Jackson apologizes for Super Bowl stunt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

Mad Kane Interviews Dick Cheney

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

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

CHENEY: Absolutely not.

MADKANE: What about a dangerous threat?

CHENEY: No.

MADKANE: A serious threat?

CHENEY: Negative.

MADKANE: An immediate threat?

CHENEY: None whatsoever.

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

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

Interactive State of the Union Crossword Puzzle

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

branded

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

Claiming Your Human Rights on MLK Day

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

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

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

Aunt Jemima has left the building

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The guilt of a Westerner.

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

It wasn't an easy show to watch.

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Oprah's website:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(also posted at grrrl meets world)

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

A different flash on feminism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[snip]

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

"Which is?"

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

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

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

Why not?

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

Reading The Third Wave

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

originally published in slightly different form @Kim Procrastinates.

Fun with names

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

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

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

Note: This entry also appeared at The Harmonic Convergence.

Parents are greatest peril to children

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Long time from around here

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

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

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

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

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

To Everybody...

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

Beware of bothersome gifts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The results of a recent study are written up in New Scientist:

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

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

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

(via DazeReader)

Ellen Goodman Re-introduces a Radical Idea.

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

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

Read Goodman's painfully true piece here.

WORLD AIDS DAY 2003: Live and Let Live

My goodness, it is another World AIDS Day. This is among my least favorite days of the year. Don't misunderstand: I do not minimize the need for this day. It is vital to remind the world of the human cost of HIV and AIDS. We must remember those we have lost. We must thank the care providers and researchers who give so much time and effort to help those who have the disease. We must rededicate ourselves to this crucial effort. And as difficult as my experiences have been in reporting on the disease; in volunteering as a helper and "buddy"; in raising my voice as an activist; even in sitting at deathbeds, holding friends' hands and easing their way from this life to the next, I recognize the blessings and growth bestowed on me from having lived through them. Indeed, I am grateful for these experiences, for the many wonderful people whose life paths have intersected mine -- and for the global effort to honor them. Still, I suspect I have been at this AIDS business for far too long. My first awareness of the disease came 20 years ago, and in the intervening two decades, I have suffered a lot of loss. As of Nov. 30, I have lost 121 acquaintances, friends, and loved ones to AIDS. Thinking of the happy memories I shared with these people -- which I do often -- gives me great joy. But on each World AIDS Day, I think of these people en masse, in a rolling line: Willie and Robbie and John and Leon and Steve and Connie and Carey and Vince and Audra and Andre and Bobby and Paul and Lorraine and Jamal and Rochelle and Joe and Colin and Walter and Mary Sue and on and on ... As you can imagine, it can be mind-numbing, and each year the process becomes increasingly brutal. My beloved grandfather, who died from cancer three years ago, once said to me during a time when a lot of his 70- and 80-year-old friends were dying that I had undergone too much loss for someone so young. I was just over 30 then and agreed. Now, I am 42 and more fatalistic: Death is part of life. Whatever your age, you deal with it and go on. I can do that. But it doesn't make the grief disappear, though, and the pain intensifies as the years roll by. Five years ago, I was stunned and saddened by the death of a friend and AIDS activist. My pain was such that I had to write about it. The story appeared in Baltimore City Paper in May, 1998. My pain is such today that I have to share a piece of it here: Upon hearing that Steve had died, I also learned his funeral would be a political event, a showy media fest in front of the White House. This was poetic justice, in a sense. Steve had given his life to the fight against AIDS. He moved from Seattle to Washington, by way of stops across the nation, following candidate Bill Clinton and demanding that if the Arkansas governor won the presidency in 1992 he make finding a cure for AIDS a top priority. Clinton promised Steve -- to his face -- that in his first 100 days in office, he would launch a Manhattan Project-type effort to find a cure and guarantee comprehensive health care for all Americans. To make sure that the president-elect made good on his pledge, Steve moved to the nation's capitol with his [partner] Wayne. And he made Clinton a promise of his own: "I will haunt you." So I suppose lying in state in front of the White House was a fulfillment of Steve's vow. I know it was his final wish -- when he entered the Washington Hospital Center for what would be the final time a month ago, he told Wayne he wanted a political funeral in front of Bill Clinton's house. As someone who loved him, I had no choice but to respect his wish. Still, I was angry. Color me selfish, but my friend was gone. I wanted an opportunity to mourn in a manner that I thought he deserved--something solemn, dignified, respectful. And I wondered about AIDS activism in general. For those of us who've worked in the trenches, from caring for dying loved ones or "buddies," to shouting ourselves hoarse in the street or sitting in a jail cell, to taking on unfeeling government suits -- all the while neglecting our own lives, families, relationships, and personal health -- how much is enough? Steve gave up his life -- apparently willingly. He fought incessantly, irritated and riled many, lost sight of his priorities time and again, and paid fuck-all attention to his own well-being. And now, by his own choice, he was giving up the only opportunity to have his friends and loved ones speak only of their love for him. What more is necessary to create visibility for the war against this disease that has murdered thousands and held activists' and caregivers' lives hostage for nearly two decades? Does some well-meaning fool have to hang himself in the village square using a long red ribbon as a noose? Yes, I have dealt with much loss. It haunts me today and likely will do so until my dying day. But I must think of my lost loved ones and about their deaths. On World AIDS Day, there is no choice. The situation is worsening, according to United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who warns that the world is losing the fight against the disease. Read his 2003 World AIDS Day message here. As noted by England's National AIDS Trust, five people die from the disease every minute. The disease once known (erroneously) as the "gay plague" now affects every part of this planet, infecting more than 42 million people, 5 million of them last year alone. More stats from NAT's World AIDS Day site: Worldwide, and in 2002 alone, AIDS claimed 3 million people last year. That's over 8,000 people every day. But the story does not end there: just under 14,000 new cases of HIV infections occur every single day. 95% of all AIDS cases occur in the world's poorest countries. In several southern African countries, at least one in five adults is HIV positive. In 2000, the HIV prevalence rate among pregnant women in South Africa rose to its highest level ever: 24.5% bringing to 4.7 million the estimated total number of South Africans living with the virus. That's a terrifying thought. And it's the reality that millions of people in developing countries are living with HIV and AIDS as you read this: communities devastated, teachers and doctors dying every day, people's futures shattered, because they can't afford the drug treatments that are helping people living with HIV and AIDS in richer countries like [Britain and the US]. Adding insult to proverbial injury, there are those who, through ignorance and/or bigotry, still attempt to stigmatize those with the disease Hence this year's WAD theme: "Stigma and Discrimination -- Live and Let Live." NAT offers a test that asks Are You HIV Prejudiced? Take the test and learn something about yourself. However you score, make it part of your life to stop this nonsense. Help people learn to live and let live. So there are many reasons that make World AIDS Day necessary. UK organization Avert offers a summation: In order for HIV to be effectively tackled on an international level, efforts need to be made to End the discrimination against people with HIV and AIDS. Educate people in safer sex and drug use, using appropriate media. Provide condoms freely to people in the developing world. Provide financial and medical assistance so that people with HIV and AIDS can be treated. [The World Health Organization is making a move today that is a start in dealing with this need.] Started in 1988, World AIDS Day is not just about raising money, but also about raising awareness [and] education and fighting prejudice. World AIDS Day is also important in reminding people that HIV has not gone away, and that there are many things still to be done. Indeed. I have been at this AIDS business too long. But as long as prejudice continues and education is needed and items sit on the to-do list, I will stick with it. Quoting Frost, there are miles to go before I sleep. Much love always to everyone on my list... You are missed, every World AIDS Day and, in truth, every single day. Resource Links From UNAIDS, AIDS information by country Centers for Disease Control's HIV Prevention Strategic Plan through 2005 CDC's Prevention Strategies for HIV-Positive Individuals AIDS Day's Stark Reality, Australia's The Age, 11/30/03 AIDS Ministry and Hospitality Bible Study for World AIDS Day 2003 by Nancy A. Carter, United Methodist Church All Africa.com on World AIDS Day 2003 AIDS.org on the Importance of Testing AIDS.org's HIV Frequently Answered Questions and Fact Sheets AIDS Treatment News At ALL FACTS AND OPINIONS, this day is dedicated to the commemoration of World AIDS Day; there is also an ongoing online vigil. Please join us to remember, share, and commit to the effort to end the plague.

Margaret Cho reveals her "diet secrets."

This is a little old, but I just found it. Margaret Cho, super-awesome (and super-crude) feminist comedienne posted on her blog about why she's lost so much weight. She calls it the Fuck It Diet, and it involves eating whatever she wants, whenever she wants it. It's amusing and somewhat empowering.

iPod jacking makes people share

iPod jacking makes people share

I recently irked some folks by saying I believe conservatives and libertarians (conservatives who wear their caps backward) don't like to share. That explains why they are usually opposed to supporting the common good. MacRumors reports there is something new to for such persons to worry about. Wired's Leander Kahney has the original story.

