SEEING REDLinks and things from the CODE RED feminist collective. Visit our website for critical Caribbean feminist commentary. |
| what appears above is from CODE RED's tumblr *here* |
Feminist conversations on Caribbean life
 |
| image is from here |
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Unofficial Month of Men!
My brain almost exploded when I opened up my email this morning. See, I subscribe to the mailing list for this ridiculously well-funded and well-organized Arlington, VA-based pro-life group called Students For Life, in order to keep tabs on their memes and tactics. You can pretty much guess what their emails are normally like. But today's was special. Today's was designed to make sociologists apoplectic.
The subject was "Should Men Have A Say?" And the email starts out with a message called "A Man's Choice?" from Jackie Anderson, the Communications Director. I will reproduce it here with my comments in brackets:
June is unofficially the month of men. [isn't every month?] [And isn't this the official millennium of men, much like all the others?] Father’s Day [in the US] falls on June 17th this year. [OK I'll give you that one] The release of X-Men: First Class last week helped to begin the month with a testosterone-infused rush to the box office. [um, what the shit does that have to do with anything? are you just trying to hook in the college-aged crowd here? the X-men, if anything, are a progressive organization. The movies are basically a parable for gay rights!] [Yes, Hermes! He might like to consider what it is he's REALLY promoting. And I hope he realises women have testosterone too. And men have estrogen.] Like similar holidays [which celebrate Christian white het men's "greatest" accomplishments in mass murder, slavery, and oppression--such as Presidents' Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Columbus Day, Veteran's Day, Thanksgiving, and Christmas], we take time this month to celebrate those whom we love [--and with FR activists that'd be "ourselves, and our reflections in mirrors"], those who have loved us from the start [statistically and anecdotally, that's not likely to be daddy], and sometimes, those we may not see as often as we wish. [Statistically and anecdotally, that would be daddy.]That's all that was in the email, but then there is a link to "read more" that, if you click on it, takes you to what is evidently a blog post from which the above text was excerpted. Here is the rest of the post:
Men play an intrinsically different role in our lives than women do. [!!!!! AHHHHH BRAIN STARTING TO MELT] [Men do not play an intrinsically different role in the lives of children who are raised by two fathers, or whose single and partnered mothers do the work of two parents; traditionally, men's role is to disappear or dominate; to cheat on one's mother; to beat one's mother; and also to beat and incest the children; I'll inquire about this blatant omission of reality further later on] From an early age, we’re taught the idiosyncrasies that make men who they are [Often enough from heterosexist media. I wonder, Jackie, are you referencing the men who are abusive, or the men who are not?], and similarly, that make women equally as unique. [FFFUUUUUUU...] [We might note the phrasing "similarly ... equally as unique" is nothing if it isn't oxymoronic. First, it implies oppositional and hierarchical uniqueness, attributed not to individuals but to ALL women as distinguished from ALL men is a form of similarity; this would mean that socially speaking, all men are clones, including genetically if you think genes greatly inform personality and actions, as men like Jackie do; are we really supposed to believe that ALL men share the exact same ideosyncrasies--like car-adoring, warring, and snoring? Does this mean that each woman shares with every other woman those OTHER ideosyncrasies --being gentle, nurturing, irrational, athletically incompetent, and unaware of what a automobile's transmission is? Isn't this is racism, classism, and hetero/sexism full throttle? When men accuse women of making such grandly irrational statements just like Jackie's, the women are called misandrists; I conclude, therefore, using anti-feminist "logic" that Jackie is also a misandrist; because he has informed us that all men are alike, all men must be like him: misandrists. Right? Isn't that how "logic" works? Like math? Let's see if I get called a misandrist for noting what far too many men say. I don't say what ALL men say, because I do recognise that all men are not exactly alike; some of us are gay, not class privileged, Indigenous, Black, Brown, and Asian, intelligent, caring, warm, nurturing, athletically incompetent, unable to distinguish the motor of a Jeep from that of a Jaguar; men, collectively, are not the shockingly homogenous, homosocial bunch who organise as Fathers Rights activists] Baby boys get blue painted rooms and toy trucks after their first sonogram [well, not the fetuses who get prematurely punched out of the woman's belly when daddy finds out she's pregnant because he didn't wear a condom, and/or because he raped her; too often the babies and the new mom's get black-and- blue]; little girls will wear pink ruffles and decide to cut their Barbie’s hair themselves. [Really? You're really gonna go there, huh?] [Internationally, including among "First World" nations, even more fetuses won't come to term if they are determined that they'd be born into girlhood] Boys scrape their knees climbing trees and girls will discover early on that a slumber party with best friends beats the outdoors any day. [Well, many girls will discover that sleepovers in the tree houses they built is fun too--some girls, like some boys, do demonstrate an ability to enjoy more one thing; but globally most girls are very poor and don't have room in their materially impoverished homes for middle class activities like "sleep-overs"; most girls and their parents cannot afford Barbies and ruffles. Does this mean they aren't girls?!?! You won't hear anything about poor people from FR activists. They're all white, class-privileged, and "First World", and base their understandings of the world as if they're the only men on Earth] Men are categorized for their power and strength; women for their gentle, nurturing souls. [This is exactly the kind of ridiculous cultural myth I take great pains to debunk in my sociology classes, and here you are just flouting your ignorance. Are you also going to ruin students' science education by telling them how obvious it is that the Earth is flat?] [It's disgusting, isn't it Hermes? Unabashedly sexist people--women and men--categorise people this way; Jackie's and other het men's stereotypes of women do not fit well with other Fathers Rights activists' stereotypes of feminists, who are, after all, women who are all equally unique--according to the incredibly logical Jackie] The question, after the aforementioned and established [by denial and delusion?] cultural deliberation, is this: when did it become acceptable to remove men from the topic of abortion? [OK so now we're on this tired trope. Obviously, you're not talking about within the pro-life movement, which is so latently patriarchal that men's input gets a premium in abortion discussions. Just google men and abortion and you'll find a host of sites encouraging men to get involved, which is of course loose cover for unabashed pro-life propaganda. Make your woman go through with birth, claim your child as your own. It's a man's highest duty to procreate and raise a family. Rather, you're talking about your false straw man representation of the pro-choice movement, and feminism in general, as something that obliterates the male perspective and privileges freedom from external control over cultural theological ideas, and patriarchal structures that objectify women and define them as baby-factories. In fact, much of the pro-choice movement explicitly lobbies for men's inclusion in abortion-related discussions.] [I rather look forward to the day when white het class-privileged men shut up on the subject. Such a day has yet to arrive in human history since white manhood and male heterosexuality has existed. Jackie might want to open his mind to the fact that often, men will demand that their pregnant spouse get an abortion and if they have the money they'll pay for it to eliminate the possibility of having parental responsibilities if she gave birth, lived, and raised the child; in case these FR doods didn't know it, that's mostly how abortion happens--it's men's choice and only men's choice; these FR guys seem to want to pretend that isn't the case, because then they'd have to be angry at and blame MEN, and they're too dick-whipped to do that.]
