His answer was that he simply hired the best writers, whether that led to any sort of fair representation from women or non-whites. What he didn’t realize, of course, was that his definition of ”best” probably excluded, intentionally or not, all but white males.

He added that he didn’t want to sit around and count quotas because he felt that was condescending. But it’s not just about parity; making sure his organization was more representative was about realizing there are varied points of view that his history as a white male might prevent him from immediately understanding. When you’re talking about writers good enough to get an assignment from Harper’s, there isn’t just one best. After a certain level of quality, distinctions from one writer to another become a matter of taste, and this particular editor was showing his bias toward white males. Pulling in other perspectives would enrich Harper’s voice.

[...] I’m not going to say that [The Hurt Locker's different emphases] was due to Bigelow’s special woman-sense or anything, because we don’t know why she was able to make it so good. That’s kind of the point. The excellence of the movie speaks to Dargis’s point and the problem with Harper’s at once. If we leave out half the population from movie-making, we’re leaving out half the perspectives that might be able to bring something new to the table. The major studios would be better off if they brought it, because I’d love to see more movies like The Hurt Locker.

The last point in particular makes a lot of sense to me: some people would assume that, well, when it comes to imagining new things and taking things from new perspectives, white men can do it too — that white men are capable of providing any perspective or creative direction that humanity could possibly provide — and therefore there is no need to necessarily seek out a diverse creative class, because there is nothing a Muslimah or gay Filipino could bring that a white male couldn’t, and it’s an insult to white men to imply that they do not hold the entire world in their mind’s hands.

But they don’t, because no human being is capable of tapping into the entire universe of perspectives available. We all see the world through unique, specialized lenses that were formed and shaped by our experiences as the person we are. The place we grew up in, the family that raised us, the way the world treated us, the distinct qualities of the culture we are part of, the choices we make as adults as far as the direction of our lives, our careers, our relationships, our hobbies and passions. All of these things change the shape of our particular lens in their own unique way, and we all have a unique combination of these things which forms our own unique perspective of the world.

But those lenses have limits, they necessarily have limits, and we do not always even know what those limits are. Those factors we share with others will create a lens shape quite similar to their own, and when we are surrounded by like people we might often begin to believe that our shared lens is not a matter of our shared experience, but rather a matter of universality.

This is what leads us to believe that there is nothing the white male cannot achieve, cannot bring to the creative table: his experience is shared by so many, and especially shared by so many in power, that he, and we, might begin to believe that it is not a particularly-shaped lens anymore, but rather no lens at all.  And when we believe that he has no lens at all, what benefit could there be to paying attention and inviting participation from people who do have differently-shaped lenses? No creative benefit, certainly, because there is no difference between what those different perspectives see and what the white male could see if he felt like trying. Because he can see all.

And so we wind up where we are: it is an insult to creativity itself to suggest that it is worthwhile to drink in a diversity of perspective, and it becomes not a matter of improving the depth and quality of creative offerings, but rather a matter of personal benefit to the creators.

And we can see where a white male might prickle when confronted with a person who appears to be suggesting that he does not deserve to sit on his side of the conference table, that someone else who can do no more than he could do has some greater worthiness of sitting where he does based on factors outside hir creative potential, and that he should actually willingly give up his seat to make room for hir. It becomes a personal affront, rather than a pressure to improve the greater craft. And, in fact, might become an affront to the quality and depth of his craft, to specifically invite participation from people who bring with them one perspective, but only one — while he brings all.

So he will invite only those different people whom he favors for personal benefit. And he will continue to scoff at the suggestion that diversity is wealth.

How it might be changed? I don’t know. But one place to start is to make everyone aware that they can only see the world through their own personal lens, and that their lens has borders, limits, boundaries. That no one can approach the world without a lens, and that every lens is malleable, not set, not infinite, but formed in the first place by one’s personal experiences.

It’s going to take some time.

From the O-R: K***** Y****, 13, and his sisters K****, 9, and K********, 4, tend to their patch of tomatoes this afternoon at (the garden)… K***** also is a garden guardian who waters all of the plants on a regular basis.

Look familiar? My thoughts are conflicted in that post, about the real root (so to speak) of our modern issues with connection to our earth, but make no mistake: this garden is an unequivocal positive for the people who use it, and it makes me inordinately happy that it is here.

There are two things going on here:

* Professor Gates, who has a cane so that he can move independently, could probably have made it down the stairs on his own. That’s not to say without pain or difficulty — but he wasn’t helpless. The reaction to this photo presupposes that the crippled man must be completely unable to help his own damn self, and that it is noble when the able-bodied officer presumes to “help” him. Do you see what this does? It removes Prof. Gates as an agent; it makes him, instead, an agency-less object, existing for the purpose of the able-bodied man: this time, as a signifier of character (taking on that noble burden).

* Speaking of noble burdens: the race of the men involved cannot be ignored. Sgt. Crowley is a white man helping a crippled man. In the right wing’s reading of this photo, Sgt. Crowley becomes a symbol of whiteness: an example of the way in which white men are Good, in which Good is defined as the way white men do things. Think boot straps: this fantastical myth is all about the inherent goodness of the white man, who does things the right way, in contrast with the minorities, who are too lazy, selfish, etc. to bother. Sgt. Crowley presuming to help Prof. Gates stands in contrast with President Obama, who is walking ahead, minding his own business. This shouldn’t be an issue, but it is seen directly in front of the white man taking on the noble burden, and thus becomes an indictment on the character of the shiftless, self-absorbed black man.

Who was it for?

Of course it was reported as a sort of reconciliation: a way to help Prof. Gates and Sgt. Crowley make up. But that wasn’t what it was.

To sum: Prof. Gates arrived home after a long and tiring flight, and couldn’t get in his house. Someone called the police, thinking that a stranger was breaking into his home. Police arrive when Prof. Gates was already in his home and calling a locksmith. Prof. Gates shows ID to Sgt. Crowley proving this is his home, may have been “belligerent” in doing so. Sgt. Crowley responds by luring him to his front porch, where he is handcuffed and arrested for disorderly conduct. Outrage ensues; charges are dropped. (Police insist the original caller reported that black men were breaking in; recordings prove that she said nothing about race at all.)

Journalist asks Obama about this during a health care press conference. Obama says a few predictable, innocuous things, then says that it is obvious that the police “acted stupidly” in arresting Prof. Gates in his own home for no crime committed, then makes a simple comment about the inarguable history of racial profiling in this country.

