Showing posts with label society. Show all posts
Showing posts with label society. Show all posts

Monday, October 10, 2011

This is such great news. Poland is changing!

Yesterday Poland hold election to the both chambers of Polish Parliament (Sejm and Senat). I am not particularly involved in the political life, especially that I don't really know that much having just returned from the US, but there are some interesting and exciting moments from this day. The first? Right here:



Born as a man, Ms Grodzka, now 57, completed her gender change last year with the help of the Trans-Fuzja organisation focused on gender change.
Topping the Palikot Movement party list in the devoutly Catholic southern city of Krakow - once home to the late Polish-born pope John Paul II - Ms Grodzka was thrilled by Sunday's strong showing at the polls.
"I'm not yet sure if I've been elected, but I'm very happy with the result scored by the Palikot movement," she said at a jubilant election night celebration at Palikot Movement headquarters in Warsaw.
"If I'll be elected in Krakow, I'll be Poland's first transgender woman, and the only transgender MP not only in Poland, but the entire world," she said. "In New Zealand, there was Georgina Beyer, but she is no longer an MP since 2007," Ms Grodzka added.
"Today, Poland is changing. I am the proof along with Robert Biedron, a homosexual and the head of an anti-homophobia campaign who ran for office in Gdynia," a city on Poland's Baltic coast.

Yep. We have a transgender woman and a big out there gay in the Parliament. In the addition to it, a few more unusual and quite out of the mainstream personas... Right in the faces of the tea party mentality PiS and other parties. Finally some anti-clerical, pro social change and openness politicians. We will see how well they do, but I am hopefull :)

Tuesday, October 4, 2011

What I have learned from watching Polish commercials

Not that they are that different to the American ones... I simply didn't know much about them, as I hardly ever watched any tv in the US. Now I am watching it a lot, mostly thanks to living with my Mom, who loves it and for whom it's the main (only?) source of entertainment.

I also never believed the world of advertisment to be on the frontier of the fight for gender equality or social education... it is though a nice mirror of the social expectations and the lower common ground with which the producers try to connect.

So...

* Children and men have passions and hobbies, women just love to be with their families
* Mothers are the only ones who care for children's health. If men appear in medicine ads, it's as germs spreaders in need of the motherly care and help, along with their children.
* Beer is a male thing, and manhood is all about strength and machismo
* Poles are very prone to cold and flu, as well as digestive issues. They must be also concerned with thier figures (no surprise here). The cholesterol scare is also quite strong on this side of the pond... Miracle margarines and "healthy and safe" pills. *sigh*
* Polish mothers are supposed to be even more obsessed and terrified about every step of their children. The mass of children-oriented pills, candies and drinks that are supposed to pack the kids with immunity support, vitamins, and what not is quite impressive.
* Either the Poles are obsessed with, or are NOT obsessed enough according to the banks, with credits. The number of high-quality, star-packed, and really well-done ads about different kind of credits or saving options is astounding. The cellphone market must also be not saturated yet, another field with really good ads. This is the field in which I can see serious creativity, sense of humor and probably good money in the ads' production. I love the fashion for local cabaret* stars.
* Different kinds of milk snacks and sweets are more common to see in ads than chips or nachos and similar kind of stuff. And most of the ads seem to be done in Germany or other countries with just Polish dubbing...


* Polish "cabaret" (kabaret) is extremely popular, and it's kind of group stand up comedy.

Monday, October 3, 2011

and as usual, the feminists are responsible for everything.

I watched a morning talk show today, which by the way is really surprising to myself. The topic of their casual talk was why women like "bad boys". There was a psychologist, a writer and some other random people talking. One of the argued causes of this kind of behavior was lack of self appreciation and self worth in women. And how can you cure it? By hearing booty calls. I kid you not. One of these women said how great it was when she was in Italy and some guys called her "bella" and how great she felt, and that is needed for women to feel good. But it's impossible because the crazy feminsts cry "sexist!" "abuse!". It was actually a guy who basically said he would not whistle on a woman, and he refused behaving in that way, feeling a bit embarassed, as if he felt guilty for not treating women like a piece of meat!

So basically women to feel good about themselves still need men, and male gaze and sexual interest. I can't get this twisted logic. Having strong self worth is helpful in more situations than just getting into toxic relationships, but seriously, why still this kind of way of building it? And that was from some supposedly educated and sophisticated ladies.

so sad...

