scATX: Speaker's Corner in the ATX

That’s a quote from The Economist article, “Wealth, poverty and compassion. The rich are different from you and me: They are more selfish.”

It says,

Life at the bottom is nasty, brutish and short. For this reason, heartless folk might assume that people in the lower social classes will be more self-interested and less inclined to consider the welfare of others than upper-class individuals, who can afford a certain noblesse oblige. A recent study, however, challenges this idea. Experiments by Paul Piff and his colleagues at the University of California, Berkeley, reported this week in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, suggest precisely the opposite. It is the poor, not the rich, who are inclined to charity.

Read the rest of this entry »

Wow.  I did not expect this when I clicked on to the Fox News link, which said that I would read the opinion on DADT of one currently-serving soldier.  My surprise was not because this is written by a soldier but because it was published on Fox New’s opinion site.  Fox News isn’t at the forefront of GLBTQ rights (which is about the biggest understatement I’ve written in a while).  For example, here, here, and here (though see below for some other surprising Fox news-people’s stances on DADT).

I think, once you read this, you will understand my surprise.

Read the rest of this entry »

I love this idea.  I mean, Flash Mobs are so fun, right?

Recently, my friend, Mo, had told me about the breastfeeding flash mob that was supposed to take place here in Austin.  From what I can gather, it is taking place tomorrow at Barton Springs.

For more information on the Austin event, see these links:

• Central Texas Healthy Mothers Healthy Babies Coalition’s Facebook Page
• We Are Austin’s coverage of it this week

For more on breastfeeding:

• Kelly Mom (Awesome info, though they can be a bit Draconian about weening and such)
• World Breastfeeding Week 2010 (Aug 1 – 7)

ESPN, in their coverage, managed to not even mention the reason that Roethlisberger is suspended. As did three separate articles for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, only one of which actually mentioned that he was even suspended.

Now that is top-notch rape culture reporting right there.

——————————————-

Today the New York Times reported that Ben Roethlisberger has returned to work.  Remember the last time we heard from him?  Yeah, it was a pleasant affair.

From April 2010:

Within the last two years, there were first the allegations of sexual assault asserted in a civil lawsuit by a Reno, Nevada woman; then more recently came the night in Milledgeville, Georgia that has made the latest news cycles. The facts that have come to public light are horrible and ugly (at best) but the district attorney in the case does not have the requisite evidence to prosecute Big Ben since many rape cases revolve around the age-old “he said, she said” legal merry-go-round.

And more surprisingly, it was even reported in Boston that a THIRD alleged incident came to light almost two weeks ago.

And let’s not forget that a big part of the reason that the DA didn’t have enough evidence in the Georgia case was that the police supervisor who was initially in charge of the investigation was a biased asshole who made terrible remarks of about the victim.  In the end, the officer did his job so poorly that he had to resign in the wake of it all.

[Side note: Best thing written during the entire thing was at NPR.  Read it here.]

Big Ben, as they call him, has to miss 6 games because of how embarrassing all of this has been.  But that doesn’t mean he isn’t practicing with his team.  And that’s what he did today for the first time since everything went down.  According to the NYT:

As he unloaded luggage and pillows from the car, Roethlisberger was smiling and ultrapolite, a departure from the sometimes-distant, sometimes-smirking countenance that used to grate reporters, even telling a cluster to be careful because he did not want to hit anybody with one of his bags.

“It’s good to be back,” Roethlisberger said. “It’s all about football right now. My focus is on that. It’s good to be able to put a lot of things in the off-season behind you and move on, and that’s what this is about and getting ready to play football. That’s my No. 1 focus and winning a championship. That’s what this year is about. That’s what starting tonight is about, winning a championship. That’s where I’m at with it.”

Then, with an apology and a smile, Roethlisberger, dressed head to toe in Nike, one of the sponsors that did not drop him after the allegations, asked if he could squeak through the gathering to get to his dorm room.

