More about breasts (and wigs).

Specifically, to whom do they belong? It seems to me that we spend a lot of time treating breasts as the property of people other than those to whom they are physically attached. I'm surprised when I hear women's male partners being made part of the equation of whether or not she should have breast reconstruction. It's not that I don't understand that he loves her breasts and will miss them, and that there will be some adjustment period for both partners without them. It's that I see this as similar to a partner gaining or losing weight over time; cutting or growing hair; even losing a limb. These are things that happen. Whether or not we adopt cosmetic responses to these things depend on a lot of factors. I'm certainly not going to say that no one should ever use prostheses for cosmetic reasons. But I do think a woman's decision to have reconstructive breast surgery should not be driven by her male partner's desire for her to have breasts. This is a deeply personal decision. The male partner's role in this case, from the perspective of my admittedly short experience as a woman with breast cancer, is to say, "I will love you no matter what. You will always be beautiful, with or without breasts." (If that's not true, then ladies, you married the wrong guys.)

And you know, I'm sure that this kind of thing happens in lesbian relationships, as well, but when I think back to the Lesbian Nation of radical lesbian feminism, I somehow can't quite envision these discussions taking place in these ways. I can envision women challenging the medical establishment's treatment plans and looking for alternative healing, but I can't quite imagine such focus on breasts on the measure of a woman's sexual worth.

I should also say that I don't really have anything against breast reconstruction. I could argue that I'm a purist, and that it seems disingenuous to me to hide the breast cancer epidemic under implants. But it's not really that for me, although I do think there's a grain of truth there. No, it's more that, while I thought about a boob job a few years ago, it never really seemed worth it to undergo the risks of surgery and anesthesia for something cosmetic. I still feel that way. I may not feel that way in five years - I don't know. But for now, it just doesn't seem worth it to me.

That's kind of how I feel about wigs. I don't really want to wear a hot, itchy wig every day. Mostly, I want something that will cover my head and look good. Hats and scarves fit the bill, as do partial wigs (falls?) that peek out from below the hats and scarves. If I can feel good and avoid scaring Bean, then I'm ahead of the game.

I think what this boils down to is two things: 1) I'm not necessarily looking to pass (outside of certain situations). This is what it is, I'm not the first woman with breast cancer and I won't be the last, and I don't feel I need to make myself look like everyone else to hide it; and 2) I don't want to spend unnecessary money or take unnecessary risks. (I'm more than happy to take reasonable and necessary risks, and to spend money on things I really want, though.)

You know what made me really happy today? My hair is nine inches long in some places, and the wig stylist said that she thinks they can use it for wigs for kids with cancer who have lost their hair permanently. My heart soared when she told me that - it just felt so wasteful and sad to throw my hair away, and I will be so happy if someone else can use it.

Tomorrow is the day.

I'm probably the only woman in the world who is actually excited to start chemo. I just don't like the idea that right now, in my body, there are rogue cells reproducing. I want them to knock that shit off. No mavericks of any kind, please.

We went for chemo class today, which consisted of a half-hour video about chemotherapy and some Q&A. The whole thing was fine, except that after the video was over, our nurse didn't reappear. After a little while, a second nurse came in to take over until the first nurse (who was actually giving someone chemotherapy) could come back. The second nurse was a trip. As Mr. P put it, with characteristic delicateness, "she seemed to be suffering from some sort of malady. She was tremulous, and she was addressing her comments to people who were not in the room." (Yes, this is true.) But this isn't even the good part. What she did was to talk for about 15 minutes about nausea and vomiting. Nausea and vomiting. Nausea and vomiting. I think that in those 15 minutes, she managed to say the words, "nausea and vomiting," about 27 times.

Now, I'll point out that I've been told several times that the anti-nausea medication has gotten really good, and that most people are not bothered by this anymore. The video mentioned this, as well. And in fact, this weird nurse was trying to say the same thing. Most people in her shoes would have said, "most people are very worried about having nausea and vomiting from chemo; the good news is that we have made some great strides in medication, and we are able to prevent much of this and to alleviate it when it does happen. We give you an IV of this medication when you have the chemo, and then we give you an injection: these are preventative. We also give you medicine to take home; if you feel at all sick, you take this immediately. And if you still have nausea, call us immediately and we can have you come in for another IV."

I think hearing that would have gone a long way toward easing my mind, which in fact was mostly at ease already because this is essentially what I'd heard from my oncologists.

But here's what Weird Nurse said (I'm paraphrasing): "Most people are very worried about having nausea and vomiting from chemo. It's very important to understand *why* chemo can cause nausea and vomiting. Nausea and vomiting happen because there are receptors in this part [pointing] of the brain - *this* is a nausea and vomiting *center*. There are also receptors in the stomach - we have studied these and we know this. But this is very important - it's a big word, on page five - it's a very big word - PREVENTION. We have medicine that targets these centers. Why is it important for us to prevent this? It's a cycle. When you feel nauseous, what happens? Then you throw up. That makes you dehydrated, so you feel more nauseous. Then you throw up again. Nausea and vomiting is a cycle. So we want to prevent this."

By the time she was done talking, I was nauseous AND freaked out. Fortunately, she left soon afterward when the first nurse returned, and the first nurse calmed me down and reassured me. But, holy jeez, I hope they don't ever allow Weird Nurse in chemo class - or anywhere near me - again.

Few things in life are more annoying

than accidentally running a kleenex tissue through the wash. Hate that.

About my breasts...

...you know, I'm not sure I will really miss them. I mean, the truth is, they are heavy and uncomfortable. I don't like the way I sweat underneath them in hot weather, and I don't like the way my bra straps dig into my shoulders and the red marks they leave. I'm tired of checking to make sure that my post-breastfeeding-nipples are both pointing in the same direction. I'm equally tired of wondering how much farther it is possible for boobs to sag.

I'm liking the thought of being able to take them off at the end of the day. It's exciting to think of having breasts that actually fit where my shirts are designed for them to fit, and not two inches lower. (I will definitely go for a smaller cup size, too.)

I'm not that jazzed about reconstruction, to be honest. Sure, I will miss having cleavage, and I wonder how clothes will fit and whether or not I'll feel awkward or exposed in a tank top. But then, I know some drag queens who are able to do a lot with a couple of falsies and a little makeup. And I love the idea of going for a run without worrying about bounce. I love the notion of not having to wear a bra and still being able to look professional and feel comfortable.

And it lends even greater irony to my "got breastmilk?" tank top...

Grateful.

I've been thinking that there are lots of things worse than being in my situation. I've known four people in the last few years who have been diagnosed with ALS, for example. I saw a few kids at Mayo who looked like they'd already, at their young ages, been through a lot more of the scary poking and probing and testing than I have. And closer to home, an acquaintance of mine was recently assaulted and is so traumatized by this that she is having trouble functioning. Meanwhile, I'm adjusting to having a life-threatening illness that my doctors (at the Holy Grail of Medicine, which my insurance is covering) think they can probably cure.

So - yeah, even in the midst of this, and there have been truly agonizing and despairing moments (like the other day, when I had to have an ultrasound to find out if my liver had benign cysts or if the breast cancer had spread (it was cysts - but even so, just typing this sentence is making me anxious)), I am still pretty damn lucky. I just need to remember that.

Chemo should start this week. I am also grateful for how far anti-nausea medication has come in the last five years - I hear that patients tend to gain weight during chemo, which speaks to the success of this medication.

...and on a lighter note...

...it strikes me as most unfair that I should have to submit my lumpy boob to a breast exam by a younger-than-me, good-looking British doctor. I mean, really. Talk about adding insult to injury.

Thank you.

Just wanted to say "thanks" to everyone who has been commenting and emailing me. One of the scariest things about this is that, when you hear serious words like "cancer," you feel very alone. And initially, when they were talking about inflammatory breast cancer (which I do not have), they mentioned this when they did the biopsy on Friday and left me to agonize over the weekend - I certainly felt alone then.

But I'm not alone. I have been amazed and humbled and more grateful than words can express at the outpouring of support I've received from old friends, recent acquaintances, colleagues, and all of you online. Thank you for making me feel safer and held in love. It truly makes a difference.

If only I could feel like this all the time.

Right now, I'm feeling like myself, like I'm not defined by this. Most of the day, though, I spent in bed, too depressed to get up, too worried to feel safe. I need to remember that I feel best when I start doing things like grading papers, which forces me to get outside of myself and think about other things. I am at my worst when I spend time alone worrying, or when I do things other than work (watching t.v. is a good distraction, but it only works for so long).

It feels so good not to be coming apart at the seams. I wish I could feel this way more, and feel like I'm falling into the abyss less often.

Cloudy, with a side of cancer.

So. I have breast cancer. I've spent the last two weeks agonizing over this and worrying that it would be a death sentence. Turns out it's not - turns out that breast cancer has become a survivable cancer. I'm still waiting for my brain to catch up to that idea.

But it's still scary, and it's why I haven't been around for a while. Right now, I'm only at the very beginning of starting to come back to something that resembles my normal self.

(P.S. Please don't share any horror stories or internet information - I don't think I can take it.)

Finally, we're talking about inappropriate police force in St. Paul.

...aaand, I thought you all might like to hear some choice quotes (note that whatever appears in quotations marks below is a direct quote, not a scare quote):

Elliot Hughes, who claims that he was "tortured" by police using "pressure point tactics" on him in the Ramsey County jail: "I was screaming, crying, begging God for mercy."

Leah Lane, who was maced at close range by several officers because she would not move (she is, I believe, the one you've probably seen on YouTube who was offering the police a flower):
"I heard them yell, 'Mace her.' I was a little bit scared, but you can't let fear control you. There's more important things at hand than me."