The basic, secular pro-life [anti-woman, pro-man] argument is founded on bedrock truths concerning biology. [Or the dusty distortions of already thoroughly refuted "truths" purported by sociobiologist and evolutionary psychologists--who, surprise, are disproportionately class-privileged white het men.] Take DNA A, merge it with DNA B and you get DNA C. [Not true. You get various potential combinations, none of which amount to "C"; the combinations amount to various configurations of A plus B.] Simple enough [one might even say, "too simple"] (though, frustratingly, not for everyone [like those who are capable of complex thought]), and with that example you have life’s simplest equation: 50% + 50% = 100%. [See: 50 plus 50 equals 2x50, not "C"] Fifty percent of us [does he mean, for example, my legs, internal organs, and skin? None of those come from my parents--only genetic information that allows for some possible outcomes; how would being half one's mother and half one's father result in a child having a hair color that is unlike either parent? Uh-oh, we just got too complex for Jackie's simple understanding of genetics and human biology; and see what Hermes says next for more outing of Jackie's stupidity] come from our mothers, [so we are exactly our DNA? we are not our choices, our circumstances, our hopes and dreams, but rather we are information in a pattern of molecules?] who selflessly and fearlessly carry us to term and raise us to be solid contributors to society. [I'm fairly certain this isn't always the case. I can think of mothers who are not selfless or fearless, and I can think of grown-ups who never learned to be solid contributors to society.] [Women are hardly fearless when they are living with a domestic terrorist who pounds her in the hopes she and the fetus will die.]
And the other fifty percent of us, as dictated by simple [meaning: inaccurate and simplistic] biology, comes from our fathers, [who art in heaven--what about what we allegedly get from THAT Father? Wait. This dude isn't Christian??? Jackie may wish to explain to believers in the Virgin Birth that it never happened and that the reason the myth is even in the N.T. at all is because back then they didn't know there was any genetic material--or other significant contribution other than the shelter of the womb--passed on to the fetus; the math then was different: children were supposed to be 100% of the father and not at all of the mother] who contribute DNA [too often by force and without the woman or girl's enthusiastic consent], late night ice cream trips for their expecting counterparts [that's cutely trivializing, really], [I hate to bust Jackie's white, middle class, Western, delusional, culturally myopic bubble but most fathers--and mothers--don't live near ice cream shoppes and don't own cars] and the strength of their own character and spirit [read: that one character and onespiritbody-type that is Woman's; and that one character and spirit that is all of Man's or a male God's, according to Jackie above] that they hope will one day be reflected in our own selves. [I'd like to hear Jackie's explanation for what it is rapists and adult male incest perpetrators hope for--and pass along to their offspring] A whole half of our mothers [the left half or the right half] is within ourselves; no more, no less. [No truth. No accuracy.] Consequently, the same goes for our fathers. [Hmmm. This would mean that each and every one of us is basically half-man and half-woman: 50/50, right? Hold on... Not the last time I checked!]
And while we’re on the topic of math, it’s 100% impossible to conceive [of this nonsense] without men. [I wouldn't be so hasty here. There's been a lot of research in parthenogenesis lately: scientists have been able to implant the cell nucleus of a mouse egg inside another mouse egg, and get them to join to form a fertilized embryo - no sperm required! And they're doing similar things with macaque monkeys, too. But I wouldn't expect you to, you know, follow developments in science or anything.] [And Lesbians do it all the time! Non-Lesbian women too: Nadya Suleman didn't have sexual intercourse with a man in order to conceive; this is partly why she is so despised by het men; although her male doctor was present for portions of the fertilisation process, but I don't think that's what Jackie is trying to say] In some way, shape or form, men are involved [read: usually in control of, as through force and coercion] in 100% of conceptions worldwide throughout the history of human life, [as opposed to the history of plant life] no matter the race, religion or creed. [Is this building up to us all singing the National Anthem or waving an Amerikkkan flag?] It’s simple biology. [Whenever you say something is simple that's probably a good clue that you don't understand it.] [LOL. Good one, Hermes!]
How, then, is abortion strictly a “women’s issue”? [um, because that's how you've set up your straw man?] [Abortion is far from a woman's issue only when it is allowed to be a woman's issue at all; men beating up pregnant women to the point that the women or girls either miscarry, die, or have to have the fetus removed prematurely directly involves the participation of men. The mothers who want custody of children (being possessed, abused, and manipulated by bitter, domineering ex-husbands) are not praised to the heavens by Fathers Rights activists, if the disgusting things the F.R. attorneys and the ex-hubbies allege about them of is any indication.] How is the expulsion of men from a conception they take 50% biological responsibility for [I didn't realize they were expelled from conception... then how does conception happen? magic baby fairies flit around in your uterus?] [How do women cope with the fact that many 'biological fathers' are self-expelling, leaving women to decide what to do about the pregnancy all alone when those 100% irresponsible "fathers" learn that the women or girls are pregnant? So much for men's involvement; 50% responsibility goes down to zero percent pretty damned often; as it does when men are court-ordered to pay child support; funny how wealthy men don't want to cough up money when they don't possess the children] any less illogical [than what Jackie argues in this statement?] than the argument surrounding the age-old “my body, my choice” agenda? [actually, that's quite a new line of thinking that developed along with feminism over the past couple of generations. What is age-old is what it developed as a response to: the thousands-of-generations-old idea that women are property of men and have no rights to make choices about their own bodies. This is the fundamental idea of "patriarchy," which your organization advocates a return to.] [Many men seem quite comfortable with the 'my body, my choice' position as long as the body is a man's and choice is only his too]
The sad reality today is that many fathers who want to have a strong presence [a brutal presence, even] in the lives of their child are denied this fundamental right [forgetting, of course, that most men voluntarily forfeit this 'fundamental right'; it appears many men view it as their fundamental right to hit the road, Jack--or Jackie; has Jackie never heard the song "Papa Was a Rolling Stone"?], as the life of their child is snuffed out of existence without them even having the legal right to say otherwise. [No mention here of men who snuff out the lives of pregnant women] Regardless of whether or not the father had a say in his partner’s abortion, [this presumes the partner is a woman, right?] men do suffer the same damaging psychological effects after abortion that often women experience. [How can 'men' feel something that women feel?? This goes against his opening thesis that all men are one way, with the same characteristics and all women are another way. Geesh, next thing you know Jackie will start going on and on about how men get sympathy pains during labor] [Some men really don't deserve this right, see?] [<---See the link there that Hermes embedded.]
