Aside from theothercritiques around the blogosphere today of Ross Douthat's head-bangingly frustrating column, I also found some glaring inconsistencies, and rather problematic themes he’s got going on. I appreciated his arguably (and rather surprisingly) compassionate response to the MTV special, but he goes on to discuss issues that are either wholly unrelated to a woman’s decision to have an abortion, or off-base in terms of quality of analysis. For example,
In every era, there’s been a tragic contrast between the burden of unwanted pregnancies and the burden of infertility. But this gap used to be bridged by adoption far more frequently than it is today. Prior to 1973, 20 percent of births to white, unmarried women (and 9 percent of unwed births over all) led to an adoption. Today, just 1 percent of babies born to unwed mothers are adopted, and would-be adoptive parents face a waiting list that has lengthened beyond reason.
Some of this shift reflects the growing acceptance of single parenting. But some of it reflects the impact of Roe v. Wade. Since 1973, countless lives that might have been welcomed into families like Thernstrom’s — which looked into adoption, and gave it up as hopeless — have been cut short in utero instead.
Leaving aside for now the point that it’s no woman’s responsibility to provide children for infertile couples, he’s forgetting that giving up a baby for adoption — after the birth mother spent at least 9 months gestating it, feeling it move, kick, bond with it, etc. — is no easy feat.
He’s also neglecting the reality that “acceptance of single parenting” is hardly a celebration of it. What else should we do to single parents? Abuse them? Deny their existence? Blame them for their situation? Also forgetting that many single parents — primarily women — who are blamed for not giving their children an ideal household are not doing so by their own choice. Their husbands can abandon the family, die, or even just leave the vast majority of involved parenting up to the other parent, without their say. Or vice versa. It’s not always about a casual decision to get married and have kids, or an equally as casual decision to not make that work out as planned.
Supporting single parents and maintaining his stance that a dual-parent household is ideal for raising and nurturing a child don’t have to be mutually exclusive. He has shown time and time again that he believes the best way to discourage behaviors that are contrary to the common idea (or his idea) of what is ideal, like two-parent households, preventing unplanned pregnancies, "traditional" marriage, and now abortion, is to alienate, criminalize, or just outright ignore the existence of the people who are engaging in, or directly affected by these issues. Clearly, the state, or society at large, acting in this manner in the past caused such joys as women dying of botched illegal abortions, forced pregnancy, poverty, marginalization... I can go on.
There is a reason why people continue to fight ideologues like Douthat. It's not because we're hostile to the ideals they set forth, but because we want to avoid the consequences of forcing such ideals on unwilling -- or unable -- participants.
(...Nearly the entirety of this blog post was originally a comment over at The Innocent Smith Journal. InnocentSmith has also responded to Jill and Amanda's critiques here.)
This is one of those times when I’m looking to all of you out there to help me with a problem over the word “faggot.” I’ve run out of sage advice to give my eleven-year-old son, who has hit a life-altering stalemate over this word. I thought perhaps there may be some silver-bullet solution that I’ve missed. As a mother, I cling to the ridiculous idea that there is a solution out there, even though over 21 years of motherhood has taught me dozens of times that believing there’s an answer, is often a delusion. No, this is not directly about bullying, it’s more about friendship, family, and loyalty. Obviously, you need to know more.
My youngest son, who I’ll call “Joe” to protect his anonymity, has two best friends. One of them, “Alex,” lives only two houses away, which means if they’re both home at the same time, they’re together. Even to our extended family, Alex is not considered “company” anymore. If we’re going out to lunch, it’s not a question of if Alex will come too, it’s if “the boys” are coming, because no thought is ever given to them voluntarily separating…even for lunch. In most ways, they are regular eleven-year-old kids who just enjoy each other’s company. They play football in the yard, basketball in the driveway, video games, computer games, build Lego towns, they look at Selena Gomez pictures on the internet because she’s beautiful, they run outside if a fire truck, cop or ambulance goes by with its sirens on, they burn leaves with a magnifying glass, and they fart on each other. The only time they don’t play together is when they can’t because of schedules imposed by adults. All that changed last week. Feeling like he had no other choice, my son stood up and walked out of his best friend’s house, saying, “That’s it, I’m leaving,” because yet again, the word "faggot" was used as a weapon.