During his regular evening walk, software executive Steve Crandall often nods a polite greeting to other iPod users he passes: He easily spots the distinctive white earbuds threaded from pocket to ears.

But while quietly enjoying some chamber music one evening in August, Crandall's polite nodding protocol was rudely shattered.

Crandall was boldly approached by another iPod user, a 30ish woman bopping enthusiastically to some high-energy tune.

"She walked right up to me and got within my comfort field," Crandall stammered. "I was taken aback. She pulled out the earbuds on her iPod and indicated the jack with her eyes."

Warily unplugging his own earbuds, Crandall gingerly plugged them into the woman's iPod, and was greeted by a rush of techno.

"We listened for about 30 seconds," Crandall said. "No words were exchanged. We nodded and walked off."

The following evening, Crandall saw the woman again. This time, she was sharing her iPod with another iPod regular Crandall had spotted on his walks.

Within a couple of days, Crandall had performed the iPod sharing ritual with all the other four or five regulars he sees on his walks. Since August, they've listened to each other's music dozens of times.

I freely admit to iPod promiscuity. Since acquiring my first, soon after the esteemed MP3 player/hard drive was released, I have shared music with family, friends and complete strangers. My current digital companion, Titania, has been handled by more men than I've given my phone number in the last year. The iPod has become well enough known that people will often ask to take a closer look at it. Some say they are considering getting their own. Like Crandall, I notice other iPod users and they notice me. We sometimes compare notes on what we have on our 'Pods, listen to each others tunes briefly or, now that a hack allowing it is available, trade songs.

I really hadn't given much thought to the sociability factor of the iPod, taking it for granted. The article at Wired and responses to it at MacRumors have caused me to realize that I may need to become more circumspect. What if the not-so-secret sharer is a conservative or a libertarian? Then, I could be unknowingly stepping on his toes.

Crandall, who also has a weblog, Tingilinde, has seen iPod sharing catch on in his native milieu and heard rumors of it on some college campuses. But, he has also encountered hostile responses when suggesting mutual musical moments in New York City.

In looking back, I realize I've usually been the respondent to iPod information and music exchanges. However, if the iPod jacking spreads, that may change. Perhaps I will become an aggressive plucker of plugs. But, I promise not to force conservatives and libertarians to share.

This entry appeared at Mac-a-ro-nies.

Chicken & Testosterone

Anil Dash's recent post "Halalapalooza" is both amusing and provocative. I'm not yet sure what conclusion I'm going to draw from it, or what response I might have to it.

Pantihose and Promises

It's been a year and a half (that's when I stopped ballroom dancing and dudeing up with the frilly fun clothes that go along with it) since I wore pantihose, but I struggled into a pair yesterday as I readied myself for my cousin's daughter's wedding. I finally twisted far enough to get them on, but not after hearing a few crunches and cracks in my back. Not a good sound for someone who's got a major problem with a disc in her lumbar spine. As it turned out, no harm seemed to have been done, but I have promised myself that from now on, no more pantihose.

And then my cousin's daughter and now husband promised each other, in front of friends and family, all the things that people promise each other when they're in happily love and looking toward a future together.

It was a traditional Catholic wedding ceremony that included a reading from the Book of Genesis about how the Judeo-Christian God created man, realized that the poor guy was lonesome, and then formed woman out of the guy's rib. Yeecchh!!

I wanted to stand up and yell, "Hey, haven't you heard of Lilith? Don't you know the power of myth to make real history happen? No, No! That's not the story that needs to be told. You got it wrong. You got it all wrong!!"

But, of course, I didn't. I just squirmed in my seat and hoped for the best.

And the reception was the best! Tribal, even.

I have to hand it to my cousin's daughter and her mate. It was their celebration and their way to celebrate. The DJ revved up everyone (except those of my mother's generation) with rhythms driven by blood-pounding drums. And the tribe gathered around the newlyweds, who writhed and wound around each other as well as others in the gathering circle as the bride's white gown sparkled through the web of strobing limbs. They danced in groups, alone, and in pairs -- men with women, women with women, men with men. The beat went on, and on, and on. The circle ebbed and flowed and whooped and danced. The air throbbed with promise.