Sgt. Crowley objects loudly, saying the President is “way off base.” Sgt. Crowley is obviously very upset, and the police force is standing in solidarity with him. The country is beginning to criticize Obama for admitting the troublesome racial aspects of the story; the conventional wisdom is becoming that Obama bit off more than he could chew in “bringing race into this” — and white America will make sure that he is taken down a notch for it.

So Obama invites the two men to the White House for a beer. The country reacts with mild derision — but the attacks begin to fade. The issue is neutralized.

See what’s going on here? White man does something unfair to black man. Black man protests that this was unfair. White man’s sensibilities are offended at the accusation that he could ever be An Unfair-ist, makes this into an argument about whether or not he is a Good Man (being unfair would necessitate that he is a Bad Man). All his friends know that he is, in fact, a Good Man, and they stand up to say as much. Black man looks around, realizes that the numbers are not on his side. That everyone has ignored the unfair way he was treated, and his family and friends have been treated throughout history. That there is unrest among them, and he may face very real consequences if he presses the issue any further.

So the black man backs down. Makes conciliatory noises. To soothe the white man’s feelings. So that the white man won’t cause him any more trouble.

What was this beer summit about? Did Obama really think he was going to solve the issue of racial profiling and police officers behaving unethically by inviting two men out for a beer? Of course he didn’t. That wasn’t the purpose.

The purpose was to get the offended white man (and his white friends) to shut up and stop causing the black men trouble.

And I don’t blame him.

Quick, think of a disease or condition that affects only men and is considered by a large portion of the population to be fake, created by the pharmaceutical industry, or psychosomatic.  *Sound of crickets.*

An excellent look at the gendered construction of medical conditions at the Women’s Sports Blog.

Most of the language about credulous patients being duped by Big Pharma is directed at women and conditions they suffer from disproportionately.  Women are, after all, emotional and have the ability to create amazing physical symptoms solely from their minds.  At the same time, women’s bodies are considered to be in a constant state of abnormality relative to men’s bodies.  The word ‘hysteria’ is etymologically related to the Latin word for uterus, which was long considered to be the site of women’s mental health problems, and hence its removal is called a hysterectomy [...]

‘Just get out and exercise’ or ‘just change your diet’ is fairly lousy advice for anyone who hasn’t been able to get out of bed. But as a society we still maintain the illusion that changes in hormones, brain chemistry, or the like are failures of self-control or willpower.

She also discusses the disproportionate burden laid on mothers of disabled children. Read the whole thing.

Around the corner, about a quarter mile down the street, there is a small plot of land across from the rows of public housing, next to the community center. It was just untended grass until several months ago, in the springtime, when small squares were outlined with wooden planks, and the ground inside filled with soil. Then the shed was built, and the fence was put up.

Welcome to the neighborhood garden.

Community gardens are a great way to make use of space — to grow your own vegetables, herbs and so forth — to feed your family, save some money — and to develop a connection with the lad you live on — to have a hand in creation, nature, sustenance.

I was across from the fields, growing up, but in a different way. Most of my elementary classmates were children of undocumented field workers. The food that makes it onto your plate by way of your local supermarket has a good chance of being tended and harvested by these families.

They were not picking grapes and lemons and walnuts for pleasure, for self-realization. They were not feeding their families with this food. Their work was for the rest of the world.

They were connected with the earth, for sure. But it was not quite the same connection as that developed by participants in community gardens.

Many of these gardens serve underprivileged, disadvantaged communities — as this one — who are struggling to keep their families well fed and provided for. But it strikes me every time I sit to think about it: these two different ways of relating to nature are both borne of hardship, of poverty. They are connections forged by the reality of subsistence. They operate in different ways, with different results, but they grow from the same root.

I smile whenever I pass this garden. It is thriving, providing nutrition for poor families and a bright site of beauty in the middle of a run-down area.

But I wonder whether we could ever come up with a more holistic way of dealing with these issues. One which does not leave some families chained to the earth in the reality of capitalistic agriculture, and others disconnected from it in the reality of modernity and urbanism.

An investigation by The Chicago Reporter found that Illinois is arguably the worst state in the nation for Black senior citizens seeking quality nursing home care. There is just one home in Illinois rated “excellent” by the federal government when more than 50 percent of the home’s residents are Black. In Illinois, these facilities get the worst federal ratings and on average have more violations than facilities where a majority of residents are white. And in Chicago, on average, these homes have more medical malpractice and personal injury lawsuits. People in white homes got better care than those in Black homes, even if both were poor.

The Reporter also found that the staff at Illinois’ black nursing homes spent less time daily with residents than staff at facilities where a majority of the residents are white. Of that time, Black residents got a smaller percentage of time with more-skilled registered nurses than facilities where the residents were white [...]

The Reporter analyzed the records of 15,724 nursing homes listed in the federal Nursing Home Compare ranking database to determine if disparities existed in the quality of care. The overall rating is based on a combination of health inspection results, staffing levels and how well each home performs on 10 important aspects of care, like how well residents maintain their ability to dress themselves and eat. The database includes homes that get some of their money from Medicaid or Medicare, more than 95 percent of all nursing homes.

The Reporter found that in Chicago, the worst rating—a one on a five-point scale—was given to 57 percent of Black nursing homes, compared with 11 percent of white nursing homes.

Excellent ratings were given to no black homes in Chicago and 29 percent of all homes with majority-white residents. White seniors had qualitatively better nursing home options than Black seniors—in some cases, even when facilities had the same owner [...]

The Reporter analyzed the ratings for Chicago homes where more than 75 percent of residents’ care was paid for by Medicaid. A quarter of white homes received an excellent rating, compared with none of the black homes. More than half of the Black homes received the worst rating, while 8 percent of white homes earned the same score [...]

“That’s blatant racism,” [state Rep. LaShawn Ford] said. “A lot of the times the owners of these nursing homes treat them [just] as a business. It has to be more of a mission than a business.”

It should be surprising, but it’s not. In just about any way you can identify, it appears that black people are receiving worse care than white people. We can talk about the causes — the value society has placed on particular qualities in a person, the significantly worse performance of for-profit homes — in this case, it even appears that the systemic effect of poverty (which black people suffer under disproportionately) made no difference; poor black people still received worse care than poor white people.

We can talk about support for independent living for people with disabilities, but that is a point where poverty — especially poverty extending deep into a person’s family, rather than individual poverty — would come into play and negatively affect people of color disproportionately.

Research has also shown that black patients receive worse medical care than white patients (this article focuses on diabetes care in particular; I am fairly sure I have seen research that demonstrated similar disparities in hospital care).

