In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Well, THAT can’t be safe

I was on my way back from the bodega this morning when a group of motorcycles went by.

One had a chrome pitchfork atop the sissy bar. Yikes.

What he said

I don’t want to drag out the Save Monty drama any longer than necessary, but I will point you all to Elaine’s response to my post. It’s worth a read, and I appreciate her engaging these issues. She makes many interesting points, but I think it’s rather obvious that we are coming from fundamentally different places, and there are some gaps that just aren’t going to be bridged. Although, damn, I’ve never had someone call me “anti-animal-rights” before. But it’s your movement, and if you want to draw the “If you aren’t with us then you’re against us” line, I suppose that’s your prerogative.

We’re mostly at an impasse, so I’ll just let Brooklynite do the talking for me:

Criticized for describing animal breeding as “slavery,” Elaine Vigneault comes back with this:

The only difference between a mentally disabled human and a cow is that one is my species and one is not.

Look. I’m sympathetic to the pro-animal cause. I’ve been trending in that direction intellectually over time, and I’ve recognized recently that I really should do more to bring my actions into line with my abstract beliefs.

But even in circumstances where the moral and historical parallels are strong, equating different oppressions is a dicey business. Even if you’ve done all your homework and you’ve tailored your arguments narrowly, you’re going to catch flak. If you haven’t done that — if you just toss out an analogy to appropriate some heft — you’re going to get slammed, and you’re going to deserve it.

There is no good ending to a sentence that begins with the words “The only difference between a mentally disabled human and a cow is…” Not any. If you ever find yourself typing such a sentence, make a beeline for the delete key. Press it and hold it down until the impulse passes.

You’ll thank me later.

One more thing: Let me be clear that I realize Elaine doesn’t speak for all animal rights activists, and that there are many animal rights activists who also cringe at this comparison. It’s unfair to paint all ARRs with a broad brush. So this post is directed specifically at Elaine’s comment, not at the animal rights movement in general (or at least, not at the very large contingent of that movement that would bristle at the cow/disabled person comparison). Like the feminist movement, the animal rights movement is a diverse one. And just as my posts here don’t speak for all feminists and don’t represent anyone else’s feminism but my own, Elaine’s above comment should not be construed to represent anyone’s animal rights beliefs but hers, and my response is directed at her statement, not at everyone who subscribes to the animal rights movement.

A perfect example of why weight should not be used as a proxy for health

I was reading this article the other day about how many states are changing the rules about snacks, junk food, candy for fundraisers, and school lunch programs to address the “obesity crisis.” And it hit me: why did it take anxiety about fat kids for the schools to address the way that they’re feeding kids while they’re in school?

School districts across the country have been taking steps to make food in schools healthier because of new federal guidelines and awareness that a growing number of children are overweight.

In California, deep fryers have been banned, so chicken nuggets and fries are now baked. Sweet tea is off the menu in one Alabama school. In New Jersey, 20-ounce sports drinks have been cut back to 12 ounces.

Food and beverage companies have scrambled to offer healthier alternatives in school cafeterias and vending machines, and some of the changes have been met with a shrug by students. The whole-wheat chocolate-chip cookies? “Surprisingly, the kids have kind of embraced them,” said Laura Jacobo, director of food services at Woodlake Union schools in California.

You know, it’s not just fat kids who benefit from better nutrition. ALL kids benefit from fewer fried foods, fewer sugary drinks, more fruits and vegetables, and candy as a treat rather than an everyday occurrence. What does it say about the way that this country views fat and health being linked that nobody really made a concerted effort to feed kids better as long as they stayed thin?

The federal guidelines, by all accounts, are not only antiquated but based more on what’s beneficial for farmers who benefit from agricultural subsidies than what’s beneficial for children. Which is the way a number of food assistance programs work (they don’t call it “government cheese” for nothing). In addition, according to Fast Food Nation, school lunch programs often get substandard food through federal programs designed for farmers.

Add to that the vending machines and candy sales that have proliferated in the past 20 years or so as school funding gets cut (not to mention the ads that kids are barraged with) and school districts have to make up the money somewhere.

And look! Who’s been holding back changes to the federal school nutrition guidelines that would allow the federal government to issue guidelines for food sold outside the cafeteria, which is currently left to the states?

