Nothing today except Miles Davis

So I wrote this post when I heard this knowing that one day I would need a music post. I give you Miles Davis playing "Time after time." Shut down all the things.

Hey lean in, we don’t live in a post gender society so we should review books that are targeting one gender, particularly the genders underrepresented.

Let me begin by saying a lot of people are arguing in favor of and against what is being called bookshelf segregation/desegregation. First let’s talk about the language being used and then the issued. I’m very uncomfortable with calling this desegregation of any kind. This language is usually associated with race and I’m not sure that invoking it for inanimate objects is such a good idea. I feels like those who use it are making light of the serious implications of apartheid states like Israel and formerly South Africa and the United States segregation policy

The Independent announced they will not review books that are specifically marketed to one gender (they articulate this with the binary). They also discuss the use of gender-neutral books for children. On Role Reboot, Soraya Chemaly makes a compelling argument in support of this. Additionally, to publishing houses (Paragon and Usborne) have said they will not publish books with titles “for boys” or “for girls” Groovy.

But as Chemaly points out we’re looking at 100 years of gender basis in books for children that is a long damn time. Chemaly then discusses the social constructs that are race and gender, but also that these constructs are used on meta filters. We gender and race everything, usually with the preferred gender and race being male and white. However, these constructs being used as a filter we filter everything through results in the policing of race and gender. Are you presenting the social constructs that are prescribed to you to the standards set forth by society? If not, someone will let you know.

Chemaly argues that this move opens up the way to have conversations like this that are perceived as non-threatening. She also notes that parents who try to raise their children gender neutral have to deal with cultures that are less understanding. She also notes the damage done to children because of what gendered books teach them, for example the peak age of political ambition for girls is 9; boys continue to be confident to the extreme. Chemaly also discusses the pushback she has encountered when trying to advocate for the post-gendered. Chemaly seems to be making the argument to move to a gender neutral society, at least a gender neutral book publishing society.

So what is my problem? Well, women, girls, and transgender people are underrepresented in books, and as Chemaly notes the argument that gets through around a lot is “boys won’t read books if the protagonist isn’t a boy.” I give zero fucks.

Let me explain. We will never live in a post-gender or a post-racial world. I know some smart women who discuss what a world without gender would look like, and it isn’t possible unless we burn everything down, erase everyone’s mind, and start again, but even then in order to not fall into the same old gender roles we would have to devise a new system, which means our gender constructs would influence a new gender or neutral gender division, which would become the new gender structure. Take a minute to pull the pieces of your mind back together.

Personally, I think we should aim to raise our children in a more gender neutral way. That said because we can’t escape gender we can’t be gender blind and assume everyone else will be. What do I mean, well, more men are going to be published than women, more protagonists are going to be men, the male perspective will continue to be the stand in for the human experience. Because of all this and more, we need books that focus on gender, subvert gender, and just play with gender roles (and race, and sexual orientation). We can’t sit by passively and let the status quo continue to be unquestioned and pretend it is fine because the words “for girls” isn’t in the title. Books (and everything else) will continue to be gendered. The boy characters are going to have more active roles on children’s television shows unless we choose to part from that trope regardless if he wears blue or pink. Strong women leads will continue to be smart and problem causing support characters like Jessie (Saved by the Bell), Andrea (90210), Hermione (Harry Potter), and Princess Leia (Star Wars), or just the dead girlfriend (women in refrigerators) and yeah, I’m look at John Green’s Looking to Alaska (excellent book about the expectations we assign to other people and specifically our inability to see others as complete individuals) and Faulkner. Those are the roles women play you can add mother/lover in there too, and when including racial discussion break out the Jezebel, Sapphire, and Mammy. Unless of course the story is about women then they get to be more like real people or in some cases a cautionary tale…DON’T EVER be a woman and HAVE SEX IS ONE OF THESE NARRATIVES! It’s like the horror movie rule.

Harry Potter was supposed to be a girl, but Rowling was told boys wouldn’t read the book. The Hunger Games is wildly popular with a woman protagonist. So it is possible to engage readers of all races, ages, and genders, but we have to decide (as Collins did) that we want women to be represented. That women can lack the traditional qualities assigned by gender and instead hold qualities assigned to other genders.

So I’m down for more gender neutral books, but I think there should be more responsibility of the publishers to publish books that focus on the genders, races, sexual orientations, etc. that are underrepresented. In turn, those books need to be reviewed, and then read by the masses.

Let’s vaccinate our kids…

Yesterday when I was bored, I was thinking about provincial things people say that I find really attractive in certain context like, “Let’s go hang out with the homeless,” “I did laundry,” “Pie?,” or “read that analysis of Census data?” I’m kidding a bit, but only a bit that laundry one, man. However, if my partner and I were thinking about having kids, “Let’s vaccinate our kids” would be the sexiest thing you could say to me because the anti-vaccination truthers are out and measles is a thing again. Like we don’t have enough to worry about with that Polio like disease killing kids that isn’t Polio?

