A random rant (as promised in the title of this blog)

For many reading this (well, in no sense do "many" people read this, but many of those who do), my rant won't be anything new or shocking about the world. But, grr.

When men do things that women are "supposed" to do, they get extra credit for it. If a man cooks dinner, or if he spends alot of time with his kids, he's super-awesome. If a woman does it, well, duh. Isn't that her job?

This is not new or surprising, but in the past 24 hours I have seen like four blatant examples of this, and it's starting to annoy me!

First off, I was with two of my friends, and one was talking about a guy in one of her classes who is a single dad, raising a four year old son because the mom left as soon as he was born. The other friend said, "oh, that's awesome that he's doing that!" As if he's so special because he's taking care of his child. I mean, how often do we talk about how wonderful single mothers are? I pointed out that he didn't have that much of a choice in the matter. If the mom left, he was stuck with the kid. Not that what he's doing isn't tough, and not that it's not good that he didn't abandon the child or something--but I never hear anyone talking about how wonderful a woman is if she's had a child and the dad decides not to be present at all.

I guess alot of it has to do with the fact that we view pregnancy as a woman's "fault" rather than the man's. When teenage couples get pregnant, somehow it's the girls' fault, at least in society's eyes. They're the "gatekeepers." They're also the ones responsible for birth control. Now, I'm all for teaching birth control to every teenager, boys and girls. And I think that girls ought to know enough to prevent pregnancy. But so should boys. That way, when a man is raising a child alone, it's not seen as some wonderful, altruistic thing he's doing, while a woman in a similar situation is seen as reaping the consequences of her irresponsible actions. grr.

With this fresh in my mind, this sort of thing kept standing out to me all yesterday and today. While being a lazy bum and watching sitcom reruns on Nick at Nite rather than studying for my several midterms next week, I noticed it alot. Men are wonderful when they take care of the kids, cook meals, etc. Whereas women are expected to do it. We don't even notice it until they don't do it, and then we blame them for not doing their "job."

Anyway, sorry for going on and on and repeating myself.

Census follow-up

Well, as you can see below, I decided to take a census of my "readers." Here's the thing: it doesn't work if you don't respond. Now, don't worry going down there and quickly commenting to make me feel better. My feelings are already hurt.

Thank you to Kitty and Jeremy for actually responding. Those comments did provide the requested self-esteem boost because they're actually people I don't know in real life--who, at least once, looked at my blog!

As for the rest of you: four of you sent me a message saying, "hey, I saw your post. I read your journal!" For some (no doubt mental disorder related) reason, I need to see it in the comments to believe it. Was it really and truly a great big hassle to click on "Post a Comment" and say something like, "This is _____ and I'm reading right now." ?

You all disappoint me.

(But I still love you. And if you get blogs I will always comment.)

Dr. Daniel's blog(??)

Could this be for real? It would be sort of cool if it were.

In which the author seeks a self esteem boost

I've been told by an authority on the subject that a "proper blog" must be updated at least twice a day. I average around twice a week. But a proper blog has more than two readers. I'm not convinced that this one does. So different rules must apply here.

But, out of curiousity, I am going to take an official Random Rants and Ravings census. No matter who you are, whether you randomly stumbled upon this site or read it regularly (ha!), if you are reading this post, take a moment and comment. Just anything. Give me some confidence!

"Biblical Masculinity"

Tonight on the way back from Denison I was listening to the radio. I had intended to come home and rant on here about the right winger I listened to who was saying Bush was justified in cutting funding for Amtrak because government shouldn't be in the business of subsidizing transportation. Now, I don't know enough about the history/uses of Amtrak to say whether it was a legitimate cut or not. But, it's like, dude, come on. Think about the highway system, think about the billion-dollar bailouts given to the airline industry. We certainly subsidize transportation in this country, and that is a Good Thing.

And, no doubt, I would have gone on and on and on about this (and other ridiculous, living-in-some-alternate-reality stuff that he was saying (like, Europeans killing off Native Americans wasn't so bad because Native Americans had wars and were killing themselves off anyway... dude!)). But, I found something marginally more interesting and certainly more enraging.

Before I go on, I am putting this disclaimer here: I have never read anything by John Eldredge and my only exposure to his work was tonight on NPR and the Amazon.com page for his book, Wild at Heart: Discovering the Secret of a Man's Soul.

So, the topic on Religion Talk tonight was "Are Christian Men Wimps?" John Eldredge came on to talk. His opinion was that, yes, indeed they are. We have "feminized" the church and taught men to become "really nice, sensitive guys" rather than the men (who are wild at heart) that God created them to be. Now, he starts off by quoting Proverbs 20:5, saying that it says "The heart of a man is like deep water..." Well, having a Bible there in the car (by this point I had already arrived back at my apartment and was just sitting out there listening to this story cause it was interesting), I decided to look it up and see its context.

The problem is that... oops... Eldredge totally 1) cut off the sentence it was in and 2) changed the meaning of the phrase!! Here's what it really says (according to the KJV I had in my car... weird translation to randomly have, but it was one of those little bitty ones that found its way in there somehow): "Counsel in the heart of a man is like deep water." Umm. Not quite the same thing, Mr. Eldredge. Yet he says his entire book is premised off this verse. Makes me question the entire premise of his book, really.. :-)

But, this thinking has just now set me off on a tangent. Let's assume for one moment that Eldredge had actually not taken the quote out of context. "The heart of a man is like deep water." Are we to believe that this only applied to men, rather than to men and women? How did we decide this? Is every reference to "man" or "men" in the Bible solely meant to be for/refer to men? I can't think of a single person who would actually contend this. So, yeah, even if he weren't blatantly ripping off this verse to make his own point, it would still be suspect. How can we know that the author of this saying wasn't referring to "man" in the general, everybody, sexist way?

