feminist blogs

She was arrested for committing a misdemeanor in the room where the State of the Union speech was held:

Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a fallen soldier in Iraq who reinvigorated the anti-war movement, was arrested and removed from the House gallery Tuesday night just before President Bush's State of the Union address, a police spokeswoman said.

Sheehan, who had been invited to attend the speech by Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., was charged with demonstrating in the Capitol building, a misdemeanor, said Capitol Police Sgt. Kimberly Schneider. Sheehan was taken in handcuffs to police headquarters a few blocks away and her case was processed as Bush spoke.

Schneider said Sheehan had worn a T-shirt with an anti-war slogan to the speech and covered it up until she took her seat. Police warned her that such displays were not allowed, but she did not respond, the spokeswoman said.

Sometimes being a liberal blogger is hard work, hard work. I had to watch the State of the Union speech tonight, and I usually avoid seeing wingnuts actually moving and kissing each other and rubbing each other's heads and stuff. I had to watch all of that tonight, and it was like fireants crawling all over my body. So many wingnuts in one room. Gulp.

Then George Bush walked in and shook hands and kissed cheeks, and everybody cheered and applauded and couldn't stop, and it all reminded me of the Emperor's New Clothes. And then the speech started, and indeed, as the betting predicted, there was a reference to 9/11 in the first few paragraphs. But the rest of the speech was about freedom, freedom and more freedom. Freedom from medical insurance in the United States, freedom to have theocracies in the Middle East which will give women no rights, because "their" idea of a democracy isn't ours, freedom from anyone criticizing him who isn't willing to back him up.

And freedom to pay hardly any taxes if you earn a lot, which translates into a freedom to starve if you don't earn a lot. But it's all freedom, you know.

George gave us a lot of good emotions. In that way the speech was like one of those Hostess cakes which looks like a real cake and tastes sweet but in the long-run will lead you into killing your nearest and dearest and then you can use the Hostess cake defence. (Except it wasn't a Hostess cake but some other kind of American weird cake, the name of which escapes me.) George tried to take a leaf from Ronald Reagan's book: Americans love feeling good and being told that they are special and meant to lead the whole world. It is nice to hear how much good we have done in combating AIDS in Africa, except Bush hasn't really delivered on that, and how we are going to have a lot more advanced mathematics classes in schools (with what money?), and how we are, once again, going to find cheaper substitutes for imported oil. George has promised to do this every single year, and so far he hasn't actually done anything important. All this is mainly emotional titillation. I look forward to seeing the actual programs get started but that might take a while. Like until after 2008.

On the other hand, the radical right-wing clerics will get more money and embryos will be treasured. Already born children, not so much. Especially not if they happen to be in Iraq. Iraq was a major topic, too, but I forgot what he said on it. Nothing new, in any case.

There were inaccuracies and outright lies. The funniest assertion was possibly the one where Bush said that if he had been able to do illegal wiretapping before 9/11, it could have been prevented, because it is known that some of the Al Qaeda members were making phone calls from the U.S. to their foreign contacts! This was funny, because of course we all remember that government document entitled, roughly: "Bin Laden Determined to Attack America". If a government document didn't make George do anything, why would illegal wiretapping?

Then there was the elaborate skirting around the "corruption in high places" meme. No names were mentioned and nothing was said about the scandal being largely Republican. This is only natural, sure, but I still have to make a note of it.

Still, the most memorable of all Bush's utterances was his appeal to bipartisanism and civility in debate! You can criticize, but only if you are willing to criticize constructively, which means that you must agree with where Bush is trying to take this country. Like right into an abyss. Democrats are welcome to tell the administration how to get to the abyss quicker and with more force but not tell the administration that the abyss isn't a good idea in the first place.

I should say something nice about the whole SOTU experience. I liked the dog in the audience a lot. He or she looked very wise.
===
A transcript of the speech is available here.

911911911911911911911 Addicted to oil 911911911911911911911911911911 Health care accounts 911911911911911 Rising costs 911911911911911911911911 911911911911911911 911 911911911911911911911911911 911911911911 Salute the troops 911911911911911 911911911911 danger 911911 Chalabi 911911911911911911911911 The Architect 911911 911911911911911911911911911911 911911911911911911911 911911911911 911911911 911911911911 Leadership 911911911911911911911911911 911911911911 secure the peace 911911911 911911911911 borders 911911911911 911911911911911 Global Vision 911911911911911 911911911 911911911911 Katrina 911 911911911911911911 911911911911 911911911911911911911911911911911911 911911911911911911 911911911911911911911911911 911911911911911911 911911911911911911 911911911911

In all of the WoW madness I forgot to blog the one IMPORTANT thing of the day Coretta Scott King, 78 passed away today. Ms. King was a wonderful activist in her own right. May she rest in peace.