This is white privilege: even when you are aging and/or disabled, with all the trouble society gives you, your racial background is still giving you a hand up over those who do not share your privilege.

Thanks to Anna for the link.

(Cross-posted at Feministe.)

Why it’s important to make a concerted effort to promote historically-un(der)represented classes. You can’t flick a switch and have equality instantly turn on. Even if discrimination ceased to exist instantly, it would still take time to catch up — today’s chemistry-minded three-year-old girls aren’t going to reach the upper echelons of the field for at least another few decades yet. Of course, prejudice doesn’t instantly disappear simply because the law forbids certain manifestations of it in certain settings. So we reach a point where we’re looking to fill President Obama’s cabinet, but the levels from which such people would be pulled are still disproportionately dominant-class folk. This is where it does become worthwhile to pick Ms. Smith over Mr. Doe, even when they are very similarly qualified, simply for the fact that Ms. Smith is a woman.

What the bloggy left don’t understand about Obama’s approach to politics. It’s something I’ve always admired about his judgment. He will make a good-faith effort to work with his opposition to get done what needs done. But if that opposition responds to his good-faith effort with a bad faith effort, he will unapologetically move forward without them. Here’s one reason why this is a Good Thing: it’s a tactical investment. It builds trust in the broader community and fosters relationships with those members of the opposition who might be won over in the future. That’s a worthwhile investment to make, I think.

The consequences of our market-worship culture. What, exactly, makes a standard of living? Is it the fancy consumer goods we all have? A car for every person, a flat-screen TV in every house and a smartphone in every palm? Or is it something else? The security of a stable neighborhood, quality health care that isn’t a hassle, and a good education for your child even if you can’t afford the cost of living in the ritziest districts? These are things the private sector simply don’t excel at.

Self-care is essential. I do not use this word lightly. If these is anything my condition has taught me, it is the importance of learning one’s own boundaries and one’s own needs, and respectfully tending to them. Without this, you aren’t going to be any good to anybody else. You’re going to be more help to someone if you’re doing well yourself. If you’re rushed, stressed, overwhelmed with anxiety, severely lacking in sleep, seriously emotionally preoccupied, down with the flu, whatever — you’re allowed to stop and take care of yourself before you continue your work. Why do we insist that we push forward, always, through whatever challenges we may face? There can be virtue in that. But there can also be folly. I think this is a cultural force that could use some reflection.

After the reaction to a certain post of mine, I think this advice from Jill would be well-heeded in a variety of situations:

I understand that men are in an uncomfortable position when an abortion story is dropped into date conversation. Abortion is socially marked as taboo and horrible and universally emotionally difficult, so I understand why the first reaction is “You poor thing” or “You’re so strong.” I’ve never been in the same position as the author, but I have been on a first date where the guy dropped his almost-abortion story: His girlfriend got pregnant, they decided to terminate the pregnancy, and then she had a miscarriage. It’s not an easy story to respond to, so I fell back on How To Deal With An Awkward Conversation Topic 101: Mirror the other person’s reaction. He seemed like he was sad about the situation, so I think I said something along the lines of, “That sounds like it was really hard, I’m sorry.” And the conversation moved on. I also had a friend who once told me the story of his hugely swollen testicle — like, baseball-sized. In recounting the story, he was cracking himself up, so I laughed along. It’s really not all that hard to take your cues from the person who lived through the unpleasant ordeal. And I think that’s the author’s point: Not that men should universally think abortion is no big deal, but that they should take women as individuals who have varied responses to situations, and who very well may not be traumatized or upset at all — but who may nonetheless be highly annoyed and physically discomforted by a 30-day period. Or they may just be relieved. Or they may be sad, or even devasted. Or they may feel stupid for getting pregnant. Or they may have emotions that are mixed and that evolve. You know, like most human beings.

Read Kate take a righteous hammer to the bullshit that is how we, as a culture, introduce children to disability. Woo go Kate!

OK, this post might seem a bit out of place (and ignore the quick bit of gender-enforcing at the end). It’s just so deeply joyful to be a witness to another person reveling in wonder, over things big or small. Grapefruit isn’t my thing, but you find enjoyment in funny places.

This is why I love slacktivist.

Adam Serwer took all of three posts at TAPPED, I think, to become my favorite writer at the mag (and it’s not for my lack of appreciation for Klein). This kind of reflection is why.

Jindal and Obama could not be more different, and the contrasts begin but don’t end with the fact that one of them changed his name to fit in while the other carried his daddy’s “funny” African moniker all the way to the White House. Last night, the differences were clear: Where Jindal was awkward, Obama was confident. Obama has mastered his voice, Jindal sounded like he didn’t know how to give a speech. Obama had mastered a variety of tones and cadences early in his career, Jindal offered a forced folksiness to a sing-song tune. But perhaps the most telling part of Jindal’s response was his extended introduction of his family history. Until now, the GOP has allowed the press to make the Obama comparisons, last night, Jindal tried to make one himself, an act that was inadvertently self-diminishing.

You can’t find your voice by trying to become what everyone else is. You do that by trying to find what it is that makes you you. See also M’s musings on identity.

I’m off to bed, to dream of miniwheats in the morning.

And I love her even more for saying things like this.

There were several unforgettable moments in the Obama campaign—Barack’s impassioned speech about race, the DNC finale at Invesco, Madelyn Dunham’s death just before her grandson became president-elect—but none meant more to me than a two-minute bit of tape, a simple but monumental exchange between Michelle Obama and Soledad O’Brien.

In her interview with Michelle, Soledad circled around the issues placed at the center of every discussion about female identity by second-wave feminism. O’Brien wondered how Michelle felt about following a dream that wasn’t hers. She asked about leaving a “high-powered and highly compensated” career.

Michelle acknowledged the challenges. She graciously offered that she missed her colleagues and her work. But, she continued, she could always find another career. With only the slightest hint of irony, she said if she had more time, she might bemoan the loss, but she “had a lot on her plate” and what she was doing was “pretty significant.”

I thought, “You go, girl!” As if working with the love of her life and the father of her children to become the first family of the United States while radically transforming the world as we know it isn’t the most empowering choice a brilliant and self-determining woman could make.

But the real moment came in the next beat, 30 seconds that remain forever etched in my mind as the final blow to an ideology in which women’s empowerment is narrowly defined by financial independence, emotional autonomy and professional advancement.

O’Brien went in for the kill, the coup de grâce of second-wave feminism. “But sometimes your career helps to define who you are,” she said, probing.

