Question: what is this story about?
If you didn't already know that Ben Roethlisberger had been accused of rape a couple of times, would you have learned it from that story? Have you ever seen anyone try so hard not to put the words "Ben Roethlisberger repeatedly accused of rape" together?
God forbid we sully this upstanding citizen role model's name by reporting on the violent crimes he is alleged to have committed, amirite?
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
The New Nuclear Paradox
So, Obama's hosting the Nuclear Security Summit right now, which is the largest gathering of world leaders on American soil since 1945. Pretty cool! Also cool: apparently the U.S. has the moral authority and capability to be the go-to country for helping others, namely Ukraine and Chile, collect and dispose of weapons-grade nuclear material.
I got to thinking last night how far the world has come, even just in my lifetime (born 1982), on the subject of nuclear weapons use. It seems that we're at the point where use of a nuclear weapon by a legitimate country is all but impossible politically. Russia and the US are drawing down their arsenals cooperatively, to widespread international acclaim. Some states are voluntarily giving up the potential for nuclear capability by giving us their materials, and they're apparently not worried that we'll turn them into weapons and bomb people. Among nuclear states that hate each other and antagonize each other every other way imaginable (looking at you, India and Pakistan) nuclear war has never broken out. Economic inter-connection is also a deterrent: what would the U.S., for example, get out of nuking China? Nothing worth nuking China, that's what. The world economy as it is provides no incentives for the kind of scortched-earth warfare a nuclear bomb represents. It is politically indefensible for any country to use a nuclear bomb against any other country.
That brings us to those to whom political defensibility means nothing. Obviously, terrorists are actively seeking nuclear weapons and would use them if they got them. This is part of the reason Ukraine in particular is anxious to unload its enriched uranium. It's pretty expensive to keep that stuff protected. Here's where I have trouble though: does the US, or anybody, actually gain anything from having a nuclear weapon to use against terrorists? The whole deal with terrorists is that their center of power moves; we don't know where they are to bomb them. We're already bombing civilians in Pakistan with drones because those civilians live near purported terrorist cells. Will there ever come a time that we consider a compromised or failed state, like Somalia or Afghanistan, a legitimate target for nukes because terrorsts sometimes work from there? I seriously doubt it. So, knowing that, how does having nukes make us safer? Is our nuclear arsenal just another piece of American Security Theatre? I'm open to the possibility that having nukes and acquiring nukes from other countries makes us look strong, and that in itself is valuable. But I think it is equally possible that looking like we will bomb countries we percieve as weak makes us appear to be a bunch of cowboy bullies, which falls neatly into the terrorists' reasons for demonizing us.
I guess this is a difficult problem with no real conclusion, and nuclear weapons are not per se bad for us to have, but I'd love to hear more discussion about why we have them and why a world with nukes is safer for the US than a world without nukes.
I got to thinking last night how far the world has come, even just in my lifetime (born 1982), on the subject of nuclear weapons use. It seems that we're at the point where use of a nuclear weapon by a legitimate country is all but impossible politically. Russia and the US are drawing down their arsenals cooperatively, to widespread international acclaim. Some states are voluntarily giving up the potential for nuclear capability by giving us their materials, and they're apparently not worried that we'll turn them into weapons and bomb people. Among nuclear states that hate each other and antagonize each other every other way imaginable (looking at you, India and Pakistan) nuclear war has never broken out. Economic inter-connection is also a deterrent: what would the U.S., for example, get out of nuking China? Nothing worth nuking China, that's what. The world economy as it is provides no incentives for the kind of scortched-earth warfare a nuclear bomb represents. It is politically indefensible for any country to use a nuclear bomb against any other country.
That brings us to those to whom political defensibility means nothing. Obviously, terrorists are actively seeking nuclear weapons and would use them if they got them. This is part of the reason Ukraine in particular is anxious to unload its enriched uranium. It's pretty expensive to keep that stuff protected. Here's where I have trouble though: does the US, or anybody, actually gain anything from having a nuclear weapon to use against terrorists? The whole deal with terrorists is that their center of power moves; we don't know where they are to bomb them. We're already bombing civilians in Pakistan with drones because those civilians live near purported terrorist cells. Will there ever come a time that we consider a compromised or failed state, like Somalia or Afghanistan, a legitimate target for nukes because terrorsts sometimes work from there? I seriously doubt it. So, knowing that, how does having nukes make us safer? Is our nuclear arsenal just another piece of American Security Theatre? I'm open to the possibility that having nukes and acquiring nukes from other countries makes us look strong, and that in itself is valuable. But I think it is equally possible that looking like we will bomb countries we percieve as weak makes us appear to be a bunch of cowboy bullies, which falls neatly into the terrorists' reasons for demonizing us.
