I've lately thought about and discussed the issue of racial justice with a number of different people. One thought keeps cropping up: what happens if the current collective outrage never translates to meaningful action? What if, like Occupy Wall Street around the world, the passion of millions of protesters fizzles for lack of cohesion, and their voices become no more than a paragraph or a footnote in the annals of history?
Here's a pithy, rather spare think-piece to get us started:
http://mic.com/articles/107382/black-lives-matter-must-move-beyond-protests-or-risk-losing-the-fight-for-racial-justice
People like to compare the recent Black Lives Matter demonstrations to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. They bear depressingly apt similarities, despite taking place fifty years apart; both protest the unequal treatment of African-Americans in this country, especially by the government or law enforcement. However, the most crucial difference between the two is: the Civil Rights Movement was carefully coordinated and led by a group of activist organizations, including the NAACP, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. A huge factor in their success was their ability to stage massive protests and rallies across the country over the course of many years, put forth specific and actionable demands, and apply sustained pressure on relevant politicians to meet these demands. This is virtually impossible for a movement without some form of centralized leadership.
The leaders of the Civil Rights Movement were far more than human embodiments of their cause. These men and women were organizers, negotiators, motivators -- and tragically, often martyrs, too. When Martin Luther King gave his famous "I Have a Dream" speech during the March on Washington, it was understood that he spoke with the collective voice of hundreds of thousands of demonstrators. Because he and his fellow leaders so clearly expressed what they were hoping to accomplish with the March, the government had no choice but to respond; indeed, King's speech and the March are historically credited with securing the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Black Lives Matter thus far lacks this level of specificity in terms of goals or action plans, in large part because it, like Occupy Wall Street, has no spokesperson with whom the government can negotiate. They are doing a good job of advocating for body cameras on police officers, but otherwise, have been unable to articulate or agree on a set of actionable demands, and would find it difficult to hold the government accountable for hypothetical promises to address said demands. These movements start by channelling the frustrations and desires of the people at large, but can only grow into effective organizations if they are willing to move on from 100% spontaneous, grassroots advocacy to a more centralized system. Not all members of the movement can be equal; there must be somebody vested with the authority to make decisions and speak for the group. Every democracy elects a leader -- a social movement can be no different if it is to be sustainable.
It's much like the crucial difference between rebellion and governance: rebellion is the tearing down of an unjust system, while governance is about building a just (and importantly, stable) system. Rebellion is the easy part; destruction requires much less long-term planning. Building something new -- whether a new piece of legislation or a new world order -- calls for a much more comprehensive vision, and the capability to slog through the unglamorous legislative and administrative processes of achieving it. Idealism isn't enough: it requires tenacity, compromise, and specific skills that the body of protestors are unlikely capable of collectively wield.
This is why Occupy Wall Street petered out. That particular movement had issues, from the outset, with accepting a central authority that could harness the energy of the protesters and direct it towards specific policy goals. Many protesters were too suspicious of any sort of authority, any hint of inequality of position or platform. They couldn't recognize, to the detriment of the cause, that there are many shades of nuance between spokesperson and dictator, that one would not inevitably morph into the other by some Delphic slippery slope fallacy. Elevating a few key protesters to a position of power might have seemed inegalitarian at the time, but would have helped transform a movement based on outrage and sheer emotion into an organization, which would ultimately have achieved a greater and more lasting impact.
This is a lesson I dearly hope that the Black Lives Matter movement learns. Idealism can topple world orders, but pragmatism and dirty hands can build one anew.
Showing posts with label human rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label human rights. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 30, 2014
Thursday, September 25, 2014
I Am Very Real: Kurt Vonnegut's letter on censorship
This week is Banned Books Week, which I am celebrating by reading The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood. It's a book that has frequently been censored and banned for its critical treatment of religion (true), and, more laughably, for its misogyny and its depiction of polygamy and violence (these are all elements that the book portrays negatively). There are many writers who communicate eloquently on the subject of censorship, Atwood included, but I am particularly struck by the following letter, written in 1973 by Kurt Vonnegut to the man who burned his books:
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/03/i-am-very-real.html
We live, as Vonnegut points out, in a country that prizes and was indeed founded upon the ideal of freedom. Freedom of speech and of knowledge is enshrined in the very documents that form the fabric of our government. But true freedom only exists with unfettered access to information. It's horrible that teachers -- those who are responsible for the youngest, most impressionable members of our society -- would seek to restrict any child's learning.
Vonnegut rightly takes censorship as an insult -- to the writer, to the reader, and to the children who should be presumed intelligent and independent enough to read a work and think critically about it. A reader should be free to read -- and disagree with -- whatever she chooses. A reader who is never challenged by concepts that are difficult, disturbing, or opposed to her own perspective will never gain the rich education that reading offers, and will never learn to think for herself. No child should be denied that education on the whim of the adult at the front of the classroom.