Being a father means getting to hold your brand new son or daughter [or intersex child], the newest person on the planet at the time of their birth [well, newest along with all the others born at the same time; what's with the romanticisation of having the newest human on Earth, anyway? Is the child less valuable if its the third newest? Talk about introducing one's child to the insults of ageism!] and imaging their future. [Yes, like the future that unfolds for girl babies who are incested for ten years in their childhood, until they are old enough and physically large enough to tell him to fuck off] It means scraped knees and tea parties, exorbitant texting bills in middle school, and driving lessons and boyfriends in high school. [How much you want to bet he's not talking about boyfriends and tea parties for our sons?] Picking out softball teams, colleges, and wedding dresses. [It appears we've just re-entered the white, middle-class het-only Twilight Zone] Most amazingly, it means getting to play a prominent role in this tiny person, this little ball of blankets ultimately will become. [Your grammar is falling apart at the seams! But interestingly, you've now switched from a pseudo-biological argument for men having control over a woman's body, to an argument derived from rapidly fluctuating cultural meanings of fatherhood, which is shaky ground. which is it going to be?] [Yes, Hermes. I think he meant to say "play a prominent role in the life of this tiny person"--at least I hope like hell he did, because the way he wrote it it's fucking creepy.]
The beautiful gift of fatherhood [that so many men keep unwrapped, taking it with them to their graves] and the inalienable rights [apparently they are alienable - otherwise what the hell are you complaining about?] [LOL] and attributes attached to the men fortunate enough to hold the title [including the men who refuse to hold the baby?] should be celebrated daily. [Oh, please. More patriarchal flag-waving and anthem singing. Barf] Similarly, a heightened sense of fatherhood [is this a nod to all the fathers out there who live most of their adulthoods while stoned?] and the necessity to celebrate the role fathers play in the lives of their children should be emphasized within the pro-life [read: patriarchal] movement. [Even the fathers who emotionally, psychologically, and physically scar and traumatise their children?]
It is no secret that many women who choose to abort their child do so because they feel as though their partners are unsupportive of their decision to embark on motherhood; [and, not infrequently, because the selfish prick refuses to support the new family in any way, shape, or form] it is also no secret that some men are less than supportive of welcoming a child and subsequent financial burdening into their lives. ["Less than welcoming" is code for him terroristically and self-servingly suing the mother for every cent she doesn't have.]
But what about the men who feel blessed to be a part of something so miraculous, something that could only change his life for the better? [I say have them track down all the dead-beat dads and also have them track down and beat the shit out of the rapers and batterers.]
All fathers should be celebrated for their role in the creation of a new child, and these fathers should be especially celebrated for their decision to welcome this gift into their lives for they serve as role models. [Except when these fellas serve as domineering, drug-addicted, alcoholic, two-timing, prostitute-procuring, physically and emotionally absent, physically, sexually, and emotionally abusive role models, I hope.]
This month, the staff of Students for Life of America [well, Jackie] urges you to do something special for your fathers who have all chosen to celebrate the gift you have been to them since your humble beginning [um, not all fathers have. many choose to escape from the constraints of family life]. Consider writing your father a thank you note. [Dead Daddy, thanks for fucking up my life by hitting Mommy and me with alcohol on your breath. And thanks for showing me what kind of awful man-qualities not to look for in friends and romantic partners] It’s simple and to the point, and with the whole world shifting to email and twitter, he might appreciate the extra effort. There are few better ways to tell someone how you feel than writing it down. [Yes, it was good to write it down there. The only problem is it'll need to be photocopied because I know so many women who were incested and raped by their fathers.] Men tend to be less emotional than women [good god, enough with the tired gender stereotypes, will you stop indoctrinating these kids with essentialist propaganda?!?], [we must suppose here, in his heterosexist mindset, that by "less emotional" Jackie means "vulnerable and open" not "emotional", because abusive, controlling patriarchal men demonstrate a great deal of emotion--lots of anger, moodiness, outbursts of rage, jealousy, and so on] but everyone appreciates being appreciated. [And not assaulted, dominated, or terrorised.] Find a funny card you know he’d appreciate, or devote your Facebook status to him for a day. Small, thoughtful efforts like these go a long way in shining a light on those who mean the most to us, and certainly do much to reflect a truly pro-life heart. [And, statistically, those who mean the most to us are women not because women are naturally, hormonally, or genetically more nurturing than nurturing men, but because so many men feel utterly entitled to be assholes.]
[This paragraph is by Hermes:] So there you have it. A stunningly obtuse tract defending patriarchal ideology under the guise of protecting cute and cuddly babies, and arguing for rolling back the age-old evilness of feminism (women have had rights over their own bodies, like, forEVER! and they're intrinsically treacherous!) and letting the poor, put-upon men have some for a change (men have, like, NEVER had power over women's bodies). Thanks Jackie, that sounds really great.Julian here: I want to conclude my own responses by stating that Fathers' Rights activists reveal and revel in their patriarchal politics by not confronting men who control the institutions and social, cultural, religous, and economic circumstances in which women miscarry fetuses and abort pregnancies, in which women die during childbirth, by which are coerced to be heterosexual, in which women are forced to have heterosex, in which women are dominated by men, and in which men are led to believe they have a right of access to women's bodies. Unless or until Fathers Rights activists challenge other men to stop raping women and to end rape, to stop incesting their daughters and to end incest, to stop terrorising women at home and in the world, they will have no credibility among anyone other than their own members.
 |
| image is from here |
Inuit Stillbirth Rate Triple that of Canada’s Mainstream Population
By ICTMN Staff May 13, 2011
RSS
The high stillbirth rate among Inuit people is cause for concern, though not entirely because of the numbers themselves, according to one health expert.
