I'm super tired, so I'm just going to post some pictures from the Greater Boston Labor Council Labor Day Breakfasat and Healthcare Rally

So, I'm one of the folks that my union keeps inviting to events, and today I got to go to the greater Boston Labor Council Labor Day breakfast, which was a big freakin deal this year since Ted Kennedy's seat is open. Every speaker mentioned Kennedy several times, talking about how he was a champion of the working class, and how we needed to continue the struggle for healthcare for all which includes a public option. the streets were lined with folks supporting people for the senate race, the race for mayor of Boston, and city council

and the room was packed (it was at the park plaza hotel, which was fancy!)

there were some pretty good speeches. Martha Coakley essentially gave a stump speech. The director of the labor council is always a crowdpleaser, and I particularly enjoyed Jim Capuano's speech (he just announced today he will be running for Kennedy's seat as well).

After the speachifying and shmoozing (where one of the union muckity mucks encouraged me to consider running to be a delagate for my ward in somerville to the state democratic convention), we walked down to the common for a rally, which then became a march down Boylston to Copley Square

Rep Stephen Lynch got shouted down by the crowd chanting "public option" during the rally when he spoke.

here are some pictures of my union brothers and sisters in the march

People over Profits! Healthcare for ALL!

Rally in Copley Square

I had to explain what a lolcat was to my field rep. he saw this sign and asked what was wrong with the guys poster that the words were spelled wrong and what did a cat have to do with healthcare

Save the Boston Globe!

We have all read recently about the threat of possible closure faced by the Boston Globe. A number of Boston-based bloggers who care about the continued existence of the Globe have banded together in conducting a blog rally. We are simultaneously posting this paragraph to solicit your ideas of steps the Globe could take to improve its financial picture:

We view the Globe as an important community resource, and we think that lots of people in the region agree and might have creative ideas that might help in this situation. So, here's your chance. Please don't write with nasty comments and sarcasm: Use this forum for thoughtful and interesting steps you would recommend to the management that would improve readership, enhance the Globe's community presence, and make money. Who knows, someone here might come up with an idea that will work, or at least help. Thank you.

Also, if you aren't that familiar with the Globe, or are from another area of the country, think about the problem in a more global scale. Cities all over the country are going from two papers to one, or from one to none. A study done by Princeton found that a decrease in newspapers in Cincinati led to a decrease in participation in politics by those affected (there is a blog entry that talks about the results at Reflections of a Newsosaur, and it was covered by NPR's On The Media program)

(P.S. If you have a blog, please feel free to reprint this item and post it. Likewise, if you have a Twitter or Facebook account, please add this url as an update or to your status bar to help us reach more people.)

here is an article in the globe that talks about a blog rally

in the motherhood

Oedipal Complex much?

Parenthood is one of those things I've been ambivalent about. And some of it is because I chafe at "The cult of motherhood". This ideal that my life isn't complete until I get married and have a baby. Some of it is the defensive reaction against a society that wants to tell me how to live every aspect of my life. That onsie above is a good example. I mean, is the child supposed to supplant the husband in the mother's life? Is that good for anyone? I mean, it seems like the husband gets completely shut out of the picture (and a lot of times traditional views of parenting do just that, and look at daddy as an ATM, or another child in the house). I doubt it really works for the mother (although media images make it seem like once you're a mommy, then that's all you are so why would you want a husband/adult male companion or friends or anything else?). And it can't possibly be good for the kid. I know we talk about kids being the center of a parent's life, and it's true that a lot of decisions get made with the welfare of the children at the heart...but as someone who has worked with lot of kids who have difficulty dealing with distress, making kids feel like they are the absolute center of the universe isn't really doing them any favors.

The "self esteem" movement backfired, and you wind up with a lot of kids who have been told their whole lives that they are absolutely perfect and they deserve every good thing in the world just for being them. And when they get older and are faced with the truth that there are going to be people who are faster/smarter/prettier/ect than they are, and that sometimes you lose, and sometimes life isn't fair...they can't deal. Kids with HEALTHY self esteem can fall down, and know that they have the ability to get back up. Kid's who've been sheltered from failure don't know this, and it leaves them bereft of any distress tolerance skills.

And that doesn't even touch the hetero-normative nature of the shirt.

Anyhow, this onsie is creepy at best, and the message behind it makes me worried for the parents who buy them, and the kids who wind up wearing them.