I guess this is a difficult problem with no real conclusion, and nuclear weapons are not per se bad for us to have, but I'd love to hear more discussion about why we have them and why a world with nukes is safer for the US than a world without nukes.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Awesome Religious Leader Alert!
The Reverend Welton Gaddy, Executive Director of the Interfaith Alliance, was on Rachel Maddow last night. They had a good discussion about religion and politics, and the degree that the two of those mix, and why that mix is a problem. Of course they talked about the C Street House, which is one of Rachel's pet issues, but they also began their chat with a little bit of Stupak. Rev. Gaddy said things I have never heard a male person say in my life:
Thank you Dr. Gaddy. The fact that a male religious leader in a mainstream Christian denomination (he's a Baptist) can articulate that point of view gives me hope for the world.
MADDOW: What do you make of Congressman Stupak on this health reform issue of his, saying that he doesn‘t listen to nuns, he only listens to bishops when it comes to abortion rights?
GADDY: Well, it sounds very much like a male authoritarian point of view, doesn‘t it? I don‘t know whether this is all about politics or all about religion. Either way, it doesn‘t work. It‘s bad politics. It‘s bad religion. When a man takes up on himself the authority that lets him tell a woman how she can handle her own body, what she can do and do with it, I get very suspicious about the audacity of that man.
Thank you Dr. Gaddy. The fact that a male religious leader in a mainstream Christian denomination (he's a Baptist) can articulate that point of view gives me hope for the world.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Johnny, Shiloh, and Gender
I'm a couple weeks late to the party on this one, but can I just say that I LOVE JOHNNY WEIR? I mean seriously. That guy is amazing. And his response to two French-Canadian radio personalities really cemented that love. Here's what happened, (paraphrased):
Guys on the radio: A FAGGY FIGURE SKATER! NOT THAT ONE, THAT ONE! NO, THAT ONE! POINT AND LAUGH!
Johnny Weir: I'm here, I'm fabulous, get used to it.
So here we have a situation in which a male figure skater is derided for dressing/seeming too feminine, and two radio hosts take it upon themselves to try and shame Johnny Weir into apologizing for being...let me see if I have this right...a sparkly, flamboyant FIGURE SKATER.
But the best part is the last bit of his response:
Johnny rejects the oppositional model of gender. Here's the thing. Gender roles are positioned as both oppositional and hierarchical. Oppositional means that there is "masculine" stuff and "feminine" stuff, and the stuff doesn't overlap. This reduces the masculine and feminine to a binary, wherein someone can be one or the other, but not neither, and not both. Hierarchical means that one of these things is constructed as superior to the other. Things that are coded masculine are better in this culture (and across every other I can think of) than things coded feminine. Proof?
1) Doing something "like a girl" is an insult.
2) Working outside the home is "real work", but working inside the home isn't.
3) Jobs in cleaning, and caretaking of adults and children, require the same amount of education and experience as jobs in construction or sanitation, but they pay less.
4) The low level jobs in a given field are heavily populated by women (nurses, elementary and middle-school teachers), but the high level jobs in the same field are male-dominated (doctors, college professors).
The hierarchical aspects of the gender construction feed the oppositional forces, and vice versa. The more privileged masculine things are over feminine things, the more different the two seem from one another. Similarly, the more oppositional the genders seem, the less alike masculine and feminine are, the easier it is to position one above the other. Any blending would destroy the justification for the superior/inferior positioning.
Then we add in gender policing. Not only are the genders binary and opposite, not only is masculine better than feminine, but it is also IMPERATIVE that a given person stays in his or her box. To transcend one's gender is to invite criticism, as in Weir's case.