The rate—triple that of the general Canadian population—is troublesome because of what it symbolizes: a lack of aboriginal child health care overall, said Catherine Curry, senior program officer at the Inuit Tuttarvingat Centre, the branch of the National Aboriginal Health Organization that addresses Inuit health and wellness issues.
Nevertheless, the statistic itself is sobering, the medical journal The Lancet reported in April, according to Postmedia News: In 2009, 3.3 Canadian babies of every 1,000 were stillborn, but Inuit communities were found to have triple that rate. Curry, who has studied Inuit maternal health care in northern Canada, told the news service that poor access to prenatal health care may not only contribute to a higher stillbirth risk but also puts children in general at risk.
“Many Inuit babies are born alive and need to be healthier,” Curry told Postmedia News.
“Generally many public health factors and insufficient prenatal care impact infant-mortality rates. Prenatal care can mitigate a lot of those factors.”
The remoteness of many Inuit communities also plays a role (many do not have midwives on hand, and women must travel or see a series of practitioners), as do violence, poverty and substance abuse, she said.
The Lancet study was its Stillbirth’s Series, and 69 experts from 50-plus organizations in 18 countries contributed to a worldwide portrait of the unique tragedy. Globally 2.6 million third-trimester babies are stillborn, the Lancet said.
I've heard similar things from white folks in the U.S. But this guy is coming out with a book. Everything that follows was written by Hank Pellissier, except my comment below his post. You can link to his post and comment, if you think it's worth it, by clicking on the title below. Much of what he's written is so fucked up, it's a wonder anyone can come to these viewpoints. The appropriate conclusion is that one comes to viewpoints like this when one passes through some kinds of "education" with gross entitlements and privileges to be ignorant about the world while doing so--and since. This tells us a lot about how WHM supremacist the education systems in North America often are and why 'being educated' isn't at all the same thing as being intelligent, moral, good, or wise.
Hank Pellissier
Ban Baby-Making Unless Parents Are Licensed
by Hank Pellissier
Ethical Technology
Posted: Apr 20, 2011
For the sake of the children, let’s control human breeding. No one should be permitted to reproduce until they pass a battery of tests.
Does that proposal enrage you? Go ahead, hate me. Call me vile names like “Neo-Nazi-Elitist-Baby-Killing-Totalitarian-Sicko.” Or simply “Eugenicist.” I don’t care. I know I’m right.
It’s blatantly clear that 15-year-old intoxicated half-wits can easily spawn, but should they? Hell no. Let’s control human breeding, please. Let’s keep babies away from buffoons, and let’s test fetuses meticulously to guarantee healthy infants. No one should be permitted to reproduce unless and until they pass a battery of tests.
_________________[for the rest of his article, please go to the site linked to from the title]
JulianReal • http://radicalprofeminist.blogspot.com/ • May 2, 2011
Hank, that's a very classist, misogynist, and racist perspective. You should know only the most privileged people have the option to do such things. How, for example, would you recommend an immigrant woman called "illegal" by our racist government, get licensed? What makes you think women usually choose to get pregnant? What about girls impregnated by their father or their mom's boyfriend? What about women who are routinely raped by their boyfriend or husband?
You'll have to end incest and rape--and all of patriarchy, as well as racism, sexism, heterosexism, and classism, before such a position would be at all considerable and considerate of most women.
And, you do know you, a white man, is declaring yourself as Holder of The Truth in a nation that remains pro-genocide, yes? We whites are still committing this atrocity against Indigenous people across the land that was stolen--and many Indigenous nations' people are struggling in many ways to survive the atrocity. We whites allow our government to plant nuclear waste nearest to Indian reservations, don't we? And we whites have a history of forcibly sterilising poor women of color--especially Black, Brown, and Indigenous women and girls. And forcibly removing culture, religion, and language from Indigenous children. As well as taking children from their own communities. As well as white men trespassing on reservation land and raping Indigenous women and girls.
Your proposal also does nothing to substantively stop white wealthy het men from traversing the Earth to rape girls and women in systems of trafficking and sexual slavery.
I hope you know that the term "breeding" for child-bearing is one that was used by white men against Black people throughout U.S. history--and never, ever to describe the "breeding" of white wealthy men.
Do you see any of these very related issues as relevant to a discussion of "ethics"?
Julian
Hi Hank.
I'll reply in sections.
You wrote:
For example, I don't believe that just because I am a white man I am supposed to be silent and not have an opinion. I also don't believe that past historical atrocities - like African-American slavery and Native American genocide - are supposed to dictate policy forever, especially in rather unrelated fields.
I don't see whites' genocide against American Indians, which is current, as something that is unrelated. And I'm not suggesting you be silent. There are also more slaves now than in the past. So neither genocide nor slavery are matters of the past, and whites benefit to this day in all kinds of ways due to their on-going reality. I won't take up this thread detailing how that works. I recommend reading Tim Wise's work for more on this, though.
You wrote:
I can't buy into the "white shame" that you seem to want me to feel, for a variety of reasons.
I'm not at all suggesting you feel any guilt or shame. I'm asking you, I suppose, to be responsible for the structural location you inhabit. We are not all placed into this world equally, even if equality is a value for some of us. Surely the Royal Wedding proves this point. And also the fact that bin Laden can have a bullet blow his brains out and U.S. Americans can cheer, but if such a thing happened to Cheney or GWB, or Rumsfeld, we'd bomb the CRAP out of the countries we determined to be involved. Oh wait: we already are doing that.
You wrote:
I find your notion of "white guilt" and "white shame" very silly and non-productive.
Where do I use those terms? I don't. So why are you quoting them? And that's not what I'm speaking about at all. Please don't presume what I'm saying. If you're not sure, I welcome you to ask.
You wrote:
You regard my parent-licensing proposal as invalid, and you claim it is racist and classicist.
Yes, the proposal is. And I apologise for saying that you are racist and classist, if I did. I meant that the proposal was. I still find that to be the case.
You wrote:
I maintain, as I have throughout this thread, that my motivations are charitable,
I find most white people's charity to the less materially fortuned to be racist and classist as well.