You down with GOP?

Stephen Colbert and the remixed clips of RNC Chairman Michael Steele throw down in a rap battle. Stephen has the skillz to pay his childrens' private school billz...

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Michael Steele's Rap Battle Response
comedycentral.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Mark Sanford

So, Michael Steele wants the Republican party to be relevant to today's youth, by bringing it into an "urban/suburban hip-hop context". He uses words like "bling-bling", and "off the hook", which don't exactly seem to roll off his tongue with ease.

Now, when you get past the choice of lingo...the man has a point. The Republican party as it has been in (at least the recent) past, has not had a lot to offer a more urban audience, and in African Americans in particular.



Steele and D.L. Hughley make a good point...the ideals behind the Republican party: Self Reliance and Self Determination with minimal government intervention and fiscal conservatism...are ideals that many American's can get behind. Yet, the coalition that the Republican party has built has at times taken it away from that ideal, and in so has become a party that seems to have a split personality. It's a party that wants you to keep your laws of our guns, but has no problem getting the law all up in my girl bits, as well as marriage equality. It's a party of populist rhetoric, of "the american dream" and the Horatio Alger myth, that takes a very pro-big-business stance in its policy making. It's a party that talks about cutting government spending, but has driven up the deficit with interventionist wars and tax cuts. It's a party that talks about being "pro-family values", but tends to cut supports for working families (SCHIP is a good example).

Partly this is an example of why the two party system doesn't make sense, and Jon Stewart's analysis of this in America, the Book is a great illustration of it. I mean, how did the anti-abortion and pro-death penalty positions get lumped into one political movement? Or anti-abortion and pro-gun? Or anti-death penalty and pro-choice? How do people who believe that government should not be telling us how to run our lives get along with people who want a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage? It's political red-rover, which is a fun game when you're 6, but not a great way to decide how to lead the nation.

I am a loyal democrat, living in one of the most liberal states in the country (gay marriage, decriminalized pot, AND universal health care...take THAT California :P) And yet at times I chafe at the "nanny state". If I want trans-fats with my french fries, who are you to say I can't, Brookline? It's especially hilarious when in the same 12 month period we ban trans fat but decriminalize pot.

In an ideal world, we would have many more parties, and open up the debate to more potential leaders with a variety of views. With this two party system, things become so entrenched. Bill Clinton got in some hot water for saying he wanted abortion to be "safe, legal, and rare". Now Michael Steele is having problems around his stance on abortion. With just two parties it is unlikely that we would ever have a pro-choice Republican (even though it fits with the reduced government intervention that small-government folks would be in favor of), and it is unlikely that we would have an anti-choice Democrat (even though there is a large portion of liberals who are anti-death penalty, and might feel the same about life after conception). With more parties there would be room for more diversity.

Having said that, right now we have a two party system, and while supporting more parties is important, we also need to figure out how to make the system we have as workable as possible. The party loyalist in me is taking...not joy....but is not exactly saddened to see the Republican party struggle to find it's identity after the recent losses in the elections, and in the view of the electorate. As a Democrat during the Bush years, it was painful at times to see my party divided by bickering, and sidelined by infighting. It is much less painful to watch it happen on the other side of the isle. And yet we need a viable Republican party to keep things in check. The biggest downside of living in Boston, is that my political views aren't challenged that often in my social circle. We all have essentially the same views about how government should be run. It makes for less awkwardness at cocktail parties, but it's not the best way to govern. I wondered why MA often had a republican Governor, even though it is a predominantly democrat state. Now I see the strength in having that balance. I like Patrick much more than Romney (and I think he would make a TERRIBLE candidate for president, especially against Obama), but it's good to have people challenging you on your positions so you can think about them more critically. The trick is for both sides to really THINK, and not just have an entrenched shouting match.

The other thing that is interesting about Steele is the issue of race. There aren't a lot of African American Republicans. D.L. Hughley described the RNC this year as looking like "Nazi Germany". For a racial breakdown of the parties, the Kansas City Star broke down the demographics of the nation, and the two national conventions.

Here’s America, 2006 numbers: 74% white, 14.8% Hispanic, 13.4% African-American, 50.9% women.

Delegates to the 2008 Republican convention: 93% white, 1.5% African-American, 5% Hispanic, 32% women.