And this is why Banned Books Week is important. It reminds us every year that this is an ongoing battle, that censorship still happens in this country, and that ignorance and bigotry must be fought at every juncture.
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/03/i-am-very-real.html
We live, as Vonnegut points out, in a country that prizes and was indeed founded upon the ideal of freedom. Freedom of speech and of knowledge is enshrined in the very documents that form the fabric of our government. But true freedom only exists with unfettered access to information. It's horrible that teachers -- those who are responsible for the youngest, most impressionable members of our society -- would seek to restrict any child's learning.
Vonnegut rightly takes censorship as an insult -- to the writer, to the reader, and to the children who should be presumed intelligent and independent enough to read a work and think critically about it. A reader should be free to read -- and disagree with -- whatever she chooses. A reader who is never challenged by concepts that are difficult, disturbing, or opposed to her own perspective will never gain the rich education that reading offers, and will never learn to think for herself. No child should be denied that education on the whim of the adult at the front of the classroom.
And this is why Banned Books Week is important. It reminds us every year that this is an ongoing battle, that censorship still happens in this country, and that ignorance and bigotry must be fought at every juncture.
Saturday, August 2, 2014
Confused Cats Against Feminism, a Tumblr
I found this gem of a Tumblr some weeks ago, and am compelled to share it here:
http://confusedcatsagainstfeminism.tumblr.com/
I love adorable kitten pictures as much as the next person, but it's always more satisfying when the cuteness packs a more substantial message. And substantial messages can come in small, witty, and terrifyingly adorable packages!
Satire can be one of the most potent forms of protest and political speech. It calls attention to the absurdities of the opposing side in a manner that, unlike serious and straightforward activism, doesn't trigger immediate backlash. Rather, by provoking laughter, satire disarms.
So enjoy these cats, and while you're laughing at their grammatical and logical inadequacies, consider that an alarming number of people really do hold similarly illogical beliefs about women and feminism. Perhaps, with time, persistence, and a large enough army of kittens, we can persuade them that women deserve the same rights and protections as men currently enjoy.
http://confusedcatsagainstfeminism.tumblr.com/
I love adorable kitten pictures as much as the next person, but it's always more satisfying when the cuteness packs a more substantial message. And substantial messages can come in small, witty, and terrifyingly adorable packages!
Satire can be one of the most potent forms of protest and political speech. It calls attention to the absurdities of the opposing side in a manner that, unlike serious and straightforward activism, doesn't trigger immediate backlash. Rather, by provoking laughter, satire disarms.
So enjoy these cats, and while you're laughing at their grammatical and logical inadequacies, consider that an alarming number of people really do hold similarly illogical beliefs about women and feminism. Perhaps, with time, persistence, and a large enough army of kittens, we can persuade them that women deserve the same rights and protections as men currently enjoy.
Monday, July 7, 2014
Thoughts on Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, Especially Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Brilliant Dissent
Like many of you, I am greatly disappointed, if not entirely shocked, by the recent Supreme Court ruling in the case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. The decision was a Plessy v. Ferguson of our time, putting an already disadvantaged group, women, at the mercy of discriminatory organizations for superstitious and spurious reasons that should have no place in American public life. Unsurprisingly, all three of the female justices on the Supreme Court voted against Hobby Lobby.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg's scathing, legally scintillating dissent should itself vindicate our sex in the face of a risibly paternalistic ruling that presumes women incapable of making their own decisions about their reproductive health. I dare any of the (all-male) justices on the opposing side to produce a more compelling and well-reasoned argument than this:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/231974154/Ginsburg-Dissent
(It's worth reading the entire way through. Multiple times, if necessary.)
This ruling is a severe blow to women's rights in our country; the earlier comparison to Plessy v. Ferguson is no exaggeration. Under the guise of religious freedom, this Supreme Court decision sets a new precedent of "separate but equal" for employees of companies whose leaders believe that women ought to have less control over their sexual and reproductive lives than men do. Consider that Hobby Lobby is perfectly willing to cover Viagra, circumcision, and vasectomies -- but somehow simultaneously refuses to pay for IUDs and Plan B. This plainly demonstrates that Hobby Lobby is willing to participate in the funding of some forms of birth control and reproductive healthcare, so long as the recipients are male. The Court is essentially sanctioning corporate sexism.
