Ink

I have a guest post up on Female Impersonated on the topic of my tattoos, religion, and politics.

The Land of Milk and Honey

There are very few topics that cause similarly minded individuals, like those within progressive movements, to be at an impasse. The topic of Israel and Palestine is a very pertinent one. I’ve written about Israel before but I will admit my knowledge on the subject is far more limited than other bloggers that can better educate you. I will also admit that I have an openly difficult time navigating between my identity as a Jew and my usual pro-peace, anti-war stance. I often wonder whether my perspective would be different if I was not Jewish, if I had not known of friends and loved ones who’s lives were cut short by the Holocaust, if I had not felt so at home during my time in Israel, drunk off the land of milk and honey…

So it hurts, it genuinely and honestly hurts, for me to read the liberal, progressive, and feminist blogs I have grown to love and respect as they now stand firm with Palestine but remained silent when Hamas attacked Israel with over 2000 rockets in the last year (I’m looking at you Huffington Post).

I am scattered and am get testy as I attempt to post responses on various blogs. My comments get shorter and less eloquent, not doing the circumstances justice. I'll try to be concise here. Though I realize doing so might make me unpopular, I think discourse is crucial and hopefully we can all learn from one another. The current and past situations in the Middle East are not black and white. There are a lot of grey areas to consider, a lot of history, and a lot of passion and emotion.

The following are statements from posts and comments that I’ve read on other blogs over the past few weeks. I have responded to some at their place of origin, others I put aside, because they deeply hurt me or because I wanted to give the subject more thought. I would like to respond to many of these here, because like I said, doing it in various places doesn’t do the topic justice from my end.

It’s ok to eliminate Israel, or to give the land to Palestinians, because it was originally founded unethically by removing Palestinians from the land.

Well no, not exactly. Both Jews and Palestinians lived on that land. When the land became Israel, some Palestinians stayed (some did not). The ones that did stay were granted full civil rights as citizens for Israel. Many continue to live there today. The Palestinians that left, or the ones that protest the “land being taken from them” made that choice for themselves. So not only is this a false accusation but also it leaves out a crucial note that Israel was given to the Jews due to a massive religious/ethnic cleansing operation whose goal was to eliminate ALL Jews from the earth. We need to talk about solutions and many people have. From all the reading I have done over the past few days the only thing that makes sense to me is a two-state solution. However, this is something that Israel has been working towards for over 50 years but Palestinians won’t commit because they want Israel and Jews off the map. For good. How can anyone negotiate with that?

Israel has more military force. They should regulate it better and use it less because it is killing innocent children.

Like I said, I’ve always been adamantly pro-peace and anti-war. Each time I read that Israel has responded violently to an act of aggression I get a feeling of fear and sadness in the pit of my stomach. But if we are truly concerned about the innocent children that are being hurt why aren’t we just as angry at the Arabs that intentionally risk the lives of those children? Children are used as martyrs of terrorism, as shields during attacks, and indoctrinated to hate. Mickey Mouse and other cartoons are used as propaganda to teach children to hate and how to make bombs, with nails and straps, which they attach to their bodies. I ask this not to instigate but because I am searching for honest answers: what is an appropriate response to missile attacks against your land that come from Gaza? What should have been the appropriate response from Israel instead? Hamas has gotten us to the current situation we are in. Was Israel attacking the West Bank or Gaza originally? No. Hamas brought this on the Gazans, who I do feel terrible for because innocent people don’t deserve to live in this type of violence and destruction.

Israel is a bully and has never given up anything.