And my cousins and I crowned our you'd-never-know-it-graying-heads with glow-in-the-dark circlets and became, for those moments, our younger, vital, music-infused selves. Luckily, I must have sent my sciatic nerve into shock because it never felt a thing.

After the reception, some of my cousins went back to one of their homes to continue partying. I had to drive back upstate. The party was over for me. At least this one was.

But I'm promising myself that I will find more chances to party. And I'm promising myself that I will do it without the back-breaking risk of wriggling into those claustraphobic pantihose.

Rape Defense?

Found via Warren Ellis-- a South African doctor invented a tampon-like device that is designed to cut a rapist's penis. The article appears to be well over a year old, but I had never heard of such an item before. Apparently the obscenely high number of incidents of rape in South Africa led the doctor to develop the device.

I certainly applaud the attempt to address the problem of rape, but part of me recoils at such a particularly vicious method, and questions, too the efficacy of a device. Obviously, its existence is meant to serve as a deterrant, but it doesn't actually prevent anyone from being raped-- it just brings about a brutally short end to any sexual assault-- and there are plenty of ways for a woman to be assaulted without an actual penis in the picture. And what is to prevent a woman from using one of the devices unethically (that is, on someone who wasn't actually intending rape)?

According to the article, other women had objections as well:

"I would be extremely uncomfortable. Again the onus is put on the woman. Men who rape women should be jailed for life. Men should not rape, end of story."

Firing up my feminism.

Related to this post below and Burningbird's various posts about the Blogging Ghetto on her own site, I've done my own take.

Alan Watts, Tyra Banks, Vogue Magazine, Shelley Powers, Victoria's Secret and Kabul Afghanistan -- strange (or maybe not) bedfellows and all inspirations for firing me up about Using the Systems (including using Blog Sisters, which I'm doing right now).

Gender discrimination is illegal

Depend on Robbie Port to cause me to set aside what I had intended to post today to pen an emergency correction to dangerous notions about gender discrimination. He says:

Everybody thinks men and women should be exactly equal. They should be considered for the same jobs as men and should be paid at the same level. Companies engaged in hiring new employees are often encouraged to hire women and we've all heard the new politically correct job titles such as "mail carrier" instead of "mailman." In theory, that sounds nice. In practice some problems arise.

Take, for instance, firefighters. Every day these people are faced with dangers and often must count on the strength and agility of their co-workers. If I were a fireman I would want the strongest person available to be backing me up in a hot situation. I would want the same if I were a police officer or a soldier. Granted, many women are just as strong, or stronger, than most men but in general men are bigger and stronger.

. . .All I'm saying is that men and women are different and when we hire for jobs those differences should be taken into consideration, especially in dangerous jobs like those I described above. If a woman wants to be a fireman that's great, as long as she can past the exact same tests and examinations that the men do. If the job you want requires you to be able to complete 30 pushups then you'd better be able to do those 30 pushups. If you can't, find another job.

Let's consider two of the errors in Port's ill-conceived entry.

Municipalities do not decide the rules for hiring workers in a vacuum, as he claims. State and federal law regulate various aspects of employment, including discrimination

.

A major criterion determining whether rules against hiring or promoting women are discriminatory under Title VII, the most relevant statute, is employment-relatedness. The only way it would matter if an employee can do 30 pushups is if doing those pushups can be shown to be directly related to firefighting. Otherwise, the requirement would be irrelevant to being qualified for the job, regardless of whether someone likes his firefighters strong -- and male. The issue is not the gender of the employee, but what skills the job requires.

Title VII has been around for so long I tend to take it for granted 'everyone knows' that the kind of discrimination Port supports is illegal. His is the kind of misinformation I would expect to read in material from the 1960s or 1970s, not in 2003.

Robbie Port's latest assault on reality is evidence of a a major problem with the blogosphere: The Ports spout so much inaccurate information that the minority of smart, responsible bloggers are virtually forced to clean up after them.

By the way, Port's blog is called Say Anything . . . and he really does.

Note: This entry also appeared at Silver Rights.

Geeky Gamers

In a short article on the BBC's web site, game developer Anna Larkin challenges the stereotype that video games appeal only to a certain demographic. She posits that it's the presentation of games, not the games themselves, that attract the typical male teenager to a game:

Most video game adverts appear in gaming magazines, and many of the adverts that do appear depict gamers as male.