Keep this in context. A young boy saying that he will not go to his best friend’s house is a big fucking deal, a really big fucking deal. His best friend, Alex, is not using the word faggot, Alex’s 13 year old big brother is, and this is, above all things, a brother issue. My oldest son, Joe’s big brother, is gay. In a recent autobiography Joe had to write for his first week of 5th grade, he indicated that the person he admired most in the world was his sober, gay, 21 year-old big brother.
Joe has done and said everything he has in his eleven year old arsenal to stop the use of the word faggot. He explained why using the word faggot is offensive. He explained why it’s personally offensive to him. He explained that it’s not just offensive, it’s hurtful. He’s asked that the word just not be used when he’s around. None of this has curtailed the use of the word in his presence. Important note: yes, the word is used with the full knowledge and in continuous witness of the boys’ father. This is Oklahoma, so in more than half the homes down here, it would not be considered an obscenity, or something to be reprimanded for. If the kid is allowed to tease his sibling with the word dork, or idiot, then the word faggot is likely, equally acceptable.
The main thing Joe’s father and I have tried to get him to understand, is what his limits are. The main one being, he can’t make other people change. He can only know that he did everything possible to try and create a change. Sometimes, you have to find peace in knowing that you did your very best, but the rest is not up to you. We’ve told him that nobody, not even his big brother, expects him to give up going to his best friend’s house. Hanging out there is not a betrayal of his brother, or condoning what Alex’s brother says.
He’s at a “wait and see” point right now. He’s hopeful that the walk-out worked. After all, it did put an abrupt end to a really fun game. Joe was particularly happy with what he heard as he was walking out the door. He could hear Alex screaming at his big brother, “LOOK WHAT YOU DID! THAT’S MY BEST FRIEND AND THE ONLY FRIEND YOU STILL HAVE, AND YOU RUINED IT!” Interesting news, but I’m not really shocked that this young man doesn't have anyone who will still play with him except his little brother’s best friend. Unfortunately, I think the fact that he’s friendless probably illustrates this kid’s inability to consider others at all.
So, I’m wide open to hearing your ideas, or suggestions, just in case I missed some little known tool in dealing with a semi-sociopathic, Baptist, bigoted, redneck, preteen who is allowed to get away with damn near everything.
One of the often misperceived "perils" of being an active member of today's online social media is that we're letting loose to the world our personal details and in turn may be subjected to their emotional feelings about a wide range of topics <GASP>. I actually find this interaction a good thing and yes, I'm talking about facebook. The true reality? We often find ourselves perusing the pictures of a high school friend's new baby, or maybe learning too much about why your friend's nostril whistles when asked to answer questions in front of large groups of people or simply to witness the fun that can be had by adding your own clever way of saying "Happy Birthday", for the 200th entry that day, on someone else's wall.
As you may already know, comments on facebook, forums or social media sites that boast an active community of people might occasionally get a little absurd, but in reality it's often the converse (i.e. the banal "I'm brushing my teeth" updates) that happens most. Yet I was hoping that it could be here where I'd find a unique story, one that would pertain to "men's health", a topic I felt to be an apt perspective to share via Ethecofem and one that is generally underrepresented in the media today. Certainly the attention paid to breast cancer and all other women's cancer issues are justified, all I'm stating is that not nearly the same effort has historically been put into fundraising for the men's cancer concerns. Just this week, The Washington Post put it rather starkly:
About 32,000 men will die of prostate cancer in 2010, according to estimates by the American Cancer Society. That's not far behind the nearly 40,000 women who will die of breast cancer this year.
