If we begin to define ourselves in the terms of commerce and relative value, it is surely possible to lose sight of a commodity like love altogether.

Monday, January 19, 2004

Claiming Your Human Rights on MLK Day

For just one day let there be no progress. Let us not find a new way to convert seemingly worthless pieces of earth into technological slaves that fulfill our every whim. Let us not alter the chemical composition of this substance to turn it into something new, something nature never thought of, that will come back in the fish as a poison lasting millions of years. Let us not bring the fossil fuels up from the ground so that we can burn them, their particles rising into the air to return back to us in rain water. Let us not re-engineer the rice so that we get three crops a year instead of two, but are forever dependent on the manufacturers of the rice seed, because it is a sterile, patented product now. Let us leave Mars to the science fiction writers and give up thoughts of permanent homes on the Moon.

For just one day, let us be something less than what we could be. Let us have something less than what we could have. Let us look at what is possible and say, "no thanks," in favor of what is preferable. Let the moon be for poets who make meaning out of its reflection on a lake. Let all things be as they are born and enjoyed just for that. And may you too be loved and embraced just as you were born, needing no embellishment or proof of your worth. May the animals be safe from brutality so that you have no need to prove your intellectual superiority over animals just to insure yourself against similar abuse. Let how we treat the least among us reveal a societal identity we are proud to claim, one that leaves each of us feeling safe and secure even as we rest in the pure essence of our being.

For just one day, let us not earn our keep. Let us instead be still and listen to the birds sing in the trees, watch the wind blow in the leaves, feel that same breeze against our skin, and laugh at how lucky we are to be living on Earth. Today marks the holiday for Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. who dedicated his life to the freedom and dignity of all people, just as they were born. He was slain by an assasin's bullet, but you still live. There remains a hope that if you dare, if you have the courage and the conviction, you may claim your life as your own and set yourself free. This is an invitation. Be still and know that you are God, that God is all there is, and that that is good enough.

Friday, January 16, 2004

Aunt Jemima has left the building

Blogger and new mother Dawn Olsen is perturbed about a poster of presidential advisor Condoleezza Rice being circulated in liberal circles. Dawn believes the poster communicates contempt for black conservatives.



"Oh, I think I understand what's going on. See, if you are a person of color AND conservative then clearly your race can be used against you, because heaven forbid you not follow the stereotypical party-line of liberalism. If you are a conservative and also a minority in this country, then you have CLEARLY sold your soul to the "white devil" and have made a mockery of your race. It couldn't possibly be that you have educated yourself to the various political paths and ideologies and chosen the one that you feel best represents your values, beliefs and faith.


. . .There seems to be a vast left-wing conspiracy going on here. It seems that certain liberals are trying to keep conservative, free thinking individuals, who happen to also be of a different race than whites, DOWN. Why is that?


Maybe it's just me, but I find it kind of duplicitous to call into question someone's race in a derogatory way just because their philosophy differs from your own, but then use that same race as a benefit when it suits your agenda.


It's no secret that Liberals traditionally have championed the dignity of minorities and their right to equal treatment, and then when some members of those minorities turn conservative they turn around and make slave jokes."

My initial response to Dawn's entry was as a civil libertarian: Rice is a public official. She is helping make decisions that impact millions of lives, both in America and abroad. People have the right to criticize public officials and public figures because of the power such persons hold. Indeed people should criticize the powerful, since that is one of the few forms of accountability they are subject to.


After more thought, I decided Dawn may have a point regarding the 'fighting for whitey' language. I believe what Rice is actually doing is helping the oligarchy that runs the country. It does not include or concern itself with most of the citizenry, including most white people. So, accuracy has been sacrificed to catchiness in the slogan on the poster. Do read the rest of Dawn's entry.



Note: This entry also appeared in a column at Mac-a-ro-nies.

The guilt of a Westerner.

This afternoon I had the luxury of watching an episode of Oprah. Usually I'm busy at school or with other things and I miss her show. Today I had enough time to sit down and watch an episode before dashing off to the gym.

