Archive for the 'People' Category

Losing money, feeling good

In the file called "People whom I alternately loathe and admire" is the irrepressible Dov Charney, the CEO of American Apparel.  His reckless personal behavior and the over-sexualized ad campaigns for his company have long troubled me; his commitment to social justice and to decent working conditions for his employees have been inspiring.  Some of us are complicated people, after all — and in the case of Dov Charney, I won’t let the good he does obscure the tawdry details of his all-too-public personal behavior in the workplace, and I won’t let the reality of his transgresssions obscure his tremendously positive example to other garment manufacturers.  I like my villains to have a heroic side, and my heroes to have a nasty underbelly.

Dov Charney lost $400,000 yesterday, and couldn’t be happier about it. The Times story is here.

Otis Chandler

The deaths they do keep coming…

Otis Chandler, whose family played a huge role in building Los Angeles, and who himself single-handedly transformed the Los Angeles Times from a fourth-rate right-wing rag into a world class paper, has died.  A very long obituary (much of it obviously written some time ago) is here on the Times website.

The LA Times is not what it was a few years ago.   Otis Chandler made it a great paper, and his chosen successor as publisher, Tom Johnson, made it a better one.   In the 1980s and 90s, the paper had a series of excellent editors-in-chief, including a very fine man to whom I was once very close, Shelby Coffey III.  Since Shelby’s departure in late 1997, the paper has gradually gotten thinner — literally and figuratively.  Owned today by the Chicago Tribune, there is little sign that the paper’s recovery is imminent.  I still read it daily, but supplement it more and more with online visits to the Washington Post and the New York Times.

Those interested in the Times — or in Los Angeles history — would do well to read the whole obit.

PCC loses one of its finest — UPDATED

Third post of the morning already, but this is a sad and important one.  One of Pasadena City College’s most famous alumnae has died: Octavia Butler was only 58.  She won the Hugo and Nebula awards, and in the white male dominated world of science fiction, Butler (an African-American lesbian) was an extraordinary figure.  The college at which I teach has produced some fine and famous figures (Eddie Van Halen, Nick Nolte, Jerry Tarkanian, Jackie Robinson), but Butler was a unique and important writer, and she’s been lost much too soon. 

Do read this memorable interview with her, and this outstanding bit of advice she offered to aspiring young writers:

I  have to be careful what I say to younger people, because every now and then someone will come up to me and say–"Oh, this touches on reading, but is not just reading." "What should I major in at college to become a writer?" I have to stop myself from saying that it’s not so much what you major in at college or even that you go to college. It’s that you read. I’m more likely to say, "What you should major in is something like history. Maybe you should take a good look at psychology and anthropology and sociology. Learn about people. Learn about different people. When I say history, I don’t mean to tell you just to study the kings and queens and generals and wars. Learn how people live and learn the kinds of things that motivate people. Learn the kinds of things that we unfortunate human beings do over and over again. We don’t really learn from history, because from one generation to the next we do tend to reproduce our errors. There are cycles in history. Even look into things like evolutionary biology; that goes back further, for instance, than history, further back than cultural anthropology would go. Learn all you can about the way we work, the way we tick.

Read all kinds of fiction. In school you’re going to be assigned to read classics, and that’s good, that’s useful. A lot of it is good writing and will help you with your writing. But a lot of it is archaic good writing that won’t necessarily help you with what you are doing now. So read the current best sellers; read something that is maybe going to spark a new interest in you.

Bold emphasis mine.  Amen, sister Octavia, amen.

From a feminist perspective, it’s been a hard past month — far too many significant figures (Wasserstein, Friedan, King, Butler)  dying far too young.

UPDATE:  Here’s a remembrance sent to me by an outstanding former student of mine, Liza Anulao:

I just found out the news about Octavia Butler’s death earlier this morning, and was totally blue. It’s strange, because it was just last night, before I had heard the news, that I was reading a quote she had written. I had cut out her quote from the paper 10 years ago and had glued it into my ancient organizer. Below the newspaper clipping she had signed her autograph when I had met her at one of her several readings. This is what she said:

"There are three things to forget about…First, talent. I used to worry that I had no talent, and it compelled me to work harder. Second, inspiration. Habit will serve you a lot better. And third, imagination. Don’t worry, you have it."

I recall having the privilege of driving her from the Burbank airport to her Pasadena hotel when she came to speak at Pasadena City College for A.W.A.R.E., the feminist organization I was a member of. I was so nervous, because she has been one of my favorite science fiction writers ever since I read her book, Kindred, in high school. She was eager to find a supermarket so she could find foods that had no meat products in them. I was struck by her strength, simplicity, stature, and dangling earrings. She encouraged me to practice everydayness in writing.

I am happy to have been touched by her writing and wish her spirit a fine journey.

A brief reflection on Betty Friedan

As everyone has been saying, the icons of another era are fast leaving us.  The latest, of course, is Betty Friedan, who died Saturday at 85.  Almost everyone in the feminist blogosphere has written about her passing, and there is much that is good and interesting to read.

