Wisconsin Vies for Title at Stupid Law Olympics

Wisconsin is apparently determined to move ahead in the Stupid State Olympics. While previous contenders for the podium have included Florida for its ban on adoptions by gay parents, Alabama for its ban on sex toys, and Kansas for fighting over the teaching of evolution, Wisconsin legislators now want to make it illegal for University of Wisconsin students to purchase Plan B contraception.

The legislation would prohibit University of Wisconsin System health centers from advertising, prescribing or dispensing emergency contraception — drugs that can block a pregnancy in the days after sex. The state university system has 161,000 students on 26 campuses.

Republican Rep. Daniel LeMahieu introduced the bill after a health clinic serving UW-Madison students published ads in campus newspapers inviting students to call for prescriptions for the drug to use on spring break.

“Are we going to change the lifestyle of every UW student? No,” LeMahieu said. “But we can tell the university that you are not going to condone it, you are not going to participate in it, and you are not going to use our tax dollars to do it.”

Let’s just parse that statement, shall we? are we going to change the lifestyle of every UW student?

No. Because, overwhelmingly, Plan B contraception is prescribed to and purchased by women. So, apparently, it’s not going to have any effect on UW male students.

No. Because those who can’t get Plan B contraception may find themselves pregnant. Some will decide to have an abortion. Some will decide to carry the child to term. And some will be lucky enough to find out that sperm and egg never met. But no doubt somebody’s lifestyle is going to be affected.

No. Because the governor of Wisconsin, Jim Doyle, has already announced he’s going to veto the bill. Good on you, governor.

Representative LeMahieu has apparently  not gotten the word that we still have a right to privacy in this country, that prescriptions are between doctors and patients, and that, well, he needs to knock this shit off.

Drop him a line and let him know that, won’t you?

What We Did to Emma

In 1917, Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman were arrested for having organized anti-conscription activities. The U.S. government had just made the decision to entere World War I, and for a whole host of reasons, not the least of which being that it would be the poor and the working class who would be asked to go serve in an arisocratic fight that had turned into a disaster, Goldman, Berkman, and a whole host of progressive activists opposed entry into the war.

The details of how Emma came to be arrested can be found in her autobiography, Living My Life. The brief details is that there were a series of public meetings at which Emma spoke. There were also articles published in The Blast and Mother Earth Berkman and Goldman’s publications respectively, which they were accused of having given to a man of “conscriptable age,” thus they were seen as having handed someone advice on how to escape the draft.

The two were placed on trial. Goldman’s speech to the jury is a masterpiece. The entire speech is well worth reading in its entirety. I would publish it here, except that I do not want to violate “fair use” laws.

In reading Goldman’s words, I am stunned by the prescience of her words to our current situation. So little has changed in these 88 years. Rather than parse one of our greatest orators, I will simply quote her and admire her in silence.

Oh, and by the way, despite this speech, Goldman and Berkman were convicted and sentenced to two years in jail, essentially for exercising their rights to free speech and peaceful assembly. Goldman was stripped of her American citizenship, and she, along with over 200 others, was exiled from the U.S. in 1919. That’s right. She was kicked out of her own country.

Emma is buried in Chicago, close to the graves of the Haymarket martyrs. In death, she was able to return to this nation.  
Speech: Address to the Jury
by Emma Goldman
[Delivered during her Anti-Conscription trial, New York City, July 9, 1917]

portions:

In their zeal to save the country from the trouble-makers, the Marshal and his helpers did not even consider it necessary to produce a search warrant. After all, what matters a mere scrap of paper when one is called upon to raid the offices of Anarchists! Of what consequence is the sanctity of property, the right of privacy, to officials in their dealings with Anarchists! In our day of military training for battle, an Anarchist office is an appropriate camping ground. Would the gentlemen who came with Marshal McCarthy have dared to go into the offices of Morgan, or Rockefeller, or of any of those men without a search warrant? They never showed us the search warrant, although we asked them for it. Nevertheless, they turned our office into a battlefield, so that when they were through with it, it looked like invaded Belgium, with the only difference that the invaders were not Prussian barbarians but good American patriots bent on making New York safe for democracy…

… Gentlemen of the jury, my comrade and co-defendant having carefully and thoroughly gone into the evidence presented by the prosecution, and having demonstrated its entire failure to prove the charge of conspiracy or any overt acts to carry out that conspiracy, I shall not impose upon your patience by going over the same ground, except to emphasize a few points. To charge people with having conspired to do something which they have been engaged in doing most of their lives, namely their campaign against war, militarism and conscription as contrary to the best interests of humanity, is an insult to human intelligence….

