My cynical view of the week, ending May 3, 2008

Girl A is friends with Guys C, D, and E. Girl B befriends Girl A. Girl B has past relationships with Guys D and E and claims confusion over Guy E but also claims to have no interest other than compassionate friendship for Guy E. Girl A, in a fit of gossipy self-loathing, relates confidential information about Guys D and E, information which Girl B then uses to garner one more night with Guy E. Moral: We are all guided by our particular psychoses and rationalize every other choice we make in service to our guiding psychoses.

1950s Redux at Harvard

This Sunday I was treated to 1950s sexual politics masquerading itself as an article in The New York Times written by someone who has the liberal credentials of actually having written for Mother Jones. The article, "Students of Virginity" by Randall Patterson, decided that, fifteen years or more after this movement really took off, it was time to talk about celibacy on college campuses because Harvard University finally happens to have a chapter, dubbed "True Love Revolution." Problem one, then, this didn't matter when other, less famous and less wealthy schools had chapters?

Myriad are the questions and concerns this article brought up for me. Instead of reading a journalistic examination of this complex issue, I felt like I was reading a propaganda piece for the virtues of Victorian era femininity but recast as a feminist stance. First you have your main figure, a girl from a town in Colorado where supposedly no one had sex, who finds herself in the midst of "godless Harvard," where apparently hook-up style sex is rampant. She is then contrasted with her colleague, the male co-chair of Harvard's True Love Revolution. While, and I ask you to consider the images above as I write this, she is rendered as sexy, strong, and smart, her male colleague is rendered as creepy. That's right, chastity is sexy in women, but in men, it's just creepy. Why can't a normal, sexy man make a respectable choice for abstinence?

But of course the 1950s propaganda doesn't stop there, our white-middle-class heroine is then pitted against a "harlot"/"vixen" in complete uniform, a mini skirt, a lack of self restraint in her love of food, and a seeming idiocy about her own opinions in the one paragraph she gets to express them. Oh, and one other thing, our vixen happens to be Asian American. That's right, now I feel like it's a classical virgin vs. harlot with the added colonial overtones that all non-white-middle-class women are completely sexually available and so lustful they cannot control all their hormonal habits. Coincidence?

Putting aside these questions about the overt ways race and gender interplay in an article that seems to support the position of the virgin, I am left with several other questions. Why are chaste women always pitted against a rival whose sexual preferences resemble those of pornography? Why wasn't her opponent in debate a woman who takes a more moderated position towards sexuality? We may feel overloaded in this society by images of Paris Hilton and Girls Gone Wild, and I might be with the Colorado virgin in seeing the danger to feminist strength in those women as well (always being sexually available porn style is being just as much controlled by men and being just as much an object with no subjectivity as the virgin, if not more so; I must agree with that). The choice is not virgin vs. harlot. In fact, both the virgin and the harlot, as archetypes in this dichotomy, are women who package themselves for patriarchal society's desires, not their own. A woman's sexual choices are much more complicated than that, and the one thing this article can remind is how much these choices, for both men and women, should be about self-respect and meaning, not just hormones, lust, and the images peddled to us by the media and other communities. And every man or woman should be self-conscious about why she chooses what she chooses about sexuality.

And how snide a name is "True Love Revolution," assuming that gays for one (whom the group only accepts if they are celibate), and other people who do not marry somehow do not experience "true love," but people who married experience true love, people who often did so throughout history as part of economic contracts not love? Also, haven't we learned the dangers of valorizing marriage as a kind of perfect utopian home life? Isn't that a lesson we can take from the 1960s even if we didn't live through them? And what was with the publishing of letters to Harvard's Crimson that implied the "vixen" was just not the wifely material that the "virgin" was? Not only does that yet again replicate 1950s mentality but it assumes our "vixen" wants a traditional monogamous marital relationship, which she may very well not.

I can still imagine that some (I know not all, and that the virgin and harlot imagery exists because some people have made choices that look just like that) women and men can and have over the centuries chosen to be neither virgins nor harlots; celibate freaks nor virile dogs. That there is a much more complicated path in between that does justice to the full personhood of all the women and men involved in a sexual exchange. What is significant about now, and better about now than the 1950s, is the the freedom to choose for oneself without society setting up the old stereotypes. But this article felt like a step backwards instead of the step forwards it was presenting itself as.

