Friday petblogging

Ok, I know. It's Saturday. But I'm always a little behind the curve.

Meet Zack:



Zack really likes bathtubs. Not for baths, but to get that yummy water he loves extra fresh, straight from the source. This picture is from when we first moved in to the new place. The first thing he did when we got there was check out the bathtub situation.

And the kitties, wrestling:




I was inspired to start petblogging this week by the hilarious result of Zack being a naughty dog, but I can't find the camera to upload that picture. So you'll just have to come back next week to see it!

What you get when you "hold your nose and vote for someone." Or, painful reminder that Democrat does not equal less classist or anti-immigrant.

"Dr. Robert Simon, chief of Cook County health services, said the county should fly illegal immigrants living at Oak Forest Hospital back to the countries they came from."

He goes on to actually defend this comment, discussing the logistics and viability of this idea and that it should be done "humanely." Wow. This is what I get for thinking that I had to vote for the icky corrupt Democrat (Stroger) because the Republican (Peraica) opponent had to be avoided because he was so anti-immigrant and anti-poor people and would hurt the county health system. The Democrat appoints an outspokenly anti-immigrant anti-poor people doctor to run (or more like destroy) the county health system. This is the same doctor that said several years ago that he didn't come to County to take care of homeless people: "You can give them any opportunity in the world, and they would not take advantage of it. They could do things for themselves, but they won't. So who the hell cares about them?". The news article also has Simon lamenting that taxpayers are spending $800 a day to take care of patients at this facility, including undocumented immigrants. I am lamenting that taxpayers are paying Simon $1893.15 a day (he makes $691,000, that's if he worked all 365 days a year, which he doesn't) to increase the classism, racism, injustice, and all around bad policy already rampant in our healthcare system.

This is just the latest in a series of barabaric cuts devastating the healthcare safety net (already overburdened) for tens of thousands of people that mostly can't get healthcare elsewhere. The Movimiento 10 de marzo/March 10 Movement (immigrant rights/legalization group) and the nurses' union are both demanding Simon be replaced.

Genocides

I've thought before about the use of the words genocide and Holocaust and what that means. One thing that has bothered me is using the Jewish Holocaust as THE genocide, the untouchable end-all be-all of genocides and bad things. Though it was huge, extremely intentional, and horrendous, the way it is discussed is a problem for a few reasons. One of these is as justification for Israeli violence toward Palestinians. Another that I have wondered about is whether it is "the ultimate" in genocides because it was a group of now-white (and in the U.S. often middle and upper-class) Jewish people being killed. There were also a lot of Roma killed in the Holocaust, as well as non-Jewish queers, socialists, and differently-abled people killed, but the mainstream discussion often leaves this out or only gives it a brief token mention.

I heard a snip of an interview on the radio this morning about the use of the term/category "genocide." This guy, Brendan O'Neill, discusses how the current use of the word/concept genocide helps us imagine this distinction between an enlightened, civilized first world and a barbaric, backwards third world. He also says that the way it is used helps ahistoricize conflicts, especially in Africa, by portraying them purely as senseless killing with no reason or context. Not that I think the killing can be justified, but I agree with O'Neill's point that it is a problem that it is taken out of context and the history is erased, so we just see this irrational, crazy killing with no reason, rather than with all the historical issues and conflicts, including the role of the West and imperial powers in helping create the climate for these conflicts in the first place.

The reporter brings up the idea of invoking the word genocide as a strategic weapon to draw attention to areas of the world that people here might normally ignore or not care about. I think this is an important question to consider; do people (especially powerful white people) in the U.S. care less about the suffering and deaths of brown people and could using this powerful word/symbol help them see people as people in a way their racist lens might normally not allow? In the past I have thought about this but been skeptical because I can't see how involving the U.S. army or other military forces could do anything except make things much worse. I am not against any outside intervention (and though problematic, I think sometimes the U.S. Jewish "It could be us/never again" thought is part of my consciousness that I do not want to silence), but I really think U.S. military forces, as some have called for, could only make things worse. I don't know about UN/international peacekeeping forces, I really don't know enough about them, but I am pretty skeptical.

However, O'Neill brings up a different problem with this "strategic weapon" to make people pay attention. He does a great job of flipping the reporter's question on its head - saying that is exactly why it concerns him as an anti-imperialist - that it is a "weapon" to demonize the third world. I remember an e-mail I got from a leftist U.S. group (possibly True Majority?) promoting awareness and action on the Sudanese genocide with an animation of animalistic, crazy-looking Janjaweed killers in Sudan. People probably do seem brutal and less human when they are killing other people. But this animation drew heavily from longstanding racist images/ideas of violent, irrational, animal-like brown men.