It wasn't an easy show to watch.

No, she didn't have on any cheesy celebrities gushing about their extravagant life, or some expose of a social scandal.

Today's show was a special report on women's issues around the globe -- particularly in India and Ethiopia.

The first part of the show focused on Bride Burning in Bangalore, India. Every year around 1200 women are burned in these "kitchen accidents" -- which really are purposeful actions by the husband to burn his wife, usually over dowry issues. The clips showed faces of countless women, burned over 60-70% of their bodies -- all over issues of greed. One interview featured a woman and her 5 year old daughter, both burned alive when the husband/father poured kerosene over them while they were cooking.

It's beyond words what these women experience -- they'll never be accepted again in society, and will forever be labeled a "burden" to their families -- over something that wasn't even their fault.

Women don't usually talk freely about being burned by their husbands when their families can't pay dowries, because they fear being killed. Many women say they are burned because of a stove burst, but that is usually far from the truth. On any given day, at least three or four women are admitted to this hospital with more than half of their bodies burned. Lisa said the stench of their flesh was overwhelming and the sound of their pain was heartbreaking. "From the second I walked into this room, I felt like I was in a place where a war had struck," Lisa says. "The fact is that many of them will not live to leave the hospital, and this happens everyday."

The second half of the show detailed the life of one extrodinary woman, Dr. Catherine Hamlin. She is amazing, in every meaning of the term. She is such a selfless person, and she's given her life to helping the women of Ethiopia -- performing surgeries to fix fistulas and then enabling them to enter society once more.

From Oprah's website:

Fistulas are holes that develop in the tissue that separates the vagina from the bladder and/or rectum. They can occur in expectant mothers who have difficulty during labor due to small pelvises, or a poorly positioned fetus. In the United States, obstructive childbirth is often treated by a caesarian section. But in many developing countries, poverty prevents women from getting proper treatment.

Dr. Hamlin explains. "Imagine a little girl...one of the unfortunate five percent of all the women in the world that get into obstructive laborÂ…She doesn't know when she starts her labor, nor do the village women know... They encourage her (to push) day after day after day. After five days she delivers a stillborn baby. The only reason she can deliver is because the baby inside the mother gets smaller when it's dead, and she can push out a dead baby.

"But she wakes up to a worse horror: Finding her bed soaked in urine and sometimes bowel content as well. All of that pushing has created that holeÂ…so everything is coming out, without any control." The odor of the nearly constant drip of urine and waste remains. The young woman is often shunned by her husband, and sent to back home to her parents. Dr. Hamlin says the women are then shunned by their families.


Dr. Hamlin has spent almost 50 years of her career serving these women. In 1999 she was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, but she didn't win. I think the prize that's in store for her is worth more than anything she could receive by a mere mortal organization.

But as I watched these stories about women a half a world away -- I couldn't help but feel guilty for all that I have. I want to do something, tangible, to help women who are persecuted in these ways. But what can I, a broke student, do to make a difference?

It's not enough for me to sit here outraged at what happens -- watching shows like this make me want to board a plane tomorrow to serve people less fortunate than myself.

One day, I will do something. I don't want to be the type of person that's moved the 60 minutes she watches a show and then goes on with her day like nothing's happened.

(also posted at grrrl meets world)

EDIT: Right after posting this, Dr. Phil's show came on. Somehow getting tips on how to haggle down prices on material goods isn't appealing to me. Watching a woman buy an $800 bracelet somehow made me feel sick at our level of materialism, compared to the rest of the world -- especially considering that amount of money would almost pay for 2 women to have their fistula problems fixed.

Thursday, January 15, 2004

A different flash on feminism.

I sat down this afternoon and finished "The Adventures of Flash Jackson." (See previous post.) I couldn't put it down.