This is where the month of Movember has changed things.
Over the past month I've watched as two fraternity (a historically literary fraternity) brothers of mine have taken on the Movember challenge: to grow, groom and photograph your mustache (examples of a "mo") for the entire month of November, all the while raising money for men's health concerns, including prostate and testicular cancer. The idea was started in Melbourne Australia 7 years ago and has since grown into a world wide phenomenon. Just this weekend the results of 2010's Movember campaign are being updated and world wide, this year's mo-vement saw over 500,000 participants (nearly double the 255 thousand in 2009) with over 60 million dollars raised (and counting) or $18 million more than in 2009. The direct benefactors for the American arm of the Movember Foundation are the Prostate Cancer Foundation and LIVESTRONG, the Lance Armstrong Foundation, which portions it's funds out to Fertile Hope, My Planet, in addition to creating an educational video series with the Nurse Oncology Education Program. And as any legitimate non-profit should, you can peep where their money goes via their annual reports page.
Also of note, since this phenomenon began in Australia, it's primary sources of fundraising have come almost exclusively from British Empire countries, with Canada ($20m), Australia ($19m) and England ($12m) leading the way. So while the US has contributed nearly 7 million dollars this year, Movember's merits are only just beginning to dawn on the world's economic leader, which we can only hope to be an even larger contributor in years to come. It only appears to be the natural course of events that such a continuation of growth, of both facial hair and interest, will continue on our shores because seriously, in time you will get bored of all those adorable baby pictures, extraordinary human foibles and random blog posts about facial hair, right? For our sake, I hope that especially the latter isn't true...
Due in no small part to ethecofem's very own (albeit currently MIA, although I'm working on that) kissiegrrrl, I've been made aware of the fabulous resource that is The Story of Stuff, and their YouTube educational series about what we consume, where it comes from, where it goes, and what it all means in the context of humanity and our continued existence. Another YouTube user, who so arrogantly names himself HowTheWorldWorks, put up a series of critiques of the HowStuffWorks content. Being the lover of critical thinking that I am, and appreciating intelligently-articulated views that may oppose my own, I enthusiastically watched the video in it's entirety, twice. Unfortunately, I learned nothing, other than the ways in which HowTheWorldWorks is just... wrong.
1. Why shouldn't 9-year-olds think that Legos (made from plastic, which is made from oil) are destroying the earth? Legos (which are plastic, and made from oil, an unsustainable natural resource), as well as other unrecycled plastic products, ARE destroying the earth. And where's your citation?
2. It's pretty awesome that microchips are getting smaller and smaller. It's pretty great that we can store more and more information on smaller and smaller devices. This, however, doesn't matter at all, considering the fact that the planet, and the people on it, aren't, you know, microchips.
3. The earth is compacted with tons of resources that we don't know how to use yet? Oh? Sure, this may be very true, and I am willing to believe your statement. But this still doesn't actually matter. Because the earth does not have endless resources. So we can run out of oil, some scientists can figure out how to use other resources to sustain our lifestyles, and then we panic about what will happen when THOSE resources near their end. What happens when we are out of THOSE resources? Or are you just crossing your fingers and hoping we end up like the folks in Firefly, and find a bunch of other "earths" to terraform? Good luck. Better get on that.
4. The economic theories on which you are basing your arguments about scarcity of resources, demand for the resources, and hoped-for resolution of buying less of those products coming from the scarce resources leading to the, again, hoped-for innovation in the hoped-for usage of new resources to continue to sustain our current Western lifestyle is STILL unsustainable. Still. Go back to your Econ 101 class and keep praying.
