The New York Times and Afghanistan

For the most respected newspaper in the country the New York Times publishes a lot of idiocy.

The recent article A Dogged Taliban Chief Rebounds, Vexing U.S. by Scott Shane is full of the kind of naivete that one expects and laughs at in undergrads.

"Much of the world celebrated his ouster, and Afghans cheered the return of girls’ education, music and ordinary pleasures outlawed by the grim fundamentalist government."

Cheered? Are you fucking insane? These people have been living in a warzone for most of their lives, I'm sure as hell no expert but I don't see them cavorting around cheering the return of music. To take a blind guess, I think they're worried about themselves and their families and which violent assholes are going to be threatening them next. I would be shocked if they weren't perfectly aware that some violent assholes would be threatening and killing them soon.

The article is weirdly admiring of this particular Chief, repeating ad nausem that he is uneducated and has achieved so much! isn't it weird? isn't it such a story? Geezes. That kind of fetishism of education is almost enough to make me understand where the right is coming from with the anger at hypereducated elitism. No, I don't think you really need education to be an effective warlord, actual experience fighting is maybe, just maybe more valuable, and leadership is mostly innate. I know it kills us that West Point and MBA aren't the be all and end all but that's just freaking stupid. Education isn't fucking intelligence and it sure as hell isn't effectiveness.

The article doesn't mention that all the warlords, absolutely including the ones we deal with and support and give money and guns too are crushingly oppressive to women and are willing to fight for the right of husbands to starve their wives for refusing sex. There might be reasons to support and deal with those kind of people, like the life of your child, or fighting for the freedom of your homeland but none, none of the fucking reasons we're in Afghanistan can justify dealing with that kind of evil. That this isn't even discussed, that it is blindly accepted what kind of brutality the U.S. is supporting, for no good reason, is a tragedy and an indictment of the American politicians and the American public. Because we let this go on.

There's no morality here. None.

Feminism is Not About Choice

If I hear one more woman declare that feminism is about choice and that what she chooses is feminist because it's her choice I'm going to scream.

Feminism is not about Choice, feminism is about Power.

Generally speaking, people who have more power have more choices. Feminism is based on the observation that women as a group have less power then men as a group and that this is a result of how society is set up. Feminism is about allowing women access to the power previously denied them. Sure you can choose not to take it and choose to be dependent. I won't say you're wrong because I think everyone should choose what's right for them. But it doesn't have a damn thing to do with feminism.

Should people judge you and be mean if you take his name? No. However, in no universe is that a feminist choice. That's fine, everyone make choices that aren't. I make choices that aren't feminist all the time. So does everyone. However, stop lying and insisting that everyone make you feel better.

Own your choices.

Doing It Right

I have a deathly plague that has me terrorizing all of my loved ones on a rotating basis, making sure to apprise them of just how miserable I am. I can not even fall asleep with any ease.

So one's mind turns to more pleasant times, those long gone days when one did not look like death warmed over and feel worse and was not in a state of high panic when it came to one's work. One's mind might even turn to a recent encounter with several men and the perfect example of complimentary, bantering, and harassing behavior.

My recent rip to Las Vegas involved what one might describe as much too much poker and at one such table there happened to sit three very different men.

1. A gentlemen of an indeterminate age past fifty was dealing for the table and sitting almost directly across from me. He launched into his spiel for the table after giving me a smile, a friendly, uncle sort of smile. Finishing up, he says 'If I'm looking at you it's your turn, unless it's you (he says to me) you I might look at just because'. I smile back, delighted. We smile at each other often, in complete charity with each other. He thought I was soo cute and hadn't the faintest intention or thought of getting into my pants and you know what? it totally showed. He appreciated me being young and cute, he could tell I was receptive to him being cutesy because I was smiling at him, and he was perfectly appropriate. I'm charmed.

2. Some time later at the same table, a young man on the other side of the table from me and I were involved in a heated hand of poker. The details escape me (I believe he won the hand) and afterwards he says something like "Sure, baby" possibly as a response to something I've said? It's casual, he's not hitting on me, he's not trying to put me down, he's not being dismissive, he's not being demeaning, he's being a tad playful and friendly without putting much emotion into it. I'm amused.

3. A third gentlement of about fifty is sitting next to gentlemen number 2. and takes his casual 'baby' as a cue to launch into baby this and that himself, taking it upon himself to give me a nickname and attempt to engage me in conversation I obviously don't want to have. This man has already been regularly yelling at the waitress (the obviously not at all receptive waitress) about her beautiful eyes. This guy's 'baby' isn't casual in the least, it has that over emphasized challenging tone to it. (What the hell am I supposed to say to shut him up without causing a scene at the damn table?) I'm pissed.

Impossible to confuse those three men and their ways of interacting. The key? Intention, paying attention to the woman's signals and what it all boils down to, respect.


Allright, now I'm off to nurture my deathly cold some more.

Vera Bradley

Have you been around twenty, thirty something women with considerable disposal income lately? If so, you might have noticed a gazillion Vera Bradley bags. Often floral, look soft, and very very feminine but clearly aimed at the grown woman (come in all sizes, often go inside bigger purses). And very very popular. (Rivaled only by the Longchamp bags everywhere). My first reaction to them was negative. Many are just ugly. Also, I don't like it when something is too popular, when everyone is getting it just because it is a must have.

Ha, ha. New Years comes and goes and some time later I get a belated gift, a Vera Bradley large cosmetics bag. Ha.

I love it. Now that I think about it many things that are so terribly terribly popular are popular because they are well made, because they are genuinely good items. Of course, it's cooler and hipper to look down on trends (ipods anyone?) but many trends have very reasonable decision making behind them. Lesson learned again: humanity at large, generally not that stupid.

Then I tried to apply a little critical thinking on what it was about these bags that bothered (and selectively still does) me. They're feminine. Unapolagetically and unmistakably feminine. The entire store sells nothing for men. They're just for women, and for well off women in fact. Well, if it's for women it must be silly right? If it's for rich women it must be really silly and unserious. Right? When you're in the airport and you see businessy men getting their bags they certainly don't look all floral. Cuz the mens, they are serious. Mmmm.

Because something is cultural doesn't mean it's not real. Is femininity constructed by culture and has nothing to do with the biological difference between men and women? Yes.

Feminity isn't going to go away any time soon. Femininity is associated with women in our culture and we're not going to change that this generation. That being so, and the corporate world increasingly being made up of a fair number of women, of women with good jobs and disposable income, why shouldn't the luggage at the airport have a fair amount of feminine bags? Why must women be as like men as possible (except not too much so, otherwise they're dykes and totally unserious) to be taken seriously? The black suitcase is coded male and serious and we can't change that, not even though a gazillion women today use a black suitcase. If we can't change that (though we're working on it) maybe we can change having the black suitcase being the default serious look. Some women, having grown up in this culture, grow up identifying strongly with femininity, that sure as hell shouldn't shut them out of the corporate world. There's nothing inherently silly in soft, pleasant and well made bags by Vera Bradley and I for one am now looking at them in a whole different way. Ha!

Obviously

What is needed at this juncture is a light and humorous but slightly provocative post. Having come from a fairly relaxing vacation, this would seem an easy goal. Yet I find myself desperately avoiding all real news, especially of the Israeli conflict and CIA director appointment variety (in order for reasons of depression and distaste for using my brain in analysis). I'm vaguely mulling posts on malpractice, on classism, on intelligence agencies and intelligence in people and what it means to have a productive, a useful, life. A comment to this post will guarantee a post on your topic of choice.

Short of that, keep waiting for that light, short, fun post. I'm am nearly certain it will materialize.