Ramsey County Sheriff Bob Fletcher, on why he didn't attend the "community conversation" about the convention:
"We're not going to be part of any gathering that implies that we should be sympathetic to the anarchists that were bent on destroying St. Paul." Elsewhere, he is quoted as saying that if the "500 anarchists" had not been stopped on day 1 of the convention, "this town would have been destroyed."

St. Paul Police Federation president, Dave Titus, on public reaction to evidence of police force:
"As the public starts seeing a few frames of video or hearing a few seconds of audio or are looking at still photographs, they have to realize there is a lot more leading up to and surrounding all of these situations. Let's face it: No amount of force, no matter how justified, ever looks pretty."

St. Paul Police Federation president, Dave Titus, on why he didn't attend the "community conversation" about the convention:
"I knew there was going to be a large contingency of people who could care less about the truth and that only wanted to bash the cops."

St. Paul Police Federation president, Dave Titus, on use of force by police:
"I'm going to guess that not everything was done just perfectly, but it was done in good faith, I will guarantee you that. Let's look at the overall picture. A minimal amount of force...was used."

St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman:
"St. Paul's police department and its officers are deeply respected by the residents of this city and they deserve to be. Nothing about what happened two weeks ago should change that."

Steinem and Katie battle it out.

Bean had his very first ever sleepover last night, which means that I am exhausted this morning, and in my exhaustion, poking around various blogs I haven't had time to read lately. I checked out BlackAmazon and read her strong response to Steinem's new essay on Sarah Palin. She links to a piece at Katie's place (notice her blog, Historic (p)Reservation, is now on the blogroll) that is really an excellent response to the last nine months or so of feminist primary politics.

Here's a link to the Steinem piece that BA and Katie are responding to. As I post this, I haven't yet read this latest Steinem essay, so picture me with my steaming mug of something on this chilly, damp day, as we read together.

Thoughts on feminist processing.

When I was in graduate school, some of my peers were involved in something called "Collective." This group was, yes, a collective, and it was made up of students who were teaching together - teaching colleagues, one might say. The aim of the group was to use collective process to help grad students, working in teams, to teach sections of the same intro Women's Studies course. The collective would meet each week to go over the readings for the upcoming class sessions and to process issues that were coming up in the group, either within the teaching dyads, within the various class sessions, or within the collective group itself.

The meetings, scheduled for about two hours, frequently ran long. My friends would emerge from Collective looking dazed. I would often hear stories about who had cried in Collective, who had made someone else cry, who had made a patently racist/classist/heterosexist comment, who was oppressing someone else with her privilege.

These exchanges were made possible by the use of Criticism/Self-Criticism, or Crit/Self-Crit, for short. This was, in effect, an open opportunity for anyone to publicly level charges against anyone else in the group, as well as to also note what one has realized about one's own abuse of privilege. The purpose was to allow for people to help each other to recognize their own places of privilege, and to challenge each other when it seemed they were stuck in an "ism."

But this practice quickly meant that a competition for most oppressed/least privileged, as well as least oppressive/best ally, was under way.

The typical pattern was this. Someone would do something to upset another member of the Collective; this very often happened within teaching dyads. The person who was upset would then go to others in (and also those outside of) the Collective and complain. By the time the week's meeting had rolled around, everyone in the Collective was already angry with each other, having taken sides in whatever fight was brewing. Instead of a private discussion, the teaching dyad would now have involved everyone in the Collective, as well as many friends on the outside, in the debate. Stories were spread widely of L.'s classism, of S.'s homophobia. You might think that this was an opportunity for women of color and lesbians and working class women to finally have a voice - and at first, it seemed like it might be. But what happened very quickly was that everyone became subject to a vicious process. Almost no one was protected (I will say more about this in a minute). M. denouncing L.'s classism one week felt like righteous justice, and therefore, was done harshly. But two weeks later, L. was the one harshly denouncing M.'s homophobia. Always, ALWAYS, someone was near tears, someone was enraged, and everyone was exhausted. And all of this was shared in the public forum of the Collective, and often leaked out into the even more public forum of the school at large.

Let's not forget one important reason that people didn't immediately reject such a difficult and painful system: it was likely that, no matter how humiliated or hurt they were one week, they would get to chastise someone the following week. They would be the one who would get to school someone else on appropriate language, behavior, or dress. That opportunity is very tantalizing, folks.

Was there learning? Probably. I do think that everyone learned something about their own privilege and prejudice. But at what cost? Several people lost friends. And no one, it seemed, learned anything about confrontation. No one learned how to say to a working partner, romantic partner, or friend, "hey, I'm really upset about this. Can we discuss it?" The process was tilted toward venting, not toward using "I" language.

There was one instance I recall in which one person seemed, for a time, to remain exempt from criticism. She managed to constantly cast herself as most oppressed in the group, and this was ingenious, because it meant that she had all the power in the group. It meant that she could - and did - make anti-Semitic comments, for example, and that no one would call her on them. It meant that she could - and did - bully other people in the group because everyone was so cowed by her that they were sure that she must be right - until she turned her fury on them. Because what she was after was not justice, but power. (I googled her: she's a grassroots activist, and I'm sure she's very successful at what she does. But I would never want to work with her.)

It reminds me of an earlier post about what happens when you try to dismantle privilege through a concerted effort to oppress someone (i.e., forceably remove what you perceive as their privilege). It doesn't work. It makes a lot of people miserable, and at the end of the day, all that you've proven is that you are a bully.

If we want to see real change, if we want to challenge each other to eradicate the isms that we have hidden inside us, then the route to that is never public shaming. The only route to that is direct dialogue. How many times lately have we seen positive outcomes - for anyone - from public shaming? Seriously?

Sometimes, let's be honest, the goal is not change. Sometimes, when someone is standing on your neck, you don't have the luxury of saying, "hey, you probably didn't mean to, and you maybe don't even notice, but you are standing on my neck right now. Could you step back?" In that case, the proper response is, "get the hell OFF!" But in this case, it really doesn't matter what reaction this receives, as long as the person gets off your neck, right? And the problem with feminist processing is that we confuse our goals. We think that we want to have productive dialogue, when we really want to yell, "get the hell OFF!" And there's certainly a place for that.

Am I saying that people with their feet on other people's necks get a pass? Of course not! If someone tells you to get the hell off, you should immediately jump back. This is not the time to stand there talking about how you didn't mean to put your foot there, and are they sure you're really actually stepping on them because you're pretty sure you're not, and so on. But the reality is that most people are incapable of doing this, or at least are unlikely to do this. And so that means that it's time to strategize. What do you want to happen? What's the most likely way to make that happen?

At the end of the day, "process" has become, at least in some circles, a sort of safe way to gossip: "I need to process what happened" means "I really need to vent about that assholish thing P. did." And if I vent to you about this, then I certainly don't need to talk to P. about it and tell her that she really upset/hurt me. But that's not processing, that's gossiping and venting, and it doesn't move anyone forward, ever.

I don't think many people look back on Collective as a shining example of how to treat each other well as feminists, nor as an example of a useful feminist process. And as for me, when I start to hear Collective-like approaches for dealing with conflict, I run as fast as I can in the other direction. I'll take my conflict direct, please - not behind my back, not in passive-aggressive emails - just honestly, like maybe you respect me a little. Because I respect you. I might not always be able to hear you right away, but I almost always get there. And I am willing to bet that you do, too.

Update on the Lesbian 7.

From Natasha (thank you!!):

"here's an update and info on a benefit taking place next week:

Renata's mother died from an ulcer (and stress, no doubt) and the judge would not let her attend her mothers funeral! The following is from the www.all7.org website: Renata Hill, sentenced to 11 years with the NJ 4, won her appeal this summer and has been given a new trial on September 3, 2008. Her bail was set at $75,000 and has spent her time until now at Riker’s Island Correctional Facility in New York. Last week, her bail was lowered to $5,000. Friends, family, and supporters from all over the country sent donations for Renata’s release.

On August 29, 2008, Renata left Riker’s Island to join her family and friends, including Terrain Daindrige from the NJ 4 released after her successful appeal this summer, in Newark until her court date [in early September].

She and Terrain will be guest speakers, among others, at the Brecht Forum on September 16, 2008 at 7:00 pm to help further fundraising for the New Jersey 7. The benefit will raise support for all of the women who were originally involved in the incident over 2 years ago. The three women that were not incarcerated still face probation and other hardships due to their criminal records. Venice Brown also has a reachable $5,000 bail and Patreese Brown is anticipating her appellate trial sometime in November.
-------
next Tuesday 9.16.08 at 7pm in NYC, there will be a benefit to raise bail money for the girls. I can email a flyer. If you can please forward and put the word out, that would be such a Blessing!"

Watch the St. Paul police use pepper spray and tear gas to force peaceful protestors onto a bridge, where they are then arrested.

This is an outrage.

Oh, did I need to say it? The arrests included media - of course.

Thoughts from St. Paul.

Following another day of arrests, and after reflecting on the last week, I have some thoughts:

1) In many ways, the anarchists won. Their goal was apparently to create chaos and anarchy, and this they did. If their plan was to cause chaos for the RNC delegates, however, they missed their mark: what they did was to severely disrupt the civil liberties of the citizens of the Twin Cities and their visitors.

I have not had a whole lot of contact with police at demonstrations. I have marched on Washington a couple of times for queer rights and reproductive rights, and I held a line against "Operation Save America" when they invaded Buffalo a while back. The advantage we had then was that we were not throwing things at the police, nor were we being wantonly destructive. I am pretty sure that those who did these things in St. Paul expected the brutal response they received, and if not, then they should have. I'm quite sure the organizers did, and they are to blame for putting in harm's way any youth who didn't have a good sense of what they were up against.