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

the so called pro-life folks.

I've just read this article on ThinkProgress. It discusses another campaign directed at the made up "Black genocide" that is supposed to be happening at the moment through abortions. One of the billboards is this:



Just recently I was thinking something very slightly similar. How many talents are wasted, how many Einsteins never discovered, how many talents never get explored. But not because of abortion, but rather what happens with the poor and unwanted that are being born and no one cares after. I wish the "pro-life" people focused more on helping the ones who are around us already, instead of just on fetuses. Some how the "fetus in danger" becomes totally uninteresting another black mouth in line to food stamps, together with his/her mother the butt of racist jokes and continues to live through racist and classist  abuse through legal system. 


This is sick. In what world a cluster of cells has more rights and worth than a human being?

Sunday, March 13, 2011

Kenyan and a Pole, two close cousins.

I am quite fascinated how much I have in common with my new Kenyan friend. So much in our past - personal, national - is very similar! Our experiences here, in the US also match, we complain about the same thing, we praise the same things. To me it's just such a beautiful example how all this "race" thing is artificially created to support divisions, oppression and organized religion.

Looking forward to find even more common ground. As well as the new, unknown and different.

Monday, December 20, 2010

bloody racists

I have read the article about Mississippi's governor whitewashing history and spreading gospel about racist Citizens Council. You would think they were holding hands with poor black kids when taking them to finally desegregated schools for which they fought so bravely! Is he in such a denial, or simply feels it is not politically beneficial to be openly supportive of a hateful, racist organization? It was mentioned that he remembered participating in an event where Dr. Martin Luther King spoke... among other white and black folks. Suddenly it's all "take back King" for whites, started with Glenn Beck. It's such a perverted, twisted way of racist game, that it's hard to even comment on it. What is going on? Do the Americans really know nothing about their own history? With the accepted changes to history textbooks from Texas board of education, I am not surprised... celebrating the Secession, whitewashing the times of Jim Crow laws, glamorizing the slave oppression times.

I just can't wrap my mind around it. I don't get it. I am able to understand a lot, I know where it comes from... but I am extremely rational, all logic. I can't understand how others can't understand what I know to be obvious and simple truth. Like that humans are all same, and race is a cultural concept. Or that we have a truly awesome history of evolution. That our, Western, culture is just one among others and the only thing we got better at was to oppress and kill off other tradition deemed "primitive". I see ads or tv shows and can't just watch without seeing sexist, racist or fat phobic elements. How can it be that it is not as obvious to others?

I guess the data stating that almost half of the American believe in Creationism explains a lot. It's a sad, sad place sometimes.

Sunday, November 14, 2010

making friends

I am an Innie. It's not easy to make friends for people like me. I am anxious in social situations, it takes me ages to get to used to someone's presence, not to even mention some kind of intimate relationship. In addition to being an Innie, I also have some social phobias and anxiety which really don't help. The only way I feel comfortable getting to know someone is kind of by accident. As a side effect or unexpected consequence. Like when in school and realizing after couple months that there is one or two people I really enjoy, and somehow we are friends without thinking about it. Setting me up terrifies me, no matter how good someone's intentions. Social gatherings exhaust me and hardly ever lead to anything significant (unless repeated multiple times in a natural way).

So now, I think I am getting a friend. Slowly. There is this guy who is an intern, who was present in some of my classes... I kept forgetting his name which was embarrassing (twice I didn't introduce him by name to my class b/c I forgot it) and I still don't remember his family name. Our first conversations were awkward and stressful (to me), it was more about what I thought I should have been saying, than any natural creation. But slowly we started to joke here and there, we realized we have some similar hobbies. We started to comment on FB, and somehow a thought came to me: "I think it would be nice to hang out with him, even outside of work".

I like it that way. Slowly, naturally, no pushing, no expectations. If we don't like each other enough to be friends, we simply remain in our work-roles. All this process (that took over two months I think), reminded me how typically difficult my social relations are. I guess I should be glad I am an Innie, it must be a hell for anxious Extrovert with social phobias...

