Questions for Ellen John Sirleaf

sent:

NYTimes Magazine: Madame President

What does that say about the inherent character of men? [referring to the young Liberian boys who raped an 8-year old Liberian refugee in Phoenix, AZ]: I just think that unless you have that cohesiveness in the family unit, the male character tends to become very dominant, repressive and insensitive. So much of this comes also from a lack of education. As more men become more educated and women get educated, teh value system has to be more enhanced and the respect for human dignity and human life is made better.

If women ran the world, would wars still exist? No. I think it would be a better, safer and more productive world. A woman would bring extra dimension to that task – and that’s a sensitivity to humankind. It comes from being a mother.

But if women had the power, they would be more likely to acquire the negative traits that breed power, like selfishness and territorialism.  It would take a very long term of women absolutely in power to get to the place where they became men.

reasoning:

the stripped down, basic feminist slant is too obvious here: the physical differences mean an inherent psychological, mental difference, the venus vs. mars argument. its a bit troublesome that the NYTimes, already well-accused and known for its liberal, ‘radical’ bias, ends this article with “INTERVIEW HAS BEEN CONDENSED AND EDITED”, but its still telling that the leader of Liberia believes in the inherent differences between men and women, and that they affect government and societal operation.

much of Sirleaf’s words about the nature of female leadership reminds me of Justice Sotomayor’s infamous “Wise Latina” comment. it’s not just being a parent that brings out a certain humanity and “sensitivity to humankind’,-> it’s being a mother. she continues by saying the differences are so stark, even if women ruled the world, it’d take us a ‘very long term’ [which i'm thinking means thousands of years], to get to the level of deep problems and ’inherently’ dangerous cycles of injustice, and conflict we have today in a world that has been ruled and dominated by men. Sirleaf’s comments are indeed inflammatory and easily offensive that she treats the inherent different nature of men and women so superficially. But she does bring in the importance of the family unit, and literacy. she is railing against men as the source for why the world and  society/culture are the way they are today. but moreover, i think she’s calling for a better and stronger education across the board.

Senate Approves Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, 68 to 31

sent:

Washington Post: Senate Votes 68 to 31 to Confirm Sonia Sotomayor to Supreme Court

reasoning:

really cool graphic sent over the Emily’s List listserv. its a striking visual that goes beyond the superficial arguments of Affirmative Action in terms of gender, or race and the uproar of Sotomayor’s “Wise Latina” comment. Just looking at what the implications of this image mean, and how this may be the start of a change in the make-up of the Supreme Court, once some Justices start dying or resigning, is incredibly exciting.

kenyan women institute sex ban

sent:

BBC article: Kenyan women hit men with sex ban

reasoning:

looking at the last two post and now this, i’ve got sex on the mind. come to think of it, i wouldn’t mind devoting this entire blog to sex – the culture, how to, how not to, my lack of it, etc. but this post has more to do with than just sex… or actually i guess it doesn’t. if anything, the women’s activist groups are more hoping the kenyan unity party government will stop fighting under the subtext that ‘they did it all for the nookie’ (oh, limp bizkit – how pop culturally relevant you are). at first, i thought this ban was an interesting move in demonstrating the power women can possess over men, like that phrase “behind every good man is a woman” – i think that talks specifically about men in power, whether it be business or government.

wouldn’t it be great if the government infighting really did stop after the week-long sex ban, especially if the wives of the PM and President join in. but wait – what’s to stop these men from just getting their need for ass somewhere else? a politician sleeping around with people other than their spouses is nothing new. the women’s activist groups say they will pay prostitutes to abide by the ban, as well. but surely there are more women in kenya that aren’t the wives of politicians or prostitutes that might still be intrigued and willing to sleep with a married government man.

Jimi Izrael of The Root brings up a good point that this ban may have ‘women’s empowerment’ written on it, we’re almost going backwards to tarzan/neanderthal thinking that men are ruled by their penises. Does one withholding sex really motivate the partner to get their shit together? kelly moore argues it has the opposite effect and can be more damaging in the long-run, perhaps that’s why this ban is only supposed to last a week. but sex is one of the enjoyable parts of being a human being, can we really say we are above physically needing it because we are now ’sophisticated’, ‘advanced’, and ‘developed’ people with better things to do?

Betty Brown asks Asian Americans to simplify names

recipient:

National Organization for Women/ PO Box 1848/ Merrifield, VA 22116-9899

sent:

Houston Chronicle: Lawmaker defends comment on Asians

reasoning:

when Ramey Ko from the Organization of Chinese Americans addressed the Texas State House about voter identification legislation and name ID discrepancy issues (often between legal transliterate names and within the Asian American community, Representative Betty Brown asked “Rather than everyone here having to learn Chinese — I understand it’s a rather difficult language — do you think that it would behoove you and your citizens to adopt a name that we could deal with more readily here?”. check out the video here.