The Supreme Court's majority opinion significantly undermines the credibility of the institution and the ruling, as it is laden with ignorance and misinformation about women's health, contraceptives, and even about Christianity itself. For example, intrauterine devices primarily work by preventing fertilization rather than by causing a woman's body to reject the implantation of an embryo -- which means that, even under the most conservative Christian understanding of "the beginning of life," IUDs do not negatively affect human beings with personal rights. Hobby Lobby therefore does not even have reasonable religious grounds in refusing to cover IUDs. For that matter, Hobby Lobby's 401K plans invest in some of the same medical device and healthcare companies that make the products Hobby Lobby objects to covering. This is blatantly hypocritical, and the five Catholic male justices who sided with Hobby Lobby should have seen right through it. This Economist article does an excellent job of deconstructing the hypocrisies and irrationality of Hobby Lobby's position:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/07/hobby-lobby-and-religious-exceptions
Perhaps even more disturbing, though, is the majority's insistence that a corporation should be allowed to pick and choose the elements of the healthcare it is required to provide for its employees. So long as a corporation operates in this country, it ought to adhere to all of this country's laws, especially where they concern employees who are American citizens and who depend on these laws for protection. This savvy comedian, who spoke out about the Hobby Lobby case before the Supreme Court came to its decision, points out that much as citizens have to pay all of the taxes we owe even though we might not agree with every government function that our tax dollars pay for (such as the Iraq War), a company must similarly pay for everything it is legally bound to provide for its employees, regardless of its owner's personal beliefs:
Yes, I have strong feelings about this decision, as should all women and anyone who supports equal rights for women. Let's hope that, much as Plessy was followed by Brown v. Board, that a future Supreme Court will overturn this abhorrent, misguided ruling.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg's scathing, legally scintillating dissent should itself vindicate our sex in the face of a risibly paternalistic ruling that presumes women incapable of making their own decisions about their reproductive health. I dare any of the (all-male) justices on the opposing side to produce a more compelling and well-reasoned argument than this:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/231974154/Ginsburg-Dissent
(It's worth reading the entire way through. Multiple times, if necessary.)
This ruling is a severe blow to women's rights in our country; the earlier comparison to Plessy v. Ferguson is no exaggeration. Under the guise of religious freedom, this Supreme Court decision sets a new precedent of "separate but equal" for employees of companies whose leaders believe that women ought to have less control over their sexual and reproductive lives than men do. Consider that Hobby Lobby is perfectly willing to cover Viagra, circumcision, and vasectomies -- but somehow simultaneously refuses to pay for IUDs and Plan B. This plainly demonstrates that Hobby Lobby is willing to participate in the funding of some forms of birth control and reproductive healthcare, so long as the recipients are male. The Court is essentially sanctioning corporate sexism.
The Supreme Court's majority opinion significantly undermines the credibility of the institution and the ruling, as it is laden with ignorance and misinformation about women's health, contraceptives, and even about Christianity itself. For example, intrauterine devices primarily work by preventing fertilization rather than by causing a woman's body to reject the implantation of an embryo -- which means that, even under the most conservative Christian understanding of "the beginning of life," IUDs do not negatively affect human beings with personal rights. Hobby Lobby therefore does not even have reasonable religious grounds in refusing to cover IUDs. For that matter, Hobby Lobby's 401K plans invest in some of the same medical device and healthcare companies that make the products Hobby Lobby objects to covering. This is blatantly hypocritical, and the five Catholic male justices who sided with Hobby Lobby should have seen right through it. This Economist article does an excellent job of deconstructing the hypocrisies and irrationality of Hobby Lobby's position:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/07/hobby-lobby-and-religious-exceptions
Perhaps even more disturbing, though, is the majority's insistence that a corporation should be allowed to pick and choose the elements of the healthcare it is required to provide for its employees. So long as a corporation operates in this country, it ought to adhere to all of this country's laws, especially where they concern employees who are American citizens and who depend on these laws for protection. This savvy comedian, who spoke out about the Hobby Lobby case before the Supreme Court came to its decision, points out that much as citizens have to pay all of the taxes we owe even though we might not agree with every government function that our tax dollars pay for (such as the Iraq War), a company must similarly pay for everything it is legally bound to provide for its employees, regardless of its owner's personal beliefs:
Yes, I have strong feelings about this decision, as should all women and anyone who supports equal rights for women. Let's hope that, much as Plessy was followed by Brown v. Board, that a future Supreme Court will overturn this abhorrent, misguided ruling.
Sunday, February 9, 2014
Sochi 2014: Where can I buy a rainbow flag?
I've been watching the Winter Olympics this weekend (mostly for the figure skating, which is wonderful). I've also been keeping abreast of Putin's crackdown on LGBT rights and the subsequent displays of pride and solidarity from other countries. Here's an excellent little video by The Guardian, wherein a number of British celebrities learn how to say "Where can I buy a rainbow flag?" in Russian:
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/video/2014/feb/07/learn-russian-protest-anti-gay-laws-sochi-winter-olympics-video
Neil Gaiman! Stephen Fry!
