Just Say No.

August 21, 2008 at 2:43 pm (causes, domestic violence, equality, random, social policy)

Right.. So, I’ve been more or less “collecting” various posts from sundry sources the last month and change all more or less loosely centered on crime and the criminal justice system. I keep thinking I’m going to write some wonderful post tying them all together, but with the academic year officially starting next week, and things already picking up noticeably in my office (U.S. News results will be released to the public tomorrow, which is always the more or less official start to the craziness that is fall term), combined with plans to do some more involved stuff around the house the next few weeks, I have finally admitted that’s not going to happen. So, what follows are the links I’ve been gathering with as many of my thoughts about them that I can remember and have time to put down in text while waiting for data to compile today.

About a month ago, a post on trends in imprisonment from (where else) Sociological Images picked up on some of the thoughts I’ve had about the ways in which our CJ system is broken for years. There are lots of ways I think the system is horribly broken, but those really aren’t what I wanted to go into (really.. lots of ways.. ). Instead, I wanted to take a moment to think about Nancy Reagan’s War on Drugs and it’s continued impact on our economy. In a nutshell, the War on Drugs made felons of a lot of non-violent people (yes, and quite a few violent ones, but not the majority), clogged the courts and jails with a huge influx of cases and inmates, and effectively removed the vast majority of those people from contributing to the economy. We overcrowded our prisons, requiring increasing tax dollars to be funneled toward them, thereby decreasing the pool of funds available for things like, just to pick on that’s a little near and dear to me, public education. We stamped “felon” on a huge number of people who are now increasingly prohibited from accessing jobs with living wages and opportunities for advancement, simultaneously cutting our own work-force (and ability to compete in an increasingly global market) drastically and reducing the ability of our economy to weather cycles of recession. Don’t they say wars are s’posed to be “good” for the economy..?

More recently, and mostly unrelated to the above, M LeBlanc at Bitch Ph.D. recently wrote about a new law allowing judges in Illinois to require violators of orders of protection to wear GPS tracking devices so that police could better track them. Like M LeBlanc, I’m conflicted by this law - on the one hand, it seems to be a step in the right direction in protecting victims of potentially violent perpetrators, but on the other hand it does so at the expense of those potentially violent perpetrators’ civil liberties - potential is a key word in all that; these are people who have not been convicted who are now allowed to be under near constant police surveillance. M LeBlanc comes to a conclusion that is both heartening in that it’s not the over-the-top rhetoric that sometimes seems pervasive in our society and at the same time utterly sobering and depressing in the enormity of what it means:

The criminal justice system does nothing but create more criminals. We need it, like we need a tourniquet to staunch the bleeding of human dignity from every woman on the planet, but it can not, and will not, solve our problems. These GPS devices will not stop women from being hurt and killed, and they will be another chink in the wall that we put between citizens and the state. The lock and the key, the bracelet and the computer, will not stop or even slow the violence.

For that, we need a revolution.

I was recently chided by a few friends and acquaintances for getting upset about a spoof Guinness ad that I found demeaning and objectifying of women; they found the ad clever and/or amusing and felt that I was making too much of it - reading too much importance into what was clearly intended to be a joke. I wish I could explain to them why their response was exactly the problem, or that M LeBlanc had written this earlier so I could quote it then:

Our society is sick—it is a patriarchy where men are promised power and dominion over women and they are taught that violence is noble, that using force is masculine. It is a pornocracy where children are sexualized, where women’s dismembered bodies are used to sell soap, blue jeans, and hamburgers. It is a market economy where the right to have a young woman rub her naked body on you can be legally purchased in any town or city, but where those same young women are arrested for accepting money for giving a blowjob. It is a world where all things deemed within the fake construct of masculinity are positive attributes, and all those within the construct of femininity are deprecated. Where women make less money, hold far fewer political offices and judgeships, where motherhood is “the most important job in the world,” a privilege for which mothers are treated like utter shit.

Abusers aren’t just bad apples. They are normal dudes. They are the guys you work with, the guys you went to college with, the guys you see in a bar on a Friday night or the grocery store on a Sunday afternoon.