I also have issues with his rendering of the story told in Genesis for its gender implications. He talks about how man was formed before Eden (the super-cool, paradise-like place God gave humans before the Fall) and thus he has always had this longing in his heart for more. He was born in the "outback," (aka creation before it was "tamed"). Eve, the woman, however, had only known domesticated Eden, and thus lacked this innate desire for adventure and danger. I don't know whether he is viewing the creation story literally or metaphorically (he may say in the book, but he didn't in the interview), but his implications are troubling. Some people may have other, theological issues with him. He seemed to be suggesting that man (the gender-specific term) was better off (and in a more suitable environment) before God gave him Eden to live in. Only when man sinned (non gender specific) was he (again, meaning he and she) kicked out of this place that repressed his (now meaning just male) inner desires and put in the world, where he could fulfill his longings and desires.

Any theologians out there have opinions on this? Anyone read Eldredge? Did he just get way off in the interview, or does he believe this, and is this acceptable from a mainstream Christian POV?

He talks about God as "dangerous" and "wild," as men should be. He says that God took a "risk" in creating Adam and Eve, not knowing if they would obey or not. So, umm, God didn't know what was going to happen? God was surprised when man (non gender specific) sinned? Again, going back to what I believe to be mainstream Christian doctrine, I don't think many would say that God takes risks, because the very essence of risk is not knowing what's coming next and taking a gamble on it. But, the thing is, God (in the Christian worldview) is omniscient and omnipresent. Adam didn't shock or surprise God. This "dangerous" side of men that Eldredge wants to cultivate, this risk taking side, may be a very good thing, but, is it really godly (in the sense that it is god-like)?

I found Eldredge's numerous references to militarism very interesting, but will likely save that for another post about masculinity and militarism in general.

He made some interesting points about how we have "feminized" Jesus in the modern church. He didn't have anything much to say on that point, but I think it is a fascinating one. Certainly, people of all periods in time have constructed "Jesus" to their liking. I am not using quotation marks here to deny the existance of a historical Jesus but to point out that our view of his personality is deeply shaped by our culture. During the early 20th century, when America was having a bit of a masculinity crisis (not unlike now), we saw a tough, macho Jesus (similar to the one Eldredge wishes to present). At other times we see the suffering saint, sometimes it's the lover of children, sometimes it's the godlike, righteous man. Jesus, in some eras, takes on a "feminine" persona, and in others is given very masculine characteristics (we focus on his confrontations with demons, his turning over the temple tables, etc). I find this fascinating. I want to study (and I've been saying this for a while, so who knows when I'll get to it) representations of Jesus, and the divine in general, over time to see how different periods portray him. Any thoughts on this social construction of how we think about/relate to Jesus?

Now, on to my most broad point of argument with Eldredge. He talks about how men (gender-specific) are supposed to be like God and Jesus. Well, sure. No Christians would disagree. But, aren't women supposed to be like them as well? I mean, come on, it's not like God is a man after all. S/He has no gender!! I won't debate Jesus's biological male-ness, but that's sort of irrelevant to my point. Wouldn't Christians all say that Jesus is the role model for... all Christians (gender-inclusive)? Or should women take the long-suffering, patient parts of his personality and men take the table-turning, adventurous parts? Again, I can't think of a single Christian that would really contend this.

So, here is my overall challenge, to anyone who cares, Christian or not, theologian or not: What is Biblical masculinity? Don't give me some weak answer about imitating God/Jesus. Shouldn't everyone do that? Don't talk about "examples" of Biblical masculinity in abstract terms. Give me concrete, specific people and what they did that exemplifies how men (and, importantly, not women) should act. Better yet--give me adjectives: strong, adventurous, outdoors-y. But don't just give me adjectives. Tell me why you think what you think. How is "Biblical Masculinity" different from "Biblical Femininity"?

Or tell my why my question is silly/flawed.

Does this strike anyone else as ironic??

In talking about his "Passport to Manhood" program:

"We want to show an ideal of manhood that respects life and rejects violence," said Bush, who is leading the effort.

uh.

Smoking is bad... for your lungs and your job.

I just heard this on All Things Considered a few minutes ago. Basically, this company requires all of its employees to be smoke-free in a year or they're fired (or they can resign). The company has good reasons for this: employees who smoke drive up health care costs. The company offers to pay for programs and supplies to help quit smoking. But, if after a year you test positive to random nicotene tests... you're outta there.

What are your thoughts on this? Is this a reasonable attempt by a company to 1)reduce costs, and 2)protect their employees? I agree that it's legal. We have laws protecting people from being fired/not hired due to race, ethnicity, gender, and even alcoholism (per the ADA, as long as it doesn't affect work performance), but stuff like this (private behavior) is out in the open. (Some states do have laws protecting from discrim. based on lifestyle, which would include things like this.)

Should companies be able to regulate private behavior? Can we not hire people because they eat junk food, engage in risky hobbies (motorcycling, parachuting), don't practice safe sex, etc? To what extent is this "okay" for companies to do?

Where would we draw the line? Any thoughts?

"Reading too much into it"

This is for all of you who tell me constantly that I "read too much into things." This is scanned in from an assignment for Gender and Education:

Straight Pride Week

http://www.thekcrachannel.com/education/4139721/detail.html

If you don't want to go read the article: basically, a bunch of College Republicans at a school in Oklahoma are having a "Straight Pride Week."

This reminds me of when people had the whole "Conservative Coming Out Day" on the same day as the National Come Out Day. Totally insenstive, really. Making fun of people when they are at their weakest.

Now, I've heard from a few people similar arguments, "What's wrong with being proud of being straight?" Nothing. I'm straight. And I'm "proud" (if you can call it that) of being attracted to men. However, "pride," in the sense of "gay pride" is less about celebrating one's attractions as celebrating one's ability to be oneself. It's celebrating how far our society has come (and recognizing how far it has yet to go).

Here's the thing though: if anyone says that this is about being "proud" of being straight, I think they're being disingenous. The point of this is not to celebrate attraction to the opposite sex. We celebrate that in our culture everyday. Going with the definition of pride in the previous paragraph, straight people have no need to celebrate the ability to be oneself. They always have that option.

