conservatism

On Penelope Trunk's Acknowledgement/Endorsement of Sexually Harassing Women As Long as they Have Something to Lose

Posted by figleaf on Sun, 2011-05-22 07:36

Matthew Yglesias illuminates one basic flaw in Penelope Trunk's assertion that in the future men will only sexually harass their superiors. Trunk reasons that reporting harassment always sinks the victims career, and that men's superiors will "have to keep their mouths shut if they want to keep climbing the [corporate] ladder," and therefore they'll make the best targets for harassment. Yglesias says

On the other hand, Steven Greenhouse reports that various kinds of harassment and assault of hotel maids are extremely common. Is it true, after all, that a maid has “nothing to lose”? Perhaps that would be true if the economy operated at a permanent full-employment state. Even if you did get fired, you could find some other hotel to clean in. But when unemployment’s 9 percent it seems to me a low-wage worker has a huge amount to lose.

Source: Center for American Progress

I'd think an even more basic flaw would be that if you piss off someone higher up the corporate ladder they'll be in an ideal position to stop your climb.  Even assuming there was no back channel "old girls" equivalent to the "old boys" networks.

But I'd like to highlight the final line in Yglesias' post:

Unless she’s represented by a strong labor union, which was the case for the maid at the Sofitel in question.

Because I think at the end of the day that explains right-wing antipathy towards unions.  It's not about wages (indeed, anti-union employers often brag about paying amounts equal to union wages.)  And it's not about workplace safety (indeed, Massey Energy was able to negligently murder its unionized employees pretty much with impunity at the Big Branch mine.)

Instead I think the answer is reflected in the light Jamelle Bouie shines on the most recent wealthy conservative scandal, this time by Arnold Schwarzenegger:

Typically, the traditional values agenda is defined by opposition to gay equality, abortion rights, and feminism. And while culture warriors offer different explanations for each issue, the core concern is deep opposition women's autonomy, and a belief in the right-ness of patriarchal rule.

Affairs, even ones that result in children, flow naturally of this worldview. Women are objects to be dominated (and if possible, claimed), and men -- as the "natural" leaders -- are free to indulge every whim, including those forbidden to people of "lower status."

Source: The American Prospect

I think that's about right.  What unions really do is allow people down the "corporate ladder" take on airs against their "superiors and betters."

Same I would add, with a nice 9-14% unemployment rate.  Either way when you've got no chance of finding another job and no chance of keeping your current one if you kick up a fuss a hotel employee has little choice but to brush off being bitten by the poodle with the diamond collar or submit to the man in the towel.

Penelope Trunk's just saying pointing out that if you're the kind of man who believes in the conservative principle of freedom to indulge every whim forbidden to classes subordinate to his (a.k.a. women) you can play that up the ladder as well.


Tags:

And Hey Ben Stein - Paul Bernardo Was Released the First Time Because How Many Amway/Accountants Commit Violent Sex Crimes?

Posted by figleaf on Thu, 2011-05-19 13:35

Photo by Flickr user murraystateunive. Cached as a bandwidth-conserving courtesy
Photo by American-Spectator-splainer Ben Stein by Flickr user murraystateuniversity. Used under a Creative Commons license.

According to his Wikipedia Entry Paul Bernardo, the Canadian boy scout, economics student, accountant, and Amway distributor(!!) benefitted from the same attitudes that asshole enabler and conservative performance artist Ben Stein wants us all to grant to the recently-arrested former IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn. (Emphasis mine.)

Investigation and release

Between May and September 1990, the police had submitted more than 130 suspects' samples for DNA testing when they received two reports that the person they were seeking was Paul Bernardo. The first, in June, had been called in by a bank employee. The second call was received from Tina Smirnis, the wife of one of the three Smirnis brothers who were among Bernardo's closest friends. Smirnis told the detectives that Bernardo "had been 'called in' on a previous rape investigation — once in December, 1987 - but he had never been interviewed." He frequently talked about his sex life to Smirnis and liked analingus, rough sex and anal sex.

