Crawling out of the muck and mire of crass commercialism

OK, so I've been a terrible slacker these last few weeks. The annual holiday morass of shopping, wrapping, and eating (not to mention weeks of crushing boredom at work) has left me so utterly drained of energy and wit that I haven't been able to string together more than a sentence or two at a time. Blar.

But there's nothing like an international disaster to shake me free of my lethargy. The death toll continues to rise in the wake of the horrific devastation wrought by tsunamis in the coastal areas of south Asia - official counts have reached 52,000 and are still climbing. And that doesn't even include the casualities that are sure to follow from disease and starvation.

Meanwhile, our good friend Sheelzebub observed earlier today that the U.S. has pledged a paltry $15 million in aid to the battered region.

Interestingly, the Washington Post now reports that USAID is preparing to increase its aid efforts by another $20 million. Guilt is a wonderful thing, eh? Still, it's a drop in the bucket coming from the wealthiest country on the planet. Then again, what else should we expect from an administration whose raison d'etre is to line the pockets of the uber-rich? As Sheelzebub points out, "Between the invasion of Iraq, the "war" on terror, and tax cuts for the super-wealthy, we're just strapped."

For those who'd rather not wait for the government to get off the proverbial dime and pony up more funds, there are plenty of organizations lining up to offer assistance; check out this list. All of them are eminently worthy, but I'll put in my own personal plug for Oxfam.

I can't help reflecting on the irony that at the very moment so many of us were wallowing in wretched excess, tens of thousands were being stripped of their homes, their livelihoods, and even their lives. If God exists, s/he has a viciously perverse sense of humor.

So what if the country's going to Hell in a handcart? At least my hair looks good!

Coming back from lunch today, I got in the elevator with two older men. One asked the other, "Are you over the election yet?"

"Not really," came the reply. "It's been rough."

"Well," said the first, as he exited the elevator, "the holidays will help. Have a good Christmas."

The doors closed and the second man, who looked to be in his late sixties, asked, "How are you today?"

I smiled and said, "I haven't gotten over the election, either."

To which he replied - and I swear I am not making this up - "Well, you look great. I love the way you've done your hair."

Now why didn't someone tell me this before? Here we liberals have been lying awake nights, grappling with the aftermath of the election and its implications for our future - but hey, it's all right, kids, because I have great hair!

I realize that this man was making banal elevator conversation for two floors. And I realize, too, that he's of a different generation. But what does it say when a woman offers a political opinion, and the response she gets is, "Well, you look great"?

It says that, reflexively, her mind is valued far less than her appearance. It says, "No one cares what you think, little girl - just shut up and look pretty."

It says that in 2004, in the United States of America - land of the free and home of the brave, or so they tell me - women still don't get taken seriously.

Abstaining from good sense

Thinking people have long understood that abstinence-only sex education (and I use the term "education" lightly here) is a farce. Telling teenagers to abstain from sex has never worked. God's own self could come down from the stratosphere and threaten teens with eternal hellfire unless they keep their paws off each other - and huge numbers of them would still do the horizontal mambo. Call it nature, call it the urge to merge, call it whatever you like... but thus has it e'er been, and thus shall it e'er remain. Meanwhile, scientific analysis has found no conclusive evidence that abstinence-only education is effective.

This reality, of course, hasn't deterred the "moralists" in the White House, who could never be accused of letting the facts get in their way. They and their upright, uptight cronies have stormed our schools with their "just say no to sex" blitzkrieg, and have nearly $170 million earmarked in next year's budget for abstinence programs.

A new congressional staff analysis gives a boost to sex-ed programs that offer comprehensive info about everything from abstinence to zygotes. Out of 13 abstinence-only curricula examined, the report concludes that 11 give teenagers misleading or downright false information - including these howlers:

• A 43-day-old fetus is a "thinking person."
• HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, can be spread via sweat and tears.
• Condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission as often as 31 percent of the time in heterosexual intercourse.
• Women who have an abortion "are more prone to suicide" and as many as 10 percent of them become sterile.

So not only aren't kids getting the full range of information about sex, the information they are getting is ... hmm, what's the word? Oh, yeah: wrong.