…Gentlemen, during our examination of talesmen, when we asked whether you would be prejudiced against us if it were proven that we propagated ideas and opinions contrary to those held by the majority, you were instructed by the Court to say, “If they are within the law.” But what the Court did not tell you is, that no new faith–not even the most humane and peaceable–has ever been considered “within the law” by those who were in power. The history of human growth is at the same time the history of every new idea heralding the approach of a brighter dawn, and the brighter dawn has always been considered illegal, outside of the law.

Gentlemen of the jury, most of you, I take it, are believers in the teachings of Jesus. Bear in mind that he was put to death by those who considered his views as being against the law. I also take it that you are proud of your Americanism. Remember that those who fought and bled for your liberties were in their time considered as being against the law, as dangerous disturbers and trouble-makers. They not only preached violence, but they carried out their ideas by throwing tea into the Boston harbor. They said that “Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.” They wrote a dangerous document called the Declaration of Independence. A document which continues to be dangerous to this day, and for the circulation of which a young man was sentenced to ninety days prison in a New York Court, only the other day. They were the Anarchists of their time–they were never within the law….

..Gentlemen of the jury, we respect your patriotism. We would not, if we could, have you change its meaning for yourself. But may there not be different kinds of patriotism as there are different kinds of liberty? I for one cannot believe that love of one’s country must needs consist in blindness to its social faults, to deafness to its social discords, of inarticulation to its social wrongs. Neither can I believe that the mere accident of birth in a certain country or the mere scrap of a citizen’s paper constitutes the love of country.

I know many people–I am one of them–who were not born here, nor have they applied for citizenship, and who yet love America with deeper passion and greater intensity than many natives whose patriotism manifests itself by pulling, kicking, and insulting those who do not rise when the national anthem is played. Our patriotism is that of the man who loves a woman with open eyes. He is enchanted by her beauty, yet he sees her faults. So we, too, who know America, love her beauty, her richness, her great possibilities; we love her mountains, her canyons, her forests, her Niagara, and her deserts–above all do we love the people that have produced her wealth, her artists who have created beauty, her great apostles who dream and work for liberty–but with the same passionate emotion we hate her superficiality, her cant, her corruption, her mad, unscrupulous worship at the altar of the Golden Calf.

We say that if America has entered the war to make the world safe for democracy, she must first make democracy safe in America. How else is the world to take America seriously, when democracy at home is daily being outraged, free speech suppressed, peaceable assemblies broken up by overbearing and brutal gangsters in uniform; when free press is curtailed and every independent opinion gagged. Verily, poor as we are in democracy, how can we give of it to the world? We further say that a democracy conceived in the military servitude of the masses, in their economic enslavement, and nurtured in their tears and blood, is not democracy at all. It is despotism–the cumulative result of a chain of abuses which, according to that dangerous document, the Declaration of Independence, the people have the right to overthrow.

…Whatever your verdict, gentlemen, it cannot possibly affect the rising tide of discontent in this country against war which, despite all boasts, is a war for conquest and military power. Neither can it affect the ever increasing opposition to conscription which is a military and industrial yoke placed upon the necks of the American people. Least of all will your verdict affect those to whom human life is sacred, and who will not become a party to the world slaughter. Your verdict can only add to the opinion of the world as to whether or not justice and liberty are a living force in this country or a mere shadow of the past. Your verdict may, of course, affect us temporarily, in a physical sense–it can have no effect whatever upon our spirit. For even if we were convicted and found guilty and the penalty were that we be placed against a wall and shot dead, I should nevertheless cry out with the great Luther: “Here I am and here I stand and I cannot do otherwise.” And gentlemen, in conclusion let me tell you that my co-defendant, Mr. Berkman, was right when he said the eyes of America are upon you. They are upon you not because of sympathy for us or agreement with Anarchism. They are upon you because it must be decided sooner or later whether we are justified in telling people that we will give them democracy in Europe, when we have no democracy here? Shall free speech and free assemblage, shall criticism and opinion–which even the espionage bill did not include–be destroyed? Shall it be a shadow of the past, the great historic American past? Shall it be trampled underfoot by any detective, or policeman, anyone who decides upon it? Or shall free speech and free press and free assemblage continue to be the heritage of the American people?

Cross-posted at Menstruating She Devils

The Right Makes More Sh*t Up (profanity alert)

(I apologize in advance for the profanity-laden rant. But this stuff makes me nuts.)
More from the department of making shit up:

In one of those moments when the NYT decided to provide free advertising to the Heritage Foundation, it prominently features the following from one of our favourite right-wing thinktanks:

Studies Rebut Earlier Report on Pledges of Virginity

By LAWRENCE K. ALTMAN

Challenging earlier findings, two studies from the Heritage Foundation reported yesterday that young people who took virginity pledges had lower rates of acquiring sexually transmitted diseases and engaged in fewer risky sexual behaviors.

The new findings were based on the same national survey used by earlier studies and conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services. But the authors of the new study used different methods of statistical analysis from those in an earlier one that was widely publicized, making direct comparisons difficult.