They bear the blame for what they do. But the rest of us do, too. Every guy who stands by and heh-hehs when sexist jokes are made, who views their co-workers or classmates not as colleagues, but as eye-candy, who refuses to acknowledge the misogyny inherent in pornography, is a part of this sick society. Every woman who tut-tuts her friends or neighbors for trying too hard to look sexy, or not trying hard enough, who criticizes other women for being too assertive, who criticizes other men for not being manly enough or showing too much emotion, is a part of this putrid virus.

It’s the pervasiveness of the power structure that is so utterly terrifying - whether it’s patriarchy, or  institutionalized racisim, or our criminal “justice” system, or any of half a million other things.  It’s when we can see it and choose to ignore it without realizing how that just works to reinforce it, when we write off those who rail against the injustice as zealots who are over-reacting.. when we acquiesce to the status quo, or tell ourselves it’s not our problem to solve, or that there’s nothing we can do, or worse that there’s nothing wrong.. those are the things that frustrate me most. Because in truth, to twist another Reagan-era campaign, ignoring these injustices is part of the problem, not the solution.

Right then.. one more jump.. still on the idea of crime, but this one’s going to have to speak mostly for itself, with the warning that it may be triggery for some folks - a video of a purported “news agency” asking abortion protesters who believe abortion should be illegal what punishment women who have abortions should face. Yeah.. not thinking about the consequences of our laws seems to be “as American as apple pie”..

Permalink No Comments

Symbiosis and “abortion rights”

July 22, 2008 at 10:07 am (causes, social policy, spirals)

Don’t get me wrong, South Dakota scares me. I just find the logic in this essay.. a little specious.

Fetuses are whole and separate. Therefore, being a law-abiding citizen, you have no reason to believe that separation will cause fetal death. Therefore, under the law’s terms, separation is not abortion.

There are a lot of symbiotic species that are considered whole, separate, unique living beings, even though they can’t survive without their counterpart species - clownfish and sea anenomes, for instance. This is where I have issues with the trend - since Roe v. Wade - of defining abortion in biomedical terms; because at it’s crux, it’s not a biomedical distinction, it’s a social one.

I would be defined as pro-choice*, but for me the important word there is “choice”, and it’s not just about what I may or may not do should I find myself unexpectedly pregnant. I don’t think our legal code should have any say in how I choose to care for (or not care for) my body. That decision should be mine, hopefully in consultation with qualified medical professionals. And it doesn’t stop just with the question of whether or not I would abort an unwanted pregnancy - should I choose to end my own life, for instance if I were diagnosed with a terminal disease and the quality of my life had deteriorated to the point of pure misery, I think that should be my choice, too. By the same token, unless I’m harming someone else, the decision to use narcotics should also be my choice (if I did, though, and harmed someone else, that harm should be punished appropriately, and the punishment neither increased nor decreased by the presence of narcotics). In the end, what I do with the life I have is up to me; it’s my *choice*.

For me, then, abortion isn’t a legal issue; there’s no reason the legislatures or courts should be involved. I know why they are - because it’s a fuzzy line when you start to say that “as long as you’re not harming someone else, you’re free to make your own decisions” and we as a society haven’t been able to come to consensus on when someone is.. well.. someone. And as soon as we started trying to use biomedical terms to define when someone is a someone, we started the chain reaction the has led this issue to devolve to where we are - where we’re now embroiled in a national debate to try to define - in biomedical terms - when life is really life. And in the process, we’re creating all kinds of policies and laws that are harmful in both intended and unintended ways (or maybe direct and indirect ways?).

But this distinction - when someone becomes someone - can’t be made biomedically. You can’t set the criteria on independence of survival - see the above regarding symbiotic species - any more than you can set it on organ function. The distinction is ethical and moral, and until we as a society recognize that and deal with it as such - instead of by trying to hide it underneath biomedical justifications that serve only to impede the ability of our healthcare providers to focus on actually caring for our *health* - we will continue to cloud the issue. Until we recognize that we are, at base, a society based on a specific and identifiable moral code - one we’re so very proud of denying exists but is intertwined in everything on which our country is built - this fight will never end. Like a pendulum, it will swing between two extremes ad infinitum.