A while ago I was teaching my kids on the meaning of our sages' saying "find yourself a teacher, acquire for yourself a friend". And I guess I was right, we are "acquiring" friends, not just "finding" them. It's a hard work, full of tension, possible pitfalls and risks. Once in a while worth engaging in.

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

trivializing the symbols of hatred

In preparation for a class I wanted to find a photo of crowds cheering for Hitler. I teach Holocaust, and at the moment we learn about Hitler rise to power. I googled: "crowds welcoming Hitler". Every other photo was with President Obama. What the fuck, people?! This is offensive on so many levels... I am not even talking about the obvious ignorance of people posting it, but the lack of any understanding, any comprehension of what it actually means to compare anyone to Hitler... this is simply beyond me. It's not only offensive to Obama, as it would be to any normal person, but it is to the 11 mln victims of sick, perverted racist hatred spilled by Hitler all over Europe. It might be that I am extra sensitive, being Jewish and from Poland. There, Hitler is still subject of jokes (as himself), but is never used as a serious attack on anyone, I can't remember anyone ever being likened to him as a way to criticize or express one's dislike of opponent's policies.

The word "Nazi" is never used in a silly way, but the word is still heavy and smells of blood, even a few generations later. I cringe every time I see "grammar Nazi" and similar creations. Or see icon with Hitler and his troops for "admin/moderator". Most Nazis were walking, breathing killing machines, throwing infants out of windows, cutting women's bellies open, burning people alive or shooting dead innocent crowds humiliating and robbing them first. All of them preached extermination, death, supremacy of one kind of a human over another. These words should be remembered for what they stand for, with their real meaning.

The same goes for "Holocaust". This name is reserved for a particular even in History. There is no "animal holocaust" nor "zombie holocaust". There even is no "Armenian Holocaust", but Armenian Genocide. There are "massacres", "mass killings", "destruction", "annihilation" and other terms that could be used, depending on a context.

I have nothing against using Hitler in historical or political comparisons. Using facts, real numbers and events. Real words, speeches and policies. Studied them first in depth and not based on half-truths, stereotypes and myths. Hitler is not a symbol one can stretch to one hateful heart's desire. He was a real person, living in real historical context.

Tuesday, October 5, 2010

another day in subversive teaching: privilege freedom to/from learning

I've talked already a few times with my kids about privilege. How they understand it, what it means to have it etc. The terms was basically foreign to them, other than having it easier when you are older sibling, or being rewarded in some way.

It was really hard to get through, and I really wonder what they thought after. They were surprised with some examples, and I tried to give them mostly in general or about me, not them. They finally came up with their own - that they are privileged to have a chance to learn in a small community school or to live in a comfortable house. We were getting somewhere. But race, size, gender or sexuality were much more difficult. I guess we got used more to talk about money?

I must say I didn't cross the line to use me us underprivileged in terms sexuality... I still have troubles with them. I used "a gay person" as an example. One day I will be completely open. I think it's not about being... ashamed or anything of that kind, but it's just private!


Some other time, with different students we talked about what is freedom and slavery. Their responses were very thoughtful. But, not surprisingly as there is very little said about it, they didn't know there is still slavery in the US. One kid mentioned sexual exploitation and child trafficking. Soon we will have a research project on modern slavery, they will learn more about the situation in today's world, and the ways to help.

There is one thing that is my serious pet peeve. It's the kids who are oh, such victims, because they are forced to go to school and they are "not even paid". As we say in Polish, blood washes all over me when I hear such snotty, spoiled, privileged talk. I told them of course they are paid pretty well with their clothing, roof, food etc. but then they said that their parents have the obligation... yeah, but not to buy iPods, dozens pairs of shoes, iPhones, gadgets, movies, computers.... these kids don't have any idea. When I said that the obligation was set to protect children's rights, they were all in "pfffft" mode. And the argument about small children in factories was almost ridiculed. I was really close to losing it... I just have to remind myself that these kind of attitudes do not change overnight. I just hope she wakes up

just breath... in... and out... day by day.

Friday, October 1, 2010

Halloween is coming

And with it flood of tasteless, over sexualized and simply ugly costumes.
Halloween is not my tradition, so I am not excited about it and don't have any fond childhood memories. In Poland this day is celebrated by visiting family graves, contemplation, prayer and generally filled with very "memento mori" atmosphere.