To fail to enforce these gender standards is also, apparently, to fail as a parent. Look at this article about Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt's daughter, Shiloh. The headline is "Why Is Angelina Turning Shiloh Into a Boy?". The vitriol aimed at Angelina Jolie for her toddler daughter wearing a short haircut and boys' clothes (that actually appear to be her brothers' hand-me-downs) is astounding. This article illustrates the double bind women are in: we're supposed to act like a girl, which means accepting all of the second-place stuff that marks femininity. Even if we personally value qualities in ourselves that are stereotypically feminine, the culture in which we live devalues them. It devalues us for doing them. And then it says we were born to do them.
The gender binary sucks for guys, too. Heterosexual masculinity is culturally defined as bellicose, aggressive, terse, predatory, and solitary. We have the strong, silent type. We have an army of one. We have a cultural understanding of sex that is based around masculine release rather than mutual pleasure. Let's not even make it about the boys who like sparkles but never get to wear them. Let's talk about the boys with a wide emotional range. Where does a boy who is sensitive and empathetic, who gets lonely, or who cries sometimes, fit in? If you're thinking "what a pussy", good. That's my point.
Guys on the radio: A FAGGY FIGURE SKATER! NOT THAT ONE, THAT ONE! NO, THAT ONE! POINT AND LAUGH!
Johnny Weir: I'm here, I'm fabulous, get used to it.
So here we have a situation in which a male figure skater is derided for dressing/seeming too feminine, and two radio hosts take it upon themselves to try and shame Johnny Weir into apologizing for being...let me see if I have this right...a sparkly, flamboyant FIGURE SKATER.
But the best part is the last bit of his response:
I think masculinity is what you believe it to be. To me, masculinity is all my perception. And I think that masculinity and femininity is something that’s very old-fashioned.
Johnny rejects the oppositional model of gender. Here's the thing. Gender roles are positioned as both oppositional and hierarchical. Oppositional means that there is "masculine" stuff and "feminine" stuff, and the stuff doesn't overlap. This reduces the masculine and feminine to a binary, wherein someone can be one or the other, but not neither, and not both. Hierarchical means that one of these things is constructed as superior to the other. Things that are coded masculine are better in this culture (and across every other I can think of) than things coded feminine. Proof?
1) Doing something "like a girl" is an insult.
2) Working outside the home is "real work", but working inside the home isn't.
3) Jobs in cleaning, and caretaking of adults and children, require the same amount of education and experience as jobs in construction or sanitation, but they pay less.
4) The low level jobs in a given field are heavily populated by women (nurses, elementary and middle-school teachers), but the high level jobs in the same field are male-dominated (doctors, college professors).
The hierarchical aspects of the gender construction feed the oppositional forces, and vice versa. The more privileged masculine things are over feminine things, the more different the two seem from one another. Similarly, the more oppositional the genders seem, the less alike masculine and feminine are, the easier it is to position one above the other. Any blending would destroy the justification for the superior/inferior positioning.
Then we add in gender policing. Not only are the genders binary and opposite, not only is masculine better than feminine, but it is also IMPERATIVE that a given person stays in his or her box. To transcend one's gender is to invite criticism, as in Weir's case.
To fail to enforce these gender standards is also, apparently, to fail as a parent. Look at this article about Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt's daughter, Shiloh. The headline is "Why Is Angelina Turning Shiloh Into a Boy?". The vitriol aimed at Angelina Jolie for her toddler daughter wearing a short haircut and boys' clothes (that actually appear to be her brothers' hand-me-downs) is astounding. This article illustrates the double bind women are in: we're supposed to act like a girl, which means accepting all of the second-place stuff that marks femininity. Even if we personally value qualities in ourselves that are stereotypically feminine, the culture in which we live devalues them. It devalues us for doing them. And then it says we were born to do them.
The gender binary sucks for guys, too. Heterosexual masculinity is culturally defined as bellicose, aggressive, terse, predatory, and solitary. We have the strong, silent type. We have an army of one. We have a cultural understanding of sex that is based around masculine release rather than mutual pleasure. Let's not even make it about the boys who like sparkles but never get to wear them. Let's talk about the boys with a wide emotional range. Where does a boy who is sensitive and empathetic, who gets lonely, or who cries sometimes, fit in? If you're thinking "what a pussy", good. That's my point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