WHOA. so many things:  that she asks Mr. Ko and OCA to behoove “its” citizens, like they have any sort of power or control over the entire Asian American population to urge them to change their names. while i understand Mr. Ko represents the Organization of Chinese Americans, Representative Brown continually asking questions about the Chinese, Chinese names, and elections back in China is another case of ignorant non-Asians assuming all Asians are Chinese. that Rep. Brown just wants people to change their names for the ease of others and the American English system downplays the significance of names and an aspect of one’s identity to the outside world, and maybe even more etymologically and culturally interesting/silly is that Rep. Brown’s name is “Betty Brown”. it’s true that many Asian Americans have casually adopted names like “Stan”, “Robert” or “Sally” so communication with American counterparts is easier, but that is their own choice. i have wondered how my life would be different if i went by my Chinese name “Yiming” instead of Iris. but choice of identification and representation is key here because it’s personal and individual. i watched Affair of the Necklace last night (wouldn’t recommend it except to look at French period clothing and Adrian Brody or Simon Baker with long curly hair), but the story is about one girl trying to restore her family’s name, and thus reputation. while speaking in front of the court, Jeanne de la Motte-Valois pleads ‘Monsieur, you out of all people know the importance of a [god-given] name and a home where it can flourish…’

Statements from Representative Brown’s office initially said the quote was taken out of context, and the “race card” was being used to divert attention from the real issue of voter identification. However, in recent days since Thursday, she has released an apology through her office and through a personal phone call to Ramey Ko. I have to agree with Mr. Ko’s reaction, because an apology about simply the phrasing Rep. Brown used disregards the heavy implication behind her words, even in the broadest terms of cultural and ethnic identity, the ‘minority’ concept, and who is an american. Rep. Brown may not think she’s being racist, elitist, or coming from a position of privilege (race, class, government representative, etc), and that too big of a deal was made out of nothing, but her comments, whether or not implied, point to deeper points of discrimination we all still need to deal with: yes, most people agree that everyone is (for the most part) equal, but past that one thin, superficial line – there is more complex thinking and processing about implications and equality to what extent that still needs to be done.

the water war myth

recipient:

The Chronicle of Philanthropy/ PO Box 48/ Boulder, CO 80329-9954

sent:

BBC article: Water cut off in Mexican capital 

reasoning:

more and more stories about water shortages,  and water cutoffs are popping up, along with scholarly articles that the next resource wars will be over water. i’ve bought into this ‘water crisis -> water war’ concept for quite awhile. but then Slate comes out with this article Dispelling the Water-War Myth.  it summarizes Wendy Barnaby’s essay in Nature that water wars have not happened because countries have worked through their water issues with trade and international agreements.  so why all the hysteria? water is certainly a scarce resource, and it is something everyone needs to survive. but the problem of water now and in the coming years/decades/centuries (?) is a combination of geography and then within those geographic areas –  who has access to as much water as they need. but how much people need and want is another example of the dichotomy between rich/poor, north/south and white/black. we’re having fights over oil in  complex, methodical and ridiculous ways now, so it would make sense for the ‘water wars’ to go the same way as the battle for oil. but maybe what Barnaby’s case studies show is that provisions are being made and set in place (trade and int’l agreements) so we won’t need to resort to arrows and steel armor {i always pictured ‘water wars’ to be set in trojan times}, but to consider access and distribution of water in a civilized manner, instead. 

Photo credit to daveynin

freedom of choice = abortion donuts?

recipient:

Radar Magazine/ Subscription Dept/ PO Box 21942/ Palm Coast, FL 32142-7557

sent:

Miami The New Times blog: Pro-Life Group up in Arms over Krispy Kreme abortion doughnuts

reasoning:

should have posted this awhile ago, sometime around inauguration day may be more fitting. but it’s still an interesting story now. working at the Abortion Care Network, and doing more research on the reproductive justice movement, it almost seems like it’s a divisive and moot battle. yeah, that’s a pessimisticviewpoint from one who’s fighting for reproductive rights -> many critics and pro-lifers are even incredulous of the concept. without both sides on the same page, and with the religious morality ties muddying up the discourse, i find it difficult to see where a consensus on the issue can be made. with that said, and knowing that i stand strongly on the progressive side, lately the pro-life side seems to be grasping at straws. freedom of choice = abortion donuts? The American Life League’s press release that choice is synonymous with abortion is a huge stretch. perhaps not the best choice of words, maybe Krispy Kreme could have said celebrating ‘democracy’ or ‘freedom’ or ‘america’. they gave out free donuts to those who wore “i voted” stickers on election day, so continuing the giveaway makes sense. i can’t find anything about the political leaning of the Krispy Kreme board or president, maybe it’s not that they’re so much pro-Obama, as just an American/pro-America company?  though i guess i couldn’t see Match.com doing any similar online promotion election or inauguration day. nonetheless, it’s always fascinating to me the ties between contemporary culture and social movement discourse.

yes means yes: visions of female sexual power & a world without rape

recipient:

National Geographic Society/ PO Box 64112/ Tampa, FL 3366-4112

sent:

Google Books preview of Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power & A World Without Rape

reasoning:

tonight in the crowded backroom of busboys & poets on 14th & U, the editors and several contributors for the new book yes means yes: visions of female sexual power & a world without rape read excerpts of their new work. Miriam Zoila Perez of Radical Doula read from her “When Sexual Autonomy Isn’t Enough:SexualViolence Against Immigrant Women in the United States”.  Latoya Peterson of Racialicious read “The Not-Rape Epidemic”. and among others, Jaclyn Friedman “In Defense of Going Wild or: How I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love Pleasure (and How You Can, Too). it was inspiring to hear from writers so coherently and intelligently talk about this powerful conception of rape culture. there’s so many intersecting points of gender, race, sexuality, media, and class that have created this complex culture.  particularly thought-provoking was Miriam Perez’s piece that for immigrant women crossing the border, rape is almost an accepted part of their reality (their price of admission to pay the smugglers). after listening to their readings, i was convinced that a rape culture does exist. it’s a serious crime, and treated as so, but then on the other side, it’s also blamed on the victim, there’s the conception that it only happens to women, and that it’s something that will always exist. these women all talked about getting rid of the culture of rape – not just the action of it but the connotations and dangers surrounding it. this has moved up to the top of my ‘must-buy’ book list once i have the funds to do so.

president repeals global gag rule

recipient:

Banc of America Insurance Services, Inc/ Plan Administrator/ 6301 Owensmouth Ave Suite 700/ Woodland Hills, CA 9136-9663

sent: 

White House Blog: “Statement released after the President rescinds “Mexico City Policy“

reasoning:

the Mexico City Policy has been the political football that has dictated the direction of various presidential administrations in regard to international family planning and women’s health issues. it was one of the first things President Bush reinstated once in office, and it’s one of the first things President Obama has repealed. themain component of the policy was US funding for organizations that promote or provide abortions overseas.

Reinstating the Global Gag Rule was a prime example of Christian Right morality dictating much of US policy during the Bush administration – the thinking against the Mexico City Policy was that supporting family planning and abortions would mean women, young girls would be having sex all over the place. the ABC rule of abstinence, being faithful, and condoms sounds good in theory, but it’s completely unrealistic – people are going to have sex for the sake of having sex, not always for baby-making -> it’s human nature. and to take away access to family planning and birth control is more harmful to the poor than it is helpful.

immigration in the new administration

recipient:

IdentitySecure/ PO Box 5561/ Binghamton, NY 13902-9920

sent:

Orange County Register article by Dena Bunis, Washington Bureau Chief – Under Obama, immigration reform may have to wait

reasoning:

i’m going to try and be more diligent about this ’series’ i’ve decided to do. i guess my deadline is january 20th, when obama takes office and the news will be actually what he is doing, and not just predictions of what he will be doing. while the issue of immigration is often seen as being overshadowed by the financial crisis, and the talks about healthcare reform, there is not a dearth of articles talking about immigration not being discussed in the news. working at The Migration Policy Institute also helps.

“I’m not particularly impressed with raids on plants that grab a handful of undocumented workers and send them home, leaving the company in the position where it can just hire the next batch.” Obama said in a 2007 interview with the Des Moines Register.

HPV vaccine required for new immigrants

recipient:

Metropolitan Home/ StyleGuide/ PO Box 413050/ Naples, FL 34101-6818

sent:

Dallas Morning News Human papillomavirus vaccine requirement for immigrants raises concerns

reasoning:

it’s now even more expensive to apply for american residency and citizenship. i’ve touched upon this in previous posts (like here) but the HPV vaccine is getting even more convoluted and controversial almost everyday. not only has it been reported that it’s one of the most painful shots one can get and some girls are even fainting from it, but its very campaign geared towards young women of a “sexually active” age brings into question race, gender class, abstinence-only sex education, and preventative medicine.

it’s amazing and almost astounding that we now have vaccines that can prevent cancer, its like the medicine of the future. this HPV vaccine needs to be made accessible, and its great health insurance companies are now covering the costs, but requiring it brings about a whole new level of control over girls and women’s bodies.  even though guys are just carriers, why aren’t they required to get vaccinated? and have we got into the habit of using pharmaceuticals to cure ailments that might have been caused b/c we’ve been taking other pharmaceuticals?  it’s definitely a stretch to say that HPV and cervical cancer are caused by drugs, but conspiracy theory time: what if the government’s new requirement of the HPV vaccine is because they are in bed with the pharmaceutical companies, and the vaccine itself has a fairly strong and positive message, which makes it easier to market? it’s more obvious to see why doctors are pushing this so hard, but the prospect of the government & the pharmaceutical industry in bed together is not an earth-shattering notion.  i definitely believe that gardasil is an amazing piece of medicine & scientific research, but who it’s made compulsory for – young girls many of whom cannot cannot afford it because they do not have health insurance, and now many of the young girls trying to immigrate into the country are being forced to pay even more and jump through additional hoops – is what worries me.