Delegates to the 2008 Democratic convention: 65% white, 23% African-American, 11% Hispanic, 50.1% women.

And I think some of that has to do with the legacy of the republican party and segregation. To this day there seems to be more racial insensitivity coming from the republican party (although one could argue that "Liberal White Guilt" and policies born out of unexamined race/class stereotypes are just as harmful, if more covert). And I think this lack of sensitivity may express itself in policy that is build from a position of privilege, and doesn't recognize just how uneven the playing field actually is. Even Condalezza Rice pointed out the difficulty we have in dealing with racism and the legacy of slavery here.

RICE: [T]hat’s not a very pretty reality of our founding, and I think that particular birth defect makes it hard for us to confront [race], hard for us to talk about [race], and hard for us to realize that [race] has continuing relevance for who we are today. … [D]escendents of slaves, therefore, did not get much of a head start. And I think you continue to see some of the effects of that. (from thinkprogress.com)

As much as we would like to believe that Obama signals a "post racial society", I don't think we're there yet. Rice, Powell, and Steele are exceptions that prove the rule. If things truly were equal, there would not be the performance gaps in school, and inequalities in incarceration and the death penalty.

Interestingly, when Steele spoke to Chuck D about hip-hop, he assumed that Chuck came from "the streets", as opposed to someone who was raised in the suburbs of Long Island by political activists, and who went to college. What does it mean that Steele, who is the first African American leader of the Republican party assumes that an African American hip-hop star was from "the street"? Is it about race? Dose Steele see himself as the exception that proves the rule? I think some of it might be an outdated understanding of the larger culture and the culture of hip-hop. The republican message (especially the one that Sarah Palin delivered) focused on "small town america" and the values of an America that I think exists more in the mind than anywhere else. It's not just kids from "urban/suburban settings" that are listening to hip hop. Three of the top five songs in the hot 100 are hip-hop/R&B songs. I don't think they realize how much of hip-hop culture is out there in "small town america".

The interview with Steele has me intrigued. It will be interesting to see how the GOP will respond to him, and any changes he might try to institute. And it will be interesting to see if he is interested in enacting real change in the party platform, or just covering the old planks with some new "bling"

Radiohead + Marching Band = Awesome

I would LOVE to have some Video of the UMass Drumline rendtion of Paranoid Android. Possibly one of my favorite covers ever (scroll down 3/4 of the way, it's from the 2003 season)

Quickie: the economic meltdown

This American Life has done a fantastic job covering the economic crisis with the Planet Money folks. After listening to their three episodes on the situation I feel like I actually understand what is being said on the news. I highly recommend checking it out to get a straightforward explanation of what is happening and how it came to be this way.

The Giant Pool of Money explains how people got mortgages they couldn't possibly afford, and how the inevitable foreclosures have affected Wall Street.

Another Frightening Show about the Economy explains how we went from a "sub-prime" mortgage crisis to a credit crisis, and what it means.

Bad Banks talks about the bank bailouts, how banks work, and how maybe it wasn't shady mortgage lenders after all (Did you know that we currently have a 1:1 debt to GDP ratio? Did you know that the last time that happened was 1929? Are you a little nervous yet?)

Each program is around 1hour, and it's told in a way that is understandable to the average layperson, and is interesting (and not dry). It's definitely time well spent. Or don't, and talk about something you don't really understand, like in the episode A little bit of Knowledge (one of the favorite TAL episodes among my friends)

The "Kelly has Bronchitis" post

So, I feel like I should write something, but I'm sick. I went to the emergency room thursday night, and then went to my doctors today. Turns out I have bronchitis.

So, lets examine how much getting bronchitis runs when you have a good, union negotiated, health insurance:

1 trip to ER: $50
1 pro air inhaler $30(!!!)
1 script for cough meds $10
1 pcp visit $15
1 steroid inhaler $30
1 script antibiotics $10

so....that just ran me $145
(and that's not counting the $110 the insurance costs me monthly)

Now, without insurance the ER visit ALONE may have been $234.48 (I got this number from a study by the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine).

One of the things that is interesting about Asthma is how it is affected by your environment, and that is to some degree a result of your economic status. Kids who grow up in poorer neighborhoods tend to live with more environmental triggers.