This only serves to reinforce the stereotype that only males play games and that they are something that a female would not be interested in.

I have to agree. I certainly enjoy a good rousing shoot-em-up every once in a while, though I generally prefer puzzle and strategy games. I don't oay attention to the game's marketing material; I look at the game itself, and think, would I enjoy that?

Two Roads Diverged

"For me, femininity had become the other 'F' word," says Christine Sneeringer.

For Tamela Vaughn, an affair with a college sorority sister sent her into the "darkest period of my life."

Millions of people in this country are gay, lesbian, or bisexual. Most of them, despite prejudice from society, disapproval from churches, and unequal treatment under law, accept and embrace who they are. But a relative few, who tend to hold conservative religious beliefs, attempt to change their sexual orientation, to go from gay to heterosexual. Sneeringer and Vaughn both embarked on that difficult, some say potentially dangerous journey. Now, both women say they have found joy and peace in their relationships with God and with themselves. But though these women took a similar journey, they found their fulfillment in very different places.

The piece is much too long to share here. Read the rest at All Facts and Opinions.

But Who Will Save Our Souls?

Call me a cynic. Call me unpatriotic. But I would not, just could not, bring myself to watch the Jessica Lynch story on TV yesterday.

Maybe it was all the hype. Maybe it was the fact that others in Jessica's unit, who had suffered the same fate or worse, were being totally ignored. Maybe it was the announcer telling me it was the show "All America had been waiting for." Maybe it was that annoyingly commercial sounding patriotic tune they kept playing in the promos. Whatever it was, whenever the trailer came on, I cringed.

I thought maybe it was just me, but then I saw an online poll and it seemed there were quite a few folks who, like me, had had about enough of the excessive marketing of Jessica's and Elizabeth Smart's story. My mother was in town over the weekend and we were sitting on the couch watching TV when another one of those annoying trailers started in on us. The announcer said the show would be airing in one hour. My mother groaned and made reference to the fact that we should remember to switch stations before the hour was up. I indeed was not alone.

I suppose that years of being a public relations professional, where you quickly learn the effects of "spin" and become adept at spotting it everywhere has made me a bit cynical. But even without these acquired skills, I know a propaganda tool when I see one. And this one wasn't even subtle. Heck, even Jessica Lynch herself is calling foul. She has stated that she feels the government is using her. And maybe that's why this whole thing just never sat too well with me.

How many nameless and faceless innocent Iraqi men, women and children are being killed on a daily basis? We waged war on a country that may or may not be connected to the terrorists who supposedly started this whole mess...do we care about the Iraqi soldiers who our soldiers are no doubt killing and torturing? What about the American male soldiers? Where's their movie? How many Pulitzer prize winning authors were clamoring to write the tales of Vietnam vets?

I watched Chris Rock's "Head of State" over the weekend and while I found it pretty buffoonish, there was this one funny line they kept repeating. At the end of every speech, the vice president who ran against Chris Rock's character would state, "God bless America...and no place else."

It was quite comical and obviously a slap at our "patriotic" statement of "God bless America." As though no place else deserves to be blessed. As though the American people are the only people who matter in the world. As though only perky American women have a story worth telling or are worthy of our empathy.

I listened to the words of Mohammed Odeh al-Rehaief, the Iraqi attorney who notified the U.S. military about Jessica's presence in the hospital, and once again I found myself being a bit skeptical. According to our government, Iraqi women are treated atrociously. Yet it was American Jessica's plight that, in his own words, "changed his life"?? Whatever.

I think this man saw and seized an opportunity and I think the U.S. saw and seized an opportunity to make some money off of American citizens in the form of advertising and book sales. I don't begrudge Mohammed for doing what was best to create an opportunity for his family. But shame on the U.S. military and TV execs who exploited this situation. "Jessica shot until she ran out of bullets." "Jessica's gun was jammed, she says she could not defend herself." "Jessica was slapped." "Jessica says she was so not slapped."

I in no way mean to be insensitive to American troops; I mean to be insensitive to hypocrisy. I'm also insensitive to being set up.

'All America' is not "waiting" for the next good, real life war story to be turned into a TV show. The majority of Americans are waiting for the war stories to end. This war is going to cost more lives and more money than anybody can afford. All the good ol' fashioned patriotic propaganda movies in the world can't slap a perky picture on that.

The full version of this article can be found at The Somewhat Heroic Adventures of SWEET.