I wrote yesterday that I had mixed feelings about Friedan’s legacy.  On the one hand, there is no question that she deserves tremendous credit for helping launch the revival of the feminist movement in the 1960s, first with the extraordinary Feminine Mystique of 1963 and then with her pivotal role in founding the National Organization for Women three years later.  It’s impossible to imagine the modern feminist movement without her.  As so many others have said, Friedan gave voice to an entire generation of women who had been told the greatest of lies, the lie that says that happiness is ultimately only found in a life lived for husbands and children.  She exposed that lie beautifully, and helped millions of American women realize "Wait, I’m not the only one who feels this way."  Plenty of women of my mother’s generation still remember how amazed they were when they first read the Feminine Mystique, and realized that what they had thought of as their own personal dissatisfaction was, in fact, damn near universal.

But even in a time of tributes and accolades, we can’t forget the "lavender menace", a term that Friedan infamously coined in 1969.   Friedan, like a number of conservative feminists, saw her movement as calling for a reconfiguring of heterosexual relationships along more egalitarian lines.  But throughout her life, she seemed bewildered by those women who shared her political commitments but did not share her romantic and sexual interest in men.  Rather than build feminist solidarity between lesbians and straight women, Friedan sought to purge NOW of lesbians.  She feared for the future of the movement, but she also — according to those who knew her — seemed genuinely and persistently unnerved by queer folks.

Friedan also quarreled with most of the later leaders of the feminist movement, like Gloria Steinem and Patricia Ireland.   Her 1981 manifesto, The Second Stage, was a startling statement of essentialism (the notion that women are, biologically speaking, more inclined to be nurturing and relational than men).  A long excerpt from that book is here.    She wanted the movement to de-emphasize sexual issues, for fear that they were inflaming the right. She wrote: …the sexual politics that dis-torted the sense of priorities of the women’s movement during the 1970’s made it easy for the so-called Moral Majority to lump E.R.A. with homosexual rights and abortion into one explosive package of licentious, family-threatening sex.

To be fair, it was written right after the election of Ronald Reagan, and Friedan was trying to reconfigure her movement to be successful in a more conservative era.   From a political standpoint, she made some wise suggestions, but she also managed to alienate an exceptional number of young feminists, particularly those who did not share her color, her affluence, and her sexual identity.

In the end, I can’t help but think about the death just ten months ago of Andrea Dworkin, another — very different — icon of the feminist movement.  Dworkin, like Friedan, quarreled with and horrified a number of erstwhile allies.  Indeed, Andrea was almost a mirror image of Betty Friedan: almost everything Friedan embraced, Andrea rejected.  Dworkin was so eager to include the marginalized and the wounded that she frightened folks with her powerful rhetoric; Friedan was so eager not to frighten middle America that she tried, time and again, to purge the feminist movement of its more radical voices.  In different but oddly similar ways, both women ended up on the outs with most of the contemporary leadership of the women’s movement.  And yet the feminist movement was better for their work, their writing, and, perhaps, even their passionate, devoted and often curmudgeonly criticism from the sidelines. 

Shameless family plug: “Open to God, Open to the World”

Let me make another shameless family plug.

My beloved and delightful aunt, Christa Pongratz-Lippitt, is the Austrian correspondent for the famous English Catholic paper The Tablet.  She has recently edited and published the essays (in both English and German) of her dear friend, the late Cardinal Franz Koenig: Open to God, Open to the World.  A review in the Jesuit journal America described the essays as filled "with candid and often delightful recollections that leave the reader breathless at the vision and energy of this remarkable man."

He would have made a great pope.

Quick thought on Tookie

It’s a busy day, but I did want to briefly post about the battle to save the life of Stanley "Tookie" Williams.   

One of the few things I’ve been consistent on throughout my life is my opposition to the death penalty.  That opposition is not rooted in a fear that the innocent may be executed; it isn’t rooted in an ignorance as to the horror of the crimes invariably involved.  It is rooted in the conviction that everyone who participates in an execution is invariably brutalized, even if they aren’t entirely aware of it at the time.  The guards, the wardens, the witnesses, and the citizens of the state in whose name the execution is carried out are all a bit darker, a bit less human, as a result.

My mother reminded me last night of this famous Shaw line that seems most apropos: It is the deed that teaches, not the name we give it.   The message of capital punishment is not a life-valuing message.  As the old bumper sticker says, it makes no sense to "Kill people who kill people to prove that killing people is wrong."  The message of the death penalty is that we, the people, ought to have sovereign power over life itself, and that is a message I believe to be utterly at odds with the Gospel message.

But l’m troubled by the focus on Tookie’s story of redemption.  For me, at least, it makes not an iota of difference whether he has redeemed himself or not.  Obviously, I’m glad he’s done the work he has.  But authentic and consistent opposition to the death penalty must be based on the abhorrence of state-sanctioned murder, not on the perceived virtues of the condemned.  I’m as opposed to the death penalty for the vicious and the apparently irredeemable as I am for the Tookie Williamses of the world.   If Tookie Williams is executed, I will grieve neither more nor less than I do any other execution committed in my name.   

That doesn’t mean I’m not praying for clemency, and I’ve already contacted Gov. Schwarzenegger by e-mail and phone to express that to him.

Office parties, small tasks, feminism

So we just had our "end-of-the-semester" holiday party for the Social Sciences division.  Lots and lots of food (Hugo had two brownies and a slice of apple pie).  A great chance to socialize with one’s colleagues and former colleagues; retired members of the division always come back for food and fun.