Gay people do not. They can't talk about significant others at work. They can't have pictures on their desks.

No, the point of "Straight Pride Week" is to go against gay people. I can't really think of a reason that someone who wasn't anti-gay would really need a "straight pride week."

This makes me think of someone doing something like "white pride week." Is there anything wrong with being proud of one's heritage, white or not? Absolutley not. Is there a need for a "white pride week"? Absolutley not. White people have their history and heritage affirmed every day, on television, in the media, in text books, and in countless other ways.

Just like blackness, homosexuality is associated with threats of physical violence. Think of yourself as a black person in the segregationist south, where lynchings and assaults are common. Now, what would White Pride Week mean to you? It would mean a constant fear. Now, think of today, where reports about of men and women being killed and assaulted because of their sexuality (suspected or real). Just as then, most of these crimes aren't reported by the media. But they happen. And people are afraid. What does Straight Pride Week mean to gay people? It increases the fear, the threat level.

I'm sorry. But the very idea of this week is offensive to me. Not because of the idea of being proud and open about sexuality but because of the anti-gay sentiment that is behind it. I think the test would be is this: would this group be willing to have a "Gay-Straight Pride Week"? Would they be willing to celebrate the diversity of sexuality?

All year is Straight Pride Year. They aren't just the majority, they are the default.

But, yeah, go ahead and have your Straight Pride Week. Then your White Pride Week. Then your Rich Pride Week. I know how difficult it is to be one.

Myers-Brigg

Recently, I've been having some discussion about personality type in fiction, particularly Myers-Brigg in Harry Potter.

I won't bore you with that discussion (though, I assure you, it is fascinating).

But, you (yes, I mean you!) should go take the test: http://http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp and come back and tell me what you came up with and whether you think it fits you or not.

I am an INTJ. Someone (with the nicest intentions, I'm sure) pointed out that one paragraph in particular was quite accurate:

Many INTJs believe that they are always right. In some INTJs, this belief is quite obvious, while in others it is more subtle. Some people may have a difficult time accepting what they see as a "superior attitude" or "snobbery". Not to imply that INTJs are snobbish, just that some people with strong Feeling preferences may perceive them that way. And some individuals simply have no interest in the theoretical pursuits which the INTJ enjoys.

Now, surely, my (hypothetical) readers, you disagree with this assessment of me?

However, by and large, I can see that the description fits. (http://www.personalitypage.com/INTJ.html)

What about you?

Jennifer the AMAZING Procrastinator

This is the extent of my boredom.

Despite the fact that I have two books to read, a test to study for, and two essays to write.

*Is sad and pathetic*

Baby X

This is for all of you who I told I'd send you the Baby X story the other day. You should read it. It's short and interesting.

For those of you who don't know what it's about, it's the (fictional) story of X, a child who has no known gender. The child was raised to like dolls AND trucks, to excel at sports AND cooking.

Meanwhile, the Joneses were worrying about other problems. Toys, for instance. And clothes. On his first shopping trip, Mr. Jones told the store clerk, "I need some clothes and toys for my new baby." The clerk smiles and said, "Well, now, is it a boy or a girl?" "It's an X," Mr. Jones said, smiling back. But the clerk got all red in the face and said huffily, "In that case, I'm afraid I can't help you, sir."

So Mr. Jones wandered helplessly up and down the aisles trying to find what X needed. But everything in the store was piled up in sections marked "Boys" or "Girls." There were "Boys' Pajamas" and "Girls' Underwear" and "Boys' Fire Engines" and "Girls' Housekeeping Sets." Mr. Jones consulted page 2,326 of the Official Instruction Manual. "Buy plenty of everything!" it said firmly.

So they bought plenty of sturdy blue pajamas in the Boys' Department and cheerful flowered underwear in the Girls' Department. And they bought all kinds of toys. A boy doll that made pee-pee and cried, "Pa-Pa." And a girl doll that talked in three languages and said, "I am the Pres-I-dent of Gen-er-al Mo-tors." They also bought a storybook about a brave princess who rescued a handsome prince from his ivory tower, and another one about a sister and brother who grew up to be a baseball star and a ballet star, and you had to guess which was which.

The story shows just how much of our world is gendered, though we don't notice it. It illustrates the social construction of femininity and masculinity by showing the means through which they are created. Is it at all a shock that boys act a certain way and girls act another, that they like different toys and different clothes? No. Because we raise them to do just that!

Edit: here's the link! duh! http://www.trans-man.org/baby_x.html

Media de-programming re:social security

We have a serious problem with social security. Is it that it is
running thin, going bankrupt, or dying? No. The problem is that the
media and politicians have convinced us that it is.

How have they done this, you may ask.

Most people simply assume that social security is bankrupt or will be
any day. The media reports it as if it is fact. Yet nothing could be
further from the truth.

Last year, Social Security paid out $383 billion in checks, and
received $436 billion in taxes and an additional $49 billion in
interest. Instead of red ink, Social Security made almost $102 billion
in profit, to add to the more than $652 billion it had in profits from
previous years.

The Trustees of the SS system use very conservative estimates in
discussing the future of the program. But even using their figures, it
is not until sometime after 2020 that the program will collect less in
taxes and interest than it pays in benefit checks, and even then, it
will have more than $1 trillion in the Social Security Trust Fund, left
from previous years. Their most recent estimate is that, for the next
34 years, the taxes that are collected, when added to interest and
money from the Trust Fund, will be sufficient to pay all the benefits
currently planned.

It is not until 2034 that the Trustees project that there will be no
money left in the Trust Fund, and not enough taxes to pay all the
benefits that are expected. But even when the Trust Fund is empty,
and for the foreseeable decades thereafter, the Trustees expect there will be enough taxes to pay 75% of the planned benefits.

Now, ok, let's pretend that social security were going to go bankrupt
tommorow (as conservatives and the media would have us believe).
Presumably we would still be paying out benefits to seniors. This
would cause us to create a defecit, no? We would be spending that
which we do not have.