As the story pointed toward its closing, an older woman/mentor (Miz Powell) gives spunky, sassy, wild girl/woman Haley (AKA Flash Jackson) some advice that I just can't help sharing here:

"Don't be afraid to be all the things that a woman can be.... [snip]

"You can be a mother and still be Haley," she said. "You can cook dinner for your family and still be free. I'm not saying your life is going to be independent of the people involved in it. You have to make the right decision. But you can have a baby and still be yourself. You can fulfill traditional roles if you want to, without letting them define you. Who you are will change when you have childen, of course, but you could let it be an improvement, not a detraction."

"I don't mean to be rude, but how do you know all this? I
[Haley] said. "You never did any of those things."

"No," she said. "What I have done is be a woman, with all my feminine qualities intact, in a world that was run completely by men. And you know something? They appreciated it. They didn't exactly move over and make room for me --I had to carve out my own space among them, but that was nothing different than any of them had had to do. That's something some women don't seem to understand. Nobody is accepted right away. Everyone has to prove themselves. The world will never make room for you-- you have to make it yourself. You have to make your own place, and stick to it. And there's nothing weak whatever about those same feminine qualities, Haley. That's what I want you to recognize. They are not a liability. They are a strength."


One would think that this novel was written by a woman, given the right-on Croney point of view, but it wasn't. And adding to my delight in the book, the author, William Kowalski, brings my favorite myth, Lilith, into Haley's final learning curve as the girl confronts her fear of snakes.

"The snake, she'd [Miz Powell] explained, is the oldest symbol of feminine power in the world. It's not a FEMALE power -- it's a FEMININE power. Miz Powell was very clear on this point, because men and women alike have feminine energies within them -- as well as masculine ones. People were too obsessed with gender these days, she said. Really, there weren't nearly as many differences between us as we like to pretend."

Who was this Lilith anyway? Miz Powell, ever the walking mythological dictionary, was only too happy to explain.....


[snip]

"Lilith has been many things, my dear," said Miz Powell. "There are goddesses similar to her in Hindu culture. The Israelites knew about her even when they were nothing more than a bunch of simple nomads, thousands of years ago. She is everywhere. She has a JOB."

"Which is?"

"She is that which does not surrender," said Miz Powell. "She is indomitable."

"In other words," I thought, "she is Flash Jackson."


Lilith and Kali. Miz Powell and Haley. And aspiring Crones. In Haley's own terminology: LEGITHATA (ladies extremely gifted in the healing and telepathic arts).

Why not?

(Posted here as "No Flash in the Pan," but I thought it followed nicely after the previous post here on Blog Sisters.)

Reading The Third Wave

So third wave feminism is important to me, to my dissertation, and I've been trying to figure out what it is so that I can write about it in said dissertation. Basically, the idea is that there have been three distinct "waves" of feminism. The first wave is considered to be early feminists-- a big long historical group starting roughly with women like Mary Wollstonecraft and moving into the 1900s with suffragettes and suffragists (yes, there is a difference--one is more radical, one more conservative. I just can't remember which is which.)

Second wave feminists
are the ones we are most familiar with-- women and yes, men, of the 1960s to the present who fought for equal pay rights, equality in the workplace, an end to domestic violence (even just as a "to the moon Alice" joke), sexual freedoms, such as birth control rights, and increased representation of women in ALL walks of life (politics, medicine, sports, etc). These second wavers are still actively engaged in feminism-- many of them are my mentors. Third wave, then, is defined as women and men who have come to feminist thinking with it always there-- those of us born since, say, 1964ish. But what, you say, beyond this rather simplistic concept of "waves" is the third wave of feminism?

We correspond roughly with Gen-X (although we don't often like to admit that.) A while back, on my other website, we did a collaborative review of a book that helps define third wave feminism better than I can do in a brief blog entry. Check it out. Also check out a couple of websites with some good definitions and arguments: here and here.

Third wavers have been called post-feminist, and disparaged as creating division within feminism where there should be none. Second Wavers have said that third wavers are selfish, that we feel a sense of entitlement.

"Well, geez" says I. "Wasn't us being entitled to freedoms and choice part of what you fought for?"