What?! Firstly, Israel gave up Gaza and the West Bank to the Palestinians. Also, in a peace agreement with Syria, Israel was considering giving up the Golan Heights which is not only one of the most beautiful parts of Israel but also would give the owner of the land the height advantage. Syria maintains close ties to Hamas and I hope to hell they don’t end up with the Golan Heights. Seriously, imho, Israel has given up too much already. Let’s not forget Israel is the size of Delaware… I completely understand that Gaza is in a really shitty current situation (that they have made for themselves but that’s another story) – they are living in a territory that depends on Israel for their survival, their food, water, power, etc, which gives Israel a lot of control. That is not a way for an independent people to live. However, every peace agreement that Israel has presented, Hamas has torn up and refused to negotiate new ones. How can any nation coexist with another who wants nothing to do with you and more than just that, wants you gone? Instead, Hamas has allied with Iran and have resorted to underground tunnels that not only smuggle in food and water but also rocket parts and ammunition. Hamas is no Hezbollah but it’s still incredibly scary what rocket parts and mortar shells can do, the destruction they can cause. The range of Hamas weapons has increased dramatically meaning they are getting help from somewhere (ie Iran). In addition to Hamas fighting a war with Israel, other countries are fighting a proxy war with Israel through Hamas. This isn’t fair to anyone, including Hamas and Palestinians who are getting the brunt of all the violence.

And a little something from Dave:

There are no easy answers and no easy targets. What really cooks my noodle is how many one-sided arguments sprout up when hostility resumes in that area. There is a humanitarian crisis and Israel is also defending itself. Dualism in general is a dangerous thought process that shows a lack of mental maturity and an inability to see problems as a larger, more contextual group of details. There are lots and lots of armchair sociologists/war tacticians that seem to know every answer and have the entire intimate inside knowledge of where to place blame. These people are, pardon my verbiage, full of shit. We all have our opinions. Mine is that this conflict is a larger proxy war similar to acts of communist aggression in places like Afghanistan. Iran wants to destroy Israel, but can’t, so it instead provides weaponry to Hamas through a complex series of underground tunnels. It’s a win-win scenario for Iran/Hezbollah/etc… because they can strike Israel and also claim that Israel is a cruel nation that practices genocide on the Palestinian. Meanwhile, where is the humanitarian support for Palestinians for the past 60 years? I know Israel provides lots. Israel also blockades. I’m aware of both. This issue gets only more complex the further you dig. Why can’t Iran/Syria/Lebanon/Egypt/Saudi Arabia/Jordan etc…provide land for Palestinians (check out what happens when you dig into this topic…)? There are so many questions and no easy answers. If you really want to do someone a favor (me), read carefully about this conflict. Don’t assume that someone with a PhD from Yale is right because he/she is a PhD from Yale. Don’t accept obvious bias from people. Get your news from a multitude of sources, and then begin to draw your own conclusions. Finally, realize that for most people who support Israel, that this is difficult. I see mostly two kinds of arguments: 1.) Israel is the heinous aggressor responsible for a multitude of death, famine, and disease…or 2.) I support Israel, but I have problems with how it conducts itself. There are few people that have the luxury of being entirely, 100% behind Israel. So, when I argue for Israel, I have to argue not only against the opinions of those that support argument #1, but also my own internal dialogue. No one is pro-war (except you, Dick Cheney…good riddance).

Guest Posting

I know i'm not supposed to be blogging but i snuck on just for a minute just to let ya'll know that there is a guest post by me over at The Feminist Underground for their "feminists on feminism" series. Check it out, and check out their blog in the process :)

Mark's Lunch Time Rambling, Oprah

A friend/co-worker sent me this yesterday in an email. He said it would be okay for me to post it as a guest post in my blog. Thanks Mark :)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know that everyone is supposed to love and/or fear Oprah. I've always been disturbed over her magazine and, since I haven't watched the show in years, that's all I can really use to judge. I just saw this gem on CNN. I thought I'd send it along because I thought you'd understand.

Not only does it completely ignore the roles any father or father figure has in a kids life, upbringing or psychology, it also acts as if qualities such as acceptance, nourishment, instruction and empowerment are exclusive to the mother. Or, worse, not in any way the responsibility of the father. It claims to paint a realistic picture that no mother can be, or should be expected to be perfect, and give good self-help advice about forming positive relationships in your life. However, it falls into the standard, "mother blaming, father shouldn't be expected to do anything" sexist mantra that's really outdated.