So, here's a puzzle for those loveably misguided cons out there: why
is it horrible, unthinkable, untenable that the SSA run a defecit while
it's perfectly reasonable for the general budget not only to run on a
huge honking defecit but to multiply that defecit by cutting revenues
(ie tax cuts) that go to those at the top?? This makes very little
sense to me, this distinction.

So, now that we've "established" that SS is an agency in crisis, how
have we made the jump from the need for preservation to privatization?

The claim that so much money could be made through investment
conveniently ignores the massive costs of such a transition. Their
conclusions can only be drawn by pretending that all the money that is
now paid as SS taxes could instead by invested in stocks and bonds in
individuals' accounts. Since current payroll taxes are used to pay
benefits to beneficiaries, transferring money into individual accounts
means that less money will be available to pay promised benefits.

To avoid major benefit cuts, younger workers would have to pay twice: once to fund the new account and again to meet SS's current obligations.

But, to the real point. I do not deny a fiscal crisis in the US, but
the crisis is more with the general budget than any program in
particular. Certainly not Social Security.

As to privatization itself (ie investment):

The only possible way that stock returns can be high enough to make
privatization work is if the U.S. economy grows at three to four
percent a year for the next fifty years. But Social Security's own
trustees expect the economy's growth rate to slow to 1.8 percent. If
that happens -- if their own assumptions are correct -- then
privatization would be a disaster. And if that doesn't happen -- if the
economy continues to grow at a steady rate -- then the trust fund is
good for the rest of the century, and we don't need privatization.

I quote Eric Bates, summarizing economist Paul Krugman's findings:

The privateers are claiming that you can have something for nothing.
They're basically saying, "Let's assume that pigs can fly." And when
you say, "You know, it's not good to assume that pigs can fly," they
respond by saying, "What's wrong with you? Don't you understand the
enormous advantage of flying pigs?"

So, what is our real crisis?

The health care system. The private insurance system is slowly falling
apart, with rising costs due primarily to administrative costs, which
eat up many times more of the annual health care spending here than
they do in other industrialized countries. Health care is an arena
where privatization raises costs. It doesn't (for many reasons that I
can go into if you like) work like a perfect market economy.

So, if this all makes very little sense, if social security isn't
actually bankrupt (as is clearly the case) and if privatization is a
Bad Call (which is fairly evident), why are so many people pushing for
it??

It, unfortunatley, all boils down to politics (as so many things do).
The people who want rid of this hate the idea of a social safety net,
of "their" tax dollars supporting someone else's retirement. These
people have never liked any of the New Deal legislation (which
ironically saved capitalism as we practice it) and have worked
ceaselessly to dismantle its programs.

Our Cultural Amnesia

Every once in a while I have a brilliant idea for a new post. And then I either forget or, upon reflection, decide that it's not that brilliant after all. However, one thing has consistently been bugging me--so much that I'm actually stepping out of my laziness to post about it. This thing is our collective forgetfulness, our ahistorical view of the world.

What do I mean? I am speaking of the current (and perpetual) fight by conservatives against "liberalism" that vague evil that stands as nothing but a straw man for them to use in arguments for legislating their own values and for deregulation. So, what is liberalism?

Perhaps, better than defining it in a succinct, dictionary-style sentance, it is best to look at its legacy.

If you work in a job where you don't risk being maimed or killed everyday, you've benefited from liberalism. If your children go to school rather than being sent off to work, liberalism gives you that ability. If you get paid overtime, based on a forty-hour week, and are paid a living wage, guess who worked tirelessly for that? If your water is drinkable, if your food doesn't kill you from disease, you should know that not only did liberals work for these safeguards, but conservatives actively opposed them. If members of your family are eligible for social security, medicare, unemployment, disability... they owe their livelihood to liberals. If your children go to school with children of different races (at least in theory) and people of all races share public facilities, you can thank liberals (and an "activist" Supreme Court) for that.

--safe, approved medicines
--safe, affordable public transportation
--FDIC, FSLIC and bank protection
--student loans and grants
--rural electrification

Have you benefited from any of these?

I promise you have.

Let us also define conservatives by their legacies. Their legacy is that they started off opposing every single one of these progressive ideas. Is it any wonder that they are now trying to dismantle social security? They never liked it.

What really irkes me, however, is how quick we are to forget these things. We (and by "we" I mean dominant culture) are quick to condemn liberals and liberal ideas. Even John Kerry and the 2004 Democratic candidates (some of whom could have been considered liberals) were quick to eschew the title. Liberals should proudly proclaim. "Yes. I am a liberal. I believe in the American liberal ideals that have made this country great! Public education, free speech, safe drinking water, and the 40-hour work week." Those are things that we can all agree are good. And they are things that would not be here without the work of liberals and would not be here if conservatives had had their way.

Now they're on board for most of these things (with the possible exception of Newt Gingrich).

But, in policy debates it is wise to remember the trajectory of history. I read a quote once, and I cannot remember who said it, but it was: "The heresy of today is the orthodoxy of tommorow." That gives me hope because I see it in the past. It was madness to think that the government could have a part in regulating the workplace. Now it's madness to think otherwise. We (even conservatives) believe that the government has a legitimate part in making sure workplaces are safe and that discrimination doesn't occur. (even if such safeguards are being slowly dismantled)

The things that progressives stand for now (heresy according to conservatives and the media) will be the orthodoxy of tommorow; 50 years from now we will think it crazy that at one point we denied health care coverage to people because they couldn't pay for it. Even conservatives will be on board, always one step behind. And people will forget how much they fought against it. That's the way it goes.

I have confidence in America. I just wish we had a better memory sometimes.

"Moral Values"

In the mail yesterday I recieved a little advertisement for a popular evangelical leader. The cover of this mailer proclaimed that 22% of all voters said that "moral values" was their primary issue. The letter part: "When Americans were asked about the issues that most affected their vote, 22 percent of the electorate said 'moral values' was at the top of their list, surpassing terrorism, the war in Iraq, health care, and other key domestic issues."