The Onion wrote a bit a while back titled "Women Now Empowered By Everything a Woman Does." They mean it as a joke-- a way of poking fun at the way feminism has been co-opted by things such as the Luna bar and cereal. But the thing is-- the Onion is partially right! Women today can be and are feminists without having to march on Washington in big groups waving signs. It's not just about big political movements; it's also about being free to choose to not think about it! The freedom for women to just live their lives today IS a feminist act-- because of feminists, women can choose to live their lives without being forced into things they don't want to do, or given no voice. Even the choice to NOT be a feminist can be seen as a feminist act. You are allowed to not think about it, to stay home and be conservative, and still enjoy certain freedoms as a woman that women of the past, women of other countries, do not have. Think about the women being beaten with a stick by the Taliban for going out in public without a man to accompany them, and women who have to ask for political asylum to avoid having parts of their sexual organs cut off, and you will realize that ALL women in the US and other "first world" countries have a lot to thank feminism for.

Just in the daily clothing choices we make, and our choices of whether or not to be stay at home moms or high-powered attorneys, of whether to teach our toddler sign language or dress them in pink and blue, we can define ourselves as feminists. Like to wear short, short leather skirts and spike heels? Like to wear PANTS? Like to cut your hair? Like to use a condom to prevent pregnancy and/or disease? Like to READ? You have a feminist to thank for that. At one time, you would have been punished for those clothing choices. The Onion can make fun of a woman wearing a "Slut" t-shirt, but by doing so, a woman is potenially redefining what those labels which have kept us controlled mean to us. A word only has power over you (think of any slur you can) if you let it control you.

As a blog I recently discovered put it, feminism doesn't exist-- feminismS do. There is no monolithic theory upon which we all agree. I can't define it very well right here. I'll have to do some work and really write a clear, coherent description of feminism, including third wave sorts of it. But that, of course, would mean I'd be working on my dissertation. So. For now, know that third wave feminism is a fact and will be around for a while. That doesn't mean we're trying to destroy those who have come before us-- nor that we don't realize we, too, will eventually be last year's news.

originally published in slightly different form @Kim Procrastinates.

Fun with names

Last night we watched part of Hollywood Squares while eating our spaghetti. Not as much fun as Jeopardy, because I never know who the darn celebrities are. But the fun part last night was that the contestant was identified as "E-Bo". Usually they only say the first names of the contestants, so I have to assume that is her first name.

With a name like that in front of us, we let go of Hollywood Squares and started playing the marriage game about her.
If she married Beau Bridges, they'd be E-Bo & Beau.
If she married Bo Diddley, she'd be E-Bo Diddley.
If she married J.Lo, she'd be E-Bo Lo.
If she married Hedy Lamarr, she'd be E-bo La Marr.
If she was a martial arts specialist, she'd be Taibo E-Bo.
If she likes to buy things at auction, she'd be known as Ebay E-Bo.
If we never find out her last name, she will have to be known as E-Bo Doe.

The winner: "If she married David Bowie, she'd be E-Bo Bowie."

Note: This entry also appeared at The Harmonic Convergence.



Monday, January 05, 2004

Parents are greatest peril to children

It has happened again. Another baby will not live to see her first birthday and her mother appears to be at fault. The Associated Press reported the details.


FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. (AP) - A woman has been charged with murder in the death of her 10-month-old daughter, who deputies say was bitten and violently shaken because she was crying.


Sashine Howell, 23, was being held without bail Sunday.


Broward County sheriff's deputies said Howell gave conflicting stories, first saying a boyfriend shook her daughter, Faith, and then admitting that she didn't have a boyfriend and that she shook the child herself.


According to sheriff's reports, Howell shook the baby and bit her because the infant was crying and had bonded with her father during a recent visit.


The infant had a bite mark on her back, intercranial bleeding and a swollen bruise on her head. She died Saturday at Jackson Memorial Hospital.

Why am I blogging about an occurence so commonplace? Because, I was recently reminded the message that family members, friends and acquaintances are more likely to abuse children than strangers has not sunk in with many Americans. David Flanagan, a blogger with ties to Free Republic posted an entry lauding women for being naturally good parents.