Because damn it, Putin, you're not going to bring Russia into the twenty-first century without some twenty-first century values -- among which are equal rights for all citizens, including gay ones. (Yes, we have a ways to go on this issue in the US as well.)
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/video/2014/feb/07/learn-russian-protest-anti-gay-laws-sochi-winter-olympics-video
Neil Gaiman! Stephen Fry!
Because damn it, Putin, you're not going to bring Russia into the twenty-first century without some twenty-first century values -- among which are equal rights for all citizens, including gay ones. (Yes, we have a ways to go on this issue in the US as well.)
Thursday, December 26, 2013
BBC: Royal Pardon for Alan Turing (Finally!)
Two days ago, fifty-nine years after he was driven to suicide by discrimination and the overwhelming solitude of misunderstanding, Alan Turing finally received a royal pardon for violating the so-called "gross indecency" laws of his time:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25495315
Though his downfall was perhaps not as well-publicized and posthumously noted as that of Oscar Wilde in the century before his, it was no less a travesty for humanity. (And to think that society had not budged an inch on homosexuality between 1900 and 1954!) Turing was one of the finest cryptanalysts in history, as well as one of the founding fathers of modern computer science, and he was just forty-one years old when he died. One can't help but wonder what great and wonderful things he might have accomplished in his later years had he lived.
I am reminded, somewhat, of the story of Johnny Gunther, immortalized in his father's memoir Death Be Not Proud. Gunther was another extremely promising young man who died even younger, as a teenager, after a valiant struggle with brain cancer. Untimely "early" deaths, like those of Turing, Wilde, and Gunther seem especially tragic because of the injustice of the situation (particularly with Turing and Wilde, whose deaths were entirely preventable) and the abruptly curtailed possibilities of their later lives. Entirely due to human stupidity and prejudice, Turing was never afforded the opportunity to reach his full potential. I can only imagine, for a person brimming with ideas, curiosity, and the drive to contribute meaningfully to the sum of human knowledge, to hold in his hand the poisoned apple and think that such an exit was preferable to the future that lay before him...
The royal pardon is too little, too late, but at least some six decades later, we recognize and regret the human cruelty that hounded Alan Turing to his death, and move forward as a society with an awareness that we did not have before.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25495315
Though his downfall was perhaps not as well-publicized and posthumously noted as that of Oscar Wilde in the century before his, it was no less a travesty for humanity. (And to think that society had not budged an inch on homosexuality between 1900 and 1954!) Turing was one of the finest cryptanalysts in history, as well as one of the founding fathers of modern computer science, and he was just forty-one years old when he died. One can't help but wonder what great and wonderful things he might have accomplished in his later years had he lived.
I am reminded, somewhat, of the story of Johnny Gunther, immortalized in his father's memoir Death Be Not Proud. Gunther was another extremely promising young man who died even younger, as a teenager, after a valiant struggle with brain cancer. Untimely "early" deaths, like those of Turing, Wilde, and Gunther seem especially tragic because of the injustice of the situation (particularly with Turing and Wilde, whose deaths were entirely preventable) and the abruptly curtailed possibilities of their later lives. Entirely due to human stupidity and prejudice, Turing was never afforded the opportunity to reach his full potential. I can only imagine, for a person brimming with ideas, curiosity, and the drive to contribute meaningfully to the sum of human knowledge, to hold in his hand the poisoned apple and think that such an exit was preferable to the future that lay before him...
The royal pardon is too little, too late, but at least some six decades later, we recognize and regret the human cruelty that hounded Alan Turing to his death, and move forward as a society with an awareness that we did not have before.
Saturday, June 29, 2013
Cover-a-Week #20: "City Hall" by Vienna Teng
In celebration of the recent Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage, United States v. Windsor:
http://youtu.be/lkrvnkgKTu0
The song was originally written about the 2004 same-sex marriage initiative in San Francisco, but it's just as relevant today; it commemorates the victory of love, justice, and human dignity over the prejudices of a shrinking minority.
Also, Oscar Wilde's two pence: http://www.gocomics.com/thenewadventuresofqueenvictoria/2013/06/27
http://youtu.be/lkrvnkgKTu0
The song was originally written about the 2004 same-sex marriage initiative in San Francisco, but it's just as relevant today; it commemorates the victory of love, justice, and human dignity over the prejudices of a shrinking minority.
Also, Oscar Wilde's two pence: http://www.gocomics.com/thenewadventuresofqueenvictoria/2013/06/27
Sunday, February 10, 2013
BBC: Parisian Women Legally Allowed to Wear the Pants
There are a surprising number of antiquated laws in the books, in France and in any country (including the US) with a long legal history. A lot of these are along the lines of "morality" laws, faith-based laws, sumptuary laws, &c. -- laws that regulated behavior and are no longer compatible with modern notions of freedom of expression. Most of these were buried in reams of text and forgotten about as times changed and attitudes modernized, so nobody ever got around to changing them. Of course, because they seem so silly, few of these laws are actually enforced these days, which allows them to remain in the books until someone stumbles upon them, as in the case with Parisian women's pants (Trouser pants, not... underwear pants. In France, I imagine underwear might have a whole different set of laws, or lack thereof.)
