Are Women Human?

Read the introduction first! The answer seems to be: almost. If you're not up on currnent international law concerning women's rights and protections, MacKinnon has there some good news that will make reading the rest of the book slightly less than harrowing. As an incourigable Romantic myself, I find a good dose of hard realism tonic once in a while.

When Irigaray argued that women's feminine kind of humanity needs recongition and protection in the Law, the Convention of Belem do Para and the African Protocol are something like what she had in mind. That much is very clear. And, thus far into the book, Mac's that is, this seems like a very good thing to read.

Set aside ingrained and recieved notions that MacKinnon is somehow anti-sex or anti-men, and remember that what she's working on are the very basic ground levels of the ways in which societies prevent women's full humanity -- in this case before the Law, and thus in the culture on whole. Her premise is, it has been, and as is the case: we are what we tacitly condone.

CFP: "Iris Murdoch's Scenes: An Anthology of Moral Imaginations"

Call For Papers

Iris Murdoch's Scenes: An Anthology of Moral Imaginations

In this age of the Ethical Turn, considerations of Iris Murdoch's work as philosopher and novelist may be more important than ever. Her philosophical influences and encounters, her vast literary production, her flashing insights in interviews, all kept close faith with the value and mystery of the limited, often eccentric, individual other and the difficult work of responsibly encountering reality. As the Humanities engage with questions from the geopolitical to the personal regarding the other, Iris Murdoch's work presents one model worthy of emulation, question, and adaptation to the concerns we face in our present contexts.

This anthology, inspired by the Moral Imagination panel at the 2005 MLA, seeks to collect essays from both established and emerging scholars in the Humanities. Both discipline specific and interdisciplinary works that employ any approach or method are encouraged and may address any of or any combination of the following topics.

Aesthetics: literary influences on the novels, philosophical influences on the novels, contemporary critical approaches to the novels, Murdoch's influence on others' novels, and the relevance of Murdoch's style to contemporary fiction

Philosophy: influences on Murdoch's moral and aesthetic theories, the influence of same on other philosophers, connections between Murdoch's philosophy and that of other major philosophers or theorists of aesthetics, subjectivity, gender, ethics, and productive relations for contemporary contexts between Murdoch's thought and that of non-western traditions

History and Imagination: relations between Murdoch's novels and/or philosophy and the history of the twentieth century, Murdoch's contributions in the contexts of present concerns of the various disciplines and fields in the Humanities, implications of her work for future humanist ventures

The call is deliberately open. Murdoch adored a lively conversation on matters of urgency, and we hope to publish a volume of works that honors this most valuable of Humanist traditions. The editors of this volume believe that continued and fresh engagement with Murdoch's thought and writing can only be of benefit as intellectuals and scholars seek a deeper and more effective engagement not only with the problems we critique, but with speculation concerning how our cultures can address those problems in new ways. Essays on topics not explicit in this call are also welcome.

Deadline for Submissions is 3/15/07. The editors hope of have the anthology ready for publication by late 2007 or early 2008.

Requirements: Essays should run between 7-9,000 words, and follow the most recent MLA documentation format. Electronic submissions should arrive as attachments in Microsoft Word. All submissions require cover letter including an author bio, title of essay, and a brief abstract. Blind submissions, please. The author's name should not appear on the essay.


Send Submissions or Queries to:

Me, the other co-editor -- just comment on this post and I'll get in touch with you ASAP!!
Independent Scholar

Co-editors:
Dr. Alison Scott-Baumann, University of Gloucestershire, GB
Dr. David Garrett Izzo, Fayetteville State University, NC

Punks to love in Quebec

Mes chers freres Quebequois! Basta! Vous avez L'Ame. Punk rock brothers in Quebec, y'all, head's up! Helps if you read Francais, but you'll get the idea si pas. Love to the groovy men.

"Oil Profit Backlash"

At The National Post (that's Canada, kids), Peter Morton reports:

With forecasts of even higher U.S. gasoline prices through the summer, both sides of Congress are calling for probes into price-fixing by big oil companies, demanding new taxes on oil profits and restrictions on oil company mega-mergers.

Whatever, dude. When I see it in the law.

Culture of Life: I thru IX

To review, and resist the ephemeral, read-backwards nature of the blog. Intro to blog, Preface, Col I, CoL II, Col III, CoL IV,CoL V,CoL VI cuz numbers..., CoL no number cuz i goofed,CoL VI,CoL VII, CoL VIII, CoL IX.

CoL X: Nuke/Phallus World Madness

It might just be that I'm a child of the Cold War. Still… It's not interpretive rocket science to see that North Korea, India, Pakistan, and Iran (among others not yet making headlines) want "nuculer" bombs because they equate nukes with "respect." They've said as much. USSR had oodles, the US had oodles, and the French, and others, and the Cold War showed that those who have nukes are respected. They "exist" in the symbolic of world politics more than countries w/o nukes. They are listened to, negotiated with, … and Feared. Respect in this logic (with a k, yes) equals "being feared." And in all of patriarchy, that's also true. Alan Johnson's The Gender Knot is the clearest analysis of this essential logic for those not accustomed to the jargons of the Humanities in recent decades. In each of these cultures, the lowest, ickiest, most abject thing a human can be a girl. (See: honor killings, contemporary sati, the partner abuse stats in the US, &c.).

There is a connection here. It's your basic, armchair Freud. Girls don't have a penis, symbolically (Lacan) they don't have the Phallus (yes, he even capitalizes it): they don't "exist" in the symbolic realm where all the serious business of culture gets done. Girls are not quite human. gah, oldest song in recorded history.

Ergo, therefore, thus: These countries want Nukes because they are the Phallus of politics, in cultures where being the Big Man is a really big deal. (See: North Korea. People starve, fascist government builds nukes with money that should feed people.) And Fear: that's easy. Just consider all the coercion/force or threat of potential force that goes along with traditional manhood in these cultures (Johnson is again helpful here: this is a universal mark of patriarchy). No brainer. I'm sure that Zizek has already been all over this in his ironic and irritating way.

One of the eventual and wonderful side-effects of elevating the status of women in the world, and creating cultures where two sexes and genders "exist," is that this sort of patricarchal logik will dissipate. (See: Luce Irigaray, and damn near every feminist scholar who ever wrote a book, for fuck's sake.) If it's not bad to be a girl, and without a penis, then it's NOT instantly and obviously good to have big cocky bombs that destroy the world by opening up little Suns on the face of the earth.

"My nuke is bigger than your nuke" sword fests will be, well, kinda funny, and will require some other justification. And given what nukes are, and what they do to humans and the planet: There is no other justification.

In a Real Culture of Life this kind of crazy-assed shit does not happen. In cultures that glorify pride and status above actual living people, Cultures of Death, this shit happens. Make no mistake.

Now. Me. I get freaked out every time India and Pakistan get all "I'll nuke you" over Kashmir. (Which, P.S., is historical fallout from the Age of Empire and the sudden withdrawal of Empire after WW2, just like all this other crap that going on with US and Middle East is fallout from that, and Empire was in many ways about the Phallus. Before nukes, the sign that a country was powerful was how much of the rest of the world it had subjugated (read: turned into women, symbolically.). I do. I get scared. Because I hated the Cold War. I didn't grow up thinking I could hide under my desk. I grew up knowing that the air would burn, the sky would fall, and the earth would be uninhabitable for a very long time. See: Chernobyl. My skin, if I lived, might Drip Off like so much warm wax. See: Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Or, I might get to live in a bomb shelter, underground, with my brother for 30 years while the earth cooled. At the time, my brother and I were teenagers, and that seemed a fate worse than death. (He was pretty obnoxious there for a few years.) My plan, as recently mentioned, was to drive to one of the ground zero sites near my home -- Luck: there are three, all about 20 to 30 minutes from anywhere I might be -- and die in the Flash. Poof. Painless and quick, and, for a moment, spectacular. I kept a map in my glove box. I had highlighted the routes. I showed it to my dad. He cried, hating it that his daughter felt the need to think about actually ending her life this way. He tried to explain "mutually assured destruction" and "deterrence" to me, and somehow, you know, that just wasn't real fucking reassuring. AND NOW, Iran, and US, and "no option off the table" and I really don't want lovely, kind, pious, generous, creative people in Iran to glow in the dark. I don't. (The president and the mullahs, that's another story. They need to get schooled -- but not nuked.) It's a miserable and hellish thought.

