Musings on Books and Liberty

America is founded on the ideal of liberty. The root of liberty is liber, the Latin for book.

So why are library budgets some of the first things to be cut when counties have to downsize their budgets? Why do libraries get sidelined when people talk of important community assests?

The foundation of liberty is access to information. Libraries provide free information.

Support libraries, wherever they may be. Keep them up and running, through hard times and good times. Take books out. Learn something. Upkeep the foundations of our country's ideal.

Support our country. Read.

The Terror of Information Loss

I just finished reading This Book Is Overdue! How Librarians and Cybrarians Can Save Us All by Marilyn Johnson.

It talked of how librarians keep people informed and able to navigate on the search for information. It was all very interesting, but while reading it I discovered something about myself I should have already known.

I cannot stand information loss.

Stories of book burning make my insides twist up. I scream inside my head when I hear of people throwing out collections of old publications. My heart hurts when I click on a bookmarked link and the web page comes up as nonexistent.

All information is valuable, all information deserves to be learned. My favorite part of the book comes when the author talks about people's outstanding actions are archivists. Archivists are usually very specific, but they save so much. Things people would think have no value; the flyers from concerts, the maps from fairs, newspaper articles on prizefights. These people go around knowing very specific information that not many others know.

It occurred to me that everyone is an archivist. Everyone has something they know a lot about. Write it down. Keep it safe. Tell others so the information is never lost.

Everyone is also a librarian. They can tell you where to find information. They can direct you to the best sources to discover what they don't know on a topic. Don't keep it hidden from others. Tell them how to find what they don't know.

The First Amendment of the American Constitution says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".

I tried to find a word for this love of knowledge and the need to preserve it. Would you believe that I could not find one?

So I had to create one: gnosiphile; from the Greek gnosis, "knowledge" and philos "loving".

If you are a gnosiphile:

• Keep copies of printed material on whatever your interest is.
• Keep screenshots of web pages (go to Page on the toolbar, go down to Save As) of the same.
• Print out information on it from the Internet.
• File it.
• Tell others of your knowledge.
• Encourage others to do the same.

Information should never be lost. Information is too important to be forgotten.

Preserve it.

Abortions, Conditions, and Suicide

"Of course not, I'd go even further and say that we should try to actively decrease the incidences of these diseases. I would abort a fetus if I knew that there was a high probability that it would develop schizophrenia or autism. I don't want to raise an autistic kid, and it would be immoral of me to create a human being who was going to develop a disease that causes such psychic torture that 10% of the people with the disease successfully kill themselves. I also wouldn't care if parents aborted their fetuses to prevent homosexuality because fetuses aren't people. They could abort one for having blue eyes for all I care. "

Posted on the INTJ Forum, under the Is it moral to use abortion to prevent unwanted conditions? thread, by phoboser.

Homosexuality, autism, and schizophrenia are not diseases. You cannot catch them. Therefore, they are conditions. The suicide rate is from psychic torture caused by persecution, not by the condition itself.

The only reason for an abortion is if the parent is unable to care for the child in some way, whether that way be physically, mentally, or emotionally.

France considers banning the burqua

NBC says France claims burquas are a sign of Islamic radicalism; CNN says that France claims "the issue is one of a woman's freedom and dignity" and has nothing to do with religion.

Either way, I say France is wrong. The idea should be that no woman is forced to wear a burqua or an abaya or any other form of covering unless they want to. France's idea is that there are no burquas, period. That's just as wrong in my mind as some Middle Eastern country forcing a woman to wear one.

NBC's news report did include, to France's credit, that any man found forcing his wife to wear a burqua would be fined. If they just keep that part, I'll be happy with them.

CNN's report

Dead Body Warning

A Field Guide for Female Interrogators by Coco Fusco (interview here) is a disturbing book. I heard about the torture at Abu Graib, but I never heard about this.