That is undoubtably true. 22% of voters, according to the Associated Press, did indeed cite "moral values" as their primary motivation. So, how are these people defining moral values? Do they mean anything relating to sex? ie gay marriage, sodomy, abortion, access to birth control? Is that our limited perspective on moral values?

Clearly people who voted based on access to health care, on terrorism, on poverty, on welfare, on the war, and "other domestic issues" were also voting on moral issues. They just didn't put them in those terms. Why is that? Have we all begun to define "morality" only in terms of things like abortion and homosexuality? Or were these people who voted on their moral convictions about the well-being of all simply reluctant to call their issues "moral issues" because we, as a country, have ceded this term to the far right? I know if an exit poller had asked me, I would have first wanted to say "moral issues" but would re-think so that I would not be confused with someone voting against rights for all and for restrictions on personal liberty.

We need to recognize several things. First of all, morals are not the sole purvue of religion, and certainly not of Christianity. Atheists, Bhuddists, Muslims, pan-theists can all be moral. But, and more importantly to me, I believe, is that fact that the particular brand of morality being pushed as "moral values" by some Christians is at times more ideological than anything else.

I believe God is neither Republican nor Democratic; Christianity should maintain a moral independence from partisan politics so that it is equally able to critique the right and the left.

It is easy for us to lose sight of the fact (a point that John Kerry certainly lost) that part of our moral charge in the world, as Christians, and a part of maintaining our basic humanity, as human beings, is caring for and loving our neighbors. These, I believe, are absolutley moral issues. These are things on which I voted on November 2. I voted for health care as a right, not a privilege. I voted on a guarantee for all children to go to good schools. I voted on the saving of American lives who are dying for an ideological cause while we ignore the fight against terrorism. I voted on a fair and living wage for all workers. I voted that no family with a full-time worker should live in poverty. I voted to be a good steward of the environment God created. These are all moral issues that I voted on. But, according to our popular definition (as defined by the Religious Right), I did not vote on moral issues at all.

Does that make those who disagree with me "immoral"? Certainly not. A person can have a "free-market" system of morality and vote against minumum wages, health care, welfare, etc. That does not make them un-Christian or immoral. That means that they have different moral values than I do. I know many people, people who I look up to for their Christian living and example, whose morals differ from mine as much as night from day. And I know we voted for different candidates. We are all moral and we are all Christian. I know several people who are not Christian who are moral, with similar and with different moral systems than me.

I guess that is the point of this post. Morality doesn't belong to religion in general or Christianity in particular. And "morality" isn't this one set of values and beliefs that everyone must hold in order to be moral. I may view it as fundamentally immoral that we let children go without health insurance. I have several friends who would disagree. Yet they are moral people.

So, when next you refer to "moral values," ask "whose values?" "how did they get defined?" "why do I hold them?" "what is it based on?"

For Christians, we ought to hold ourselves (and politicians) to the challenge given by Micah, to "do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with your God."

Communal Aspirations

This is from a commencement ceremony at the University of Michigan done by a sociology graduate. This speech just really inspired me, and I thought I would share it. Feel free to comment on it, I know some of you will have opinions on it.

COMMUNAL ASPIRATIONSBy: Cedric de LeonRackham Graduation CeremonyDate: May 1, 2004 When I arrived in Ann Arbor six years ago, I knew that I liked sociology and that I was good at it, but to be truthful, I didn't actually know what sociology was. What I learned at Michigan was that sociology is the study of the relationship between "structure" and "agency," between patterns among groups of people such as racial inequality or poverty on the one hand and the individual freedom of people to transcend those patterns on the other. No matter what the issue, sociology compels us to ask certain key questions of one another. How much freedom does each of us have, really? Are there constraints to our freedom, and if so, which ones?

Beyond this particular take on the discipline, Michigan sociology is also unique in its tendency to blur the line between the intellectual concerns of the academy and the issues confronting society-at-large. This past Fall semester, for instance, I taught a course on the effects of race and class in Detroit.

This orientation is due in no small part to the fact that the wider university takes itself seriously as a public institution. The University of Michigan does not shield itself from contemporary social issues, but rather tends to join the fray. It should be of no surprise, then, that there are some similarities between the lessons I learned in the sociology department and those that I learned in the course of graduate life in general. One such similarity is the tension on this campus between aspiration and access.

On the one hand, the university expects us to act like academic entrepreneurs. Each of us is encouraged to make good grades, publish, and write an entire dissertation on our own. But in addition to stoking our personal ambitions, the university also expects each of us to have an opinion about affirmative action, about who gets to be part of the university community and who does not.

Though both sets of expectations seem important, they also seem somewhat disconnected from one another. For example, I was a member of three groups that fought to preserve affirmative action here, but the unspoken rule was that my advocacy on behalf of people of color was my public life, while my research was my private life.

Now I should let you know at this point that sociologists do not do well with tension; we seek answers, and in this I am no exception. Today I would like to offer a resolution that might bring our personal hopes and dreams together with the distinctly public character of this university.

In preparation for the next crisis (and it will come), I believe we should start asking each other the following question: what are your individual aspirations … for your community? Let me put it another way. Instead of asking each other, "where are you going?" ask instead, "what kind of community do we want to be?"

Some of you might be wondering, "Why ask such a question? Why do we need to resolve the tension? In fact, there isn't any tension at all: listen here, sonny, you came here to get a degree, not to change the world!"

Well, for one thing, people in positions of power have a special obligation to act responsibly. Whether or not we deserve it, the graduates in this room are now authorized to speak about the world in a way that most people are not. What will you do with that authority? If Michigan celebrities like Gerald Ford and Arthur Miller are any indication, your answer to that question may have lasting implications for life as we know it.