Yes, I'm playing the middle-aged card. Ignorance of the law is no excuse: neither is ignorance of history. If you are planning to confront police in riot gear, you should at least have learned from the innumberable lessons of the past what will happen next. It's great to be dewy-eyed and committed, but you also need to be shrewd and to educate yourself.

2) I am angry at the anarchist groups that ruined what was otherwise a peaceful demonstration of people who have, many of them, committed their lives to peace. It's easy to disrupt someone else's event, and it probably makes you feel powerful. That doesn't mean that your movement has any substance to it. Know that what you did was to overshadow what would have been a significant showing of peaceful protest, something that would have had an impact on the rest of the nation. Already, because of you, the RNC, most if not all of the Republican Party, and many Democrats have dismissed the entire protest as simply a bunch of hoodlums who wanted to create havoc. You didn't care about stopping the war or the Republican machine. You just wanted to get out there and break things, and this was a great excuse for you to do it. Thanks for nothing.

3) I am angry at the St. Paul police, along with the Minneapolis police, the Dept. of Homeland Security, the FBI, and the Secret Service. In the process of responding to real threats from the anarchist groups, these groups used excessive force, which is a euphemism that means they beat people badly, they used rubber bullets, tasers, tear gas, and pepper spray - and they used this excessive force not only against folks who had weapons, but against folks who were just standing there, who were not part of the anarchist groups, and who were not even in the vicinity of the riots. They also arrested people without cause. They arrested members of the press who had identified themselves and showed the police their id - and some of these were charged with rioting. They shot rubber bullets and tear gas at peaceful protestors practicing civil disobedience because the group would not disperse. Their violence was not limited to those few people who were setting fires and attacking delegates (and you can see Bfp for a discussion of whether, in such cases, excessive force is really ok (for some reason, I can't get her page to load, so I can only link you to the blog home and not to the specific piece that I am thinking of)).

How is it that we accept that police may round up peaceful citizens and press - and then shoot rubber bullets and tear gas into the crowd? On MPR this morning, Mayor Coleman stated in defense of these brutal acts that took place yesterday that the police had warned the crowd numerous times to disperse. Do we as a society think these tactics are appropriate for dispersing a peaceful crowd? In some cases, police confronted with this scenario have chosen to stand down and allow the crowd to have its sit-in. The only crime here was that the marchers stayed beyond their permit time. Is this a tear gas worthy crime?

4) I am angry at St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman for not standing up for the citizens of his city and for taking sides with the police against them. He seems to see nothing wrong with the police catching up innocent bystanders and peaceful protestors in a sweep, yet stories have been surfacing all week of people asking police for help or being told by the police to head in a certain direction to get away from the protests and leave, but finding that when they got where the police had directed them to go, they were surrounded and arrested.

5) I am angry at the journalists in St. Paul and nationwide who have not covered the stories of the arrests of journalists. That these arrests have gone largely unnoticed is particularly striking, as it suggests a sense that we as a society believe that the police and other law-enforecement officials have absolute power to use as they see fit. In fact, they do not. They are subject to the law, and when they arrest someone without cause, when they arrest members of the press, when they use excessive forece, when they do this on a routine basis, as they appear to have done over the last week, it suggests that they are 1) incompetent; 2) drunk with power; or 3) attempting to suppress free speech. I sincerely hope that what we have seen here is incompetence and that it will be rectified.

First grade, so far...

...involves daily recitation of the Pledge and the singing of patriotic songs.

...means not being allowed to use the playground equipment, and instead having to play variations of tag (helicopter tag, freeze tag, other forms of tag that I don't know about) with the entire class. Every day. (I suppose I should be grateful that it isn't dodgeball.)

...apparently means doing the same homework every day, and boring homework, at that. (I am not kidding.)

...is therefore so frighteningly close to my own experiences in elementary school OVER THIRTY YEARS AGO that I am a bit put off.

I will keep you posted.

Creepy-crawlies are better than Republicans.

I'm depressed. Between Sarah Palin, "overzealous" Twin Cities cops, the sudden cold snap, and the likelihood that I'm about to get my period, all I want to do is crawl under the covers with hot chocolate and a good book.

Of course, when there's a sudden cold snap like this one, other things want to crawl in and find warmer places to be, as well. Last night, just after midnight, just as I was falling asleep, I saw something in the corner of the room in the light of the t.v. It looked too small to be another centipede, and when I flipped on the light, it was revealed to be a large black spider, the kind that is equally body and legs and so looks strapping and formidable.

I wished Mr. P was here.

The cats were very excited, and stretched themselves out, standing on top of the television, in an unsuccessful attempt to reach it. I shooed them away, worried that their long claws might reach into the vents on the top of the set and get them shocked.

I sat on the edge of the bed, watching Sons of Anarchy with one eye and the spider with the other eye. Eventually, I figured, it would come a little further down the wall where I would be able to reach it with my bug zapper. I've never used the zapper, and while I have seen it used, I was still certain that, when I went to zap it, the spider would come flying out at me like something out of Arachnophobia. But after about a half hour, I realized that I was going to have to get over my fear and deal with it. The thing hadn't moved in all that time, and besides, if it crawled up to the ceiling where I couldn't reach it, I'd be up all night for fear it would fall on me. I dragged in a dining room chair, climbed up on it, pressed the buttons, and zapped it. I was so certain that it was going to suddenly attack me, even though it was pretty clearly dead, that I held the buttons down, watching the corpse spark, until I was worried I might mar the wall. I had so much adrenaline flowing through me that I was shaking, and it took me a while to calm down enough to get back into bed and go to sleep.

Even so, it feels better to write about the spider than to write about Sarah Palin and the RNC.

Please help: urge CNN and NBC to cover the journalists' arrests.

Go to the link below and send your own message. You can also cut and paste this message to anyone you like.

Dear Friend,

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

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

To tell you that this arrest was brutal and upsetting simply doesn't do it justice. Watch this video to see for yourself. Then take action.

I just e-mailed the presidents of CNN and NBC News (which oversees MSNBC) to demand that their networks cover this important story. I hope you will too.

Please have a look and take action.

http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/dont_arrest_journalists/?r_by=-1771899-c645Ypx&rc=confemail

Thanks!

Nicole Salazar released - details her arrest

Check this out on YouTube.

Also, listen to this interview with Amy Goodman, which details the arrests, as well, and which reveals that police have been arresting citizens without cause. Goodman also details the raids that took place before the Convention began.

During this show, Democracy Now! producer Sharif Abdel Kouddous tells host Thom Hartmann that he witnessed a New York Post photographer who had been arrested and was cuffed screaming at the police, "for Christ's sakes, I work for a Republican newspaper!"

Welcome to the military state.

St. Paul cops leave boot prints on your back.

Even if you're only 17.

Police tear gas peaceful demonstrators

See this piece on MPR, which has actually done some good reporting, though they have been nearly ignoring the story of the arrests of the journalists.

Video of unlawful - and violent - arrest of journalist in St. Paul.

Deomcracy Now producer Nicole Salazar's arrest.

Is St. Paul making the news where you are? I'm not talking about the RNC.

I mean, specifically, that the cops have gone apeshit and unlawfully arrested three Democracy Now! journalists. That they pepper-sprayed a woman who was standing in front of them holding a flower.

And this, after two days of raiding homes and several days of detaining and harassing photojournalists.

No, I do not condone the behavior of those who purportedly attacked delegates, slashed tires, set a fire, and basically did teenage bullshit acts of defiance rather than civil disobedience. But the police behavior still is not ok.

America, I hope you're hearing about this.

Twin Cities Police "acting like Nazis" - civil liberties under attack

See Twin Cities Indy Media;

Starhawk on the raids;

Democracy Now (which has several videos from the inside);

More raid coverage (there have apparently been a number of raids).

Although the police are spinning these raids as infiltrations of dangerous criminals who had dangerous materials (home-made pepper spray, for example), they have in fact harassed and arrested citizens dedicated to peaceful protest (and as Starhawk points out, the "home-made pepper spray" was, in fact, soup that included onions and chili powder). Over the last week, several photojournalists have been harassed when walking downtown with cameras. This is an embarrassment to the Twin Cities and a serious blow to civil liberties. If you're in the area, please call the mayors to express your dismay and to demand that civil protest be protected:

St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman
(651) 266-8510

Minneapolis Mayor RT Rybak
(612) 673-2100
(612) 673-3000 outside Minneapolis

(Thanks to Ravenm for links - and check out her blog for more on this.)

Can you be a feminist and "pro-life"?

Anna at DakotaWomen has an interesting post up in which she quotes Katha Pollitt to argue "no." My post is mostly in response to this quote. Pollitt writes:

"[Feminists for Life] aren't really feminists--a feminist could not force another woman to bear a child, any more than she could turn a pregnant teenager out into a snowstorm. They are fetalists."

Fetalists they may be - I think that's a fair label. But I don't think it necessarily follows that they aren't feminists. They may indeed not be, but I'm uncomfortable stating flatly that people who aren't pro-choice aren't feminists. This policing of the borders of feminism certainly makes it easy to determine who "we" like, as feminists, and all too often that has meant people who follow the core values (and there are probably more here than I can think to list at the moment) of popular feminism:

- the belief that pornography/prostitution always hurts and exploits women;
- the fear and loathing of transgender;
- the resistance to centering race in ways that decenter white women's experiences;
- the expectation that aborting fetuses with disabilities should be every woman's choice.

