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

Exile in Girlville

A couple months ago, the re-release of Exile in Guyville hit the feminist blogosphere like a vibrator to the sweet spot.

Stacy May over at Shameless exhorted everyone to “Come Back to Guyville,” writing:

When my parents decided to move me from my Canadian home to the southern US, I listened to that album over and over the entire drive. I was an angry, angsty grrrl and it was the perfect soundtrack. That album understood me and my burgeoning sexuality, understood my frustrations and yearnings, understood my recent realization that life was kind of a pain in the ass. That album was my first taste of celebrated female anger and empowered female sexuality (Flower, anyone?) Heck, it was my first taste of feminism and I loved it. I loved it over and over again – so much I wore the tape down and had to buy a new copy. It was an awakening.

Ann from Feministing wrote about Exile in Guyville and her feminist click moment.

Kate Harding called it the album that made her a feminist.

And the Jezebelians dedicated quite a few posts to Liz and Exile.

In the midst of all the ringing endorsements, it felt as if I was missing something huge. Somewhere in my turbulent teen years, I had missed a bedrock of feminism! How could this have happened? Since I generally identify as a feminist (on clear sky days, with a low bullshit count) I couldn’t believe that something as important as Exile in Guyville had slipped under my radar.

I immediately surfed over to YouTube to get all the Liz Phair goodness I could.

I listened to “Flower.” Then I went to “Fuck and Run.” I spent some time pondering “Hot White Cum,” switched over to “The Divorce Song” and then, listened to “6”1.”

After that I gave up.

I checked studio tracks and live performances. I listened for most of the afternoon. But after a few hours burned on YouTube, Liz Phair’s music still left me cold. I looked at the lyrics. I love women with guitars. Everything should have fallen into place. But it didn’t.

Liz Phair didn’t move me at all.

Confused, I composed an email to all of my homegirls, asking them for their thoughts on Guyville. Perhaps one of them understood the mythos of Liz Phair and feminism. I held my breath and hit send.

Read More…Read More…

Myths About Labor Unions: Capitalist Salvos in the Class War

Every now and then, someone will take me to task for being a proud member of a labor union. “Why do you belong to a union? They just take your money and run!” or “But unions are so anti-woman!” or “But you’re smart—why do you need to belong to a union?” Sometime it isn’t personal. Sometimes, it’s “concern” over the economy, as with, “But unions drive up costs!” or “They strike all the time!” or “That’s why we don’t have jobs in the United States anymore.” To me, one of the more telling points in all the various anti-labor screeds is the inevitable “they”—when the person is talking to me, a union member. Let’s tease out some typical myths about unions, and get down to the real nitty-gritty (and apologies to non-U.S. readers; this post is U.S.-centric as anti-union sentiment is high in the U.S.):

1. “Unions are why all the jobs left the United States.”
No, not by a long shot. Many jobs evaporated as automation was introduced on a larger scale. Other jobs were outsourced not because of union wages, but because of United States wages; the option to relocate to nonunion areas of the United States wasn’t taken. Corporate greed, a tax code that provides preferential treatment for foreign earnings, the lack of a national healthcare system, desire to avoid environmental laws, avoidance of health and safety laws, helpful dictatorships (subsidized by the U.S., and assisted by the U.S. military) to torture and assassinate labor organizers, and federal programs designed to encourage foreign investment in the form of offshoring had/have far more of an impact than union wages (especially considering the precipitous decline in union membership). White-collar jobs in IT and financial services are outsourced, and those aren’t usually union jobs. It should also bear mention that the United States isn’t the only country that is hemmoraging jobs—the corporate-led race to the bottom is global.

2.“Unions raise the cost of goods and services.”
Because price gouging, market manipulation, monopolies, mergers and acquisitions couldn’t have anything to do with it. Besides, the price of clothing, shoes, food, etc. have all plummeted with outsourcing, right? (Right? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?) And speaking of prices, what is the true cost of those “low, low prices”, hmm? Who is carrying the freight for corporations that don’t provide health insurance? What is the real cost of the impoverishment of communities? And…..why are those prices artificially low to begin with? Those “low prices” are paid for by the blood of women of color.