The White House says it's trying to prevent abortions and HIV infection. But if that's what it really wanted, it would make sure kids have every available piece of scientific information about safe sex at their disposal. And it also might pay some attention to issues like poverty, self-esteem, and abuse - factors that contribute enormously to unwanted pregnancies and HIV infection.

But to this administration, information is the enemy. And the next generation is going to pay dearly for that willful ignorance.

The boys and the banned

This is old news, but I'm still steamed about it.

U.S. "ally" Saudi Arabia is preparing to hold its first nationwide elections early next year in a vote for municipal councils. In a country that was heretofore unencumbered by anything resembling democratic rule, these elections are considered a huge step forward.

Unless, that is, you were born with ovaries.

The Saudi government has hung a "men only" sign on the ballot boxes. Not only can women not run for office, they can't vote, either. And just to pour salt in the wound, prisoners (unlike in the U.S.) will be allowed to vote in the Saudi elections - provided, of course, that they're male. In other words, Saudi women have less of a voice in their government than criminals.

Which shouldn't amaze us, I suppose. Heck, I still marvel that these theocracies haven't made it illegal to have breasts.

Amnesty International points out that this discrimination is not explicit in Saudi Arabian law:

Saudi Arabia's electoral law is clear about women's participation. The law uses the word "citizen" -- in Arabic, this refers to both men and women in indicating those eligible to vote. Despite this, Interior Minister Prince Nayef bin Abdel Aziz announced last month that women would not be allowed to take part in the elections, saying "I don't think that women's participation is possible."

Nonsense; of course it's "possible." It would take some work, but it's possible.

Unfortunately, it would also require your country to view women as people and not property.

Especially depressing is the way Saudi women seem to aid and abet their oppressors. For instance, one of the reasons cited for the "impossibility" of allowing women to vote is that many of them don't have the photo ID cards required of all voters. And the reason they don't have them, according to CNN, is that many women "have balked at getting the ID cards -- introduced three years ago -- because the photographs would show their faces unveiled."

Democratic reform comes slowly to the oppressed ... but it always seems to come more slowly to women than to anyone else - and even more slowly to those who oppress themselves.

Oh, one more thing: foreign observers will not be permitted.

But hey, what are a few human rights violations between friends, right?

Feminist bloggers jailed in Iran

Via Pinko Feminist Hellcat, news of an Iranian government purge of human rights activists and progressive bloggers - including a pair of feminist bloggers:

Ampersand has a heads up about Iranian feminist and human rights bloggers being jailed. (He got it from Oxblog). The World Movement for Democracy put out the word, and I will print their post here below. Please write a polite letter of protest and concern to the officials listed below to support human rights, women's rights, and your fellow bloggers.

I'm also including the post from The World Movement for Democracy below, and encourage anyone who reads this to write a polite letter to the officials listed. "Polite" is the key here - this is one of those instances where venting your spleen might make you feel better, but it won't help the people who've been imprisoned. Years of writing letters as a member of Amnesty International taught me that however much you want to throw a grenade into their foxhole, polite is the only thing that has a positive effect on repressive governments.

Please, write. For American bloggers sitting comfortably at home in our bathrobes and fuzzy slippers, getting thrown in jail for posting our opinions on the "Internets" is unthinkable. But in countries where free speech is neither a right nor a privilege, expressing your opinion in a public forum is an act of real courage. The blogosphere is a truly global community, and these women are an important part of it. Let's support them.

The World Movement for Democracy would like to express its concern for the safety of two Iranian women leaders, Fereshteh Ghazi, an online journalist, and Mahboubeh Abbasgholizadeh, editor of a women's rights journal "Farzaneh." According to the Women's Learning Partnership, Abbasgholizadeh has contributed to the strengthening of Iranian civil society by conducting capacity building programs as Director of the NGO Training Center in Tehran, and was arrested at her home on November 2, 2004. Ghazi has used her skills to create an increased awareness of the status of women in Iran using the Internet, and was arrested in her office on October 28, 2004. Both women have been denied the right to legal counsel. Over the past two months, a string of Internet writers and civil society activists have been arrested for "propaganda against the regime, endangering national security, inciting public unrest, and insulting sacred belief," according to Jamal Karimi Rad, the judiciary's spokesman.