---
Images of True Love Revolution leaders Leo Keliher and Jamie Fredell, taken by Katherine Wolkoff for The New York Times

Navigating Difficult Waters

In the last two days, I have read four editorials from the New York Times and three in the Los Angeles Times exploring how landmark was Obama's speech on race this past Tuesday. Obama's speech made me teary eyed at moments, but somehow it still left me feeling empty, like drinking a diet soda. I still think he's the best choice we have for the next president of the United States, in large part because anyone who voted for the Iraq War should be removed from public office (and should definitely not be president). I think that these authors were so impressed by Obama's speech only because of the depressing lack of deep, thoughtful, and constructive public conversation that currently transpires around the complexities of race, not just in this country, but in this hemisphere.

I did read one editorial of different tenor in today's Los Angeles Times from Michael Meyers, executive director of the New York Civil Rights Coalition. Meyers believed that Obama blew it, that he had the opportunity to point that we are all just members of the human race, and that people like Jeremiah Wright must step aside and make way for a "color blind" America.

I disagree with Wright's take much more than those that laud the speech. Being mixed white and Latina (which are already "racially" mixed and oddly fraught terms), I have learned to distrust anyone who claims they are "color blind;" that's usually a way of stating "I have unexamined racial biases." Obama did not make that claim, and yet I also disagree with Nicholas D. Kristof's editorial that Obama misspoke originally when he claimed there was just America and not a black one and white one.

So this is just a meandering post. I can't tell you something other than that I just need us to be somewhere else right now. And part of getting there is about changing who can be president of the United States, and that's only one reason why it's essential that either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton be the next president (even if my clear and unequivocal preference is for Obama).

television paradox #14,285

I am really tired of the U.S. obsession surrounding what words cannot be said on television. We all know these words, so not showing them on television is not going to protect us from learning what these words are. It's okay for us to watch blood gushing out of patients on innocuous romantic dramas like Grey's Anatomy, but it's completely unacceptable for Jane Fonda to use the word "cunt" on The Today Show, even when that word is the title of a play and is not being used in a specifically profane or insulting manner? Meredith Vieira then apologized to the nation, claiming they would never want to offend the audience. Well, I'm offended that a word that appears in the title of a play is considered offensive. If Fonda had been using it in a derogatory manner, then maybe we could argue about whether it belonged on a morning talk show. Maybe. I think that if The Today Show really wanted to apologize, they could focus on how empty their programming generally is and how they contribute to a kind of national malaise.

Paul Krugman and the Obama cult of personality

Below is the email I contemplated sending Paul Krugman of the New York Times today because of his views on Senator Obama's supposed cult of personality. I decided it was too long a rant to send in an email to someone I don't know, so why not publish it in cyberspace for a bunch of people I don't know (or all five of you I do know) to read it at their leisure? The column in question was "Hate Springs Eternal" in this morning's paper.

Mr. Krugman:

I do want to say first that I have long admired your column, and that I will continue to admire and support your work by reading it long after this campaign season has ended.

I am writing in response to your column and subsequent blog post because I wanted to let you know that our experiences of this campaign season starkly contrast each other. I currently live in California, and I support Hillary Clinton but my preferred candidate this season is Barack Obama. While you assign the Democratic campaign's vitriol to Senator's Obama supporters who supposedly worship the cult of his genius Roman style, my observations tend to place more of the vitriol in Senator Clinton's camp. I have heard some horrible things said about Senator Clinton, but mostly from people who blanket oppose Senator Clinton and would campaign for a ficus rather than support her (and these people really bother me, but that's another issue). I admit that my circles may incline me to hear from moderated rational people and not fanatical fascist supporters of Senator Obama, whom I am certain do exist (and yes I saw the video). Nonetheless, my experience of Senator Clinton supporters was that they were the overly antagonistic ones. A number of women I spoke to, including family members, tended to view me as a traitor to all women for supporting Senator Obama. By contrast, the one time a person on my district's Obama listserv sent out an email blanket insulting Hillary Clinton, the listserv was filled with emails distressed by such behavior. They viewed supporting Senator Obama as a choice they had made, but they respected Senator Clinton as a Democrat, a leader, and a candidate.

On your blog, you brought up the race issue. Now, as you alluded to in your blog, perhaps I believe what I believe because I do actually believe that in a legislative way Al Gore "invented" the internet. The thing about racism is that it survives because it is capable of behaving in ways that are inexplicit but significant at the same time. Tying Senator Obama's victory in South Carolina to Jesse Jackson's is about as explicit as you can get while still claiming plausible deniability, but we'll give Bill Clinton the benefit of the doubt and say it was a subconscious racial connection rooted in historical facts. Dolores Huerta, whom I have also been a great admirer of, attempted to portray Senator Obama as someone who has no interest or concern for Latina/os. Frank Rich, your fellow columnist, made clear in his Sunday piece that the Clinton campaign has actively played on the race issue, especially between Latino/as and African Americans. A Clinton campaign pollster claimed that Latina/os would not vote for African Americans (as a footnote to this piece: you can't say any one ethnic group always votes one way - as it turns out some white men are willing to vote for people outside their own immediate racial-ethnic group). Senator Clinton then supported this statement to Tim Russert by claiming it was a "historical" fact when, as Rich pointed out, plenty of Latina/os have voted for African Americans at local levels in both California and across the country. Though not explicit, I cannot doubt that at some level, even if merely a subconscious one, that was meant to work as race-baiting between Latino/a and African American voters. Such behavior did factor into my ultimate decision to support the campaign of Senator Obama (among a range of factors).