Belly Busting

This story caught my eye because just two days ago, Spousal Unit and I were walking around at the local shopping mall when we happened upon a small kiosk offering belly-dancing accoutrements for sale. It was wonderful: There were sheer scarves that felt so soft to the touch, a collection of instructional videos (which I want for my upcoming birthday), even those marvelous brass finger cymbals known as zils or zagat. SU made a comment about how cool it would be to sit in an Egyptian or Moroccan club to watch a bevy of gorgeous exotic women twirling around. I had to agree wholeheartedly.

Well, if we ever get to Egypt, it appears we may be limited to gawking at local talent. The Associated Press reports that the Egyptian government has banned all foreign belly dancers.

The government says it wants to protect homegrown practitioners of the seductive Middle Eastern dance form and is no longer granting new work permits to foreign dancers or renewing existing ones.

The victims, who include Europeans and Americans, say it's unfair and illogical, and they are backed by one of the Arab world's most respected dancers, Nagwa Fouad, who is urging the government to reverse its ban.

"There is not enough Egyptian talent, so obviously people need foreigners," says Palestinian-born Fouad, who retired from dancing in 1997 after a career of four decades.

"There has always been a mix of Egyptian and foreign belly dancers here. Why should this change?"

What makes the move particularly curious is the fact that Egyptian society is growing less comfortable with the idea of scantily dressed Muslim women gyrating in public. That being the case, it does not make sense to boot willing non-Muslim performers.

But government officials say morality is not the issue. "Belly dancing is an Egyptian thing and is not a hard job," Nawal al-Naggar of the Ministry of Labor and Immigration told AP. "It is not hard to find belly dancers from Egypt. There are too many foreign belly dancers in Egypt working at nightclubs."

Hassan Akef, a leading dancers' agent, agrees. A supporter of the ban, Akef says the job market has been flooded with foreign performers, who mostly hail from Russia and the Ukraine. "They don't give the Egyptians any chance," he said.

Some foreign performers are fighting back. Two belly dancers, one from Russia and one from Australia, are taking the matter to court -- according to them, the new prohibition is unfair. And a French performer has asked her government to try and convince Egypt to reconsider.

from all facts and opinions

Are we not pus-- oops!-- women?

There's weird and there's weird. Ms. Lauren at Feministe turned me on this bit of weirdness, courtesy of weirdo Kim du Toit.

The Pussification of the Western Male

Now, little boys in grade school are suspended for playing cowboys and Indians, cops and crooks, and all the other familiar variations of "good guy vs. bad guy" that helped them learn, at an early age, what it was like to have decent men hunt you down, because you were a lawbreaker.

Now, men are taught that violence is bad -- that when a thief breaks into your house, or threatens you in the street, that the proper way to deal with this is to "give him what he wants", instead of taking a horsewhip to the rascal or shooting him dead where he stands.

Now, men's fashion includes not a man dressed in a three-piece suit, but a tight sweater worn by a man with breasts .

Now, warning labels are indelibly etched into gun barrels, as though men have somehow forgotten that guns are dangerous things.

Now, men are given Ritalin as little boys, so that their natural aggressiveness, curiosity and restlessness can be controlled, instead of nurtured and directed.

And finally, our President, who happens to have been a qualified fighter pilot, lands on an aircraft carrier wearing a flight suit, and is immediately dismissed with words like "swaggering", "macho" and the favorite epithet of Euro girly-men, "cowboy". Of course he was bound to get that reaction -- and most especially from the Press in Europe, because the process of male pussification Over There is almost complete.

How did we get to this?

The idea is not as new as he likely thinks it is. Far Right pundits, including gun research fraud John Lott, have been making the argument that troublesome women (along with uppity Negroes, of course) have been the ruination of America for quite a while.

You can read the rest of du Toit's Ode to Retrograde Masculinity here.

Note: This entry is an excerpt from Silver Rights.

Harmonic Concordance

In 1987 the Earth saw the first astrology-based global celebration of our era, the Harmonic Convergence. In two days we will have the chance to be a part of another landmark cosmic event, the Harmonic Concordance. "Harmonic convergence" describes the coming together of a group of energies to create a common tone. The term "Harmonic concordance" describes a group of energies in unison and resonance with a common tone.

Potential For Healing: According to astrologer Karen Steen, "Certainly, the chart indicates an opportunity to integrate greater emotional, spiritual, and ecological awareness into our personal lives and political and economic structures – if only that we all tune in together to such shared thoughts and feelings....