Amnesty International reports that Ghazi and Abbasgholizadeh are among 25 internet journalists and civil society activists that have been arbitrarily arrested in recent weeks. The Women's Learning Partnership, a World Movement participating organization, has been contacted by colleagues in Iran asking them to help bring attention to the plight of civil society activists in Iran.

Suggested Action: To demand the immediate release of Fereshteh Ghazi and Mahboubeh Abbasgholizadeh and express your concern for the rise in human rights violations in Iran, please write to President Hojjatoleslam Sayed Mohammad Khatemi, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the President of the European Parliament, and the Iranian embassy in your country:

His Excellency Hojjatoleslam Sayed Mohammad Khatemi
The Presidency Office
Pasteur Avenue
Tehran 13167-43311, Islamic Republic of Iran
E-mail: Khatami@president.ir

Her Excellency Louise Arbour
High Commissioner for Human Rights
United Nations Office at Geneva
1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland
Fax: + 41 22 917 9022
E-mail: tb-petitions@ohchr.org

His Excellency Josep Borrell Fontelles
President of the European Parliament
Division for Correspondence with Citizens

Iranian Embassies

Additional Information:

Women's Learning Partnership: "Alert: Condemn the Iranian Government's Crackdown on Civil Society and Women's Rights Organizations"

Human Rights Watch: "Iran: Web Writers Purge Underway"

Amnesty International:"Iran: Civil society activists and human rights defenders under attack"

Women Living Under Muslim Laws (WLUML): "Iran: Call for the unconditional release of Mahboobeh Abbasgholizadeh"

She-blog

There's a perception out there in the blogosphere that women aren't blogging - or that they're only blogging about family and personal stuff.

Typical.

What, you think we don't have anything political to say? Or that we're too shy/modest/afraid/busy getting our nails done to say it?

Check out Feminist Blogs, which syndicates - take a guess - feminist blogs (yours truly included) and several that are feminist-friendly. (If you have a blog that fits those criteria, join up - it's free). There's a wealth of smart, incisive, and often funny must-read stuff to be found there.

Mad props to Rad Geek for starting it, and a big shout-out to the hell-raisers who populate it.

More proof feminism hasn't outlived its usefulness

I have two smart, talented, wonderful stepdaughters, one of whom is a first-year medical student (the other is finishing her master's in voice pedagogy - and they both impress the heck out of me). It seems there have been some problems between the first-year (M1) and the second-year (M2) women this semester; according to the M2s, the M1s dress and behave "like sluts" and - get this - are a distraction to the M2 men, who've been acting like drunken frat boys around them. The M2 men support this assessment by blaming their behavior on the M1 women's style of dress.

So how does the school respond to this fracas? By calling a meeting of the M1 and M2 women, wherein one of the female instructors tells them they all need to behave more professionally - at which point one of the M1 women asks why the men aren't having this meeting, too. The answer: Because the women are held to a "higher standard." Because they won't be respected in the "real world" unless they behave more professionally than the men, so they're going to have to straighten up and fly right or risk career consequences down the line.

(My stepdaughter relayed this info to me over a family breakfast at Cracker Barrel. When she got to the "higher standard" part, my husband started snatching sharp objects off the table and placing them out of my reach.)

Aside from the patronizing aspect of the entire exercise, the thing that made my brain spontaneously combust is the way the school is propping up the male-centric paradigm. Heaven forbid we show the male med students and doctors that we have a zero tolerance policy for sexist behavior! Instead, let's tell the women to button up - wear oversized clothes if you have to! - so the guys won't be distracted.

Seriously?

And this came on the heels of an article in BusinessWeek about a report by the Institute for Women's Policy Research (IWPR) - a report that shows the gender gap is still as wide as the Grand Canyon:

Given current rates of change, it will be 50 years before women achieve equal pay with men and nearly 100 years before they gain equal representation in Congress, estimates the think tank on issues affecting women. Currently, females earn 76 cents for every dollar males earn (up from 73 cents in 2002) and have only 79 representatives in Congress out of a total of 535 seats, despite representing slightly more than half of the U.S. population. [Emphasis added.]