3.“Unions strike all the time.”
Not even close. The Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates there were 21 work stoppages (BLS does not differentiate between strikes and lockouts) in the U.S. in 2007. Less than 1/10th of one percent of work time is lost to strikes with employers involving 1,000 or more workers; in 98% of all collective bargaining negotiations, agreements are reached without a strike. Despite the rarity of strikes, media coverage of them dominates labor news. The days of newspapers having a “labor beat” are long gone (coinciding with newspapers becoming a nonunion environment).

4.“Unions slow productivity; union workers are goldbrickers.”
Actually, unionized environments in various industries are more productive. Unionized construction workers are more productive.

5.“Unions protect deadbeats; incompetant union workers can’t be fired.”
No union contract forbids an employer from firing a worker who is drunk, high, lazy, incompetant, etc. The union insures that such firings are for ‘just cause’, and not because of discriminatory purposes (too old, too black, too lesbian, speaks Spanish to co-workers, etc.) or because the employer is having a bad day. Union members should be aware of their Weingarten rights.

6.“Unions aren’t necessary anymore; now there are laws to protect workers.”
Uhh, yeah. That’s working out real well for those folks commenting in the Eight Hour thread, isn’t it? Remember the Imperial fire? The one that resembled the Triangle Shirtwaist fire? Workplace fatalities aren’t a thing of the past. Death comes on the installment plan too, as for people who work with or around asbestos, in the chromium industry, in the PVC industry, the textile industry, with benzene (rubber or oil industry workers), or the manufacturing of artificial flavorings for food products (ever hear of Popcorn Lung?). Disability from workplace injury, dangerous working conditions due to understaffing, sexual harassment and assault, workplace discrimination, wrongful termination, violation of privacy, retaliation for whistleblowing, overtime work at straight-time (or no) pay, better pay, regular raises, pensions and other benefits, equal pay—these concerns haven’t gone away.

7.“Unions are racist and sexist.”
Is there racism in the labor movement? Is there sexism in the labor movement? Heterosexism? Damn right there is. Just like everywhere else. Yet while the labor movement gets to be the poster child for prejudicial societal attitudes, female workers and men of color get paid more in a unionized workplace.

8.“Unions are outside agitators, creating adversity with management.”
Because there certainly couldn’t have been any adversity before labor unions. Adversity couldn’t come from management, could it? I wish I had an explanation for the “outside agitators” tack, but I don’t. “They”. “They’re” steering you wrong. It’s a strange version of the “but you’re not like the rest of your people, you’re one of the good ones” game. I just repeat ad infinitum, “I am the union. The union isn’t ‘them’, over there, it’s me, right here.”

9.“Unions mean less flexibility in the workplace and more rules to follow.”
How is abiding by a union contract different from abiding by any other contract? Granted, the union will be there to advocate for the enforcement of any laws or policies that were previously ignored in a nonunion environment, but flexibility? Labor unions are in the forefront for advocating flexibility in the workplace.

10.“Union workers are overpaid.”
BWA HA HA HA! Compared to what? According to whom? Check out corporate pay and golden parachutes, and then tell me who’s overpaid.

11.“Unions are mobbed-up, in bed with the Mafia.”
There were 183 convictions for labor racketeering in the United States in 2007. Fifty-six unions are affliated with the AFL-CIO; most of them have hundreds of locals. My own union (the IBEW) has over 1000 locals in the U.S. It ought to be safe to say that a fraction of one percent of Locals have a problem with organized crime. Although there is a section of the Department of Justice dedicated to the investigation and prosecution of labor racketeers, there is no such counterpart devoted specifically to corporate crime (imagine that!) thus, no handy statistics on corporate crime, either. This helpful website is a good source for information on corporate crime.

12.“Union dues are shakedown money—a net loss from the paycheck.”
Not so. Union pay is higher. Union workers are more likely to have pension and healthcare benefits. This difference is more dramatic for workers in low-wage occupations. Frankly, I enjoy knowing that my pay is the same as any of my white, male union brethren. That sure wouldn’t happen in the nonunion world.