No, it's a hell-thought. That thought is a hell.

When I was a teen and early 20something, I was a very disaffected, punk rock, pissed off girl. There were many reasons, but one was that I woke up and noticed that the Adults, who were supposed to be reasonable and good, had really Fucked It All Up Beyond All Recognition. I lost faith in them. And here I am again, looking at the World, and thinking, "You are still fucking it all up." I'm starting to wear my combat boots more than I have in previous years --- and that is not always a great fashion statement for a prof, nor especially comfy in Texas weather.

Related note. In the interim, I suggest showing everyone on earth the film The Day After, which I watched as a teen, and which convinced me beyond all appeal logical or emotional or patriotic that nukes suck big time. Some imperialist chafing is Nothing compared to that hell in which people are starting over and killing each other for, and possibly as, food. Mad Max just turned that into a sort of Greek mythic epic thingy. Don't think Mad Max, it's too cool and adventurous.

Another related note. Coke had an ad in the 70's. "I'd like to buy the world a Coke, and keep it company…." Lot's of cute, clean hippies on hillsides singing and swaying together like Hari Krinshna's (and I like Haris, they're very sweet and kind), and it's back. Updated, but back. We were in Vietnam then, and nukes were everywhere. We're in Iran and Afghanistan now, and nukes are everywhere. Coinkidink? Not so. Marketing and coincidence are not fellow travelers.

I would like to stop reliving my own History. I've read this book. It sucked. I would like to create some History that's new all the way down to its most basic structural and metaphorical levels. You know, the levels at which nuke=phallus=respect operate, down underneath the conscious mind. Lots of our Habits have to change. This, I know, is neither easy nor short term. I know I will not live to see this kind of world manifested. That's OK with me. I would like you and I to get started now. Tinkering on the surface is good and right, but in the long run, much deeper changes are necessary.

Advice: LiveAware Tank-tops

They run small. I ordered a medium. I'm a medium in many cases. Not this case. "Medium" is true if you are built like an athletic 14 year old girl. Which I am not. So, take your usual size and bump it up, say, two sizes. That makes me an X-Large. If you've seen me, and some of you have, there's your metric. I now endeavor to exchange my tank-top. Which, was going to wear to Austin for a weekend of badassed womendom and cooking... but alas. Still, one of these days..., foiled again..., and other 70's cartoon tag lines.

Iran, Again, and some generally grouchy pleading

This interview with Ebrahim Moosa at The Sun is more than it promises, which is progressive Muslim's view of fundamentalism, the spirit of Islam, Iran... That all sounds familiar. What's Good and New in it is the comparison concerning fundamentalisms, and he calls our "free" "market" capitalism a fundamentalism, our democracy and freedom both fundamentalisms because "we" (by which I don't mean myself) insist that the world should be free and capitalist in just the way that we are. Everything he says is extremely interesting. I believe one should know something about the people one is considering bombing into oblivion. But, it also brought up some tangential points for me that have been percolating for months. This would be a CoL post, but it's just not quite there.

Moosa also alludes to the point that our present system is unsustainable on its own merits, and becuase it completely depends on the political and economic subjugation of most of the world. (Interesting point from Harper's Index: Total GNP of the Developed World compared to the Developing World taken as a whole: 52, 48.) The second point is obvious: that's why there's been ethical consumer movements and those new green funds to invest in. But the first point, let me ramble a bit here. Economists, hush for a second. I know this sounds like freshman class nonsense to you. I'm not an economist. I'm a semiotitian of sorts and an armchair historian, so bear with me.

Here is my randomly compiled evidence: recent books on 30something Gen Xer's not being able to keep up as Consumers, and depending on their 'rents. Recent blips of news all over the mainstream media (which I know like to scare us as much as Bush does) about the economic dangers of the truly massive personal debt levels of US consumers (we are not citizens in a economy) and the really apocalyptic national deficits, rising thanks to the wars we are fighting. The huge cuts to Pell grants and other federal financial aid Designed To Help the Working and Lower Middle Class Get Through College so they can join the "new economy." I won't even go into the cuts in other services because I can't think straight when I do that. And now, the article in the May issue of Harper's about the housing bubble, which is not so much a bubble as a massive sink hole about to open up and swallow the middle class whole. The houses they are mortaged and equity loaned into are, apparently, very soon going to be worth less than consumers paid for them (much less the total mortgage), and so they'll never be able to get out from under their "investment". This seems to have happened in Japan, and it ain't pretty. Now, you put all that together and what it boils down to is this: our fantastic-amazing-world-envy-creating economy and lifestyle in the US is built almost entirely on ... nothing. On fake money, borrowing, and shilling cash (which has only relative value assigned by mathmatical equations, not real value tied to real things in the world, the gold standard, recall, is Long Gone, doubt me? read this about the value of the penny) from one spot to another. One simple example is that we do not pay the Real price of goods we purchace. Walmart and other retail coporations strong-arm producers to keep costs so low the producers sometimes go out of business. Another is that because part-time fast food and restaurant empolyees have no health insurance through their employers, we do not pay the Real price of hamburgers. And the oil thing is obvious, right? Ok.

There is no "free market." This whole market is highly engineered, and in a clearly unsustainable way. My generation, X, owes $55,000 each over our lives to pay off the S&L Bail-out from the 1980s (yes, that went down on a Republican watch). I don't even know what we each will pay for the wars and economic incompetence of an Administration hell bent on believing its own ideology over facts. Markets are decisions. These decisions have not been good.

What I know from these signs and from history is this: all civilations are ultimately brought down by their own success. (This is not my idea, btw, and if I could remember where I read it I would let you know.) All of them. Our success is not landgrabbing (not anymore, there not being any left to just grab) like the Romans and the other more recent Empires (England, France, Holland, Germany, the USSR, &c.). Our success has been in money, in economic empire. And that isn't even made of real stuff anymore. Art of War, kids, Sun Tsu, one's strength is also one's weakness...because one does not pay too much of the right kind of attention where one feels strong. This is very bad turf.

And now, oh joy, our Decider (gahf) is shaking his nuclear sword at Iran (who is behaving badly), and that situation boils down to apocalyptic fundamentalists from two different religions squaring off with each other to see whose savior comes back from the Beyond to rule the earth. Nukes again. Iran again. Shakey economy again. I remember this. I remember it really well. I don't fear a hail of nukes like I did then. (Hell, I had Ground Zero routes planned from every place I could drive when I was in high school. I was going to die in the flash. I lived smack between three of them: McDonald-Douglas, Scott's Air Force Base, and one other -- in case you want to know one reason why my generation was pretty low on affect for a long time there -- cuz we knew the air would catch fire one day and there would be no 'duck and cover' ....) What I see is weakness that will not serve in the short or long run. I see a bombing and nuke pleased president squaring off against a mad man (they're both mad, but that's beside the point), and an economy teetering on the edge of some massive reallocation of funds to creditors both foreign and domestic, and a terrorist network that is still panting with hateful lust to hit us hard, and more than once. The only "source" that tells me that we're making any progress against the T-networks is the Administration, and I'm afraid I don't believe them. Gosh, why wouldn't I?

