Politics and Women

In the months leading up to the previous Presidential election (2008), before the party nominees had been chosen, there were many people asking if America was ready to have a black President. Or a female President.

Then we began paying attention to Sarah Palin.

And, slowly, she became the woman that we (we here meaning liberals, particularly those on the East Coast) loved to hate. She did everything wrong. She has a funny accent, she hunts, she has out-dated values and does not sound educated. And while I’m not denying any of this as fact, the way this information was presented reflected elitism at its worst (people still think that Palin said “I can see Russia from my house”, when in fact this was said by Tina Fey in her first SNL parody of Palin. What she actually had said was: “They’re our next door neighbors. And you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska.”)

Now, we’re listening to Michelle Bachmann, who is running for President. We’re writing posts like this one: Prayer to End Healthcare Reform, in which the writer calls Bachmann’s companions “creeps”, and dismisses her behavior as “gross”. As if the people in the video were part of a cult.

And maybe they are. Most dictionaries don’t seem to make a distinction between a cult and any other religion. But are ‘creepy’ and ‘gross’ the appropriate adjectives? Disconnected, ill-informed, biased, and perhaps deluded, but ‘creepy’ and ‘gross’ are words that we tend to reserve for insects, not people.

So, of the most recognized women most recently in the (potential) Presidential spotlight, we have the ‘bimbo’ (Palin), the ‘insect’ (Bachmann), and in ’08, Hilary Clinton (whose name we know because of her very famous husband). Outside the Presidential spotlight stands Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House, we there are the Supreme Court Justices: Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan. For the post part, politics are still dominated by white men.

And while I don’t think that female politicians should be treated differently because of their gender, or criticized less than their male counterparts, the way we criticize them now seems to single them out. Bachmann is not the only presidential candidate to pray, publicly, against something she opposes. Sarah Palin is not the first candidate to answer a question poorly, or demonstrate a lack of historical background. She’s certainly not the only candidate that opposes strict gun control.

And another note: The dismissive way that people discuss Bachmann now (i.e. what idiot voted for her?) is similar to the way people dismissed Palin before she was confirmed as McCain’s running mate. Only instead of discouraging her, as I assume such belittling language was intended to do, Palin has succeeded in raising enough money to (potentially) campaign. Unlike Jimmy McMillan, who we laughed at during the 2010 NY Governor Debate, she has remained active and still merits attention. Perhaps, for that reason alone, it is inappropriate to laugh at Bachmann- she seems more like a Palin than a McMillan to me.

Circumcision in America

In response to Rachael Myrow’s story posted on NPR’s website, here: http://www.npr.org/2011/06/09/137082736/san-franciscans-to-vote-on-banning-circumcision

Circumcision is discussed very frequently in America, but most often (it seems to me) it is within the context of female circumcision. This act (which is associated with a variety of religions and cultures) has been characterized as an act of violence towards women, an incredibly harmful and painful process, something that only uncivilized people do. I think this is reflected in the synonyms for female circumcision (female genital mutilation/cutting), which classifies the process as something equivalent to acid throwing or the carving off of the nose an ears seen in victims of the Taliban. This is not the way we discuss male circumcision in the same areas.

I do not wish to deny that female circumcision can be used as a tool to intimidate and torture women, this is not the only reason that women and girls are circumcised. There are communities (the one depicted in Voices from Mutira: Lives of Rural Gikuyu Women by Jean Davison is a good example of what I mean) in which female circumcision is a rite of passage from childhood to adulthood, a tradition that is cause for celebration.

While I do not support circumcision for myself or my children (if I choose to have them) I don’t think that it would be fair of my to impose my choice on another culture that I have very little context for. While there are health risks associated with the practice of female circumcision, the practice could be rendered safe through medical supervision, sterilization, and general modernization of the procedure.

I feel similarly about male circumcision. It is not appropriate for my children, as I see no overwhelming medical benefit (though as the NPR article states, there has been some evidence that it lessens the risk of STD transmission) to the procedure and it feels in no way necessary. Do I think that it is reasonable to ban the procedure?

I think that, while circumcision is a painful and, in my opinion, unnecessary procedure, it is a practice that has been established for centuries, and there is a large community of people that feel it is necessary, either for aesthetic reasons or because it symbolizes a covenant with God. And, as far as body modifications go, it is not incredibly damaging, socially or biologically.

However, it is a painful, permanent procedure designated for an unconsenting child, one reminiscent of gender modification of intersexual infants (which is something that I do oppose- I feel that designating gender at infancy is a form of transphobia that should be actively combatted). But, should protecting the individual (the child) from circumcision precede the free exercise of religion in America?

Should we be allowed to pierce the ears of children? While this is a body modification that can be ‘fixed’, it is not medically necessary, and I have been unable to find a religious mandate for ear piercing.