An expanded awareness now, as indicated by the Concordance chart, can assure real progress in our individual endeavors and progressive options for addressing global crises...."

What should you do?: Join together on that day with others in your community to focus on what you want more of in the world. Meditations visualizing a peaceful world, prayers of affirmation regarding harmony and global prosperity, and other such celebrations of the positive will have a far reaching effect. Remember, spirit work done alone makes a difference but that effect is multiplied (not added) when you join with others to do it, so organize a meditative get together with a friend or two or find a community gathering in your area. Spread the light and share the love.

On November 8-9, release what you no longer need with the total lunar eclipse, and open to the global energies of the Concordance. Finally, with the total solar eclipse of November 23, ground your expanded awareness and creative capacity, and begin anew to implement your intentions and plans."

-- Excerpted from full article at http://www.blisstherapy.com/news.html

POLITICAL LEANINGS?

Utne Magazine reminds us that the reality of today's political landscape is a bit more complex than the labels "right" or "left" and that political identities like "green," "communitarian," and "populist" don't easily fit the traditional left-right dichotomy.

So if you're as lost as I am, these quick quizzes may sort through your "real" political orientation, or if give you something to just want to waste your bosses time.

PoliticalCompass.org

AmericanChoices.org

The More Things Change...

If you haven't been keeping tabs, there has been a controversial tiff surrounding Condaleeza Rice and a cute little comic strip called "Boondocks."

Boondocks, a very popular, very cool Black, comic strip with militant overtones, kicked off the drama when the main character stated that Condeleeza Rice might not be so intent on destroying the world if she had a man. Ever since then, the character has been devoted to finding the perfect mate for this "weapon of mass seduction."

Oh Boy. Now don't get me wrong. I have a lot of respect for the strip's creator, Aaron McGruder, and I really wouldn't care so much about the comment...if it just weren't so darn take-me-back-to-the-1950s-= chauvinistic.

First of all, those types of comments are demeaning. Haven't we gotten past the whole idea that a woman's value is determined by the size of her...man? The answer is "No." Men are forever making lame comments like, "Someone needs to give her some" in response to some woman who just didn't feel like putting up with their B.S. that day.

Women are just as guilty. I was at a party once attended by a few women who were there with their men. They weren't just with them...they were glued to them. You know, the type of women who wouldn't be caught dead without a man. When I and my dateless self went up to greet these women they all instinctively gripped the arms of their men like I was going to grab one of them and run like the wind.

I could care less if Condaleeza Rice has a man, wants a man or really is a man in drag. But I do think if she had one, the press would be so heavily involved in her relationship that it just wouldn't work.

Second of all, how easy can it be to find a man when you are one of the most powerful women in the world? You have men who can't even handle a woman making a few thousand dollars a year more than they make. This woman is a top adviser to the most powerful man in the world. It's probably kind of hard to "push up" to a woman like that.

Third of all, if she was public about her relationship the media would spend all their time talking about whether or not she was going to get married and when she was going to have a baby. Society has a tendency to place women in one of four roles: wife, mother, fashion maven, sex object. Sooner or later, all public female figures get dragged, kicking and screaming, into one of these categories.

I'm sure Jackie Kennedy only wanted to be remembered for wearing nice dresses. I mean really, did this woman ever say anything? You wouldn't think so the way folks obsess about her style.

Condaleeza needs to be taken seriously for as long as this farce will hold up. Mark my words, the minute she goes public with a relationship people are going to be like--"Did you see what she wore when she was at that benefit with her man?"

http://sweetcity.blogspot.com.

Blogging for a Cure I

This marks the first of my November Blogging for a Cure postings. Throughout this month, I will attempt to post two or three times a week on the subject of diabetes. As will many Internet scribes: Blogcritics, Blogger, and individual writers throughout cyberspace will devote time and effort to spread the word about this insidious killer and about the work of the American Diabetes Association. The idea: to let people know the facts about diabetes, to encourage people to get tested and to monitor their disease, and to urge everyone to help involved in the effort to find a cure.

The issue is a personal one for me. My father, who died in September, had diabetes, and the disease played a contributory role to his death. My maternal grandmother is one of the 16 million Americans fighting the disease. So am I; dealing with this chronic illness is a constant struggle. And I have two children: My constant prayer is that they will be spared, but genetics puts them at a disadvantage. My responsibility, therefore, is to help them make positive health decisions that may protect them from ending up like their mother.

