Abuse is sooo funny

Last night I was watching the last bit of Last Comic Standing. Or rather, it was on in the background, but there was one bit that really got my attention.

Now, I've never actually seen the whole show, but I think I got the gist of it -- stand-up comics do their routines, the show picks clips of their "best" parts as a "reminder" at the end, and people can call in to vote.

Now, I would assume that the producers pick out what they deem as the best/funniest part of the comics' routines as the "reminder" of who these people are. Which is partly why I found this one particular clip so appalling.

I don't know the guy's name, but he was talking about some kid (a boy) who was crying and saying he just wished his dad would stop hitting his mom. The "comedian" at this point says [paraphrased], "So, I looked at the boy and asked him, 'so, does your mom mouth off to your dad a lot?'" Cue laughter. And there was laughter.

There was no laughter from, though. I just sat there stunned. Do people actually find this funny? Yes, I know there are misogynists who like to "joke" about abuse in the Father's Rights Movement. I just never thought I'd see this sort of thing held up as "great comedy" on network television. I guess I'm just naive.

But I'm also appalled and disgusted. And not only at the misogynist comedian, but also at the audience who laughed, and at the producers (or whoever) who chose this clip as the "best" part of the routine. (I suppose it's possible that this was the least offensive part of his routine -- all the more reason to be appalled that this guy could become a finalist.)

Legalization/Decriminalization of Prostitution

In a recent post, Amp wrote a side note about prostitution:

In particular, I like this new law, because it focuses on punishing johns (in my opinion, prostitution should be decriminalized, but being a john should be a frequently-enforced felony).

In the comments to that thread, a few people have objected to his statement. Amp, himself, has not [yet] responded to these comments, but I thought I would. It should be noted that I am not, in any way, speaking for Amp, but rather, for myself.

In the past, I have been torn on the subject of legalizing prostitution. But the more I read on the subject and (more importantly) the more I work with women in the sex industry, the less torn I become. I definitely lean towards being opposed to legalization. I do, however, strongly agree with Amp about decriminalizing prostitution and prosecuting the johns. And so does the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women:

CATW favors decriminalization of the women in prostitution. No woman should be punished for her own exploitation. But States should never decriminalize pimps, buyers, procurers, brothels or other sex establishments.

There is an excellent article written for CATW by Janice Raymond which pretty much sums up my feelings on the subject. The following is simply a summary of the arguments. To read the reasoning of the arguments, you'll have to read the whole article.

The following arguments apply to all state-sponsored forms of prostitution, including but not limited to full-scale legalization of brothels and pimping, decriminalization of the sex industry, regulating prostitution by laws such as registering or mandating health checks for women in prostitution, or any system in which prostitution is recognized as "sex work" or advocated as an employment choice.

As countries are considering legalizing and decriminalizing the sex industry, we urge you to consider the ways in which legitimating prostitution as "work" does not empower the women in prostitution but does everything to strengthen the sex industry.

• Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution is a gift to pimps, traffickers and the sex industry.
  
  
• Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution and the sex industry promotes sex trafficking.
  
  
• Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution does not control the sex industry.It expands it.
  
  
• Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution increases clandestine, hidden, illegal and street prostitution.
  
  
• Legalization of prostitution and decriminalization of the sex Industry increases child prostitution.
  
  
• Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution does not protect the women in prostitution.
  
  
• Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution increases the demand for prostitution. It boosts the motivation of men to buy women for sex in a much wider and more permissible range of socially acceptable settings.
  
  
• Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution does not promote women's health.
  
  
• Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution does not enhance women's choice.
  
  
• Women in systems of Prostitution do not want the sex industry legalized or decriminalized.

A different type of marriage problem

While we here in the US struggle for the right of all people to marry, thousands of South African women (and a few men) are fighting for their right not to be married. At least, not without their knowledge.

Over the last 3 years, at least 3,387 women (and a few men) have discovered that they are married. Married without their knowledge or consent; married to men (or, in the case of the men, to women) they have never even met. In the last month alone, nearly 800 more cases have been discovered.