Moreover, access and aspiration are not mutually exclusive: my ability to go where I want to go depends on whether or not my community will let me go there and support me along the way. You are graduating today, not just because you are especially smart or talented. I'm sure you are, but you are also graduating today, because in 1817 a community decided that what would amplify their freedom and humanity was a public university here in Michigan. For those of you who are women and people of color, you are graduating today, in part because your antecedents struggled for your right to be here. And all of you are graduating today in one way or another because of the support of your friends and family.

I am a living, breathing example of what happens when access meets aspiration. I come from a working-class family. My dad is a cook and my mom works at a meat packing plant. We live in a neighborhood called St. Jamestown, which is one of the poorest areas of Toronto. For the past two years, my sister, who is a sophomore at Queen's University, has been one family paycheck away from never realizing her dream of a college degree. Without meaningful public education and affirmative action, I might never have put my sister through college. Instead I stand before you today as a doctor of sociology, and you can bet your bottom dollar that my sister will graduate.

So I congratulate you, the graduates of 2004, for having realized your individual aspirations. But as a proud product of public education and affirmative action, I would be remiss if I did not appeal to your communal aspirations by suggesting that your lives can be enriched in other ways when people like me and my sister can share in it more fully.

Let the legacy of this class be a renewed sense of collective ambition that compels us to seek out the meaning of our actions beyond our front door, to the city down the road where high school students have no hope of a college education, to the country next door where farmers are forced off their land because credit is available only to large commercial exporters, and to the continents beyond our shores where children have never known the meaning of the word, peace. Let us understand that this is not a failure of individual aspiration on their part, but a failure of collective aspiration on our part. And when we finally come to live and work with those whom we have overlooked, let us at that moment rejoice in the realization of our hopes and dreams, for we will have done more than aspire to a degree; we will have achieved a community.

Wal Mart

So, I need a job over Christmas and decided to apply at Wal Mart. Well, my mother decided that I should, and I convinced myself that if I ended up getting a job, I could keep a journal a la Barbara Ehrenreich, and do bona fide sociology.

So, they had a little kiosk in the back where you could fill out an application. It had the standard stuff, employment history, references, etc. But, then it got to a little questionnaire, which I assume was meant to weed out certain people that were undesirable to hire. But, the questions were... interesting. Especially coming from Wal Mart. They were administered on a Likert-style scale, going from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree for each statement.

There were the usual, "So-and-so gets high on the job but still does his job satisfactorily. He should not be fired." But, more interesting were one like this:

"Workers are more productive when organized as in a labor union." Fascinating, given Wal Mart's aversion to unions. Could they be subtly screening out those who could be problematic/rabble rousing, trying to get others interested in unionization?

"Success in business is due primarily to who you know."
"If I had more opportunities in life I could have been more successful."
"Success in business is based on hard work and talent."
"People in supervisory positions are there because they do their job better than others."

--What do all these have in common? Well, if you answer the way they want you to (which I totally did :-) ), they will come out with a group of workers holding a certain ideology. An ideology that is thoroughly American, an individualistic ideology that tells people that wherever they are, they're there because they earned it. If they're not successful, it's because they're not trying hard enough. This keeps workers satisfied; if you have people who have a sense that they're being cheated, they will demand more of you. This questionnaire makes it possible for Wal Mart to screen those people out.

There were some questions like:
"It is never acceptable for an employee to criticize his company."
"Successful businesses have usually gotten that way through dirty business practices."
"If something bad happens at work, it is acceptable for an employee to talk to the public about the issue." [There were SEVERAL variants on this question.]

--Clearly Wal Mart is concerned about its image problem. It wants people who believe it to be a good, honest company. But, if their workers get messed over, they don't want them speaking out about it. Hmm.

So, grr. This is annoying. Other questions were clearly meant to weed out other populations. For example, questions asked, very indirectly, about whether one had small children. That's illegal. It was never explicit, though. Questions were like, "If I work alot, I won't be able to spend enough time with my family."

Anyway, now I sort of want to get this job, just so I can have the Wal-Martian experience. Wish me luck!

On Movies.

I have a problem. I can't watch movies anymore. I seriously can't. I have thoughts running through my head the entire time, critiquing the messages being sent out by the movie, constantly realizing the ways in which whatever movie I am watching is perpetuating stereotypes/ideologies/acceptance of inequality/whatever. The script in my head won't let me just enjoy the script being played out on the screen.

Tonight, for example, I went to go see Princess Diaries 2: Royal Engagement. It was a cute movie. And I wanted to like it. But at the same time, I felt guilty for wanting to like it. And, I couldn't like it. I couldn't enjoy it for what it was, a fluffy chick-flick, because my mind would not shut up. Every time I started to be drawn in, thinking, "ohh! he's cute!" or "he's going to kiss her now... *sigh*" I would catch myself. That's good. But it's also really bad.

For those of you who have not seen this movie, here's the basic plot: it can generall be considered a "feminist-ish" movie, I'd say. Mia, as you know if you've seen the first movie, is Princess of Genovia, and her grandmother, Queen Clarice, is thinking of stepping down from the throne whenever Mia turns 21, giving Mia the chance to rule. However, Duke Something-or-other will have none of this; his nephew ought to be king! So, he finds an archaic rule in the Genovian constitution requiring all Queens to be married before they can accept the throne. (Fear not, those who believe I read too much into things, this is not why I didn't like the movie... this could've made for a great plot by itself.)

So, the Duke and his (exceptionally handsome!) nephew come to stay at the castle, meanwhile Mia decides that her first duty is to her country and agrees to an arranged marriage. She picks some (cute-in-a-dorky-kinda-way) Englishman, and they become engaged. So, Uncle Duke tells Cute Nephew that he has to try to split up Mia and Dorky English Guy so she won't get married, can't accept the throne, and Next-in-Line-Nephew becomes King.

And thus the Problems begin.

See, he does all this pursuing of the Princess, the whole "I know you say no but you really want me" type of thing. This is common in movies and it is Bad. Especially when it turns out in the context of the movie that she really does want the guy, and he should just keep pushing until she gives in. I could go into a whole list of reasons why this is really bad, but I daresay you can figure them out.