You wrote:
I am interested in guaranteeing that children are born into this world in good health and that they live in family situations that promote their well-being.
Riches not only don't guarantee it, but rich folks tend not to even raise their own children: they have servants do it and send their kids away to boarding schools. This is addressed to the person who seems to think that having more money makes someone a better parent, automatically.
You wrote:
We are looking at situations from a different perspective -- I see children as the victims and I want to remedy this, perhaps you see Native Americans as the victims and you want to protect them.
Not at all. I see people as people. And political location as a meaningful factor in what people say and how they say it. For example, I find that rich folks tend to talk down to poor folks. And whites tend to talk down to people of color. And that middle aged people tend to talk down to children and to the elderly. Not each and every time, and not without plenty of exceptions. But these are patterns that correlate well to "what one has experienced" and if someone has never been treated as a non-person by whites because they are white, they likely don't know what it is like to be treated the way Black and Brown people are often treated by whites. I'm speaking about the real world, in reality. Anyone who isn't white will likely have plenty of stories to tell about not being treated as well as the average white person similarly economically located.
You wrote:
You have also resorted to calling me names, and that is unfair. You say I am racist and classicist,
I meant that the writing, what you say, participates in patterns of racist and classist writings by others. Sorry for not being clearer.
You wrote:
let's just talk about Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. I am interested in ending this horrible maiming of human beings before they are even born, and I am interested in doing it quickly.
Hank, you can't. I hope you truly understand that you can't do that. That's an aim well beyond your capabilities, or mine, or anyone else's.
What we "want to do" is not at all what we can do, necessarily. And I think it's important to soberly realise that.
You wrote:
Your attitude about Fetal Alcohol Syndrome seems to be that it is a Native American issue and I should not have any say in it? because I am just a white male perpetrator of genocide?
I said nothing of the kind. I never asked you not to speak. And I never called you a perpetrator of anything. My comment is up there. Please re-read it. What I wrote about was your political structural location in society as white person, as a man, and as someone with relative class (economic) privileges. And nowhere did I associate fetal alcohol syndrome with being Native American, and for you to do so is, in your writing, "racist" to me. Because it plays into a common negative stereotype about American Indians--that white folks write about and think they're being "charitable" to American Indian babies when doing so. I welcome you to engage with American Indian children and get their point of view, and not try and speak for them. Or for any children who you don't know personally. That's not asking you to be silent. It's asking you to speak responsibly about what you know--not from reading, but from life outside of reading. Are you implying that white babies don't suffer from F.A.S.? And every other color of babies? Rich, middle class, and poor babies too?
You wrote:
I very adamantly disagree and I am happy to represent the infants in this situation.
I'm saying that you don't represent them, Hank. Nor do I. In theory or in abstraction you might. But not in reality. You don't, unless you're an attorney or a social worker. You're speaking here, writing here--that's not "representing" them. I'm asking you to be honest with what you say and write.
You wrote:
I believe they have the right to be born healthy
So do I.
You wrote:
and I believe we all have a moral responsibility to help them.
Hank, I find this to be an issue of abstractionism. How does you having this discussion in cyberspace materially or spiritually benefit any children in the U.S., or any fetuses? Can you explain that to me please?
You wrote:
Do you think the threatened fetus, in a womb toxic with alcohol, if it had a vote, would side with its mother, or with me?
Assuming a level of distinguishing itself from its mother, which cannot happen before birth, my answer is: no doubt with its mother. The baby doesn't know you at all and would likely be frightened by you pretending to be someone who "represents" it.
You wrote:
I think discussion of ethnicity and even gender in regards to my proposal are just paralyzing distractions and that I've been subjected to very foolish name-calling and finger-pointing.
I'm addressing the content of your writing. I'm naming it a certain way. You get to disagree, but that doesn't mean I'm right and it doesn't mean I'm wrong either. We get to disagree about what you're saying above, and to me here. A person above noted that there are unowned biases in your work. I agree. I'm asking you to be more conscious of those and to be responsible with them.
You wrote:
I believe that the USA should be much more egalitarian - my recent article on Denmark exhibits this - but waiting for that to happen while babies are born unnecessarily damaged and children are severely abused - is cruelly negligent.
Hank, you haven't shown how writing about this makes any difference at all in the lives of real fetuses, babies, and children. Writing out ideas isn't the same thing as shifting societal patterns and systems of harm. We might call it a written proposal, or a statement of belief, or an argument for something. But that doesn't mean it is more than that.
You wrote:
I know who I am defending in this discussion - the future children.
I'm calling that statement dishonest. I don't think future children will likely ever know you or me, honestly. I doubt much that either of us has to say will impact their lives at all. So I hear you attributing to yourself as power I don't believe you (or I) have: to advocate, in material reality, the lives of children, unless you are raising them or being an uncle or teacher to them directly.
You wrote:
WHo or what are you defending? The right of Native American women to drink heavily when they're pregnant?
I wish you'd please stop putting really sexist-racist statements in my writing that aren't there. Is that a fair thing to ask of you? I'm not defending anyone at all. I'm only speaking for myself. I object to racist and sexist and classist speech. I find your writing in this post to be all of those things. Am I not entitled to come here and state that? You welcomed me to come here and post comments, so I did.
You wrote:
I oppose their right to do that. Is that what we're disagreeing on?
You don't oppose a racist-sexist stereotype; you promote and perpetuate it. How does that help anyone of any age?
I'll try and be clearer. I don't believe that people writing things down means they magically happen. I don't believe you have the power to do what you say your statements can do. I don't believe you are, in reality, advocating for any Native American children. I believe you think you are. But that's not the same thing. If you were working with poor women and children, assisting them in finding more social services slashed because the rich don't want to be taxed 3% more, I'd argue you are, in fact, helping those very few women and children. Is that your line of work? If you were a doctor attending to babies, white ones, or not, with F.A.S., I'd argue you are helping those few children. Is that your line of work?
I hope I'm being clear. I'm not insulting you, I hope. I mean to be communicating truthful statements. I'd like racism to go away, and sexism too, and classism, and for all children to be loved and cared for in family systems if that's the social model, or in community, raised more communally. But me writing that doesn't do much of anything to make it socially real. It helps no children in the present. And future children aren't here. And I don't believe you or anyone else speaks for them. When they are born and grow up, if they grow up, if they can speak, they will speak for themselves.
 |
| image is from here |
March 28, 2011 |
The following piece was adapted from Keith Balmer's blog.
