Happy weekend, y'all.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Yeah, but...no.
I know this guy (we'll call him M) who's always seemed like a fairly OK guy. He's easy to talk to and has a habit of reading books that are interesting to me, and vice versa. I see him around town or campus occasionally, and we always stop and chat. So the other day I ran into him with a couple other mutual acquaintances, and we had this little conversation that eventually somehow turned to the whole Male Studies debacle. The other two just sort of rolled their eyes at the arguments made by Male Studies advocates but then had little else to say. But M wouldn't let the topic drop, and proceeded to mansplain to us how the current "climate" in academia serves to "disenfranchise" men. For real, you guys. He even referenced Christina Hoff Sommers, repeat winner of the Little Miss Colluder award. (OK, there is technically no such award, but there should be.)
So, anyway... My first reaction was "Disenfranchised? Are you kidding? Look who's disproportionately getting tenure. Look who occupies all the top administrative positions on most campuses. Disenfranchised? Seriously?" This response was met with some decisive but uncomfortable agreement from the other two participants in the discussion, but seemed unpersuasive to M. But since none of us seemed to be in a mood to argue, we wrapped up the conversation and headed our own separate ways. It was kind of depressing to walk away realizing that my seemingly well-informed and progressive friend was actually a bit of a douche.
But it also got me thinking about this alleged dynamic in education that favors girls and women. And I thought perhaps my initial response, although totally accurate and germane, didn't quite address the whole story. I mean, it's undoubtedly true that people who are already in academia experience this gender divide that clearly privileges men. And it's also true that male graduates are somewhat privileged when they first enter the job market; experiencing a certain amount of (probably unconscious) preferential treatment in the interviewing/hiring process and often starting out with higher entry-level salaries. But it's also true that this measuring of economic outcomes is not the only measure of whether or not academia serves men and women equally.
You've probably heard men's rights activists yammer on about how primary school is tailored for girls, who naturally sit quietly and passively all day long, are inherently cooperative and good listeners and not at all boisterous or curious or creative, like all boys inherently are. And since institutional schooling rewards passive learning and good rule-following, girls will automatically do better, right? Except, of course, that these tendencies have more to do with gendered socialization than with biological tendencies. And there's often a rather large disconnect between how well a student does in school and how well they do in the job market.
But more importantly, this just speaks to a problem with school in general. For children of all genders. We say we want our educational system to foster creativity and innovation and intellectual vigor and independence and curiosity in the adults these kids will become. And then we do everything we can to make them into "good listeners," which is code for passive rule-following sheep. And that's pretty much the opposite of the curious, creative, intellectually adventurous ideal that gets so much lip-service.
Don't get me wrong - I think good listening skills are essential in numerous ways. Constructive dialogue cannot occur without good listening. But when educators and parents talk about good listening, they almost always mean "you, the child, should shut up and listen to me, and then should unquestioningly do whatever it is I told you to do." And this is pretty much the opposite of the kind of listening skills involved in the open, respectful, reciprocal communication that we hope our kids will be capable of as adults. In other words, if teachers and parents don't listen to kids, then why the fuck would we expect kids to listen to us? And the sad reality is, adults often don't listen to kids, because we're so often preoccupied with the plethora of tasks (educational, social, household, etc) that need to be accomplished on a daily basis, or because we don't see them as humans that merit the respect involved in looking someone in the eye and listening to what they're saying.
But what does this have to do with gender? Obviously allowing for curiosity and creativity and physical interactivity and critical thinking in schools benefits both boys and girls. And to the extent that we forbid these things, academia disenfranchises students. But not just the boys. So maybe it's this problem with our school system that M and the rest of the school-is-bad-for-boys party are trying to articulate, but somehow it's going wrong and becoming a gender thing. If schools are set up to cater to the characteristics that girls are socialized to have, then that's a problem with both the gendered socialization and the educational model. But the results are still the same. Whether or not the boys struggle more than the girls at any educational level, men still come out ahead of women economically and politically. So saying that academia disenfranchises men not only seems willfully ignorant of the economic and political realities; it's also an incredibly douchey attempt to defend one's own privilege.
So, anyway... My first reaction was "Disenfranchised? Are you kidding? Look who's disproportionately getting tenure. Look who occupies all the top administrative positions on most campuses. Disenfranchised? Seriously?" This response was met with some decisive but uncomfortable agreement from the other two participants in the discussion, but seemed unpersuasive to M. But since none of us seemed to be in a mood to argue, we wrapped up the conversation and headed our own separate ways. It was kind of depressing to walk away realizing that my seemingly well-informed and progressive friend was actually a bit of a douche.