Alex Smirnis' phrasing was awkward and stilted and consequently left the detectives unsure of whether to take him seriously. But after cross-checking several files the detectives decided to interview Bernardo. The interview, on November 20, 1990, lasted 35 minutes and Bernardo voluntarily gave samples for forensic testing. When the detectives asked Bernardo why he thought he was being investigated for the rapes, he admitted that he did resemble the composite. The detectives concluded that such a well-educated, well-adjusted, congenial young man couldn't be responsible for the vicious crimes; he "was far more credible than...Alex Smirnis who, with his awkward, strange way of speaking, might just be trying to collect the reward." Paul Bernado was released the following day.

Source: Bernardo's Wikipedia Entry

Oh well, as Ben Stein and his approving publishers at The American Spectator would no-doubt say, "Can anyone tell me any boy-scout/accountant/Amway guys who have been convicted of violent sex crimes?"

Although of course I'm sure he meant other than Paul Bernardo.

Hat tip Soren in comments


Tags:

Hey Ben Stein, How Many Major Air Force Base Commanders Have Committed Violent Sex Crimes?

Posted by figleaf on Thu, 2011-05-19 09:20

Randall Munroe took two minutes to answer Ben Stein's (and by extension The American Spectator's) fatuously privileging question regarding the arrest of IMF leader Dominique Strauss-Kahn: "People who commit crimes tend to be criminals, for example. Can anyone tell me any economists who have been convicted of violent sex crimes?"

On a whim, I just did a little research, and couldn’t believe what I found.  Guess who holds an economics degree?

Paul Bernardo.

For those not familiar with the case, Bernardo is one of the nastiest serial killers in history. He and his wife drugged, raped, and tortured to death a number of schoolgirls in the late 80’s and early 90’s. The story is the stuff of nightmares.

Source: xkcd blog

To be fair, Bernardo may not have been a "true" economist -- when he began murdering his victims he was only majoring in economics.  So Stein and his fellow rape apologists at the Spectator could probably say "yes, but what true Scotsman economist has been convicted?"

The flip answer would be that James Urbaniak was able to quickly come up with a list of professional, public economists who've been convicted of violent sex crimes.

The better answer to Stein's logic (and a more chilling answer in most ways) would be to ask the conceptually identical question "how many air force base commanders in major NATO countries have been convicted of violent sex crimes?"

I'd just add that my question isn't just about Stein's classic-Republican "seen any elephants*" logical fallacy.  It turns out that not only were they both serial rapist/murderers, Paul Bernardo and former CFB Trenton Base Commander Russell Williams may have been acquaintances in college but they may have taken the same economics classes.

* Recall jokes of the form "Q: Bobby, why are you tearing up strips of paper?" "A: To keep the elephants out of the pantry?"  "Q: How do you know that keeps elephants away?"  "A: Seen any elephants


Tags:

Wingnuts: Once We Get Rid of Planned Parenthood We're Going to Take Out the Girl Scouts

Posted by figleaf on Tue, 2011-05-17 14:08

Photo by figleaf (hey, that's me!) Cached as a bandwidth-conserving courtesy
"Handmaids's Tale photo mashup by figleaf (hey, that's me!) Posted under a Creative Commons license.

Dear sweet mother of pearl! If you think the right's anti-abortion stance was about anything more than sticking it to women's independence, autonomy, and sense of self-worth beyoned whatever glory their husbands accumulate check out their latest objective. Via Barbara Morrill, who says "And if going after Planned Parenthood doesn't go far enough for you," Sophia Resnick says (emphasis mine, and I'm not linking to the anti-scout site*)

A new anti-abortion rights website has emerged, its aim focused on the Girl Scouts of the United States of America.

Speak Now: Girl Scouts is the product of two Texas-based teen sisters, Tess and Sydney Volanski, who claim to have recently quit the Girl Scouts after eight years because they discovered the organization has a “pro-abortion mindset.”

Source: The American Independent

Bullshit. The closest the Girl Scouts come to a "pro-abortion mindset" is an emphasis they place on girls respecting themselves, taking responsibility for themselves and their health, thinking for themselves, and making conscious choices rather than acting on impulse. The only way that can be interpreted as a "pro-abortion mindset" is the emphasis on girls making their own choices. And choice starts with a "c" and that rhymes with "p" and that stands for "pro-abortion."