If you're wondering why things don't seem to have improved for women all that much, allow me to direct you to Exhibit A: the aforementioned med school meeting. On the surface, it might seem that those M1 and M2 women were being offered practical advice on how to succeed in a male-dominated field - advice from women who've been there, done that, bought the T-shirt. Seems reasonable, right?

Um, no. It's twaddle.

It's also feminism's version of Uncle Tommery - "go along to get along" and similar flavors of tripe. The truth is that as long as women buy into the notion that their behavior needs to be modified in order to keep men in line, things will never improve. As long as they believe that their professional success hinges on making themselves less enticing to men - read: less female - they will never be considered equal to men, and the paradigm will never shift.

Of course, some will argue that women aren't considered equals anyway, whether they behave like men or not. After all, hasn't the problem always been that when women behave like, well, women, they're not taken seriously? Indeed, that's been true in many respects. But what's also true is that we've spent years defeminizing ourselves in order to move up the business ladder, and what has it gotten us? What good does it do to redesign our femaleness so we can fit into the male business mold? What do we gain by unsexing ourselves?

Enough already. Time to stop accepting the way things are as the way they're always going to be. And it's way past time to stop ceding the business field to the guys. They don't get a free pass just for having a penis and a Y chromosome - and if they can't keep their inner horndogs in check, that's their problem. Once and for all, it's not our responsibility, no matter how much they try to tell us it is.

Because this isn't about sex; it's about power. It's about who dictates the rules of engagement. And the minute we agree to play by men's rules, we've lost.

Yasser Arafat is dead. Now what?

Yasser Arafat, who died on Thursday, was buried this morning in the ruined Ramallah compound to which he was confined for the last three years. Palestinians are in mourning; the rest of the world is wondering what happens now.

Steven Erlanger has an excellent analysis in today's New York Times about Arafat's passing, in which he observes:

His death early Thursday morning presents an enormous set of challenges to his own people, to the Israelis, to a re-elected American president and to the world at large.

It is a test, first of all, for the Palestinians themselves, to move from a revolutionary ethos of victimhood and military confrontation with Israel to a more responsible and legitimate government, able to care for its people and to negotiate for them.

It is a test for Israel and its prime minister, Ariel Sharon, to move beyond the dismissive response that there is "no negotiating partner" and to work to help the emerging Palestinian leadership consolidate and maintain authority and control.

All of that is true. But let's also remember that Arafat didn't dictate Palestinian ideology so much as reflect it. Although new PLO chairman Mahmoud Abbas had issues with Arafat's refusal to loosen his grip on power, causing Abbas to resign as the Palestinian Authority's prime minister after only four months, there's still no guarantee that Sharon will find Abbas any more compliant a "negotiating partner" than Arafat was. And Sharon has internal battles to fight, which puts his own negotiating partner status in question.

No wisdom to offer here, I'm afraid. Just a fervent wish that Arafat's death might be a step toward renewed peace negotiations, and not another step further back into the abyss of violence and horror these last few years have wrought.

Smile - or else

Sheelzebub, on her excellent blog, links to a fascinating discussion on Hugo Schwyzer's blog about how some men perceive themselves as being judged guilty by women before having a chance to prove themselves otherwise. As Sheelzebub notes, the conversation turns to how women respond to being told to smile by men.

This comment from Moontyger in the original discussion is spot on:

I think what most bothered me about the original post (and being told to smile by strangers) is the whole idea that it is all about *them*. Why am I obligated to notice and react to strangers? Why should they take my not noticing them as a personal insult? It just seems really self-centered to me to assume that 1) a woman not smiling at you has something to do with her perception of you and 2) to assume you have the right to tell her to smile because somehow women owe it to men to be pleasant.

Exactly. Sheelzebub also sums it up nicely:

Women are not obligated to date you, smile at you, or talk to you. Only creeps believe otherwise.

I share both Moontyger's and Sheelzebub's attitude on this. I've often had perfect strangers bark at me, "Smile!" (usually followed by claptrap like "You're too pretty not to smile") - to which my response has generally been, "Sod off."

And that attitude comes from my irritation with the assumption that I owe some strange man anything whatsoever. It's astonishing to me what some men assume they have a right to do. When I was in college in Manhattan, I was walking back to my dormitory early one evening when I saw two men on the sidewalk, about the same age as me or a little older. As I passed them, one reached out - lightning fast - and grabbed between my legs, then laughed and continued on his way.