13.“Unions are beneath professional, white-collar workers; unions are only for those (insert sotto voce) uneducated (and back to normal volume) blue-collar workers who can’t do any better.”
Ah yes. Shouldn’t stain the white collar by rubbing elbows with the great unwashed. The problem is, it isn’t true. In the U.S., 51% of union members are white-collar. As lower pay, longer (sometimes uncompensated) hours, understaffing, greater workloads, less autonomy and less respect become the order of the day in the white-collar world, interest in union membership will rise (as is seen in the academic and medical fields).

I just can’t get you (the Bradley Effect) out of my head

cross-posted at my blog and PostBourgie

Andrew Hacker’s essay in the latest issue of the New York Review of Books is something of a mixed bag. The piece is an attempt to measure the possible impact of race – specifically voter registration laws, and the “Bradley Effect” – on the election.  And to some extent, Hacker is successful; he does an excellent job at giving an overview of the current state of voter rights in the country. Specifically, he looks at the Supreme Court’s ruling in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, and the 2002 Help America Vote Act, and shows how the impact of both – whether intentionally or not – has been to suppress voter registration and turn out among African-Americans and other minorities. (This is kind of long, so the rest is after the jump.)

Read More…Read More…

In the Teen Queen Zone

A few years back, teenagers returned to the pop scene with a vengeance. I had entered my third year of high school then, and spent way too much time mercilessly mocking some of my friends for having fallen prey to the latest crop of teen stars from the House of Mouse: namely, Christina Aguilera, *NSync, and Britney Spears.

After all, we were coming of age post-Nirvana, when rock was ruling the airwaves and hip-hop was officially rocketing toward the shiny suit era. While some of my friends suddenly found themselves wearing fuzzy double scrunchies and mouthing disposable songs like “Tearing Up My Heart,” my other friends stayed true to our darker, Gen-X roots, and a good natured musical battle line was drawn.

Still, I didn’t realize how powerful the teen pop had become until I became a floating camp counselor for my local government. It was part of a “Youth Works” program to make sure underprivileged youth had summer jobs and steady income for at least part of the summer. I worked at three different camps that summer, but one stands out in my mind.

Three weeks before labor day, we were sent to help provide support for another summer camp. The camp was holding a massive talent show for all the parents and the kids were just beginning to plan their routine. The other counselors and I were ready to pitch in and help however we could – we thought we would be helping with magic shows, dance routines, funny skits – something standard.

But oh no.

The kids at the camp ranged in age from nine to twelve and they already had their own ideas of cool.

And cool came in the form of the Backstreet Boys, *NSYNC, Mandy Moore, Jessica Simpson, and Britney Spears.

We begged. We pleaded. We pretended that we wouldn’t help them.

But the kids were having none of it.

They were all going to imitate their favorite pop stars, counselors be damned! We eventually folded and started working on their routines with them.

My charge was a young girl named Jayna – a dark haired little cherub with a perma-tan who was painfully shy. She didn’t get along well with the other kids at camp, and was subsequently doing her routine alone. She was often found hiding in a tree somewhere, and practiced singing away from where other people could hear. I would listen to Jayna play the “Baby One More Time” single over and over again trying to hit each note, watch her try to coax her dark hair into the perfect double pigtail, spend hours and hours convincing her that dying her hair blond was a bad idea.

It was in these moments that my internal monologue kicked into high gear.

Why, I would think to myself, why did you have to choose her to emulate? That’s not someone you want to look up to. You can’t be her – please do not become yet another self-hating brown girl trying to live up to the blond blue eyed standard. Don’t you realize that stuff isn’t real? Please, kid, love yourself more than that!

But she couldn’t have heard my words if she wanted to. Her mind was full of each lyric, each dance move, each twirl, each hair flip. And she was determined to become Britney herself and rock the talent show.

So, I continued sighing to myself, and continued to help her practice, hearing the eager chants of the other kids behind us all busy trying to do the best imitations of manufactured pop idols they could.

Read More…Read More…

Can We Call It a Recession, Yet?!