Independent experts called the new findings provocative, but criticized the Heritage team’s analysis as flawed and lacking the statistical evidence to back its conclusions. The new findings have not been submitted to a journal for publication, an author said. The independent experts who reviewed the study said the findings were unlikely to be published in their present form.

Okay. Say this with me now. Manipulating the data to make it look like the truth is still considered LYING. (And I still believe that bearing false witness is a big no-no. But what do I know? I’m an unethical atheist.)

Now that certain people have decided that science can be interpreted any damn way you please, and thus, there is TOO scientific proof for Intelligent Design, apparently, you can take a survey and change the data just a little tiny bit and get whole different results. Who’d a thunk?

So, even though the original study was published in a vetted journal, and this one is not going to be published in a journal, doesn’t make this one any less legitimate, right?

Those studies that came out of Texas that showed higher rates of pregnancy among the kids who’d taken abstinence-only education courses must have been bullshit, no?

The team needs to do “a lot of work” on its paper, said David Landry, a senior research associate at the Alan Guttmacher Institute in New York. He said in an interview that it was “a glaring error” to use the result of a statistical test at a 0.10 level of significance when journals generally use a lower and more rigorous level of 0.05.

.10 or .05, what’s the big diff? Sheesh.

I figure there’s going to be lots of explaining to do soon. See, if these kids are not having sex, how are they going to explain those pregnancies? Hmmm. There is a Biblical precedent for such an explanation, but I think that was a one-time occurrence.

I’m deeply distressed that the Times ran with this story. Is there an obligation to report every piece of right-wing propaganda as if it has scientific merit? Where will this bullshit end?

Cross-posted at Stregoneria

Menstruating She Devils

MSDfirecat.png

Hey y’all. The incomparable  Tild designed this image for the informal and yet serious blog set up to chat about issues of gender. Named for one of the lovely epithets that was thrown about last weekend (and for which the hurler has apologized), we are celebrating our role in life as menstruating (and no longer menstruating) She Devils at Menstruating She Devils.
Who says feminists don’t have a sense of humour?

What Is History Allowed to Teach Us?

HISTORY, n. An account mostly false, of events mostly unimportant, which are brought about by rulers mostly knaves, and soldiers mostly fools.Ambrose Bierce

We can learn from history how past generations thought and acted, how they responded to the demands of their time and how they solved their problems. We can learn by analogy, not by example, for our circumstances will always be different than theirs were. The main thing history can teach us is that human actions have consequences and that certain choices, once made, cannot be undone. They foreclose the possibility of making other choices and thus they determine future events.Gerda Lerner

When I was in graduate school, I was an historian. My “area” was early modern Europe, specifically the cultural wars within a largely Christan Italy that led to Anti-Semitism, the witch trials, the persecution of sodomites, and, after the fall of Constantinople, the terror of the “Turk.”

History, for me, cannot be redemptive. That is, I can’t reach into the past and resurrect someone–even if I somehow prove that an injustice was done to this particular person, my actions are not redemptive. That person is long-dead. I’ve done nothing to save them, and, perhaps worse for me, as an historian, I’ve imposed my interpretation of their lives onto them.

History is always an act of interpretation. There’s an African proverb that says: Until the lions have their historians, tales of hunting will always glorify the hunter.

While my political understanding of the world would make me one of those who would attempt to write the history of the lion, I recognize my part in imposing my interpretation onto events that I was no part of.

Everything I’ve said so far presupposes the free access to documents–the “facts” if you will–that allow acts of interpretation to take place. Based on that, we teach our children history in their school curriculum.

In the US, there is a constant emphasis on particular stories–Columbus, the Pilgrims, the Revolution, the Pioneers, the Civil War, WWI, WWII, Now. And there’s usually one way of teaching it. How all of these events somehow present a forward march that got us to this place where we are a glorious nation.
Just as curriculum fights are breaking out over the teaching of evolution and which books children should be allowed to read, as an historian, I’ve witnessed numerous fights, some large and some small, about the way history gets taught. I’ve never forgotten an experience in Seattle where a friend was teaching history in a Seattle high school and decided, as part of the series on Viet Nam, to show the movie Platoon. Because of its “R” rating, permission from parents was needed. One mother called my friend and yelled at her, demanded to know why she was showing such a thing. My friend responded that she was trying to teach the kids how to think critically about American history. The parent yelled that she “didn’t want my kid thinking critically about American history.”

It goes without saying that critical thinking is not about criticism, although that may certainly arise. It’s about not accepting a story at face value and looking for the various shades and layers of meaning within it.

My oldest daughter, in 7th grade, was essentially taught a “critical” approach to American history. On Columbus Day, she asked me why we were celebrating a holiday in honour of a man who had enslaved Indians. We wound up having a fantastic discussion about looking at someone’s actions in all their complexity–the good and the bad, the brave and the cruel.