When Wisconsin governor Scott Walker rammed his union-busting bill through the legislature -- and then published it despite a judge's stay -- he seemed a lock for the honor of the Worst Governor in the United States. But then again, there are a lot of truly terrible executives in various state-houses these days.
So let's look at some of the others who might also vie for the title of America's Worst Governor -- to nobody's surprise, they're all Republicans!
Let's get started...
The Governor: Rick Scott (Florida)
Rick Scott was once the CEO of Columbia/HCA, a massive hospital chain. The federal government fined Columbia/HCA for Medicaid and Medicare fraud. That fine, a jaw-dropping 1.7 billion dollars, is the largest in American history.
But instead of going to jail, Rick Scott became the governor of Florida.
A guy scams the government and now is an elected official of the government. And in the three months since he's been in office he's doing his best to destroy the fourth largest state.
1. He rejected $2.4 billion in stimulus money to build a high-speed rail line from Tampa to Orlando.
2. He wants to slash $4 billion in spending while cutting taxes for millionaires.
3. He tried to use state funds to build golf courses in state parks while cutting education by 10 percent and corporate taxes by 5 percent.
4. He's requiring 600,000 government workers (including police officers, teachers, firefighters, judges, and retirees) to contribute 5 percent to their retirement.
5. He just lopped off $2,300 a year in teacher salary to give massive tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy.
He's also not a fan of black people. He proposed eliminating state support for two HBCUs (Historically black colleges and universities). He's shutting down a state agency that assists minority businesses, and he refuses to appoint an African American to any significant position in his administration.
Where's Kanye West when you need him? Someone needs to go on TV and awkwardly declare: "Rick Scott doesn't care about black people!"
Stephen King, a part-time resident of Florida, attended a rally to protest Scott's state budget cuts. Allow me to describe Rick Scott perfectly, using King's famous books as inspiration:
Rick Scott is a bigger clown than the clown from It. This Firestarter wants to turn Florida into his own personal Creepshow, a Dead Zone where his economic policies will have residents screaming "REDRUM!" Sorry Florida, but it looks like you guys are in for a whole lot of Misery.
The Governor: Paul LePage (Maine)
In January, LePage skipped Martin Luther King Jr. celebrations in Bangor and Portland. The NAACP criticized him. LePage responded by telling the NAACP, "kiss my butt."
When I first heard about this I was shocked! I turned to my friend and said, "Maine has black people?"
The irony of LePage's comment is that he has an adopted son who is black. Isn't it weird that he would diss the NAACP when it's because of them that he can even adopt a black kid?
But that's nothing compared to the controversy LePage received for his support of BPA, a common chemical additive used in some hardened plastics, such as reusable food and beverage containers. An estimated 6 million pounds of BPA are produced annually, although rising public concern about the potential health affects have prompted some manufacturers to drop the chemical. BPA has been linked to a host of health issues including reproductive problems, learning disabilities, cancer, and obesity.
Politicians in Maine are trying to ban it. But the governor is adamant in his support for BPA. If you thought his comment about the NAACP was tasteless, check out what he had to say about BPA:
"Quite frankly, the science that I'm looking at says there is no problem. The only thing I've heard is that if you take a plastic bottle and put it in the microwave and heat it up, it gives off a chemical similar to estrogen. So the worst case is some women may have little beards."
Do you really trust the science of this man?
What else is the governor up to? Well, he wants to bust unions, cut taxes while slashing public services, gut employee benefits and pensions, and raise the retirement age from 62 to 65.
And who will benefit from all of this madness?
Rich people, silly rabbit!
The 1 percent of households in Maine earning over $300,000 dollars will see their income taxes go down by $2,700. LePage is taking money from the middle class, so that the rich people in Maine can save $2,700.
Stephen King, a part-time resident of Maine, has spoken out against LePage (how many states does that guy live in?).
According to a recent survey, LePage's approval rating has dipped to 44 percent. Something tells me that when he's running for reelection in 2014, the people of Maine will turn Le Page and tell him to kisstheirbutt!
The Governor: Tom Corbett (Pennsylvania)
In order to deal with the state's $4 billion deficit, the residents of Pennsylvania want Corbett to raise taxes on the natural gas industry. Plus, they don't want him to cut funding for education.
And because Corbett is a man of the people, he plans to do the exact opposite.
WHUCK? (That's shorthand for "What the fuck?")
Corbett released his budget last week and it's a doozy. He's proposing massive cuts to education. He wants to cut state aid to public schools by a jaw-dropping $1 billion. He wants to freeze teacher salaries. And he wants to cut $625 million from higher education. That amounts to a 50 percent cut for the 14 state-owned universities and the four state-related schools (Penn State, Temple, Pitt and Lincoln University).
If this budget passes can you imagine all the services public schools will have to cut?
And I feel bad for the college students at these state schools. A 50 percent cut in state aid is horrifying. Those schools must find a way to replace all of that money. And you know what that means? It means the cost of tuition is going, in the words of Ralph Kramden, "TO THE MOON, ALICE!"
And if that wasn't bad enough, Governor Corbett has given a coal company CEO unilateral authority to overturn laws and pass out drilling permits as he sees fit.
WHUCK?
Here's something I bet you didn't know. Because of natural gas drilling, there are certain parts of the state where the water is hazardous because it's flammable. There are videos on Youtube where people set fire to the water as it comes out of their faucets. Drinking that water is dangerous. Number one, it might kill you. Number two, when you go to the bathroom to pee, there's a good chance you might burn your house down!
You know what, Governor Corbett? This is an excellent idea. Let's make this a national movement. Let's appoint people to positions they have no business being within 100 feet of.
For example, let's make high school dropout Bristol Palin the head of the Department of Education! Or how about Amy Winehouse as head of the Department of Health and Human Services? Or what if we made Charlie Sheen the Drug Czar?
Winning!
Last week Governor Corbett said, "Let's make Pennsylvania the Texas of the natural gas boom!"
Yes, governor, let's do that. Let's give some coal executive power to pollute the state's water supply as he sees fit.
And since you want Pennsylvania to be Texas, let's cut billions of dollars in education so that the public schools disintegrate into barren wastelands. You know, just like in Texas!