So, what does this have to do with anything? Well, just thinking about how much this cost, and how many folks out there DON'T have insurance, I really hope we are able to manage getting health care reform through, so that everyone has access to affordable health care (the US has the 4th highest mortality rate due to respiratory disease out of 16 "developed" countries). Asthma is a condition that can be pretty successfully treated on an outpatient basis, but without insurance the medication is prohibatively expeinsive (I used to take over a hundred dollars worth of inhalers a month, and again, that was WITH good, union negotiated health insurance).

It also makes me grateful for the sacrifices that union members in the past made to make sure that health care was considered a standard benefit. Even if you're not in a union, most of the things that make work life better (standard workweeks, overtime pay, paid sick and vacation time, health coverage) was fought for by unions before you and I punched our first time clock.

Why so serious?

So, my first two posts have sort of been about serious stuff. But I'm not all serious all of the time. I'm actually a big fan of film, and this is the first Oscar night where I haven't been at or been hosting a party in a few years. SO, here are a few thoughts about the 81st Academy Awards, even though I've only been able to watch since after Jerry Lewis got his lifetime achievement award (which is somewhat controversial, what with the term "Jerry's Kids" being maybe a bit on the patronizing side, as well as his use of gay slurs....and I'm sure there's more I'm missing)

Anyhow, in going over the awards that were already given out, the single biggest thing I can say is, do yourself a favor and rent Man on Wire. It is a documentary about the man who walked on a tightrope between the two towers of the world trade center in the mid 70's after they were just built. It is put together like a bank heist, and it is just magical and captivating, and captures a sense of wonder and whimsy that is infectious. I honestly cannot recommend this enough.






Now, I'm happy for Slumdog Millionaire (and I really do need to go out and see it), but I'm a little sad that they didn't acknowledge the female Indian co-director who's assistance allowed for the film to take such advantage of the city of Mumbai and it's citizens (although she herself is fine with it).


There aren't enough female directors, and they don't get the same chances as men in the field. And a lot of times when women direct films, they are independently produced and financed. It was funny to see how shocked people in the industry were at the success of Sex and the City (which I didn't see, and am saving for perhaps a hormonal moment to be accompanied by chocolate ice cream and irony). Like the concept that women might respond to a movie about them was inconceivable. I am hoping the ongoing "digital revolution" enables more female directors to go out and make films, and that they get seen by larger and larger audiences, because there is a difference between the male and female gaze.

Now, I have another film recommendation that was nominated in the screenplay category (Sally Hawkins got robbed)!



Happy go Lucky is a film that follows an woman who loves life and who faces life head on with a heart full of love and a mind open to adventure. She is a single elementary school teacher in England who lives with her best friend, and enjoys her life and looks for the positive no matter what comes her way. It sounds like it's going to be a super-sappy Pollyanna type story, but the acting and directing keeps it fresh and honest. I found it especially affirming being a thirty-something single woman myself.

And here are some random thoughts about the parts of the Oscars that I did see:
*I think I love Anne Hathaway a little more because of how excited she was for Kate Winslet
*as my friend Adam pointed out, it's a little odd to have to read your best friend's name off a little scrap of paper, Sean Penn.
*And I was impressed that his acceptance speech was as toned down as it was, considering he won it for playing Harvey Milk. He's not exactly known for having a light touch
*I thought the little "senior yearboook-like" speeches to each of the nominees was kind of endearing, but I wonder who picked the pairings
*Robert DeNiro wins on the introduction front

As for nominated films, I've seen....a few
(films I've seen, films I'd reccomend, films I want to see, films I have no idea about, meh)

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (I dunno, other than makeup effects, I'm not sure there is anything here I'm compelled to see. Makes me want to rent Big Fish again instead)

Frost/Nixon (I'm a sucker for a political thriller)

Milk (not burning to see it, but wouldn't turn it down)

The Reader (I'm all holocaust movied out)

Slumdog Millionaire (heck, I'd see it for the soundtrack alone!)