One woman discovered her "marriage" when she applied for a passport to go visit her sister in New Zealand. Her passport was refused, on the grounds that she had not used her "proper" name (i.e. her married name). Another woman found out when she went to apply for a marriage license to marry a different man (this one was her choice). More recently, South Africa's Department of Home Affairs has started a public campaign to bring about awareness of this issue and has been putting this information on-line so people can check on their marital status that way.

Of course, the Department of Home Affairs is under investigation itself for it's involvment in this scam.

The department itself is also under review. As investigators have discovered, marrying a South African woman without her knowledge has been as simple as paying a bribe, averaging about $750, to one of many willing home affairs officials.

The certificates are valuable because a foreigner who weds a South African is automatically entitled to permanent residence and a work permit, without which the foreigner could be deported. As the most advanced and prosperous nation in the region, South Africa is a magnet for immigrants seeking a new life - and criminals seeking new identities.

That will not be so easy from now on. A law Parliament adopted on Aug. 19 requires foreigners who marry South Africans to wait five years before applying for anything but temporary residence and work permits.

The End of the World [As We Know It]

Damn, now I have that song in my head.

Oh, well -- this is just too funny!!!

The End of the World

Freedom of Choice -- But Only On Certain Terms

Abortion seems to be the topic of the month at The New York Times. There was the June 20th article about aborting fetuses with disabilities, the July 18th article about Amy Richard's selective abortion, the article about the "abortion taboo" on television (also from July 18), and then there was the most recent one (July 22), by Barbara Ehrenreich.

Ehrenreich's article is, IMO, a good follow up to the (now infamous) Amy Richards article (although, interestingly, that is the one article Ehrenreich does not make mention of). In the aftermath of the Richards article, we've seen both anti-choicers and pro-choicers alike condemning her choice. The anti-choicers' condemnations come as no surprise -- but the pro-choicers' condemnation stings. Many seem to approve of "choice" -- but only on their terms.

As Ehrenreich says:

You can blame a lot of folks, from media bigwigs to bishops, if we lose our reproductive rights, but it's the women who shrink from acknowledging their own abortions who really irk me. Increasingly, for example, the possibility of abortion is built right into the process of prenatal care. Testing for fetal defects can now detect over 450 conditions, many potentially fatal or debilitating. Doctors may advise the screening tests, insurance companies often pay for them, and many couples (no hard numbers exist) are deciding to abort their imperfect fetuses.

The trouble is, not all of the women who are exercising their right to choose in these cases are willing to admit that that's what they are doing. Kate Hoffman, for example, who aborted a fetus with Down syndrome, was quoted in The Times on June 20 as saying: "I don't look at it as though I had an abortion, even though that is technically what it is. There's a difference. I wanted this baby."

Or go to the Web site for A Heartbreaking Choice, a group that provides support for women whose fetuses are deemed defective, and you find "Mom" complaining of having to have her abortion in an ordinary abortion clinic: "I resented the fact that I had to be there with all these girls that did not want their babies."

Kate and Mom: You've been through a hellish experience, but unless I'm missing something, you didn't want your babies either. A baby, yes, but not the particular baby you happened to be carrying.

The prejudice is widespread that a termination for medical reasons is somehow on a higher moral plane than a run-of-the-mill abortion. In a 1999 survey of Floridians, for example, 82 percent supported legal abortion in the case of birth defects, compared with about 40 percent in situations where the woman simply could not afford to raise another child.

But what makes it morally more congenial to kill a particular "defective" fetus than to kill whatever fetus happens to come along, on an equal opportunity basis? Medically informed "terminations" are already catching heat from disability rights groups, and, indeed, some of the conditions for which people are currently choosing abortion, like deafness or dwarfism, seem a little sketchy to me. I'll still defend the right to choose abortion in these cases, even if it isn't the choice I'd make for myself.