This morning, one of my students in my women’s studies class asked me, bluntly but politely, if I just "talked the talk" of feminism or if I "walked the walk."  I was clear that to the best of my ability, I do walk that feminist walk.  And lo and behold, in the thirty minutes before the division party began, I found myself in the "party room" setting things up.  I was with six of my female colleagues, but I was the only male prof participating in the "set-up." 

We’re a good-natured department, and like most college departments, we like to eat and drink together.  But almost all of the time, the work of setting up and cleaning up is done by women.  Our secretaries are not asked to help (though they do); most of the women who do this work are also faculty members with the same teaching loads and obligations as their male colleagues.  Today, as I carefully cut pies with a very dull knife and laid out dips and veggies, I realized that I’d rather be in my office checking the Internet.  But I can’t very well preach egalitarianism and then leave the domestic chores of parties to my female colleagues. 

I’m not asking for praise for a few moment’s work.  I’m simply recognizing that it is so easy for me and for other men to "not think" about who puts on the parties, lays out the napkins, slices the cake, and makes sure that the trash can has plastic liners.  It’s so easy to just "disappear" into the office until it’s time to eat.  But even though they aren’t actually present, I often feel the eyes of my students on me; I know they are curious to know if my actions and my words are congruent.  And though feminism is about a good deal more than small tasks of the sort I did this morning, those little chores are not insignificant, either.  Next year, I’m dragging my male office mate with me to "set-up time."

Susan Kennedy — UPDATED

Third post of the morning, but it’s a quickie.

If true, this is happy news for progressives in California, and further evidence that Governor Schwarzenegger may be ready to swing to the left: Report: Schwarzenegger Appoints Lesbian Activist Top Aide.

In a move to shore up his sagging support among California gays and moderates Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has reportedly hired Susan Kennedy as his new chief of staff.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that Schwarzenegger will make the formal announcement this week.  The appointment of Kennedy is part of a major shakeup of the governor’s staff as he heads into an election amid plummeting approval ratings.

Kennedy is a longtime gay activist, a former official with the state Democratic Party official and was a top adviser to former Gov. Gray Davis…

She and partner Vicki Marti exchanged vows in a 1999 ceremony in Hawaii that was attended by many California political insiders.

She is highly respected by both Democrats and Republicans, although the far right of the GOP has expressed concerns about the reported appointment.

I’ll bet they have!  Now all Arnold needs to do is grant clemency to Tookie Williams, and he’ll have won this liberal’s heart…

UPDATE:  Uh oh, Arnold.  The Campaign for California Families is really unhappy:

Arnold Schwarzenegger has become a liberal Democrat.  By placing a leading homosexual, pro-abortion Democrat activist in charge of his entire administration, Arnold has taken a disastrous turn to the left.  Conservative voters who supported him are waking up from their dream and stepping into reality – and the reality stinks.  This is like George W. Bush appointing Hillary Clinton to be in charge of his administration.  It’s utterly ridiculous.  Why doesn’t Arnold get honest and just leave the Republican Party?

A note on Cal, a movie recommendation, and a surprisingly vigorous defense of Michelle Malkin

It’s not yet 8:00AM, but I’ve already been up three hours.  I felt well enough this morning to do some light lifting at the gym.  I expect to be back to a regular training schedule tomorrow.

It’s a short week, so there are loads of things to do. I always cancel my classes the day before Thanksgiving; the one year I did teach on that Wednesday, fewer than a third of my students showed up.  I’m mystified as to why it isn’t a holiday here at PCC; many of the local K-12 schools do give kids the extra day off.  But a two-day week, as luxurious as it is, just means more work compressed into a very short time frame.  Lots and lots of grading to do, and writing, and so on.

Two notes on the weekend:  First, my Cal Golden Bears won the Big Game against Stanford for the fourth year in a row, a streak unseen since the second FDR administration.  In my four years at Berkeley, we won only once.  For those folks who remember the famous "play" in 1982 (where Cal scored in the final seconds by running through the Stanford band), that victory came at a high price.  Over the next 19 games from 1983-2001, the Cardinal held a 14-4-1 edge over my Golden Bears.  Those were hard years indeed!

Second, my wife and I went to see "Bee Season" last night.  Starring Juliette Binoche and Richard Gere, the film has had generally positive reviews.  My wife and I split on the film — I liked it very much, she didn’t.   Kabbalah is one of the film’s themes, and that had piqued our initial interest.  One thing I can say for Richard Gere — he may not be a great actor, but he’s become darned good lately at portraying self-satisfied, middle-aged narcissists who undergo a dramatic catharsis!

And I write this morning with considerable sympathy for, of all people, Michelle Malkin.  (Hat tip: XRLQ).  The right-wing syndicated columnist, blogger, and commentator is one of my least favorite mouthpieces for the conservative agenda.  I don’t read her blog regularly, largely because I’m not one of those people who takes pleasure in being exasperated. 