A bill sponsored by Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, that is pending in Congress would authorize the Department of Agriculture to update its rules for what could be sold at schools throughout the day. Several previous attempts by Senator Harkin have failed because of opposition from the food and beverage industry.

This time around, however, the American Beverage Association, which represents the soda industry, does not oppose the bill but is trying to iron out differences with Senator Harkin’s staff about rules on beverages. The Snack Food Association favors guidelines rather than a mandate.

Fancy that.

The real kick in the pants of it is, it took the moral panic about kids getting fat for the government to even think about doing anything — and that moral panic is probably the only reason Harkin’s bill will have even a prayer of passing. Who cares that we’re giving kids substandard nutrition, as long as they all look thin?

Oh, wait! I sense a chill. Who could it be?

And while some parents bristle at cupcake crackdowns, others argue that such guidelines are reasonable because children can be inundated with junk food at school.

MeMe Roth said she tried in 2005 to persuade other parents to ban Twinkies, doughnuts and other treats from celebrations at her children’s school in Millburn, N.J. While some parents supported her, Ms. Roth, who is president of an nonprofit organization called National Action Against Obesity, said that some were openly hostile. Her effort ultimately failed.

“Until healthful food stops competing against junk food, it doesn’t stand a chance,” Ms. Roth said.

Ah, it’s the joyless MeMe Roth. Note that the snacks and baked goods she is objecting to are meant for special occasions, like birthdays. Not for every day. And even if you get 30 kids in a class, that’s at most 30 cupcakes over the course of a school year, less if you lump all the vacation birthdays together. Hardly something that’s going to harden the little dears’ arteries right then and there.

More importantly, though, taking away cupcakes on birthdays seems unnecessarily punitive, especially if it’s linked to the fat kids in class. Could you imagine being the fat kid in a class where everyone’s upset that they can’t have cupcakes anymore, and everyone knows it’s because of your fat ass? Moreover, Me!Me!’s approach makes eating healthy seem like punishment or duty, something you do not because, hey, this tastes pretty good, but because you’ve been bad and you need to atone for your sins.

In any event, what’s wrong with a birthday cupcake now and again? Special occasions are supposed to be special, which is why you get cupcakes.

Can’t say I’m terribly sympathetic

Thousands upon thousands of people line up all day to shell out $599 for an iPhone.

Two months later, Apple drops the price $200.

The thousands upon thousands of people who lined up all day to shell out $599 for an iPhone are none too pleased about this development.

Neither is the stock market, which drops Apple’s stock price after this news.

Apple, reluctantly, offers a $100 store credit to the thousands upon thousands of people who lined up all day to shell out $599 for an iPhone. But Steve Jobs is rather put out about it:

But while Mr. Jobs’s letter ended with an apology, its tone was not overly apologetic.

The Apple chief defended his decision to drop the price in preparation for the holiday season. As for those who buy products at a premium only to see the prices fall, he said, “This is life in the technology lane.”

Translation: “Suckers.”

Friday Random Ten – the Goodbye Again edition

I’m heading out to the Rhine to see some castles. If comment moderation is slow, that’s why. See you all on Monday!

1. The Notwist – One With the Freaks
2. Tom Waits – November
3. Radiohead – Sit Down. Stand Up
4. Jets to Brazil – Sea Anemone
5. The Kinks – Big Sky
6. Bob Dylan – Mozambique
7. John Coltrane – Resolution
8. Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds – Girl at the Bottom of My Glass
9. Common – Come Close to Me
10. Bill Evans Trio – Jade Visions (Take 2)

And a Friday West Wing clip, because I’ve spent all evening trying to find The Wire on iTunes and it looks like they don’t have it, so I may just have to order the first two seasons of The West Wing instead. Which is ok, because I’m pretty much completely in love with Sam Seaborn.

Posted in Uncategorized

I am going to Hell for thinking this is funny.

But damn it, I do.

anti-baby-dumping-sticker.jpg

(Before people get all irritated, I am not laughing at baby-dumping. I am not condoning baby-dumping. I am, in fact, against baby-dumping. But I still find the picture hilarious.)

And Lauren sent this to me, so blame her.