I don’t have the answer - which shouldn’t surprise anyone. As with so many other things, I’m simply tired of the apparently intentional misdirection and unending energy wasted because we, as a people, can’t reconcile our identity crises.

* We have that whole label issue here again, though.. *smile*

Permalink No Comments

On being female and resisting the feminist label..

July 2, 2008 at 11:08 am (causes, social policy, spirals) (, )

This is another one of those head-spiral posts.. another that I started originally some time ago and decided needed some exposure. I guess you could consider these my concession to the idea that my life shouldn’t have to be politicized for me to contribute to social justice.

Several months ago, I was reading blogs and came across this post from Bitch, Ph.D. and as I was reading it I kept coming back to the idea that this isn’t just stuff for a guy to do to show his girlfriend he supports her in “her feminism”. Most of the things discussed in the post aren’t about gender; they’re about basic respect for someone as a person. And while I know that at least by some definitions, that’s what the feminist movement is - respect for persons regardless of gender - taking that idea and labeling with one gender - *femin*ism - strikes me as disingenuous.

I resist being labeled a “feminist”* because I don’t think that there’s anything particularly gendered about human decency, and it rubs me the wrong way when one group tries to advocate for universal equity but then slaps a label on it to brand it as belonging to one gender (or race or creed or what have you). And I have to admit that I’ve wondered on more than one occasion about whether respect for people would increase if we stopped trying to make it about someone’s gender expression or their sexual orientation or their race or ethnicity or religion or, or, or.. Again, this ties in with the idea that if the point is equality, why should anyone have to emphasize who they are or what they’ve been through to be seen as part of the fight? Shouldn’t it be more important that they can hear and understand what others have been through, to acknowledge the injustice, and work to counter it?

*sigh* I’m tired of having who I am become a political statement. I am a person, just like every one of you. The fact of my personhood should be the end of the decision tree about how to interact with or think about me.

However, as Sociological Images illustrates so well on a daily basis (they are quickly becoming my new favorite blog), we as a society are obsessed with gender roles, with instilling them from a very young age and inundating ourselves with reinforcements of those roles at every waking moment. It’s insidious and frightening and all too often, completely overlooked. For example, the practice of using blue hats for boys and pink hats for girls in newborn nurseries may seem an innocent visual depiction of whether a child is male or female, but.. why? What does it matter what biological sex a child is if it’s in need of care or attention or love?

If it really were innocent and a matter of classification purely for the sake of sense-making (which.. well.. it isn’t.. can’t be, really) it might be a different matter. But we also go one step further and turn it into a question of power and control. Both the subliminal and direct sexualization of advertising (this one has images that may not be work-safe) are just two of the many ways in which we instill the idea that sex equals status and sex equals power. The idea that if a woman appears attractive must mean she wants to be objectified is so complicated it’s maddening - we’re raised in a society where beauty is overtly equated with success, so it’s ingrained into our heads from the very beginning that we should want at all times to be beautiful, but at the same time, in attempting to play that role, we’re portrayed as capricious, teases, or whores. And goddess forgive we may be both beautiful and intelligent.. (And no, it’s not any better being male..)

So.. to bring this back around.. I simply can’t justify the inherent contradiction in being a “feminist” when that label is used to mean equality for all. I want something better, something that doesn’t used a gendered label to try and epitomize a struggle to stop a persons gender from being used to evoke a pre-determined power structure or status hierarchy. Practice what you preach.. if it’s about recognizing the individual differences in each person and acknowledging their worth, don’t make that the province of one gender or another.

* In truth I resist being labeled at all. I understand the psychological need to be able to categorize our experiences to make sense of the otherwise completely overwhelming set of external stimuli we encounter on a daily basis, but there’s a difference between sense-making in your head and smacking someone with a label that you then use to determine how you interact with them.

Permalink 1 Comment

The End, Part I

November 9, 2007 at 10:44 pm (community day, gifts, hcwr, lace, peacock feathers shawl)

It is finished. I bound off this evening and blocked it and it’s now folded up and stashed away ready for delivery tomorrow.