The military decided to use their women soldiers to inflict sexualized torture on their Islamic POWs because they had decided that Muslim men were more likely too break under those sorts of conditions.

Let us examine what is wrong with this situation:

1. Torture. The obvious one.
2. Racism. The military assumed that the Islamic men would be more susceptible to sexualized torture because of ideas held by the radical sects.
3. Sexual assault/abuse of the Islamic men by the US Military women.
4. Degradation of the women involved in the sexual torture.
5. Perpetration of sexist stereotypes.
6. Military secrecy and lack of media coverage.

I shall assume that most, if not everyone, reading this agrees with the statement 'torture under any circumstances is wrong'.

Who else is tired of the military and the government in general profiling (IE stereotyping) Islamic/Middle Eastern people? First off, it assumes the fact that every Middle Eastern POW holds the idea that women's bodies are unclean in some way, as well as other sexist notions. The military believed this so much that they decided to use a special form of torture to get information. This of course discounts the fact that there are people who are able to lie under torture. Mostly, this is another example of how good the military is as epic fail. Time for a quote: "Much speculation has taken place over the last three years about whether the intelligence community developed these sexual tactics because of sexual stereotypes about Muslims and Arabs that have achieved the status of truisms in military circles. Veterans of military intelligence who received training in the early stages of the war have noted they received lectures on the so-called "Arab mind", in which it was argued that when it comes to sexuality, Muslim men are more vulnerable than Westerners. Outdated anthropological arguments become the basis for the development of tactics..."

The author of the book, Coco Fusco, is fond of saying that "when male interrogators perform such acts on non-consenting subjects it is understood as sexual assault, but when women do it, it can be authorized as invasion of space". Talk about a double-standard in reverse. The whole argument reminds me of the old idea that women are somehow paragons of virtue (so logically, they couldn't be let outside the home or given room to think for fear of spoiling them). When someone sexual insults another, "force them to engage in humiliating acts", force them to look at their exposed bodies, and perform sexual acts on them without their consent; it is generally understood as sexual abuse and assault (except the first, which is merely sexual harassment). Apparently, though, none of this applies when it is a women preforming them on an unconsenting man. Another quote: "...women interrogators use sexual insults, force them to engage in humiliating acts, and also preform sexually for them. Their most infamous antics include gyrating half-clothed atop seated prisoners and smearing them with fake menstrual blood in an attempt to break them by invoking cultural taboo."

Having talked of the problems of and with the Muslim prisoners, it is time to switch the focus to the US Military female interrogators. First off: it matters not to me that the interrogators agreed to use the sexual tactics. The point is that it is wrong and sexist. The very idea that women's bodies are again to be used as objects towards an end (never mind that its not social scoring this time) is exactly part of the problem with society today. Part of the tactic is sexual performance, which in this case sounds quite a bit like sexual exploitation of the women interrogators by the largely-male military command structure. All this is even neglecting to mention the "email responses to news stories about sexual abuse of detainees in which readers said they wished they could be "harassed" that way by female soldiers". Why yes, people regarded this more as some sort of pornography instead of as a crime against humanity. As Coco Fusco pointed out: "Detainees don't get to ask for what they get and don't know when it will stop. They don't get to say 'No means no'.

Then there's the fact that the military went and perpetrated stereotypes of women in the act of the torture. There is one interrogator that was very helpful: he said that the tactics included "using women as bait" and assuming the roles of "the bimbo who can't do her job" and "the sympathetic mother who wipes your tears". One of the interrogators at the interrogation camp that the author attended said that female interrogators could "elicit confessions best by pretending not to be interrogators at all, posing instead as nurses or even girlfriends". The military already has a history of sexist behavior towards women. This helps them none.

Part of the scandal with Abu Graib and also Gauntanamo is that the government did a cover-up of the torture. The part that could be constructed as marginally worse is the fact that the media did something similar. There was the coverage, and the debates about whether or not torture is acceptable. No one, as far as I remember, mentioned anything about sexualized torture or women being involved in any way. As the media is a terribly important source of information for many, many people, this too, could be constituted as a cover-up.