The Soon-to-Be-Bride holds a bridal shower/slumber party with other royal princesses from all over the world, where they do girly things and slide down stairs on matresses and have a grand old time. Nothing wrong with this, but would we see a future King (over the age of, say, 15) in any sort of movie (comedy, drama, romance, name your genre) doing anything of the sort? What does this say about the nature of feminine power? The Queen joins in. How many Kings do we see doing this in all literature/filmdom?

So, anyway, Mia decides to get married to English Guy (instead of challenging the law, which, really, would be any rational person's first thought. Well, I guess there would be no plot there.). Meanwhile Nephew decides he's really in love with Mia (he sees her being nice to children and doing lovely feminine things), and decides to stop trying to break her and her fiance up. At one or two points they kiss, both times I believe initiated by him, rejected initially by her, but she eventually gives in, and we all go, "aww... how romantic."

So, anyway, a few days before her wedding they sneak out and, lo and behold, they get caught the next morning by a reporter; she assumes it was him (in fact it was the Uncle), and she decides to go through with her marriage.

And so she does. Wedding morning, she's all ready, being encouraged by her mother and grandmother to enter into this arranged and admittedly love-less marriage. She is seriously planning on fulfilling the letter of the law. Then someone tells her that Nephew was not the one who sent the reporters to spy, 'twas Uncle. Oh no! Panic! She runs out on wedding--then gives great feminist-y speech. A speech which I cannot seem to get into.

Here's the thing. She says to Parlaiment, "Think of your daughters, think of your sisters," etc. Would you want them to have to get married just to rule? And, parlaiment, of course, votes to overturn the law. Yay for Women!

Except, umm, no. Mia was going to follow the law to the letter... until... what? Until she realizes that she's in love with someone else. Her self-realization, the movie's climax, is dependent on a man. She is not self-empowered. She was ready to live by the rules of a patriarchal society until, umm, another man comes along who she liked better. This is like movies about women who learn to "have it all" and in the end realize that they are most fulfilled when they finally get their guy. Queen Clarice can only realize the dreams of her, and I quote, "womanly heart" (by marrying her head of security) when she steps down from the seat of power.

Before the Parlaiment vote, Handsome Nephew shows up and gives a little speech on why Mia should indeed be allowed to be Queen without requisite husband. He talks about how kind she is, how caring, how good with children, but, especially, how good she would look on the Genovian postage stamp.

This reminds me of the first movie, which I tried to watch and enjoy the other day but honestly could not make through. How many movies about Princes focus so much on the physical appearance of the main character? What message did this movie send? Well, Mia was Unpopular (we are told this via the fact that she has bushy hair and eyebrows), but as soon as Paulo (who appraised her looks like one would a horse, evaluating its quality) worked his magic, straightening her hair, plucking her eyebrows, and giving her better clothes, she was fit to be Princess and fit to be our Heroine.

There were points in this movie where I really wanted to like it. Especially the parts that I find worst of all--the romantic moments had by the (very good-looking) nephew and Mia; I found myself dreaming about myself in a similar situation--wishing I could be Princess of a country, with a cute guy in love with me, as pretty as could be. It's interesting that the thing that Queen Clarice knew would make Mia happy was a massive walk-in closet and a nice selection of jewelry. This is what powerful rulers love the most? Or just the female ones?

Lily, the friend, played by Heather Matarazzo, everyone's favorite ugly girl (not saying she's ugly at all, but she's cast in parts where she is not supposed to be attractive, but, rather, a dorky sidekick), is, tellingly, going to graduate school. That's for the un-cool, non-pretty girls, all that education stuff. Being Queen and getting married is for the pretty ones.

So many times in this movie, I really wanted to like it. It's not particularly egregious or bad, especially when it comes to most movies' portrayals of women. It had a pro-feminist message, I'd say. But it's careful not to offend. And, think, sends the wrong message. It says women can be independent, but the plot doesn't play out like that. It requires the love of a man before Mia is able to challenge the system. If that's the case, isn't the system reinforced? It's a step forward. In previous generations, the law might've been accepted as reasonable, and the plot focused on changing marriage partners from Dorky-but-Disinterested English guy to Cute-and-attractive Nephew. So, this isn't bad. But it's not that good.

The movie was funny, romantic, touching. I cried, I think, twice. But, through most of it, I couldn't shut off the voice in my head, telling me why I shouldn't be enjoying it.

I can't figure out whether this is good or bad. But right now it's annoying. Rather like having a conscience pop up at undesirable times.

No offence, but why are all white men so aggressive? by Gary Younge

No offence, but why are all white men so aggressive? Turn round the questions asked of black people and you may get the point Gary Younge

Wednesday December 1, 2004 The Guardian

Sometimes it takes so long to figure out what's wrong with a question that you never quite get to the answer. At the forum on being British and Muslim organised by the Guardian last week, participants argued that some of the questions and issues being raised would never be put to white Christians, for example. These included: "do you have a duty to vote and/or participate in British political life?"; "do you have a responsibility to inform on political or religious groups who use violence to achieve political ends?"; and "do you want integration into British society or parallel lives? Why?"

The reluctance to confront these particular questions didn't stifle debate, but it raises broader issue of how and when to withdraw from problematic dialogues.
Sometimes, though not in this forum, questions can be so pregnant with assumptions that they are, arguably, better left unanswered. Not because they do not relate to important issues, but because they are so loaded with prejudice and crippled by ignorance, thoughtless in tone and reckless in content, that the manner in which they are put renders them incapable of addressing important issues. To engage with them would be to legitimise their bias.

This is not an issue confined to race or religion. The victors in every battle do not just write history (and then rewrite it continually until the vanquished have either been disappeared or demonised beyond all recognition), they also frame the terms of reference for the present. Questions, and those who pose them, are never neutral, but are both informed and misinformed by the received wisdom of place and time.