YEE HAW!!!
Speaking of the Lone Star State . . .
The Governor: Rick Perry (Texas)
Everything is bigger in Texas: The football stadiums, the waistlines, the mosquitoes, the tornadoes, the number of teenage pregnancies, the number of high school dropouts....
Texas has a $27 billion shortfall. In order to balance the books, Governor Perry wants to slash education by $10 billion! And he wants to fire 100,000 teachers.
Perry has a few billion at his disposal to help when times get hard (like right now). It's called the Rainy Day Fund. He can dip into this money to alleviate the suffering from his proposed cuts. He initially refused to touch it. But after thousands of teachers and state workers protested in Austin, Perry started singing a different tune. Just the other day he announced that he would dip into the fund.
Now, for those of you who don't know, Perry hates when the big bad government intrudes on people's personal lives. So why is he trying to force women seeking abortions to undergo state-mandated sonograms? He wants to force doctors to show an ultrasound image of the fetus to these emotionally fragile women. Then he wants to force them to listen to the fetal heartbeat. And then he wants them to sit and listen to a lecture on fetal development.
But don't worry, ladies. You can avoid Perry's version of compassionate conservatism by simply choosing to not get pregnant!
Under Perry, Texas leads the nation in abstinence-only education. And, unsurprisingly, Texas has one of the nation's highest teen pregnancy rates. Because when you tell teenagers not to have sex, they decide to wait...until you leave them home alone for the weekend!
In other Perry-related news, he recently announced that states should have the option to opt out of Social Security.
I wish that all of these government-hating conservatives would opt out of using our roads and our police and our fire department. It would be nice if Perry opted out of using the government to watch over his border with Mexico.
And since Perry has talked of seceding from the Union, it would be nice if Texas just opted out of the United States.
The Governor: Jan Brewer (Arizona)
Arizona has no lieutenant governor. So when former governor Janet Napolitano joined the Obama administration in 2009, Jan Brewer, the Secretary of State, became the new governor.
Here's one thing you need to know about Governor Brewer: She's racist.
Ok, I take that back. That was too strong. Jan Brewer is definitely NOT racist.
She just doesn't care for Mexican people.
Though Hispanics own businesses, hold public office, and help support the local economy, the perception that immigrants do nothing but drain community resources, take away jobs, and increase violence is a reliable talking point for southwestern conservatives like Brewer.
In April of last year she passed an incredibly racist piece of legislation known as SB 1070. This is what it says in a nutshell:
WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON
The "illegal aliens" in Arizona are overwhelmingly Mexican and this bill legalizes racial profiling against Latinos. President Obama called the law "misguided".
I call it "racist".
But Governor Cruella De Vil was just getting started. During last year's gubernatorial campaign, she incredulously said that Mexican immigrants were beheading Americans in the Arizona desert. This was a lie. And when reporters cornered her after last year's horrendous debate (she was speechless for 32 excruciating seconds), she first ignored their questions, then she fled.
Here's some other fun facts about Cruella. She went to community college and received a radiological technologist certification (?????). Her top two lobbyists are from the private prison industry (the more Latinos you put in jail, the more money that industry makes). And her favorite book is "Arizona Governor For Dummies."
I made that last one up.
I just Googled "incompetent" and a photo of Jan Brewer came up!
There is no economic growth policy in Arizona, no education program, and no health-care solutions, just Hispanic-Hate 24/7. Cruella recently signed tax cuts that'll cost the state $538 million by 2018. She claims she has created jobs, yet the state has lost thousands of jobs under her term. She rails against the federal health-care program but will gladly take every federal penny tossed her way.
Cruella is taking a lot of heat, and rightfully so, for refusing to fund organ transplants.In October 2010, Governor Brewer cut funding for Arizona's transplant program, creating America's first real death panel, and putting many people's health and survival in grave danger. Without this assistance, patients in need won't be able to pay for their expensive medical bills associated with a transplant. Two people have already died since Brewer decided to cut this program's funding.
Governor Brewer's opinion on the issue is completely unfounded. How can it be wasteful to provide care to someone whose life depends on it? There are 98 patients in need of an organ transplant. And Cruella's advice to these 98 people is to drop dead!
The Governor: John Kasich (Ohio)
Before Kasich was elected governor, he made bank at Lehman Brothers. Now I don't know about you, but I think it's crazy to vote a guy into office who comes from Wall Street.
Kasich bashed unions during last year's election. Then he demanded unions take out full-page newspaper ads to apologize tohim. He's turned down federal money to build a rail line connecting Cincinnati, Columbus and Cleveland. He doesn't like to spend money because he's fiscally conservative, unless he's spending it on his cronies. He has bumped the salaries for those in the top positions of his administration ($20,000 to $50,000 higher than his incumbent). He was chastised by police officers in the state after he publicly referred to an officer who pulled him over as "an idiot."
And he's the first governor not to appoint an African American to a significant state cabinet post since 1962. When an African American member of the state legislature confronted him with this fact, he responded with "we don't need your people!"
For your information, governor, it's not "your people", it's "you people." Didn't you learn anything from Ross Perot?
And if you still think John Kasich is not a huge jerk, then let me explain Ohio Senate Bill 5, Kasich's union-busting piece of legislation.
The Republican-backed measure that would restrict the collective bargaining rights of 350,000 teachers, firefighters, police officers and other public employees squeaked through the state Senate on a 17-16 vote.
Ohio Senate Bill 5 would ban strikes by public workers and establish penalties for those who participate in walkouts. Unionized workers could negotiate wages, hours and certain work conditions but not health care, sick time or pension benefits. The measure would do away with automatic pay raises and base future wage increases on merit.
The legislation would also set up a new process to settle worker disputes, giving elected officials the final say in contract disagreements. Binding arbitration, which police officers and firefighters use to resolve contract disputes as an alternative to strikes, would be eliminated.
According to a January Quinnipiac poll, voters in Ohio oppose such a bill 51-34 percent (15 percent don't know/no opinion). Only 50 percent of Republican-identified voters supported it. Fully 71 percent of Democrat-identified voters opposed it.
Did you know Kasich has no desire to run for a second term? If this bill passes (it arrives on his desk next month), he accomplishes his goal of destroying the public sector unions in Ohio. And this will satisfy his masters: The Koch brothers and Rupert Murdoch (they supported his campaign for governor).