It's simply time to change all of our priorities. All of them. Scale down the consumerism, work to let liberty take the shapes of the people who want it according to their desire and within the frame work of human rights, build more public transportation and make cars really expensive, outlaw urban and sub-urban driven SUVs (nobody driving on Pavement actually needs one), develop hydrogen fuel cells and attach them to our homes and businesses and send scads of them over to the developing world so that they can skip that nasty industrial revolution that made us so dependent on fossil fuels, and well, a few other things having to do with human decency and compassion and all that. We are not, as a nation or a society, making the kinds of moves that will make our lives, lifestyles, or the well-being of the world's population sustainable, forget flourishing or good. This is our success, and if we are not very wise, and quick, and careful, it will also be our failure.

Wish I could be more optimistic on this Sunday morning, but there is no snow on Kilamanjaro anymore. No way to write "The Snows of...." anymore. Gone. And there is no getting around that -- because it's real.

Ironic Cultural-Political Parallel, Anyone?

Sometimes the commonalities between enemies are simply too much. This from Dr. Lania Farhat-Holzman:

The social aspects of Ahmadinejad's internal oppression are damaging Iran's future. Brain drain is on the increase once more. But even more alarming is Ahmadinejad's membership in an apocalyptic Shiite cult into which he has poured government money. This cult is awaiting the return of an imam who supposedly did not die in the Middle Ages, but who went into hiding until he returns to end the world. Apocalyptic cultists from all religions believe in helping the end of the world along. A few nuclear bombs hurled in the wrong direction could certainly bring the end of the world of Iran. Let's hope that somebody stops this vicious man.

Someday, we will realize the value of This World, and let the next take care of itself.

Disaster? Feminist Semiotics 101

This from AOL Jobs. Now, since when is a bad hair day either a faux pas (their word on the headline linking to the article) or a disaster? Only in a patriarchal world where women are expected to be beautiful and graceful and ready to be Gazed at all times while also handling stressy deadlines and irksome coworkers.... C'mon. Flat hair? Something to actually worry about? As opposed to, say, job performance and well-being of one's soul, or say telling your very polite boss an off-color joke (serious faux pas) or, gosh, I'm thinking, wait, wait, say a Category 5 Hurricane? Yeh, there, now we have some proportional rhetoric. Man! This is getting tired.

CoL IX: Feminist Semiotics 101

Class, what are the subtexts of this billboard? I saw this yesterday on Preston, on my way to work, and thought of us. Since we're seeking a way to create a real culture of life in practice and not just in rhetoric, we must consider the semiotics of our everyday world, because that will have to change too. Here's the text: Top Right: Name of Jeweler. Middle by the Hand: Cusotm jewerly, certified diamonds, etc. Bottom: Exclusive, Exquisite, YET deliciously affordable. In the woman's hands, about to be popped into her fully open mouth, is a diamond of about 30ct. So, what do you see, and what are you supposed to "also see" in this image? Remember to think connotatively of other images that this one conjures up for us.

CoL VIII: Stop Mucking Up the Waters, Flannagan's "To Hell with All That"

Joan Walsh at Salon gives Caitlin Flanagan (and her ilk) what I wish I had.

Is Flanagan trying to fool her publishers, her readers, or is she fooling herself with this at-home mother shtick? It's really hard to tell. Lots of feminist writers have rebuked big-name editors for giving the anti-feminist Flanagan such great perches -- the New Yorker, the Atlantic, and now a hyped book. I don't usually bother second-guessing other editors. But it's hard not to agree with Daphne Merkin, who told Abraham she thinks Flanagan is the brainy-mag "it girl" of the moment (and, yes, apparently there can only be one) because she's a "throwback to a less threatening, more reassuring kind of woman writer," one who has infinite sympathy for the troubles -- "call it the 'ache,'" Merkin told Abraham slyly -- of being a man.

But rather than inspiring criticism of male editors for advancing Flanagan's career, "To Hell With All That" invites a different kind of editor rebuke: Some editor, somewhere, should have protected the mixed-up essayist from many things in this book, but particularly for congratulating herself on being the type of woman whose husband treats her well while she has cancer. Bad things do happen to good people, as well as to bad people, to feminists and anti-feminists, to women who forgo careers for their families as well as women who just pretend to. Flanagan's book is a sad and scary fable about fear of abandonment, and its supposed happy ending really isn't one.

This whole feminisms vs. patriarchy (don't dress it up nice for church by calling it 'tradition' -- tradition is turkey at Thanksgiving and eggs at Easter and wine with Dionysus and colorful dresses for your wedding day, traditions come and go baby -- patriarchy is a deeply embedded socio-mytho-sexu-econo-political structure that needs to change, and if it were JUST TRADITION, we would really live in a post-feminist world, jeeeeez) would be a LOT easier to talk about and work on and explore if writers (all of us) would just get real about the actual conditions of our lives and stop trying to sell Martha Stewart Brand Fakery to the public. Your life and your work are not the set and plot of a TV show. Stop it. Be real. Changing a culture is long, hard, scary work and it creates confusion. Have some patience, deal with your life clearly, stop blaming strangers for your misery. --- Shakti returns to her dais to hope and consider alternative futures.

There are serious issues to address at every level of society, culture, and human experience. Real feminist are serious about them, and these cheap-ass-wouldn't-pass-in-freshman-composition-course-badly-composed-fallacy-filled-writings-by-disengenuous-patriarch-petting-un-feminists (anti-feminists who won't cop to benefiting from feminism) are just soooooo tired. These gals really need to get off their pretty leashes. (Here, girl, sit, girl, wag for a treat, write for daddy, pass daddy's laws, yes, girl, there's a good girl, have a nice fat publishing contract/op ed column/seat in Congress/raise/spot on the Sunday talk circuit/&c., and then we'll take you out for a walk, yes we will.) Men and women of good heart and intention are trying to negotiate our way to a future that will be better for all of us --- where, for instance, Caitlin, women are not forced by "duty" to have sex in marriage when they don't want to, and imagine this hon, find that when not forced/expected they actually want to have sex more often. Have you forgotten/never known that martial rape was declared a crime until the 1970's (when what new social movement was in it's second wave???), and only just got declared so in Italy in the late 90s, and lets just not talk about less developed countries, shall we? the ones where your nannies come from. Nothing, dear woman, is less fun than having sex when you are not feelin' it, much less when it's forced on you. Funny how that can work. Now, if more men would learn about sex and sharing it well from something other than porn (say any one of the 'traditional' sexual texts from the East, 1000s of years old some of them), they would be more fun to fuck, and they would get fucked more often. And that might go a long way to changing a culture. Lysistrata in reverse: teach them good sex, give them lots of it, and build a new world while they're at it. Oh, yeh, that was Circe. I liked her too. --- Kali returns to her dais to calm down --- because it's just not time yet.

Earthly Ressurection

I was thinking alllllll Day about ressurection, transformation, rebirth, renaissance, &soforth. This whole year is that for me what with the Epiphanic Strategic Revsion of Life Plan and all. But here are my mini re-'s and transformations of the day: 1, I resolve to get my Monday 1 pm class back on the rails. We don't like each other. They won't play, and I'm on the only factor in that equation responsible for changing the zeitgeist of that class. 2, My computer is completely updated and I now know how to create a music library. (no giggling or smirking! *glowers ironically* i don't jump on new tech, i learn new tech when i need it) 3. I pitched (recycled) a WHOLE BUNCH of paper items. Thus clearing space for the ever renewable supply of paper items in my life. Not exactly transcendental break through, but moves nonethelesssssss. May your Passover/Easter Holy Week light you with fires whose shadows and glimmers are your future selves.

Voluputous Methodologies

This woman over at Purse Lip Square Jaw is onto something. And her attitude is laudable. Just check the quotes on her blog's homepage.(And she's got a big ol' couple a quotes from one of my essays. (discovered whilst tracking down a link to the PoMo Imagination essay -- I swear I was not googling myself) NTS: track her down soon.