I do have to give credit to the article in the general philosophy that we should all be responsible for developing each other to our highest potential, but if we don't start with the simple assumption that both women AND men should be expected to provide a stimulating nourishing environment for the kids, regardless of what happens in their parents relationship (divorce, changed feelings, etc) than how much can we really expect of society to do?

Race, Class and Gender - A Semester of Frustration

Below is a guest post from a co-worker and friend, Brandi. For me, one of the most interesting things to witness is the formation and development of feminist consciousness in another person. I experienced this in my first WS class during college, some stages that i went through to form my feminist identity included challenging my former beliefs, admitting my own privilege, realizing that indeed there is a problem, outrage, and recognizing the need for collective action. Feminist identity develops during different times in peoples lives and not always out of academic circumstances. Below is an example of a woman who is going through this now and would love feedback on other people's experiences and when to (and how to) speak up for what you believe in.

From Brandi:

Last summer, I had a chance to work closely with Galina. Galina was hired to work for the company I work at about a year and a half ago though we never actually worked together. Fortunately she had some down time in between research studies and she was able to help me out during a time of turnover/trainings, etc. I got to really know her and I’m so thankful for that time – even if it was difficult. I learned that she is strong-willed, is passionate about her views and sticks up for what is right. I don’t think I have ever met someone with such conviction before and it is so refreshing and inspiring.

Admittedly, prior to meeting her and reading her blog, I myself never understood what being a feminist means. Like many other (ignorant) people in this world, I too thought feminism was a “dirty” word and that feminists fit the following criteria: they are always women, are mean, mostly lesbians, have narrow views of the world, and are just out there to cause trouble. I understand now that this is all cultivated by the media. I now proudly claim to be a feminist – if ever I’m asked to describe myself, that is a word that I use.

This semester I enrolled in a class called Race, Class and Gender. Once the end of January rolled around I was excited about all the topics we would cover and the heated discussions that would transpire. I was fully expecting some people to be shocked and a little hurt. What has been happening in class; however, I was not prepared for.

There is a group of females that sit right in the front of the class in a gaggle. I hate to stereotype, but they are all carbon copies of each other – they go tanning, have manicured fingernails, expensive and trendy haircuts, carry Coach bags, etc. Often times in class they are giggling and distracting to both the original professor (we had to have a guest professor come in from now on since someone complained about the class and my professor’s accent – I have good reason to believe it was one of said girls) and the rest of the class.

One day we were discussing patriarchal societies and our professor asked, “Do you think we live in a patriarchy.” I nodded my head as did several other people in my class. The ringleader of the group of girls in the front (we’ll call her A.) said, “I don’t think we do.” My professor was curious as to why – she’s very good at letting us make a case for our opinions. A. said very surely, “Well, I’m ok with how things are so it’s ok.” Clearly, this is not a valid argument. Just because you yourself are ok with how our society is does not a non-patriarchal society make. Until we have equal pay for equal work, we are in a patriarchy. Until a day goes by where the media doesn’t comment on Hilary Clinton showing her emotions or tearing up during a speech, we are in a patriarchy. Until a woman CEO is not compared to her male colleagues, we live in a patriarchy.

Two weeks ago, one of A’s friends did a presentation on an article about teenage girls getting plastic surgery. This lead to a discussion about America’s Next Top Model which I admit I love to hate to watch. Another one of A’s friends mentioned that there is always a “bigger” girl on there but “they usually don’t make it far”. Our guest professor asked, “Oh, you mean she’s like the average woman in America, not just a size 0?” and the friend said, “No, they’re obese.” OBESE?? Whitney who is this season’s token “plus sized model”, if you could call her that, is a size 10! How is that obese? Seriously, look at her photos!

Then A. opened her mouth again and said that she didn’t believe that the teenage girls who get plastic surgery are doing it because of the media or society, they just, you know like want to look good. Well A., who makes them think a tiny waist, small thighs and big boobs make ya look good? SOCIETY.