Anyhow, there was apparently a ban on Parisian women wearing pants that was never stricken from the books until now:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21329269
It reminds me of this book, which for some reason has been sitting on my sister's shelf for a good many years.
Anyhow, there was apparently a ban on Parisian women wearing pants that was never stricken from the books until now:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21329269
It reminds me of this book, which for some reason has been sitting on my sister's shelf for a good many years.
Sunday, February 3, 2013
io9: Race Relations in the Space Age
An adorable, moving video about breaking all sorts of glass ceilings in pursuit of one's dreams (also, Star Trek pioneering integration FTW):
http://io9.com/5981089/a-sweet-animated-tale-of-challenger-astronaut-ronald-mcnairs-early-experience-standing-up-to-racism
Ronald McNair. I didn't know who he was until I saw this, but I'm glad I found it. I'll admit to tearing up a little at the end. (Challenger, why?) He's one of the many unsung heroes of science -- much as the Catholic Church has a body of saints, I propose that science establish its own roster of martyrs for the cause. McNair would be up there with Galileo and Marie Curie.
http://io9.com/5981089/a-sweet-animated-tale-of-challenger-astronaut-ronald-mcnairs-early-experience-standing-up-to-racism
Ronald McNair. I didn't know who he was until I saw this, but I'm glad I found it. I'll admit to tearing up a little at the end. (Challenger, why?) He's one of the many unsung heroes of science -- much as the Catholic Church has a body of saints, I propose that science establish its own roster of martyrs for the cause. McNair would be up there with Galileo and Marie Curie.
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Vote Today!
It's Election Day. Please vote. No matter who you vote for or whether you live in a swing state, your vote matters.
That is all.
That is all.
Thursday, August 30, 2012
How to Explain Gay Rights to an Idiot
It's got pictures!
http://atheist-overdose.tumblr.com/post/29153516004/how-to-explain-gay-rights-to-an-idiot-follow-for
Simple logic at its finest.
http://atheist-overdose.tumblr.com/post/29153516004/how-to-explain-gay-rights-to-an-idiot-follow-for
Simple logic at its finest.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
BBC: V (for Vendetta) as a Cultural Symbol
In light of the Occupy movement's and Anonymous's adoption of the Guy Fawkes mask as a rallying image, Alan Moore, the creator of the original comic V for Vendetta writes for the BBC on the cultural cachet that the vigilante V holds in the collective consciousness:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16968689
The tagline should be V's quotation about how he's not a man, but an idea -- and ideas never die. One of the problems that the Occupy movement, at least, will have to confront, is precisely that it's an idea, an exercise of populist sentiment. Its lack of leadership and a practical agenda might well deflate the movement. The advantage that V had is that his idea was embodied in a single person, with his own goals and vision, his own coherent plan of action. He was the figurehead, if not the de facto leader of his own revolution. Occupy doesn't have that single person, than coherency. It has the mask -- many such masks -- but not the single visionary behind it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16968689
The tagline should be V's quotation about how he's not a man, but an idea -- and ideas never die. One of the problems that the Occupy movement, at least, will have to confront, is precisely that it's an idea, an exercise of populist sentiment. Its lack of leadership and a practical agenda might well deflate the movement. The advantage that V had is that his idea was embodied in a single person, with his own goals and vision, his own coherent plan of action. He was the figurehead, if not the de facto leader of his own revolution. Occupy doesn't have that single person, than coherency. It has the mask -- many such masks -- but not the single visionary behind it.
Thursday, November 24, 2011
NYTimes: What's in a Name?
Seeing as it's Thanksgiving -- a celebration of family and loved ones -- I thought that this would be an appropriate article to post; it's an observation on an inevitable quandary in naming trends, given recent (within the past several decades) developments in gender equality and increasingly diverse modern familial structures:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/24/fashion/babies-surnames-to-hyphenate-or-not.html?_r=1&ref=fashion?src=dayp
I've given this a fair bit of thought. As a heterosexual female, Western social customs would have me relinquish my surname in favor of my hypothetical husband's, if I were to marry at some point in my life. I'm not so keen on that, myself; I'm rather attached to my last name. It has a history behind it, a connection to generations of family and culture.
