Quote of the Week- What are you Doing

Like so many of us, I have trouble not thinking about the election and how incredibly hateful and nasty political discourse has been this year. It is genuinely scary, especially to be bringing a baby into this kind of climate. I have been looking for things that remind me of the best of what we are instead of reading so much about the worst (time to put a "Trump" filter on my newsfeed?). Hope this inspires you like it does me- can you imagine how different the world could be if we all put our energy into helping instead of convincing ourselves that the other guy doesn't need help?

Read more

Jon Stewart on Crossfire

Read more

WKBT News anchor Jennifer Livingston's on-air respsonse to her Bully (Oc...

Read more

Conservative Rhetoric, "Goodness," and Human Value

Ok, so this is related to the John Stewart video I posted earlier, which is a pretty incisive take on the conservative media's spinning of the 47% Romney gaff (or whatever you want to call it). There are two quotes from this piece that really cut into some of my biggest frustrations with nastier conservative rhetoric at large (this is my caveat that of course this doesn't apply to all conservative thought, just a particularly loud strain right now):

 "The biggest problem with the denizens of Bullshit Mountain is they act like their shit don't stink. If they have success, they built it. If they failed, the government ruined it for 'em. If they get a break, they deserve it. If you get a break, it's a handout and an entitlement. It's a baffling, willfully blind cognitive dissonance."

"This is the heart of bullshit mountain. The 49% entitlement society that Obama enables. That is the core of the bullshit mountain fiction is how only since Obama have the half of Americans who love this country and work hard and ARE GOOD have had the fruits of their labor seized and handed over to the half of this nation that is lazy, and dependent, and the opposite of GOOD"

The first quote has been getting a lot more attention, but it is this divisive idea of "goodness" that has been on my mind so much in this election. I have noticed in Romney's rhetoric and tactics that there is a genuine appeal to take America back for the GOOD people, which from what I can tell are the rich white people. But the problem for his campaign (which I think appeals to the fear he continually tries to tap into), is that this is a democracy, and too many people now exist who do not fit into his definition of being good and well-behaved. This kind of logic is bound to fail, but it clearly is going down swinging, and I believe that women are bearing the brunt of the social anxiety (because it is political suicide to be racist or homophobic, but being classist and misogynistic is still in style on BOTH sides of the political spectrum).

One of my facebook friends posted, while watching the Sandra Fluke speech, posted that she felt frustrated that democrats speak as if they speak for all women. I agree, this is a problem, because clearly there are intelligent conservative women who have their own opinion and should certainly not felt spoken for. At the same time, the issue of "goodness" could not be more important and imminent than in discussions of womanhood and women's rights, and I often get extremely frustrated with conversations with conservative women because there is an "us and them" mentality. Basically, I am a good woman who is doing things right, and women who do not behave like I do deserve to be punished/ have their rights taken away/ not be allowed to marry their partners/ should be forced to have children they do not want. Because they are not good like we are. I am sure there is plenty of nuance there, and certainly my many conservative lady friends are welcome to speak up, but this is what I hear.

 This same woman, maybe six months ago, posted an article about natural family planning, suggesting all women should get off birth control and let their male partners take primary responsibility for who's getting pregnant when. The article suggested that this is the one truly feminist choice, and those other feminists are actually trying to trick women into more responsibility/burdens/ whatever. There was also a bunch of stuff about how birth control is keeping women from getting married and being happy and so forth.

I want to be clear, that if natural family planning works for your situation and is agreed upon between you and your partner, it is certainly not an un-feminist choice. Being married and having babies is a perfectly feminist option, and I think that if it is what is right for you, that is genuinely a great thing. But there are so many assumptions about women, their sexuality, and their relationships with their sexual partners that are patently false inherent in assuming all women have or want a partnership in that way. But this article essentially assumes that if you aren't married, you are probably a lost cause anyway, and there is no feminist choice for you.  Any time that you try to argue that this is the ONE truly empowering choice for women, as a feminist thinker you have already failed.

Every woman has her own situation, her own born-with priveleges, and her own choices. Treating other people's difference as a threat, or even worse an affirmation of just how "good" you are, robs you of the opportunity to learn something. I can only imagine living your life like that would be scary and very frustrating, because they will never receive the punishment you think they deserve. It also comes with the very difficult tautological reasoning, as Stewart articulated at the end of this piece in the quote that has become so popular. You like you, so what you do is good. You don't like them, so when they do THE EXACT SAME THING, it is evil.

So, as a feminist, you have to be willing to A. Concede that works for you wouldn't and shouldn't work for everyone. and B. Be willing to stand up and help people have the options they need and deserve, even if it is not the choice you would make. I do not think I could get an abortion unless the pregnancy threatened my life, but I think that it is absolutely necessary that they are available to every woman. Absolutely, because you can never fully understand the situation and subjectivity of another human being.