Nobody ever asks: "when did you first realise you were straight?" or "how do you balance fatherhood and work?" One day, hopefully, they might. But in the meantime some identities will be subject to relentless examination, while others coast by with eternal presumption. Those who ask the questions of others without interrogating themselves are effectively saying: this is our world, you're just living in it.

So we inquire in our own image with all the limitations and prejudices implied. The point is not that we should ask tough questions of others - our best and only hope is that we all keep talking. But if you want a substantial answer, you must ask a substantial question. The respondent may meet you half way, but if the person asking the questions hasn't moved an inch, half of nothing will not take either of them very far.

One of the most distinguished members of the panel at the Guardian forum, academic Tariq Ramadan, argued that turning their backs on the court of British public opinion, like a republican detainee before a Diplock judge, was not an option for British Muslims.

"Just because they are not asking others does not mean that the question is not legitimate," he said. "You cannot get rid of perceptions by saying that your question is wrong. It's like saying to someone who says to you 'I'm scared. I feel that you are a threat to this society'. And you say 'No, It's not good to be scared'. If I am scared, I am scared. Now try to help me to put it in another way."

Mr Ramadan has a point. If you are interested in conversing with the world around you, then you cannot simply ask people to change the subject every time a subject you do not like comes up. Such pre-emptive defensiveness stands little chance of winning over potential support and shows every sign of a lack of confidence in your ability to make yourself understood. We cannot choose the terrain on which these battles are fought; nor can we dictate the rules. These are subject to negotiation.

But the reason some people get defensive is because they feel that they are forever being attacked. It's true that we have to work with what we've got. But sometimes the material we are given to work with seems so lame that I am tempted to take a day off. Before there can be negotiation there must first be goodwill - the desire to fill in the gaps of knowledge and perspective. A good question does not seek agreement but engagement; a point of contact; the recognition of at least the shred of commonality with the questioned.

Without that, all we are left with is full-scale interrogation - the hostile questioning of the prosecution counsel: less of a conversation than a trial by presumption.

It's time to flip the script, to lay bare just a hint of the assuming subconscious that infects the most common questions I have either been asked or heard. To ask the kind of questions of white, British people (some are just for Christians) that they often pose to "others" but are never asked themselves. I didn't make these up because I wouldn't know where to start. This is my world. For the next 500 words, you're just living in it.


Do you think of yourself as white or British or both? Does it worry you that you got your job just because of your race? Where are you from? No, but really? Since this is where you live, don't you think you should try and integrate with other races more? Is your first loyalty to your God, or to your country? Is it true what they say about white guys? Given the genocide, slavery and colonialism unleashed in the name of Christianity over the last two centuries, do you feel your religion is compatible with democracy? Mr Grant, do you think of yourself as a white actor or an actor who happens to be white? I don't mind white people, but if they want to live here then why shouldn't they have to fit in with our traditions? Shouldn't the police be doing more to tackle white-on-white crime? Given the objectification of women in your culture and the rise in teenage pregnancies, don't you think it's time to ban young girls wearing make up? What do you make of the tribal conflict in Ukraine? I thought you asked for flesh-coloured tights? Don't you feel that this politically correct belief that we have to respect white people's feelings has stifled honest discussion and debate? Isn't it a shame that white people cannot pick more responsible leaders? What do you mean, you can't Morris dance? Don't you ever worry about being pigeonholed as a white person? Why aren't you doing more to check the rise in Christian fundamentalism? Who are your community leaders? Why should we balance our belief in human rights with our tolerance for Christians? What do white people think about Jews? How would you define "white" style? Mr Amis, why do you write about white people all the time? Don't you find that limiting? What are you doing for your people? Have you seen what the Bible says about women? Are you the token white guy? Don't take this personally, but why are white men so aggressive? Now the Olympics are over, can we finally admit that white people are genetically equipped to excel in archery and rowing? What is it with white people and homophobia? You know what white women are like, don't you? I understand that as a white person you come at this from a particular place, but can't you try to look at it objectively for a moment? Why do you people have such a chip on your shoulder? Don't get offended, I was only asking.

· Gary Younge chaired last week's Young, Muslim and British debate organised by the Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/race/story/0,11374,1363528,00.html

It is finished.

Well, mostly. It will be finished at about 3:30 when I go to turn in my final paper for Race and Ethnicity. That is, unless I want to do an optional essay for Social Theory, which I am certain I don't need for my grade, but would be something interesting to do, and might come in handy if somehow I did blow that last quiz on Monday.

Incidentally, the book lists for next semester are up!!
How exciting do these sound:
Ain't No Makin' It: Aspirations and Attainment in a Low-Income Neighborhood -- MacLeod
Social Inequality: Patterns and Processes -- Marger
Freedom Summer -- McAdam
Why we Lost the ERA -- Mansbridge
The American Dream and the Public Schools -- Hochschild
Code of the Street: Decency, Violence, and the Moral Life of the Inner City -- Anderson
Mama Might be Better Off Dead -- Abraham
Transformation of the Welfare State: The Silent Surrender of Public Responsibility -- Gilbert
Understanding Poverty -- Danzinger
When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor -- Wilson
Black Ice -- Cary
Hopeful Girls, Troubled Boys: Race, Gender, and Disparity in Urban Education -- Lopez
Learning Together: A History of Coeducation in American Public Schools -- Tyack
Separated by Sex: A Critical Look at Single Sex Education for Girls -- Morse
Born for Liberty -- Evans
Herland -- Gilman
Seneca Falls Inheritance -- Monfredo
Women's America: Refocusing the Past -- Kerber
Women's Magazines, 1940-1960: Gender Roles and the Popular Press -- Walker
Managing Like a Man: Women and Men in Corporate Government -- Wacjman
Women and Men in Management -- Powell
The Time Bind: When Work Becomes Home and Home Becomes Work -- Hochschild
Contemporary Asian American Experience --Fong
Strangers Among Us -- Suro

I am going to have the best semester ever. Yes, I know I say that every semester, but a quick glance over this book list merely confirms my suspicions: my semesters are all my best semesters, because they consistently get better and better!