But Malkin is an Asian woman, married to a Jewish man.  I’m sorry to say that far more than her white counterparts on the right, Malkin has apparently been subjected to extraordinary sexual and racial ugliness from those whose politics are close to my own.  Last February,  Malkin posted some of the criticism that regularly comes her way; most of it falls into the "yellow whore" camp of nastiness.  This weekend, she posted about it again, as the issue of her race and her marriage resurfaced when she was a guest on a radio talk show.  Malkin, the mother of a kindergartner, writes:

The racist and sexist "yellow woman doing a white man’s job" knock is a tiresome old attack from impotent liberals that I’ve tolerated a long time. It is pathetic that I have to sit here and tell you that my ideas, my politics, and my intellectual capital are mine and mine alone in response to cowardly attacks from misogynistic moonbats with Asian whore fixations. My IQ, free will, skin color, eye shape, productivity, sincerity, and integrity are routinely ridiculed or questioned because I happen to be a minority conservative woman. As a public figure, I am willing to take these insults, but I cannot tolerate the smearing of my loved ones. Because I have always been open and proud about his support for my career, my husband has taken endless, hate-filled abuse from my critics. His Jewish heritage, his decision to be a stay-at-home dad, and even his looks, are the subject of brutal mockery.

Enough.

If you have a problem with my work and what I stand for, go ahead and take me on. Keep calling me whatever four-letter-word makes you feel better when you can’t win your arguments. But leave my family alone.

Well, Michelle, I could have done without the "impotent liberals" bit, as it does knock you back off the moral high ground you’re rightfully occupying, at least on this issue!  Still, I share Malkin’s outrage even as I abhor her political positions.  As a pro-feminist progressive, I’m angered whenever a woman who chooses a public life is attacked with misogynistic rhetoric.  (Heck, I’m happy that Malkin is willing to use the word "misogyny"; some of her colleagues on the right deny that visceral hatred of women still exists anymore in public life).  As a man in a mixed-race marriage, I’m also angry when tired old stereotypes emerge around that issue, as they have in the case of the Malkins.

Though I am obviously not as public a figure as Michelle Malkin, in the past year, I’ve received several hundred "hate e-mails" and hundreds of nasty comments here on this blog.  Because I’ve taken a pro-feminist position and attacked the men’s rights movement, I’ve regularly had my masculinity questioned.  I’ve been called a "mangina" (man + vagina), "pussy-whipped", "a traitorous piece of shit", a "pathetic eunuch", and worse by dozens and dozens of readers.  In a couple of instances, I’ve been threatened — anonymously — with physical violence.  I very carefully don’t disclose my wife’s name or much about her identity, but even in relative anonymity she too has been attacked, at times with racial slurs directed at her mixed-race (African-Colombian-Croatian) heritage.

Above all, my critics use one charge more than any other: self-loathing.  Because I’m so hard on my brothers, because I am so committed to pro-feminist principles, my critics have decided that I must be seething with nearly pathological hatred of my own masculinity.  Over and over again, I’m told by my critics that if I really liked myself — as a man — I wouldn’t hold the views I do.    What’s so tiresome about the charge of self-loathing, of course, is that it is impossible to refute.  How do I prove to anyone — especially on a blog — that I am comfortable in my own male skin?  I’ve given up trying, but that hasn’t stopped the critics.

Here’s where my real empathy for Malkin lies: as an Asian woman with right-wing, anti-feminist politics, she too is tarred with the charge of "self-loathing."  She and I are both accused of actively betraying those who share our sex or our ethnicity.  Her critics assume she’s desperately currying favor with white men, while my critics assume I am eager to be validated and affirmed by women, particularly feminists.   In other words, because our views contradict cultural and social expectations, there can be no legitimate explanation for why we believe as we do.  We are either dupes of our allies (white men or feminists), or we are filled with self-hatred (for our heritage or our sex), or we are simply crass opportunists, using novelty (a woman of color with right-wing views, a straight evangelical man with pro-feminist ones) to attract attention.

If there’s one thing I am clear on, it’s this: one’s skin color, one’s heritage, and one’s sex do not, in and of themselves, impose specific political obligations.  Michelle Malkin, as a woman of color, is under no obligation to toe any party line.  She can be an interesting and effective spokeswoman for her side without being a misguided dupe, a self-hating woman of color, or a shrill manipulator.  I happen to believe that she’s wrong 95% of the time on virtually every major foreign policy, economic, and social issue of our day.  But when she is attacked not for her politics but for her person, she has not only my empathy, she has my vigorous support.

Saturday halftime note on Cal and the JDL

I’m at home, grimly watching the USC-Cal football game, which is at halftime.  The last three meetings in this series have been immensely entertaining; my Golden Bears were the last team to beat the Trojans, back in September 2003.  Today we trail 21-3 at the break, largely thanks to the superb play of the Trojan offense and, I’m sorry to say, the dreadful decision-making of our quarterback.  I won’t criticize a college athlete any further than that, however; even a high-profile athlete on scholarship is still a student, a work-in-progress, and he doesn’t need my vituperation.  He does need to be benched, however, and soon.

On this Shabbat, I realize that I’ve forgotten to blog at all about the murder in prison of Earl Krugel of the radical Jewish Defense League.  He and the late JDL chairman Irv Rubin were arrested and charged after conspiring to bomb a mosque and the offices of California congressman Darrell Issa. Rubin committed suicide three years to the day before Krugel was murdered; he was in prison awaiting trial at the time.  The JDL still survives, but barely; here’s their website.