In the article "Pimp My Genocide", O'Neill discusses the implications of pandering to the idea of the worst most victimized to gain genocide status. He speculates that this has actually prevented some groups from signing peace deals to maintain their genocide victim status. The article further explores the question: "Why is genocide all the rage, whether it’s uncovering new ones in Africa and Eastern Europe, or rapping the knuckles of those who would dare to deny such genocides here at home?"

According to O'Neill, "Genocide-mongering is a new mode of politics, and it’s being used by some to draw a dividing line between the West and the Third World and to enforce a new and censorious moral consensus on the homefront... the labelling of today’s brutal civil wars as ‘genocides’ by Western observers, courts and commentators is a desperate search for a new moral crusade, and it has given rise to a new moral divide between the West and the rest, between the civilised and enlightened governments of America and Europe and those dark parts of the world where genocides occur...

...In some circles, ‘genocide’ has become code for Third World savagery. What do the headline genocides (or ‘celebrity genocides’, perhaps) of the past two weeks have in common? All of them – the Serbs’ genocide in Bosnia, the Sudanese genocide in Darfur, the Turks’ genocide of Armenians – were committed by apparently strange and exotic nations ‘over there’. Strip away the legal-speak about which conflicts can be defined as genocides and which cannot, and it seems clear that genocide has become a PC codeword for wog violence – whether the genocidal wogs are the blacks of Sudan, the brown-skinned, not-quite-European people of Turkey, or the Serbs, white niggers of the post-Cold War world. "

O'Neill also critiques leftist anti-war activists' use of the word genocide to throw back at the Bush/Blair administrations and what they are doing in Iraq.

P.S. This may be the first (and possibly the last) time I've heard someone use "liberal" and "western pity" critically on NPR.

Hear the radio interview here
Read O'Neill's article here


More of the good stuff from O'Neill's article:

"The discussion of every war in Africa as a genocide or potential genocide shows that today’s genocide-mongering bears little relation to what is happening in conflict zones on the ground. There are great differences, not least in scale, between the wars in Rwanda, Darfur and Liberia; each of these conflicts has been driven by complex local grievances, very often exacerbated by Western intervention. That Western declarations of ‘genocide!’ are most often made in relation to Africa suggests that behind today’s genocide-mongering there lurks some nasty chauvinistic sentiments. At a time when it is unfashionable to talk about ‘the dark continent’ or ‘savage Africans’, the more acceptable ‘genocide’ tag gives the impression that Africa is peculiarly and sickly violent, and that it needs to be saved from itself by more enlightened forces from elsewhere. Importantly, if the UN judges that a genocide is occurring, then that can be used to justify military intervention into said genocide zone.

Hardly anyone talks openly about a global divide between the savage Third World and the enlightened West anymore. Yet today’s genocide-mongering has nurtured a new, apparently acceptable divide between the genocide-executers over there, and the genocide-saviours at home. This new global faultline over genocide is formalised in the international court system. In the Nineties, setting up tribunals to try war criminals or genocidaires became an important part of the West’s attempts to rehabilitate its moral authority around the globe."

discomfort with anger, civility, and diabetes

I have been meaning to write something about diabetes and class. And then I was going to write something just about diabetes and things I've been thinking about my experiences since I've had to life more within them (and more constantly) lately with the problems I've been having. But then I got lazy. And then I got into an argument with my dad, so this is what I wrote instead. There's a lot of other things I want to bring out eventually, but too tired now.
PS I don't hate my dad, and this isn't meant to be a personal attack. I'm just frustrated and it illustrates really well what I think happens in a lot of situations.

my dad is so into civility and doesn't like anger. so frustrating to communicate with. since he can't deal with anger, frustration, or conflict, he can only discuss things on his terms or not at all. I asked him (i worked so so hard to be nice and "rational" and articulate cuz i knew this would be an issue) to stop 2nd-guessing me when I say i know what the problem is and my pump isn't working after another incidence of him continuing to second and third-guess me even after i spend a lot of time/energy laying everything out. and i said my anger was healthy and necessary and part of life.

now he says he won't discuss my diabetes with me anymore if that's what i want. it's not, i just want to discuss it without being constantly 2nd guessed. or if i "all i want do to is express my anger" (cuz clearly that's incompatible with conversation or intelligent exchange, of course). i was trying to stay understanding and communicate well with him, but it didn't work. he legitimately has some emotional issues with avoiding conflict i think, but still not fair and a cop-out. he got just what he wanted - this conversation about my diabetes doesn't occur unless it is on his terms, unchallenged. and it's so about upholding a fucked up civility - keeping me from getting angry or us from getting in a conflict under the guise of trying to avoid somethign that upsets me (which is there no matter what, by the way, and it's his reaction, not my diabetes itself that i was upset about in that moment), rather than actually addressing my concerns and engaging with me.

really chicago tribune, really?

what a gross, manipulative, racist, ridiculous statement in the first place. and then they made it a headline (Chicago Tribune, Sept 12):