Natural Allegory: Trees

From Diotiman Relation to Imperialism in two weeks.

Or: Why History and Imagination don't always cooperate.

This little old pine tree grows next to, and within the larger ?? tree.

Second view for context.

Younger, larger ?? tree leafs out.

And engulfs the older pine tree.

Cure for Otheritis?

See the Common Knowledge symposium: Talking Peace with the Gods, 1 and 2; in CK v10 i3; and v11, i1. There's hope and thinking there.

Fourth Station of the Cross

At the Fourth Station, where Jesus is helped by Simon the Cyrene to carry the cross, Pope Benedict and his followers will pray: “Lord Jesus, our affluence is making us less human, our entertainment has become a drug, a source of alienation, and our society’s incessant, tedious message is an invitation to die of selfishness.

Yes, Pope Benedict, you are smack on point. You are, you are, you are. And yet, I'll hunt the web for the whole sermon, because this is only the problem, and it is not a new problem. Does our poverty make us better? Does our lack of electronic media make us better? Look where poverty reigns. Is there less murder, theft, genoicide, rape, corruption? I'm afraid not. In both the worlds of affluence and poverty there is this: a heartbreaking lack of respect for our sibling humans. What is shameful is that we of affluence are endowed with the material comfort that should open us to others. Materially safe, we should be able to extend our sense of humanity to others, but no. And the money, or the comfort isn't the problem. It's we have not yet Listened. And I fear, you too, have a tin ear.

CoL VII: Archbishop Describes Bush Admin.

Archbishop Comastri has written: “Lord, we have lost our sense of sin. Today a slick campaign of propaganda is spreading an inane apologia of evil, a senseless cult of Satan, a mindless desire for transgression, a dishonest and frivolous freedom, exalting impulsiveness, immorality and selfishness as if they were new heights of sophistication."...Shakti-mode meditation:I'd say Mammon -- greedy money god. I'm with Ginsberg here. Satan, let us recall, was in rebellion for a what he considered God's betrayl of the angels when He fell in love with us mortals more than his angels who had spent an eternity already loving, praising, singing to God in their ranks of millions. Seems even God wanted to do it the hard way and convince us feckless humans to be angels. Not apology for the evil of Satan. I don't like sin and abuse and evil either, but I have some sympathy for Satan (the morning star, Venus, the most beautiful of all the angels, most beloved of God) as a literary character. So let's look at him allegorically for a second. He wanted what Cain wanted and Jacob wanted that his brother stole from him, and everybody in the Old Testaments wants and can't quite get without playing a bunch of headgames with the Lord. God's LOVE. His Blessing. And He is very stingy with his blessing in the OT. Thus, Jesus, a brilliant mystic of the heart, died to be transformed into the Christ, so we could all get some blessing. Granted, Satan went/is going about seeking that love in all the codependent and passive aggressive ways that most helpless vicitims of uncontrolled desire do. And granted, we did not create the social and economic arrangements that would reflect this new and generalized blessing that the stations of the cross remind us that Jesus suffered so terribly for. So, here's to those who are still trying.

Kali-mode playing with connotation: Now, as to Bush Et Allus: The whole neocon "rational" = apologia for evil; senseless cult of (Mammon) = an economic policy and a war (or two) intended largely to make the rich richer and keep all that nasty oil flowing for the people who wrote off thier H2s as business expenses; mindless desire for transgression = invasion/imperlialism; a dishonset and frivolous freedom = equating the mere presence of elections with a robust democracy; exhalting impulsiveness = see Iraq and now the "no option is off the table" re: Iran. MY MY, but didn't I live through this in reverse when I was a kid????; immorality and selfishness as if they were the new heights of sophistication = free market (ie: laissez faire) capitalism, Iraq, not signing the Kyoto Agreement, cutting social services to pay for the war, and well, every single decision this Neo-Patriarchy has taken. Fuckwits. Classic ideologists: "Facts? What facts, Jack? I have power. I have ideas. I have BELIEFS. This is my Government, and I'll do with it whatever I want. Elections are a good way off, and mean rather little to me anyway. I don't need your petty little facts. Now, get into the cell. The Interogator will be by eventually. You'll talk to him about your predcious facts. But, it could be a few years, so get comfy."

Kali-Shakit good wish:Ok, today is the day of the alchemy that made Jesus into Christ. So, let me get off my Kali-mode highhorse for a second and say this: Today is the day to think about how to work some spiritual alchemy in ourselves. For what highest and most noble purpose do you (and I) want to transform ourselves? Create the first thoughts, make the first moves today. Do not wait. Do not resist your work as Satan did, do not rebell against the work of spirit or love. But do as Satan did: rebell against what betrays your soul, against what kills your love and your generosity. (I know, Satan messed that part up, I know, you literallists, I'm speaking allegorically here!) Embrace your alchemy as Jesus did, the way that caterpillars do, and begin your transformation. Cook yourself to a new rawness.

Headline: Pope Says World Is Evil, Shocking

From Ruth Gledhill at TimesOnline:

At the Third Station of the Cross, where Jesus falls for the first time, Archbishop Comastri has written: “Lord, we have lost our sense of sin. Today a slick campaign of propaganda is spreading an inane apologia of evil, a senseless cult of Satan, a mindless desire for transgression, a dishonest and frivolous freedom, exalting impulsiveness, immorality and selfishness as if they were new heights of sophistication.”

At the Fourth Station, where Jesus is helped by Simon the Cyrene to carry the cross, Pope Benedict and his followers will pray: “Lord Jesus, our affluence is making us less human, our entertainment has become a drug, a source of alienation, and our society’s incessant, tedious message is an invitation to die of selfishness.”

Comments...Ok, but you're late. Adorno and Marcuse and Irigaray &ct. have all worried over this too. Problem is, fellas, you and I (liscenced secular humanist) have VERY different ideas about the response to these problems. Time for another CoL post in the AM. Right between the Dying and the Resurection, right while the miracle of the creation of Christ was taking place.Satan? Mammon! Look in the right place. For now, more at Pandagon.

Cat and Girl

And I catch up... Cat and Girl.

Hey, I'm in a bibliography!

My long-ago essay on PoMo Imagination is in here!A course on Ethical Criticism and Film, grad level no less. Neat-o keen. Thanks Dr. Jane Hill, who obviously has marvelous taste! You rock, sister. ((And the coolest thing is that I wrote that paper as a Master's student. Chops baby. Patting self on back in public. Now, I would like a job, please.))

Sex post/humous

Exchange of affirmation...Question: is it a bad thing that my top three famous guys-i-want-pantingly are Henry Miller, Jack Kerouac, George Clooney, Bono, and Henry Rollins?

Tess says: Not at all. Except that that's five. Your top three alive ones (Clooney, Bono, Rollins) are incredibly worthy. All three of them are the whole package - smarts, artistic integrity, sense of humor, great politics. Also, HOTT. Henry Rollins... oh my stars and garters. I have had a crush on HR since I was fifteen. Such a brutally honest writer, and such a POWERFUL presence. Bono's got the charismatic Irish thing going. And Clooney's got the suave factor. They're swoony. Be not ashamed.

HM and JK, I'll catch them in the hereafter. (Bono, married, alas my ethics)

Sex Question

Lately I've chosen to find That Which Offends Me only humorous, becasue Cixous was onto something good when whe wrote "The Laugh of the Medusa"...

But sometimes even the aggressive giggling leads me back to an old frustration as recently prompted by hate mail linked in this post at Bitch PhD.