It would be unfair, though, to pick on the women who are in denial about aborting "defective" fetuses. At least 30 million American women have had abortions since the procedure was legalized, mostly for the kind of reasons that anti-abortion people dismiss as "convenience" - a number that amounts to about 40 percent of American women. Yet in a 2003 survey conducted by a pro-choice group, only 30 percent of women were unambivalently pro-choice, suggesting that there may be an appalling number of women who are willing to deny others the right that they once freely exercised themselves.

Personally, I'm exactly the opposite of those that Ehrenreich describes. I have far more problems, morally and ethically, with someone who aborts a previously wanted fetus simply because it is "defective" then with someone who aborts because they do not want a baby period (regardless of the reasons for not wanting said child).

But regardless of my moral and ethical views, I still value choice far too much to even attempt to regulate or legislate who can have an abortion and why.

Choice can be easy, as it was in my case, or truly agonizing. But assuming the fetal position is not an appropriate response. Sartre called this "bad faith," meaning something worse than duplicity: a fundamental denial of freedom and the responsibility that it entails. Time to take your thumbs out of your mouths, ladies, and speak up for your rights. The freedoms that we exercise but do not acknowledge are easily taken away.

What was that about feminists having no sense of humor?

I'm not a reader of The Funny Times, but ran across this and decided I just had to share it. Apparently, every month (or however frequent their issues are), some staff writer writes a letter to some company or organization with an absurdly stupid suggestion or question, and the magazine prints both the letter and the response. This was from the latest issue (I believe):

The letter (all emphasis in original):

February 20, 2004

Ms. Eileen Bresnahan
Chair, Women's Studies Department
Interdisciplinary House
Colorado College
14 East Cache La Poudre Street
Colorado Springs, CO 80903

Dear Ms. Bresnahan:

Time and again, I've heard the following complain: Men are not supportive of "women's issues." Not going to debate the validity of the charge, but merely offer a solution.

Years after realizing our liberal arts degrees were as potent as library cards, my friends and I came up with a new drinking game. We regularly attend feminist events (Take Back the Night, pro-choice fundraiser, Jewel concerts, etc...) and upon hearing the word patriarchy we chug beer. Ditto that for oppression. Any variation on "empowered" demands a double chug (that's two beers). And finally, when a sentence begins with: "as a woman, I feel that..." we pound the hard stuff.

Before the event lets out, we stumble home and play a similar game with reality TV programs and variations of the word "classy."

Now this might smack of paternalism, but just think about it: Promoting this game will mean more men attending your events where you can overcharge them for liquor and send them on their way before the evening's end. You could make a killing, even from -- or especially from -- conservatives.

Whadya say?

Sincerely,
[Signature]
Kenneth H. Cleaver

The response (emphasis in original):

Kenneth H. Cleaver

PO Box 1034

Colorado Springs, CO 80901

Dear Brother in the Struggle Against Patriarchal Oppression:

Thank you for your provocative fundraising suggestion: consideration of this suggestion has been for us, as women, an empowering experience. The task of fighting patriarchal oppression and empowering the young women in our charge is daunting, and we are gratified to know that you and your friends do support us with your attendance and are willing to make such substantial financial contributions to our efforts. The Women's Studies faculty has alloted considerable time from our anti-patriarchy, anti-oppression, pro-women's-empowerment discussion to ponder your suggestion. As women we believe we should nurture any anti-patriarchy/pro-empowerment allies that come our way.

Unfortunately, Colorado College has strict rules about the availability of alcohol at school-sponsored events, so we are unable to serve or promote alcohol at our events. We realize that your motives are pure and that you undoubtedly have no interest in getting drunk yourself or in getting female students drunk; thus we are confident that you and your friends will be willing to pay for the words themselves without the alcohol. Beer costs about $3.50/glass in most of our local pubs. Since, however, this fundraiser is not about beer as much as it is about the good fight against patriarchal oppression, we, as women, are confident that you and your non-patriarchal buddies will be willing to pay $5/word. We encourage you to. Pay triple for phrase "as women, we feel" rather than engaging in more patriarchal violence. Further, from our experience, as women, we feel the hard stuff you're pounding is not as hard as you think.