I am sorely disappointed that this was my hundredth post.

A picture of a dead man for your viewing pleasure.

I resent these remarks

Who has heard of Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder? It affects millions of women around the globe, mostly from raising children, having careers, cleaning, cooking, working, and "several other things".

I shall assume these several other things involve everyday activities.

Mostly, the only discernible cause of Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder that I can find is living. Seeing as how this affects women of "any age, race, or overall health", and is a "serious and damaging condition"; I can only conclude that there is something wrong with you if you don't feel the need to have sex with someone.

Especially given the existence of asexual people.

I take great offense to this, myself identifying as asexual. I resent being told something is wrong with me when I lead a perfectly healthy life with just friends and family. I have never had a boyfriend, girlfriend, or any other sort of partner you care to imagine. This has not affected me adversely in any way. In fact, I consider myself to live a rather better life than my peers. They are always having problems upon problems about dating and sex and emotional attachment. I do not.

Let's take a look at the definition of an asexual person as given by The Asexuality Visibility and Education Network:
"An asexual is someone who does not experience sexual attraction. Unlike celibacy, which people choose, asexuality is an intrinsic part of who we are. Asexuality does not make our lives any worse or any better, we just face a different set of challenges than most sexual people. There is considerable diversity among the asexual community; each asexual person experiences things like relationships, attraction, and arousal somewhat differently."

I would especially note the sections on arousal and attraction:
"Attraction: Many asexual people experience attraction, but we feel no need to act out that attraction sexually. Instead we feel a desire to get to know someone, to get close to them in whatever way works best for us. Asexual people who experience attraction will often be attracted to a particular gender, and will identify as lesbian, gay, bi, or straight.
Arousal: For some sexual arousal is a fairly regular occurrence, though it is not associated with a desire to find a sexual partner or partners. Some will occasionally masturbate, but feel no desire for partnered sexuality. Other asexual people experience little or no arousal. Because we don’t care about sex, asexual people generally do not see a lack of sexual arousal as a problem to be corrected, and focus their energy on enjoying other types of arousal and pleasure."

I find it especially telling that it specifically says that "people do not need sexual arousal to be healthy" right after that.

So, therefore, this posited Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder is either a) idiocy or b) a ploy for pharmaceutical companies to make money. I would choose c) both.

-

I find this whole idea offensive in other ways, as well. It again confirms society's fixation with sexuality (specifically female) and the still-lurking assumption that women should have sex, no matter what their body tells them. The fact of life is that it is much easier for a woman to not be interested in sex than it is for a man. Things like working and holding a job take up energy, energy that may have been used for sex but most likely would have gone toward things like organizing the house in activities like cleaning and cooking after work. Women's sexuality works differently from a man's, as well. For men, it takes only about three minutes before coital acts to become sufficiently aroused to reach orgasm; for women, the period is something in the order of a full twenty-four hours. The system is much more complex. Various emotional states need to met and certain neurochemicals, like oxycontin and serotonin, need to be released. With women who are taking care of children, especially babies and toddlers, these neurochemical and emotional needs may already have been satisfied by basic biological prompting. This, along with general exhaustion, explains why many new mothers feel no desire for sex of any kind.

Aside from difference in the system of sexuality, there is an underlying societal idea here too. Women are to have sex. That is what they are there for. This does not even address, of course, the double standard towards sex for the genders. With that note, I would like to address the fallacy that is "Low T".

One, just come out and say that it is low levels of testosterone. Two, admit that this is a natural thing in older men known as andropause, more popularly male menopause. Testosterone levels drop and estrogen goes up. Older men are more likely to enjoy cuddling, hugging, and intimate touch at this point in their lives. The sex drive decreases. This is naturally, yet these commercials that I see popping up all over the place seem to try and bill it as a life crisis. The website does concede the point that levels naturally rise and fall over the course of a man's life, but do the commercials say anything of this? No. How many people really look at the medical commercial's websites and how many just take the marketing ploys at face value?