Many, many people in this country are afraid of such teachings. Today, I read an article in the
Guardian
that shows that these fights are taking all over the world. Some excerpts:

Mr Collins revealed that he had asked the historian Andrew Roberts to draw up a list of key facts about British history that all children would have to learn by the time they left school. There were too many “yawning gaps” in teenagers’ basic historical knowledge, he warned. The Daily Telegraph concurred and was quick to offer its readers a guide to the British past, complete with headings such as “The Anglo-Saxons: The Germans become English” and “The Globe Goes Pink – The Victorians”.

By happy coincidence, at the same time as Mr Collins was drawing up his Whiggish chronology, the Japanese ministry of education was sending its own official version of the past to the printers. And it was the resulting textbooks – with their studious omission of Japan’s wartime atrocities – that sparked rioting in Beijing and the ongoing diplomatic showdown with China.

Meanwhile, in India, schools and universities were just emerging from five years of equally virulent historical propaganda. From the moment of its election in 1999, the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata party (BJP) had attempted a wholesale “saffronisation” of the country’s past. For a political movement which had connived at the Gujarat massacres saw little wrong in removing credible scholarship from the teaching of history. Armed thugs attacked university lecturers, prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee warned foreign authors not “to play with our national pride”, and references to India’s multi-ethnic, multireligious past were systematically excised from school curriculums. On its return to power in 2004, one of the first acts of the Congress party was to sack the official in charge of the BJP’s textbooks.

For in US classrooms a highly prescriptive syllabus, of the type Collins proposed, offers students an uncritical, uplifting story of the triumph of American liberty. Citizenship and history are seamlessly meshed into a simple-minded morality play designed to nurture blind patriotism. The textbook titles tend to give the game away: The American Way, Land of Promise, Rise of the American Nation, and The Challenge of Freedom are among the more subtle choices. And, as James W Loewen has pointed out, the consequence of this unerringly patriotic tale of US heroes and epochs is that African-American, Native-American and Latino students all tend to perform exceptionally poorly at high-school history.

The Brits have attempted to discard their old “whiggish” history in favour of one that incorporates the “sweep” of British history, including the contributions of its fairly new ethnic minorities, and how its role as imperialist nation has had an impact on the world. A history that while not perfect, at least attempts to pay attention to the complexity of the things that Britain has done–the good and the bad.

For even if we might not fully value our approach to history education, other countries certainly do. The Council of Europe is currently nurturing history teaching in post-Soviet and eastern European nations. In countries where nationalism and ethnic strife is ever present, the developing British tradition of non-prescriptive, critical enquiry is regarded as especially valuable. For the terrible consequences of state-sanctioned national narratives – with their attendant myths of victimhood, ethnic cohesion or divine mission – were there for all to see on the streets of Srebrenica.

Many have advocated that the British curriculum return to its legacy of royalty and heroism. Tristram Hunt, the author of the article, offers this caveat, which seems relevant this week as we struggle with issues of inclusiveness:

But before we return to King Alfred, Lord Clive and Horatio Nelson we should remember that the teaching of drum-and-trumpet stories of Britain’s past changed for a reason. We are no longer the mono-ethnic, male-dominated, hierarchical world of 50 years ago. As society changes, so does its relationship with the past. Whitehall-woven grand narratives of our struggle for freedom will neither engage more students in the studying of history nor serve our public sphere well. As a man with time on his hands, Tim Collins can now bury himself in the great works of history – and discover that chronology and criticism go best hand in hand.

How do we teach history in this country? And for me, more importantly, how do we say “no” to schoolboards across the country that, emboldened by communities that wish to return the Bible to the curriculum and ban the teaching of evolution?

Lorraine’s cranky response to RFK Jr

For fuck’s sake. You think that Robert Kennedy Jr. would know better. But in talking about the press, which has dropped the ball and done all the WH’s dirty work, we get this:

Kennedy

And where is the press which recently tolerated the impeachment of the sitting president for lying about an extramarital tryst? My prediction: the emasculated stenographers who make up the White House press corps will ignore this latest outrage as they have prior Bush White House deceptions on critical public policy issues ranging from global warming, to the budget deficit, Medicaid and the war in Iraq.

Enough of this bullshit already. Courage does not equal masculinity. Standing up to someone does not require testicles. Doing the right thing does not mean that you are a male.

This is not about political correctness. This is about progressive men “getting” that engaging in “my dick is bigger than your dick” contests over political issues is getting … how shall I say? TIRESOME.

Stop using adolescent male language and grow the fuck up already!