“It doesn’t for me,” Michelle said immediately. “What I do in my life defines me. A career is one of the many things I do in my life. I am a mother first. Where do I get my joy and my energy first and foremost? From my kids.”

This has been a point of contention for me since I discovered feminism years ago. I was struggling with my disability, in the simplest, truest sense of the word: I didn’t know how to handle my life. I was in too much pain to participate in pretty much any regular outside-the-home activity. Certainly I couldn’t work. And yes, I felt judged for that. I felt like a bad feminist for “staying home.” Especially when a long term relationship with a man entered the picture.

More broadly, adult life in this society is centered around work for pay. One’s job is a central defining aspect of one’s identity. If not the specific job, certainly the act of working, cashing your paycheck, and paying the bills. The environment you work in, interaction with your coworkers, dealings with the public, dealings with your boss, the physical or mental effects your work has on you. For most people, work takes up a majority of their waking hours. How can those hours not be an important part of who you are?

Higher-class white feminism has wholly embraced this in recent decades as women made the move into the workforce. This is unfortunate, because it is alienating. It is alienating to many people and many groups. It is alienating, as I touched on, to people with disabilities who are unable to work. It is alienating to people in the lower classes for whom the idyllic “career” is a fiction, or at least a very distant and unreachable phenomenon. It is alienating to people for whom the pursuit of more wealth and more power are not the end-all, be-all to life. Hell, it’s alienating to people who just plain don’t much care for their job and who wish not to have their lives defined by it.

A person’s job, their industry, their field of study, can be part of their identity. Again: for many people, it’s a pretty big part of your life. That doesn’t mean it has to be the biggest part. And if it’s the biggest part for you, well, congratulations: don’t assume the same for every other person.

If you’re still not getting it, for a change of perspective, try rereading that paragraph replacing job with parenthood.

Get me now? Good. Moving on.

I don’t particularly think feminist theory values work for pay as the defining aspect of egalitarian womanhood, as such. But anyone reading this blog should be well familiar with the reality that the feminist movement is afflicted with (rather, more accurately, afflicts) a variety of prejudice, preconception, misconception, and general dysfunction. A movement is made up of people. Messy, imperfect people, who soaked in all sort of prejudice, preconception, etc. as they grew up in a messy, imperfect society. And here we are.

The thing about this work, issues of social justice, is that we cannot remove the mistakes and start over with a clean slate. It’s not that easy. We are working with complex, shifting, messy, organic beings, and the immaterial force they create when they are brought together.

And sometimes, the solution that is best to address a problem in that messy world is not the solution that would be best to address that problem — excuse the phrasing — were all other things equal.

For a time, financially privileged white women felt a very real force at work around them: the dictates of their social class preventing them from participating in work-for-pay. This, whatever their privileges might otherwise be, was not fair. And so feminists fought against it. And, in a limited sort of way, they won. Now women are accepted in most fields of work-for-pay. They’re allowed to be not just the secretary but the attorney. They’re allowed to be not just the nurse but the doctor. And though it’s laughable to assert that sexism in the workplace is largely conquered (ha!) they earn much more respect than they might’ve fifty years back.

But here’s the thing. When this subset of women had their worlds cordoned off, reduced to a fraction of what they could be were they not so imprisoned, what was the problem?

By this, I don’t mean “Was it actually wrong?” I mean, instead, “What is it that made it wrong?”

Was it that women weren’t allowed to experience that world of work-for-pay (and, largely, the prestige that came with it) for themselves? That seems to be what feminism has settled on, in practice. Feminists fight fiercely when anyone threatens their place in the industry. And they are fiercely offended when anyone reduces them to their traditional purposes: child-making and -rearing, house cleaning, looking pretty, existing only for the whim and betterment of their men. And often the response is much like that of Melissa (whom I mean not to put down; it’s merely the example at hand) at Shakesville a few days back:

I’ve worked or been otherwise acquainted with married men who told me their wives were gorgeous, thin, good in bed, big-breasted, etc., long before they told me their wives’ occupations, or any other bit of information that wasn’t designed to convey how awesome the men were because they’d scored hot wives—just another accessory like a car or a great flat in a trendy neighborhood.

Why is it that when feminists seek to define their identity as women free from patriarchal constrictions, they almost always default first and often only to their occupation?

What is it that made that restriction wrong?

I submit that what made it wrong was not the specific area forbidden to women: it is that they were forbidden from an area — any area — that could contribute to their personhood and identity, that would allow them to contribute in return to their families, communities and wider society. The wrong is not that (this subset of) women was forbidden this particular aspect of self: the wrong is that (this subset of) women was forbidden any particular aspect of self.

Considering this, we round out the picture of what, exactly, work-for-pay means to women. It is something a large set of women were denied for a long time, or severely restricted, a system of coinciding and contradictory reward and punishment, a system in which women simply could not win. They saw that the system was flawed, and they worked, hard, to change that system.

But their sights were limited. They could not scrub the slate clean. They could only clean up some of the mess, then build on what they had left. So we find ourselves here. Some of the fiercest feminists are also the most accomplished professionals, and they have no reservations when it comes to defending that place for which they’ve fought so hard. But in doing so, maybe they — we — have let that part of ourselves consume the rest of us. Maybe we lost sight of the rest of our lives. The so, so many other things that we do, that are so important to us, but which are not nearly so highly valued when reflecting on our own identity.

Do you identify yourself, first and foremost, as a member of a certain profession? Why? Is it really the most important part of you?

Can you see the cracks in that facade? Do you see the classism, lurking in the assumption that everyone (who matters) excels at one thing in high school, then studies it in college, perhaps masters it in graduate school, and then moves straight into a career in that very field? Do you see the ableism, lurking in the assumption that everyone (who matters) works, and that it is always money from employment that pays for a person’s shelter, food, heat and cooling, yearly two-week vacations and bar tab? Can you see how even gender relations aren’t instantly righted with affluent white women’s entrance in the work field — lurking in the existence of the second shift, the fact that a spouse and family is considered a downside when hiring a woman but a plus when hiring a man?

These things aren’t the fault of women who work. But maybe we shouldn’t treat the importance we give to work-for-pay so uncritically. Maybe we shouldn’t pretend that we actually did wipe that slate clean.