Why don't straight people remember that when we see a het couple on the street holding hands or kissing, we know what they "do in private" and we know that lots of that activity is deeply kinky? Why why why why why when considering the hegemonic hetersexual relationship do we think about "love" and "children" and "home" and when we think about marginalized homosexual relationshiop we think "sick" and "evil" and "kinky freaky dirty sex"? DENIAL and also BECAUSE we objectify and reify and demonize and cast into abjection The Other, who really is also all about "love" and "children" and "home" and making love in ways that are only equally as caring and kinky as we hets get up to. The Other (woman, non-whites, gays and lesibans, insert-other-du-jour-here) is always reduced to an objectified body, to sexuality/criminality/abjection because, well, shit kids, there's about 4000 books on the subject. I'll spare us the reiteration of the common knowledge. It's just soooooooo old hat. Or as Brezsny says, "Evil is a fucking bore." Because it never learns new tricks.

Pandagon, in Links

Tess recently hipped me. Fiesty-cranky commentary.

Marriage, recent humor and a book

This from N in NJ, "The Shortest Fairy Tale Ever":..."Once upon a time, a girl asked a guy "Will you marry me?" The guy said, "No" and the girl lived happily ever after and went shopping, dancing, drank martinis, always had a clean house, never had to cook, stayed skinny and farted whenever she wanted."

Reminds me of the joke my happy bachelor brother told me last Thanksgiving while sitting around the fire pit: What's the number one cause of divorce? .... eeeyeppers.

At which I thought: RIIIIIGHT. Never get married again. Find someone to love, love each other, and just get re-engaged every year. That way no one gets lazy because you don't choose each other Once and Forever, but have to consciously rechoose each other every year. And, bonus, throw a nice BBQ for your friends and family who are supposed to also consciously support you in the difficultly beautiful soul-growth of real love and commitment. (No need for a new ring every year, that's consumerist and stupid).

About the real thing: bell hooks, All about Love. Love=respect.

Rob Brezsny SUNDAY

HEY! The Mad Glad and Fabulous to Know mystic himself will be on the radio on Sunday with To the Best of Our Knowledge. On the net through KERA in Dallas if you like. Kinda like burning incense inside your head -- counterintuitively literal metaphors and general spirited adventure.

Higher Education, future of

Today's Diane Rehm Show addresses the complexities, needs, problems, and trends in college level education. The analysis was spot on, the suggestions for improvement also.

11:00U.S. College Education
The price of a college education keeps going up as does the number of high school students applying. Three educators discuss how much students actually learn in college and why some say they should be learning more.

Check the archive for the date: April 14, 2006.

CoL VI: Boys (ii)

Given the previous installment of this sub-subject, then the Economist piece, some essentialism, just for kicks...
Could it be, just could it, that men are meant for (prefer, not are limited to) action and heavy lifting and heroism and as the work world moves more away from that and math (sorta) that the kinds of work and kinds of learning needed for it (more communicative, less kinetic) simply favor women? Is it, in short, possible the patriarchy might be engineering its own demise, at least in the post-industrical countries? And is it possible that the unliberated crap we are seeing in GenWhatever's sexual practices is a symptom of these boy's having "nothing better to do" than watch girls wrestle in jello at the kegger, and that the girls do it because they're just not ready to take on the responsibility of History yet? Is that why they're confusing "popularity/promiscuity" with "power" (real power being the effect of various kinds of Discipline)? Could this all be signs of deep maladjustment to these changes? Boy: can't run world, might as well watch porn. Girl: don't want to run world, might as well get waxed? Is this what's going on along with other forces? Is this a wake-up call that we must edcuate the soul in new ways? Are we getting ready for an age of difference? Am I being just way too hopeful here?

Femmeconomics

"A Guide to Womenomics" from The Economist
Now, I know that 1/3 to 1/4 of the women on this planet spend at least 3 hours a day gathering the wood to make the fire to cook the food....
, or in much of Africa that's true, anyway. Thanks to a really astonishing lack of investment in infrastructure (see also: Mexico). The good news here is of some evidence for the "bottom line" of Ren 2.O and cultures of mutual respect. Some, ahem, economic base, for the, ahem, genuine sexual revolution, ahem. And ahem:

Nevertheless, most working women are still responsible for the bulk of chores in their homes. In developed economies, women produce just under 40% of official GDP. But if the worth of housework is added (valuing the hours worked at the average wage rates of a home help or a nanny) then women probably produce slightly more than half of total output.

CoL: Boys not in crisis

Facts are nice things. Tess' posted this. And to her notes I add: yes, do let's de-emphasize verbal skills for boys in school. Because that will really help them to communicate with their future partners, reduce the rates of heartbreak/divorce, and help them to raise intelligent sons capable of leadership.

Get this people: men and women are different. Yes, our brains are slightly different. And you know what? We are also capable of LEARNING. Women can learn the rules of football. Men can learn to talk about their inner lives and their relationships. Women can learn to lead armies, repair engines and rebuild cars, kill on command (or at will). And men can learn to change diapers, read to children, and make love in a loving and generous way. Really, it's been done.

It's a world that does not seek to lose the calcifications of the past, a world that does not want humans at their full power, a world that essentially and deeply fears both women and change that suggests such "fixes" for "problems".

But, that said, ALL CHILDREN would be mentally, physically, and spiritually better off with more recess and play time than they now get in schools. ALL CHILDREN need a break in the day to work off all that extra energy. Duh. They're kids.

Sigh

Henry Rollins and Henry Rollins and Henry Rollins. On the Luna Park DVD, when he tells the story of standing on Mt. Olive, and when he's telling the story of working in the pet shop, and this beautiful little kid kind of joy shows in his face, and when he quotes Hemmingway, and I pair that with the Punk Saving the World from Its Dumbassery..... gonner. Gonnner.

CoL VI: Here, here!

As Tesseract26 puts it, usually more clearly than I. And, ya kno', there's goodness at SFGate.com. Tess likes John, I like Mark.

Stop It, Stop It Now, you net-grifters!

This kind of con is repugnant. (well, all cons are repugnant) In Christ's name, in the name of compassion and love, ripping people off. I've had no less than four emails in a week from this source and that guy in Nigeria.

Thing that really pisses me off is that IF this person is legit, there's no way to know thanks to all the other cons. And they're not, clearly. WHICH OIL AND GAS COMPANY???!!!! Kuwait and Cote D'Ivoire not being at all the same place.And "producing company"??? The Ivory Coast is West Africa -- not much with the oil to my knowledge. More the blood diamonds and civil war. 'Course, I may be missing something, like a major processing plant, there being a lot of coast and all, but c'mon. AND if you want to give money to orphanages, just give it to them. No private citizen is a qualified middle-man for such transactions. She doesn't want the money used in an ungodly way??? Oh, irony. Why email total strangers then? Why run a con? Speaking of ungodly. Gah.

From Mrs Hellen Douglas
Private Email:douglasfamily_dh@myway.com

Dear In Christ,

I am Mrs Hellen Douglas from Kuwait. I am married to Mr. Benhard Douglas
who was the chief executive director of an oil and Gas producing company
here in Cote D' Ivoire for eleven years before he died in the year 2004.We
were married for thirty six with-out a child. He died after a brief illness
that lasted for only four days.

Before his death we were both born again Christian. Since his death I
decided not to remarry or get a child outside my matrimonial home which the
Bible is against. When my late husband was alive he deposited the sum of
$3.5 U.S Million in a Bank here in Abidjan.

Recently, my Doctor told me that I would not last for the next Eight months
due to cancer problem. Having known my condition I decided to donate this
fund to a church that will utilize this money the way I am going to instruct
herein. I want an individual or a church that will use this fund for
rphanages, widows, propagating the word of God and to endeavor that the
house of God is maintained.

The Bible made us to understand that "Blessed is the hand that giveth". I
took this decision because I don't have any child that will inherit this
money and my husband relatives are not Christians and I don't want my
husband's efforts to be used by unbelievers. I don't want a situation where
this money will be used in an ungodly way. This is why I am taking this
decision.