I have noticed a few entries over various blogs bringing examples of costumes advertised for this season. All of the ones I've seen are offensive for one or another reason. I find them extremely sexist, reducing women to sex objects, often culturally insensitive.

I have decided to look by myself if the bloggers were cherry picking and exaggerating or if indeed it's that bad.
Well, it is bad.
First, the costumes for adult women as compared to adult men:

I found one or two examples were men were portrayed somewhat "sexy", mirroring their female counterparts:

The only images where women were not made up to look like Playboy fantasies occupants, was in a "hoop clown" costume.

Now to the culturally offensive... Looks like the "Indian Princess" and "Gypsy lady" win the competition. I was wondering what a male version would look like, thinking of some bare chest "warrior" disaster. I found even better: woman is the "Indian princess", man is a cowboy. I don't even have words...

What is also interesting, their "teen" section seem to differ only is slightly better breast coverage.

Now to the children costumes. The toddlers are still more or less sweet and cute, gender neutral. But when we enter the section for pre-teen and teens, the division is very clear. Boys' costumes are warriors, robots, fighters, action figures, super heroes/villains and generally strong characters with pants, often bulky clothing disguising the body's shape. Not so with girls' costumes. As far as I've seen all of them have skirts, mostly mini-skirts. The difference to adult costumes is, that the skirts are often fluffy and bulky instead of tightly skin-like. The characters are all over the place... witches, bees, butterflies, skeletons, ballerinas, dancers... I am guessing the girls could use the boys' costumes if they wanted, but it is pretty clear that most of them are made with gender in mind. Let's see some examples:

Differences between boys' and girls' costumes of the same theme:


I think I am glad I am not part of that all. It's a pity how early on the sexualization of little girls begin.

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

what's in a name?

I've read Freakonomics a while ago, and similarly to many people, really liked it. Today I spotted on the CNN.com an interview with the maker of Supersize Me, who is also making a movie based on Freakonomics. The subject of the interview was the fascinating chapter about the impact of names on one's success. I thought it was really great, and gave a lot to think about and offered more than one ways of interpreting the facts and study results.
What put me off on CNN though, was that the title for a link to this interview was "Is your name holding you back?" I know that not all of the names discussed in the book are based on racial or ethnic divisions, but it was the focus of the main study (Sending identical CVs, one with obviously African-American name, the other with Anglo-Saxon sounding name. The latter ones got 35% more responses.).
I find that the title suggests that it's the person's (or his/her parents') fault that others are bigots. Instead of calling it what it might be (racism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and various other -isms) the responsibility and blame is thrown on the victim. The speaker suggested that the parent should think twice before giving a kid ethnic name. I am glad that the guy pointed out that the problem is across the board, and calling a child "Hillbilly" name might be risky in a way as well (associating stereotypes about people from rural areas etc.). But again, the problem is not the name, the problem is the prejudice and racism.

At the same time I do think that there should be a minimum of control over the names given to children. In Poland there is too much control (as in many other European countries) - your choice of name needs to be approved. If it's a foreign form of existing Polish name or if the name is offensive, the office may refuse. If the name is foreign, but you have a valid reason (minority, ethnicity etc.) then it is accepted.

I don't care for the "foreign" idea. Yes, it sound silly and weird in Polish if you came with English-sounding names, but I guess after a while people would get used to it.

But I do think that the control over possibly offensive names is a good idea. It is against the freedom of parents, that's true - but then, we limit the freedom of parents when we see they abuse their children. Giving a child an offensive name is a form of child abuse in my book. A child who is named "bitch" or similar, is set from the start for an emotional hardship and abuse. There should be at least an advice issued to reconsider the idea.