SO, WHAT ARE YOU CRANKY ABOUT. FEEL FREE TO BITCH ABOUT IT! (omg, I couldn’t resist. 🙂

Update [2005-6-10 9:51:19 by lorraine]: Please consider this a heat-induced, pissed-off, tirade. Normally, I’d just go ahead and delete it, but the comments have been so good, it’d be a shame to lose ’em. So, all I’ll say is that I’m not normally this pissy. And perhaps if if RFK had said, these reporters need to act more “amazonian,” this whole thing could have been averted on my part.

Sisyphus, Rilke, Sadness and Change

Rainer Maria Rilke’s Letters to a Young Poet has become my meditational text. In the past four years, which has been a time of tremendous transition and sadness, expansion and death and rebirth, these 10 letters, written to a young man who asked Rilke how to become a poet, have fed me.

I thought of them again this morning, as I was reflecting on the past few days. I also, once again, thought of Sisyphus. (The material on Sisyphus is recycled from an earlier diary; the Rilke material is new.)

One of the immense comforts that Rilke provides is that he accepts that sadness and loss are great gifts in life. It’s not about the nobility of suffering; for Rilke, sadness is a time when the “new” enters, when seeds get planted without our being aware, and only later do we reap the new crop.

He talks about the dislocation, the numbing, the sheer vertigo of grief, and, as my anger over this past weekend has waned, I find new emotions have come up. Sadness. But also a sense that from this sadness, something magnificent is going to happen.

For they are the moments when something new has entered us, something unknown; our feelings grow mute in shy embarrassment, everything in us withdraws, a silence arises, and the new experience, which no one knows, stands in the midst of it all and says nothing.

It seems to me that almost all our sadnesses are moments of tension, which we feel as paralysis because we no longer hear our astonished  emotions living. Because we are alone with the unfamiliar presence that has entered us; because everything we trust and are used to is for a moment taken away from us; because we stand in the midst of a transition where we cannot remain standing. That is why the sadness passes:  the new presence inside us, the presence that has been added, has entered our heart, has gone into its innermost chamber and is no longer even there, – is already in our bloodstream. And we don’t know what it was. We could easily be made to believe that nothing happened, and yet we have changed, as a house that a guest has entered changes. We can’t say who has come, perhaps we will never know, but many signs indicate that the future enters us in this way in order to be transformed in us, long before it happens. And that is why it is so important to be solitary and attentive when one is sad: because the seemingly uneventful and motionless moment when our future steps into us is so much closer to life than that other loud and accidental point of time when it happens to us as if from outside. The quieter we are, the more patient and open we are in our sadnesses, the more deeply and serenely the new presence can enter us, and the more we can make it our own, the more it becomes our fate; and later on, when it “happens” (that is, steps forth out of us to other people), we will feel related and close to it in our innermost being. And that is necessary. It is necessary – and toward this point our development will move, little by little – that nothing alien happen to us, but only what has long been our own. People have already had to rethink so many concepts of motion; and they ill also gradually come to realize that what we call fate does not come into us from the outside, but emerges from us.

And so, on the personal level, I take comfort from the words of Rilke. But as we all know, the larger problems of the world still confront us. Some of us feel as if we are stuck in an 8-year nightmare, that January 2009 can’t come quickly enough, and we hope that perhaps, January 2007 will bring enough change that at least we’ll be able to breathe again.

I know that many of us woke up on that cold day in November and felt as if we’d been run over by a truck, nay a boulder. Not unlike Sisyphus.
I’ve been thinking about Sisyphus these past few weeks, as I’ve watched what appears to be a march toward oblivion taking place in my country. I admit, since the coronation in January, or perhaps well before it, I’ve felt this increasing dread that we’re on the road to nowhere, that we are confronted with a juggernaut that seeks to destroy all of us people of good conscience who oppose the immoral, unethical, unholy alliance forged on the Right.

They believe that what they are doing is justified by a God of their understanding, and we, many of us who consider ourselves religiously unmusical, struggle to re-frame the debates so that we might claim moral high ground without having to bring God onto our team.

For those of you out there who are guided by a belief in God, I say hallelujah. But what of those, like me, who do not believe in God, but yet who believe that treating human beings in a compassionate manner is the core essence of my politics, how do we find comfort in these days when we are branded with so many ugly names, the likes of which I refuse to say outloud?

In 1940, a young writer named Albert Camus looked at the devastation around him, the carnage that was taking place and building in Europe, and asked an essential question. If life has no meaning, why not commit suicide? The essays, “The Myth of Sisyphus,” were first read by me as a teenager. 25 years later, I take out the essays again, and I find much to comfort me as I contemplate the seemingly Herculean task before us as progressives.

The gods had condemned Sisyphus to ceaselessly roll a rock to the top of a mountain, whence the stone would fall back of its own weight. They had thought with some reason that there is no more dreadful punishment than futile and hopeless labor.