I have to say that I am having a good time arguing abot this over at Utopian Hell: The Great Gay Controversy! I know, who woulda thunk I'd like to argue anything!!

Toril over at thinking with my fingers has weighed in with her post "That's so gay..."

I come to this news late: Coretta Scott King has died at age 78. May we carry on her mantle of racial justice and peace....

So it seems that Tom Friedman isn’t happy with the State of the Union speech that he’s likely to get; he decided to play make believe and write his own speech for Bush to read. If I recall correctly, this routine has been part of Friedman’s schtick for a few years; the whole thing seems more than just a bit self-important to me, but then, so does the State of the Union speech. Friedman’s idea, it seems, is that Bush should suddenly change into an alternative energy crank (or perhaps skip halfway steps and just suddenly change into Tom Friedman); and that he should use the bully pulpit to expound his newfound faith and lay down a Kennedyesque challenge to the American energy industry. (If he does not jawbone us about Friedman’s pet cause, apparently, you can stick a fork in the Bush Presidency.) So here’s what he’s informed Mr. Bush he’d like to hear tonight:

My fellow Americans, on May 25, 1961, President Kennedy gave an extraordinary State of the Union address in which he called on the nation to marshal all of its resources to put a man on the Moon. By setting that lofty goal, Kennedy was trying to summon all our industrial and scientific talent, and a willingness to sacrifice financially, to catch up with the Soviet Union, which had overtaken America in the field of large rocket engines.

While we cannot guarantee that we shall one day be first, Kennedy said, we can guarantee that any failure to make this effort will make us last.

I come to you this evening with a similar challenge. President Kennedy was worried about the threat that communism posed to our way of life. I am here to tell you that if we don’t move away from our dependence on oil and shift to renewable fuels, it will change our way of life for the worse — and soon — much, much more than communism ever could have. Making this transition is the calling of our era. …

—Tom Friedman, New York Times (2006-01-27): State of the Union

… and so on, and so forth.

Well, I have my own ideas about what’s important. So I humbly submit my own speech for Mr. Bush to consider giving tonight. I know that this is last minute, but it would be surprisingly easy for him to memorize. And I think it’s important. If Mr. Bush steps up to this challenge, the speech could be a new beginning for our country. If he doesn’t, you can stick a fork in this administration. It will be done — because it will have abdicated leadership on the biggest issue of our day. So here’s the speech I’ll be listening for tonight:

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Cheney, members of Congress, fellow Americans…

I resign.

Anything else is just going to mean more of the same old bullshit.

Postscript

Just remember: when these folks get in front of the camera they just lie. Politicians’ aims are political victory, not truth, and not justice. Hanging on the words and dickering about this or that point and fuming about this or that plain non sequitur will be talking past them entirely. You may as well spend the same amount of time cleaning your house, or sorting old photographs, or sucking on lemons.

Pointing out some piece of plain nonsense may have some value in provoking other people—the so-called rank and file, i.e., you and me—to think for a moment; and it may be worthwhile to use it to call on those other people to discourse that moves a bit beyond the braying of talking-points. But lingering on the endless talk of politicials or the professional political windbags inside the Beltway, as if these folks care what we think, or about what is true, is like trying to beat a street hustler at his three-card monty. It’s a scam. Just walk away.

—GT 2005-02-02: The State of the Union: live-blogged for you!

Apparently, a filibuster was seen as terribly divisive.

Let's forget that so many voters called these senators, some had to switch off their phones.  Their voice mailboxes were full.  They were flooded with calls and faxes from people who wanted them to read the phonebook, recite Shakespeare, do whatever to stall the nomination.

Yeah, it wasn't a nice suggestion, but politics isn't the place to be if you're looking for nice. We vote for people so they will represent us and our interests.  Stepping out of the way and allowing the confirmation of a far-right justice--a justice whose nomination was orchestrated by the Federalist Society--is not in the people's best interest. 

Besides which, the GOP has been quite happy to use the filibuster in the past.  Why on earth is everyone so intent on being nice?  Yes, the GOP would have likely ramed the confirmation through, but the Democrats would have shown the people who support them that they wouldn't go down without a fight.

Oh, there's a divide, alright.  It's between the Democratic senators and the rank-and-filers who are getting sick of supporting them and being let down.

I knew at age five that I didn't want to get married and have children, and I've never seriously questioned that decision. (And I'm now about to turn 40.) I knew then that it was unusual, but reading E. Kay Trimberger's The New Single Woman I came to understand why many people, Americans in particular, find it not just odd, but extraordinary.