We have responded as a collective and signed all our liberation names because, as we're sure you know, designating a spokesperson is the epitome of hierarchy and patriarchal oppression. As women, we feel we must resist such oppression and strive for empowerment in even the small things.

We imagine when you refer to "my friends and I" in your letter that the group you refer to is rather small. Surely, you have no more than two or three friends who can afford such an anti-patriarchal game. Being generous, let's say there are five of you committed to fighting oppression and helping us empower current and future generations of women. By our count of the words that inspire your game (see count below), we expect that each of you will forthwith send us a check for $280. You can check our events on the college web site. As women we look forward to your participation. Yes, indeed, let the killing begin.

In sisterhood,

Margaret Dykewomyn
Gay Gaywomyn
TomiAnn Freepersyn
Eileen Gertisdaughter
Gail Freewomyn
Tricia Patsdaughter

Eight "as women, we feel" = $120 * Seven "empower" = $70 * Ten "patriarchy" = $50 * Eight "oppression" = $40

Hierarchy of Needs

During a recent conversation about political opinions, the topic of "mixed" political opinions came up -- meaning, those people who are socially liberal and fiscally conservative or vice versa. Now, I'm sure most of you here will already know that I believe being liberal both socially and fiscally is the best way to change the world for the better; however, if given the limited choice, is it better to be socially liberal or fiscally liberal? I have experience with both types of people, and I've given the subject a bit of thought over the years, and I've come to the conclusion that, on the whole and all else being equal (and assuming this will still only apply to a some people, not all people), I think it's better to be socially conservative and fiscally liberal.

Perhaps this will come as a surprise to a great many people (or, perhaps not). Certainly, a lot of the issues that are most near and dear to my heart would fall under the "social" label (liberal views, of course). It's not that I think these issues are "less" important (most of the time) -- and taken on an individual basis, there might be a lot of times I'd think the opposite was true. There are always exceptions.

OK, well, maybe for me there are a few issues that I feel are, while extremely important, simply not as important. The environment, animal rights, and gay marriage are three such issues that come to mind. Yes, yes, extremely important, I know. I really do. But I don't think they are as important as certain fiscal issues such as fair welfare benefits, affordable healthcare, affordable childcare, a living wage, to name a few. Given the choice between supporting a candidate who was pushing for more restrictions on corporate pollution (and/or for legalizing gay marriage) but in favor of the welfare "deform" of the type that Clinton & Gore enacted (or worse, stronger "reform") and the candidate who was pushing for a living wage, affordable healthcare, and affordable (quality) childcare but in favor of lessening restrictions on corporate pollution (or against gay marriage), I'd vote for the latter in a minute. (Given a 3rd choice -- one who was both pro-environment and/or in favor of gay marriage AND in favor of the financial issues I mentioned ... yeah, that'd be ideal, but I'm not talking about "ideal" here.) Again, it's not that I think the environment, animal rights, or gay marriage are unimportant. Nothing could be further from the truth. OK, truth be told, the environment and animal rights are not "my" issues -- I'm strongly in favor these issues, and strongly support those who work on these issues, but they're not issues that are of utmost importance to me, personally. As for gay marriage -- well, yes, that's a big issue for me -- I find it to be among one of the most important issues of the time. But, it's just something that, to me, I find to be something that isn't as basic and necessary as other issues. Which brings me to the Hierarchy of Needs.

A lot of my reasoning for this belief comes from Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs theory. Being a Sociology major, it's one of those things that comes up a lot, although I also had to study it in business school. (Ironically, one of the women in the discussion said her own father is a strong believer in Maslow's theory, and uses that to justify his own beliefs, which happen to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Frankly, that doesn't make a lot of sense to me -- I'm not saying it's wrong, per se, but it just doesn't mesh with my interpretation of the theory.)