I know feminists who work in the sex industry; who are transgendered; whose conception of "women's issues" has little to do with glass ceilings; who see the decision to abort a fetus with a disability as an expression of intolerance (at best) for people with disabilities. I also know feminists who call themselves pro-life, and who spend their lives doing feminist work, teaching Women's Studies, doing work that benefits women. Do I think that forcing a woman to bear a child is a feminist act? Of course not. But I doubt that most pro-life women who call themselves feminists would interpret their actions in this way (nor do most of the pro-life feminists I've known work to actually prevent choice, which, to be fair, I believe Feminists for Life has done).

I don't want Sarah Palin in the White House anymore than I want McCain there, and I'm certainly not claiming her as a feminist. But I don't think drawing the label "feminist" more tightly around our shoulders will serve any purpose in preventing her election - it will only serve to divide feminists.

Instead of looking at the label, it might be more instructive to look at one's actions and at the impact of one's work on women. I'm pretty sure that Sarah Palin doesn't measure up, but I'm also pretty sure that there are some pro-life feminist sisters who do.

For folks in the Twin Cities who are feeling queasy about next week...

...check this out:

March on the RNC

Mon, Sept 1
St. Paul
Assemble at 11am at the State Capitol
March to the Xcel Energy Center

STOP THE WAR
U.S. Out of Iraq Now!
Say NO to the Republican Agenda!
Money for human needs, not for war!

DEMAND Peace, Justice, and Equality!

marchonrnc.org

Coaltion to March on the RNC and Stop the War:
612-379-3584

Yarn stress.

I decided that I don't like the yarn, all 14 skeins of it, that I'm working with for my new afghan. It's 25% wool, which is enough wool to itch, and I just don't like the feeling of it while I'm working with it - it makes my hands feel dry (you know how wool does?). Also, it will definitely show cat hairs. I am torn between dropping another huge wad of cash on fleece yarn - provided I can find anything I like, b/c fleece yarns seem to come most often in really atrocious colors - and finishing this one. I guess there's no harm in finishing it - we can certainly use it, and if I really hate it, I can always give it to someone who likes wool and whose house isn't very hairy.

On the other hand, I'm sure that when I'm knitting this thing in January, I will appreciate it's warmth spread across my lap.

***

My favorite thing to do in the evenings, now, is to knit and watch episodes of "Eureka" on the web.

Ah, knitting.

Since school is starting in a week and my syllabus isn't quite done, I figured I should start knitting again in an effort to prevent the job from taking over my life. Two nights ago, I began what will be our new afghan for the living room. It took me a couple of hours to select just the right yarn from my favorite yarn shop: I settled on this (colorcard 7118), which will match the living room furniture and cushions. I had originally wanted something like this, from which I made Bean's afghan, because it is wonderfully light, soft, and warm, and it doesn't show any cat hairs, but I couldn't find a decent color. I'm afraid that the cat hairs will be pretty visible on this new one. We shall see.

I would post pictures of my progress, only I have no program on this computer for managing photos. The other computer ate a year's worth of photos (actually, ALL of my photos, but the others were backed up), and now it no longer has a photo program for my camera on it. So.

Just making trouble for myself.

You might not know this about me, but I have a wildly overactive imagination and I'm afraid of everything. I used to think that I could never live alone because I would spend all my time taking running jumps onto the bed to avoid the monsters grabbing from underneath, locking and barricading the bathroom doors when I was taking a shower, and making sure all the lights were on all the time. I used to lie awake night after night, terrified of every toy and picture in my room. I even tried my hand at a couple of horror stories, because I liked to write and I enjoyed reading the really good scary stories, the ones that would keep me awake nights - and I managed to scare myself even more.

Sometime in the last decade or so, I managed to get over a lot of my fear. I chalk much of this up to my realization that reading Clive Barker and Stephen King was not likely to help me feel more secure, and consequently cutting horror out of my regular reading material. But it was hard, because there is something truly compelling about a master horror tale, the kind that manages to tap into your earliest memories of fears, the shapeless things that go bump in the night.

Every so often, I find myself yearning for the thrill that this type of fear brings. Usually, I distract myself with other things, and I manage not to go down that road. More often, I end up watching something scary on t.v., fully believing that it is silly enough not to affect me. The more I watch, though, the more I feel my sense of the world changing, not unlike the opening credits for that old t.v. show, "The Darkside," in which you see an idyllic pastoral view shift into a gloomy nightmare scene.

***

I was never much interested in zombies. I thought the whole idea was stupid, even boring, and I didn't get why so many people seemed to find them so frightening. Granted, I was unable to watch "Night of the Living Dead" because it wigged me out, but I figured that had more to do with the creepiness of the first 10 minutes and not so much with the zombie concept. I saw "28 Days Later," and "Land of the Dead" (the second was much better than the first, I think), and by the time I saw "Land" I was ready to grudgingly admit that zombies could be kind of interesting, after all. I saw several others that I don't remember the names of, and I saw others I do remember, like "I am Legend," "Dawn of the Dead," "Shaun of the Dead" (silly AND scary) and "30 Days of Night," which is a vampire movie, but it is set up like a zombie movie (with pretty good results).

Then I started to dream about zombies.

The thing is, the zombie concept isn't what's so scary. What's scary is the notion of being at war with the majority of the populace and not having nearly the weapons or numbers that they do. I found myself waking up at night wondering if I'd locked the door, and what I would do if there really *were* zombies, and whether or not the locked doors would hold them out and if they could climb to our second-story windows to get in.

The idea of zombies made me feel vulnerable in a way that many of the other scary creatures did not - those other things were scary in a "this could never happen, but what if it did?" way, while the zombies were scary in a "just suppose the neighborhood wanted to come and get me - what then?" kind of way.

And so I've added a new fear to my list of sharks, Cthulu, dolls that live, killer clowns, and whatever might be hiding in the poorly-lit garage that still urges me, somewhat unconsiously, to park my car on the street. I managed to go out and find myself something new to be afraid of.

Plain(s)feminist is...

...typing this with the help of her new wireless router (thank you, Mr. P!) while watching cable with the sound off. Bean ran from room to room shouting out the places from which we could now access the internet: "the living room! the kitchen! the hallway!" ("The toilet!" I shouted out helpfully, not entirely joking.)

The cable I am watching with the sound off is important because I spent two hours driving to Little Canada, which is almost as far away as the name implies, to get a new cable box. Our old one, which was a little number about the size of my hand, suddenly and inexplicably died, and when the Comcast guy came to fix it, he replaced it with a box that is larger than my couple-of-generations-ago VCR. You could fit approximately six of the old boxes into this box. It was so big that we had to push the t.v. way over to the side of the coffee table. The whole setup looked like ass.

So I called Comcast and said that the box was too big. Maybe I was huffy (because, really, I think if you have a subtle, little box to begin with and they bring in something the size of Hal from 2001, you know, that's just not acceptable), or maybe the customer service agent was bored or busy and just wanted to get off the phone. But she sent me downtown and promised me that I would be able to swap the gigantic eyesore out for a smaller model. So, I drove downtown, waited for my number to be called, and learned that that particular Comcast payment center did not have any of the smaller models - just the gigundo ones. Fortunately, the agent who helped me was able to call around and find one for me. Unfortunately, I had to drive out and get it.

But we have cable again, and we have wireless internet, and life is good. Because few things in life are better than websurfing and channel-surfing at the exact same time. The only thing that could make this any better is chocolate.

I'm 40 today.

And I don't mind a bit.

Randoms.

* My cats woke me up before getting-up-time this morning to point out a big centipede on the wall in my bedroom, which then scurried behind the pile of crap on my dresser. I am choosing to believe that it was not interested in my stuff and instead continued down the wall and out of the apartment. Mr. P was valiantly ready to catch it with a tissue (ick) when it emerged from behind the dresser, but it never did. The fact that I have not already moved out shows just how far I have come in my acceptance of the insect world around me.

* I've watched the Laura Ingraham video that everyone is talking about, but what I see is not a horrible person, but a professional who is trying to do her job and totally, utterly prevented from doing so by a team of incompetents at FOX "News." I probably still hate her, but in this, she has my understanding.

* Why is it that the entire state of Minnesota seems to have shut down all childcare options (except the ones no one can afford, the ones that cost $300+ for two days) for the last two weeks in August when school doesn't start until September 2?!

* I am annoyed beyond belief at the news (rumor?) that Hillary will be nominated at the convention. Bad move.

* Along these same lines, I'm annoyed at 1) a Hillary supporter I met who was incensed that anyone would suggest that some Hillary supporters have said they will vote for McCain and who believes that the very idea is a fabrication made up to discredit Hillary supporters. I know a few of these Hillary-McCain voters. I'm not making it up; and 2) Hillary supporters who are now voting for McCain who are claiming that McCain isn't such a bad guy. Sheesh. Who do you think you're fooling? You want to be spiteful? Go ahead. But don't expect me to buy that you supported Hillary and you are somehow in line with the McCain plan for America.

* I'm horrified by the NPR report I heard yesterday (while driving in my air-conditioned car in the sweltering heat) that in the next century, temperatures in the Midwest and in parts of Europe and the Middle East will reach the ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTIES. And that the solution is to 1) try to cut down on emissions (my emphasis), and 2) to make air conditioning more widely available to poor people. Not that this last isn't vitally important - but isn't "trying" to cut down on emissions a pretty useless response, and doesn't increasing the number of operating air conditioners actually add to the problem? Shouldn't we work on keeping the temperature from rising? (I am feeling self-righteous in my 80-degree (at 11:30pm) apartment. Self-righteous, and hot.)