Posted in Uncategorized

Help Planned Parenthood Help Women

Planned Parenthood is trying to open a new clinic in Aurora, Illinois — and anti-choice groups are attacking them in full force.

Illinois is desperately in need of greater reproductive health care services. Some stats:

# llinois ranked seventh-highest in 2005 for chlamydia rates and 11th-highest for gonorrhea, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
# The Guttmacher Institute reports that among the 50 states and the District of Columbia, Illinois ranks 46th in the availability of contraceptive services and supplies.
# In Illinois, 1,558,620 women are in need of contraceptive services and supplies.

You can help Planned Parenthood by donating, or by being a part of their ribbon campaign.

Anti-choice bloggers are supporting efforts to keep the Aurora clinic from opening. Fox News is covering the protests. We need a major pro-choice effort to get the word out about the good that PP does — and we need to let people know what the “pro-life” movement actually stands for.

The Aurora protests certainly illustrate the moral bankruptcy of the “pro-life” movement. They’re being led by Joe Scheidler, founder of the Pro-Life Action League. Scheidler is the guy who declared 1985 “a year of pain and fear” for women and doctors.” He calls his group a “pro-life mafia,” and has orchestrated hundreds of violent crimes against abortion providers and patients:

Read More…Read More…

Drive-by puppy-mommying

Over at Feministing Jessica is under fire for buying her dog from a breeder. I’ve been following the thread since yesterday and was planning to write about it, but it looks like Zuzu beat me to it.

But I’ll add a few things. First, I think it’s important to emphasize the fact that I’m very sympathetic to the animal rights cause. I was a vegetarian for eleven years. As a kid, I wrote letters to Proctor & Gamble protesting their animal-testing policies. I make an effort to buy cruelty-free make-up and other beauty products (although I’m aware that the ingredients used to make those products are often tested on animals, even if the products themselves aren’t). I support stricter animal abuse laws, no-kill shelters, and more regulation of the meat and factory farming industries. My childhood dog (who we got from a friend who had to give him up, not a breeder) was a member of my family, and I still get teary-eyed when I talk about him. I absolutely adore my current dog (who we did get from a private breeder, and who lives in Seattle with my mom), and I desperately want to adopt a dog in New York — but because I know I can’t be a good pet owner right now, I haven’t. I have serious issues with, to borrow Carol Adam’s title, the sexual politics of meat (a book sent to me by fellow animal-lover Hugo). Feminism and animal rights do intersect, particularly in terms of the cultural mythology of meat — that is, the masculization of meat-eating, the feminization of vegetarianism, and the imaging of the female body as meat and a product for consumption. These issues matter, and it’s good to discuss them. But the way we discuss them matters too, and I don’t think that the appropriate place to bring them up is in a thread where a feminist blogger posts a cute video of her puppy. Commenters on that thread argued that the weren’t judging Jessica, but were simply criticizing a choice that Jessica made. But I think we all know it’s not that simple, and that separating the choices people make from the people themselves can be tricky business.

When we’re talking about animal rights, ethics and morals are going to play into the conversation, so I’ll put my animal-related moral code out there so that everyone knows where I’m coming from from the get-go. I believe that human beings have a responsibility to take care of ourselves and other animals to the best of our ability. I do not believe, however, that animals are people, too. We have an obligation to treat non-human animals with kindness, to not abuse them, to not subject them to unnecessary pain and suffering. However, I do believe that humans have greater rights than non-human animals. I don’t think that eating meat is morally wrong; I do, however, thing there are serious moral wrongs happening in the meat industry. I don’t think that having a pet is morally wrong; I do, however, think that there are serious moral wrongs happening in the animal-breeding industry. I can understand the argument against consuming animal products, and I do find meat-eating troubling to an extent, even though I do it. And I can understand the arguments against adopting pets from shelters instead of buying them from breeders, even if I think the way they were thrown at Jessica were really offensive and inappropriate.

What I can’t understand are comments like this:

My assumption: animals are not the property of humans to be bought and sold like slaves for our pleasure. They are other nations, to be respected and treated with dignity. Humans are responsible for cat and dog overpopulation, therefor we are responsible for caring for those animals that need care, the ones in shelters. There is absolutely no need to breed animals for profit, be them for pets or meat. It’s slavery and it’s wrong.

Read More…Read More…