. . .Even more impressive is the fact that Moms everywhere seem to have formed this unofficial child safety pact that I never knew a thing about until just recently. That was the day my wife, Julie, was in a children's clothing store in our local mall and lost sight of our oldest for about ten seconds. Julie called out, no response. Then, with the slightest edge of panic in her voice, she called out again for our daughter. Immediately, every woman in the store stopped what they were doing and began looking for our daughter. Suddenly, all those Moms of various ages, races, and creeds were as unified and focused as any military force preparing to do battle.


It took only about 15 or 20 seconds before a woman from the back of the store called out that she had located our daughter. Everyone breathed a sigh of relief, then went back to whatever it is they were doing just seconds before, almost as if nothing had happened.


In a sense, nothing had happened. A fellow Mom needed help locating her child, and the other Moms responded as instantly as if it were their own child. Once the child was successfully located, they all went back to what they were doing. This extraordinary community of women acted naturally, responding in a coordinated fashion to help protect a child. When my wife told me about this incident I was, to say the least, impressed. More than that, it underscored to me one of the wonderful differences between men and women.


Do you think a bunch of guys would have reacted in the same manner if it had been a shop mostly filled with men? I think not! What you'd probably see is that the men who heard my wife's slightly panicked call for our daughter would just continue doing what they were doing. A few fathers might slow down a bit and glance quickly around them before resuming. Maybe one or two out of a dozen might have begun to look around actively. But, unless it were their child, I don't think the majority of men would have acted in the same coordinated way as those women did on that day.


Women, I believe, are the nurturers of society. Whether its social, biological, or both, they feel compelled to comfort and protect in a way that men do not. I'm not saying that men can't do it, but I don't think its a skill that comes as naturally to us. . . .


And so on. He titled the entry "The League of Extraordinary Women." When I first glanced at the title, I thought I was going to read about women who had accomplished impressive feats in politics, industy or the arts. Instead, I learned that if I hear someone yell, 'Erin, get back here this minute!' at Target and look behind the display of towels I'm examining in case a kid is hiding there, I am extraordinary. Thanks, dude, but I'll pass. If someone is going to give me props, I would prefer it be because I've really done something superb, not because I was born without a Y chromosome and some people believe that makes me a natural nurturer.


But the condescension toward women is not what bothers me most about Flanagan, and others, urging on this myth. I told him so in a comment.


David, I guess you intend this entry as what we called a 'bright' when I was in the newspaper business. But, I think we need to look at the issue of child abuse in a more balanced way. Most child abusers are women. That is mainly because women do most childcare, I guess. Believing women are natural nurturers can actually make child abuse less likely to be recognized. I watched a woman verbally abuse her two young daughters on MAX (our train system) a few days ago. She didn't do anything severe enough to have the police intervene. But, if I had been wearing 'Mommies are all good people,' blinders I would not have recognized the abuse for what it was. I fear the kind of piece you've published may actually do harm to the cause.



The National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect has the most recent data on child abuse and neglect.



In 2001, 3 million referrals concerning the welfare of approximately 5 million children were made to CPS agencies throughout the United States. Of these, approximately two-thirds (67 percent) were screened in; one-third (33 percent) were screened out. Screened-in referrals alleging that a child was being abused or neglected received investigations or assessments to determine whether the allegations of maltreatment could be substantiated. Some of the screened-out reports were referred to the attention of other service agencies.


. . .Approximately 903,000 children were found to be victims of child maltreatment. Maltreatment categories typically include neglect, medical neglect, physical abuse, sexual abuse, and psychological maltreatment. More than half of child victims (57 percent) suffered neglect; 2 percent suffered medical neglect; 19 percent were physically abused; 10 percent were sexually abused; and 7 percent were psychologically maltreated.


. . .Most States define perpetrators of child abuse or neglect as a parent or other caretaker, such as a relative, babysitter, or foster parent, who has maltreated a child. Fifty-nine percent of perpetrators were women and 41 percent were men. The median age of female perpetrators was 31 years; the median age of male perpetrators was 34 years. More than 80 percent of victims (84 percent) were abused by a parent or parents. Almost half of child victims (41 percent) were maltreated by just their mother, and one-fifth of victims (19 percent) were maltreated by both their mother and father.