I’ll post pictures tomorrow; I have to go to bed now so that I can work a 6-8 a.m. volunteer shift at Herberger’s Community Day in the morning! If you’re looking to get a head start on your holiday shopping, check out your local Herbergers/Boston Store/Younkers/Carson Pirie Scott and get a coupon booklet for the sale tomorrow. The money from the sale of the coupon book goes to support local charities and you save money on your holiday shopping!

Permalink No Comments

Rain, rain, go away..

August 23, 2007 at 8:36 am (hcwr, rain)

Several days later, city administrators and home owners affected (effected? I never remember when to use which..) by the flooding in southeastern MN are exhausted. For as quickly as the damage was done, the clean up and recovery is slow, tedious work, made all the worse by the seemingly ceaseless rain that’s still falling daily.

The grey is simply draining; one could wish the water itself would drain so well.

Root River, Hokah, MN

Twin Creeks Golf Course, Hokah, MN

Hill s(l)ide, first house in Hokah heading east on Highway 44

Bottom of the hill in Hokah, near the Junction Inn

A flooded field outside Hokah, MN

Flooded farmland outside Hokah, MN

Flooded pasture between Hokah & La Crescent, MN

More fields and pastures..

.. and still more..

Approaching the Highway 26 bridge over the Root River & marshlands

Highway 26 bridge over the Root River & marshlands

Wednesday morning clean up continues in La Crescent, MN

Train tracks in La Crescent, MN, Wednesday morning

A small train bridge in La Crescent, MN, Wednesday morning; the flooding left the bridge intact, but sluiced away the ground supporting the tracks on either side leading up to and away from the bridge

As a woman in Rushford said this morning on Minnesota Public Radio, this isn’t the worst tragedy the nation has seen, but it’s still pretty bad. Many families are homeless and, due to the loss of many small businesses, without a means of income to support their families. Most of these homes are not in a flood plain and therefore weren’t covered by flood insurance. It’s unclear yet what, if anything, FEMA will be able to do to assist. If you want to help, you can donate money or time to the Red Cross. If you’re in the area, you can donate any of the following items to Nicole Wilkes at Houston County Women’s Resources (114 Main Street, Hokah, MN) for distribution to families in need:

  • Cleaning Products
  • Blankets/Bedding
  • Personal Care Items
  • Non-perishable Food Items (With Minimal Preparation)
  • Gift Cards for grocery, department, and hardware stores

Permalink No Comments

OUTRAGE!

July 12, 2007 at 12:23 pm (causes, sexual assault)

I.. just..

Words can’t describe the level of outrage and anger and .. no words ..

I’ll just have to borrow Stephanie’s. Please. Go read this. And then, once you can form a coherent sentence again, call your legislators.

I’ll try to come up with something more coherent on this later this afternoon. Something about how “murder” seems to be a word like “rape” that might be construed to make the defendant sound guilty but that no judge in their right fuqing mind would consider banning the use of the word from their courtroom during a murder trial.

Permalink 1 Comment

This is one of those occasional “educational policy” posts..

June 27, 2007 at 9:41 am (ed policy, vsa)

Last Spring, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU) and the National Association for State Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC) convened several task forces to begin working on bringing their proposed Voluntary System of Accountability(sm) (PDF) effort into reality. The VSA(sm) task forces now have a preliminary draft template (PDF) that’s up for comment and feedback as to the feasibility of what’s been created.

There were a couple of guiding principles the Student & Family Information Task Force used in creating this (preliminary draft) template which are pertinent to the data contained in the first two and a half pages:

  • The first was that the data should be based off common, pre-existing sources of data. To accomplish this, when ever possible, the template is built on data from the Common Data Set and/or IPEDS and uses formulas and macros to pull the bulk of the data for the first two pages directly from the Excel version of the CDS.
  • The second guiding principle was that the data should be presented consistently from institution to institution. The draft of this template includes a uniform set of tables and charts that will auto-generate when inserted into the Excel CDS file. There will be some points of customization (e.g., the use of the school logo in the first page header and the ability to imbed links to institutional web pages), but the idea is for each institution’s VSA(sm) to have the same information in the same place so that (for instance) pages from several institutions can be printed and placed side by side for comparison by prospective students and parents.