In just three months Kasich's approval rating has dropped to a LeBron James-like 35 percent. There is some serious buyer's remorse going on. A whopping 55 percent of Ohioans say they would now vote for Kasich's opponent (ex-Governor Ted Strickland).
In other words, the people of Ohio can't wait for John Kasich "to take his talents" elsewhere!
The Governor: Rick Snyder (Michigan)
Republicans in Michigan have come up with a revolutionary solution to the state's growing budget crisis: claim the right to auction off cities, counties, school districts, and water systems.
That's right. I saidauction offcities, counties, and school districts. Michigan is for sale, ladies and gentlemen! You guys better get in while the getting is good. I just checked Groupon and saw that Governor Snyder has a special sale going on. If you buy Ann Arbor at full price, you can get Kalamazoo for half off!
And I hear you can buy Detroit off the clearance rack!
This astonishing new bill pushed by Snyder gives the governor, or a company hired by the governor, the power to declare municipal entities insolvent. During a fiscal emergency, the governor would then be empowered to appoint an emergency manager to oversee all financial matters. That individual would have the power to 1) cancel any and all contracts: including collective bargaining rights for unions; 2) dis-incorporate whole cities; and 3) dismiss lawfully elected officials.
Corporations now have the right to take over cities and counties. Hmm, that's funny. I could have sworn that America was a democracy. Guess not.
But wait. It gets better. Governor Snyder also wants to tax the pensions of seniors as ordinary income. Last week 1,500 senior citizens protested in Lansing. The Web site Crooks and Liars sums it up quite nicely:
"The pension provision is part of the larger effort on the part of Michigan Republicans and Governor Snyder to cut corporate income taxes by 81% by increasing taxes on the poor, elderly and middle class by 36%."
The most reliable Republican voters are seniors and Snyder's support among them has eroded. They put Snyder in power and he has thanked them by taxing their pensions so that corporations could get tax cuts.
You see, boys and girls. This is why it's pretty fucking stupid to vote against your own economic interests.
The Governor: Scott Walker (Wisconsin)
In a stunning turn of events, Governor Walker and his Senate Republicans split their hotly contested bill in two, allowing them to pass the provisions over which 14 Senate Democrats left the state. This allowed Walker to strip the public workers of their collective bargaining rights. He said for three weeks that this bill was about balancing the state's budget. But he removed all financing from the bill which allowed him to pass it, thus proving Scott Walker to be a liar.
This was not about financing, it was about busting unions and sticking it to the middle class.
The Saturday after this controversial bill passed, an estimated 100,000 protesters showed up in Madison, along with 50 tractors and one donkey who wore a sign that said, "Scott Walker is a bigger ass than me!"
OK. That donkey didn't actually wear that sign. I only wished it did!
If I had to describe Scott Walker in one word it would be "motherfucker."
Let me give you a couple of scenarios that accurately explains how teachers and their unions became scapegoats for the Wisconsin budget crisis (and for the budget crisis in states around the country).
Scenario #1: Citigroup, ahem, pardon me, I mean "Shittygroup" borrows money from the Federal Reserve at zero percent interest. Shittygroup lends to people who they know cannot pay them back. Shittygroup repackages these toxic loans as Triple-A assets. Shittygroup sells the loans to state public employee pension plans. Shittygroup gets rich and pays their management billions of dollars in bonuses. Then the toxic assets completely collapse and nearly destroys the world economy. State public employees lose billions of dollars in pension funds. Republicans blame the unions for the pension fund losses. To compensate, the states cut public employee salaries, benefits, and union rights. Meanwhile, back on Wall Street, Shittygroup gets a 50 billion dollar TARP bailout, and again pays their management billions in bonuses.
Scenario #2: Republicans need to pull the wool over the eyes of their loyal, but factually challenged voters. So, they have to divide and conquer. They have to make workers from the private sector hate the workers from the public sector.
First, we all know the difference between private sector workers and public sector workers. Private sector workers have the chance to make more money. But they could be fired at any time. There's no health care, no pensions and no unions in the private sector. The public workers (i.e. teachers, firefighters, police officers) choose their line of work in part because of job security and benefits. Over the last 30 years, workers in the private sector have not received a pay increase. Meanwhile, the pay of the public sector jobs are tied into the cost of living. Republicans don't mention the fact that it is their policies that have caused private sector wages to flatline. But they do mention how fat-cat teachers are living high off the hog. They're saying to their voters, "Look at these people! Your tax dollars are paying their salaries and their benefits, AND THEY'RE MAKING MORE THAN YOU! THIS IS NOT RIGHT! YOU SHOULD BE ANGRY!"
The true villains in this sorry saga are the monsters on Wall Street. Not the teachers. If private sector workers wanna be mad at something, maybe they should be mad at how much the top CEOs get paid. In 1980, the top CEOs earned 42 times as much as the average worker. In 2011, they earn 551 times as much as the average worker.
In an interview with Fox "News", Wisconsin State Senate GOP Leader,"Eff" Scott Fitzgerald, admitted that Walker's plan was to bust unions and weaken Obama in 2012.
Doing away with collective bargaining destroys unions. During last year's elections, seven out of the top 10 outside spending groups were all right wing. The other three were unions (the public employee unions, the SEIU, and the teachers' union). Without unions, all the big money donors would be right-wing.
This is what Republicans want. They want single-party rule. They want to be the only ones in charge so that they can turn America into a banana republic.
A banana republic (i.e. Nicaragua, Venezuela) is a country ruled by a small amount of wealthy people (the oligarchs and the plutocrats). It is a country of obedient workers, servants and peasants. It is a country where working people don't have a say in politics. It is the end result of trickle-down economics and it's the opposite of democracy.
Conservatives subscribe to this idea. They believe democracy is "mob rule." They believe the noble elite (i.e. rich white dudes) should run this country. Because of their wealth, conservatives believe the noble elite are people chosen by God. They don't want the working people to vote. That's why they went after ACORN, whose only crime was that it was an organization that registered poor people to vote. That's why Republican governors are trying to change laws to make it harder for college students, minorities and poor people to vote.
When Scott Walker told the fake David Koch that "this is our moment," this is what he was talking about. The very future of democracy is at stake.
Keith Balmer is the Dark Prince of Satire -- read more of his stuff here.