Last week’s class was the icing on my cake. The same girl who thinks the “plus sized” models on ANTM are obese did her presentation on an article about a boy in middle school who was gay. She ended her presentation with a little gem that tied the article into her own life. She said, “I have a friend who is a lesbian and I just don’t understand how she knows she is a lesbian if she has never slept with a boy.” In her mind you need to at least sleep with one guy before you make a decision to be attracted to girls. Maybe the same should be true to be sure you aren’t gay? I don’t know. Our guest professor calmly turned the tables and asked her “Well, how did you know you were attracted to boys?” The girl turned her eyes upward and thought for a minute and then said, “Yeah, I guess I can see that.” I really hoped this was true and was satisfied with the discussion.

BUT THEN, my original professor said, “Well, there have been some studies to show that many people who are gay have been abused early on and that is why they are gay.” And of course that gaggle of girls in front all nod their heads. So now they are walking out the door of the class thinking that people they meet who are homosexual have been abused and poor them, they don’t know any better! I was seething in my seat and I looked around at my class but no one else had the reaction I had. How could she just make a statement like that without the exact statistics and source to show that?

So, I tried looking them up myself. I couldn’t find anything right away. But then I stumbled upon the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force website and did a keyword search of ‘sexual abuse’. What I came up with was a report called “Love Won Out: Addressing, Understanding, and Preventing Homosexuality”. Basically in 2004 there was a conference called Love Won Out which was sponsored by Focus on the Family (Feministgal interjection: they also promote creepy pro-life fetus comics such as Umbert!). There were several speakers who identified as “ex-gay” and “ex-lesbian” and the conference focused on the prevention of homosexuality and that both change and hope is possible.

“Speakers frequently claimed that childhood sexual abuse is a prominent cause of lesbian orientation” (p. 5). Also, on page 4, “Homosexual behavior is an attempt to “repair childhood emotional hurts” through same-sex sexuality. As such, homosexuality is a kind of reparative drive.” Here for more of these gems (click through some of their “resources”.)

Interestingly, I have not found any actual statistics on the rate of homosexuals being abused in their childhood, aside from a plethora of religious websites. Even the American Psychological Association website states: “There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation; most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality. In summary, it is important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people.

Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?

"No, human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.”

This has been a difficult semester for me, and I know that I should feel free to stand up and say “This is ridiculous!” but I need some advice on how to handle this. I thought about emailing both the original professor and the guest professor and ask exactly where these statistics are and explain how I did some research and could not find anything other than Christian websites. You would think Sociology professors would know to question the source, but you never know.

What are your thoughts? Have you ever experienced anything like this?

(PS – don’t get me started on the day in class when A. did her presentation on Abercrombie & Fitch being sued for keeping minority and overweight employees off the sales floor. Guess what her sweatshirt proudly said across her chest. ABERCROMBIE).

"That is SO gay!"

Guest post via Dave:

If you've been around enough people, at some point you will most likely hear someone use "gay" as the equivalent of "bad". I worked as a music teacher for a year at a school, and nearly every piece of music I played was either "gay", "so gay", "so (expletive) gay", or "not bad". Not that I'm complaining about the next generation's lack of appreciation for good taste in music (they'll love the blues someday...maybe), but rather the terms used to define bad.

The American culture has certainly undergone leaps in the right direction as it accepts more lifestyles outside the man/woman dichotomy, but the danger is not recognizing the more subversive elements of intolerance. I accept that I am not part of the traditional stereotype known as "the guy". But wait, you'd say, this isn't the 1950's anymore; there isn't some Marlboro man riding off into the sunset who can save the townsfolk by smoking, watching sports, flexing muscles, and making demands that no one can ignore. I totally agree, but as a casual observer of culture, I look to the big media for example of what is commonly defining "maleness".

If these stereotypes are part of the social compact that we all live by, then someone is in charge of defining what makes maleness and its corresponding stereotypes. Our post-modern culture is created and sustained through language and images, meaning that we define our national character of gender through what we see and read. What do we see, anyway? What do men do for a living on TV, for example? The examples I can easily think of are: doctor, lawyer, policeman, hero, game show host, sports icon, and politician; positions defined, in large part, through power, influence, strength, and money. If you traveled back in time to 1950, what jobs do you think a young boy would want to have? We talk the talk of change and how far we have come since those dark and sexist days, but have men really made any substantial transition? Are men able to exist in non-traditional roles?