If Senator Clinton is the fairly elected nominee, I do intend to support her in the fall. If Senator Obama is the nominee, I do expect that attacks will be made against him and his character that will dwarf anything stated so far by Senator Clinton's campaigners. For some reason, U.S. voters do like living in "Nixonland" as you cleverly called it. While I have long admired your keen and insightful wit on issues like this, I think this time your support of Senator Clinton, like others' support of Senator Obama, may have kept you from seeing that Senator Clinton's campaign has made some serious missteps with regard to race, and more specifically that what antagonism exists in the Democratic race runs on both sides and has its own strong expression in the Clinton camp.

Thank you for your time,
sister t

--
Photo taken by Josh Haner for the New York Times

Remaking Romeo and Juliet

This is just a random shout out to the internet-verse. A couple of weeks ago, I read this piece on Patrick Stewart in the New York Times. In there he mentioned, with what seemed a small tinge of regret, that he will never play Hamlet, Romeo, Orlando, or Benedick. I saw Romeo and Juliet in New York's Central Park last summer, and I realized I had never really taken to that play before because I had not liked the actors and actresses I have seen as Romeo and Juliet. This memory connected in my head with the fact that I also have long admired Stewart's ability to act, even if he wasn't always provided the best cinematic roles.

So, here is what I'm asking of the universe. If you have or know anyone who has the ability to produce Romeo and Juliet, might I suggest you turn the story around? Make Romeo and Juliet the parents instead of the children. I think that would be a fascinating turn on the play. And then you can cast Patrick Stewart, and that would be amazing to watch. Just let me know where you are going to produce this so I can find a way of seeing it.

---
The above photo was taken by Steve Forrest/Insight-Visual, for The New York Times in London's Gielgud Theater, and it can be found with the Jan. 23, 2008 article linked above on Patrick Stewart.

This blogger endorses Barack Obama

On her deathbed, my Missouri-born, Kansas-residing grandmother asked my aunt to read Bill Clinton’s autobiography to her. Yes, on my mother's side, I come from a long line of cradle-to-grave working Kansan Democrats. That’s right, Democrats in Kansas, and they’re not from some liberal elite bastion of a place. I spent much of my childhood in my grandmother’s mobile home, in a trailer park along the Kansas river.

This election is a big deal. For those of us on the left side of the political oval, it does feel like another Republican in the White House could certainly spell the end of the United States of America that could be. And we have reason to be excited about our top contenders. Democrats in the United States do, by and large, have no qualms about electing a woman or an African American man, knowing that their biographies might actually give them added knowledge and skills presently lacking in our president.

But one day in December, I woke up with the conviction of supporting Barack Obama for president. My decision to support Senator Obama was entirely mercenary. I saw his popular polling among independents and evangelicals, and meanwhile one of my own friends vowed she would never vote for Hillary Clinton because she hates her so much.

I have to take a break from endorsing Senator Obama for a moment to support Senator Clinton. Why do people hate Senator Clinton so much? Hate is a strong word and stronger feeling, and I own I am filled with a certain writhing disgust every time President George W. Bush or Vice Present Dick Cheney open their mouths or even appear in photographs greeting me as I enter LAX on a return flight from Latin America. Nonetheless, I can put that feeling aside and listen to them, and if I had to choose between Adolf Hitler and George Bush on a ballot, I would not stay home that day just because I loathe the Bush administration.

But people hate Senator Clinton with a kind of fervor that I thought was reserved for someone who had killed your family, scalped your dog, and made you eat your poor puppy for dinner. That kind of hatred does not reflect well on them. In the case of my friend, I could not help but wonder if it was because Senator Clinton was a strong woman on parity with her husband but certainly not controlled by him. If somehow, my friend who had been intelligent and capable but chose a much more dependent role in relationship to her husband, if maybe she could not stand the cognitive dissonance of that choice when faced with the likes of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Admittedly Senator Clinton is not always the most likable of people to watch, but she is a strong, capable, intelligent, and decisive human being, all qualities we supposedly like in a president. I really believe her when she says she has committed her life to small daily victories that make people’s lives better. So you can find her annoying, but hate her, what is wrong with you? If, in this day and age, you are afraid of a strong woman who is smarter than you are, you bring the human race down as a species.