* I have been told that Colin Ferguson, Thomas Jane (who looks nothing like that photo, by the way), and Mark Valley are not the same person, but I don't believe it. Also, Gary Cole and Marc Singer? Totally the same person.

* I am pretty sure we're hated by the neighbors for letting our lawn die (well, not actually my fault as I was gone for a month). Also, I think I violated the watering restrictions by watering tonight when no one else was - they seemed to all do it last night. We are *that* family. I am going to be a terrible home owner. I need to start saving now for a lawn service.

I'm packed, but I still need to clean the litter boxes.

And it's only 10:30, which means that this week's getting up at 5 to catch a cab will involve having had slightly more sleep than last week's getting up at 5 to catch a cab. And at least this time, I expect not to have to deal with what one fellow participant on my trip to Mexico called "assplosions." (I will leave that to your imagination - but just imagine that happening fifteen minutes before the taxi is due to pick you up. Oy.)

Also, I'll be at my destination city before lunch, so I'll have plenty of time to nap. In theory, anyway.

I am bringing the following reading material:

My Lesbian Husband - Barrie Jean Borich
Nin - Cass Dalglish
Mothering, Sex, and Sexuality Issue - Journal of Assoc. for Research on Mothering
Virginity Lost - Laura Carpenter
Female Circumcision - Rogaia Mustafa Abusharaf
Conquest - Andrea Smith
Creating Significant Learning Experiences - L. Dee Fink

The first two are my fun reading. (I wanted to bring, but couldn't fit, Pinay Power: Peminist Critical Theory, Ed. Melinda L. DeJesus.) The next four are my course books for class this fall, and I'm bringing them so I can plan. The last one is to help me plan the course - we'll see whether or not the learning experience I create is significant.

There are also a couple of file folders of various articles and notes to myself that I will also be using in the course. Planning a course can be a lot of fun, actually, and I'm kind of looking forward to it. What remains to be seen is how much work will actually get done in a hot, humid house surrounded by family members and a Bean who will want to sit on my lap for the duration.

Now, to clean the litter boxes.

Happy Vacation!

P.S. I will upload the rest of the NWSA trans panel post soon. Being on vacation is a good excuse to get stuff like that done. Basically, it's living in the other room on my flash drive, and I'm usually too lazy to get it and bring it back in here, or too forgetful to get it when I've had the flash drive in here in the first place. OK, *now* to the cat poop.

Things I learned in Mexico.

*Pepto Bismol is my friend. Truly.

*Taking migraine meds at a high altitude will make you feel stoned. Even when you don't want to be.

*Americans really are arrogant and entitled. Pointing out the window at the "funny" signs/stores/etc. is a mild example. Asking the taxi driver if his kids go to school is a more serious one.

*Taking toilets seriously is a good idea. Dry (composting) toilets are an excellent invention. Keeping paper out of the sewers isn't a bad idea, either, though I'm not sure it doesn't pose more public health problems. At any rate, I think we're adopting a "if it's yellow, let it mellow" policy in the Plain(s)feminist home.

*My mind is still blown by the existence of homes in which you have to walk outside to get to the kitchen or bathroom (not privvy, but actual bathroom. With running water.) and restaurants which, when you walk around to the back, do not have a back wall. And none of these are overrun with bugs, either. (I know this is common in the U.S. Southwest, as well, but it was new to me, and pretty darn cool!)

*Until now, I haven't properly appreciated Emiliano Zapata.

*There is a radical contingent in Catholicism that might just save the whole thing. (Their existence made me feel better about the annoying, arrogant "Christian" missionaries who flooded the airport.)

*I haven't lost my aptitude for / enjoyment of languages. I really liked trying to learn and pronounce the phrases I needed to get around. (Even if I *had* figured out how to order my dinner, and Halfie offered to order it for me, and I let her. Hmph.)

*The airport bus to Mexico City is a luxury bus, with drinks, even. And video screens for movies.

*It is possible to shower with a cockroach and not mind it.

*Sweetbreads for breakfast - and not the American kind, but actually sweet. breads. - are a wonderful thing, rivaled only by coffee and croissants in Montreal.

*Club music is waaaayyyy better in Cuernavaca than in most U.S. clubs I've been to.

*Taking pictures of people's front doors/laundry/poverty is rude. So is taking pictures of anyone, even your friend, without first asking permission.

*...once you've been there, you have to go back.

I've never really been, but I'd sure like to go.

I'm going to Mexico in a couple of days. I will get the other half of the NWSA piece up later this month, or before I go if I get a chance. I'm going a little crazy getting my stuff together for my trip.

But I did want to post about a weird thing that keeps happening. I'm not going on vacation. This is a work thing, and I'm going to be meeting with local folks for most of the time and hearing about the work they are doing on behalf of women and indigenous communities. I will see some beautiful places, yes, but this is not a party, and I will not be on a beach somewhere. I expect to be completely overwhelmed by the poverty I will see first-hand, and to be very moved by and empathetic toward the struggles that people will be sharing with me. I expect that it will turn my little U. S. American world upside down, and that my frantic shoe-shopping right now (because I don't have any shoes that I can walk in, which in itself speaks volumes about privilege, doesn't it? That my shoes are not made to walk in?) will very shortly seem entirely frivolous. And on an even more selfish note, I expect to feel confused and frustrated and stupid because I am a U.S. citizen who doesn't speak Spanish who is immersed in someone else's culture that I don't really understand and in which I am sure to make mistakes. So, yeah, while I'm sure it will be enjoyable at times, this is not me going on a touristy vacation.

So, first, when I tell people I'm going to Mexico, they all say, "Great! You must be so excited! That's going to be a blast!" and I say, "Well, no, I mean, yes, I am excited to go, but I don't think it's going to be 'fun,' exactly," and I explain why. Which totally brings them down. And then I try to cover over the awkward pause by explaining that I'm running around like crazy trying to find appropriate clothes, at which point they helpfully suggest "shorts and a tank top!" And then I have to say, "no, that's not really appropriate for where I'm going; we've been told to dress more modestly and not to wear those things." And then they get defensive, and tell me that the organization planning my trip, which is actually headquartered in the area I'm visiting (has been there for many years) and has an excellent reputation (locally and internationally, in fact), probably just doesn't know what the local standards are for dress. Because, you know, when they/their boyfriend/their cousin's best friend went to Mexico, they all wore shorts and tank tops, and it was just fine.

As my (well-traveled) friend pointed out to me when I shared this story with her, "There's a reason Americans have the reputation they have."

So anyway, I'm off to pack, and I will see you soon.

Dreger and Bailey and NWSA - Part I

As promised, part one of my post on the two NWSA panels that dealt with the Bailey/Dreger controversy. This would have been live-blogged, had the internet been working in the conference center!

The first session was an untitled paper session that included the following presentations:

"Intelligible Citizens and Aberrant Examples: A Judicial Rendering of the Female Body in the Canadian Courts" – Caroline Alexandra Hodes, York University

"The Politics of Inclusion and the Boycott of Michfest Performers" – Jo Trigilio, Simmons College

"Activism in the Bailey Transsexualism Controversy Compared to Intersex Patients' Rights Activism" – Alice Dreger

"Toward an Ethics of Exemplarity? Transgender Critiques and the Ambivalence of Anti Representation in Queer Theory" – Shifra Naomi Diamond

I am going to focus on Trigilio's and Dreger's paper's, because those are the ones I took the most notes on. Trigilio's paper is not about Bailey nor Dreger, but it was a very interesting paper (hence my note-taking).

Trigilio gave a brief history of the beginning of the conflict over trans at MichFest in 1991. Her focus was the Boston Dyke March and its relationship to the boycott of MichFest. Specifically, she centered on the issue of whether or not boycotting performers who performed at MichFest was a successful strategy, sharing the case history of Bitch, who had been invited to perform at the Boston Dyke March in 2007 but who was then uninvited after making statements supporting the MichFest’s "women-born-women" policy and performing at MichFest – despite the fact that the boycott against MichFest performers no longer existed at that time. Trigilio suggests that "boycotting MichFest is a legitimate strategy," but that "boycotting MichFest performers is not." Trigilio goes on to say that the "targets of our boycotts…ought to be the institutions, not the individuals." She points out that we allow racist, sexist, misogynist performers to continue and we buy their cds, yet we boycott musicians who are fighting these systems. Why is this?

Trigilio underscores the importance of organizing around intersections rather than around single-identity issues. She states, "intolerance of divergent views will not lead to inclusion but to factionalism."

She further notes that MichFest performers are often not successful in the mainstream, and that they themselves may also be genderqueer or may not support the MichFest "women-born-women" policy. She raises the question of whether hurting the careers of genderqueer women really does anything to further the cause of gender inclusion. Further, she asserts, such boycotts have the opposite of the intended effect: in addition to hurting these women’s careers, they also result in a "backlash [of] fans [who develop a] rigid identity politics, even though they had never done so" before. (In other words, the boycott merely makes fans of a boycotted performer more loyal to the fan, and may help that fan to develop rigid, exclusionary identity politics based on what they see as an unfair targeting of a beloved performer – PF)

Trigilio suggests, "instead of a boycott, support events that are striving to be inclusive."

(Y’all, I loved Trigilio’s paper, partly because it touched on some of the issues I’ve written in my own work, but also because I thought it was good, practical strategy – if the goal is inclusion, we need to think about strategy that will promote this inclusion, not that will hurt people who are already pro-inclusion or that will spur a backlash.)


And now for Dreger’s paper. Dreger gave an overview of the beginning of the intersex rights movement and also of her analysis of the response to Bailey’s work. She notes that the "Intersex rights movement has been one of the most successful patients’ rights in history," and while I don’t have this in my notes, I believe that she attributed this to strategy and to the ways in which ISNA and others have worked with the medical profession.