I am not afraid of death hence I know where I am going. I know that I am
going to be in the bosom of the Lord. Exodus 14 VS 14 says that "the lord
will fight my case and I shall hold my peace". With God all things are
possible. As soon as I receive your reply I shall give you the contact of
the Bank here in Abidjan. I will also issue you an authorisation letter that
will prove you the new beneficiary of this fund. I want you and the church
to always pray for me because the lord is my shephard. My happiness is that
I lived a life of a worthy Christian. Whoever that Wants to serve the Lord
must serve him in spirit and Truth.

Please always be prayerful all through your life.And please contact me here
with my private alternative email address:douglasfamily_dh@myway.com, and
any delay in your reply will give me room in sourcing another church or
induvidual for this same purpose. Please assure me that you will act
accordingly as I Stated herein. As I wIl be hoping to receive your reply.

Remain blessed in the Lord.

Yours in Christ,
Mrs Hellen Douglas.

Patriarch.com

It's good to read other thoughts. Rinse. Repeat.

emperor of ice cream

it took a sec to parse, but the ice cream truck just went by below my window, took a sec because the wonk-o music from the truck blended just so in key and note with the post-bob/pre-fusion jazz n on the radio, so the ice cream theme emerged more than announced the arrival of that emporer. yum. global warming...tasty. bomb-pop anyone? orangepushupbitchesbrew? --- ok, back to prepping the lect on the personal essay for this week.

$40.00 for a tank top?

Hell yes! Live Aware.

Why? Justice Stats.

Grups??

I haven't read all this yet, but: I have an inkling. I've noticed heading into my later 30's that Gen X is not advertised to. Not with the relentless, deluge-style attention lavished on the Boomers and Gen Y and Gen Britney We are a small generation, demographically, and squished in between two much larger generations. We are not money makers like they are. We are not a nostalgic bunch. So, we have not identified wholly with the Boomers (besides, they're "old," even if they are mountain biking through their retirement, a past-time invented by my generation) because the Age of Aquarius was sold for the price of a Lexus (about which I am not happy). Forward looking, inventive, we Xer's have identified with the next generations and their toys and are "reinventing adulthood" because that's where the cool stuff is, and my generation really likes cool stuff. The Boomers are acting younger, the Xers are acting younger and figuring out how to be hip and 'rents at the same time (there will be bumps along the way), and the younger set is probably feeling either pirated or more mature than they are or should feel because they're shopping in the same stores with people who are 40sih. Ok, still, Grups are (partly) following the ads and (partly) negotiating our own style of adulthood on the culturally available coordinates, some of which suck (mommy happy hours with toddlers in bars? That's not hip. That's kids in bars.). More later when I get done reading. But, dude, from slackers to grups? Could we maybe get a nickname that doesn't suck?

CoL V: Pornification

In a RCoL the phrase "the pornification of everyday life" would never have been invented, and will fade out of use. "Good college boys" would not induce "good college girls" to jello-wrestle at their frat parties, and "good college girls" would never consent to do so. When our lives, souls, and sexuality are actually sacred and valued, we would never commodify each other in this way. We would not confuse this mutual debasement with liberation or sexual agency. An immature, purely specular, and coercive male sexuality is not a liberated sexuality. An immature, purely spectacular, and coerced female sexuality is not a liberated sexuality. The spectacle is not the thing itself. In a mature and liberated sexuality men would "get" to "see" plenty, but what they would see is a woman who knows where her pleasure comes from and on her terms. And when she's healthy, hasn't been abused, and isn't getting off on the sense of acceptance by the boys that jello-wrestling in the basement of frat house affords her-who-doesn't-know-her-worth-yet, when those things are not confused with pleaures, the whole exchange looks very different. It has love in it. And one of the minimum requirements for love is respect. Simple. IN FACT, if liberation and the sacred were involved at all, her sexuality would not be defined solely by his gaze. And it still is, and Lacan is winning, people, and that's not OK with me. This is not yet a CoL in which there are sexes with full life. This is a CoD (culture of death) in which there is still Him and (she) is just a plaything -- no matter she's majoring in poli-sci. Deep structure, folks, in Ren 2.0, we are after the deep structure.

Up and After It

as we used to say around my house. Quotations:

Dag Hammarskjold:

"Maturity: among other things -- not to hide one's strength out of fear and, consequently, live below one's best."

Walt Whitman

"This is what you shall do: Love the earth and sun and the animals, despise riches, give alms to everyone that asks, stand up for the stupid and the crazy, devote your income and labor to others, hate tyrants, argue not concerning God, have patience and indulgence toward people, take off your hat to nothing known or unknown or to any man or number of men, go freely with powerful and uneducated persons and with the young and with the mothers of families, read these leaves in the open air every season of every year of your life, re-examine all you have been told at school or church or in any book, dismiss whatever insults your own soul, and your very flesh shall be a great poem and have the richest fluency not only in its words but in the silent lines of its lips and face and between the lashes of your eyes and in every joint and motion of your body."

Ever have a day

during which you simply could not locate your ambition? I've had that day. There were "smart things" I was going to do, and "smart things" I was going to write, and whatnot. Not everyday is meant for "smart things" beyond cleaning the flop, reorganzing the phone number list, petting the cats, watching moonrise, and making a pile of all the "smart things" I am going to do tomorrow. These are days when it's hard to remind myself that I don't really have to accomplish something every single day. These are days when getting good at just being is a little tough, and once that's pushed through, can be about counting beads and breathing and being. Remember that. In this culture of endless doing, not-doing can be a form of self-defense. Just for a day.

Book Review

Ashmita Khasnabish wrote a book: Jouissance as Ananda. I met her in Liverpool at the Women and the Divine conference last year. I've promised her a book review. There's much good about this book: exploring Irigaray and Aurobindo, Eastern and Western literature, how they complete each other. It's a very generous book. And it's the generosity I most want to emphasize. Which, in a review of a critical book, can be a trick. I'm working on it. In meantime, my review boils down to this: read it, it's a work in Post-colonial studies that has no sense of complaint or guilt-assuagement, and that's a great thing.

Shine

Tish Creer, poet, performance artist, actor, recently performed with WS this spring. Playful, political, spiritual, her perfromance was so human, so immediate and natural in its presentation that a several points, she made me cry. I do that in the presence of great kindness, and great friendship, because I'm way used to the heartbreak and hardness of the world.

She said this, and I broke: "I love to see you shine".

A mantra she sang/spoke over and over until the room rang with it. Blessings on Tish.

CoL IV, No Grounds

Since no one (well, almost no one, and those who do only just barely) knows what we really mean by "culture' "of" "life" -- I'm going to offer a partial definition for now. There will be more from time to time. It will sometimes be more "academic" and sometimes not. But, since we have no grounds, at least not any mutually agreed grounds, I wind up back with my intuitions and my own moral compass. Which, right now, strike me as way more demanding than "just saying no".

Abortion should safe, legal, and rare; because women and their lives are NOT worth less than children or men and their lives. To pass laws and establish cultural traditions that treat a woman and her life as a means (which is what a lack of choice is equivalent to, and why lots of people get so mad about it, in case you hadn't put that together yet) is sinful. Yes, I'm using the religious language. On purpose. Kant said it was unethical. Righteous actions are those that treat humans as ends, not as means to ends. It's sinful because the hearts of all our religious traditions teach us respect and love for our brothers and sisters comes first. Why? Because that's the hardest thing to do. The second reason that it is a sin is this (and read well, because I'm coming back to several version of this point as I go along): that woman and her potential contributions to world (including that potential child) are the result of a whole community's contribution to her existence and expression of her talents and abilities. Most of the community's investment is in her, not yet in the child. If that child and raising derail her contributions -- everyone loses. (Hang on, I am not discounting the child -- I'm getting at why this is so hard.)