The Girl Scouts?!?!? Seriously?!?!? What the Sam Hill is wrong with these people?!?!

* Note: That's assuming this is a real site and not another hoax website.  But given that anti-choice 'wingers have previously gone after makers of the American Girl doll there's no reason (beyond simple incredulity) to believe the anti-scout initiative is anything but sincere.


Tags:

Are Democrats Quailing As Forces of Evil Continue to Push For "Pro-Life" Human Sacrifice?

Posted by figleaf on Wed, 2011-05-11 16:14

Photo by Flickr user outdoorPDK. Cached as a bandwidth-conserving courtesy
Photo by quail by Flickr user outdoorPDK. Used under a Creative Commons license.

Jill of Brilliant at Breakfast lays out the way South Dakota has (almost certainly) outlawed all abortions by a) mandating by law that every woman seeking an abortion must get pre-abortion counseling from an avowedly anti-abortion "crisis pregnancy" clinic knowing full well that b) every "crisis pregnancy" clinic in the state will refuse to provide such counseling.

Then she asks the $64,000 question (emphasis mine)

There you have it. Amanda Marcotte lays out the rest of the scheme, but while the Devil was in the details on the way to an on-the-ground ban nothing but large-scale action will undo it. Have you heard this on the news or read it in the paper? No? Color me unsurprised. Have you heard Democrats speaking about this? No? Despite the fact that the majority of Democratic Party supporters are women, you won't hear a peep.

The forced-birth people have claimed a significant victory here. Where are the Democrats?

Source: Brilliant at Breakfast

Now as it happens the majority of Democrats are women and you're not really hearing about it from them either.  And it's likely that there are some kinds of strategic reasons for this: at least on the legal front avowedly pro-choice legal groups were saying as recently as yesterday that they're going to pick their court cases extremely carefully before taking them to the Republican-majority women-sacrificers in the Supreme Court.

But still, would it really kill the Democrats, men or women, to open their mouths about this?  Even if it's just to express their opinions?  Even just once?


Tags:

Family Research Council Evidently Thinks It's Safer to Hang (Yourself) In the Closet Than Come Out

Posted by figleaf on Mon, 2011-05-09 16:40

Photo by Flickr user G.I. Folk. Cached as a bandwidth-conserving courtesy, ,
Photo by Flickr user G.I. Folk. Used under a Creative Commons license.

Amanda Hess says

Peter Sprigg, a Family Research Council policy fellow who advises Montgomery County public schools on their sex ed curriculum, is encouraging gay kids to identify as straight in order to lower their risk of suicide. Because when gay kids identify as straight, only straight kids will kill themselves. Problem solved.

Source: TDB

What's, well, queer about Peter Sprigg's report is that it appears to take perfectly sound (if strategically incomplete) data, and even some sound intermediary conclusions, but then add a couple of agenda-driven definitions and turn it all into some really batshit-insane, dangerous recommendations.

Fact: Young people who identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual do in fact have higher rates of suicide.

Fact: The sooner young people begin to self-identify publicly as gay, lesbian, or bisexual the greater their likelihood of committing sucide.

Fact: It's really is common for young people to feel "confused or uncertain" about their sexuality in adolescence.

Fact: Despite early uncertainty or confusion, by age 25 or so most people really have settled on a lifelong and generally far less flexible orientation

Fact: Of those people end up being exclusively heterosexual.

Oh, and

Fact: It actually really isn't a bad idea to wait to become sexually active till you're really sure what your identity and orientation is.  Even if (as Sprigg may have sock-puppeted into a quote) "you are sure you are heterosexual."

Facts, facts, facts, facts.  Most not even terribly objectionable since Sprigg got most of them from an article by Mark L. Hatzenbuehler in the respectable, peer-reviewed Pediatrics called The Social Environment and Suicide Attempts in Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Youth.

But then he turns that into... what?  A recommendation that everybody identify as straight people who just like sex with their own sex.  In other words to be more like former Senator Larry Craig, former minister Ted Haggard, or even better, like the millions of other conservatives who stay in the closet and don't get caught.

But you know what?  There's at least one other fact that Sprigg pretty much necessarily omits...