-

I protest at both these so-called conditions. How many people already have socialized issues with their sexuality? How many people now, after seeing the advertisements for this, feel even worse about themselves and will suggest to their doctor that they begin taking unnecessary medication? How many doctors will prescribe unnecessary medication because the pharmaceutical companies pay them to get business?

How many people will develop actual problems from this idiocy, and how many people will never bother to try and take control of their sexuality and own their bodies because their "problems" can be medicated away?

Guess What!

Look here! My 'Tis the Season article was accepted on Womanist Musings as a guest post! Thank you Renee!

And a links dump:
What’s wrong with suggesting that women take precautions to prevent being raped?
Finally, A Feminism 101 Blog
How English erased its roots to become the global tongue of the 21st century
Hate Speech Has A Cost
Transgender Blogs
15 Signs The US Has Permanently Lost Its Grip On The Western Hemisphere
When you transgress the gender binary
Girl Clothes
Let's Talk About Trans Faith
"Porn for Women" A Rant
Indian Women As Sex Objects
Buying A Trophy Orphan Is Just Part Of The Game
So Disgusting I Won't Even Type The Real Title
Five Things I Wish Gay Guys Knew About Me
Blackhawk Foe Waves Severed Head
When Studies And Debates Are Insulting
Welcome To Internalized Misogyny

'Tis the season

Its that time of year again. The National American Miss people are sending out flyers. Last year's I really didn't like, and this year's I found more issues with, after a year of paying attention to feminist blogs. Lets examine this:



First, the cover



Typical Euro-centric ideal of beauty? Check. Airbrushing? Check. "Fashionable"? Check. Vaguely pained look? Check. "Sexy" Posing? Check. Looks old enough to be the mother of the audience targeted? Why is she even on this thing?



The inside



EVEN MORE European girls? Check. Posing? Check. Now onto the highlighted stuff. That's were it gets really insidious.

• "Makeup is not allowed on our participants ages 4-12 during the event." Well, that sure didn't stop you from airbrushing their pictures, did it?


• "The National American Miss pageants are dedicated to celebrating America's greatness and encouraging its future leaders." Apparently "America's greatness" is little pretty white girls. Also: to be a leader and a girl, you must be pretty. No two ways about it.


• "You'll gain... self-confidence...You'll feel good about yourself." Yes, I'm sure it will help boost the Hispanic girl from my old hometown who also received this flyer's self-confidence that the only girls pictured on the sides are clearly European and the overweight girl down the street will feel better about herself when all the girls there are thin.


• "If not accepted into the pageant..." Way to judge a girl on her looks when she's supposed to be a "future leader".


• "The total fee for the pageant is $440." Well, my goodness, that sure explains why there's pretty much just white girls on this! You only want people with half a thousand dollars lying around! Poor people, obviously, are ugly; and unfit to associate with you until they can cut food or utilities bills to pay for this.

And the back

Finally, some token racial diversity! Posing? Check. Airbrushing? Check. Ridiculously happy smiles? Check. People who are clearly models with their perfectly white teeth and shaped eyebrows who are surely not the sort of people who would actually be at this? Check.

One last highlighted thing:
"All you'll need is:

• A prom dress or evening gown
• A suit or dress for interview
• Official production number t-shirt outfit (available on pageant weekend for a nominal charge)"

Say it with me people: Hidden Costs! So lets say you manage to scrape up half a thousand dollars to go to this thing. Now they want you to buy a prom dress! And a suit! And a t-shirt for "a nominal charge"! Turns out you need more like another $430 there!

Total cost: $870. Way to raise the bar. Now they only want you if you've got about a thousand dollars lying around! Now I know why the popular pretty girls on TV are always rich whites! They're the only ones with enough money to be official.