5. Ignoring the fact that you are practically worshipping James Madison as though he were a god amongst men (I just barfed a little in my mouth when I used "men" as a substitute for "people," but I thought that would be a language you could read) and treating the Constitution in the same way that fundamentalist Christians treat the Bible, let's talk about this whole "promoting general welfare" thing. I know the word "welfare" probably scares you and makes you think of black people scamming crackers or something, but in what way do you believe that ensuring that corporate powers and big business interests don't harm our health and general well-being for their own monetary profit is somehow NOT promoting the general welfare of the people of the United States? Or were you under the impression that corporate interests and their monetary profits are more worthy of protection than the health and general well-being than individual citizens of the planet? I certainly don't trust corporations to care about my welfare. I mean, I know corporations are considered people under US law, but I really didn't know people took that literally. Congratulations, you've made me more cynical than I was before. That's an accomplishment.
5.2. And for fuck's sake, my dad's name is Russell, not James. Stop referring to him as my father, or the father of the Constitution. Did his sperm really join an egg (and if so, whose egg? I never hear about the Constitution's mom-- or was this a reverse-immaculate-conception thing?) that contributed to the actual birth of a large piece of paper with some ink on it?
6. Did you really say that corporations are providing the things we need to survive? I mean, sure, some corporations are doing that, for their own monetary profit, but I'm also pretty sure that, for thousands of years, we got by without corporations taking control of our "necessities." But really? I need Apple products to SURVIVE? I can't live without my Converse sneakers? I will die without my Sony television? The checking accounts I own at a national bank are absolutely necessary to my survival? Is your dad Rupert Murdoch? Oh, sorry, I forgot; you pledge your allegiance to James Madison. My bad.
7. Try as I might, I can't seem to find the part where you explain how wind and solar energy are "nonsense." Care to elaborate on your claim that they are nonsense? Because I just can't for the life of me figure out how in the world these innovations-- undeniably sustainable innovations-- could be the slightest bit problematic. I must have just missed it, though. I mean, you so ardently criticize the narrator here for her apparent omission of truth and unsubstantiated claims and statistics, that I just can't imagine that you would fail to back up your own claims properly. Please, oh wise one, tell me just exactly how solar and windpower are nonsense.
8. I get the impression that you're critical of her claim that we're trashing the planet. Did you think that landfills are not comprised of trash? Which dictionary do you use? I guess I have the wrong one. Maybe that floating garbage island in the Pacific is really... art? Unclaimed landmass, waiting for new inhabitants? What?
9. Mining has been going on since the Roman empire. That makes it sustainable and not the slightest bit problematic. Persecution of homosexuals has also been going on since the Roman empire. I guess I should rethink the whole gay rights thing, too. That must be okay, since it's been going on for a long time. Same with the whole persecution of Christians and burning of witches. Got it.
10. Factory farming of animals for the US's ever-increasing meat consumption is contributing to greenhouse gasses. Oh, right, the air we breathe and our climate will stop being toxified once we... stop... buying... toxification? Because of the whole economic theory you cite. Right. When will that happen, again? I see a lot of big, important, self-described "conservative" white guys hollering about why we shouldn't stop, because it might decrease the numbers in the poor little CEOs bank accounts, the practice of which seems like it may possibly be hurting the people's continuous efforts to start using other, more sustainable methods of living (as you suggest we'll somehow seamlessly and automatically succeed at accomplishing), but maybe that's a part of your precious little theory that you thought you didn't need to share with us. How does corporate greed factor in? I'm sure you have the answer; maybe you just forgot to put it in your enlightening little video response?
11. Please take a geology class.
12. Our current generation's life expectancy has nothing to do with the planets inability to sustain human life and exponential population growth as it is in our current reality. The increase in life expectancy for western civilizations (so long as you're wealthy, white, and have access to healthy food and affordable health care), relative to what it was a hundred or more years ago, is due to advances in medical science, which is due, in large part, to antibiotics and other medications, the rampant usage of which has been directly linked to decreasing the quality of our water supply via endocrine disruptors and neurological and respiratory toxins, which cause innumerable health problems such as obesity and hormonal imbalances, which contribute to infertility in both males and females, and painful, debilitating conditions such as endometriosis, among scores of other things. All of which are predicted to ensure that our children will have a lower life expectancy than that which we currently enjoy.