Should we impose inoculations upon children whose parents abstain because of their religious or personal beliefs? Some vaccines are age-sensitive, and they prevent deadly diseases. While there has been some suspicion that inoculations have increased the instances of autism in the developed world, this has yet to be substantiated.

I think the last example is the only one I might consider the rights of the individual to be as healthy as his or her peers to supercede the rights of the parents to dictate inoculation, but I’m still not sure that any of these examples require legal interference (healthcare is not a guaranteed right in America, it is still very much a privilege).

And finally, Foreskin Man.

Ultimately, I do not support circumcision, and I would be glad to see an ad campaign, or a push from the medical community that would seek to reduce circumcision, on the basis of it being unnecessary and irreversible. However, Foreskin Man is something disappointing, upsetting, and embarrassing.

Foreskin Man is a comic created by Matthew Hess, who advocates legal protection from circumcision for boys. And while the NPR article mentions the comic, the author fails to expand upon how incredibly racist it is. It features an Aryan superhero fighting a caricatured rabbi trying to circumcise an infant. The Aryan saves the day, and takes the infant to a beach with (terrorists? hippies? freegans?) intactivists, who are burning a cross-like insignia made of stolen circumstraints (I did not know what that was, below is a clarifying picture).

I was interested in what Mr. Hess had to say. I wanted to hear his argument, and when I did I felt bombarded by anti-semitism. Not only did that invalidate his argument for me, but it makes me feel uncomfortable, because I do agree with the idea that circumcision is unnecessary, and I do not wish to be associated with his other opinions.

Discomfort, Journalistic Integrity, and the Bill of Rights

There’s a story circulating about the WBC protest of Staff Sgt. Jason Rogers’ funeral. The story is that the group was planning to protest, and members were (allegedly) assaulted and detained (via civilian manipulation of traffic).

I haven’t been able to verify this story via any mainstream (or reliable) news outlets. However, I would not be surprised if the story was true, because there is a precedent for such behavior at previous WBC protests. There are documentaries about the group that have caught people throwing garbage from their cars and screaming at the protesters (and while I don’t think that the WBC has reported any of these assaults, they have commented that they bring their young children to the protests).

A few months ago, a case against the Westboro Baptist Church was brought to the Supreme Court. The plaintiff was arguing that the Church’s protests were emotionally damaging enough to constitute the illegalization of funeral protests. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the WBC. The church is full of lawyers, they have been very careful with their protests, and they knew that they had done nothing wrong. And while their message might be disturbing and upsetting, that’s the point. They think that the way they live and think is the only right way, and they want people to know it. And, in that regard, they are no different from anyone else.

The above picture is a piece from a Kara Walker exhibit. I chose this picture because I think it’s an accurate representation of her work. You have to look twice to see what’s there (and when you realize what you’re looking at, you usually begin to feel uncomfortable). While not all of her work is as subtle as the above, I think the subtlety is incredibly important; it reveals the insidious ways that we continue to objectify and deny the black American experience.

Kara Walker is an artist, her message makes people uncomfortable, and it can be seen in galleries and museums.

The above is from a WBC ad campaign created in reaction to the pro-LGBT rights NoH8 campaign. This image is also uncomfortable; not only is the message one that Americans are currently struggling with, but it is coming from two very young children.

The WBC is a religious organization, and their message is delivered from street corners and sidewalks. People throw garbage at them.

The message is different, but the feelings they incite are the same. The difference between Kara Walker and the WBC is that Walker is observing something that the majority of people can agree upon (watered down, she tells us that racism is bad, and while there’s more to her and to the issue than that, Americans have generally agreed that racism is bad), while the members of the WBC really only totally agree with each other. And there are less than 100 of them, making them one of the loudest minorities in America.

Why do they have less of a right to speak than Miss Walker? Should they be hassled and harassed just because we don’t like what they have to say? We (Americans) used to lynch black men and women when we didn’t like what they had to say (or because we didn’t like them and that was reason enough). If that is no longer acceptable, then why is this?

I think that news coverage of the group is becoming part of the problem. There are videos of journalists getting in screaming matches with members of the Church, but few journalistic records of the harassment the group has received (including death threats and verbal harassment). It’s very clear that the media has sided with the majority, and in this way it is not fulfilling the role that we need it to fill. Unbiased information. Humans are not infallible, and the challenge of being unbiased is probably one of the most difficult things I could ask of another human being (since I myself am often guilty of taking sides). But that, in my opinion, is a journalist’s job.

Another big part of the problem is the strong polarization that we have come to accept is part of the political process (Christians vs. atheists, conservatives vs. liberals, with each side calling the other irresponsible and crazy). You can be a Christian and a liberal. You can be pro-gay marriage and still support a conservative budget. It does not have to be us vs. them. When it is, when we all agree that we are right and they are wrong, this is what we become:

Source: http://www.picturesforsadchildren.com/index.php?comicID=362 Pictures for Sad Children