Congratulations, National American Miss pageants. You have now officially sent the most racist and classist bit of mail I have ever seen.

Q: What People Should Really Learn From Student Government Elections?

A: How to learn when a politician is saying a whole lot of nothing.

My class's election for sophomore year officers could be a case study. Most of the speeches were uninteresting; but gave a good overview of what the person's goals and qualifications were. Then the speeches got to the presidential candidates and the only guy running for an office (significant or not?) got up. There was lots of cheering (he was a popular guy). But when he opened his mouth he had nothing to say. The summary of his speech is as follows:

"The other school thinks we suck! I don't think we do! We should show them we're not! I had fun doing this job in eighth grade! The other school thinks we suck!"

See? A whole lotta nothin'. There is a term for this sort of persuasion: pathos. This guy was trying to play off emotions and his popularity. Student government elections being as they are (popularity over competence), that was the guy who won.

Here's an idea: maybe if the SG elections actually matched what people learned in their government classes about how real elections work (and if the SG actually meant anything), people would be more invested in voting throughout their lives.

The Professors: The 100 Most Dangerous Academics in America

The author is David Horowitz.
A book review:

The author does manage to find some truly despicable people (mostly affirmed Jihadists, violent anti-whites, and convicted domestic terrorists). However, I find that most people in this book are not as extreme as those and a few choices are extremely laughable*. Also, most of the people in this book did not support the war on terror for various reasons; that coupled by the designation of nearly all the professors as liberals leads me to believe that the author is a dedicated conservative. Which, of course, would lead to bias on all cases, with the skew on people's views getting decidedly more negative the less extreme the case (in perspective).

Another thing that really stood out for me is that the author mentions feminism where applicable and fails to make any connection as to how this is relevant to the professor being dangerous. This lack leaves me with only the conclusion that the reader is to associate feminism with danger. The other thing was the lack of opposing viewpoints. If the author could find so may Jihadists, militant anti-whites, and domestic terrorists; surely he could locate anti-Muslims, anti-minorities, and American supremacists as well.


*Most of these people are proponents of Marxism or Leninism and/or take an anti-American stance. A continuing point made was opposition to the Vietnam war.

Cool website

Lexicalist- a demographic dictionary of modern American English

Let's look at some words real quick:

Sexism
Superheroes
Raven
Scholar
Books
Blog

I have more proof that Maine's politicians are the best.

Senator Olympia Snowe is highly respected (as we knew) and politicians should first serve the nation, then the state, then the voters (which my mother and I have known for quite some time).

Maine, I am proud of you.

EDIT: Video does not work, so I took it off. Here's the link.

Disappointed

I expected this minister to be more... open, I suppose.

Boys will be Boys- Women need to stop tempting men to sexual sin and society needs to be less accepting of this (just the title makes me feel a little sick. I've got a comment pending moderation on this one, so if you never see it, you know why).

Dad: Servant Manager- Wives are to submit to their husbands commands

Mostly it's just these posts and possibly a few others, Love of the Brothers is a good one, but these couple of posts make me even more wary of religion and just how hypocritical it tends to be.
Just makes me uncomfortable to read it and think that these are a minister's views.

Milwaukee County Superviser John Chianelli Endorses Sexual Assaults

Supervisors call for firing of county mental health chief
Milwaukee Offers up Mentally Ill Women as Sexual Bait to Soothe Violent Male Inmates- Candidate for Governor Supports

Let me outline everything that is wrong about this.