But it also got me thinking about this alleged dynamic in education that favors girls and women. And I thought perhaps my initial response, although totally accurate and germane, didn't quite address the whole story. I mean, it's undoubtedly true that people who are already in academia experience this gender divide that clearly privileges men. And it's also true that male graduates are somewhat privileged when they first enter the job market; experiencing a certain amount of (probably unconscious) preferential treatment in the interviewing/hiring process and often starting out with higher entry-level salaries. But it's also true that this measuring of economic outcomes is not the only measure of whether or not academia serves men and women equally.
You've probably heard men's rights activists yammer on about how primary school is tailored for girls, who naturally sit quietly and passively all day long, are inherently cooperative and good listeners and not at all boisterous or curious or creative, like all boys inherently are. And since institutional schooling rewards passive learning and good rule-following, girls will automatically do better, right? Except, of course, that these tendencies have more to do with gendered socialization than with biological tendencies. And there's often a rather large disconnect between how well a student does in school and how well they do in the job market.
But more importantly, this just speaks to a problem with school in general. For children of all genders. We say we want our educational system to foster creativity and innovation and intellectual vigor and independence and curiosity in the adults these kids will become. And then we do everything we can to make them into "good listeners," which is code for passive rule-following sheep. And that's pretty much the opposite of the curious, creative, intellectually adventurous ideal that gets so much lip-service.
Don't get me wrong - I think good listening skills are essential in numerous ways. Constructive dialogue cannot occur without good listening. But when educators and parents talk about good listening, they almost always mean "you, the child, should shut up and listen to me, and then should unquestioningly do whatever it is I told you to do." And this is pretty much the opposite of the kind of listening skills involved in the open, respectful, reciprocal communication that we hope our kids will be capable of as adults. In other words, if teachers and parents don't listen to kids, then why the fuck would we expect kids to listen to us? And the sad reality is, adults often don't listen to kids, because we're so often preoccupied with the plethora of tasks (educational, social, household, etc) that need to be accomplished on a daily basis, or because we don't see them as humans that merit the respect involved in looking someone in the eye and listening to what they're saying.
But what does this have to do with gender? Obviously allowing for curiosity and creativity and physical interactivity and critical thinking in schools benefits both boys and girls. And to the extent that we forbid these things, academia disenfranchises students. But not just the boys. So maybe it's this problem with our school system that M and the rest of the school-is-bad-for-boys party are trying to articulate, but somehow it's going wrong and becoming a gender thing. If schools are set up to cater to the characteristics that girls are socialized to have, then that's a problem with both the gendered socialization and the educational model. But the results are still the same. Whether or not the boys struggle more than the girls at any educational level, men still come out ahead of women economically and politically. So saying that academia disenfranchises men not only seems willfully ignorant of the economic and political realities; it's also an incredibly douchey attempt to defend one's own privilege.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Video of the Day
I swear I'm gonna post something real here. Someday. In the meantime, enjoy the video. If you're like me and now live in a part of the country where there's no TJs, this video will make you sad, nostalgic, and hungry, all at the same time.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Religious art is so...
This message was sent using the Picture and Video Messaging service from Verizon Wireless!
To learn how you can snap pictures and capture videos with your wireless phone visit www.verizonwireless.com/picture.
Note: To play video messages sent to email, QuickTime� 6.5 or higher is required.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
What's in your...crisper??
In response to this post over at Fed Up With Lunch ...
Lettuce, half a bell pepper, half a carton of sliced mushrooms, a cucumber, raspberries, cherries, green onions, and half a watermelon. On the shelf above: strawberries, fresh homemade salsa, and Swiss chard from my garden.
And why is it so much fun to peek into other people's fridge's? I think "what's in your ... pantry?" should be next. In my experience having a strategically stocked pantry is the secret to good cooking and not giving up and going out all the time or eating lots of processed crap.
Lettuce, half a bell pepper, half a carton of sliced mushrooms, a cucumber, raspberries, cherries, green onions, and half a watermelon. On the shelf above: strawberries, fresh homemade salsa, and Swiss chard from my garden.
And why is it so much fun to peek into other people's fridge's? I think "what's in your ... pantry?" should be next. In my experience having a strategically stocked pantry is the secret to good cooking and not giving up and going out all the time or eating lots of processed crap.
things that are awesome
We have two yardsale gnomes in our little piece of the community garden. They started out as ironic gestures, but have morphed into characters we take Very Seriously. This is Gunther, who watches over the strawberries, what's left of the spinach, and the sunflowers.