Ergo, one of my goals in life is to achieve a level of "success" (definition variable) such that if the time comes, it would appear to be logical (rather than vain or self-serving) to keep my surname. It's rather sad that society is still at a stage where a woman needs a reason to keep her maiden name, while a man may do so merely by virtue of his Y chromosome. I hope that someday, English-speaking society will have progressed such that women keep their own names as a matter of course, and some equitable system exists whereby children's surnames are evenly distributed between their sire and dam.
I'm not sure about hypothetical children (haven't given them much thought -- I'm many years too young for that!) but I imagine it would depend a lot on the ethnic origins of their father. Surnames in some languages lend themselves more readily to hyphenation than those in others. I'd want them to have a Chinese name, too. If the father were non-Chinese, I'd like to give them my own Chinese family name to use in contexts that would require it; phonetically deriving one from the father's surname seems a little cheap, next to a name with history and family.
Interestingly, in Chinese society, women retain the use of their maiden names throughout life; it's only when referring to them specifically as "wife of so-and-so" that they go by the equivalent of "Mrs." Gender equality is, in some respects (this is a pretty significant caveat), more apparent in modern Chinese society (i.e. beginning with my generation). I think it has a lot to do with the One Child Policy, in that if parents have only one child, they will give it the best they can in the way of opportunity and attention. There is much less opportunity for parents to favor sons over daughters (after the birth of the child; female infanticide is still a problem in some areas), because they typically only have one child to dote upon. The surname given to the child is still the father's, so it's not a perfect system, by any means, but in this specific practice, it's a bit closer to gender equality than in English-speaking countries.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/24/fashion/babies-surnames-to-hyphenate-or-not.html?_r=1&ref=fashion?src=dayp
I've given this a fair bit of thought. As a heterosexual female, Western social customs would have me relinquish my surname in favor of my hypothetical husband's, if I were to marry at some point in my life. I'm not so keen on that, myself; I'm rather attached to my last name. It has a history behind it, a connection to generations of family and culture.
Ergo, one of my goals in life is to achieve a level of "success" (definition variable) such that if the time comes, it would appear to be logical (rather than vain or self-serving) to keep my surname. It's rather sad that society is still at a stage where a woman needs a reason to keep her maiden name, while a man may do so merely by virtue of his Y chromosome. I hope that someday, English-speaking society will have progressed such that women keep their own names as a matter of course, and some equitable system exists whereby children's surnames are evenly distributed between their sire and dam.
I'm not sure about hypothetical children (haven't given them much thought -- I'm many years too young for that!) but I imagine it would depend a lot on the ethnic origins of their father. Surnames in some languages lend themselves more readily to hyphenation than those in others. I'd want them to have a Chinese name, too. If the father were non-Chinese, I'd like to give them my own Chinese family name to use in contexts that would require it; phonetically deriving one from the father's surname seems a little cheap, next to a name with history and family.
Interestingly, in Chinese society, women retain the use of their maiden names throughout life; it's only when referring to them specifically as "wife of so-and-so" that they go by the equivalent of "Mrs." Gender equality is, in some respects (this is a pretty significant caveat), more apparent in modern Chinese society (i.e. beginning with my generation). I think it has a lot to do with the One Child Policy, in that if parents have only one child, they will give it the best they can in the way of opportunity and attention. There is much less opportunity for parents to favor sons over daughters (after the birth of the child; female infanticide is still a problem in some areas), because they typically only have one child to dote upon. The surname given to the child is still the father's, so it's not a perfect system, by any means, but in this specific practice, it's a bit closer to gender equality than in English-speaking countries.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
R.I.P. Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth
Civil Rights activist Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth passed away yesterday: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/06/us/rev-fred-l-shuttlesworth-civil-rights-leader-dies-at-89.html?ref=obituaries
I had the great honour of meeting him half a decade ago, when I was in high school, through a wonderful program called Sojourn to the Past. He was a warm, genuine person, who despite his age and vast life experience, took the time to speak with a bunch of students, to pass along the torch that he had borne so faithfully his entire life. He was truly an inspiration, and the world is a little less bright for his passing.
I had the great honour of meeting him half a decade ago, when I was in high school, through a wonderful program called Sojourn to the Past. He was a warm, genuine person, who despite his age and vast life experience, took the time to speak with a bunch of students, to pass along the torch that he had borne so faithfully his entire life. He was truly an inspiration, and the world is a little less bright for his passing.
Monday, September 26, 2011
BBC: Saudi Women Gain Right to Vote!
Breaking news from yesterday:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15052030
Tangible fruits of the Arab Spring!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15052030
Tangible fruits of the Arab Spring!
Thursday, September 15, 2011
NYTimes: Odd Exceptions in the Family Planning Rulebook
An interesting article, especially given the friends I made in China, all of whom were only children:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/07/world/asia/07sidebar.html
The last line is so ridiculously illogical that I nearly spewed tea on the keyboard. Really? That's what ultrasounds and amniocentesis are for. It's not as though the Chinese have anything against abortion, by and large.