I knew Irv Rubin; his son went to Pasadena City College and Irv himself helped start a tremendous controversy at PCC.  Some background:  my first five years at the college, I taught in a team course called the "Humanities Block".  Six different professors (from English, Philosophy, History, and Sociology) took a group of 120 students through the history of modern Europe from the Enlightenment to the present. It was a terrific interdisciplinary experience. 

In 1999, one of my colleagues, a non-Jewish friend of Irv Rubin’s, invited the JDL chairman to speak to our students about the Holocaust.  (The Holocaust was always a major topic in the Block course).  I confess I hadn’t known anything about the JDL before, but mentioned Rubin to a PCC colleague and close friend of mine, Marc Dollinger. Marc (who now teaches at San Francisco State) is a fellow Cal grad with a UCLA Ph.D; he’s an expert in modern Jewish history, and a devoutly religious man.  As a scholar and a Jew, Marc was horrified that we would bring in someone from the JDL to speak on the Holocaust and the Jewish experience.

Together, Marc and I asked my colleagues to rescind the invitation to Rubin.   Marc and I were deeply concerned that Rubin’s appearance would have a profound effect on the Block students, very few of whom were Jewish.  When we asked how many of our kids had ever even heard a Jewish leader speak, fewer than ten percent raised their hands.  Marc and I were worried that Irv Rubin, a man long associated with violence and extremism, would create a false impression in the minds of our students of what it meant to be Jewish.  (Long before their arrests in 2001, Rubin and Krugel had been often implicated in, but never charged with, the 1985 murder of an Orange County Arab-American activist.)  At a bitter meeting, the other professors in the Humanities Block (none of whom were Jewish) insisted on honoring the invite.   Some of my colleagues suggested Rubin would be "good theater" because of his extremism, and expressed disappointment that Marc and I didn’t appreciate that aspect.

Irv Rubin not only appeared, he condemned Marc in his speech to the class as a "self-hating Jew."  And he went further, attacking my colleague on the JDL website.  Amazingly, the link is still up.  Irv refers to an open letter Marc Dollinger wrote that is no longer available through the website, but Irv’s response, printed in our campus paper still is.  (Guess who the "primary lackey" Rubin refers to is!)  After Irv’s letter appeared in the campus paper, I wrote a letter of my own, defending Marc.  Rubin wrote a nasty reply, that also appears at the link above.

It’s too complex an issue to delve into on this blog,and after all, Irv Rubin is long dead.  But I have to admit that in light of his attacks on me and my colleague, I was a bit shaken when he and Earl Krugel were arrested for planning to bomb their enemies!   I am not suggesting that I considered myself also worthy of a plot against my life, but to be publicly excoriated by a man later charged with a terror conspiracy is at least an interesting story.

I’m happy to say that no one from the JDL has spoken at PCC since.  I have no problem with free speech on the campus quad, but I have no sympathy for those colleagues of mine who seem to have no qualms about opening up the classroom to hate speech.

Reflecting on Dr. Adams

Hugo’s Halloween snark, inspired by too much chocolate:

Both Amanda and Lauren have been taking on the anti-feminist rantings of Dr. Mike Adams, a criminology professor at North Carolina Wilmington and a regular columnist at Townhall.com.

Last Friday, Adams launched this diatribe against next month’s Orgasm Awareness Festival at the Chapel Hill campus of UNC. He wrote:

Jessica Polka, an executive board member for the co-sponsor of the event, was recently quoted as saying that “We also have the goal of trying to work toward fighting the social stigma against female sexuality.” In other words, she wants college women to become whores without being ostracized.  (Emphasis mine)

When feminist students on his own campus complained about the sentence I’ve highlighted, Adams responded with this letter on the Townhall site.   Read it all,it won’t take long.

I have to say, I’m inspired by Mike Adams.  He’s got a nationally syndicated column, despite the fact that he’s got essentially only one note to play: tired rantings and ravings about the misdeeds of the so-called radical left on college campuses.  His pieces aren’t particularly well written; his tone is one of unremitting sarcasm of the sort that tends to be of particular appeal to clever — but not brilliant — boys in the later stages of adolescence.  He has a particular interest in going after feminist organizations, and, essentially, calling women — including students on his own campus — who bravely claim the right to pleasure "whores."

I note that his website is entitled "Dr. Adams.org."  Gosh, do you think I’d get more hits if I called my site "Dr.Schwyzer.org"?  Lord, save us from colleagues so insecure about their professional credentials that they must use the title "doctor" on their bloody websites!  I wonder if he’s the dreadful sort of man who hangs his diplomas in his office where they can stare down aggressively at his students?   I’ve got my doctorate, thanks.  And no one ever calls me "Dr. Schwyzer" to my face twice.  (I’ve explained my reasons here.)  Call it reverse snobbery if you will, but I loathe titles, and I loathe colleagues who display diplomas on the wall.  It’ s the academic equivalent of "excessive celebration" after a touchdown in college football, and if I could, I’d throw a little yellow penalty flag at the offenders.  My diplomas (high school, B.A., M.A., C.Phil, Ph.D) are at home, in a box somewhere.  That’s where they’ll stay.

(The good doctor also has a paypal account, so that his loyal fans can send him money.  Tell me, folks, should I ask for donations?  Run ads on my blog?  Trust me, the only donation any of you will ever be asked to make is to the Matilde Mission.)