The kids are my number-one concern, of course, and recent news shows that this worry is justified. When we think of children, we tend to think of Type I diabetes, which is known as "juvenile diabetes." This develops when the body's immune system destroys pancreatic beta cells, the only cells in the body that make the hormone insulin, which regulates blood glucose. This form of diabetes usually strikes children and young adults, who need several insulin injections a day or an insulin pump to survive. But the American Diabetes Association reports that up to 45 percent of kids newly diagnosed with have Type II, and young girls are more at risk than young boys.

Type II diabetes usually begins as insulin resistance, a disorder called "borderline diabetes," in which a person's cells do not use insulin properly. As the need for insulin rises, the pancreas gradually loses its ability to produce it. This form of the disease is associated with older age, obesity, family history of diabetes, prior history of gestational diabetes, impaired glucose tolerance, and physical inactivity. Doctors say some people classified as African-American, Latino-American, Native-American, Asian-Americans, and Pacific Islanders are at particularly high risk. And increasingly, children who are overweight and lead sedentary lives -- perhaps because they spend too much time in front of video games and computer screens -- are at risk too.

Diabetes educator Lynn Baillif, M.S., R.D, operates Fit Kids, a program that teaches at-risk children healthy eating and exercise habits. She tells Medstar.com, "The best thing that we can tell parents is to get your kids to be more active and help them to pick healthier foods."

Here is where the difference between the two types of diabetes comes to the fore: In Type I or "juvenile" diabetes, the pancreas is unable to produce insulin. In Type II, it can, but can't process it properly. While there is no cure for diabetes, recent studies suggest that body fat interferes with the ability for cells to use insulin correctly. Meaning, reducing body fat can improve a Type II diabetic's health.

As more and more children are diagnosed with the "adult" version of the disease, it becomes increasingly important to urge parents and schools to serve healthier foods, to teach children to make wise dietary choices, and to promote the importance of fitness and exercise inside and outside of phys-ed classes.

Parents and guardians can help kids by presenting a good example: Whether you have diabetes or not, make sure your kids see you eating a balanced, low-fat diet. And drag your children away from sedentary activities -- get them involved in sports leagues or dance classes. Better yet, join them for a walk or run occasionally, take them swimming, and play physical sports with them. With luck and consistency, this can provide all kinds of benefits both for the children's physical and emotional well-being -- and for yours.

For information on what you can do to live a healthier life and to help spread diabetes awareness, visit the American Diabetes Association Web site. And become a Diabetes Advocate -- get involved in the cause.

from all facts and opinions

Hairy Women

That was the title of a show I watched last night on channel nine, staying up way past my bedtime because I was so curious after seeing the promos. It was a documentary-style look about the cultural perceptions of women and their body hair. It looked at all types of situations: women who went to great lengths (and expense) to remove hair from all over their bodies (except for eyebrows and scalp), men who were obsessed with dark thick body hair on women (one somewhat humorous segment involved a man who was searching for his perfect "hirstute" bride-to-be in Europe, disappointed to find that they all pretty much shaved, tweezed, plucked and waxed as frequently as most American women). They introduced a woman whose high testosterone level caused her to grow a small but noticeable moustache and beard. She had spent most of her life shaving the hair off, but consciously made the decision to grow it out and "be herself," because she wanted to see how she'd be treated.

The show was good in the sense that it got me to thinking about my own notions of beauty and body hair and cultural convention. I have quite dark hair, and have always been a bit on the hairy side. I remember sometime around 6th or 7th grade, sitting on the bus, quietly minding my own business when a boy began to taunt me about having "gorilla arms." I remember when I first started to hit puberty and my mom lectured me about the faintly noticeable hair on my upper lip, that I needed to start bleaching it. I remember how much that bothered me, because in so many other ways my parents encouraged me to just be who I was. Wasn't that hair on my lip just part of me, my body, who I was?

I've shaved, tweezed, plucked, waxed, and done the whole routine. I put up with shaving my underarms and legs because I like the feeling of smooth skin there-- no other reason, particularly, and I often let my leg hair grow long in the winter when I keep my legs covered up anyway. I tweeze away my unibrow. But I think of one of my favorite artists, Frida Kahlo, and how she exaggerated her own facial hair in her self portraits. She identified her body hair as a part of who she was, and unashamedly, or maybe defiantly? portrayed it. I'll have to think more about it. Why has body hair on women become so taboo?