"U.S. in 'struggle for civilization'"
"Bush says nation's safety depends on victory in Iraq"

Way to make the colonial racist ideology (civilized/uncivilized needing saving, inferior cultures/races, inherently violent peoples... without discussing the U.S. actions and violence people might be reacting to) really painfully obvious. And also to continue manipulating people's emotions and linking September 11th to Iraq, which has been discredited sooo many times even in the mainstream media... but apparently the Tribune missed that...

wrong BZZZZZZZ

your supervisor at your new job, who isn't that old and in fact you think is/looks on the young side for such a supervisor, is being really nice and offering to let you borrow her music. shes showing you what she has, and says, blah blah blah "old lady music." also keep in mind that you are trying to not appear ridiculously young or unprofessional, as you feel, in this job.

correct response: that's ok, i like a lot of different kinds of music!
incorrect response: that's ok, i listen to my mom's music all the time! (to which your supervisor sorrowfully responds, oh, wow, i guess i am old enough to be your mom)

guess which one I chose?

Rape in fiction. and non fiction also.

Theangryblackwoman recently had a good post about fucked up uses of rape in fiction and tv/movies. It made me think about some stuff I've been discussing (and sometimes arguing about) lately with some friends and my mom. She brought up some great points (I suggest you go check it out), including:

"...I am tired of seeing rape on my TV and in my fiction because it’s never addressed, it’s used, and used badly, and used for all the wrong reasons. Because it’s used and abused by writers and filmmakers and media people we run the risk of trivializing rape. Or, worse, seeing it as something slightly arousing...That point comes when it stops being about helping, informing, or supporting women and becomes more about how many people they can shock and how many ratings points that will generate. And that is really disgusting..."

"In other media, particularly in SF/F media, rape is thrown in as a plot point, or for a bit of easy characterization. As I said above, if you see a character raping someone, that is usually an indication that the character is meant to be evil. It’s quick and easy for the creator to do this. I wonder if they even consider the implications of it?

Another way creators use rape is to show that a character (99% of the time a female one) is ’strong’. She may have been raped, but that didn’t reduce her to a snivelling mess, oh no! She got angry! She got strong! She got even! Thus passively putting down any woman who was actually raped and did not react in that way. This is also quick characterization, and it’s just as cheap and lazy as ‘he’s a rapist so we know he’s the bad guy’.

The problem with this use of rape in fiction and media is twofold. It’s cheap and lazy, as I said, and it’s also using rape instead of addressing it. When we see rape in media, we see it used as a way for men to exert their power over women, or used as a way to tell us something about a character, or used to drive a plot in a certain direction, or used to highlight vulnerability, depravity, and power struggles FOR ENTERTAINMENT ."

She also brings up the idea of "eternal rapeability" of female characters, that they are always rapeable, and that this is a stupid shortcut for character development to show how feminine or innocent or good these characters are.

Here are the comments I left about the post - I'm just going to paste 'em in for the sake of sleeping because I have to go to work in less than 6 hours. Here it is:

I like your point that in addition to it being a lazy and abusive characterization technique it is “also using rape instead of addressing it.”

One day I sat down with my sister while she was watching Law & Order Special Victims Unit, which is basically all about women who have been brutally raped and/or killed. It really pissed me off. It was very gratuitous, and the entertainment/plot of the show was centered around rape - what the hell? It also bothered me because it seemed to reinscribe women as helpless victims, again and again and again. And also white women as delicate, innocent, pure victims of violence that everyone should be enraged or mourning over. Like we are powerless and should never walk around at night or talk to strangers. This also helps reinforce the power of men as saviors/protectors/avengers, which is messed up, and police/violent state power as the solution. So you need the violent state power, that is what protects rather than threatens people, and that it should be embraced and thanked rather than questioned.

Another offender: the movie El Leyton, used a rape like it was a normal sex scene - meant to be titillating and passed off as acceptable and that the women actually wanted it.

Another thing that irks me about almost all portrayals of rape, fictional and nonfictional, is the emphasis on huge scary violent stranger rapes. People touched on this (comments 7-9), but it distorts the idea of rape into only such an event rather than focusing on acquaintance rapes (it’s estimated that 80% know their attacker). This is really harmful for a lot of reasons: -inhibits discussions of effective prevention strategies
-prevents discussions of harmful versions of masculinity and our rape culture
-gives everyone a “not me” attitude (both those at risk of perpetrating and being violated)
-makes survivors feel like they haven’t actually been raped, or it’s their fault, or that they can’t talk about it because it will give their friend/acquaintance/loved one a demonized Rapist reputation
-limits mobility & independence of women/people read as women at night
-encourages car culture (rather than walking, public transit)
-encourages/allows racialized and racist fantasies of men of color attackers among many white women (and family/friends), with a lot of help from the news media. This kind of racism can be particularly difficult for people to recognize or challenge because there is this ultimate (hysterical) justification of rape, so therefore nothing, even racist and inaccurate ideas, can be challenged

P.S. I really need to become more concise, look how long just that comment was!

el embarazo milagroso, or, get in my BELLY!