According to the data, 12.4 per 1,000 children were reported as victims of abuse in 2001. About 1,300 children died of abuse that year. More than eighty percent of abusers were family members. Nearly 60 percent of abusers reported were women.


People may find two myths, the naturally nurturing nature of women and the evil stranger who lures children away and harms them, reassuring, but neither is well supported by research. An estimated 4,600 children per year are abducted by strangers. Most are returned very quickly unharmed. The other 300,000 children kidnapped each year are taken by family members, friends or acquaintances. Law enforcement pays particular attention to stranger abductions because they are more likely to result in murders, but, obviously, many children live in homes where they are more imperiled.


If the epidemic of parental child abuse is ever to be stanched, we must acknowledge it exists. I hope publishing factual information on the topic will help achieve that goal. But, I was unable to pierce Flanagan's armor of self-satisfaction. He assured me that I didn't know what I was talking about in that 'get on with you, gal,' tone so many Right Wing men have. That's life.



Note: This entry also appeared at Mac-a-ro-nies.

Sunday, January 04, 2004

Long time from around here

Well, I did it. I left the country of western Massachusetts and moved to California. Money, income, job advancement was the reason, and to live near my son again. He's grown to quite the man, I did well.

Thursday, December 25, 2003

About.com's 2003 Political Dot-Comedy Award Nominees Announced

I'm very pleased to report that I'm a nominee in two categories in this year's About.com Political Dot-Comedy Awards competition. My MadKane.com political humor as a whole is nominated in the Best Parodies (Overall Achievement) category and my Dubya's Dayly Diary is a nominee in the Best Bush Humor category. So if you have time, I'd really appreciate your voting for me in
one or both categories here. Thanks!

And even if you're not in a voting mood, I'll bet you enjoy visiting the terrific nominees in categories including Best Web Cartoons, Best Satirical News, Most Entertaining Left-Wing News & Commentary, Most Entertaining Right-Wing News & Commentary, Best Print Comic Strip, and Best Late-Night TV Comedy. You may even find some new (to you) humor sites to help you survive 2004.

FYI very few blogs are nominated. This Modern World (Tom Tomorrow) in the comic strip category is a notable exception.

Wednesday, December 24, 2003

To Everybody...

May you all have a blessed Christmas. Takecare and Godbless.

Beware of bothersome gifts

Tuesday, while cleaning out closets, I took a tour of gift blunders. Some were things people have mistakenly given me. Others items I bought as potential gifts but never got around to matching up with recipients. Though I've made my share of mistakes, there are people who have me beat.


LONGMONT, Colo. (AP) - Gary and Karri Clark haven't forgotten their second Christmas together. He knew she wanted bathroom accessories, so he wrapped up a couple of gifts and waited.



The toilet seat and towel rack didn't go over too well.



``Here I thought I was doing good,'' he recalled with a laugh. ``It was something she can always use, day after day. It's the gift that keeps on giving.''


The Clarks were among those who responded to requests by the Daily Times-Call newspaper to share their stories about bungled gifts and best intentions - the waffle makers, blenders and vacuum cleaners given with love and practicality in mind that will never be forgotten or forgiven.


Karri Clark admits she wanted a new toilet seat a decade ago because there was a crack in the old one. She just didn't think she'd get one gift wrapped.


``I could not believe it,'' she said. ``What man gives you a toilet seat for Christmas?''


. . .Gary Clark admits his bathroom gifts were out of desperation: It was Christmas Eve, he was at Kmart and he couldn't think of what to buy his wife.




``She wanted it, but not for Christmas,'' he said. Since then, he's done better: His wife received a Ford Explorer for her birthday this year.




Fellows (and any boneheaded women, too) hold off on anything having to do with the elimination. Yes, I know there are some really big collections of toilet paper in very pretty colors, but. . . .