Monday, September 27, 2010

Between freedom of speech and respecting the other

Over at Racialicius is a great essay discussing the issue of "Draw Muhammad Day" and surrounding drama.
There is indeed a difficulty to spot where my freedom of speech ends and someone's beliefs begin. It's one thing to be able to say what one beliefs in, it's another to intentionally belittle and ridicule the other's religion or culture. The author, Thea Lim, writes (emphasis mine):

 I emphatically support Molly Norris’ right to safety. I think it is terrible that she has to go into hiding, and I can only imagine the fear and distress that she is feeling right now.
But. I 100% do not support Norris’ right to mean-spirited mockery. I do not support anyone’s right to belittle, poke fun at, show insensitivity or thoughtlessness towards anyone else’s system of belief – but especially at Islam, seeing how it seems to have become some sort of Liberal American pastime to see who can make the most Islamophobic joke.  And this is while the rights of Muslims to pursue their system of beliefis under attack, all across the Western world.
And of course I support free speech. I support informed dissent. But what Norris did – and South Park, and Jyllends Posten and any other fool who carries on creating images of Muhammad as if to do so is some act of inspired and noble rebellion – was not informed dissent.  It was a nasty and childish response to being told, for once, that there was something we are not allowed to do, or cannot have.


Just today during my Holocaust class I have discussed the stages of Hate. From prejudiced attitudes, through prejudices speech, including ridicule or racist jokes, to discrimination and violence against humans and property.

It often begins with lack of respect for others' culture and tradition, jokes or holy anger about the other's "wrong" beliefs and rituals. It doesn't notice the "funny" rituals in own religion, only in the other. There is nothing weird of strange about the dress of a Catholic nun, but somehow the hadjib or burka are sources of constant racist and/or sexist attacks. People got used to the idea of wearing the image of a person hanging on a cross, but somehow turban or sari are justified sources of amusement.

I guess as long as something is common to the Western, Christian world, it's ok. Even if weird, strange, violent, racist, homophobic, sexist or against logic and rational thinking. Here Thea Lim again:
Sometimes it appears as if  any benign request made by another power to the Western, white, (culturally) Christian world (WWCCW), is received as an affront. As in, how dare anyone else tell us what to do? WE RUN THIS PLACE! As in, this refusal is an extreme manifestation of the way that certain Western, white, cultural Christians think they are entitled to do anything and consume anything, because they are the West, the boss of this town, and ain’t no one ever going to tell them what to do.

I do not like when a religion tries to impose its beliefs on others who do not share the same set of dogmas. But it is one thing if the imposition impacts directly my life (e.g. legislating the ban on same-sex marriage) and when there is very little relation between my life and a particular ban (why would I need to draw a picture of prophet Muhammad?). I don't see it as attack on my freedom of speech, it's a call for respect.
Of course I am absolutely against punishing the "offender" in anyway other than social critique. Violence is not the way to react.

Sunday, September 26, 2010

the daily dose of privilege, racism and homophobia.

Oh, the putrid smell of white, rich privilege...
I got late to catch it in other places, but Resist Racism talks about a blog entry of a law professor who is "just getting by" on his and his wife's $250k combined salary. Resist has both link to google cache and copy of it on his blog. 


This just shows what levels of insensitivity, lack of understanding and absence self-criticism the rich have. They see having big expensive house, two cars, cable, private schools and art classes as basic life necessities. Well, it's not exactly "basic" nor "necessity". What's wrong with living in rented apartment? What's wrong with a public school? What about cutting down on cable? Mowing your own lawn? He even adds their transfers to retirement funds as "expenses". Well, unfortunately in this country that still counts as luxury. Many people know how important that is but can do nothing. They don't even imagine having retirement savings and assume they will work till they die. 


But it gets even better. It looks like many people didn't like this professor's entry... he got all hurt and offended with all these bullies. But that's not the worse... Again thanks to Resist Racism I read his response to "attacks":
The electronic lynch mob that has attacked and harassed me — you should see the emails sent to me personally! — has made my family feel threatened and insecure  …  To those with pitchforks trying to attack me instead of my message, I feel sorry for you. You have caused untold damage to me personally. I may be wrong, even stupid, but I don’t think I deserved that.


I am joining author of the blog in his anger about this professor using such words. He has no right to compare people disagreeing with his snobbish, privileged opinions to lynching. And I have the same thoughts on people using words like "rape", "holocaust", "genocide" or 'discrimination" lightly in a very inappropriate situations. This trivializes their true meaning and cheapens the experiences of people for whom these are not just words but deepest wounds.


Go and read Resistance's commentary, it's really good. 


And because we shouldn't end on such optimistic note, new pearls of wisdom from Ann Coulter:




Marriage “is not a civil right – you’re not black,” Coulter said to nervous laughter. She went on to note that gays are among the wealthiest demographic groups in the country. 