You can educate women on their choices (and the consquences of them- because just about every decision comes with a mixed bag of those), you can stand up when people, including women, are doing things to hurt others, and, if you are willing to keep struggling with it forever, you can constantly keep your definition of goodness in flux. Because thinking goodness looks like whatever you're doing is crazy- you know all the flaws you come with and (like the denizens of bullshit mountain) you know the hypocrisy in deciding that you are good, so what you do is good. Crazy pants! So to me, that is the constant challenge of feminist thinking, but it is still a challenge worth grappling with.

This has been my first effort at a radical lack of antagonism. I truly don't have a problem with conservatives, but I do have a problem with some of the rhetorical strategies at play in this election- this easy antagonism (again, on both ends) prevents anyone from listening and learning. Let's just decide that as long as a person isn't trying to hurt or take away the rights of others, they are probably mostly ok. Maybe even good.

Read more

Chaos on Bullshit Mountain. Full.

Read more

YES

"I think women want to take care of themselves, and I think having a voice in how that is done is very important. And frankly, I don't understand — I mean, I'm obviously a card-carrying Democrat — but I can't understand why any woman would want to vote for Mitt Romney, except maybe Mrs. Romney."

Thank you, Madeline Albright. I have genuinely (not meanly, but very seriously) been wondering this same thing. Why would a woman vote for someone who has openly worked against their own rights?

Read more

The Ethics of Where You Spend Your Money

from https://www.facebook.com/ChickfilANB

  There has been a ton of news to come out in the last week that I genuinely have some opinions on, but I am going to start here and see what is still relevant.

I am pretty sure that I don't need to reiterate the recent Chick-fil-A dramas, basically people noticed that President Dan Cathy was giving good chunks of money to anti-gay marriage causes. Then to add insult to injury, he spoke out in support of "traditional marriage" (I have heard the argument that this is somehow not homophobic, but truly I am not convinced. Even a little- much like being "pro-life" it is about shorthanding people who are not like you by taking away their rights, therefore maintaining your own privilege. It is also, for lack of a better word, ignorant). Though I could not disagree more with Cathy's politics, I think something good happened here, and I wish it happened more. 

By being outspoken about his beliefs, Cathy let the consumer know exactly what they were getting with their chicken. The often ignored truth of late captialism is that every choice we make of what to buy comes with all sorts of ideological baggage. Chick-Fil-A and its president has every right to articulate their opinions and lend monetary support their ideals (also, didn't their politics come up before? I know I gave them up in college for some reason that wasn't just because I don't think their product is particularly good). I as a consumer have the right to give them absolutely none of my money ever and encourage other people to do so. Super conservative consumers have the right to eat as much mediocre chicken as they want in honor of traditional marriage. This is democracy a la capitalism, and truly there is nothing wrong with it.

(At the same time, there is also a way for businesses to respect the politics of all their consumers and not put their money into political causes which will frankly be embarrassing hopefully 10 years from now)

What this reminds us all of, no matter what are politics are, is to put our money into ideologies we can live with. The most effective way to do this is buy local- the more you can look into the face of the person you are buying from, the better chance you have of making truly ethical purchases. Obviously, this isn't a fail proof plan- any crazy pants can still open a stand at a farmer's market, but te odds are a lot better. Yes, sometimes things are cheaper if you buy them from large chain stores or restaurants, but you have to honestly ask yourself how they keep prices low, and a big answer to this is not paying their labor sufficiently or treating them right, which is pretty much the definition of unethical production.  

The other really easy way to edit your consumption is start being more selective in your content- sick of only seeing ridiculous skinny waifs as the ideal of women? Stop buying magazines like Marie Claire, which is especially heinous in its shaming of women who aren't white rich and skinny. Frustrated by the portrayal of race and gender? Stop going to movies where there are only white men as the top 5 leads. Send the message that the movies don't get your attention. 

On the other hand, figuring out where companies put your money after you hand it over can be trickier- but this is what i have found out:

If you don't want to funnel your money into  anti-gay marriage groups (or if you do- it's America! You have a choice!), I wouldn't shop at Salvation Army, Target (they are especially awful, and you can read about their conflicts pretty easily online), Walmart, Exxon, Auto-Zone, Brown-Forman (who makes Jack Daniels and Southern Comfort), Cinemark, Domino's, Walmart, and Urban Outfitters.

If you want to support businesses which are taking a stand for gay marriage, I would shop at (or buy, some of these are products not stores) JC Penney, Oreos, Levi's, Microsoft, Starbucks, EA Games, General Mills, Betty Crocker, and the Home Depot. 

If you want to avoid companies with racist politics, do not shop at Lowe's! 

Another choice you can make is to try to avoid stores that still use sweatshops, because no matter whether you are conservative or liberal, if you are a Christian, you should support companies that treat their employees with dignity and kindness. So these are a few that you might want to avoid-  
Walmart (are you noticing how they are on all of these lists- I truly believe that the Waltons are pure evil. They are not right), TopShop, Nike, Starbucks, Disney. Some companies, like the Gap, dramatically changed their policies in the last five years based on pressure about how they were treating their workers, but I would still be thoughtful and look into the places where you are shopping. 

I mean, this is a lot of information. And the longer you look into it, the more depressing it gets, but it is something you HAVE to do. No matter what your politics are! It's called being a good steward in this world.

Read more