Starting, especially creating, things is usually overwhelming for me and I procrastinate. And then I don't do things that I wanted or needed to do. So I'm going to start with something that seems easier to write, a story about what happened today.

Today, I was wearing an outfit that shows my belly when it's been more than 3 seconds since I adjusted it (too big skirt + too small short-style shirt + big belly = lots of hiking up & down), probably inappropriate for my second day of work in an office. Oh well. Anyways, after waiting too long for the train, I get on, and am standing with about 15 other seat-less people in the car. A woman looked at me and quickly offered me her seat. I told her I was fine, but she was already standing up. So I sat down, thinking that my feet were tired and she probably was just positioning herself to get off the crowded train at the next stop. But she doesn't get off, several more stops go by, and as soon as another seat opens up she rushes for it. I think she thinks I'm pregnant. I'm young, my disproportionate belly is hanging out (and I think my pump was hidden), and why else would she be so insistent?
Then I start to think... on this crowded train, do I now have to play the part? Slash would it be fun to do so and mess with people? I start thinking about the conversations that would happen when somehow someone asks and I either lie and say that I am or come clean that I'm not, it's just a big belly and now I'm enjoying this seat, HA jokes on you. And I was thinking why I might want or not want to say that to someone, or tell this story in general. I would not be afraid to say it because I am embarassed that my belly was fat/round/disproportionate enough to be mistaken for a pregnancy. On good days, I actively like my shape. How it looks aesthetically/beautywise and the idea that I can take up space and mess with ingrained values of thinness and other related issues. On pretty bad days, I might not feel those ways, but I wouldn't feel actively embarassed either.

I would hesitate to say it to someone because I would be worried/mad about them feeling sorry for me, bad, or embarassed for the situation (or that I was trying to elicit that reaction and some pity or reassurance for it). This would imply that I was either making a negative comment about myself or trying to mitigate an insult that had been thrown at me. That I did not want to look pregnant or fat. This runs on the basic common assumption that looking fat = bad. That it's something to avoid. Even if you disagree with that assumption, it's hard to break out of it, or even to see that it is there, because its so a part of the way we think that it seems natural.

This might lead a compassionate listener to be uncomfortable if they thought I was telling a story that was painful to me or that I was being self-deprecating by assuming that someone thought I was pregnant. It might also lead them to deny that my belly looked pregnant as a consolation that the supposed insult was not accurate, so therefore not hurtful.

I wanted to avoid bringing up exclusive to certain people/classes theory, but this really makes me think of the Butler essay on speech and some other stuff we read in critical race theory. The idea that it can be useful/powerful to not automatically assume injury from phrases that have historically been hurtful. If you don't automatically take it as an insult, it gives you room to step back and question why it's harmful - like that assumption that fat=bad, and then possibly not take it as harmful. reclaim it. if you don't believe in the anti-fat idea that its based on, then it might not hurt if someone class you that. also, another related point that is that making this insult into a big deal puts emphasis on the harm this one individual is doing to another; the problem is a mean/rude person rather than a larger system of power and ideas in society that is the problem.

however... it's also really important to consider the current situation. and that it can be tiring or impossible to fight things and go against the grain all the time. one person can't just undo all the societal stuff because you want to, it still is in you and affects you. so, you might not always want to try to deal with rethinking all of these things that have a hurtful social meaning. the compassionate listener trying to make you feel better according to the rules/assumptions of the current social reality might be just want you want or need.

(and people that I talked to about this, I promise I'm not talking about you! or annoyed with at all! I was thinking about this before and also the way we're socialized I think its hard not to act in certain ways).

Either way, for some reason the idea is in my head and I shift my notebook so that it's not squashed against my body. I also became aware of carrying myself carefully walking off the train.

Enough rambling. I am way too long-winded. This is partly why I worry about blogging - maybe this is just stupid and unthoughtful self-centered stuff. I didn't go into class, gender, race, and sexuality assumptions that are a lot of the reasons that made this a more interesting/funny story to me because it's based on it being strange or funny that I would be pregnant.

I wanted to start this to encourage myself to think critially and write, or to keep thinking critically and practicing writing. I also want to get feedback from, dialogue with, but especially be challenged by friends and other people reading this. I think I'm wanting this partly because I had a lot of these things in school and I feel like I've had a lot less since I graduated. I want to keep doing it for my own sake, and to not lose sight of my politics/goals/ideals while having less directed time to think about it and possibly working in jobs not entirely in line with them.
I'll figure out more/write more later about what I want this blog to be. Actually, maybe I won't. Just writing would be better.