12. Your critique of her ability to read her own data still doesn't mean that your analysis of her data means anything worth saying out loud, because it's all bullshit which relies on maintaining and defending the support of corporate greed and control.
13. "...[T]hat would be the equivalent of saying that every time we harvest corn, that farmland is gone forever." Oh. So since soil loses fertility over time, which takes a thousand years to regenerate organically, were you trying to tell us to wait a thousand years to keep feeding humanity, or were you advocating shortening our lifespans by continuing to introduce foreign, cancer-causing, endocrine-disrupting chemicals into our food and water supplies? A minute ago you used the whole longer-life-expectancy thing to prove some other nonsense point...
14. The fact that some water was undrinkable 200 years ago still fails to take into account the fact that less water is drinkable than what was drinkable 200 years ago. And that the reason that less water is drinkable today than it was 200 years ago is directly due to endocrine disruptors and other pollutants caused by the manufacturing of the mass consumption of, that's right, STUFF.
15. Using a horn sound effect and a bold, red font for the word "Marxism" doesn't disprove any particular point she has, nor does it help your argument any. Indoctrination, much? Socializzzmomgzz is scarrrrrryyyy!!! Take a gorram history class.
16. You attempted to counter the fact that the US uses more resources than anyone on the planet by commenting on how the US uses those resources. Fail. Respond to the statement in question, or shut the hell up. Welcome to the world of hypocrisy and political spin. I nominate you for mayor of said world.
17. You keep failing to explain how your critique of the exponential growth function fails to account for the fact that, regardless of the resources available on the planet, they're still finite, and therefore unsustainable. No matter how many uses for new resources we can find-- if we're able to combat the rampant corporate greed that is currently stifling all efforts to create sustainable energy sources and ways of living, as you keep saying will "just happen," even though you simultaneously claim that we don't have to do anything about it-- the earth's resources are still finite, and therefore unsustainable!
18. Why do you keep acting as though resources becoming scarce is no big deal? What part of "finite" do you not understand?
19. I think you heard the word "strawman" somewhere, and, as a result of not having a valid counterpoint, you just thought you'd throw it out there for Glenn Beck & Co's approval. Because the labor that they "trade" us for their resources is... um, mean. Are you really arguing that paying pennies a day to people working in inhumane, unhealthy, and arguably immoral conditions is in some way desirable? Maybe we aren't talking about the same earth. Perhaps you live on a different planet, one that doesn't value human life, so long as the humans in question aren't in your immediate circle of wealthy, American white dudes. How would you like to earn a few dollars a month for all that labor that allows others to apparently guiltlessly consume iPods, clothing, and other consumer goods that you manufacture, but can't even realistically expect to afford to purchase in your lifetime? Good thing for you that you happened to be born and raised in the United States, or another Western or "first world" nation. Or were you under the impression that people in third world countries like their conditions, and if they didn't, there's a free plane ride to a new life in the ever-welcoming US? Hahahahahahahahaha. Hahahahahahaha. Hahahahahahahahahahaha. Aww. You're cute.
20. "What is an 'original forest'? Are we starting in Pangaea?" Okay. That was funny. But only when taken entirely out of context.
21. You said that the reason why trees in the Amazon aren't being replanted isn't surprising is because no one owns the Amazon. So-- god, I'm almost spitting up my beer, this is too funny-- if no one owns it, how is it that anyone gets the rights to use the Amazon's resources? You seem to believe that, if no one owns nature, we (who, exactly?) can destroy it at will, but that we need someone to "own" it in order to keep it alive and sustain it. As if this lack of private ownership of nature is a problem. Is this a real belief, the one where you think that private ownership of pieces of our planet is actually beneficial to humanity's existence? Hahahahaha. Hahahahaha. Hahahahaha.