Go to PsychINFO if you have access and search for men in non-traditional roles. I read one paper on men who work as elementary school teachers. They were often accused of being pedophiles or unable to connect emotionally with their students. Many assumptions like this still exist. I also think back to the big "metrosexual" craze of a few years ago when it was culturally acceptable to care a little more about one's appearance (a masculine taboo). Metrosexuals were quickly replaced by what was termed "retrosexuals". A system in power will always exert influence to return to a status of power, and our culture made that obvious shift when it went "retro". Looking at magazines for men gives the same impression. Men like red meat, sex, sports, boobs, gadgets, cars, being muscly, fast cars, boobs, and boobs. I'm not saying that is the situation for all men, but rather the impression being doled out through the channels that have the largest audience. What if you're a man and you don't like sports? I know I am. Almost all my friends know that about me as well, and I make no bones about how boring I think sports are in general. What bothers me is that my gender, and thus a large part of my identity, is put into question when I make the choice to go against the norm.

Like I stated before, norms are created in a social compact, and the norm for masculinity still linked to the same qualities. What happens when a man takes on "queer" attributes, like enjoying clothes or musical theatre? If I went to the sports bar down the street and started singing the greatest hits of Sondheim, I'd probably leave with (best case) lots of name calling or (worst case) little to no teeth. Masculinity is linked to power, and because masculinity is linked to gender attributes, then denying those attributes is akin to denying one's status. My denial of status throws the whole power structure into question and makes other men feel uncomfortable, because why should I actively lower my status?

The current dichotomy of gay=bad/not gay=good is the same as saying as not manly=bad/manly=good, or female=bad/male=good. Here's another example: remember the beer commercial where the guys get forced to go to the opera? They bring beer and it breaks because the soprano sings the high note. Hilarious, except the implied message is: "A man can only be forced to attend opera, because if he wants to go then there is something wrong". Or how about the churches that have recently started to create men's groups to counteract the non-manliness happening around the country (here for more info about how to beat a man with his own torn and bloody arm). What does all this mean, and why does it matter anyway? Our national identity is underscored by the overly simplistic male/female dichotomy, and moving away from that structure puts the whole power scheme into a tailspin. Maleness shouldn't obviously equate to power and status, and femaleness shouldn't obviously equate to emotion and caring.

Attributes of behavior should have no link to gender, and gender itself should have no place in determining status (considering that gender is all made up anyway). Stop making apologies for who you are, what/who you love, and what you do with your life because no one has the right or authority to take that away from you. There is no "guy" or "girl" behavior, only what the majority unknowingly and implicitly agrees upon, and therefore doesn't really exist. I think I've said enough at this point, and The View just came on, so I should probably go for now.

Guest Post by Dave, Bah-Humbug Edition...

Merry Christmas, now show me the cash. I am accused of being "the grinch" every Christmas season, but for good reason. I can't speak for all the other Jews out there in the world, but I know that because I'm technically not allowed to celebrate that I have a certain passing fancy for this holiday explosion between Thanksgiving and New Years. What is all the fuss about? I even went so far as to see the mighty tree in NY, which is quite large and light encrusted. Good work citizens of NY. Navigating through the haze of shopping bags made me wonder, like I do every year, about the why of Christmas.

As a young nerd in high school, I was coerced into celebrating the ancestor of Christmas, called Saturnalia, which is the harvest holiday used to bring the pagans towards Christianity. In other words, if you call it Christmas but keep similarities like parties and such, people will transition to the new religion. It worked. Contributions to Christmas also came from the Scandinavian holiday of Yule, which also involved lots of drinking, carousing, and merry-making. Sounds like fun, I'll admit. But wait, I thought Christmas was about the gifts? Ok, so there was this fellow named Jesus and he was supposedly born around this time, but that is just a continuation of the myth surrounding this holiday and has little to do with gift giving other than the wise men. In no way am I questioning the validity of Christianity or the belief in the Jesus as messiah, but I am very positive that the birthdate of Jesus is not Christmas. Apparently no one knows the actual birthdate.