Now, the problem is that we have competing goods, competing right values here. Her life (in the broad sense, not just her physical existence, though that too sometimes) and the life of the child. Both are good. The problem is that sometimes two goods come into conflict.

In a Real Culture of Life, like we might have after Renaissance 2.0, she would have a choice, not be demonized no matter her choice, and there would be hundreds of thousands of people who wanted to adopt children of other races, and there would be amazing health care, and amazing child services, and amazing education, and amazing day care, and amazing responsible men and women who don't run out on their responsiblities, and all of this would never, ever, get defunded even in time of war.

In a Real Culture of Life, young people would be taught in school, in church, and at home, and (frankly) in the popular media that sexual responsibility rests on the shoulders of both men and women equally. Sexual responsibility includes a host of complex behaviors, including not having sex. No boy should coerce a girl into sex by telling her that it would prove her love to him. Girls in their teens are vulnerable in this area, and boys in their teens know it. This kind of emotional manipulation is irresponsible sexually, and also sinful. It is using a person, a whole person, as a means, as a tool. Condoms? Always. Birth control pills? Yes. Engaging in sexual behavior only with people who actually consent and actually know what they're getting into? Absolutely. Problem: almost no one fits that definition because as a society we do not teach the young about sexuality, or about the intricacies of relationships, emotions, or about how popular culture influences (not determines) attitudes and behavior. We need to teach our kids just how little sex real people actually "get," and that sex is not a sign of cool. It's mostly biology. And the rest is spirit and mind, and that part we need to teach in classes at increasing levels of complexity just like we do with Math.

In a Real Culture of Life: we would recognize that abstinence is for monks and nuns who consciously choose the celibate life, and who, frankly, wrestle with their sexuality all the time. Why? Humans are sexual. Why do they choose to wrestle with this all their lives? Because it is one of the hardest things to do and the path to transcendence is all about doing the hard things. Most people are not on paths to transcendence. Most people want love, and comfort, and excitement, and sizzle, and adventure. And in this culture, we associate all those things with sex, sexiness, and sexuality. We should recognize that and face it head on, and honestly, and with care and respect. Our sexuality is one of the most powerful aspects of our being, and it's really hard to learn to understand, or deal with, or control. Young people, grown people, we could all use some clarity around it.

In a RCoL: we would understand that our sexuality is a gift. That itself, it can be a path to spiritual growth. But, that it is "strong magic." We would not treat it as a sport, or a calling card, or a poker chip, or a simple exhange. We would treat sex and sexuality as sacred. Not secret, hidden in the basement of church sacred. But as central to our existence, something to bless, and give thanks for, and to share, and to learn to make and do well just like we do with food. We would make sex and relationships and sexuality a sacrament, and bless each other with it. It would never be something one "gets" or "takes." We would have no language of commodification for sexuality or love in a real culture of life.

Bonus: if we treated sex and relationships in this manner, there would be fewer accidental pregnancies. Why? Because we would have a clearer sense of sin and virtue. If we could just get honest about it, finally, 40 years after the "sexual revolution", parents would learn to speak about sex to their children in reasonable, clear, unembarrassed ways, and there would be less anxiety around the whole issue for everyone.

Our prudishness is one cause of these problems. Combine it with our hedonism, and, well, here we are. Sexuality needn't be either forbidden taboo or surrender to unreason. It should be an art, a discipline, a fully integrated aspect of one's character. Like dance, or music, or math, or cooking, or paying bills on time.

In RCoL rape and incest would be punishable by permanent incarceration.

In RCol we would work to disconnect pleasure from abuse and power.

In RCoL there would be no question about choice and a mother's health.

In RCoL we would get that there are lots of ways to have lots of risky sex and hurt both body and soul while still maintaining one's technical virginity. And that most of the teens and adults in the US know what those ways are.

In RCoL LIFE would mean something more than DNA and breathing and digestion. It would include, encourage, support, adore, and fiercely defend spiritual, psychological, physical, and intellectual well being. In RCoL we would organize economies that serve humans (not the other way round, where we are now). In RCoL we would respect good behavior more than power. In RCoL we would insist on education, not incarceration becuase it's right to do so -- and it's much less expensive in terms of total social and economic cost. In RCoL we would realize that how we raise our children is in fact a social issue, because eventually they go outside, to society, and do good or wreak various kinds of havoc, and that parents are responsbile for that in their homes. In RCoL we would get over the notion that everyone else is wrong/dangerous/persecuting us. In RCoL we would create a culture in which we were not fight fighting to the death just to feel that we are who we are.

We don't do that. Never have. So, let's not be using this phrase, shall we?

CoL III: The Phrase Itself

Part III: The Phrase Itself

Ok, now, now about this optimistic, cheerful, euphemistic phrase ‘culture of life’ which Pope JPII coined, and which the Pro-Life position chants like as if it’s one of the prayer of the rosary.

For JPII, Benedict, Bush and the Pro-Life supporters, this phrase is code for “life begins at conception, at conception a soul comes into being, abortion is murder, contraception is a hubristic human intervention against divine wil," and so forth. The Rights of the Unborn are based on these assumptions. Let us note that they are assumptions without meaning that they are not serious points of discussion. Now, let’s admit that ‘rights’ is the wrong word. Rights are invented and legislated by people, and apply only in their full sense upon attaining the age of majority in a nation – no matter whether one’s reasoning for them is inspired by religious or secular humanist influences.

What we mean here is ‘protection.’ And by ‘protection’ we mean legal protection, which, really, isn’t protection at all. Words on paper do not, cannot, and will never stop humans from taking action. Our moral dispositions do that. What the words on paper, the law, can do and does is codify the steps a society may take to punish a perpetrator of, and only of, those acts the law considers out of bounds. So, for example, some insecure and easily angered man who beats or shoots his pregnant wife and kills her is guilty of two murders in many states: of the woman, and of the child she carried. The existence of this law does not (tragically) make insecure, power hungry, paranoid, control-obsessed, violent men stop killing or hurting women. It’s just says that when they do, they will do more time in a box with other evil men because their personal morality and the law are at odds on this point.

In the case of JPII, and now Pope Benedict the (is it 15th?), the phrase ‘culture of life’ is the principle on which the Church suggests that condoms should not be distributed by NGOs in Africa, where two whole generations are being decimated by AIDS and other factors inhibiting of health and well-being. (Bless Bono.) Nevermind the as yet unpredictable but almost certainly biblical level of social and cultural decimation this syndrome and these deaths are causing. No condoms.

In the case of Bush and the religious right, the phrase means Abstinence Only Sexual Education and the overturning of Roe v. Wade, or short of that, for instance, the elimination of judicial bypass in the case of minor girls (e.g. a 2005 amendment to the Texas State Constitution, thanks to all the liberals who chose not to vote last November).

Serious and related questions arise. What, really, is a culture of life? What are its characteristics? And what do we mean by life? (next post)

The popes and president mean mixed DNA which seems to indicate "ensoulment" rather than recombination of proteins. This is insufficient for a number of reasons I will now, in a jumbled fashion, present.

Given that we don’t, as a society, understand what we mean by ‘life’, I’ll skip that. Science defines life in some very particular ways, but too few people understand much about science, so this is immaterial. (Note: the scientific definition, and another look, and another just for fun) Anthropologists have other definitions. Theologians still others. And there’s our not-very-clear intuitions, and I just don’t have time to sort all that. I have to do what just about everyone does on these points in the end: consult my intuition and my conscience.

CoL II: Life?