I was so shocked, so stunned, I stood speechless for a moment, before recovering my wits and hurling curses at the back of his retreating head. In retrospect, I wish I'd hurled a heavy object instead.

In what perverse, screwed up universe does a man think that kind of violation is his right?

Play ball! … Maybe.

And now, for something completely different....

It’s official: Washington, D.C., after a 33-year drought and over the loud protestations of Baltimore Orioles owner Peter Angelos, is once again going to have a baseball team. The long, slow, agonizing death march of the Montreal Expos is just about over, and now more than the team’s stats are headed south.

(Side note: Is anyone else wryly amused by the thought of the Expos moving from French-speaking Montreal to the land of "freedom fries"?)

I'm a lifelong National League gal. The New York Mets and I were born the same year, 40 miles apart - and despite their tragicomic history, I continue to love them, no matter how much they disappoint me (and lately, folks, that's been plenty). Since I relocated to the D.C. area, I've had to settle for interleague play to get my NL fix. So for me, this is almost as thrilling as the day I shook hands with Willie Mays at a meet-and-greet event.

OK, it's nowhere near that thrilling - I may be a Mets fan, but I'm not completely out of my mind.

But the thought of a National League team in D.C. - or a baseball team, period - is still pretty darn cool.

(A shout-out to baseball geeks: today's the 50th anniversary of that original Web Gem known as The Catch.)

My diehard American Leaguer hubby (who complains loudly at the sight of a National League pitcher with a bat in his hand, but is otherwise perfect) informs me that D.C. was also thisclose to getting the Padres back in the early ‘70s. Deal announced, press conference held, confetti thrown. The Padres, you might have heard, still call San Diego home.

And in 1995, the nation’s capital was ready to roll out the red carpet for the Astros – until Houston’s voters approved a new stadium and Major League Baseball put the kibosh on the move.

So it’s little wonder that long-time Washingtonians are a wee bit skeptical about getting a team, even if it's the woebegone (and now GM-less) Expos.

The aforementioned Angelos has been determined (translation: using threats and intimidation) to keep the 'Spos out of D.C. because he perceives them as a threat to his Orioles (who, I should note, have lived in fourth place in the AL East for so long they might as well hang curtains in the window). So MLB will have to fork over some serious goodies to fend off an Angelos lawsuit - and there are a couple of other bumps that could still knock this thing off the rails, like a lawsuit by the Expos' former owners and the small matter of getting a $440 million stadium deal approved by the D.C. Council.

Which is why I understand the Washington Post's excellent sports columnist and baseball swami, Thomas Boswell, when he says he'll believe D.C. has a baseball team after they play their second game in the District.

Speaking of Boswell, he makes a fine suggestion in today's column for how Angelos can bow gracefully out of the cockfight he started:

Angelos's choice now is whether to end the battle with class. Oh, Peter can do it. His intelligence and sense of self-interest are so sharp that for once he may see the wisdom of good grace. Besides, he can seek his own counsel as to his legal standing: He has no case. For once, Angelos needs to get with baseball's program, not just his own.

Here's a proper script -- a gift from someone who's enjoyed your team for 30 years:

"I've fought for the interests of my franchise and my partners as hard as I can. Anyone would do the same. But the best interests of baseball come before any one team. Moving the Expos to Washington provides the greatest economic good to the whole sport and returns baseball to a great city and neighbor. I am satisfied with the settlement my fellow owners have given the Orioles. It will help us field competitive teams in the future. I hope our loyal fans from Washington will still support the Orioles. We wish good luck to the Senators or Nats or whatever you infernally persistent people decide to call your team. And, some day, I hope we get to beat your brains out in the first Baltimore-Washington Parkway World Series."

It's worth pointing out, however, that both the O's and the Whatchamacallems are going to have to actually win more games than they lose before that "some day" dawns. Until then, baseball fans along the B-W Parkway are going to have to settle for not one but TWO teams that can't break .500. Call it an embarrassment of riches, emphasis on "embarrassment."

Still... d'ya think it's too early to put in for vacation time on Opening Day 2005?