Dreger then gave a recap of her earlier paper on Bailey, in which she took on the role of an investigative reporter, and, "after a yearlong investigation of this matter…concluded that the charges were groundless." The mistake, she said, is in the notion that "marginalization means legitimacy." But, she argues, "identity politics do not transfer into believability."

(In other words, simply because transactivists are up in arms, that does not mean that anything improper has occurred – PF)

Now, that's about all the notes I took during Dreger's presentation. I'd read her paper prior to attending the conference, and I was interested to hear if she had since realized exactly what she had done by taking it upon herself to be that investigative journalist. She doesn't seem to have done so. So, I'd like to offer some of my immediate responses to her article, which can be found here. I think there are critical issues that need addressing, and doubtless others have already addressed them, but the one that I had an immediate response to regards the IRB. For those who have not read Dreger's article, let me explain that the Institutional Review Board is a committee at every academic institution that determines whether or not research is ethical and under what conditions it may continue. Every researcher must go through the IRB for permission. Bailey apparently felt that since what he did in The Man Who Would Be Queen was not strictly science, he was not bound to any ethical guidelines whatsoever. Here is the problem that Dreger does not seem troubled by and does not address, and this is what I would like to focus on.

The fact that Bailey's work was not found to be in violation of IRB guidelines does not make it ethical. Since I got involved in doing oral history in the '90s, there has been a debate between oral historians and others who do life story interviews and the IRBs at their home institutions. Basically, the issue is that, first, IRB guidelines have been set up to protect the participants of scientific studies, in both the natural and social sciences. We don't have to look far to see why this might be necessary. Consider 20th century experiments with orphaned infants that involved dropping babies – we hope, onto soft surfaces, at least – to study their physical reactions (that arching of backs we see in infants who feel physically unsupported). Or, consider the Tuskeegee experiments, in which Black men with syphilis were purposefully left untreated (while being told that they *were* receiving treatment) in order to study how long it took for them to die, and what effects the syphilis had on their bodies as minds as they did so.

Bailey's work, as described by Alice Dreger, offers evidence that interviewing that occurs outside the parameters of the research the IRB was created to supervise can have a profoundly negative, harmful effect on its subjects. Dreger states correctly that historians, esp. oral historians, were exempted by the national policy-making body that set the rules for the IRB. In a clarification of the IRB purpose, it was stated that the IRB was never meant to govern such research, presumably because it doesn’t involve such risk for participants. While many historians, particularly oral historians, were doubtless pleased at this clarification (which makes the research process much easier), as a sometimes oral historian, I believe that we absolutely need to be governed by, if not the IRB, then some larger body that will ensure that our research is ethical. And in fact, there does exist such a structure of which Dreger is apparently unaware - she does not mention that oral historians have their own set of very complex, ethical guidelines for their work. If Bailey's personal interviews and what we might call writing from life were not governed by the IRB, then they should have been governed by the ethics that govern oral historians.

For example, Bailey has been accused of sleeping with one of the women he interviewed. He denies this, but in Dreger's long discussion of the charges raised by transwomen against Bailey, she writes that he told her that even if he had, it would not have been in violation of IRB guidelines. This may be true. However, this does not mean that such an act, if it occurred, is ethical. Rather, what it suggests is that the IRB does not effectively protect research subjects from exploitation by the researcher. In the field of oral history, this would not be seen as harmless but as a serious transgression and perhaps* exploitation of the subject by the researcher.

Dreger's apology – and I was not expecting, from the way that she has positioned herself in this debate that it would be an apology, but it is, if not necessarily for his conclusions then for his behavior and his research method in The Man Who Would Be Queen – lets Bailey off the hook. She does not acknowledge that a scientist who writes a non-scientific-method-produced book for a popular audience will be perceived as having scientific authority, nor that a researcher who is writing in another discipline (in this case, I argue, something akin to oral history) still has a responsibility to conduct vetted and ethical research.

Moreover, her apology goes well beyond championing the causes of academic freedom and civil discourse. Instead of simply focusing on the actions of some transactivsts that, I agree, went beyond the bounds of what is acceptable (primarily, in my estimation, the use of children), Dreger felt the need to serve as judge and jury for all the charges against Bailey. In this, she overstepped her bounds. One of the problems is that Dreger's 62-page document does not take seriously the impact that Bailey's work, poorly-researched as it is (another issue that might have been resolved with IRB involvement), has had on real people. It does not address the larger ethical issues that are at play when a researcher interviews, during the development of personal relationships in some cases, real people. Bailey was not, as far as I can tell, steeped in the guidelines of oral history. As an outsider unfamiliar with Bailey's work, just from reading Dreger, I have the feeling that he went into this book thinking that, since he was just going to write about people he knew, he didn’t need to take an ethical approach or think seriously about how he worked with them and what impact he had on their lives. Responsible oral historians would know that these are issues that must be considered. I have no doubt that Bailey might well be a well-meaning guy who didn’t think – and still doesn’t think – he did anything to violate IRB guidelines or that he needed to follow them for his work. I'm sure he doesn't understand the impact he has had. Perhaps he even thinks he's helping. But intentions are meaningless when it comes to research, and that is largely why IRB is necessary.

Thus, I am unconvinced by Dreger's clearing of Bailey. Moreover, reading it disturbed me greatly. It was not a document about academic freedom; rather, it was a document that seemed intent on downplaying the impact that Bailey may have had, on his subjects and on policy and scientific thought more generally, as well as on proving that the people who perceived Bailey as a threat were simply acting out for some inexplicable reason. This is not a strike for academic freedom, but rather a strike against academic responsibility. (Julia Serrano made some of these same points here.)

Part II to come (with links to papers!)…

*I say "perhaps" only because of the possibility of there being a pre-existing relationship between the researcher and subject. Bailey used this possibility as a way to assert that all physical relationships between researchers and subjects were ethical; I am stating that many, perhaps most, would not be. (The fact that Bailey would say such a thing – which Dreger asserts, in her article, that he did – suggests volumes about how he views the vulnerability of the subject to the researcher, which is to say, he does not view them as vulnerable at all – and this, in itself, is a huge problem.)

Well, I did need a lift...

Apparently, some of Bean's friends have seen the new Iron Man movie, or at least they've seen the commercials and heard the Black Sabbath song. Bean came home singing, "I - am - Iron Man - kick me in the balls and I'll still stand!"

So, first, we had to explain what "balls" were, and he didn't believe us, so he started smacking them to prove that it really wouldn't hurt, and Mr. P had to intervene and have a longer discussion with him. Then, once we had established that one should not smack or otherwise traumatize one's balls, we had to explain that songs with the word "balls" in them are not songs to be sung outside of one's own room. (This proved a challenge, though he's taken lately to replacing "balls" with "head." I still think these are unnecessarily violent lyrics for a little boy to sing, but hey, it's an improvement.)

As part of my push to get him to stop singing about being kicked in the balls, I had the distinct pleasure of getting to introduce Bean to the Black Sabbath original. Which is seeming a lot less cool tonight than it did yesterday morning, as we have since listened to it at least 15 times. And in addition to the Black Sabbath version, we've also listened to several "Chipmunks" versions, as well as the parody, "I am Santa Claus," which is really quite clever, and maybe even better.

As a result, all of these songs are now ringing in my head, and I am beginning to hate Ozzy.

I have clearly been living in the midwest for too long.

This will not be my last post because I have promised to blog about the Bailey panel - and I will. But after that, I am not sure.

I have been involved in - not directly, but present for them, often commenting on the threads where they explode or on second-tier-out threads - quite a few blogwars. And I've been present at quite a few IRL wars. It used to be that the rage from these things could fuel me for several days. It used to be that I'd jump right in with the best of them, so anxious to prove that I was right about whatever it was (and I'm sure some of you are thinking, "WTF? PF, you did that just yesterday!").

But I'm back now from an annual conference I've been attending for a decade, and this time, I saw it with new eyes. I saw people treat each other so shittily that one of my students was sorry she had come. I saw students and faculty, both, leave rooms in tears. And mostly, what I saw was a complete lack of willingness to communicate honestly, to give the other person any room or benefit of the doubt whatsoever.

What distresses me is not so much that I saw this happen at one particular panel. What disturbes me is that I saw this happen repeatedly - at a panel, at a business meeting, in a social setting.

What the hell are we doing to each other? Is this what feminism/Women's Studies is supposed to be about? This is not productive. It sure feels good to vent, but if what we want to see happen is a change, then this is not the way to do that.

The result that I see is that those who were present at some of these events will not be returning - and this group of non-returnees is a diverse group that cuts across race and class and ability. (And several others I know, also a diverse group, who did not know about these events, had a grand time and will be back, and that's great - I'm happy they had a good time.)

This is one thing that is not the fault of the NWSA as an institution. This is the fault of people who come to the organization expecting it to meet their emotional needs.* And I know this, and I have been one of these people, and we cannot expect all of the practitioners of our discipline to meet our emotional needs.

Somewhere in the past week, I lost the stomach for all of this. I don't think fighting each other is getting us anywhere, not anywhere at all. And I can't seem to find any feminist discussion online that isn't, at some point, about the fighting - even dependent on it.

I'm tired, and I feel like I'm wasting my time fighting with people who I ultimately have more reasons to agree with than not. I'm wearing myself down instead of using my powers for good. So I'm not sure at all that I want to continue this blog in this incarnation.

Maybe tomorrow or in a few days I'll get over this funk, but for now, I expect to begin a serious blog hiatus after one or two more posts.

*Thanks to my airport buddy for pointing this out to me.