The Visitor

The Wrestler (this is one of those movies you have to be in the right mood for, because it's bound to be depressing)

Rachel Getting Married (this looked good, and I like Anne Hathaway. The Devil Wears Prada is much better than you'd think based on the title, mostly because of Hathaway and Streep)

Changeling (More because this is the type of noir story I enjoy than Angelina Jolie's presence)

Frozen River

Doubt (see notes for The Wrestler)

Tropic Thunder (ZOMG! I LOVE this movie! Ben Stiller is a good comedy director, and I love the concept. Not to mention it's worth seeing for Tom Cruise alone, AND makes a good argument for why there should be an oscar for title sequence)

The Dark Knight (Elevated the Action flick. Nolan is definately one of my favorite working directors, and I like Aaron Eckhart a lot, and not just because he was a big part of why the adaptation of Thank You for Smoking worked as well as it did)

Revolutionary Road (I like Kate Winslet, but I'm not sure I'm gonna go out of my way for this one)

Vicky Cristina Barcelona (I do like me some woody allen, and penelope cruise)

The Baader Meinhof Complex

The Class (sounds very interesting, based on the NPR piece I heard today)

Departures

Revanche

Waltz With Bashir (I heard an interview with the filmmaker on NPR, and I was captivated. It sounds like it's pretty intense, so it's another movie like The Wrestler and Doubt, but I think it will be worth it)

Happy-Go-Lucky (See Above)

In Bruges (the box describes it as a dark comedy. it's half right, and not that funny. I mean, I guess if I was in the right mood it would have been better, but I was hoping for dark comedy along the lines of Grosse Point Blank, and got something a heck of a lot darker. Proves that Collin Ferrell CAN do something useful)

WALL-E (it's got elements of silent film, it's beautiful, and whimsical. Yet another reason credit sequences deserve their own oscar category)

Bolt

Kung Fu Panda (I hear it's not as dumb as I thought)

The Duchess

Wanted

Iron Man (if Batman hadn't been as good as it had been, this movie would have probably gotten even more attention. Good popcorn flick)

Defiance (James Bond as a leader of the Jewish resistance against the Nazis. Who am I kidding, I would watch him read the phone book. Him and Craig Fergasson)

Australia

The Betrayal (Nerakhoon)

Encounters at the End of the World (I almost did see this film. It screened as part of the Independent Film Fest of Boston, which is made of awesome! Werner Herzog will not be ignored!)

The Garden

Man on Wire (see above)

Trouble the Water (I'm a sucker for a documentary, what can I say)

Hellboy II: The Golden Army (mostly for Guillermo del Toro's visuals, which are amazing)

what exactly do we mean by choice?

So...the media decided to call Nadya Suleman, the woman who had octuplets as a result of IVF, Octomom, which makes her sound less like a mother of mulitple births, and more like a cartoon super-villan. The porteyals in the media have largely been negative, especially talking about how already had six children, and that at least two of her six previous children are disabled. It's also been widely discussed that she is unemployed, on disability, and recieved government aid to help with the six children she already had, and will likely need much more government aid to help support the eight children she had through IVF. For starters, I think we need to leave the woman alone. The kids are already born, and wheather one agrees with her decision or not, if only for the sake of the kids we should let them be and wish them the best.

Now having said that, there is a LOT to talk about in responose to these kids and this situation. For starters, how many is too many? (My parents were very intentional in only having two children, one to replace each of them) I don't think anyone is SERIOUSLY considering limiting the number of kids a family can have (and it looks like China may be reconsidering their one child rule), but there is a question about what is an "optimal" number of children to have. The NYT recently had an article about larger families feeling judged by others. Now, I don't anticipate having a large family (I've spent a lot of time vacilating between wanting kids and not wanting kids, but I think now I would like to have children if the opportunity arose), but I do have friends who have larger families, some intentionally and some not. The question of family size is a personal one, but I think it's valuable to talk about what it means, especially in the west where we use a disproportionate ammount of the worlds resources per person.
In a world with dwindling resources and concerns about climate change, and in a country where millions of kids spend their entire lives in foster care, maybe it's time to talk about family size and intention. This can get a bit sticky because for some folks, things like birth control (forget abortion) are considered tempering with God's plan. There is also a movement known as the Quiverfull, that encourages families to have large families as part of God's plan. I think the world can use a supply of loved, well cared for, good people, but I also think it's important to think about our planet, and what it means to be a good steward of it (to use the christian term that is often used in talking about conservation).