For those who are not familiar with the Hierarchy of Needs theory -- or for those who haven't thought about it since that Soc 101 (or Psych 101) class way back when -- Maslow essentially believed that, as human beings, we have certain needs which must be met. There are various levels of needs, and until the needs at one level are met, we cannot even try to meet the higher needs. A quick look at what the various needs are:

• Physiological Needs
  
  These are biological needs. They consist of needs for oxygen, food, water, and a relatively constant body temperature. They are the strongest needs because if a person were deprived of all needs, the physiological ones would come first in the person's search for satisfaction.
  
  
• Safety Needs
  
  When all physiological needs are satisfied and are no longer controlling thoughts and behaviors, the needs for security can become active. Adults have little awareness of their security needs except in times of emergency or periods of disorganization in the social structure (such as widespread rioting). Children often display the signs of insecurity and the need to be safe.
  
  
• Needs of Love, Affection and Belongingness
  
  When the needs for safety and for physiological well-being are satisfied, the next class of needs for love, affection and belongingness can emerge. Maslow states that people seek to overcome feelings of loneliness and alienation. This involves both giving and receiving love, affection and the sense of belonging.
  
  
• Needs for Esteem
  
  When the first three classes of needs are satisfied, the needs for esteem can become dominant. These involve needs for both self-esteem and for the esteem a person gets from others. Humans have a need for a stable, firmly based, high level of self-respect, and respect from others. When these needs are satisfied, the person feels self-confident and valuable as a person in the world. When these needs are frustrated, the person feels inferior, weak, helpless and worthless.
  
  
• Needs for Self-Actualization
  
  When all of the foregoing needs are satisfied, then and only then are the needs for self-actualization activated. Maslow describes self-actualization as a person's need to be and do that which the person was "born to do." "A musician must make music, an artist must paint, and a poet must write." These needs make themselves felt in signs of restlessness. The person feels on edge, tense, lacking something, in short, restless. If a person is hungry, unsafe, not loved or accepted, or lacking self-esteem, it is very easy to know what the person is restless about. It is not always clear what a person wants when there is a need for self-actualization.

Like the Hierarchy of Needs, I feel that there are certain issues which must be addressed and rectified before we can seriously work (to the full benefit of everyone) on other issues. Fighting for most social causes is incredibly important -- indeed, necessary. But when our most basic needs, both as individuals and as a society are not being met first, we can't really accomplish those other important issues.

There's another reason for my opinion -- also based on the Hierarchy of Needs. The fact is, if we want to enact social change in our society, we can't do it alone. We need others to be fighting that fight with us.

In the website I linked to above, the author included this statement in the "self-actualization" need:

It is usually middle-class to upper-class students who take up environmental causes, join the Peace Corps, go off to a monastery, etc.

For the most part, I believe this to be true. Now, we all know there are exceptions, some very great exceptions, as a matter of fact. But, for the most part, I find this to be true. The person who is sleeping on the street is going to be, first and foremost, concerned about finding shelter and food -- they're not going to be fighting for animal rights. My housemates have a great postcard hanging around the house which is a pretty good example. It shows a young woman, about "college" aged, holding a sign saying, "Thank you for not wearing fur." Next to her is a homeless man sitting on the street, obviously shivering, saying, "You're welcome." The single mother working 14 hours a day to feed herself and her kids is, in most cases, not going to be attending the March for Women's Lives -- she's going to be working (not to mention, unless she happens to live in D.C., she probably couldn't afford to go, anyway). Boycotting Walmart is certainly a worthy cause (for a number of reasons: sweatshops, labor abuses, it's refusal to carry the morning after pill, etc.), but let's face it, Walmart is cheap and it takes a certain amount of privilege to buy the same product in another store for a bit (or a lot) more money -- or even to find the time to search through thrift stores to find that necessary item.

Before we, as a society, can fulfill our needs for love and belonging, for esteem, for self-actualization, we must first fulfill our societal needs for the most basic needs.