What else do you do in your life? I’ll bet you there’s a lot of things. I get a maximum of five waking hours outside of work on weekdays and even I have many more parts to my life than my work. My husband, my cats, my geographic home, painting, blogging, hockey, design, my love of sweets and grains and tea and homemade stroganoff and mac n cheese and tacos, my family, my husband’s family, my friends, my favorite music, dancing for myself when nobody’s around, the joy of movement and the peace in rest…

I invite you to reflect on your own life. My bet is you’ll find much that challenges this idea that work must be a primary aspect of self for women who strive to be free.

And with that foundation, maybe we can begin to explore the worlds of all the other billions of women who weren’t white enough, financially secure enough, healthy enough, anything enough to be a part of that feminist movement. But it’s ok — I’ll give you some time to digest first.

Our focus is often (and should be) on the women targeted by this hate, the women who suffer under this stream of threat and this actuality of violence. It should be focused on the actors and co-conspirators as well. Aside from those who take direct part in that hate or violence, another important piece of this is the effects of this misogyny upon the male in general. What misogyny does to the male identity and psyche and sense of peace and self-love. After all, the Female is not hated in a vacuum. So, too, is the Feminine, entire. And that cannot be walled off to one gender. This loathing, this hatred points back to what we know to be part of our natural being.

Men (as boys) are “asked” to join the oppression (under great threat of both social humiliation and physical violence and over and over, too) and to do this of course, we must snuff out/suppress the Feminine in ourselves. This is, of course, a great pain and loss to a human. And as this loss cannot be mourned by implied decree, this pain becomes a bitter, perverse mess that is blind to itself. And so men not only join the hate against women, but they then envy women for their freedom (to still be allowed) to be expressive, emotive, beautiful, affectionate, relaxed, vulnerable. And the loathing to self-loathing ties to envy ties to sorrow and loss and is given ground, and men are emotionally insane when modeled as instructed. And they act out this insanity even when they don’t know why. It is because they have too often been prevented from even knowing who they are to begin with.

…

For if a man cannot love the feminine aspect of himself, nor can he love a woman. And if he is hiding from that half of himself, he cannot fully see a woman. And if he would abdicate half his power, he is weak to the point of failing.

…

Because Colonization (and Patriarchy, too) are about control. And thus, Prop H8. And thus stiff collars and the Western Modes of acceptable and authoritative dress. And thus stark unforgivable lines. And thus dichotomized stances and laws that no person lives under comfortably and organically, unless they crave unnatural and aggravating wires strapping them down to the earth, making up for all the strength they have abdicated and would have used to guide and know themselves otherwise….

even after death
they stuff our bodies into boxes …

– mscripchick

(Today is the Transgender Day of Remembrance. Click through for a short summary of those dead whose stories are known.)

I don’t know how you have a conversation with people for whom “because it’s right” is not enough of a reason to do something. I really don’t.

– commenter Isabel

… arguing with a doctor about weight is like arguing with a priest about whether you should be a Christian.

– commenter Eve

They’re waiting for the self-disclosure that explains why someone who seems so “normal” would identify with the disability community. They’re waiting to find out exactly why the friend who spoke up isn’t just like everyone else after all: The excuse that allows them to continue ignoring disability identity and culture. They’re waiting to be able to explain to each other, later, that:

“I don’t know anyone with Down’s. How was I supposed to know her sister had it?” [...]

The reason an able-bodied or able-looking person needs a reason to be a disability advocate is simple: So everybody else has a reason not to be. It’s “not their dog.” [...]

Disability culture (Deaf-Side debate notwithstanding) doesn’t require that you show your crip card, or your sister’s, mother’s, or brother’s, to be in favor of that which is right.

– Veralidaine

I write from San Francisco, where, in the months leading up the election, I saw a massive mobilization within the queer spaces in which I spend time to get people to vote no on 8, but I saw little or no public discourse among LGBT people about very important state propositions: 5, 6, and 9—all of which potentially impacted things like funding for prisons, drug crime sentencing, or the trying of minors as adults in this state….

– Adele Carpenter

Just take the other day. I was exiting a building in a stream of white people who had been able to afford the ticket to the show we had just seen. I was pushed off the path by two couples and a what looked like a father with his arm around his daughter. Wizard righted me. No one else came to help. They were too busy talking about the awesome Obama victory. Then, father ran down, literally, a poor black homeless woman who was trying to walk upstream. She kept saying “excuse me, excuse me.” Father pushed her aside; the white people on either side flooded around her. She was entirely invisible. I looked her in the eye and exchanged words with her. No one else seemed to see her. The Obama victory, you know.

– Wheelchair Dancer

It was an interesting exercise in not voicing my opinion about, well, anything. Which was difficult, especially when people would persist in trying to talk politics with me. I fell back on talking about how exciting and important this election was, and how awesome it is that so many people are starting to engage with the political process, and how for whatever reason, this election has a lot of people getting up and taking action, which is a Good Thing.

I was pleasantly surprised to find that almost everyone I approached was not only registered, and not only voting (and always for Barack!), but was taking active measure get the people they knew involved, too. We visited a couple African Methodist Episcopal churches (I browsed through a book on women and global poverty at one, which was excellent), where there was naught an unregistered adult to be found. I spent a lot of time in front of the Christian Outreach and doing some door-to-door in the majority-minority parts of town. It was a genuinely exciting job to do, and incredible to see so many people inspired to take action themselves. I took a huge hit for my efforts physically, but I’ll never regret it.

I did notice, however, that while every black person I encountered supported Barack, there were still a considerable amount of them who were adamant that they were not going to vote. And there was only ever one reason they gave for that decision.

“Someone’s going to take him out.”

A lot of people expressed fear, or resigned certainty, that a President Obama would be swiftly assassinated. And you know what? I just don’t know what to say to that. It just makes me profoundly sad.

“He shares our values…”

“Family values”

“American values”

“Traditional values”

If nothing else, this election season makes one thing quite clear: in a sociopolitical context, the word “values” is nothing more than a code word for “white.”

my body, and everything i use to take care of it.

Tomorrow is Love Your Body Day. The boundaries defining NOW, the sponsoring organization, are widely known to be drawn (conveniently) around the Western ideal of the financially privileged white life. But, much like feminism as a whole, I feel there is something of value at the core, something of use to all of us.

I find little use in campaigns and projects claiming to sprout from a respect and appreciation of the human body, which decry an unfair media ideal, but whose aim seems to be — not to deconstruct that ideal in an attempt to destroy any ideal whatsoever — but to deconstruct that ideal so as to replace it with one more conveniently molded to their own experience.