Meanwhile, I need to unload kids' softwear, 100 percent wool sweaters and several SLR camera/binocular sets.


Note: This item will also appear at Mac-a-ro-nies.

Tuesday, December 16, 2003

The vote is in: women are more rational than men.

The results of a recent study are written up in New Scientist:
Both male and female students at McMaster University were shown pictures of the opposite sex of varying attractiveness taken from the website 'Hot or Not'. The 209 students were then offered the chance to win a reward. They could either accept a cheque for between $15 and $35 tomorrow or one for $50-$75 at a variable point in the future.

Wilson and Daly found that male students shown the pictures of averagely attractive women showed exponential discounting of the future value of the reward. This indicated that they had made a rational decision. When male students were shown pictures of pretty women, they discounted the future value of the reward in an "irrational" way - they would opt for the smaller amount of money available the next day rather than wait for a much bigger reward.

Women, by contrast, made equally rational decisions whether they had been shown pictures of handsome men or those of average attractiveness.

(via DazeReader)

Friday, December 12, 2003

Ellen Goodman Re-introduces a Radical Idea.

21 years ago, Equal Rights Amendment opponents listed three horrible fates that would follow if we added women's equality to the Constitution: (1) unisex toilets, (2) women in combat, and (3) gay marriage.

Well, today we've got all that. The only thing we don't have is, ta da, the Equal Rights Amendment.

Read Goodman's painfully true piece here.

Monday, December 01, 2003

WORLD AIDS DAY 2003: Live and Let Live

My goodness, it is another World AIDS Day. This is among my least favorite days of the year.

Don't misunderstand: I do not minimize the need for this day. It is vital to remind the world of the human cost of HIV and AIDS. We must remember those we have lost. We must thank the care providers and researchers who give so much time and effort to help those who have the disease. We must rededicate ourselves to this crucial effort. And as difficult as my experiences have been in reporting on the disease; in volunteering as a helper and "buddy"; in raising my voice as an activist; even in sitting at deathbeds, holding friends' hands and easing their way from this life to the next, I recognize the blessings and growth bestowed on me from having lived through them. Indeed, I am grateful for these experiences, for the many wonderful people whose life paths have intersected mine -- and for the global effort to honor them.

Still, I suspect I have been at this AIDS business for far too long. My first awareness of the disease came 20 years ago, and in the intervening two decades, I have suffered a lot of loss. As of Nov. 30, I have lost 121 acquaintances, friends, and loved ones to AIDS. Thinking of the happy memories I shared with these people -- which I do often -- gives me great joy. But on each World AIDS Day, I think of these people en masse, in a rolling line: Willie and Robbie and John and Leon and Steve and Connie and Carey and Vince and Audra and Andre and Bobby and Paul and Lorraine and Jamal and Rochelle and Joe and Colin and Walter and Mary Sue and on and on ... As you can imagine, it can be mind-numbing, and each year the process becomes increasingly brutal.

My beloved grandfather, who died from cancer three years ago, once said to me during a time when a lot of his 70- and 80-year-old friends were dying that I had undergone too much loss for someone so young. I was just over 30 then and agreed. Now, I am 42 and more fatalistic: Death is part of life. Whatever your age, you deal with it and go on. I can do that. But it doesn't make the grief disappear, though, and the pain intensifies as the years roll by.

Five years ago, I was stunned and saddened by the death of a friend and AIDS activist. My pain was such that I had to write about it. The story appeared in Baltimore City Paper in May, 1998. My pain is such today that I have to share a piece of it here:
Upon hearing that Steve had died, I also learned his funeral would be a political event, a showy media fest in front of the White House. This was poetic justice, in a sense. Steve had given his life to the fight against AIDS. He moved from Seattle to Washington, by way of stops across the nation, following candidate Bill Clinton and demanding that if the Arkansas governor won the presidency in 1992 he make finding a cure for AIDS a top priority. Clinton promised Steve -- to his face -- that in his first 100 days in office, he would launch a Manhattan Project-type effort to find a cure and guarantee comprehensive health care for all Americans. To make sure that the president-elect made good on his pledge, Steve moved to the nation's capitol with his [partner] Wayne. And he made Clinton a promise of his own: "I will haunt you."