At first I thought this whole thing was kind of a joke. Something a few privileged people were doing, but because of the limited funds the majority of people have nothing we should worry about because people who can’t afford crazy hospital bills will vaccinate their kids. But then Jenny McCarthy linked autism and vaccinations, and here we are. We have disease outbreaks all over the place of diseases that weren’t supposed to be a thing anymore.

The problem really is that the anti-vaccination movement is spreading false information, pretending it is fact, and not vaccinating enough kids that outbreaks are happening all over the place. Real SCIENCE say the correlation is anecdotal and evidence doesn’t back up assertions that a raise in vaccinations has led to an increase in autism. The fear surrounding autism may have led to the increased skepticism around vaccination. But again there is no evidence of this. There have been a lot of write ups about the anti-vaccine crowds, but I read the one over at Policy Mic by Matt Essert. 

Finally, I’d really love the anti-choice crowd to turn on these fools, because the anti-vaccine crowd cries choice when they are approached about the damage they are doing to society. Of course they have the right not to vaccinate their kids, but then society has the right to be protected from these children.

 

Below is a map by the Council on Foreign Relations documenting all the outbreaks since 2006.

Let’s all pretend Sherrod Brown is going to be the next Democratic Presidential Nominee

There is a reason Ohio loves this man, and it is because he is ALL THE THINGS. Megan Shaw has a piece for NewsNet5 about Senator Sherrod Brown co-sponsoring a bill to protect renters from evictions. Because he’s a boss.

Perhaps a little background information? Banks bought up the bad loans made to people buying homes, and the banks are now evicting those people. This is particularly back in Ohio, where the economic collapse of the manufacturing industry is still very much felt. So that is to say: poverty and corporate banks are evil. However, the renters aren't even to blame for the foreclosures, but they are suffering because of it.

Sen. Brown submitted his request, that new legislation be enacted to protect renders from unruly evictions, to Congress on Monday. Brown argues that too many renters are forced out of their homes with little notice because landlords lost the property to foreclosures. Sen. Brown was joined by Laquita Jarmon, Cleveland resident, to share her experience of an unruly eviction. She and her four children were forced out of their home with only 30 days notice. In 2009, Congress passed a law that said tenants had at least 90 days or till the end of the lease to remain in the home following a foreclosure. The law is due to expire at the end of the year, and Sen. Brown wants new legislation to protect renters.

Brown said, “Tenants who work hard, and responsibly pay their rent each month, deserve protections for themselves and their families. In the past families who rented were uprooted from their homes because of foreclosures that weren’t their fault. The Permanently Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act would renew and strengthen renters’ rights so families aren’t unfairly evicted from their homes.”

The Act would make the protections permanent, regardless of when the foreclosure takes place, and ensure compliance with the law by establishing a private right of action for those who have been evicted in violation of the Act.

Ummm…RAINN misses the mark, or maybe we’re losing another one

My friend Big K and I were talking last week about how we lost The Nation. I repeat the progressive cause has lost The Nation. It looks like we’re also loosing RAINN.

RAINN sent a brief to the White House Task Force, and it is bad. It begins ok:

“The federal government should push colleges to improve the criminal justice response to rape, de-emphasize internal judicial boards, put in place bystander intervention and risk reduction programs, and ensure comprehensive care for victims; RAINN advised a new White House task force charged with creating a plan to reduce rape on college campuses.”

 But then it goes bad: “In 16 pages of recommendations, RAINN urged the task force to remain focused on the true cause of the problem. ‘In the last few years, there has been an unfortunate trend towards blaming ‘rape culture’ for the extensive problem of sexual violence on campuses. While it is helpful to point out the systemic barriers to addressing the problem, it is important to not lose sight of a simple fact: Rape is caused not by cultural factors but by the conscious decisions, of a small percentage of the community, to commit a violent crime,’ said the letter to the task force from RAINN’s president, Scott Berkowitz, and vice president for public policy, Rebecca O’Connor.”

Oh no. First, while rape is committed by individual people, it is enabled by the community and culture. Secondly, to end rape, we have to end rape culture otherwise; we’re going to continue having boys who don’t consider what they are doing is rape. Culture allows people to abuse one another and think nothing of it; culture devalues women; culture devalues people of color; etc. This is so not ok. I’m not really sure where to start. It feels very short sighted; just focus on the aftermath of rape instead of real prevention.

The brief continues to lay out RAINN’s recommendation and presents statistics about how 90% of college rapes are committed by 3% of the population (information on female perpetrators is less available). Then it continues to explain why college internal judicial boards need to be de-emphasized.