I do not want to replace the size zero ideal with a size six ideal. I do not want to look at the impossibly tiny waists and replace them with well-defined waists always significantly thinner than their accompanying hips and bosom. I don’t want to look at the airbrushed, overtanned, bleached blonde ideal and replace it with an ideal that includes pores and a range of hair color, but only on caucasian and white-skinned bodies, which are still skinny and perfectly toned, with smooth caucasian hair that’s allowed to be stick straight to a little wavy, and always the bright open eyes and blinding smile, always a smile.

Instead of an ideal, instead of merely shifted expectations — we need to blow that ideal to pieces, and in its place, put a purposeful lack of expectation, put a willingness to consider, put a confident knowledge that one may be faced with anything, anything, and put a curiosity, a sense of wonder, an ability to find beauty, rather than have it delivered.

Bodies, bodies, bodies. When we tell one person her body is beautiful because it is not this, or that, or that other thing, we tell another person whose body is one of those things that her body is not beautiful. When we tell one person her body is what we should be celebrating, we tell every other person whose body is different that they are still deficient — only in a different way.

(And as an aside: when we tell one person that real beauty is natural beauty, no modifications, no adaptations, no change whatsoever — we tell every other person on earth, every person who ever does any single thing to change their body, how it looks, what it does, how it feels — we tell them that they are not only deficient — they are committing a grave moral sin. Do you use mascara? Have you ever cut your hair? Why do you eat what you eat? Have you ever taken any sort of medication, for anything from a cold to cancer? Ever visited a doctor, therapist, or other practicioner? Ever injured yourself, and applied an antibiotic and bandage, or a set and cast, to make your body do something it would otherwise not do on its own? Do you wear glasses or contact lenses? Do you wear shoes? Do you shave? Well then.)

Instead, we should tell each person: you are a full, whole, valuable person. Look into yourself. Curl up deep within yourself, forsaking the outside world. And look around. What do you like? What feels good? What does good? What is it about your physical self that makes your life a little bit better?

Maybe it is how your body looks. Maybe it is what your body does. Maybe it is how your body feels. Maybe it is not any of these things. Maybe it is something else.

Look at your body, look at it, every day, look at it and think to yourself, and seek out that which is good. Good. Not good for them. Good for you.

What do you delight in?

What will you?

Body image is a question not only for just-under-average-sized upper class white girls and women. Body issue is a question for all of us. Women and men alike. People of color, mixed races, different cultures with different values. The fully abled, the disabled, the deformed, the deficient. Every one of us, as human beings, has to deal with the reality of our bodies as they are and how that conflicts with the expectations the rest of our society has of us. This is expressed in different ways for different persons and different society. But not one of us, not one, is unaffected.

So I invited everyone, even those who know they are not NOW’s target demographic — I invite you all to participate tomorrow. Seek peace with your body. After all, you can never escape it. But your body is not your adversary. Your body is you.

Love yourself.

shah8 on historical trends:

One of the things that I have noticed about big F feminism, and this may not be an accurate perception, so feel free to correct me, is that there is a much lower appreciation among women that enlightenment and oppression happens in cycles. Ever greater progression in civil rights is not typically the rule, especially beyond a generation or so. I believe that the current multigenerational expansion has alot to do with industrial revolution backed by fossil fuels.

As a black person mindful of history, I am very conscious in how drastically things can change. One form of slavery, then a cotton gin based slavery, boom! emancipation, then reenslavement through penury and prison labor, then Jim Crow a bit past the high point of that, then civil rights era, and as you can see, an increase and decrease in the quality of life over the past couple of hundred years. Same with jewish people in europe, and pretty much the same with women everywheres.

The shape of the economy tends to dictate what civil rights we have. If women becomes a currency (men who can provide for the largest harem has the most status), then the system feedbacks will force women to have no rights no matter how much women and some men may protest. The only times things change is when things become untenable, or when the dominant party figures to benefit from liberalisation. It hardly ever happens otherwise.

I believe that we are in a retrenching of civil rights. I know some of you think that a defensive crouch is a bad thing, but I have absolutely no illusions about human nature. People, by and large, are truly capable of being rather monstrously evil with little prompting or social conditioning. It takes quite a bit of social conditioning, equitable societies, and empathetic teaching to make people not act in a particularly “innovative” fashion. When things of that nature is going down, due to social or economic disruption, respect for civil liberties goes down as well. I think we *should* be prepared to play defense for awhile.

Deborah Lipp on those damn lazy teenagers.

Teenagers NEED MORE SLEEP. This is totally a fucking fact. They NEED MORE SLEEP. Am I repeating myself? And school is earlier and earlier. My son’s high school day has been from 7:30 am to 2:00 pm. WTF? When I was in high school (hundreds of years ago; I rode a mammoth to school every day), it was 8:30 to 3. What VALUE is there in making them wake up an hour earlier at the time in their lives when they need more sleep than they have since kindergarten?

So they’re tired all the fucking time, and by the way, since they have very limited access to lockers (so they don’t keep drugs and guns there, I guess), and schools don’t have the budget to have extra texts in class (because, oh never mind, you know), they’re also toting a shitload of books back and forth between classes.

So my teen, on days he doesn’t exercise, is exhausted when he gets up and then totes and 20 pound (give or take, it’s fucking HEAVY) backpack to school, and totes it between classes every 45 minutes, often up or down stairs.

But he doesn’t get exercise.

Fuck you, US Government.

Nezua, with righteous anger:

“I just wanted to work a year or two, save, and then go back to my family, but it was not to be.” His case and that of a million others could simply be solved by a temporary work permit as part of our much overdue immigration reform. “The Good Lord knows I was just working and not doing anyone any harm.” This man, like many others, was in fact not guilty. “Knowingly” and “intent” are necessary elements of the charges, but most of the clients we interviewed did not

even know what a Social Security number was or what purpose it served. This worker simply had the papers filled out for him at the plant, since he could not read or write Spanish, let alone English. But the lawyer still had to advise him that pleading guilty was in his best interest. He was unable to make a decision.

“You all do and undo,” he said. “So you can do whatever you want with me.” To him we were part of the system keeping him from being deported back to his country, where his children, wife, mother, and sister depended on him. He was their sole support and did not know how they were going to make it with him in jail for 5 months. None of the “options” really mattered to him. Caught between despair and hopelessness, he just wept. He had failed his family, and was devastated. I went for some napkins, but he refused them. I offered him a cup of soda, which he superstitiously declined, saying it could be “poisoned.” His Native American spirit was broken and he could no longer think. He stared for a while at the signature page pretending to read it, although I knew he was actually praying for guidance and protection. Before he signed with a scribble, he said: “God knows you are just doing your job to support your families, and that job is to keep me from supporting mine.”