I can see the logic to both sides of the One Child Policy debate. China's huge population means that some method of restricting population growth is necessary (especially in the days when it was first enacted). At the same time, the lack of a social safety net, especially provisions for the elderly, mean that the burden falls on the children to care for their aging parents -- which, traditionally, has been the case, but which has been exacerbated by the lack of siblings with whom to divide this often significant burden. Obviously, parents would want to have multiple children, which means exploiting whatever loopholes are available to them -- including, apparently, nonexistent disabilities. (Also, there's the not insignificant problem of favoring male children over female ones, especially in a culture that's still somewhat traditional.)
I imagine that as China's population stabilizes, the state-mandated controls on childbirth will ease up. Legislation (of the sensible variety) seems to be moving in that direction; for example, if both parents are only children, they are permitted two offspring. In some ways, it's a more extreme, top-down version of natural, self-correcting fluctuations in ecological population density; instead of massive infant mortality and starvation, the government is heading of the problem at conception. Now, as the population is stabilizing, hopefully the Chinese government is recognizing these shifts and scaling back their artificial restraints.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/07/world/asia/07sidebar.html
The last line is so ridiculously illogical that I nearly spewed tea on the keyboard. Really? That's what ultrasounds and amniocentesis are for. It's not as though the Chinese have anything against abortion, by and large.
I can see the logic to both sides of the One Child Policy debate. China's huge population means that some method of restricting population growth is necessary (especially in the days when it was first enacted). At the same time, the lack of a social safety net, especially provisions for the elderly, mean that the burden falls on the children to care for their aging parents -- which, traditionally, has been the case, but which has been exacerbated by the lack of siblings with whom to divide this often significant burden. Obviously, parents would want to have multiple children, which means exploiting whatever loopholes are available to them -- including, apparently, nonexistent disabilities. (Also, there's the not insignificant problem of favoring male children over female ones, especially in a culture that's still somewhat traditional.)
I imagine that as China's population stabilizes, the state-mandated controls on childbirth will ease up. Legislation (of the sensible variety) seems to be moving in that direction; for example, if both parents are only children, they are permitted two offspring. In some ways, it's a more extreme, top-down version of natural, self-correcting fluctuations in ecological population density; instead of massive infant mortality and starvation, the government is heading of the problem at conception. Now, as the population is stabilizing, hopefully the Chinese government is recognizing these shifts and scaling back their artificial restraints.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
NYTimes: New York Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage!
Happened just yesterday:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/25/nyregion/gay-marriage-approved-by-new-york-senate.html
Needless to say, it's a triumph for my home state. I'm still a little shocked that it happened in New York before it did in California (that Prop. 8 fiasco, and all). But mostly, I'm proud. I'm proud that after the long, hard-fought struggle, they -- we, the people -- made it happen.
A brief history of said struggle: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/nyregion/the-road-to-gay-marriage-in-new-york.html?ref=global-home
I have to hand it to the governor, to those Republicans who voted in favor of the bill despite their party line, to the Democrats (all but one), to the donors and organizers and everyone who worked so hard for the dreams and natural rights of a downtrodden minority. I wish I were here, then. But that's small potatoes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/25/nyregion/gay-marriage-approved-by-new-york-senate.html
Needless to say, it's a triumph for my home state. I'm still a little shocked that it happened in New York before it did in California (that Prop. 8 fiasco, and all). But mostly, I'm proud. I'm proud that after the long, hard-fought struggle, they -- we, the people -- made it happen.
A brief history of said struggle: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/nyregion/the-road-to-gay-marriage-in-new-york.html?ref=global-home
I have to hand it to the governor, to those Republicans who voted in favor of the bill despite their party line, to the Democrats (all but one), to the donors and organizers and everyone who worked so hard for the dreams and natural rights of a downtrodden minority. I wish I were here, then. But that's small potatoes.
Saturday, December 18, 2010
NYTimes: Senate Repeals "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
A major victory for civil rights -- on the order of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, some have said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/us/politics/19cong.html?_r=1&ref=global-home
At long last, military honor. It's something to celebrate this season.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/us/politics/19cong.html?_r=1&ref=global-home
At long last, military honor. It's something to celebrate this season.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
NYTimes: Islam and the Two Americas
A very interesting Opinions piece on the precarious position of Islam in America:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/16/opinion/16douthat.html
It makes a very good point. America is a land of immigrants, but only to a point. We are an Anglo-normative nation, a Judeo-Christian society that prints "In God we trust" on our currency and proclaims "one nation, under God" in our pledge. Whosoever believes in a different god, or even (in this case) the same God by a different name in a different book, sometimes isn't quite American enough.