Another interesting question has to do with IVF itself and the ethics behind it. My understanding of the procedure is that the procedure includes fertilzing an egg (either donor or your own) and sperm, and then implanting them. And becasue the doctor is working with people who by and large have fertility issues, there are often more eggs attempted to be fertalized than they hope to implant. What to do with the fertilized eggs beyond those are implanted is an issue that currently does not seem to have a satisfactory solution. This appears to be what happened in the Suleman case. The doctor fertilized six eggs, and Ms. Suleman saw them as her children, and how do you ask a woman to dispose of her children? I wonder if some of this is in part a difference between how a doctor views these little bits of tissue in a test tube, vs how someone who is aching to have a child sees them. I mean, who's in charge here? Who owns the embryos and who has the right to decide what happens to them when push comes to shove? Yes, there are guidelines about how many are implanted (which I believe caps out at around three), but how do you enforce it? And what if the mother insists? And I wonder what the statistics are on who actually does selective reduction (which means aborting some of the fetuses in order to increase survival of the remaining fetus(es)). Putting myself in the potential mother's shoes, it would be heartbreaking to try to decide about whether or not to selectively reduce, even if it meant better survival odds for the remaining fetus.

And let's not forget that there are some issues of class (and potentially race) in play. I mean, people think that Kate of Jon and Kate plus 8 is annoying, but that's nothing compared to what Ms. Suleman is facing. And what about the Duggar family, who have a show on Discovery Health about raising their EIGHTEEN children. It seems that a lot of the anger stems from the fact that there is no husband, and that there is no visable means of independant support. I wonder if the backlash would have been so bad had we been in an economic upswing, vs the current downturn. Would it be different if she had a husband? Would it be different if she was a woman of privalege (I know the tabloids flip-flop between anointing Angelina Jolie for adopting so many kids, and think she's wackadoodle for having so many kids, but this seems worse, and not only because of the increasing magnatude)? Does it matter that these kids will likely be supported by taxpayers dollars, and is this just a new way to express rage at "welfare mothers"? On the flip side, why is this one woman recieving so much ire in the media compared to Bernie Madoff? Not that he is getting off scott free, but this woman is recieving DEATH THREATS for goodness sake. And is the fact that she is a woman of color an issue?

So, there are lots of factors and issues to think about. It seems like we (being the general populace) are angry about SOMETHING, and that we agree by and large that this situation is not good for the kids or the mom. But the fact that there is so much interest, and so much venom, suggests that it's hit something in our collective psyche. Or, as I like to say at work...it's all information. When I ask a pretty straightforward question, and someone gets very animated about it, to me that means there is likely something more there. Example, I ask you if you're feeling suicidal, how do you respond? Well, you might wonder whyI'm asking, but if you're not feeling suicidal you would probably say, "no". So, if I ask, and you start yelling at me for asking you that question, that is interesting to me because something about the question seems to have hit something important to you. So in this case, what is it about this woman that has hit a collective nerve? I really think that a lot of it has to do with timing and economics. We're all stressed to some degree about the economy, and somebody should just pay Tim Geithner to not say anything, because every time he talks the market drops 300 points. And we're angry about our country seeming to be in a downward spiral. We'd love to yell at the banks, but I think we're too confused by what happened, and too in awe of the Masters of the Universe, dethroned or not. And while we'd love to be angry at people who are foreclosing on our homes, I think a lot of us are realizing that it wouldn't take too much for "those people" to become us. But none of us are planning on having eight children, so it's easy to focus our anger on her, and how she is "squandering valuable government resources". It's the "welfare queen" of a new generation (which makes me wonder if we are underestimating the importance of race, or if we've just moved on and vilfy poor single mothers with more equality now).