Anyhow, I find his politics execrable.   But perhaps I’m just jealous.  After all, here’s a tenured white male with short hair and glasses who is building a national name for himself by writing about topics far beyond his own field of expertise.  Mike Adams?   Excuse me, Dr. Adams, sir?  You’re my new role model.

Apologies for bad service, and three morning notes

First off, I know it has been difficult for some of you to access this blog.  Typepad, my host, has had a very rough week.  Commenting has been very difficult for many — but we are told, deo volente, that the problems have been solved.  Thank you for your patience.

First off, Caitriona, one of my most regular and favorite commenters, has a request for help.  No, it’s not as much about money as it is about ideas — check out this post and offer thoughtful suggestions.  Prayer for the success of her ministry is also an excellent idea!

I note that Sheryl Swoopes, one of the the two or three best female basketball players of all time, and an athlete whom I’ve followed since her Texas Tech days, has come out of the closet.  She instantly becomes the highest profile professional athlete in a team sport to come out while still playing.  It’s a brave move for the woman who was the first female athlete to have a Nike shoe named for her, the "Air Swoopes."  May she encourage others with her example.

And no one likes to send "grist for my mill" more than Jonathan Dresner, my fellow Cliopatriarch.  He emailed me a link to a post from the HU Islam blog, a community for progressive Muslim women. It’s entitled "A Female Perspective on the Modern Muslim Man", and though it’s not well-formatted, it’s a powerful and entertaining piece.  Written by a "Fatima J.", the post begins:

It seems to me that there are a lot of books and articles circulating around our Muslim communities that contain advice for Muslim women. Nearly all of these books are penned by male authors who explain to women how to be a proper Muslim wife, an ideal Muslim woman, what a woman’s place is according to Shari’ah, and so forth… find it very interesting how so many Muslim male authors have so much to say about their understanding of the role of Muslim women. I thought it would be interesting to turn the tables a bit and ponder the issue of what makes a good modern Muslim man and husband from a female perspective, specifically in the eyes of a progressive minded, modern Muslim woman.

I read the rest of her piece through the eyes of a pro-feminist Christian, and one who has only a rudimentary familiarity with Islamic teaching.  But Jonathan did a service when he sent it my way, because by the end of her essay, I found myself cheering Fatima on.  More to the point, the model of modern Islamic manhood she espouses fits nearly perfectly with the sort of pro-feminist Christian ideal I’ve been working on.

Fatima suggests that the modern Muslim man will be, like his fathers, a devout believer.  But he will be able, she writes, to distinguish true Islam from the outdated, indefensible cultural mores that too many have confused with the true faith of Muhammed:

What distinguishes the “modern” Muslim man from a good and religious man of any time period is that he is abreast of the issues of today. He is not influenced by cultural mores that are contrary to Islam like the old-fashioned man is. Also, he does not accept puritanical and/or patriarchal ideas about the inferiority of women or the limitation of their roles and contributions to society.
A modern Muslim man does not have a speck of doubt in his mind about the equality of women and men. He knows that males and females are equally valuable members of society. He knows that both sexes have the same religious duties and are judged equally before Allah. He also recognizes that while many women are physically unequal to most men in terms of size and strength, and that each sex may have other slight characteristic differences, intellectually, men and women have the same potential abilities.

Preach it, sister Fatima!  (Of course, I never like hearing we shouldn’t have a "speck of doubt."  Faith and feminism, for me, often involve doing the right thing despite my doubts, which is a very different thing from being without doubts altogether!)

Fatima moves on:

The old-style Muslim men are mother-lovers. They acknowledge that paradise lies at the feet of mothers, and that a child’s first duty is to his/her mother, three times more than even to the father, as per the ahaadith.. The problem with being a mother-lover is that certain men feel that good women express true love by a mother-like coddling of their husbands. A mother selflessly serves her children and caters to their every need. The old-fashioned man feels that all women, especially his wife, should be equally self-sacrificing, and display her love by subservience and deference. She should not eat until he has eaten, prepare a cup of tea for him when he enters the house, prepare foods to suit his preferences and tastes, serve his plate personally by hand at meal times, iron his clothes, fetch items for him, tidy up after him, and perform every other duty that a mother would lovingly do for her child. What the old-fashioned man fails to see is that mothers do these things for their offspring because children are helpless and are unable to perform these duties by themselves. Also, just because a mother shows love by doing these things for her children, this display of self-sacrifice and servitude is not the appropriate way for a wife to display love to her husband. Modern, enlightened men should hold their own mothers in the highest possible esteem, but they should not expect their wives to continue to coddle and suckle them as their mothers did. They should know that they are loved when they are in an open and trusting relationship, with good communication, mutual respect, and understanding as a foundation. These are the qualities of marriage expressed in the Quran.

Hurrah!  If there’s one key belief that pro-feminist men men and the mytho-poetic men’s movement share with the likes of Fatima, it’s the conviction that far too many men have tremendous difficulty distinguishing between their wives and their mothers.  While Western men may not be as likely to demand that a wife wait until he has eaten before she eats, far too many do expect their wives to to nurture them like small children.  It’s a difficult struggle for many, many guys not to slip back into child-like behavior, demanding mothering behavior from their wives and girlfriends.