Aw, gee shucks, ya’ll.  He sounds like a real sweetheart (you know, just like Mike Tyson in The Hangover).  Maybe serial sexual assaulters/rapists can really change in a few months time.  You know, after they have been professionally punished in the public sphere for being assholes.  I’m sure the change is like totes genuine.

And, also, it’s great to hear that he is able to move on.  That he is looking forward.  That all shit in Georgia, that’s old news for him.  He’s let it go.  Because isn’t that what this new season is all about?  Playing football and winning championships.

I’m glad that we aren’t reminded at all about the victim.  But I’m sure she has moved on, too.  I’m sure that the sexual assault is long gone for her, way in the past.  She’s over it.  Whatevs.  Just put that off-season in the past, honey.  I mean, he did get suspended for 6 games and people in Pittsburgh didn’t like him for a week or two.  He’s been punished.  It’s all good.

[Seriously that shit in the article about him asking people to be careful as he swings his bags around.  Shut the fuck up, NYT.  Shut. the. fuck. up.]

From Clued Up Dads Blog, “Home Birth Humble Pie.” One expectant father’s apology on his hard stance against home birth after the outcry that followed.  I mean, seriously.  He called people who have home births “selfish.”  He was sorta asking for it.

——————————

From Salon’s Broadsheet,

The American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology has delivered quite the home birth controversy. A meta-analysis published this month in the journal found that mothers who went with a planned home birth experienced fewer medical interventions, infections, lacerations, hemorrhages and other nasty consequences omitted from “The Miracle of Birth.” Ah, but — there’s always a but! — one other finding stood out: “Less medical intervention during planned home birth is associated with a tripling of the neonatal mortality rate.” [...]

The American College of Nurse-Midwives is none-too-pleased with the AJOG and The Lancet, and has pointed out the weaknesses of the meta-analysis — most notably, “only three [of the studies considered] clearly distinguish between planned and unplanned home births,” which could clearly skew the results.

But in the end, it comes down to this:

In the right circumstances and with the right midwife, home birth is an utterly reasonable option. But that sort of sensible, measured message can hardly compete for attention with exhortations like, “Women do not have the right to put their baby at risk!”

Info on Home Births:

• American Pregnancy Association
• Home Birth Stories, from Childbirth.org
• The Homebirth Choice, from Midwifery Today

“A working mom doesn’t necessarily hurt child’s development, study finds” at The Washington Post.

Damn, could that title hedge anymore? It doesn’t “necessarily” hurt their development… but it could. Don’t forget, working moms. It could.

From the article:

Infants raised by mothers with full-time jobs scored somewhat lower on cognitive tests, deficits that persisted into first grade. But that negative effect was offset by several positives. Working mothers had higher income. They were more likely to seek high-quality child care. And they displayed greater “maternal sensitivity,” or responsiveness toward their children, than stay-at-home mothers. Those positives canceled out the negatives.

The study may bring hope to working mothers, who have labored under a collective societal guilt since the 2002 publication of landmark research showing that early maternal employment hampered child development. The same research team behind that report produced this one.

I’m on twitter now at @scatx.  TwitterFeed should update my Twitter account automatically now when I post a new blog entry.  Cool.

Okay, so, I admit it.  I’m still obsessing over that Feministe post about child-free spaces.  I feel I’ve done a pretty good job of not just continually writing about it on here.

I’m going to post one last time.  But this time, I’m going to mainly focus on other people’s words (of course, people who agree with me because this is my blog).  A final round-up on all that bullshit that went down and why anti-child comments are anti-woman comments.  And why “Feminists” need to work harder on being inclusive (I’m saying that to myself as much as anyone else – and let me reiterate that that is a goal of mine in life).

The huge thing I have learned about or am thinking more about is the idea of policing behavior in public and who it is in public that actually gets policed.  Because there were so many commenters who didn’t want anyone to bring race into the discussion when it was addressed (things are always easier when we don’t talk about systemic racism, aren’t they? Especially when that acknowledgment gets in the way of your privilege). But those people who can’t escape it (i.e. WOC) wanted it to be front and center.  And I am glad that they did.