For those of you who don’t know the story of Sisyphus, he got himself into trouble with the gods for a number of reasons: he was a trickster, a questioner, and ultimately, thought he could defeat death. For his sins, he was punished with the eternal task of pushing the rock.

Many of us thought that the advances made by progressives-environmental protections, civil rights protections, abortion rights, a social safety net for the struggling, gender equity-we thought those rights, that were fought for and died for-we thought they would not be taken away from us. And yet, since January 2001, we have watched those rights be attacked by people who claim that our hubris–our beliefs that humanity was the paramount consideration in politics-has led us into sin, and to appease the Almighty, we must be made to suffer.

Consider Sisyphus:

His scorn of the gods, his hatred of death, and his passion for life won him that unspeakable penalty in which the whole being is exerted toward accomplishing nothing. This is the price that must be paid for the passions of this earth.

They want to tell us that we have accomplished nothing. They want us to watch our rock rolling back down the hill, to laugh at our despair as we contemplate the ruins of the things we have achieved; they want to mock us.

Some of us feel overwhelmed by the pain of this all. Some of us want to give up. But I cannot give up. I have children-girls-and I cannot give up because I cannot bear the idea that my daughters will grow up in a culture that tells them that their fate was determined by Eve’s sin, that they are less. I just won’t.

But I’m not going to be miserable in this fight. Yes. It’s hard. Yes. I have days when it feels absolutely fucking hopeless. But I turn back to Camus, Camus who in 1940, could still write these words.

If the descent is thus sometimes performed in sorrow, it can also take place in joy. This word is not too much. Again I fancy Sisyphus returning toward his rock, and the sorrow was in the beginning. When the the images of earth cling too tightly to memory, when the call of happiness becomes too insistent, it happens that melancholy rises in man’s heart: this is the rock’s victory, this is the rock itself. These are our nights of Gethsemane. But crushing truths perish from being acknowledged.

The myth of Sisyphus reminds us that our compassionate politics, our empathy, drives us.

It makes of fate a human matter, which must be settled among men.

There will be days when our tears at what we have lost will overwhelm us. But, we are already at the bottom of the hill. We have begun to push back. The rock is beginning to move. Progress is slow. It will not happen overnight. But it will happen. And you know what? I, for one, am going to be laughing as I push. Will you join me?

All Sisyphus’ silent joy is contained therein. His fate belongs to him. His rock is his thing. Likewise, the absurd man, when he contemplates his torment, silences all the idols. In the universe suddenly restored to its silence, the myriad wondering little voices of the earth rise up. Unconscious, secret calls, invitations from all the faces, they are the necessary reverse and price of  victory. There is no sun without shadow, and it is essential to know the night. The absurd man says yes and his effort will henceforth be unceasingI leave Sisyphus at the foot of the mountain! One always finds one’s burden again. But Sisyphus teaches the higher fidelity that negates the gods and raises rocks. He too concludes that all is well. This universe henceforth wihtout a master seems to him neither sterile nor futile. Each atom of that stone, each mineral flake of that night-filled mountain, in itself forms a world. The struggle toward the heights is enough to fill a man’s heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.

Cross-posted at Menstruating She-Devils

Another gender diary (cause I can’t open the other one)

Well, this is the first time this has happened to me on Booman–the thread to the first gender diary is so big, I can’t open it.

So, without further ado. More stuff:
I posted this on my personal blog at Stregoneria

P.S. Dead chuffed means being thrilled about something. It’s one of those English expressions (I was born in Manchester). I always sort of think of it as being so happy about something you think you’re going to get all choked up.
One of the most disheartening things for those of us who consider ourselves feminists is the sense that it has become a ghetto term; the Right was successful in labeling us as man-hating FemiNazis (or, as one recent Dkos poster referred to us: “menstruating she-devils”), when the irony is that feminism is the bedrock of progressive politics. Feminism links the private with the political, interrogates how restrictions on personal behaviour echoes out to national policy, and understands gender not as “sex,” but as power–who has it, who wants it, and how those in power get to portray those who do not.

The discussions of the personal, which could be categorized constitutionally as those things covered under the “right to privacy,” principally things such as abortion and gay civil rights, have come up repeatedly as the things that people are willing to throw overboard in order to save the Democratic party. But I would urge no surrender on any of this.

Maybe you think that abortion and gay marriage don’t matter. Maybe you think they’re things we’re distracting ourselves with. But my argument, nay, my plea, would be for us as progressives to consider the personal issues as political issues and realize that if we take away anyone’s right to privacy, eventually, we will lose our own.

We need to reclaim the body. If we claim the body, then we are able to say categorically that torture, capital punishment, sexual repression, gender inequality, are not part of the progressive agenda. If we claim the right to privacy, we are able to say that illegal search and seizure, religious indoctrination in schools, public prayer, refusal to sell Plan B, abstinence-only education–all of these things–are not acceptable. If we claim gender as power differential, we are able to see how the sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners is tied into notions of dominance–the same notions of dominance that will be used against all of us.