She asks: "Is it possible to be a single woman in one's fifties with a full life and a lot of joy?" My answer, "well of course; you're at least as likely to be happy than if you are married or, at least as likely, going through a divorce." Yet, as Trimberger points out, the general answer is: "Not if you listen to the cultural messages beamed at us.... Only in an intimate couple will we find emotional satisfaction, sexual fulfillment, companionship, security and spiritual meaning." (I'd added, from everything I've read and seen: "particularly in America". These pressures also exist in Britain and the UK, but being societies generally less keen to enforce conformity, they are not as strong.)

Trimberger, by profession a sociologist (she's professor emerita of women's and gender studies at Sonoma State University), over a decade from 1994 followed the progress of a group of 46 middle-class, largely professional women, some white, some African American, some Latina, to explore how their personal and professional lives developed through their thirties, forties and fifties. Her initial finding was that "almost all of the women, even those in their fifties, whether heterosexual, lesbian or bisexual, still hoped to find the 'right one'."

In part seeking answers for her own life -- she's a never-married woman who adopted a child on her own at age 40 -- Trimberger seeks to identify the steps, emotional and practical, they needed to take to become "happy". She eventually arrives at six key points that she believes single women need:
1. A home "that nurtures her, whether she lives by herself or with other people".
2. Work that is satisfying, allows her to be economincally autonomous, and that also provides "a psychological identity but is not her whole life".
3. Satisfaction with her sexuality, whatever that means.
4. Some connection with the next generation - family relationships, volunteering, proteges or similar.
5. A network of family and friends "that provides companionship and people they can rely on in times of trouble".
6. A community built around that friendship network.

Yet looking objectively at this list, it is clear that this is not just a list for single women, but for all women, and men. Trimberger says:

"When we embark on adulthood, few of us really know where we will end up. Given that, it is important for single women in their twenties, thirties and forties more consciously to pursue these goals. Whether they hope to couple or not, this is the route to a richer life and one with more options later on. Conversely, to focus primarily on finding a partner while other parts of life are neglected is a recipe for unhappiness."

That list also addresses one of the biggest fears Trimberger's subject identify, as a successful African American woman she calls Lanette says, even though she's already made financial arrangements:

"Whenever I pick up the paper at Christmas-time and see a story about an older woman who has no relatives, who needs a couple of hundred bucks so that her lights don't get turned off, I say to my mother, 'That's my fear. I'll be eighty-five years old and all my family and friends will have passed on, and because I have not partnered myself, I'll end up here."

My reaction to this is that most women will end up this way anyway; even if partnered, and happily partnered, the mortality statistics mean that most women will end up on their own. And while some children might be in a position to take a large role in these circumstances, many will not be able, or will not want, to do so.

But Trimberger is resolutely focused not on comparisons, but on the strategies her subjects attempt to take to deal with this and other concerns. And she has hugely reassuring tales from two of her subjects, both of whom died of breast cancer during the decade. Yet they died not alone, but within large friendship networks, which looked after both their practical and emotional needs. The account of Diane is particularly inspiring:

"She told me that she preferred to rely on friends rather than family members. Although her daughter had moved back in with her, Diane wanted her to have her own life. Diane's mother was eighty-six, and her sister and cousins lived several hours away. Diane shared her fears more intimately with her friends, for she felt that they could handle her illness more objectively and philosophically. Family members got too upset and made dealing with the cancer more difficult for her."

Yet, as Trimberger points out, much needs to change in the framework of society to facilitate such networks of care.

Hospitals ... often admit only immediate family members (which, in progressive institutions now include domestic partners) to intensive care units and the rooms of those who are seriously ill or dying. ... Workplace bereavement policies do not include paid time off to attend the funeral of a friend. Even the most progressive family leave policies provide time off only for the care of family members ... Public policies that help build networks of care will improve the life of all adults."

The fact is that societies are returning to more historically normal levels of childlessness and "singleness". The New Single Woman points out that in 1950 20 per cent of women aged 40-45 were childless; the 2002 figure of 18 per cent is heading in the same direction. Trimberger quotes a psychological survey which says motherhood is no longer "necessarily central to the development of women's sense of her adult self". Yet of course what is needed is to find alternative adult selves, as women in earlier ages did. In the end, Trimberger concludes, in the words of one of her subjects: "The art is in making the choice you can live with."

This book offers, through practical examples and advice, a framework for doing just that. Trimberger's case studies from one social class, and one nation, which does limit its scope. (For many women with low-incomes financial constraints ensure daily survival is the most choice that they have.) But there's still something here for anyone, particularly any woman, who wants to address the question: "How can I have a good life?"