The data and elements that are not from the CDS/IPEDS (mostly on pages 3 & 4) are still under discussion by the VSA(sm) Task Forces and may change. You may also note that the Undergraduate Success data are not simply the typical IPEDS graduation rate; the VSA(sm) teams are working with the National Student Clearinghouse on a means of providing this expanded set of success rates to institutions.

If you work in higher ed - or are a parent or prospective student who will be trying to decide which institution to attend - please take a look at the draft template and provide your feedback to the task forces; AASCU is hosting several public forums on their website specifically for the purpose of gathering input and feedback from others. Please take a moment to voice your opinion on what is increasingly becoming an urgent issue in higher education.

Permalink 2 Comments

Visible support.

June 24, 2007 at 7:23 pm (causes, equality)

Sorry to disappear for a bit only to reappear briefly with another no-knitting content post (that will come pr’bly tomorrow), but I think this is important.

You’ve got to watch this video. Thousands of people are attacked every year because of their sexual orientation, and there’s still no federal hate crimes law to protect them. This video is a very powerful statement on hate crimes, and I couldn’t help but pass it on. I think you’ll see why.

There’s a bill in the Senate right now that would address this heartbreaking problem, and we only have a few weeks until the vote. It would mean a lot to me if you could take a minute to watch the video and write your Senators, and then please, please, spread the word. I really believe none of us can sit this one out.

I wear two of those little silicone bracelet things regularly. The blue one is for the National Urea Cycle Disorders Foundation in honor of my niece who was diagnosed late last year with Ornithine Transcarbamylase Deficiency (OTC). The purple on is for the Matthew Shepard Foundation because I believe that it is important to take some visible and daily stand against hate crimes. I can’t solve the problem of hate crime, but I can do some small things to make it a visible one, one that can’t be ignored or hushed up. Writing and calling my elected representatives and asking them to support the Matthew Shepard Act is one of those things. Won’t you please do it, too?

Edited to add: I received the following response from Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman and I thought I would share for those who might be interested in where he stands on this important legislation (and yes, I’m fully aware this is likely a form letter, but it still states his views and confirms that he does intend to support the bill):

Dear Me: 

Thank you for taking the time to contact me concerning the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (S. 1105 ). 

Minnesota already has similar laws and it does not appear that there have been problems in its application or enforcement. Accordingly, I am inclined to support this at the federal level.

As you may know, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 (S. 1105) was introduced by Senator Kennedy (D-MA) and referred the Senate Judiciary Committee for further consideration. This legislation would provide resources to law enforcement officials to enhance prevention and prosecution efforts of hate crimes. Companion legislation (H.R. 1592) passed in the House on May 3, 2007. 

Thank you once again for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to contact me on any issue of concern to you and your family.

Sincerely,
Norm Coleman
United States Senate

Permalink 1 Comment

This post is not what it seems.

June 14, 2007 at 12:27 pm (causes, fiberswap, hiv/aids)

We returned from the cabin yesterday. I already miss it - and not just because the breeze off the lake made the mid-80-degrees days not just tolerable but actually quite pleasant. Our house is hot and sticky and even though we get periodic breezes through the upstairs open windows, it’s still too hot and sticky to contemplate knitting anything with wool or spinning anything with any possibility of sticking to moisture in my hands (like the baby camel & silk tends to).

My Fiber Swap box arrived while we were out. It’s quite lovely and has lots of fun things to play with - including samples of cotton and soy silk and flax which I’m unwontedly gleeful about (or will be once it’s not a sauna in my house) - and I will take pictures and post in more breathlessness about it all soon, but in catching up on the headlines from the last several days, I came across an article stating that the number of persons living with HIV/AIDS in a county near us went up in 2006.

Which is a bit of an understatement; the number nearly tripled. (Which, in and of itself, is somewhat mitigated when you realize that the total number of persons living with HIV/AIDS is in the low 20’s, but the rate of increase is still somewhat of a shock.) According to the article, a large portion of the increase is due to an “influx” (can 2-3 people really be considered an “influx”?) of people to the area who were already diagnosed - so it’s not a three-fold increase in the incidence of HIV/AIDS infections, but rather an increase in the prevalence of persons living with HIV/AIDS in the region.