Their comments really got me to recognize that there is a hierarchy in acceptable behavior that is going to, of course, be detrimental to people of color and to girls.  Girls, especially those of color, are going to be policed more and that’s that.  People who are thinking about the children who ruined their dinner, or their Target outing, or their ride on the bus, were probably thinking more about little girls or children of color.  Because we remember when those people act up, don’t we?  I think there’s a whole news organization dedicated to keeping tabs on that shit.

Maybe my son is allowed to act up more because people out in public see him as a boy and, you know, boys will be boys (though, side note, my son has long hair and is almost always assumed to be a girl (9 out of 10 times), even while wearing a shirt that says “Dude”.  We don’t correct people because we don’t care.  If we did, we’d cut his hair.  But it’s possible that when my son is acting up, people think that I am “allowing” a little girl to act up).  Whereas if a girl was doing the same thing (screaming, laughing, clapping, dancing, running around) it would be a much bigger deal to people, something they would remember and comment on later because some irresponsible parent was letting their – gasp! – daughter do those things that little girls shouldn’t do.  And, as we ALL know, girls are supposed to act in a very specific, quiet, still way.

Then, on top of that, you think about this in terms of race.  As a society we are already interested in policing the behavior of adults of color (I mean, literally, in some cases).  So for parents of children of color (and, of course, the children themselves) the scrutiny on them, their children’s behavior, and the reaction to their children’s behavior is going to be exponential.  Especially in comparison to someone like me, a white lady with a white husband and a white son.  And I know the heat I get for my child in public as it is.

For more on this, please read “What do you see when you see my child?” at Inconsequential Logic.

And my friend, Laurie, passed along this website to me after we had a discussion about this realization that I have had, about another aspect of my white privilege and my son’s gender privilege that allows us a smoother experience out there in the public sphere.  Love Isn’t Enough is a blog about parenting and race.  Go read through it.

So, even though I fucking hated those comments on that Feministe Child-free Spaces post that were so anti-woman, anti-child, etc., at least I have seriously learned something.  And I am going to hold onto that silver lining.  Because otherwise, I am just left with a terrible taste in my mouth and hurtful comments stewing in my brain.

And now for your reading pleasure, more people who thought those comments at Feministe were shit:

Read the rest of this entry »

Please check your privilege at the door.  And, when you get a chance, take a minute to brush up on some fun facts about US imperialism and how journalists/writers use certain tropes, stories, words, syntax to gloss over all that shit (again, I am writing this from the perspective of a US citizen – if your English, French, Dutch, whatever imperial country you are from, feel free to insert your country in my comment).

How to Write About Africa (at Granta):

Throughout the book, adopt a sotto voice, in conspiracy with the reader, and a sad I-expected-so-much tone. Establish early on that your liberalism is impeccable, and mention near the beginning how much you love Africa, how you fell in love with the place and can’t live without her. Africa is the only continent you can love—take advantage of this. If you are a man, thrust yourself into her warm virgin forests. If you are a woman, treat Africa as a man who wears a bush jacket and disappears off into the sunset. Africa is to be pitied, worshipped or dominated. Whichever angle you take, be sure to leave the strong impression that without your intervention and your important book, Africa is doomed.

How to Write About Haiti (at Media Hacker):

Point out that Port-au-Prince is overcrowded. Do not mention large empty plots of green land around the city. Of course, it is not possible to explain that occupying US Marines forcibly initiated Haiti’s shift from distributed, rural growth to centralized governance in the capital city. It will not fit within your word count. Besides, it is ancient history.

If you must mention Haiti’s history, refer vaguely to Haiti’s long line of power-hungry, corrupt rulers. The ‘iron-fisted’ Duvaliers, for example. Don’t mention 35 years of US support for that dictatorship. The slave revolt on which Haiti was founded was ‘bloody’ and ‘brutal.’ These words do not apply to modern American offensives in Afghanistan and Iraq.

V.V. Brown is an amazing voice out there in the pop world.  Give her a listen.  I absolutely LOVE this acoustic version of her hit, “Shark in the Water.”