This message was sent using the Picture and Video Messaging service from Verizon Wireless!
To learn how you can snap pictures and capture videos with your wireless phone visit www.verizonwireless.com/picture.
Note: To play video messages sent to email, QuickTime� 6.5 or higher is required.
The moral of the story
By now you may have seen the news that, once the full video of Shirley Sherrod's speech was released, it became clear that what she was saying was actually the exact opposite of what Fox News and other conservative outlets were claiming she was saying. OMG, that's shocking, right? Except it really isn't. Remember the ACORN videos, and how they showed ACORN employees saying and doing things that they actually weren't saying and doing at all ever? Of course, those videos were artfully edited by conservative groups as well.
So what have we learned here? That Fox and it's ilk are dishonest? Um, we already knew that. What should we learn? This: If a radical conservative news group releases a video containing "damning evidence" of anybody doing anything, you should ask for the full video before reaching any conclusions. I mean, wtf is it with these Obama administration bigwigs that just swallow every doctored video the conservahacks spew out? Whatever happened to critical thinking and reserving judgment until you have all the evidence? Because besides making themselves look evil, the conservahacks are making you guys look like gullible, impulsive idiots.
And whatever happened to asking your employee for her side of the story and giving her a chance to defend herself before demanding her resignation? Jesus H Christ.
So what have we learned here? That Fox and it's ilk are dishonest? Um, we already knew that. What should we learn? This: If a radical conservative news group releases a video containing "damning evidence" of anybody doing anything, you should ask for the full video before reaching any conclusions. I mean, wtf is it with these Obama administration bigwigs that just swallow every doctored video the conservahacks spew out? Whatever happened to critical thinking and reserving judgment until you have all the evidence? Because besides making themselves look evil, the conservahacks are making you guys look like gullible, impulsive idiots.
And whatever happened to asking your employee for her side of the story and giving her a chance to defend herself before demanding her resignation? Jesus H Christ.
How they roll
"In the fall of 1999, the drug giant SmithKline Beecham secretly began a study to find out if its diabetes medicine, Avandia, was safer for the heart than a competing pill, Actos, made by Takeda ... instead of publishing the results, the company spent the next 11 years trying to cover them up..."
Source
And
"A Food and Drug Administration advisory committee Tuesday recommended that the agency withdraw its marketing approval of the blockbuster cancer drug Avastin for treating breast cancer, concluding that new trials showed no apparent benefit from the drug. ... The new studies presented to the panel failed to confirm those initial findings. The progression-free survival improved by as little as a month and, again, overall survival did not improve. In fact, because of complications from the drug, survival was actually slightly less for some women. ... In a statement released Tuesday, the drug's manufacturer, Roche subsidiary Genentech, said it stood by the data it presented to the FDA and that it believed Avastin 'should continue to be an option for patients with this incurable disease.' "
Source
Get that? So the drug not only fails to significantly improve your chances of survival, but it also has side effects that can hasten your death, and make life miserable with symptoms like high blood pressure and fatigue. But the company still thinks patients should be taking it. Why? Because there is only one relevant motivating factor here: profit. Patients be damned, we want to keep raking in our billions on this drug.
But beyond this feature of the pharmaceutical industrial complex is another disturbing trend. If you look at the way committee members vote in both the case of Avandia and Avastin, you'll see that nobody has clean hands here.
In the case of Avandia, the claim has been made that committee members who voted against the continued use of the drug had economic interests in pharmaceutical companies with competing drugs, while those who voted for it held SmithKline stock. So nobody appeared to be voting on actual results in actual people's bodies and futures and lives. No, on both sides it was all about the money.
So to answer a few questions I've received by email, that's why I call it the pharmaceutical industrial complex. When economic interests are the driving force behind a system that ostensibly exists to benefit people but instead ends up harming them for the benefit of those who stand to profit from that system, you have an industrial complex that has a momentum of its own and that will run you and your loved ones over without batting an eye or losing a night's sleep. Because what are a few heart attacks and early deaths compared to billions of dollars?
Source
And
"A Food and Drug Administration advisory committee Tuesday recommended that the agency withdraw its marketing approval of the blockbuster cancer drug Avastin for treating breast cancer, concluding that new trials showed no apparent benefit from the drug. ... The new studies presented to the panel failed to confirm those initial findings. The progression-free survival improved by as little as a month and, again, overall survival did not improve. In fact, because of complications from the drug, survival was actually slightly less for some women. ... In a statement released Tuesday, the drug's manufacturer, Roche subsidiary Genentech, said it stood by the data it presented to the FDA and that it believed Avastin 'should continue to be an option for patients with this incurable disease.' "
Source
Get that? So the drug not only fails to significantly improve your chances of survival, but it also has side effects that can hasten your death, and make life miserable with symptoms like high blood pressure and fatigue. But the company still thinks patients should be taking it. Why? Because there is only one relevant motivating factor here: profit. Patients be damned, we want to keep raking in our billions on this drug.