I think the most interesting thing to me about all of this is how identity politics can get all flummoxed in a situation like this. Feminism is often distilled into being about "choice". Reproductive choice, the choice to marry or not, and who to marry, choice in careers, choice to stay home and raise a family and have that work be valued. But does that mean that every choice is a good choice, and should every choice be defended as legitmate? I'm a feminist, and I believe that every woman should have the right to choose what happens to her body, but does that mean I need to defend Ms. Suleman's choice to have 8 children by IVF? Read the comments on the feminist blogs around this topic and it's pretty clear that this is not a black and white issue. There are some in the movement that seem to feel that we are "under attack", and that every choice needs to be defended against criticism from a largely patriarchal society. And I get where they're coming from. It's hard being a woman. There are so many difficult and conflicting messages about who you should and shouldn't be, that ANY act that defies the expectation of society is impressive in it's way. But I feel like, while we are still fighting that battle to stake our claim on our own destinies, it's time, as a movement to look beyond that. It's not just good enough to talk about the patriarchy and how we can defy it (although we shouldn't completely abandon that discussion). It's time for us to talk about what to DO with these choices we have now, how to empower ourselves and other women, and what these choices mean for us. OK, so right now we have the right to choose to abort. Is it OK for us to talk about it now beyond "Keep abortion safe and legal"? Can we move on to making it rare? Is it OK for me to suggest that while abortions are not something to be ashamed of, it is a more invasive medical procedure than preventing pregnancy, and we should try to prevent them for the sake of our sister's health? (Is there such a thing as a pro-life feminist?) And sex. We're moving away from the idea that women don't really like sex, and beginning to accept the idea of women as sexual agents. So, how do we move in this new space in a way that is empowering to women? Because it seems like this sexual empowerment we've been looking for gets coopted by the media to meet male fantasies in ways that make me pissed off (like selling thongs to pre-teens. Seriously? This is empowerment?) So, do we close ranks around Ms. Suleman because she is a single woman who's choices are under attack? Can we do that and still as a movement talk about the implications of her choice? Do we get to judge her choice as good or bad?

Can we even help but judge?

When is a positive female role model not a positive female role model?

So, I was reading some of my favorite blogs, when I came upon this article in the LA Times about Rihanna and Chris Brown that I saw while reading a post on Idolator (a music focused pop culture blog that I enjoy). For those who haven't heard about this, Chris Brown (a young R&B star who hit #1 with the song "Run It" as a 16 year old, and recently had a hit with "With You" who has been referred to as a young Michael Jackson) recently turned himself in for alleged felony domestic battery after what appered to be a physical altercation with his girlfriend Rihanna (who is a pop star in her own right, and is probably best known for her hit "Umbrella", although between you and me, I like "SOS" more). This assault happened right before the Grammy's and is believed to be related to their pulling out of performing live. There have also been reports in the gossip blogs/magazines about people who saw Rihanna at the hospital, and it appears to not have been a mild assault (not that any assault would be OK).

Now, there is a lot that can be said, and has been said, about misogyny in hip-hop. Love Hurts is an article from Vibe magazine that was linked to in Feministing about domestic violence in hip hop culture that is much more well researched and thought out than I'm ready to do at this point. There is a long tradition in hip-hop and R&B around objectifying women, and talking about "smacking my bitch up" or "keeping hoes in line". There are many hip hop artists that worked their way up from hustling on the street, and have told their stories in music. And there are more hip hop artists, and kids who've grown up on hip hop, who have learned the language and emulated the attitudes they've seen portrayed. There is an interesting point in the Vibe article about how women in African American communities have had more success than men in certain aspects, and that an emasculation in one area can lead to a sense of needing to be hyper-masculine in other areas, including "keeping your woman in line". Kevin Powell refers to this as "Bootleg Masculinity" (You might remember him from the first season of The Real World. He wrote an essay about ending violence against women that can be read here). But this really deserves a separate post.

Anyhow....that is a long walk to get to this quote from the LA Times article about how the assault by Chris Brown against Rihanna might impact the stars:

Although Rihanna has not been accused of doing anything wrong, some companies may shun her as well, she said.

"The reason why she has been used as a celebrity endorser is that she represents something very positive and in particular a strong female role model, and when she is associated with a situation like this it can have an impact," Green said.

What pisses me off is the idea that somehow being the victim of domestic violence makes Rhianna no longer a good role model. As one of my friends in my other blog put it....would it make her a better role model to sit back and take it and not speak up? What are we to take from this kind of thinking? Does this imply that Rihanna did something to deserve it?

One of the fallacies in the cycle of domestic violence is both parties believing that the victim "did something to deserve it". The perpetrator says "I wish you hadn't made me do this", and the victim thinks "I shouldn't have pushed them". What's really interesting is the "cycle of violence", where there is a honeymoon period, followed by building tension, then a violent act. At times for people on the recieving end of the violence, the tension in the second part can become too much, and they may intentionally do something they know will set of the perpetrator, just to get it over with. Does that make the violence their fault? There is this cultural myth about forces in men that are beyond their control. Men become violent or rape when women push them too far or are too seductive. Eve bit the apple first, but Adam was unable to resist her tempting him, so while they were both punished, she recieved the additional punishment of pain during childbirth. It is interesting how a culture that calls women "the weaker sex" can also confer upon women this power that men find irresistable.