The economic picture over here in “flyover country” isn’t very rosy. The overall unemployment rate in Illinois is 7.3%, but there are sections of the state where the rate is even higher. The State of Illinois is laying off 450 of its employees, and closing 11 state parks and 12 historic sites (including the Frank Lloyd Wright-designed Dana-Thomas house). Illinois has been hammered with job losses, wages have stagnated (actually fallen 0.6% per year since 2000), the cost of gasoline is up (163% since 2000—and don’t get me started on hipsters moaning about how we should all just take the nonexistant bus), the cost of healthcare premiums is up (29.1% for family coverage, 19.8% for individual coverage—and those folks can count themselves “lucky” as they aren’t among the 13.9% of Illinois residents without health insurance), child care costs, utility costs, food costs—no wonder 1.4 million Illinois residents (11% of the population) and 15.3% of Illinois children are below the poverty line.

How’s the economy where you live? How is your personal economy? Have you ever checked the Senate’s Joint Economic Committee website for the state-by-state snapshots?

Feminism, Race, and Sexist Dating Guides

One of the many issues I have with feminism is how my racial identification is treated as a problem, separate from the “real issues” that feminism seeks to deal with – despite the fact that the world perceives me as a “black woman” rather than a “woman.” (The “white” that goes before “woman” is silent.) My race is supposed to go unmentioned and unnoticed – until, there is some kind of “black culture” thing to tsk-tsk and blame on the inherent sexism in the black community.

So, it was with great trepidation that I clicked on a header post from Feministing. Titled “Dating Advice from Assholes: ‘Stop Treating Women Well,‘” Ann summarizes a Washington Post article about yet another crappy book about how to catch a man.

Titled “The Re-Education of the Female” (charming, right?) some bama basically regurgitates the same bullshit being spouted at women since time eternal – cook, clean, fuck, and STFU. The cover lets me know that my initial eye-roll was the right reaction.

Boooo!

Now, Ann’s post was cool, and I was about to click off to some other part of the internet, but for some reason, I decided to read the comments.

The first ten or so were cool, expressing general disgust at the ignorant sentiments. And then, we get to this one:

I echo the sentiments already expressed. I am disgusted by this.

I am also disheartened by the fact that this filth is targeted at black women. I have a feeling that black women generally (but not all, of course) would be more susceptible to these ideas. There seems to be an a fairly strong sentiment among many black women that they need to stand by “their” men, as though they are disgracing themselves and their heritage by dating outside of their race. I have several times seen reference to the shrinking number of black men due to incarceration and consequently a shrinking dating pool, the implication always seeming to be that women have little choice but to date in this pool. Furthermore, there is the specter of single motherhood looming over black women. I fear that the expectation that black women date black men and the fear of scarcity of good black men will cause the women who identify with these issues the most to buy into these horrid ideas for fear of ending up alone otherwise.

*sigh*

Paging the white savior – the Negro women need your guidance!

Read More…Read More…

Another sign that Democrats are rediscovering their backbone

At the Politico, Ben Smith reports that in several states – Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado, and Iowa – Obama is running radio ads criticizing McCain  for his stance on abortion rights.  Noam Scheiber, after commenting on how unusual this is, notes that it’s probably a good move on Obama’s part, since a majority of Americans support abortion rights in one form or another, and pro-choice Republican women are likely to be turned off by McCain/Palin’s strongly pro-life views.  Like Scheiber, I’m a little surprised to see Obama running explicitly on his abortion stance – normally Democrats are either compromising or capitulating – but I’m glad to see it happening.  The steady erosion of reproductive rights over the past twenty or so years has happened in part because Democrats have been unwilling to make the positive case for reproductive rights.  Granted, this ad campaign is somewhat limited, but it is still very heartening to see a Democrat run towards, and not way from, the party’s stance on abortion.

Amy Goodman Arrested

UPDATE: Video of Democracy Now! producer Nicole Salazar’s arrest is now available. She filmed it herself. Trigger warning, because it’s very disturbing. And thanks to Ashley for the link.

Amy Goodman is a journalist with Democracy Now!, feminist, activist and all around one of the most bad ass women I can think of. I’ve have the privilege of watching her speak at two separate Planned Parenthood functions, and she is both riveting and inspiring. Both times she had me nearly in tears. But beyond all of that, the simple fact is that she didn’t do anything to deserve arrest. And yet, at the RNC, arrested she was. For doing her job as a journalist.

The video is below. It’s upsetting.

From CREDO Action:

Jailing journalists is unacceptable in a democracy. But that’s exactly what is happening at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn.