There was my conflict of interest, well put by a weeping, illiterate man.

—THE TRUE STORY OF POSTVILLE

…

One day those on the “progressive” side of things who think they can pick and choose their little causes and relegate the rest to Pet Issue Land will be stricken with a very real sense of urgency when they realize that you can’t save the tenth floor lounge without saving the lobby and service entrance, too. And that the penthouses will fall the furthest before the fire’s done.

…

And those of us who are sensible and whose bones don’t rattle with the ghost of pat buchanan’s fear know that it’s not like these people care about the damn Census. They don’t care about Xicano blogotov throwers. They don’t want to “take over” your damn corrupt land.

They just. Want. To. Eat. And. Live. Just to be able to move about, working hard for pay. They love their country and very often come here because it is the USGOV’s business and practice to squeeze every bit of profit we can and centralize it here. They don’t want to be here very often. But we shut down the open flow. USGOV is starving. USGOV is broke. USGOV is shaking in its boots…

You aren’t fooling anybody, sweetie.

It is an inspiring sentiment — something I wish were true. But this is reality, and down here, we recognize the wisdom of the old adage, actions speak louder than words.

America has always claimed to aspire to a just, egalitarian society. Then again, the bruised and broken woman presenting herself to the emergency room has always claimed to only have taken a fall.

The original immigrants from England came from an environment hostile to their religious beliefs, but don’t kid yourself: they intended to establish not a society that recognizes freedom of religious expression for people of any religious persuasion, but a society that recognized the freedom of religious expression for people who subscribed to their particular religion.

The Declaration of Independence did not recognize the fundamental rights and dignity of every person in the country’s bounds: it recognized that “All men are created equal.” Don’t kid yourself: they weren’t using that word as a gender neutral pronoun. And its founders, wealthy white men, held slaves, including black men, feeling no dissonance between their political positioning and their private lives.

Wealthy white Americans continued to hold slaves — who are we kidding? nobody held slaves; they dominated, abused, exploited slaves — for years and years after that; the “War of Northern Aggression” was fought over State’s Rights, that is, the right of states to proudly base their social and economic orders on a system of brutality against black bodies, male and female.

Even after the South was warred into submission, people of color were denied education, voting rights, property (and thus the ability to sustain oneself), bodily autonomy, and the respect and recognition of their fundamental humanity of the (white) people around them. Their welfare was purposefully neglected by the (white) people and their (white) established government. And whenever they had the temerity to advocate for themselves or even just dare to exist in public, they were harassed, attacked, raped, abused, murdered. This happened with the implicit consent of the (white) institution under which they existed.

When a noticeable portion of white America got its fucking head screwed on straight and started fighting to make right these wrongs, the violence was inflamed, and let white America not forget that legal recognition was not pushed through Congress smoothly and pleasantly. Let them also not forget that legal recognition does not translate into social recognition; to this day people of color fight to rise above the contempt their white peers have historically, and largely still currently, show them.

Native Americans were subject to nothing short of genocide from the moment the pigmentationally-challenged set foot on this massive continent. We fought them, hunted them, raped them, mutilated them, ruined their land, drove them west and then followed them there to keep the “rivalry” alive.

And make no mistake, we are equal-opportunity oppressors! We import poor, darker-skinned workers to perform our menial labor, constructing a social and economic order irreparably built upon their underpaid labor, their abuse and exploitation — their enslavement. Our history of genocide and institutionalization of people with disabilities is no secret. I’m not even going to bring up treatment of the trans/queer.

For all our boasting, the United States of America has never been a society dedicated to the respect and recognition of every person, of any class. Never.

Everyone, everyone knows what Chris Matthews means when he invokes the “regular American.” This country was FOUNDED on the privileging of the white, male, heteronormative, able-bodied default person. The Joe Six-Pack with a wife and two kids, who comes home from work every day to watch NASCAR and tosses around a football with his buddies. (Except when they privilege the multiple-vacation-home-owning, country-club-frequenting, Joe High-Class over him. But that is the only alternative.)

When someone speak about a generic American without any further context — or about a generic person without any further context — everybody knows what they visualize. And it doesn’t have tits, it doesn’t use leg braces, it doesn’t have “nappy” hair or “slanted” eyes. They may not be musing on an actual image of a white man, but if you introduced any of those other traits, it would be jarring. It would change the paradigm of thought entirely. We would suddenly be having a totally different conversation.

Everybody understands this. They may not devote any conscious thought to it — but the construct exists in their head. There is such a thing as “someone who looks like an American.” I could point out hundreds of them to you in the middle of our local Wal-Mart Super Center. I don’t think I’d find (m)any in the local mosque, assisted living facility, gay pride parade, homeless shelter…

Consider this: Mr. Obama’s own campaign recently had two women in headscarves removed from visibility in a campaign event.* How can this fit with his statement? What contortions would it require for Senator Obama to reconcile his actions with his words?

This day to celebrate our country and all its inhabitants — to a good lot of those inhabitants, this day doesn’t feel like it’s theirs. This day is for someone else, not for me.

And the sentiment is pretty widespread when you think about it. It applies to all groups.

To a poor child: college is for someone else, not for me.

To a person living with an abusive partner or family member, who has never seen someone they know personally ever have anything better: respect for my dignity and autonomy is for someone else, not for me.

To the little girl in school: complicated mathetmatics and science are for someone else, not for me.

To the child of color, or child with a visible disability, who sees advertisements everywhere (for toothpaste, for breakfast cereal, for universities, for bank services) with skinny white people with perfect teeth and “good” hair: society in general is made for someone else, not for me.

When we structure our society this way, we may not be saying explicitly, this is Not For You. But those people get the message — loud and clear.

– the women around the world who will be subjected to the stereotype Pfleger reinforces, of the overly emotional, unrelentingly ambitious, single-mindedly selfish woman?

Oh, no: “– Obama?”

Well, shit, I suppose my priorities are out of order.

Nobody’s ever defended themselves against assault charges by claiming “it doesn’t hurt when I punch me,” and you’d presumably think it pretty ridiculous if they had.

The Bootstrap Myth
“Racism is a thing of the past… this is a free country, and anyone who works hard can make it in America.”

The Backtrack
“Hey, wait a second, that’s not what I meant… I mean… you took my words out of context, don’t make it try to sound like I’m racist!”