So back to how I wound up with Senator Obama. Partially, it is a matter of our somewhat mirror biographies, in that we are both the descendants of mothers born to the state of Kansas and fathers born to countries in the global South. I can see that Senator Obama has struggled with his African American identity in ways that evoke my own struggles with being Latina but looking “Greek”. I also agree with arguments made in the New York Times and by Fareed Zakaria in Newsweek. Senator Obama’s biography does make a difference to the kind of leader he can be. The rest of the world would look at us differently if our president was half Kenyan. And his intimate familial knowledge of Kenya, his childhood experiences in Indonesia, change the way he looks at and interacts with the rest of the world. The future of this country demands we have a president who can work with the rest of the world better than the last one. For those of you who did not get the memo, the United States is not the only important power on this tiny blue planet. We need a president who can do more than transcend the divisions of Republican and Democrat. We need a president whose very being can transcend the divide between the United States of America and the rest of the world.

Of course I read Time this week, and much to my chagrin, I discovered I am part of some soapy idealistic movement of people under 30 who believe in politics again. That is not it; I think a lot of us just believe that we are in a perilous situation, and we desperately need the right person to help us right now. It would be a grave misstep to elect a Republican, even one as honorable and heroic (at least in his youth that is) as John McCain. Republican fiscal policy has failed the bulk of us whenever they have been in charge since 1980, and most of us under 30 know that. McCain offers no alternative. Republican social policy erodes the possibilities for the poor, minorities, and women, or well basically everyone who is not wealthy, white, and male. Since that is 98% of us, you would think we could have no trouble voting them out of office. Republican foreign policy has generally alienated even our allies, especially the policy of this current administration. As we face an uncertain future, we are much more dependent on the good will of friends and neighbors than we have ever been before. That makes either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama a no-brainer kind of choice against any Republican, or so I would think, but then I thought Al Gore was a no-brainer kind of choice over George W. Bush.

Democrats should be happy with either of our top candidates, excepting some rabid Hillary Clinton despisers. Their differences are not so much those of substance but of style. This is not to say their policy differences are insignificant, and for you Obama critics out there, he does have some quite substantive policy initiatives to consider. As a Democrat, I consider it my obligation to castigate Senator Clinton for her vote authorizing the Iraq war, and I do so with this post. She, and many of her fellow Democrats, betrayed our party and our country on that day. Senator Obama guarantees that we will leave Iraq within 16 months of his taking office, but Senator Clinton has offered no such guarantee.

I also believe the difference of style is an important one. Mark Leibovich’s recent New York Times article on this issue paints the distinction in stark contrasts that echo what I have seen in the campaigns. Professor Lani Guinier, in this piece, observes that Senator Clinton “is the talented lawyer serving her clients” while Senator Obama is a community organizer to his core “who sees the source of his power as the ability to inspire people to mobilize.” Here in California, my experience of the Clinton campaign is one of an admirably committed civil servant, but the Obama campaign has an army of committed volunteers who are always inspired to help organize others in support of him. Less-than-wealthy Clinton supporters are left more out in the wilderness; my own mother just today found out how she can support Senator Clinton in the caucuses back home in Kansas.

These are just a few of the reasons I have chosen to support Senator Obama, though it is an admittedly close election in my mind, with two superior candidates. Let me just say, however, that all politicians will betray their own best intentions. They are politicians because they are power-hungry individuals who can bend in the wind when need be; the rest of us aren't politicians because we can't compromise our ideals that much. I do not believe that either Senator Obama or Senator Clinton can completely heal the country of the Bush ills. But I do believe that Senator Obama has a slightly better shot at doing so and an even better shot at defeating Senator McCain. If you are in a Super Tuesday state, please be sure to do the rest of us a favor and vote. If you’re voting Democrat, you should strongly consider Senator Obama’s claim that he has the right experience to govern our country right now.

----
This was a really long post, but I have a couple of additional side notes:

The music video above should be a little clearer on the fact that it is also saying, "Sí, se puede," as well as "yes, we can" in so many languages that people speak in the United States. I was pleased to hear Spanish and see American Sign Language, but what about others?

Those of you spreading emails that claim Senator Obama is a Muslim should be ashamed of yourselves. Not only is that email an out and out lie, it is playing on ignorant religious fears that degrade our whole country. While I would have no fear of electing a Muslim for president were she or he the right person for the job, I know that is an opinion not shared by much of the country. I know politics is about dirty trickery, thus why I am not a politician, but come on people, even Senator McCain, whose adopted Bangladeshi child was used against him in 2000, would probably find that a low blow.