Award winning journalist and host of “Democracy Now” Amy Goodman was arrested by St. Paul police while covering a protest outside the Republican National Convention. Though clearly identified as press, Goodman was charged with “obstruction of a legal process and interference with a ‘peace officer.'” Two of her producers were arrested for “suspicion of felony riot.”

[. . .]

Goodman and her producers were released last night. (An AP photographer was also arrested and released). But the charges are still pending.

This story has been virtually ignored by the mainstream press. The cable channels are providing extensive coverage of events related to the Republican National Convention, but there has been a virtual news blackout on the arrest of Amy Goodman and the Democracy Now team.


Through CREDO Action you can write to major news outlets demanding that they cover this story.
Because there is no excuse for the lack of reporting on this issue. (What, are they afraid that they’ll arrest Anderson Cooper, too?)

Through Free Press, you can write to St. Paul authorities to demand that charges are dropped and that journalists stop being intimidated and harassed.

This is our fucking First Amendment rights at stake. This is unacceptable.

Oh, and by the way? This has been going on for a couple days. Amy Goodman was not the first journalist to receive this treatment — though she did cover the raids personally, and I wouldn’t doubt if that’s why she was targeted.

For more, check out Democracy Now!’s website. As one would expect, they have all of the latest updates.

ETA: BFP has a lot more, including video of Amy Goodman discussing her arrest and the arrest of the other Democracy Now! personnel.

cross-posted at the Curvature

“The Same”

Here, for your viewing pleasure, is the newest attack ad from the Obama campaign:

watch?v=8xukbiS8q9s

The Obama campaign has been hammering pretty hard on McCain=Bush theme for awhile now, but I think this is the first time they’ve explicitly made the connection using pictures and video (a video I didn’t even know existed!).  Honestly, if the Obama campaign keeps this up, I don’t see how McCain can recover, absent some major gaffe from Obama or Biden.  The national mood may not be completely against Republicans, but it certainly is against Bush, and if voters begin to instinctually associate McCain with Bush, then it’s game over for the Republicans.

cross-posted at The United States of Jamerica

Sarah Palin’s not-so-hidden extremism

Ezra Klein on Sarah Palin’s apparent taste for extremism:

Sarah Palin is a secessionist, or at least is sympathetic enough to the cause that she belongs to a political group whose mission is to “seek the complete repatriation of the public lands, held by the federal government, to the state and people of Alaska in conformance with Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, of the federal constitution.” I guess the least bad explanation here is that the Alaska Independence Party has some clout in Alaska, and Palin was an ambitious pol willing to put aside her distaste for secession if it would advance her career, but is that really so helpful? That she was willing to partner up with a group that’s fundamentally more radical on secession than the Nation of Islam? That doesn’t worry anyone on the McCain campaign?

There’s a worrying emergence of extremist tendencies in Palin. So far as we know — and we’re only about five days in — she’s been enthusiastic about Pat Buchanan, Steve Forbes, the Alaska Independence Party, and Ron Paul. In other words, she’s allied herself with radical culture warriors, radical conservative economics, radical secessionists, and radical libertarian/isolationists. This is someone who’s pretty comfortable on the fringe of the right wing.

This alone shows the degree to which the press pulls it’s punches with the Republicans.  If Barack Obama were a member of the Nation of Islam, or had previously expressed support for black secessionism, he would still be a relatively obscure Illinois state senator, if that.  Hell, the fact that he had a black pastor, and served on the same community board as an aging 60s radical has been enough to paint him as some sort of leftist radical.  I can’t even the fathom the shitshow which would go down if it turned out that Obama was sympathetic to folks like Lewis Farrakhan.  Obama (or any Democrat, for that matter) probably couldn’t read A People’s History of the United States without the media painting him as a “far-left ideologue.”

Sarah Palin’s affinity for extremists is worrying.  It suggests that she would be amenable to policies – the flat tax, blanket abortion bans, disengagement with the rest of the world – which are very far outside of the mainstream.  Americans deserve to hear about Palin’s relationship with the far-right; it’s far more relevant and far more important than any nonsense about her pregnant daughter.

cross-posted at The United States of Jamerica