“Blacks must be looking at the gays saying, ‘Why can’t we be oppressed like that?’”

...the gays "ought to start being antiabortion because "once they find the gay gene, guess who's getting aborted" 


[from: GoodAsYou]


Wait a sec... does it mean she believes being gay is genetic? So it's not because the schools talk about condoms, girls wear pants and boys are molested by evil priests homos?
Oh, and there are gay African-American, by the way.
I seriously don't know what's wrong with this woman. There is hardly a word that could be used to call her, everything seems not strong enough. 
I've had enough, time to go sleep. 

donor conception

For a while now I have been researching variety of reproductive options. In the case of lesbians pregnancies it can't just "happen". In the case of a single, economically disadvantaged lesbian with unclear immigration status the possibility is even less realistic.

I have been always a very strong supporter of free choice for women. A woman should be able to decide whether to have children or not. I support both women who decide to never have children or perform an abortion as much as these who find fulfillment in bringing a number of children to this world. It should be the woman's (together with her partner if she has one) decision, based on various factors important to her and those around her.

It is maddening when people call single by choice mothers that they are selfish or that they harm their children. That a woman must have a man to even think about having a baby. I hate that it's often assumed the only reason why they want a baby is because they want someone who would love them unconditionally, like a pet.

For centuries women were left to take care of their babies. No matter who was the father or how the baby was conceived, if it was planned or not, whether the mother wanted it or not, it was assumed she had to take care of it. No obligations of that kind have been expected from fathers. A father who abandons his children still has friends, is respected and doesn't face any social stigma. And if he pays alimony all is good and done. Now let's look how the society treats a woman who resigns from motherhood. She is ostracized, her femininity is questioned, she is belittled and disrespected. Her moral standing is criticized and her mental health under suspicion.

I have always felt that if a woman wants to have a child, no one has a say, unless there is a serious risk involved - then an advice could be offered. It seemed to me that the only reason why single by choice mothers are criticized was because they made the choice, they showed autonomy and stood for their reproductive rights.

With all of it I thought the option of lesbian pregnancy using donor sperm is a good option. Maybe not perfect, and it would be great to find a donor who would like to participate in some way in the child's life, but still pretty good. But recently I stumbled upon opinions that creating life that way is evil and morally wrong. And it was expressed by children conceived that way... That conscious decision of bringing a child with no known father is hurtful and traumatizing.
I've never thought about it that way. My mother doesn't know her father, and knows only the name of her biological mother. But of course it wasn't a conscious decision, that was war and its consequences.
I do know my father, but hardly know where my family came from, who were my ancestors. And yes, I would like to know- but I don't find the lack of knowledge hurtful or traumatizing. My mother also seems pretty ok even after years in awful communist, post-war orphanages before being finally adopted by a single woman.

Is it really so bad? Is it selfish? Is it traumatizing? Is it worst than a child who is born from a one night stand? From bad relationship that ended soon after?
Personally I would prefer to know that my mother wanted me so much she chose to use donor sperm, than to know it was a random guy or some jerk who abused my mom and didn't want to know about me. But of course it's all speculation, I do know my father, who was in long relationship with my mother.
And what about couples who use donor sperm? When a child has two parents, but one might not be the biological one. Are genes really that important?

Saturday, September 25, 2010

education reform drama and some graphics


Great, great article on education reform, myths, mainstream ideas and blaming the wrong person (a teacher). Making teachers scared of being fired anytime based on idiotic standardized tests which say nothing about the child ability or intelligence, is, well, on the same level as the STAs. The occasion to talk about it was Oprah's special, which, according to Colorlines, was more of a government infomercial than objective, critical assessment of the situation.

If they indeed praised Finnish system that way - heck, implement it. Full with complete, free healthcare, childcare and schools that I am pretty sure do not include classrooms with 40kids in them.

I teach, and sometimes I feel I dont' do a good assessment on each and every kid, that I dont' do enough to reach to every kid, to give a chance or attention appropriate to each learning style or personality. I have 5-12 kids in the classroom. I can't even begin to imagine what it's like to have more 20. And to have above 30? That's factory, not education.

I guess this is isn't really relevant... but we need a bit of bitter-sweet fun, right?