The Remove the Right To Be Angry
“You’re too sensitive… if you weren’t so aggressive, vocal, hostile, angry, or upset, people would listen to you and you wouldn’t get in trouble!”

The Utopian Eye-Gouger
“I’m colorblind, personally… why can’t we all just ignore race, it’s not like it’s even real… it’s not like I tangibly benefit from being white every day or anything! Can’t we all just get along?”

Turning the Tables
“You’re being just as racist against white people, you realize. You’re being racist against me right now, you reverse-racist hypocrites!”

The Good White Person (not like those obvious racists!)
“Whoa, that guy over there is SUCH a racist, unlike me… I know exactly the right things to say and I’m never racist. By which I mean overtly offensive about it. Hold on, I think I’m going to go spit on that guy. I hate him.”

The Unblemished Family History
“Hey, my family never owned slaves, so it’s not like I, as an individual, get any benefit from racism!”

The Bending Over Backwards (makes you look flexible, but accomplishes little else)
“You people of color are so right. I agree with everything you say. Because you’re right, of course… not just because I’m guilty and white and wrong!”

The Personal Justification
“But a black person, Mexican, mean old Asian lady, or Native American once cut in front of me in line, said something stupid, mugged me, or took my hubcaps! So as far as I’m concerned, they proved all of my prejudices!”

The Loophole of Escape
“I can’t possibly be a bigot or a racist… I’m part of the oppressed due to the fact that I’m a woman!” (or gay, poor, young, trans, etc.)

The Culture Appropriator
“Damn, bro! You know I’m down with the homies, I ain’t no wack racist cracker, shiznit.”

The Lean On You When I’m Not Strong
“Teach me, help me. I’m just a white person, so I need your wisdom as a person of color to show me how not to be racist. Wait, is what I said earlier racist? How about this shirt I’m wearing? Can you come with me to this party, so they know I’m not a racist?”

The Pause for Applause
“Unlike all those other white people out there, I’m an anti-racist.” (…) “I do anti-racist work and I try to educate other people about anti-racism.” (…) “Wait, did you hear me?”

The Smoke and Mirrors
“I totally agree. Racism is one system of oppression among many interlocking ones, that specifically awards more privilege and power to all white people, whether they like it or not, and serves to keep the existing power structure in place. Oh… what? You want me to volunteer in a community organization, contribute money, do security for your protest march? Uh… yeah maybe next time, I’ve got to wash my hair tonight. And walk my dog, see the latest episode of Lost, manage my stock portfolio…”

The Penitent Paralysis (will not truly absolve you)
“Oh my god… that is so awful. I’m so sorry. Sorry. I can’t imagine what it must be like… I’m sorry. That’s so awful. I feel so bad for you. Sorry.”

Whipping Out Your Best Friends
“Hey, I’m not a racist, OK? Some of my best friends are black. See?”
Best Friend: “Yeah, I’ve known him since we were kids, and he’s never said anything racist to me!”

…and one bonus one for all your folks of color out there.

It Doesn’t Matter What Comes Out of My Mouth, Just Look at My Skin
“What? I can’t possibly be racist. I AM a person of color. How can I be racist against myself, huh? No, I haven’t heard of internalized racism, and I still think affirmative action is reverse racism!”

The people in comments are doing a hell of a lot of maneuvering, too.

People seem to be taking this rather personally, because it doesn’t offer an out for the “good” people. The non-racists. It implicates everyone, even those with a heightened awareness of racism.

Thing is, those non-racists? There is no such creature.

Holly continually points out that looking at the situation this way is dangerous. When we frame racism as the actions of individuals, as a character judgment, this is where we end up: we can’t own up to an attitude or behavior as being racist because, you know, it’s not dressing up in white gowns and forming a lynch mob. It allows us to separate out us good people from those nasty racists, who are way over there, nowhere near us, nuh uh. It allows us to absolve ourselves of any responsibility for our participation in the institution of racism.

We need to make this clear: Racism is not a character trait. Racism is a SYSTEM.

Racism is the tea in which we are all steeped as children. No person can escape it. Racism is clutching your purse when a black person walks by; racism is managing your investments in Quicken. Racism is mocking a person as stupid by affecting an “ebonics” voice; racism is sticking to the safe neighborhoods when you take your children out trick-or-treating. Racism is hiring a Mexican maid or landscaper under the table for low wages; racism is staying at a hotel that employs same. Even if you didn’t know it and didn’t intend it.

Makes you feel squirmy and defensive, doesn’t it?

You cannot escape this system. And the fact that you think you can bespeaks your white privilege in itself: no black person can escape the system where the taxi passes them on the street. No Latin@ can escape the system where they are assumed to be dumb and illiterate until proven otherwise. No person of color can escape the system where their resumes are passed up because of the explicitly ethnic name at the top — where research proves that employers would rather hire a convicted felon with white skin than a person of color with a clean slate and the exact same resume.

The fact that you think you get to escape that system, just by saying the right things, is, frankly, an insult to the people who struggle against that system every day.

Don’t take this as saying “therefore, you are a Bad Person.” Because this isn’t about who is Good and who is Bad. We all breathe the same air; you aren’t bad because you take in some random gases along with the oxygen when you inhale.

But there is hope. Because when you stop viewing racism as an individual character trait, and as an all-encompassing system that none of us can escape, then you start to see how things can change — really change.

You start to see that even though you do contribute to that racist system, you can reduce your contribution as much as possible.

You can start examining that privilege you’ve got.
You can monitor your language for slurs and dogwhistles.
You can attempt to change the latent attitudes you didn’t even know you had.

And you can start taking action. Knowing that this isn’t because you’re some saintly Good Person, but because it’s just the proper thing to do.

I myself use plenty of those Sixteen Maneuvers. We all do, really. It doesn’t mean one of us is worse than the other. It just means we all grew up in the same world. And maybe, then, we can stop turning it into a holier-than-thou competition, and start working together to make things better.

… an alleged lack of patriotism will be the main line of argument against Barack Obama.

And the thing about this argument is that’s not the end of it.

There’s been a lot of talk recently in the feminist blogosphere of dogwhistles. And I would argue that this line of attack is exactly one. The “unpatriotic” whine is usually wrapped up in arguments about Obama being a secret Muslim, a black nationalist, Communist, etc. By extracting out the most innocuous (of the set, not on an absolute scale) and repeating it, the upper punditry and co. can signify to the bottomfeeders that they’re on their side, without explicitly saying so, and while maintaining plausible deniability against accusations of racism.

Two cents.