Fact: The biggest difference between an out gay, lesbian, or bisexual and a closeted one is... a closeted gay, lesbian, or bisexual isn't subject to the kind of harassment, ostracism, and outright violence out ones are.  Not from their friends, not from their families, not from their teachers, not from other people their age, and so on.

Question that perpetually eludes Mr. Sprigg and his ilk: what do you suppose drives a lot of teenagers to suicide anyway?  Gee, I wonder if maybe not only feeling like you don't fit in but being told to your face by that "vast majority" who "will end up being exclusively heterosexual as adults?"  Particularly when egged on by... Mr. Sprigg and his ilk!

Naah, couldn't be.  It's gotta be them gay cooties.

---

What makes me particularly bitter about all this, by the way, is that when I was growing up I was regularly taunted, harassed, and beaten up for "being gay."  Even though, of course, I wasn't.

That said, as far as I know none of the boys and young men from my neighborhood who regularly beat the living shit out of me ever committed suicide.  Although, funny thing, at least two of them died of HIV/AIDS in the 1980s.

Actually did I just say "funny thing?"  It's really not very funny at all.  Because pretending, for instance, that you're really a straight guy who likes sex with other men, and by lacking credible, comprehensive sex education that Mr. Sprigg's coven deplores, makes it very difficult for men to learn the kind of sex safety practices that best minimize health risks to themselves, their partners, and, often, their spouses.


Tags:

No Wonder We Have Nothing in Common: Anti-Abortion Activists Think Fetuses are People But Their Own Living Children Aren't

Posted by figleaf on Tue, 2011-04-26 08:48

Robin Marty produces yet another demonstration of the complete lack of seriousness of the "pro-life" movement.  (Emphasis mine.)

I've read enough anti-choice literature now to know that if you are against abortion, at the moment of conception you now have a separate and unique individual.  That's how personhood works, and those are the words that doctors are expected to recite to you if you want to obtain an abortion in certain states.

But that only counts inside the clinic.  On the sidewalk, it's a different story, one clinic escort shares:

"Yesterday, the clinic had to call the police (again) because the protesters had (again) violated the terms of the injunction. There were four women on the sidewalk and together they had three kids in strollers. In my world, four plus three equals seven. When told they were violating the injunction, they argued that "four people" did not include children."

Source: RHRealityCheck.org

Oh, and speaking of failures to take "life begins at conception" seriously, I still haven't heard back from the smug "fetal harm" vigilanties and "fetal death" execution proponents about whether their draconian penalties intended to terrorize abortion providers would apply to those who harm fetuses via dispersal of pollutants, pesticides, or manufactured products that cause fetal defects and/or death.

I wasn't holding my breath, of course, because their opposition to abortion has nothing at all to do with concern either for fetuses or (as in the case of the clinic demonstrators who don't even see their own, born children ad people) considerations of personhood.

This is actually perfectly consistent once you get that their opposition to abortion is all about confining and controlling women: Since children are literally the "wages of sin" for that crowd, and since abortion in their eyes is a way for women to avoid their just deserts, thinking of their own children as people instead of punishment isn't really part of their frames of reference.

The mistake, I think, is believing them when they say they're "pro-life."  Their utter disregard for born children as human beings is one example.  A more telling one is their complete and utter indifference to miscarriage, spontaneous abortion, stillbirth, and so on, which generally only "stops a beating heart" of wanted children.


Tags:

Bonus Question for Forced Birthers

Posted by figleaf on Sun, 2011-04-24 07:57

Following up once again on the odious position that victims of sexual assault should be forced to bear their attacker's children I want to turn once again to a general sentiment expressed in comments at "ProLifeBlog"

No. We should never punish the innocent baby for the crime of her father!

We have it exactly backward as our March for Life speaker, Brian Rohrbough, so noted this year.

The guilty rapist should receive the death penalty, not the innocent pre-born baby.

Source: Lesley Hanks in comments at "Pro-Life" Blogs

So if it's a matter of the rights of the innocent (well, except, obviously, the rights of the actual, you know, innocent victim!) then shouldn't the victim also be forced to let her assailant's presumably-innocent parents visit their grandchild?