But beyond this feature of the pharmaceutical industrial complex is another disturbing trend. If you look at the way committee members vote in both the case of Avandia and Avastin, you'll see that nobody has clean hands here.
In the case of Avandia, the claim has been made that committee members who voted against the continued use of the drug had economic interests in pharmaceutical companies with competing drugs, while those who voted for it held SmithKline stock. So nobody appeared to be voting on actual results in actual people's bodies and futures and lives. No, on both sides it was all about the money.So to answer a few questions I've received by email, that's why I call it the pharmaceutical industrial complex. When economic interests are the driving force behind a system that ostensibly exists to benefit people but instead ends up harming them for the benefit of those who stand to profit from that system, you have an industrial complex that has a momentum of its own and that will run you and your loved ones over without batting an eye or losing a night's sleep. Because what are a few heart attacks and early deaths compared to billions of dollars?
Monday, July 19, 2010
Monday Miscellanea
Remember that one time I ranted about how separating abortion services from all other medical services further stigmatizes abortion and the women who need abortions, and makes abortion clinics a highly visible target for hateful anti-abortion protesters? Well, I didn't either until I read this article in NYT Magazine about a growing effort to bring abortion services back into a mainstream medical context. According to this article:
Other items in the "good news" category include the fact that illegal rain forest logging has been significantly reduced thanks to the efforts of local governments, activists, NGOs, and entities in the private sector. And by "significant" we mean 50-75% which is really...significant. So yay for actually seeing change in the world as a result of a lot of hard work and consciousness-raising! I cut my 16 y/o activist teeth in the Rainforest Action Network, so I'll always have a soft spot for the cause.
In the "stupid shit the Vatican did this week" category we have the papal pronouncement that ordaining women is the moral equivalent to molesting children and then lying about it. Tim Padgett has some interesting thoughts on this development from an insider perspective:
And finally, I've been thinking a lot about the way we construct the experience of addiction, as well as the often-contradictory narratives that surround addiction, in our culture. So this article: Does Teen Drug Rehab Cure Addiction or Create It? is both timely and will likely spur a more in-depth post on some of my recent thoughts about our cultural scripts concerning addiction. Of course, in the case of teen rehab programs you often have the further complicating issues of the way we do prison and juvenile detention in our culture, which is a clusterfuck all its own. So that puts teen rehab programs at an interesting crossroads of strange and often counterproductive cultural narratives and practices, now doesn't it?
The bold idea at the heart of this effort is to integrate abortion so that it’s a seamless part of health care for women — embraced rather than shunned.So it turns out that my irritated rant was actually a bold idea - that we should provide services for all aspects of women's reproductive care in the same place with the same healthcare professionals as if it were all just the exact same kind of thing. Because it is.
Other items in the "good news" category include the fact that illegal rain forest logging has been significantly reduced thanks to the efforts of local governments, activists, NGOs, and entities in the private sector. And by "significant" we mean 50-75% which is really...significant. So yay for actually seeing change in the world as a result of a lot of hard work and consciousness-raising! I cut my 16 y/o activist teeth in the Rainforest Action Network, so I'll always have a soft spot for the cause.
In the "stupid shit the Vatican did this week" category we have the papal pronouncement that ordaining women is the moral equivalent to molesting children and then lying about it. Tim Padgett has some interesting thoughts on this development from an insider perspective:
When any institution is as convinced of its own moral infallibility as the Catholic Church is, it tends to lash out at criticism — especially charges as serious as the priestly rape of children — with Dostoevskian paranoia. And the church then fortifies its less popular stances, like an all-male priesthood or the condemnation of gays, becoming even more uncompromising. Most Catholics, according to polls in the U.S. and abroad, support women's ordination; but the Church peevishly views that trend as an insidious sub-agenda of its sexual abuse accusers. Hence last week's astonishing aside from Rome that both female priests and pedophilia are graviora delicta, or grave crimes.Read more here: The Vatican and Women: Casting the First Stone.