And when it comes to sexual morality, Fatima demands — as authentic Christians always do — total congruence between the standards for men and for women:

A modern Muslim man lowers his gaze and protects himself from the lascivious and haraam influences that are flaunted as part of today’s so-called liberated society. Such activities include watching lewd performances of music and dance, watching entertainment media that depict sexual and violent scenes or debase women by showing them dressed in objectionable clothing, or listening to music with overtly sexual and vulgar lyrics. The backwards Muslim man enjoys these things himself but forbids his wife and female children from engaging in them.

A modern Muslim man protects his chastity before and after marriage. The old fashioned Muslim man believes that chastity and modesty are more important virtues for females than for males. That a man’s honor lives within his female family members’ bodies is an idea that is completely contrary to what the Quran tells us. It is ignorant to think that young men can play and experiment with their sexuality, or that it is only natural for men to have extra-marital affairs, while girls and women who do so should be scorned and even corporally punished. Such ideas come from being culturally rather than Islamically socialized. In the Quran, Allah puts the same requirements on females as on males in terms of guarding oneself from unchaste behavior. To think otherwise is purely based on cultural notions of sexual propriety and in direct conflict with Islamic belief. The modern Muslim man will uphold high standards for his own chastity, and encourage both his male and female children to do so.

Though I might quibble with Fatima’s interpretation of chastity, I’m heartened by her insistence that men hold themselves and each other to the same high standard to which women have traditionally been held.    Modernity, in the minds of some secular folks, often is about inviting women to begin to behave with the same degree of sexual freedom that men have traditionally enjoyed.  Fatima suggests the opposite — modernity is about men holding themselves to the same standard to which they have previously only held their wives and daughters.

Do read her whole post.

Brother Roger

Visiting Kendall’s place, I read this shocking news:  Brother Roger, founder of the Taize Community, was murdered last night at a prayer service in France.  He was ninety.

I am stunned and saddened at the violent death of this remarkable man.  My main exposure to Taize has come through its now world-famous meditative worship.  When I was prayer commission chair at Pasadena Mennonite, we organized a couple of mini-retreats to the beach, with Taize music and liturgy. Here’s a good Lutheran website quickly summarizing Taize worship; the instantly recognizable music has played a huge part in my prayer life.

Brother Roger was a man of enormous influence and extraordinary generosity.  And though he had reached four score and ten, I grieve the circumstances of his passing.

Defending Malkin, Ingraham, and Coulter

Amanda linked to (and commented upon) this Michelle Malkin tirade about conservative women, physical appearance, and liberal hypocrisy. Here’s how Malkin begins:

Liberals say they want women to be taken seriously in the arenas of government and public policy. They claim they want women to be judged based on their ideas, not their physical appearance.

Unless, of course, those women are conservative.

Case in point: the continued leftist mockery of GOP Rep. Katherine Harris, who is serving her second term in Congress. Before serving in Congress, she was Florida’s secretary of state. Before that she was a state Senator, an IBM marketing executive, and a vice president of a commercial real estate firm. She has a Master’s Degree from Harvard University with a specialization in international trade and negotiations.

Despite her credentials, she has been repeatedly ridiculed–not for her ideas or record, but for her physical appearance. It started back in 2000 during the re-count controversy in Florida, when numerous columnists compared Harris to Cruella de Ville, the villain in "101 Dalmatians." The Washington Post published an entire article lampooning Harris’s make-up.

Michelle Malkin, of course, is no stranger to personal insults; like many on the right, she has been quite nasty about Michael Moore’s weight.

On the one hand, I dislike ridiculing anyone for their personal appearance.   Obviously, I’ve risen to the defense of Michael Moore in the past; I get very angry when confronted with right-wing stereotypes about "ugly, unwashed, overweight" feminists.   As a pro-feminist, I’m troubled anytime we at any point on the political spectrum make our opponent’s bodies into issues.  I’ve felt this way for years; I’m old enough to remember being deeply annoyed at the snarky remarks my fellow lefties made about the pearls and sweater sets worn by the godmother of today’s right-wing women, the venerable Phyllis Schlafly of the Eagle Forum.

But it’s also important to acknowledge the message sent by the appearance of conservative women like Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, and Michelle Malkin herself.  Amanda refers to an Air America interview with Rachel Maddow:

Maddow made a really good point about the self-presentation of these women, even though she had to climb through the hosts’ mockery of them to do it. Her point was that they very deliberately present themselves as almost caricatures of femininity for a very specific reason, which is they are trying to sell themselves as some sort of stereotypical "perfect" woman to a male-dominated conservative audience. Malkin, Laura Ingraham, and Ann Coulter all make arguments that would be considered masculine–Coulter especially is good at projecting a general disdain for the very existence of womanhood. Their audience therefore is pretty much guaranteed to be the very kind of people who are most threatened by assertive women, so they dress in a hyper-feminine way to counteract that effect. It works beautifully for them.

Maddow described the way that Ann Coulter presents herself as drag. Maddow was exactly right–Coulter is female, but she is still play-acting at being female much like a drag queen does. But her goals are completely different. A drag queen does that for fun, for play, and in part to sort of fuck with gender roles. Coulter does it for essentially wicked reasons–to reinforce gender roles, to exaggerate them and to trap other women with them. It’s not bad to comment on costumery in and of itself, it’s just bad when you do it to hurt someone who is just being him/herself and not harming anyone else. But female conservative pundits wear these costumes with the end goal of quite a bit of harm, so I don’t see the problem with criticizing them for that.