Part II

Let’s start with definitions of life and why I find them confusing. The Pro-Life position is that life begins at conception when the DNA of woman and man combines in the fertilized egg and the egg then changes its name from Egg to Zygote. The Pro-Choice position is less clear, but seems to be that life begins at birth, and that some kinds of abortion should only be available when the mother’s health or life are at risk. My first point of confusion will be controversial, and in no way related to my adoration of small cute babies and the way they smell. It’s this: many natural factors can prevent that zygote from becoming a person. We do not have funerals for these lost souls. We do not issue social security numbers at conception. We are not allowed to take a child tax credit at conception. Why? Because there is an intuition that at this stage of development, we don’t not yet have a human being. Something is lost and mourned, but what that is we do not treat the way we treat humans. What is mourned, it seems to me, is potential. The mourning is real, but it is not a matter of legal or communal recognition.

Life = mixed DNA seems a really minimum level definition to me.

Second point of confusion: the definition of death. In most states, the legal (and likely intuitive and moral) definition of death is something like this: the cessation of brain, heart, and lung function (though this does vary: it is possible to be ‘dead’ in one state of union but still ‘alive’ in another). Upon death, we can harvest organs, plan a funeral, begin fighting over the will. There is a not inconsiderable period of time during which a developing zygote simply does not have these organs. Logical problem: if their functional cessation defines death, then how is something that does not have these organs ‘alive’ or ‘human’? Something is out of whack with both science and intuition on these points.

Personally, I am probably focusing in this point of contradiction because I believe that three months (and frankly, less) is PLENTY of time to make a difficult moral decision and accept the physical pain and the mourning that will result of choosing to abort. It’s also plenty of time to discern, very carefully, the factors in a woman’s or a girl’s life that play in these decisions, and they are many, complex, and interdependent. It is also plenty of time to consider those interdependent factors and choose to raise the child or to find a suitable adoptive family.

Medical or psychological danger to the mother? No question. She is also a precious, unique, ensouled human being.

Culture of Life I (Roe)

Part I, Roe v. Wade

Most of our discussions about women’s freedom of choice, privacy, and a ‘culture of life’ are incoherent. I am not sure that what I’ll offer here is less so, but I decided to clarify my positions on these and related matters, mostly for me, and secretly in hopes of finding some policy suggestions that make sense.

The Right is upset at the number of abortions per annum in this nation. Check the statistics. There number of abortions and number of incidences of violence against women are about equal on average, and far more than the annual number of breast cancers, but I don’t hear big voices calling for changes regarding violence against women. I don’t see Yoplait campaigns against rape, sexual battery, incest, spousal abuse. I don’t hear calls for education that would convince men that victimizing women shows your fear and weakness and insecurity in your own identity, NOT your masculinity or strength. Crickets, on these points. There is a cultural subtext here that generations of feminists have made quite clear. That I find it morally repugnant is a matter for another day.

Let me state at the outset that I believe abortion should safe, legal, and rare; that women and their lives are NOT worth less than children or men and their lives; that sexual responsibility rests on the shoulders of both men and women equally; that danger to a woman’s physical or psychological health is an acceptable reason to terminate a pregnancy; that sexual education should be thorough, honest, and involve lots of discussion of the intricacies of sexuality and relationships and cultural attitudes about sex, sexiness, and love, etc. – it should be a semester-long class in every single high school in US (because humans are sexual beings); that our sexuality is one of the most sacred aspects of our humanity; that parents should learn that part of parenting well is discussing (both talking and listening are involved in discussing) sexuality with their children in clear and responsible ways without embarrassment; that I love children and men and women; that women and men should be raised and schooled is such a way that they respect the power and complexity of sexuality and relationships; that sex should not be treated as a toy or a mark of accomplishment or an amusement or a way to become popular or acceptable by one’s peer group; that our cultures simultaneous hedonism and prudishness are an ambivalence that we need to get over; that Chastity Until Marriage proponents should realize that young people who take their vow get up to all kinds of sexual shenanigans that are dangerous to their physical and emotional health while maintaining a girl’s “technical virginity;” that not having sex is in no way a sign of personal failure or social oddity; and that sexual predators of all stripes should be jailed for life with each other and separate from other prisoners; and that the beauty of choice is that no one is required have an abortion. Choice personal and moral decisions to the individual in relation to their family, their life circumstances, their conscience, and their God as as secular humanists are perfectly content to accept.

Let us for the moment bracket all the very true fluff that until the creation of decent medicine, the number one killer of women was childbirth, that pregnancy is the most dangerous physical condition a woman can endure next to domestic abuse and fighting in war, and the whack-o idea that women in countries like, say, India should use abortion as a form of birth control and sex selection because boys are so much preferred. Let us also bracket the historical fact that the US is founded as a secular nation following the principles of a philosophy reviled by the Right known as secular humanism. Let’s put that down for now. We can pick them up latter.

Culture of Life: Exploration and Manifesta

Preface:
You know of my liking for serendipities. Magical alignments, and so forth. Meeting Irigaray was a magical alignment of vast and prodigious proportions, for example. Well, this week, we are worrying over the Alito confirmation, the possibility of filibuster and consequent civil war inside the Senate in which I imagine Massachusetts will secede from the union. And Diane Rehm had a discussion Thursday past about the short term legal consequences of Roe being overturned (note: 15 states have laws on the books that criminalize some or all abortion, and are just waiting for Roe to fall so the laws can go into effect, we need federal legislation, a constitutional amendment). It was extremely interesting. And then I had a conversation with a friend about the whole thing, a friend who is a not-much-practicing Catholic, and we got on the subject of “culture of life.” One of Pope JPII’s favorite phrases of which Irigaray makes much feminist hay. Serendipity. And I got to thinking…

WordSpace Reading (comment)

Thanks, first, to my friends and the friends of WS who came to Poor David's for the reading. Especially to Jason who brought his Fabulous Camera and got shots of everyone reading, and then a neat group shot with Robert. Here's to J.'s good heart. And to Shin Yu, who ponied up to join the Board and will be, already is, contributing in lovely and smart ways to the future of WS. The reading itself was a good one. Martha read some lovely and hilarious poems, one of which focused on that List Making Even in Our Sleep that I think everyone in the US does now because there's just so damn much To Do. Much laughter of recognition going there. Bill read a touching short story about the abivalences of raising a son too adventerous for his own good. Not an easy thing to do. Ben read a story that played on puns and the always slightly "idolize the freak" nature of celebrity about two 11-fingered pianists in the 19th C salon society. Sexy, funny, brilliant bit of cultural criticism in that. David read a piece from his novel Water Telescope that was, in essence, a Wittgensteinian analysis of 50's era SF TV shows. Brilliant, nostalgic, and a funny to boot. Tim read poems that made us all wish love were easier and remember that because it's not that's where all the great lesson are. I read some old poems and new ones, and did that thing I do which bugs me which is to start off relating to the audience and then just sink down in the words in some wierd trance that is not the best delivery style. But, people liked the work, and so, ok. David said that I read with Lori Anderson's lilt minus the arrogance, and that was a nifty compliment. Esp. since I've never yet heard Lori Anderson read a poem. Robert, our founder and leader and adored friend, read some pieces from his latest work in progress, Glances. He's writing one peice a day, sort of like fragments, sort of like memoires, some are poems, some are flash fiction. All have that gorgeously unprentious way of his where the subject itself shines out of the total lack of stylistic clutter. It's probably his last work. May there be lots of pens and paper and adventure in the beyond for him. May he and I get to drink lots of tequila together when I catch up someday. In all, this was a gathering that we all needed. It was a like a seal on some upsoken pact we've all entered: to love, to write, to remember what's good, to cause a little trouble. Someday, I'll get Jason's photos up here to illustrate.

Haiku Slam

Yeh, sounds paradoxical to me too, thus my amusement and joy at the announcement of the first Head to Head Haiku Death Match hosted by DFW Slam Master Bob Whoopeecat. I'm teaching that night, but if you can go, I wish you lots of fun there. --- Ok, back to prepping classes and practicing for my own reading this afternoon. Ciao.