So I suppose lying in state in front of the White House was a fulfillment of Steve's vow. I know it was his final wish -- when he entered the Washington Hospital Center for what would be the final time a month ago, he told Wayne he wanted a political funeral in front of Bill Clinton's house. As someone who loved him, I had no choice but to respect his wish. Still, I was angry. Color me selfish, but my friend was gone. I wanted an opportunity to mourn in a manner that I thought he deserved--something solemn, dignified, respectful.

And I wondered about AIDS activism in general. For those of us who've worked in the trenches, from caring for dying loved ones or "buddies," to shouting ourselves hoarse in the street or sitting in a jail cell, to taking on unfeeling government suits -- all the while neglecting our own lives, families, relationships, and personal health -- how much is enough? Steve gave up his life -- apparently willingly. He fought incessantly, irritated and riled many, lost sight of his priorities time and again, and paid fuck-all attention to his own well-being. And now, by his own choice, he was giving up the only opportunity to have his friends and loved ones speak only of their love for him. What more is necessary to create visibility for the war against this disease that has murdered thousands and held activists' and caregivers' lives hostage for nearly two decades? Does some well-meaning fool have to hang himself in the village square using a long red ribbon as a noose?
Yes, I have dealt with much loss. It haunts me today and likely will do so until my dying day. But I must think of my lost loved ones and about their deaths.

On World AIDS Day, there is no choice. The situation is worsening, according to United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who warns that the world is losing the fight against the disease. Read his 2003 World AIDS Day message here.

As noted by England's National AIDS Trust, five people die from the disease every minute. The disease once known (erroneously) as the "gay plague" now affects every part of this planet, infecting more than 42 million people, 5 million of them last year alone. More stats from NAT's World AIDS Day site:
Worldwide, and in 2002 alone, AIDS claimed 3 million people last year. That's over 8,000 people every day. But the story does not end there: just under 14,000 new cases of HIV infections occur every single day.

95% of all AIDS cases occur in the world's poorest countries. In several southern African countries, at least one in five adults is HIV positive. In 2000, the HIV prevalence rate among pregnant women in South Africa rose to its highest level ever: 24.5% bringing to 4.7 million the estimated total number of South Africans living with the virus.

That's a terrifying thought. And it's the reality that millions of people in developing countries are living with HIV and AIDS as you read this: communities devastated, teachers and doctors dying every day, people's futures shattered, because they can't afford the drug treatments that are helping people living with HIV and AIDS in richer countries like [Britain and the US].
Adding insult to proverbial injury, there are those who, through ignorance and/or bigotry, still attempt to stigmatize those with the disease Hence this year's WAD theme: "Stigma and Discrimination -- Live and Let Live." NAT offers a test that asks Are You HIV Prejudiced? Take the test and learn something about yourself. However you score, make it part of your life to stop this nonsense. Help people learn to live and let live.

So there are many reasons that make World AIDS Day necessary. UK organization Avert offers a summation:
In order for HIV to be effectively tackled on an international level, efforts need to be made to
Started in 1988, World AIDS Day is not just about raising money, but also about raising awareness [and] education and fighting prejudice. World AIDS Day is also important in reminding people that HIV has not gone away, and that there are many things still to be done.
Indeed. I have been at this AIDS business too long. But as long as prejudice continues and education is needed and items sit on the to-do list, I will stick with it. Quoting Frost, there are miles to go before I sleep.

Much love always to everyone on my list... You are missed, every World AIDS Day and, in truth, every single day.

Resource Links


At ALL FACTS AND OPINIONS, this day is dedicated to the commemoration of World AIDS Day; there is also an ongoing online vigil. Please join us to remember, share, and commit to the effort to end the plague.

What to do with teenagers when roller skating gets old? SkyZone!

As the mother of a teenage daughter, figuring out activities that give ME a break, are nearby, don't involve computers and cell phones...