And it’s gender studies that have allowed us to see these things. Gender as defined by Joan Scott:

Scott’s definition of gender has two parts and several subsets; they are interrelated but analytically distinct. Her definition rests on two propositions:
 1.   gender is a constitutive element of social relationships based on perceived differences between the sexes;
2.   gender is a primary way of signifying relationships of power.

Riane Eisler had this to say about the personal as political and our reluctance as progressives to discuss it:

Today, it’s regressive fundamentalists, not progressives, who are more comfortable talking about the personal as political. They, not progressives, dominate the debate over “private” life and “family values.”

 Yet family relations directly influence what people consider normal and moral in all relations — public as well as private. We must challenge the reactionary, increasingly fundamentalist “traditional family values” agenda. We cannot build a healthy democracy on a foundation of authoritarianism and intolerance — in the home and outside it.” Continued below the fold

 Family relations affect how people think and act. They affect how people vote and govern, and whether the policies they support are just and genuinely democratic or violent and oppressive.

 Slogans like “traditional values” often mask a family “morality” suited to undemocratic, rigidly male-dominated, chronically violent cultures. They market a “traditional family” where women are subordinate and economically dependent, where fathers make the rules and severely punish disobedience — the kind of family that prepares people to defer to “strong” leaders who brook no dissent and use force to impose their will.

 How can we expect people raised in authoritarian families — where men are ranked over women and children learn that any questioning of belief and authority will be punished — to vote for leaders whose policies promote justice, equality, democracy, mutual respect and nonviolence?

 It’s not coincidental that for regressive fundamentalists — whether Christian, Hindu, Jewish or Muslim — the only moral family is one that models top-down rankings of domination ultimately backed up by fear and force. It’s not coincidental that the 9/11 terrorists came from families where women and children are terrorized into submission.

You do not have to be a woman to recognize that gender and feminism are inextricably tied to the progressive agenda. You do not have to be a woman to recognize that when progressive males start shitting on so-called women’s issues, they are missing the point. If you do not understand how power works, how it is rooted in the binary oppositions that we ascribe to the sexes, then you will continue to focus on saving one tree while the entire forest is being razed.

Anger, Flailing, and Finding Your Way

I wrote this a few weeks ago, on a day I was struggling with my anger. This feels so appropriate given the current pie situation.

Last night, I was hanging out with a group of drunks and addicts who are trying to stay sober. The topic was anger. Anger. Shit. An emotion that I’m intimately familiar with, but am only now learning to deal with. Anger, which for me, is perhaps the most complicated emotion I deal with. Anger and I have a history; I bear its scars, most of them internal, unseen by the outside world, but the contours of which I can trace like a map. Anger and grief, anger and self-hurting, anger and addiction.

Why am I telling you this? Because so much of my politics is my attempt to channel the anger, to calm the rage, to make a difference so that the anger I feel does not win. And I struggle with  my anger, especially now, when I see what we’re up against. I have spent my life wanting to react with the grace of Mahatma Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. But I’m a mother, and more and more, I find myself reacting to the bullshit with the rage of Medusa. If I could, I’d turn them to stone. Not because I want to hurt them. But because I don’t want them to hurt anyone I love ever again.

I started to write out a list of things that make me angry. And I realized that that list would comprise thousands of words. I suspect that many of us are angry about similar things. That there is injustice, and that our government, hell-bent on pursuing the worst of agendae, ignores those of  us who want a truly kinder and gentler culture.

I’m a woman. Perhaps it’s my gender, perhaps it’s the family I grew up in, but anger is the scariest of emotions. I grew up in a situation where expressing anger was the fastest way to provoke someone else’s anger; in that environment, those who were bigger hurt those who were smaller. After a while, I learned that anger was a dangerous thing. I turned that anger inward. Rendered powerless, I used my anger to beat the shit out of myself. Eating disorder. Ulcer. Substance abuse.

Only recently have I learned that anger is not my enemy. Anger takes two faces with me, and in learning to intepret which anger I’m dealing with is helping me to become a better political activist.

Anger sometimes makes me flail. I hate flailing. It’s like being caught in a current; sometimes, the answer is not to fight, it is to let the water carry you where you need to go. My anger is like that sometimes. If I flail against it, I drown. If I let it carry me, sometimes I come to shore in a new place with a new perspective.

I’ve learned to ask my anger a question. Is this anger I’m feeling because I feel powerless, because I can’t get my own fucking way, because I can’t get someone to do the thing I want them to do? Or is my anger pushing me to change something? Is my anger an expression of power or powerlessness?