But beyond who is or is not to blame, is the concept that "good girls don't". Good girls don't get beaten or raped, that it only happens to other people, bad people who make bad choices (which gets us back up to this power that women are supposed to wield over men, but only in ways that make men behave badly). This is why rape and domestic violence goes so underreported, victims are afraid of what other people will think of them. There are massive ammounts of shame that survivors of domestic violence and rape often experience because they are afraid tha they are "damaged goods". We tell survivors that "it's not your fault" and that "it doesn't change who you are".

So, what's a "strong female role model" to do? This can get into an interesting breakdown of the venn diagram that is identity politics. For instance, I am a libreral, I am a feminist (these are pretty strongly overlapping circles), I am also pro-organized labor and come from a working class background (now we see some divergence). I can't speak from experience about groups I don't belong to, but I can imagine how there would be pressure from different groups to go different ways. On one hand, as a female role model Rihanna might feel pressure to step forward and speak out against violence. On the other hand as an African American female role model there might be pressure to sweep this under the rug, especially because Chris Brown was also seen as a positive role model. Not to mention outside society's beliefs about what it means to be a victim/survivor of domestic violence and the negative pressure of not wanting to be labeled in that way knowing what those labels carry with culture at large. And of course there is the venn diagram of one that is made up of your own experiences and beliefs and what is best for you as an individual.

What is unfortunate is that not matter what Rihanna chooses to do in response to this violence, we are seeing writ large in the media these attitudes towards domestic violence and survivors. Regardless how how she chooses to respond, we are being told that Rihanna is no longer considered a "strong female role model" by those in charge because (allegedly) her boyfriend chose to beat her up. It reinforces all of those messages about being the victim's fault, and that somehow the victim is a bad person because of what someone else chose to do to them. It's just so victim-blaming and it makes me angry.

PS Feministing also has a great breakdown of Chris Brown's dad's statement to the media.

PPS. I know that men are victims of domestic violence and rape, and that there are as many forms of "person on person" violence as there are ways to permutate that dynamic. I don't mean to be heteronormative, but this is a good example of the "stereotypical relationship" and illustrates the mainstream culture's view of relationships and relationship violence.

PPPS. I am not entirely comfortable with my use of terms like victim, and domestic violence because I don't nessisarily think they're the best terms. But they're the ones we use most commonly, so that's what I used here. Expect to see some writing on the concepts of victim and survivor and what naming means and how it can get all sticky and lead to multiple post scrips on a blog post in ANOTHER blog post.

PPPPS. I was thinking about Tina Turner as I wrote this, and how she was able to overcome her abuse by Ike. I would have to read a LOT more to really speak intellegently about it, but her career also struggled immediately after leaving Ike, and the wiki mentioned that she was considered "unmarketable" for a significant time in the US, while still successfully touring abroad. It would be interesting to see if there is any information about differences in attitude towards domestic violence in europe vs the US and how that might have played into this dichotomy, or if the european audience had been unaware of her personal struggles.

Welcome and stuff

I figure I should start by explaining what this blog is, and isn't.

I have a personal blog over on the LJ. It's a pretty scatter shot affair, with stupid quizzes, short blurbs about my personal life, and some half to three quarters baked ranting on issues having to do with pop-culture and politics. It is also primarily friends-locked, which means if you want to read something, you have to get a (free) account and then drop me a line so I can add you to my friends list (If you know me personally and want the scoop on more of the day-to day life of Kelly stuff, you're going to get more of it there). I also have a cooking blog called More Cupcakes that is entirely made up of recipes and pictures of food I've made (cooking is my number one hobby).

This blog is going to be less frequent (more a few times a week than every day), and will hopefully take the half-baked stuff on my private blog, and turn it into three-quarters to al dente here. I'm a fairly politically active liberal feminist, who works in the public mental health field. I work with some of the more vulnerable populations in my area. I'm also intrigued by issues around class, as I am a white collar professional (who belongs to a union) raised by a blue collar family. Not to mention a pop-culture junkie who is equally happy watching foreign or avant garde films and documentaries as I am watching Gossip Girl or Talladega Nights.

So, welcome to my little corner of the blog-y-thingy.