And then I read the comments to the article (if you do this, read from the bottom up as the newest comments are added to the top). And as is not all that uncommon when I venture into the comments, I was rather horrified at the ignorance and prejudice displayed therein. But that’s not really my point either; rather, I was reminded by something someone mentioned in passing in one of the comments of a rant I’ve been wanting to write for a few weeks.

It sums up to this, in short: If you trust the security of your blood supply to self-disclosure of potential risk factors, you’re negligently naive. (I warned you this post wasn’t what it seemed.) While the FDA’s policy of “self-deferral” to keep men who have sex with men (MSM) from contributing to the nation’s blood supply *may* reduce the 1 in a million chance of someone contracting HIV from a blood transfusion (which is not insignificant given that there are, in an average year, about 20 million blood transfusions in the US), it relies on the self-identification of MSM as such.

And.. well.. even with the change in terminology and the targeting of MSM who do not identify as gay or bisexual in media campaigns, there is a relatively substantial population of men (apparently especially African American men) on the down low - substantial enough that they are believed to be the primary reason that the incidence of HIV/AIDS among heterosexual women has been on the rise. So.. knowing that, I fail to understand how a policy of self-deferral - which will undoubtedly succeed in keeping a large number of HIV-negative self-identifying MSM from attempting to give blood - is going to do anything to protect the blood supply from the uncounted (but believed to be large) population of MSM who don’t identify as such.

It’s a farce. Rather than admit that the blood supply is at risk of contamination, the FDA would rather reaffirm the stereotype that homosexual and bisexual men constitute the only population with significant enough risk of spreading HIV to warrant the prevention of their contribution to the blood supply - in defiance of the facts that the proportion of new female HIV cases has been steadily rising over the past decade and that 80% of new female HIV infections are transmitted through heterosexual sex. By playing on the fears of the uneducated public, the FDA is knowingly contributing to a false sense of security regarding the US blood supply.

Don’t get me wrong - I’m not advocating for the abolition of the maintenance of the US blood supply, or for more stringent restrictions as to who is deemed worthy of contributing; rather I’m arguing for an admission of the actual risk inherent in the system and an abolition of restrictions that are based on fear and prejudice.

Permalink No Comments

Let’s round out the week with some righteous indignation..

May 11, 2007 at 6:54 am (equality)

This is why gay and lesbian couples should be afforded the same legal marital rights as heterosexual couples.

The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a Minneapolis woman should have visitation rights with the two children she and her now-estranged lesbian partner adopted when they were still a couple.

Nancy SooHoo had faced losing all contact with the 11- and 6-year-old girls, whom she said still call her “mommy,” and her attorney said the court’s decision is good news for gay parents who have struggled for legal parental rights.

SooHoo and Marilyn Johnson had been a couple for almost two decades when they adopted the infant girls from China in 1997 and 2001, but Johnson became the sole legal guardian because the Chinese government wouldn’t allow gay couples to adopt.

When the couple split in 2004, Johnson was left as the only legal parent of both girls.

Yes, Ms. SooHoo will still get to see her kids. No, even though she and Ms. Johnson adopted the children together after having been “a couple” for “two decades”, a legal technicality means Ms. SooHoo doesn’t actually get joint custody. She’s not, in the eyes of the courts or the law, their mother.

Yes, divorce is ugly, even moreso when there are children involved. But even though the divorce rate is reportedly down from a peak in the early-80’s, it still seems to be that around 40% of first-time (need I even state that these are only heterosexual?) marriages end in divorce. The courts would never think to consider one of the adults in those families not legally a parent to their children, even if the children had been adopted. Not one, not ever.

Because marriage and civil union is not legal for most of the country, there are no similar statistics for gay and lesbian families, but the law of averages being what it is, my guess is that it’s about the same. It might even be lower because of the strength of will and determination it takes in many areas of the country to declare yourself married to someone of the same sex - arguably you’d think about jumping into a gay or lesbian marriage maybe a little harder than it seems some heterosexual couples think about it - but again, no statistics, so all we can do is speculate. (I won’t even really go off on the whole “if it were recognized, we could actually track things like this and make decisions based on *gasp* actual data” line..)

Permalink 2 Comments

« Previous entries