Addicts know a lot about powerlessness. Powerlessness is the recognition that we don’t get to be in charge of the world, as Annie Lamott once said, “It’s realizing that you’re not secretly God’s West Coast representative.” Powerlessness is about realizing that each of as individuals make our own decisions, and I don’t have control over anyone else’s life. So wanting to change someone’s behaviour, that’s an anger of powerlessness.

The other anger? Well, I consider that to be an anger of empowerment. This government pisses me off. I can write letters to George Bush until my fingers wither and fall off; he’s unreachable. There’s no point in trying to reason with him. But, there are things I can do with my anger against this man who dares to think of himself as leader of the free world even as he seeks to strip liberties from everyone who does not agree with him.

What can I do? Well, first of all, I can do this. I can write. And then I can choose to write to people who might have access to power that I don’t have: my representatives. My senators. Newspapers. I can also make a difference in the lives of my daughters. I can model behaviour for them that will serve them well later in life: if I show them that one can live a life of integrity and passion in the midst of madness, perhaps they can draw on that later in life. I can contribute to organizations that are making a difference in the lives of those we have harmed. I can feed a hungry child. I can read to a child who has no one to read to them. I can realize my true size in this gigantic world while resolving to take up the space that I’m supposed to. (As a woman, taking up space is a revolutionary act.)There are other things I can do: sometimes, I don’t know what those are until the anger has battered against me. Anger is my nemesis, but it’s also my mirror. It reflects back to me what’s important.

For those of you familiar with the Steps, you know I’m attempting to practice the first three steps here.

I’m a control freak. It’s part of my addiction. If everyone would just let me be queen of the universe, we’d all live in peace and harmony and justice and love. Really. But the universe seems to have other plans. And so I light my affirming flame, want to burn bright enough so that those in darkness can feel the heat and the light.

And finally, I came across this poem today. I don’t know if McKay was talking about The White House in DC, but this is my affirmation today.

The White House
Claude McKay

Your door is shut against my tightened face,
And I am sharp as steel with discontent;
But I possess the courage and the grace
To bear my anger proudly and unbent.
The pavement slabs burn loose beneath my feet,
A chafing savage, down the decent street;
And passion rends my vitals as I pass,
Where boldly shines your shuttered door of glass.
Oh, I must search for wisdom every hour,
Deep in my wrathful bosom sore and raw,
And find in it the superhuman power
To hold me to the letter of your law!
Oh, I must keep my heart inviolate
Against the potent poison of your hate.

The Gender Issue

I never had a problem with the pie ad. I think the reason  is that I’ve become so used to living in a society that equates women with their bodies that I literally didn’t see it.

I also had the experience of posting on CultureKitchen about issues of choice and having an anti-choice company place banner ads with my diary. Liza Sabater figured out very quickly that the more people who clicked through to the site, the more CultureKitchen made, which would allow her to continue to pay for the space that allowed she and I to post our views on the very issue of abortion, among others. So, sometimes, you wind up making money off people in this world who are doing their damndest to defeat you. I kinda liked that.

But, the response from Kos to the pie ad has caused me to opt out of the DailyKos community. As someone who writes primarily about the connection between the personal and the political, I have no choice but to be a feminist. I care about gender issues, sexuality issues, surveillance issues, sex education issues, marriage issues, etc., etc., etc. And what bothers me more than anything about the tone of the debate is that CERTAIN (not all) heterosexual males don’t seem to get that what they deem women’s issues or gay issues are one step away from being their issues. Anyone rememeber Neimoller’s famous quotation?

I have also been called a whore for writing about sexual issues as explicitly as I do, so I can hardly be considered a sexless harridan. I love certain men. I want to live in a world where no one has to contest their rights as human beings because of gender or sexuality.

I know that some people don’t understand why some of us are so fucking angry at Kos right now that we can’t see straight.

It’s not about the fucking ad. It’s about the fact that those of us who think that there will be no politics to fight about if we don’t protect the right to privacy have been told repeatedly that our issues don’t matter. That we should be patient, get in line, wait our turn.

HOW MANY MORE YEARS ARE WE SUPPOSED TO WAIT?

Update [2005-6-7 6:19:0 by lorraine]: I am dead chuffed to see the responses to this diary, and even more thrilled by the amazing women (and men) who have come over from DailyKos to say “hi.” This could be the start (or continuation) of a wonderful, wonderful thing.

Update [2005-6-7 12:58:36 by lorraine]:One of the bright bulbs over at Kos referred to women upset with Markos as “menstruating she devils.” So, I’ve run with it.

Menstruating She-Devils.

Teehee. Laughing through my rage…

Who says that feminists don’t have a sense of humour?

[Final UPDATE] I can’t get into the comments section of this diary. I’ve started another gender diary if people want to move the discussion to a less-cluttered thread–the discussion has been fantastic!