And finally, I've been thinking a lot about the way we construct the experience of addiction, as well as the often-contradictory narratives that surround addiction, in our culture. So this article: Does Teen Drug Rehab Cure Addiction or Create It? is both timely and will likely spur a more in-depth post on some of my recent thoughts about our cultural scripts concerning addiction. Of course, in the case of teen rehab programs you often have the further complicating issues of the way we do prison and juvenile detention in our culture, which is a clusterfuck all its own. So that puts teen rehab programs at an interesting crossroads of strange and often counterproductive cultural narratives and practices, now doesn't it?
Friday, July 16, 2010
What women can expect
"There's more to life than a Volvo. There's what you can expect: being kissed, desired, loved, missed. Then there's everything you can't expect. But being ready for it, that's why you drive one....blah, blah, blah..."
Apparently we're still supposed to be passively waiting around for someone to kiss, desire, love, and miss us. But in the meantime we should buy a Volvo. Just in case we ever need to outrun some werewolves on a scenic mountain highway in the pristine wilderness of Oregon. Or is it the men who are supposed to buy the Volvos so that they can rescue the objects of their kissing, desiring, loving, and missing in case of a scenic werewolf encounter? I mean, if women can't even have an active role in a bunch of angsty kissing, desiring, loving, and missing, how on earth could they ever muster the agency to buy a fucking car already?
![Gentlemen, our waters are in great danger. Perhaps we should follow the path of the Devonian sea creatures, and adapt to walk on land. [pause] Barry, shut the fuck up. Seriously...](http://pbfcomics.com/?cid=PBF195-The_Pacific_Council.jpg)
Sensationalism 101
In Helena Montana, a committee of school administrators, teachers, and parents have put together a comprehensive health education curriculum, including sex ed, based on local practices and national guidelines. The plan would gradually introduce students to concepts, starting in K-1 with basic vocabulary such as using the correct name for your body parts (no wee-wees and hoo-hahs) as well as the concept that you could love someone of the same or opposite gender, and moving on to eventually discussing such things as the social and political aspects of LGBT relationships once the kids are in high school. Sounds pretty reasonable, right?
But OMG this is soooo upsetting!!! To all the parents of Helena!!! The school district is proposing to teach comprehensive sex ed in Kindergarten, you guys!!! If you only read the headlines, that is. A Google news search:
Montana's school board battles morals in education
Proposed K-12 Sex Ed Program Shocking and Outraging Parents
Sex Ed in Kindergarten?
Montana School System Wants Sex Education for Kindergarten
Grade 1 Student to Learn about Gay Relationships in Montana Sex-Ed ...
Children Exposed to Montana Sex-Ed for Kindergartners Will 'Suffer in Countless Ways'
Proposed K-12 Sex Ed Program Shocking and Outraging Parents
Sex Education Debate Sparks Outrage
Helena, Mont., Mulls Kindergarten Sex Ed
What's the reality of the situation? A few parents are upset, because they object to any sex ed, or any sex ed that's not abstinence-only, or any mention of homosexuality, period. And this fringe group is to be expected. But that's OK because any parent can choose to opt their kid out of health education. But in fact, the majority of the parents in Helena are just fine with the proposed curriculum. And notice that the local paper has taken a calm tone and an even-handed approach to the topic. No shocking headlines, no inflammatory rhetoric. It's almost like they skipped the Shocking, Inaccurate, and Sensationalist Headline Writing 101 course back in Journalism school. How refreshing.
But OMG this is soooo upsetting!!! To all the parents of Helena!!! The school district is proposing to teach comprehensive sex ed in Kindergarten, you guys!!! If you only read the headlines, that is. A Google news search:
Montana's school board battles morals in education
Proposed K-12 Sex Ed Program Shocking and Outraging Parents
Sex Ed in Kindergarten?
Montana School System Wants Sex Education for Kindergarten
Grade 1 Student to Learn about Gay Relationships in Montana Sex-Ed ...
Children Exposed to Montana Sex-Ed for Kindergartners Will 'Suffer in Countless Ways'
Proposed K-12 Sex Ed Program Shocking and Outraging Parents
Sex Education Debate Sparks Outrage
Helena, Mont., Mulls Kindergarten Sex Ed
What's the reality of the situation? A few parents are upset, because they object to any sex ed, or any sex ed that's not abstinence-only, or any mention of homosexuality, period. And this fringe group is to be expected. But that's OK because any parent can choose to opt their kid out of health education. But in fact, the majority of the parents in Helena are just fine with the proposed curriculum. And notice that the local paper has taken a calm tone and an even-handed approach to the topic. No shocking headlines, no inflammatory rhetoric. It's almost like they skipped the Shocking, Inaccurate, and Sensationalist Headline Writing 101 course back in Journalism school. How refreshing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)