We profess to be a nation of religious freedom and cultural acceptance. We profess to have left behind our very embarrassing history of discrimination. We profess to welcome those of all colors and creeds. But in reality, with the World Trade Center mosque controversy and other instances of skittish xenophobia on the part of the white Judeo-Christian majority, we have a long ways to go towards those ideals.
At the same time, those same immigrants, being now a part of America, must also contribute to the growth process. The parties facing the steepest opposition must needs contribute the most. It is not fair, but it is necessary. It reminds me of the differences between the strategies of Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X; while there is no denying that blacks should have had the same rights and freedoms as other Americans, the relevant legislation was achieved through nonviolent, costly, and arduous means. African-Americans should not have needed to do that -- they ought to have enjoyed the same rights as anyone else -- but it was necessary. Malcolm X, for all his agitation and righteous indignation, which were justified, did not achieve nearly the results that King did.
I guess it all boils down to a bit of common sense: while it is certainly within one's rights to say needlessly provocative things (to a point; see "Shouting 'Fire!' in a Crowded Theater"), it's often not beneficial to one's cause to say them (and this is a reality, no matter how one assigns the blame). What would you rather do, freely exercise your rights, or advance your cause by watching your mouth a little more carefully? The former is a Constitutionally protected right, but, in light of an unfortunate reality, it's also very selfish.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/16/opinion/16douthat.html
It makes a very good point. America is a land of immigrants, but only to a point. We are an Anglo-normative nation, a Judeo-Christian society that prints "In God we trust" on our currency and proclaims "one nation, under God" in our pledge. Whosoever believes in a different god, or even (in this case) the same God by a different name in a different book, sometimes isn't quite American enough.
We profess to be a nation of religious freedom and cultural acceptance. We profess to have left behind our very embarrassing history of discrimination. We profess to welcome those of all colors and creeds. But in reality, with the World Trade Center mosque controversy and other instances of skittish xenophobia on the part of the white Judeo-Christian majority, we have a long ways to go towards those ideals.
At the same time, those same immigrants, being now a part of America, must also contribute to the growth process. The parties facing the steepest opposition must needs contribute the most. It is not fair, but it is necessary. It reminds me of the differences between the strategies of Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X; while there is no denying that blacks should have had the same rights and freedoms as other Americans, the relevant legislation was achieved through nonviolent, costly, and arduous means. African-Americans should not have needed to do that -- they ought to have enjoyed the same rights as anyone else -- but it was necessary. Malcolm X, for all his agitation and righteous indignation, which were justified, did not achieve nearly the results that King did.
I guess it all boils down to a bit of common sense: while it is certainly within one's rights to say needlessly provocative things (to a point; see "Shouting 'Fire!' in a Crowded Theater"), it's often not beneficial to one's cause to say them (and this is a reality, no matter how one assigns the blame). What would you rather do, freely exercise your rights, or advance your cause by watching your mouth a little more carefully? The former is a Constitutionally protected right, but, in light of an unfortunate reality, it's also very selfish.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
I, Too, Sing America (by Langston Hughes)
Langston Hughes, as many of you probably already know, was one of the greatest poets of the Harlem Renaissance. This poem was one of the anthems of the day in the struggle for racial equality in America.
I, Too, Sing America
by Langston Hughes (1925)
I, too, sing America.
I am the darker brother.
They send me to eat in the kitchen
When company comes,
But I laugh,
And eat well,
And grow strong.
Tomorrow,
I'll be at the table
When company comes.
Nobody'll dare
Say to me,
"Eat in the kitchen,"
Then.
Besides,
They'll see how beautiful I am
And be ashamed--
I, too, am America.
Very simple, very direct, and very powerful. It predates the Civil Rights Movement by some thirty-odd years, and yet the message is distinctly the same. It's still relevant today; discrimination still exists, if more insidiously than it did before. It's a matter of latent bias and accumulated socioeconomic circumstance, rather than one of law. It's a matter of apathy, rather than hatred.
Stop eating in the kitchen. You -- we, too, are America.
I, Too, Sing America
by Langston Hughes (1925)
I, too, sing America.
I am the darker brother.
They send me to eat in the kitchen
When company comes,
But I laugh,
And eat well,
And grow strong.
Tomorrow,
I'll be at the table
When company comes.
Nobody'll dare
Say to me,
"Eat in the kitchen,"
Then.
Besides,
They'll see how beautiful I am
And be ashamed--
I, too, am America.
Very simple, very direct, and very powerful. It predates the Civil Rights Movement by some thirty-odd years, and yet the message is distinctly the same. It's still relevant today; discrimination still exists, if more insidiously than it did before. It's a matter of latent bias and accumulated socioeconomic circumstance, rather than one of law. It's a matter of apathy, rather than hatred.
Stop eating in the kitchen. You -- we, too, are America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)