Now this one is much better. I just found this absolutely fabulous blog. The author adds own comments to free-domain pictures, like this one:





Friday, September 24, 2010

this and that.


some interesting, moving, or funny things I found today. I obviously am using my days off to break a record in reading online :)


1. A wonderful advice for all women who struggle with male dominance at work:

Jezabel added a few extras to the citi's list:

1. Women tend to have two X chromosomes — you are not heard.

2. Women menstruate in public — emphasizes your femininity and deemphasizes your capability.

3. Women sit vaginally — the power position when seated at a table is to have a penis.

4. Wear panties in meetings — boxer-wearers are seen as more assertive and knowledgeable than those in lacy underthings.

5. Women have wombs — children come out of wombs. Men don't reproduce, they conquer.

6. Ovulate — women ovulate at the smallest provocation which erodes your self-confidence. Men tend to move into sperm producing mode.

7. Women tend to smile inappropriately — an "inappropriate" smile is a smile that is on a woman's face.

8. Observe "Rules" — rules are made to be broken by men. When women break them, it is a violation of workplace culture. When women follow them, it is self-sabotage. To be safe, avoid being a woman whenever possible.

9. Being invisible — 90% of adult humans are unable to visually perceive women. Solution: wear a bear suit.

10. Offer a female handshake — the best way to combat this is to have a man's hand transplanted onto your wrist. Or purchase a giant foam hand at a sports stadium. These are very masculine and you are sure to be taken extremely seriously while wearing one.


2. Here you can see a seriously well done example of "If Facebook existed long time ago".

3. Great, simple and well done explanation of changes in health reform:

4. Another great idea to spread awareness - this time it's social education. From social images - using the style of historic site sign, the authors make strong messages about social injustice.

5. Disproportional poverty levels among minorities. Read full article at change.org "poverty in America".
"nearly 26 percent of blacks and just over 25 percent of Hispanics were poor in 2009. Only about 9.4 percent of white Americans were poor during that same period of time. To be fair, gargantuan gaps between white, black and Hispanic poverty rates (and income levels (pdf)) aren't new. They just got worse — much worse — in 2009.

The reasons are complex and interrelated. They rage from the quality of schools and teachers that serve the nation's low-income kids to, yes, poor personal decisions. But they are also the direct legacy of decades of discriminatory policies and practices affecting everything from the way housing is sold to the way banking is done and other wealth and poverty drivers far too numerous to name. And it's not just a question of what's happened in the past. Poverty disparities are very much a function of what is still happening right now."

This is really a shame. The fact that the richest country in the world has such high levels of poverty is a disgrace. I am coming from a pretty poor country, but everyone could go to a hospital, get medicines with big cuts, single mothers get help, and there is paid maternity leave. I knew people who couldn't afford buying new clothes (ok, almost all of us throughout the years... even now I can't buy new clothes, old habit...), but never hungry.

I just can't get it. How come it is ok to kill and spend obscene amount of money on war, but it is morally wrong to "give away"? Why "tough love" is somehow seen as the ideal? Does it really matter if the single mother is "spoiled" by getting enough money from the government that when combined with her salary (which is what? 67% of what she should be getting if she is a woman of color?) she could have a decent life for herself and her children? Is it really so bad? Why so many people who work hard can't afford health care? How come the income of the top percents of richest Americans multiplied may times, while the minimum wage actually dropped? No one on minimum wage is able to lead modest, but decent life. It's just impossible. The myth that the poor are all lazy, drunkards and have no will power is just such a lie.

How difficult would it be to cut off some from the military spending and build more schools? Hire more teachers so there would be no more than 10-15kids in a class, so each would have individual attention? Why not invest in parks, play fields and after school programs so the kids would have choices and enrichment programs instead of hanging out on the streets where troubles can easy find them? Why not fund hobby-clubs, homework support, support for the very talented and the struggling ones. Education could help millions of kids getting better future. But it just happens that the rich and white middle class who make the majority of people with power, have their kids in good private schools or nice suburban public schools, with tennis classes and private tutors. They talk the most about "everyone has the same chance, everyone can go to university" or whatever other crap. such a bs.


Here is another image that shows the discrepancies in income depending on ethnic background (from family inequality):


Gay adoption success!

At least some good news in the field - two men won striking down Florida's law according to which gay couples could foster but not adopt children. Step by step to normalcy.