April is Sexual Assault Awareness month

Because, after all, if the victim has no rights to choice, agency, or autonomy before she's forced to give birth then how, by the same logic, should she suddenly develop any rights after she's forced to give birth?

I mean, sure, if you didn't agree that a victim should be denied rights accorded to human beings then the whole question would be insane.  But we're talking about activists who believe victims should be denied the rights accorded to human beings.

So, for any forced birthers who might be reading this, what's the answer?  Why should a forced-birth victim be allowed to deny access to her child's grandparents?  Compared to the enormity of forcing the victim to bear such a child in the first place forcing visitations by the attackers presumably-innocent family members is scarcely an imposition at all.

And show your work.

%#*&@!


Tags:

Moral Equivalence #2: Forced Birthers and Sexual Predators

Posted by figleaf on Sun, 2011-04-24 07:39

I mentioned earlier that by hard-core no-exception "pro-life" standards a rapist is morally equivalent to a forced-birther because both are doing God's will by forcing a pregnancy on the victim. And how consequently by their standards rapists who impregnate their victims should be praised rather than punished.

Since some forced-birthers are sure to object, and that no, in fact, (quoting the same "ProLifeBlog" comment as last time...

No. We should never punish the innocent baby for the crime of her father!

We have it exactly backward as our March for Life speaker, Brian Rohrbough, so noted this year.

The guilty rapist should receive the death penalty, not the innocent pre-born baby.

Source: Lesley Hanks in comments at "Pro-Life" Blogs

 

April is Sexual Assault Awareness month

... ok, so let's examine the hard-core "pro-life" position rapists should still be executed even when they impregnate their victims.  I don't think they're going to like the consequences of that much better.

 

If it's possible to execute someone for creating a baby that it was God's will to be born it must be the case that one can commit evil even while doing God's work.

And if it can still be an act of evil to participate in the impregnation of a rape victim, even if the resulting child is God's will then...

It can still be be an act of evil to participate the same victim to undergo the economic, social, health, and medical consequences, not to mention the horror, of extending her assault from a few moments to nine months and beyond.  Even if the resulting child is God's will.

So once again, whether a perpetrators should be blessed or should be Damned, within the "pro-life" framework those who would force victims to bear their attacker's babies are morally indistinguishable from rapists who impregnate their victims in the first place.

%#*&@!


Tags:

Moral Equivalence #1: Forced Birthers and Sexual Predators

Posted by figleaf on Sun, 2011-04-24 07:08

Boy the folks who frequent the "ProLifeBlog" comments are a piece of work! On the matter of extending rape from a few moments of terror to nine months there's general agreement that it's just a holly-jolly little exercise in "tough minded" consistency.

One fairly common perspective strikes me as just achingly backwards. (I went looking for someone who held the position and it took only moments.)

No. We should never punish the innocent baby for the crime of her father!

We have it exactly backward as our March for Life speaker, Brian Rohrbough, so noted this year.

The guilty rapist should receive the death penalty, not the innocent pre-born baby.

Source: Lesley Hanks in comments at "Pro-Life" Blogs

No, no, not the "pro-life"/pro-death-penalty stance. That inconsistency is well documented. There's a much deeper inconsistency. You're not going to like it, and I expect they'd writhe and recoil like a vampire confronted with a crucifix, but by their line of reasoning the rapist shouldn't be punished, and certainly shouldn't be executed, but instead be praised or even blessed! Check this out:

It's God's will if a woman becomes pregnant by a rapist, right? Otherwise why oppose allowing her to terminate such a ghastly unplanned, unwanted pregnancy?

And yet if for the baby to be God's will the rape must also be. And for the rape to be God's will the rapist must be carrying out God's will. So if you believe these clowns, if a rapist impregnates a victim he's only doing God's will, exactly the same way they believe someone who murders an abortion provider in his church pew is doing God's work. And so a rapist should no more be executed than a "pro-life" murderer should be executed. Because by hard-core pro-life logic a pro-life murderer and a victim-impregnating rapist are exactly morally equivalent."

Which is, of course, perfectly true -- they are morally equivalent.

%#*&@!

April is Sexual Assault Awareness month


Tags:

User login