22. What in the bloody hell do you consider "significantly improved"? Relative to what? Jesus H. Hell on a bloody popsicle stick, what do you mean?!
Apparently, the turdburgler has several more "parts" to his "critique." I may tackle those later, when I have the time and patience to watch them. Stay tuned.
Thanks to my chemistry-nerd husband, I now have a better understanding of the chemical makeup of... makeup. Anti-aging creams, in particular. Allow me to attempt paraphrasing this newfound knowledge:
For the most part, products that claim to "erase wrinkles" or "invigorate" the skin for the purpose of decreasing the signs of aging, are creating a temporary illusion of skin tightness. The astringent qualities of the product tighten pores, creating a more even, youthful appearance, and a waxy or oily substance remains on the skin, allowing the effects to remain in the skin until it's worn or washed off, hours later.
I shamefully bought an undereye revitalizer... thing, the other day. I never thought it would happen to me, but since I turned 26, I've been preoccupied with the fear of looking "old." I'm self-conscious about undereye circles and "bags," and I noticed a mouth wrinkle, omg. So I actually bought a product that promised to lessen the appearance of undereye "puffiness" and circles.
I went home and read the instructions. It said to apply to a clean, dry face in the morning (and you can wear it under makeup, it says!) and at night, before bed.
I used the stuff this morning after I showered, before work, keeping in mind my newfound chemistry knowledge. It did, in fact, "burn" a little, in the way that suggests something medicinal, which I guess we're supposed to find reassuring. The instructions said to "pat" the area until it was absorbed. The thing is, after using the recommended amount of product on my "eye area," there was so much that I could pat for 20 minutes without making much of a difference. So I resorted to light rubbing, and then eventually started to just spread the stuff a little outside the prescribed "eye area."
Anyway, my eyes were less puffy, and for the rest of the day, I felt a slight pulling at the corners of my eyes. It was the waxy coating that the eye crap left behind.
What really gets me is not that it's just an illusion, but rather the fact that they instruct the user to apply is in the morning and at night. We've already established that the results are temporary and dependent on the product remaining intact on a person's face. The product does not work like Zoloft; it's not released throughout the bloodstream at intervals and dependent on a regular schedule of consumption. The cream works until it's washed or worn off. If you tell someone to wash their face, and then (quick!) put some more stuff on, the user will only continue to see the results of the product. Even though it's useless to wear while sleeping, as the further instructions are to use morning and night, on a clean face. So, that would require you to wash your face in the morning before reapplying it.
Clearly, they are attempting to simply make you believe that there are benefits to using this product more often than (you know to be) "necessary" so that you will use more of their product, and therefore have to buy it more often. And using it at night, as they needlessly suggest, will cause the user to think that the product is really making a long-term and sustained difference, as promised.
Their clever little advertising tricks drive me up a wall. It's the epitome of manipulation for personal gain, and it's infuriating.
I think he's on to something, but that it ends up going in circles, and there's no real answer to the questions he's asking, and he doesn't attempt to answer them.
I would hypothesize that most human beings I interact with on a daily basis, particularly the progressively minded ones, accept certain fundamental values as truisms, i.e. self-evident and obvious truths. One example of these might be the ethic of reciprocity, a.k.a. the "golden rule". Out for a stroll in the toasty 20 degree weather I was playing a little "Descartes" and thought of this blog. Consequently, I am posting these questions to the blogosphere regarding fundamental values much of progessive ethics and politics seem to be based. I am pretty familiar with the religious answers to these questions, vaguely familiar with the ethicist's answers, and feel ok about my own but I'd really like to hear all of yours.
1. Is it wrong treat one category of human being as lesser or greater? Why? 2. Is it wrong to kill another human being for any reason? Why? 3. Are the any intrinsic differences between categories of people? Are there any implications of this? 4. Is it possible to use power justly? How is it derived justly? Why?