Bailey, Seal Press, NWSA, etc.

This is a teaser post, because I am far too emotionally, mentally, and physically exhausted to write tonight. I did attend both the session at which Alice Dreger gave her paper as well as the session by trans activists/scholars on the "Bailey Brouhaha," as it was called in the session title. Andrea James, Elise Hendrick, and Kristina Rose presented on this latter session, which was organized and moderated by Joelle Ruby Ryan, and their papers were absolutely excellent. I, for one, learned a lot. And it's worth saying that, while there was all kinds of drama and throwing under buses and other lovely professional behavior almost everywhere else at the conference, it did not happen at either of these panels (unless it happened in the last ten minutes - I had to leave to give my own presentation).

Also, I got to hang out with Anxious Black Woman, and we got to do some radical drama making. Well, she took the lead, and I followed, but we did at least do something, however small, about Seal Press.

Oh, and the NWSA's Delegate Assembly recommended that we approve the formation of a brand spankin' new Trans Caucus, and I believe it was passed unanimously. History in the making, folks.

There's lots more, all to come.

Off to NWSA.

If you'll be there, too, drop me a line.

Hirshman.

Sometimes, when people get it wrong, they get it so wrong that there's almost nothing left to say.

Thankfully, BFP knows just what to say (click below to read the whole thing):

Modern feminism is irrelevant to most women (not just women of color) or women *think* it is irrelevant not because women are just stupid and can’t figure out how sexism sucks–but because feminism has left the majority of women in the cold and made itself accountable to Washington politicians, 501c3 rules, elite conferences of which you must already be a part of or aware of feminism to know about and attend (and which I admit fully to attending and supporting), and exclusive listserves that make decisions for all women but are accountable to no one, etc.

This is not a movement.

I repeat, this is not a movement.

It’s an exclusive networking club.

And no woman, of color or otherwise, owes her allegiance to an exclusive networking club simply because she has a vagina and the exclusive networking club members have vaginas.

Calls for Queer / Mothering / Queer Mothering Papers!

And I certainly hope some of my favorite bloggers will submit their work:

Call #1:
QUEER PARENTING
edited by Susan Driver and Zoe Newman
collection of essays to be published by Demeter Press fall 2009
A proliferation of experientially based essays, media stories, documentary films, television profiles, photographic essays and do-it-yourself manuals featuring lesbian mothers and gay dads have emerged to mark out cultural discourses in which to understand lesbian and gay families. But while these images and narratives enable positive representations that counter invisibility and marginalization, they often work to delimit transformative mode of thinking and acting beyond normalizing categories. For LGBTTT2Q communities in Canada, the US, and Europe, family has been a site of struggle and invisibility, and has also been constructed as a site of transformation and pride, sometimes with the result that we have sidelined interrogations of how 'queer families' are normative and exclusionary. It is those troubling, ambiguous and unintelligible subjects that do not fit neatly into parental discourses that need to enter into public dialogues as part of a comprehensive project of queering parenting.

This book adopts a range of critically queer theoretical perspectives to rethink the parameters of parenting and family beyond heteronormative boundaries. Our goal is to engage with difficult knowledges and changing embodied parental experiences that include dynamic gender and sexual arrangements as they are lived through multi-layered racial, national and class relations. Rather than list those identities that fit into a queer paradigm we encourage a more pliable framework that explores the institutions, languages and contexts of parenting, complicating the ways powers shape alternatives to white middle-class heterosexual nuclear formations. Our interest is in fostering interpretive work on parenting that bridges articulations of intimate subjectivity, and analysis of broad social and historical forces that cumulatively impact what can be done and said in the name of diverse family relations.

We hope to include a range of styles of academic writing, and encourage interdisciplinary modes of analysis. The following topics interest us but they do not exhaust the horizon of our search:

Transgender parenting within and beyond bi-gender mother and father roles
Transnational queer parenting or transnational and queer critiques of the family
Affective/psychic/embodied transformations of queer parenting
Queering public/private and national boundaries of reproductivity
The status of 'queer' as a strategic and heuristic tool of family life
Parenting and sexualities
Media representations and spectacles of queer families
Alternative visual and artistic depictions of family life
Racialization of queer family discourses
Queering family law
Queer interventions with reproductive technologies
Reflecting on gay and lesbian self-help parenting texts
Community based queer family activism and organizing
Commodification of queer parenting and queer families

Deadline for papers is October 31, 2008. All papers must be MLA format (7000 word limit).

Please submit inquiries and complete essays to both: sdriver@yorku.ca and znewman@yorku.ca


Call #2:
Dyke Moms, Donor Dads, and Reconceiving the Queer Family: An Anthology You're an out dyke about town. You meet someone, shack up, get a cat. You survive the non-monogamy negotiations and a renovation, get jobs in your fields, do lots of therapy, and decide it's time to expand beyond your twosome into the world of parenthood. Being enterprising women with a solid do-it-yourself streak, you decide to forgo the impersonality and expense of a sperm bank and ask Tony, your gay friend from college, to donate some sperm to the cause. What could be simpler? A few months, a few syringes, some egg white and folic acid, a bit of awkwardness, and baby will make three.

Uh, make that four. Or five. Or maybe six. Because Tony (who, oddly, didn't just miraculously vaporize as soon as the child was conceived) has a mother and a partner, both of whom want a relationship to the child. Like it or not, baby's made something a lot more than what you bargained for. But what?

This anthology, to be published in Spring 2009 by Toronto's Insomniac Press, will explore, through personal essays and first-person accounts, the phenomenon of lesbian couples (and the occasional single dyke) who choose a male friend or acquaintance, rather than an anonymous sperm donor, to father their children.

Submit!
With no clear models to follow, this new version of the queer family is creating its own. That's where this anthology comes in. We are seeking stories that are funny, touching, heartbreaking, provocative, thoughtful — and very, very relevant to the new queer (and queer-positive) family.

We are looking for creative non-fiction and first-person accounts by lesbian mothers who have chosen known sperm donors in order to conceive; gay and straight men who have become sperm donors to lesbian mothers; their partners, their children, and other invested parties.

Submissions might explore (but should not be limited to) the following issues and themes:

When baby-making doesn't take or takes too long; dealing with infertility, miscarriage, or even routine insemination is difficult enough for the average couple, so what happens when the donor also becomes emotionally involved? What happens when negotiations break down?

Can his parents come to visit? Is it rude to insist they stay in a hotel? With new family configurations come new questions of etiquette. How to deal gracefully (or at least sanely) with an often unexpected extended family.

The other mother: What happens to the experience of non-biological mothers when a biological "Dad" is also part of the picture? Non-biological mothers in lesbian partnerships have long had to deal with issues of belonging and recognition in a society that is slow to recognize them as parents. Non-biological moms talk about the processes and challenges of claiming their roles as primary parents.

"Daddy" doesn't mean what it used to … How does the choice to become a donor redefine circles of gay male friends and the identities of gay men? From sperm count and motility to number of children fathered, the "donor" phenomenon has sparked new concerns and conversations among gay men.

My husband is sleeping with lesbians! What does it mean when your partner is the father of the new baby — but the baby isn't yours? From straight women who never thought they wanted kids to gay men who must put up with their boyfriends' new "focus," the new "donor" family has far-reaching implications.

What if the birth changes everything? The donor who didn't want to be overly involved is smitten with "his" new son or daughter. On top of figuring out how to live with a newborn, the new moms must find a way to negotiate the demands of a relationship they didn't realize they were entering into.

Gay divorce: What happens to the donor if the moms split up? What happens when the relationship between moms and donor deteriorates?

To submit, send two double-spaced hard copies and an electronic copy on disc (in .rtf format) to the address below. Submissions should not exceed 15 pages or 7,500 words. Please left-justify your submission and use a serif font (e.g., Times New Roman) in 12-point size. Please include your name, address, telephone number, email address, and a brief bio (100 words). Submissions will not be returned. Emailed submissions will not be considered.

Deadline for Submissions: September 15, 2008

Contact us: Chloe Brushwood Rose & Susan Goldberg, Editors, Reconceiving Anthology
c/o Dr. Chloe Brushwood Rose
Faculty of Education
York University
4700 Keele Street
Toronto, Ontario M3J 1P3
Canada
reconceivinganthology@gmail.com www.insomniacpress.com


Call #3:
The Future Landscape of Sexualities (deadline: June 20, 2008)
** */thirdspace: a journal of feminist theory and culture*/*/* /invites contributions for its forthcoming issue on The Future Landscape of Sexualities. Recognizing the central role which discussions of sexuality, identity, and culture have played in recent feminist scholarship, this issue will consider how sexuality informs gendered identities, as well as nodes of power including, race, class, ability, age, culture, nation, and religion. What does the future hold for human sexualities and sexual identities? How might current practices, assumptions, power relations, and identities shape these future sexualities? What new forms might sexualities evolve into in the future? How might these future sexualities transcend/reproduce current definitions of, and ideologies concerning, sexuality and sexual identity? Possible topics include:

· future utopic and dystopic sexualities
· role(s) of technologies (reproductive, virtual, synthetic) in the evolution and expression of sexuality
· the evolution of sex work
· queer sexualities
· inversions and convergences of sexuality and identity (including female masculinities and male femininities)
· the future of 'normative' masculinities and femininities
· sexualities and colour, sexualities and dis/ability, sexualities and age
· depictions of future sexualities in fiction, film, music, and art
Papers that ground speculation about the future with historical analyses of past transitions in sexualities are also welcome.