The bold emphases are mine. 

I hear what Amanda’s saying, and part of me agrees. On the other hand, as a feminist, I am very wary of ascribing intent to women based on their dress!  We’ve fought for decades against the notion that revealing dress is always a sign of sexual availability.   We’ve struggled to bury the notion that a woman in a miniskirt is "asking for it"; we’ve been justifiably outraged when rape and sexual assault are condoned because of a women’s provocative outfit.  What I object to about the Maddow/Marcotte theory is their certainty about the intent of the likes of Coulter and Malkin.  Must their feminine dress be a charade, a costume designed to send a specific message? Is it not possible that these pundits simply prefer dressing that way? 

As a pro-feminist man, I support the right of women to have sovereignty over their own bodies.  (How that sits uneasily with my waffling pro-life stance is a question I’m still struggling with).  Part of that sovereignty is the right of each woman to determine the ultimate meaning of her outer appearance.  Of course, the outside world will make judgments; that’s to be expected.   But for those of us who have fought hard for women to be free to wear miniskirts or long pants, to wear high heels or combat boots, to shave their heads or have spectacularly-coiffed tresses — and to be free to do so without judgment –  it’s dangerously inconsistent to be so certain about what signals our conservative sisters intend to send to the world with their fashion choices.

I’m not certain that Malkin et al don’t make choices about their appearance in line with their ideological agenda.    But I’m not certain that they do, either, and I seriously doubt that anyone else possesses that certainty.  There’s plenty of ideological ground on which to critique our conservative sisters; dress and body type and hair style should be off-limits to those of us committed to justice and equality for women.

More on Roberts

It’s another busy Monday.  The good news is that the home computer is finally home from the shop; the bad news (if it can really be considered "bad") is that I’ve got so many various things to do this week that I doubt I’ll have much time to post.  It’s really during the school year, when I am in front of the computer so often, that I am able to post with regularity.

The enthusiasm of social conservatives for the nomination of John Roberts continues to diminish since the revelation about his pro-bono work for gay-rights partisans in the Romer v. Evans case.   The LA Times this morning produced this report on yesterday’s Justice Sunday, a nationwide satellite rally of evangelicals in support of "saving the court".   It seems safe to say that the excitement about Roberts among the religious right has cooled to lukewarm:

Organizer Tony Perkins, president of the conservative advocacy group Family Research Council, told reporters Friday that the event was "not a Roberts rally." In fact, few of the speakers mentioned Roberts by name, and those who did were restrained in their remarks. James Dobson, founder of another advocacy group, Focus on the Family, said, "For now at least, he looks good."

"For now, at least, he looks good" is hardly an overwhelming endorsement.   On Friday, Concerned Women for America put out a press release entitled "Roberts’ Role in the Romer Case Raises Questions".   Referring to Romer, CWA writes:

CWA finds the news troubling…

Judge Roberts allegedly donated about five hours to the case, playing the part of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia in a moot court and also providing advice to attorneys from Lambda Legal Defense Foundation, which brought the case.

It is standard practice for attorneys at private firms to donate pro bono hours, sometimes even for clients with whom they have philosophical differences. But they don’t have to take every case offered them. Columnists Ann Coulter and Don Feder have since written articles warning that little is known about Judge Roberts, much as little was known about previous appointee David Souter, who was touted as a conservative but who quickly became part of the court’s most liberal wing.

In another development, The Washington Times reported on August 11 that Roberts, in a 1982 memo to Attorney General William French Smith, referred to Free Congress Foundation founder Paul Weyrich as “of course, no friend of ours.”

Weyrich is a longtime friend of Concerned Women for America and one of America’s greatest conservative champions. The memo was written in response to an inquiry from the left-leaning American Bar Association to a book authored by Weyrich, “A Blueprint for Judicial Reform.” The memo, in which Roberts misspelled Weyrich as “Weyerich,” was one of several that Roberts wrote to advise Smith on how to handle conservatives who had been instrumental in securing President Reagan’s election, according to the Times.

Finally, Human Events, the conservative newsweekly, ran a story today that Roberts spent about 12 hours as a private attorney representing Playboy Entertainment Group in its case against a federal law that requires scrambling cable porn channels or restricting the hours so that children are not inadvertently exposed.

“Roberts played the role of a Supreme Court justice in a moot court setting, preparing Playboy’s lead counsel, Robert Corn-Revere, who worked in Hogan & Hartson’s communications department, for his oral argument before the Supreme Court,” Human Events reporter Robert Bluey reports. Unlike the Romer case, Roberts was paid for the work.

Bold emphases are mine.

I’ve written before that as a consistent-life progressive, I find Roberts’ wife’s background to be comforting.  And now, reading that he has worked for Playboy and on behalf of the plaintiffs in Romer, I’m further comforted.  No, I don’t think he’ll turn out to be much of a liberal on the court.  But to the dismay of all of us on both sides who want to see a right-wing or left-wing ideologue on the court, John Roberts may turn out to be a "lawyer’s lawyer", a man who will be far more interested in law and precedent than in pushing an agenda.  Given the political views of the man who nominated him, John Roberts seems to be the best that we on the left could hope for.

May he be speedily confirmed, and may the fears of social conservatives be justified.