How could anyone say that these two would not be good parents?

"They were completely traumatized for a while," Gill recalled. "At first the only way I could get [the 4-year-old] to interact was when he played with the dog."The child was so accustomed to taking care of the baby that he would grab the bottle out of Gill's hand and feed his brother. When the bottle was two-thirds empty, the 4-year-old would refill it, knowing exactly how much milk to pour."He would insist on holding his brother and burping him," said Gill.
When the baby dirtied his diaper, the 4-year-old came to Gill with a Pamper in his hand. "He knew his job. This is what he did. He had to be the parent to this baby," Gill said. "But, I explained to him, 'You get to play, you get to be the child. You don't have to take care of your brother.'"
That greatly upset the 4-year-old and it took a long for him to learn how to be a kid, Gill said. As a compromise, the boy -- now 8 -- has a full-time caretaker job, to give the dog its food and water.

And I especially can't get the "foster yes, adoption no" idea. If gays are good enough to take care of the unwanted, help them for a few years and then give them away to a different (hetero) family, it means they are thought of as not such a bad influence or evil household if they are given kids for a period of few years, right? But somehow stability, creating full family in the eyes of the law, giving the kids the opportunity to feel they are not in a temporary place to be traumatized again by moving to strangers, no, that's not good?

I hope they won't appeal, it's good the governor is happy with the ruling.

Thursday, September 23, 2010

The need of solid backbone in politics

Among the common news of politicians playing to whatever they think is the mood of voters at the moment, the information that Mary McAleese, Irish President, refused to participate in NY St.Patric parade is very refreshing. What was the cause of her refusal? Gay rights. She opposes the fact that very often gay groups are forbidden from participating in St.Patric's Parade. She decided that she would not participate in something that is against her values and what she represents as Irish President. I wish more politicians had the guts to stand up for what they truly believe in, no matter what the constituent says.

Of course we could always say that she is playing to Irish voters' fiddles... but if that's the case, I am ok with that :) And still, she would got a nice boost by participating in the NY parade, so she's paying a price.

More in Advocate.com.

All that is especially uplifting after reading the story about a baker who refused to prepare rainbow cup cakes for National Coming Out Day, b/c he was afraid that the rainbow is contagious and would influence his daughters assumed heterosexuality. If he is so afraid of his daughters well being maybe he should stop feeding them cup cakes, that's first.

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Fifty years later, not much has changed.

By now we all know that the "acid attack" victim was lying, that there was no jealous, vicious black woman pouring acid over lily white, pretty face. I am glad I don't watch tv, so I only got bits from the internet, I can only imagine how it was blown out of proportion on tv. In comments to news articles people were calling for death penalty for that "aggressor", exchanging openly racist attacks, calling for white solidarity.

But that's not sick enough. This article in TheRoot gives much more details about previous racial based hoaxes, where it was the African American males who were created as easy targets of imaginary crimes. And the public was drinking it all in. It was so "correct" that a black man would kidnap, attack, rape, harass a white person that only few (whose voices are silenced) try to question the story.
Interesting is what happens after. Who is the victim? Who is the offender? Just because there was no real African American who was falsely accused of committing a crime, doesn't mean there was no victim. Each and every episode of that kind, blind support and lack of criticism perpetuates people's racial prejudice, hateful beliefs and social injustice.

As Nikole Hannah- Jones says in her article :

Already, Storro is being painted as the victim, and the harm done to the black community is being pushed aside, says Russell-Brown. In a press conference that revealed the hoax, the police commander called Storro "fragile." And an editor from The Columbian posted a comment chastising people angry at the hoax by saying the community needed to keep Storro in their prayers. "Now we’ve moved away from 'She falsely accused a black attacker' to 'We have to help her,' " Russell-Brown says. "We have 'good victims,' and this denies the harm of the hoax to African Americans."

Why they can't call it for what it is? She might be mentally unstable, but that doesn't take away the damage she's done. No one would say anything of that kind of the person was African American. No one would say we need to help her, take care of her. She would be ready to be lynched. What that woman did was a hate crime, even if there was no concrete object of her actions, her behavior hurt thousands. It was a hate crime against the society and the slow movement toward justice.

So, it maybe fifty years since the publication of To Kill a Mockingbird, but it's not too much of a past and history just yet.