Anyway, my beef with Christmas is the economics of the season. Check this out: "On December 6, 1999, the verdict for Ganulin v. United States (1999) declared that "the establishment of Christmas Day as a legal public holiday does not violate the Establishment Clause because it has a valid secular purpose." This "valid secular purpose" is part of the economic boom created during the period between the end of November and the end of December. Maybe you are familiar with the "Black Friday" or "Cyber Monday" or whatever else is popularized by the media as part of the boom. A large chunk of the economic output of our nation is packed into roughly one month of the year, and the pressure to provide is outpacing itself annually, much to my chagrin and disgust.

I speak not as someone arguing for a return to the meaning of the season (although that argument is entirely justified for Christians in an effort to reclaim this holiday as something meaningful to their religious experience), but as someone who hates junk.

The effect of the acclimation of all this junk is catastrophic. In a country already over-invested in the credit system, I watch as the public puts even more harsh strain on their credit. Even worse, the environmental impact is significant. Americans demand goods, and demand those goods at the lowest possible price, which means importing goods from countries that will do anything to keep prices low. Want a really excellent example of this in action? Look at China. Their environmental issues make Al Gore look like an ant waving in a football field. People are protesting over issues like hazardous chemical dumps in their backyard, but business is protected in a large part through the government (similar to America, but the leeway is much greater). Workers are pushed to the breaking point for inconceivably low wages. I have also heard the argument that these wages are the best in the region, but the human rights issue goes far beyond the difference in wages between these workers and everyone else. I know that everyone has heard about this kind of behavior and it almost appears maudlin, but the problem is that still no one seems to care until their children are poisoned with lead paint. Even then, the influx of goods is hardly lessened.

One perfect example is the sock trade in North Carolina...ok, its a strange example, but pertinent. The socks made in NC are now too expensive to make because of the stitching in the toe, so most socks are imported from China at the expensive of fossil fuels, carbon emissions, and the previously mentioned abuse of the workers involved. The difference in cost between American made sock stitching and Chinese stitching is barely a penny, but that one difference has placed many many many American sock factories into ruin.

Bottom line: pricing has destroyed our world and subjugated thousands into slave-like working conditions. Christmas is the worst example of consumerism I can think of, and therefore needs discussion. How important is all that stuff really?? Does the things make us happy? Where do the things go when we become tired of them? There is a ridiculous amount of debt created every year because of this one holiday, and it has to stop. The baseline want will always exist despite one's income. No one is decreasing their "wants", only working like mad to put out the small fires of desire for the next best thing to come along this week.

When did it happen that so much clutter was required to make someone feel successful, popular, or loved? I worked in a school where kids used their DCF money to buy over-priced shoes because they needed a way to push status on others. Forget necessities, a new pair of Jordan's will make anyone feel great...right? Isn't that the message? Buy stuff and have an identity? Who are we without all the stuff? Putting the mental energy into this kind of work is easily shoved aside because the answer is so simple: buy things and get an identity. Bottom-line pricing doesn't help, because now we have really cheap ways of creating identity, at the expense of others and our world.

Here is my holiday suggestion: get to know people around you and stop buying them things. Furthermore, stop buying things for yourself. Find out who you are without the obscuring clutter. Remove the want and regain your sanity. It sounds easy, but it is hard in practice because the advertising is everywhere. Drink Pepsi and you are this person. Watch Nip/Tuck and you are this person. Drive a Volkswagen and you are this person. The advertising isn't always literal, but the combination of all these messages is a shiny, and ultimately empty, version of humanity.

My plea again: put down the credit card and pick your brain for a while. I have heard so many people claim they are looking for themselves, but if you are looking for yourself, who is the you?


Oh yea, and, Merry Christmas.