We welcome submissions from a wide range of disciplinary and geographical perspectives. Submissions from researchers working within, or among, the disciplines of geography, sociology, literature, area studies, cultural studies, film/media studies, art, history, education, law, and women’s/gender studies are particularly encouraged.

We accept the submission of work from scholars of any rank or affiliation, and encourage submissions from emerging feminist scholars, including graduate students.

All submissions to the journal must be submitted electronically through our online submission process. All submissions are peer-reviewed by established, senior feminist scholars. For more information on our publishing policies see: http://www.thirdspace.ca/journal/about/editorialPolicies

To submit: Please follow our online submission process at http://www.thirdspace.ca/journal/about/submissions**

** Deadline: June 20, 2008 **

For more information, please contact us at info [at] thirdspace.ca


Call #4:
Reconciling Art and Motherhood

For centuries, mother artists were an oxymoronic concept. And yet, they existed, carving out unique spaces for themselves in an often unwelcoming profession, amid social pressures and financial hardships. Long denigrated as a viable topic for artistic practice, motherhood is gradually gaining credibility and increasing its visibility in contemporary art. Mary Kelly, Sally Mann, Renée Cox, and many others in recent decades have paved the way to combining this life-altering social role with a successful career. Institutions, however, are so slow to change that, as in centuries past, motherhood can still serve as a detriment in both the art world and academic communities.

Submissions are sought for an anthology to be proposed, tentatively titled Reconciling Art and Motherhood. Essays by artists and art historians will explore how individuals have integrated experiences of motherhood within their work. While recent related anthologies, such as Bee Lavender and Maia Rossini’s excellent Mamaphonic (2004), most often have favored writers over artists, this anthology seeks to highlight exclusively a range of visual artistic practice. The following topics, among others, are encouraged: readings of the maternal body in contemporary art; historical examinations of artist-mothers; artistic documentation of aspects of motherhood and/or childhood; the embrace of motherhood in artistic/art historical practice; the problematics of motherhood as a theme; the delicate balance of maintaining family and producing / writing about art; making motherhood a "legitimate" topic for artistic production; issues of motherhood and family leave in the artist's workplace; the implications of intentionally avoiding motherhood or mothering-based art; artist "success stories" in the face of adversity.
If you are interested in submitting to this anthology, please send an abstract by September 1, 2008.

Submit to: Rachel Epp Buller, Bethel College, rachel@ddtr.net
Subject line: Artist Anthology Submission
Deadline: September 1, 2008, for initial abstract
Include: Title, Abstract (200-250 words), Name, Institutional Affiliation, Address, Phone, Email Address, Brief Bio (50 words)

Why I don't get it.

But I have trouble understanding how any woman, including those who didn’t support her, cannot empathize with the sadness of women who supported her at Clinton’s loss.

Answering for myself...first, because there is little about Clinton that bears any resemblance to feminism, unless by "feminism" we mean "white, middle-class, imperialism," which I do not.

Second, because of the things that were said by the Clinton campaign and by some of her more vocal supporters over the course of the campaign. When the racist comments came out of the Clinton campaign, that is when her campaign, for me, stopped being revolutionary. There is nothing revolutionary about trying to step on someone else in order to get to the top. I have trouble seeing past the racism of the Gloria Steinems and the Robin Morgans. And very often, what I hear from the white women I know who supported Clinton, is that there *was* no racism in the campaign.

So yes, I have trouble understanding this sadness, because in order to understand it I have to frame the whole situation as one in which racism isn't a big deal, as one in which women of color simply do not exist.

Second, in order to understand this sadness, I would also have to frame the whole situation as one in which biology is the only thing that matters. Electing a woman president is only radical if the woman herself is radical. I don't care how many yahoos you find who say that America isn't ready for a woman president. It wasn't radical to appoint Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court, either (and you know who were, for the most part, the ones having a conversation about whether or not it was? WHITE PEOPLE! Black lawyers were fit to be tied as White people put this man up and argued it was a strike against racial injustice to appoint him!).

And while HRC and Thomas are clearly worlds apart, you cannot selectively pick and choose among Clinton's accomplishments and leave out the yucky bits. Yes, she gets points for some of her wonderful work on behalf of women, but she also loses points for her war vote and for many of her foreign policy positions.

For my part, I cannot understand why seeing Obama as the nominee would bring any feminist anything but joy. Had Clinton won, this feminist would not have felt that women as a group had made a step forward. But because Obama won, I feel that all of us Americans have moved forward, and this has a lot to do with the kind of campaign he ran and the kind of presidency I believe he will have.

Edited to add: two other posts on this issue that I really like:
ProfBW's and BFP's.

Drinking the Weight Watchers Kool-Aid.

Now, I like Weight Watchers. Of the "diets" that are out there, WW is pretty clearly one of the best, and when I'm on it, I generally eat a lot more healthfully - lots of veggies and fruit and lean meats and dairy, and probably less of the non-nutritive stuff than I would normally eat. I like that it's not about deprivation, and I like that it lets you set your own goal weight and doesn't tell you that you're supposed to be able to squeeze into your jeans from high school. I also like that it encourages baby steps, so that everyone who tries it can find ways to succeed, whether that be eating a more balanced diet or increasing exercise or whatever.

But where I always run into trouble with Weight Watchers is here: when you are focused on losing weight, it is awfully hard not to fall back on destructive stereotypes about fat - and about fat people.

For example - at a recent meeting, our leader asked us why we thought it was that people ate so much on holidays. I raised my hand and said that I thought it was because so many of us deprive ourselves the rest of the year and see the holiday seasons as a time to indulge and treat ourselves. She looked at me somewhat incredulously and said, "who deprives themselves? Who are these people you're talking about? I don't see anyone depriving themselves." She said this with such scorn in her voice, scorn that betrayed her disgust at people who don't control their eating.

Readers, I was taken aback. First of all, when you think of the people you are close to, do you not, like me, think of many who refuse dessert, or who will only order it if someone will split it with them? People who leave perfectly delicious chocolate mousse cake on the plate rather than eat the last bite? (And we know there's a power and control thing going on there, too, right, with some folks? That eating two bites and leaving the rest for you?) People whose talk of food is peppered with value judgements: "I was so good this week," or "I'm going to behave and say no and have a glass of water instead."

Second of all, I was a little freaked out by her tone, which seemed to imply that it would be better for these fat folks to deprive themselves a little than to commit the sin of eating too much.

I have heard that in L.A., it's possible to take driver ed classes that focus around a theme - you can be in the environmental concerns driver ed, or the driver ed for 12-steppers, or what have you. I guess what I'd like to find is a feminist Weight Watchers, one that doesn't feel the need to find answers to obvious questions. Why do people eat so much over the holidays? Because it is the one time we feel we are not only permitted to eat all the foods we like, but we are also encouraged to do so. Because food is social. Because it feels good to eat and to share good food with people we like and love. It is not a complicated question, and while we may want to eat less or more healthfully, the answer does not need to put anyone down in order to be helpful.

There are certain comments and suggestions that I like to say come from drinking the WW Kool-Aid. You can tell if someone has drunk the Kool-Aid because they say things that just do not make any kind of logical sense. For example, I have heard WW leaders tell groups that exercise will make them less hungry. Well...yes, in the sense that right after an intense workout, the last thing I want to do right away is eat. I want to drink a bottle of water, and then I want to take a shower, and so I won't be hungry for a little while. But in general, exercise makes us hungrier because our bodies need more fuel for the work they are doing. Telling people that exercise will help to quiet their appetite is just setting them up for failure and self-blame.

Something else that I see as an outgrowth of WW Kool-Aid indulgence is pushing unhealthy foods on people in order to help them to stay on their "healthy" WW plan. For instance, I know a lot of WW members who make cake with a can of diet soda instead of oil. Um, that's great, in terms of keeping the points down on the cake. But diet soda isn't good for you. Sucralose and other sugar substitutes are, in fact, potentially dangerous (you don't even need me to link - just google this yourself and you'll find all kinds of horror stories). So recommending that we bake with Splenda so that we can lose weight always sounds, to me, like recommending that we dust our cheeks with lead (thanks, Zula!) so that they'll be nice and rosy, while we meanwhile slowly poison ourselves.

Finally, I would like to see WW stop repeating the same stupid "science" that is floating around out there, like the idea of this "obesity epidemic." Newsflash: when you change the guidelines of what constitutes "obesity" so that more people are now termed obese, this is not an epidemic. That is like annexing Canada and then stepping up the birth control advertisements in an attempt to slow the tremendous population growth (apologies to my Canadian readers).

I have a fantasy of leaving copies of "The Strange History of Suzanne LaFleshe" in Weight Watchers weighing-in rooms across the country - of becoming a Johnny Appleseed sowing self-content and self-love. There is a place for Weight Watchers, certainly, but there should be a place in Weight Watchers for feminists who aren't fatphobic. (And yes, I think you can be in Weight Watchers without being fatphobic. Sounds contradictory, I know, but I think it's possible.)

Hillary feminists and Obama feminists.

So, hopefully we won't need to be talking about this for too much longer (if Hillary concedes and releases her delegates, that is, but that remains to be seen), but I was explaining this to a friend the other day, and I thought it was a helpful way to understand it. I used to think it was a generational divide, and certainly, it does sort of seem to play out that way, in general. But then I realized that it has less to do with generation and more to do with what kind of feminism one subscribes to. If you see gender as the central feature of feminism, then you are likely to be a Hillary supporter. If you see race, class, and other issues as intertwined with gender and equally important to your feminism, then you are likely to be an Obama supporter.

I think that's a pretty good description of the division.

Meanwhile - is it wrong for me to be thinking about how effing revolutionary and awesome it will be to have a Black First Family?! So much, so much will be different from here on out.