• One, rape and sexual abuse should never be a trade-off for anything. If Milwaukee has a problem with violence in male wards, then something should be done to curb the violence such as keeping the inmates away from each other.
• Two, essentially, what they are doing is allowing things such as rape and sexual abuse in state-sponsored facilities. I fail to see how this is in any way a good idea, as both rape and sexual assualt are illegal.
• Three, they are devauling women. They are telling women that they are expendable, tools, and it does not matter if they are hurt as long as it somehow helps men.
• Four, they are showing callous disregaurd toward persons with medical conditions. I am quite sure that people with psychiatric problems are covered by the Americans With Disabilities Act. Again, this is illegal.
• Five, sexual assault and rape are simply different forms of violence than beatings, scratching, biting, and whatever else the facility was having problems with. Trading one sort of violence for another sort solves no problem, it simply reinforces the pattern and adds even more to the things be fixed later.
• Six, it would seem that they are operating off the 1950s stereotype that women are somehow more docile or more likely to quell violence by their mere prescene. This is clearly wrong, as there are 100 men born for every 104 women and the world still has problems such as war, theft, and general violence.
• Seven, whatever causes the violence in the first place will not be magically cured, it will just be redirected. Again, this solves nothing.

Send an e-mail to Candidate Scott Walker at info@scottwalker.org, and one to John Chianelli at john.chianelli@milwcnty.com.

Discrimination. Again.

A man named Rand Paul has issues with accomodating people with disabilites. Or admit to racism.
Because business should be all about money.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Here's what Womanist Musings has to say about it:
Tea Party Member Rand Paul Does Not Believe in the Civil Rights Act
Tea Party Member Rand Paul Wants to Abolish the Americans with Disabilities Act

Don't Move to Texas

The current big news is Texas's new Board of Education statewide curriculum.
It is utter [insert derogatory word of choice].

First off; the things added:

• Republican resurgency
• National Rifle Association
• Required to include that the Founding Fathers possibly didn't really mean that the church and state should be seperated.

Next; the vocabulary replaced:

• Imperialism to expansionism
• Capitolism to free trade system
• Slave trade to atlantic triangular trade

Last; a paraphrase of a quote from the Nightly News: the Board wasn't "trying to make it conservative, they were trying to move it toward the middle".

This is especially disturbing since I just finished reading the book Lies My Teacher Told Me.

Links to other reports:

Texas Conservatives Win Curriculum Change

Progressive Texas Board of Education Candidates Promise to Undo Textbook Changes

Jefferson v Board of Education

Brief History: The Textbook Wars

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Deepwater Horizions Oil Geyser

Watch CBS News Videos Online"-Deepwater Horizons worker speaks out about various technical problems on the rig



There's a second video there, too.

People keep talking about America's "oil addiction". I rather think that its a power addiction. Big companies (CEOs) want to stay big (make lots of money); and politicians don't want to lose the campaing funds and/or power.

Its a money problem.

This is sad

Unemployed Barber Strangled for Shoplifting Toothpaste




Also: A example of comics sexism

Musings on Language

Feminism does not need to redefine “feminine”. Nor “women”. “Masculinity” does not have to incorporate demureness; nor “man” sensitivity. “Feminine” can keep the non-violent connotation it has.
Feminism needs to redefine how the terms “man”, “woman”, “masculinity”, and “femininity” are used.
Male and female* are biological factors. You are born with testes or you are born with ovaries. Man and woman are a matter of personal identity (As Cocky says “some women have a penis"). Masculinity and femininity are in reality categories of personality traits.
Society says that male, man, and masculinity are all grouped together and are considered to go together; as with their counterparts.
They are not.
The mere existence of transgendered peoples proves this. Once can have a male body and be a woman; as one can have a female body and be a man. Surely masculinity and femininity are the most ephemeral terms. Both are slowly being equalized; often you hear of a woman being described with “masculine” traits and men with “feminine” traits.
A job of feminism is not just to promote the rise of feminine qualities to the same status in society as those of masculinity; it is to demonstrate that these words, these traits and identifiers, are entirely separate of gender.




*In humans, at least

A thing more people should know about

The Obama Administration has a Council for Women and Girls.

Why have more people not heard of this? This is the sort of stuff that should be all over the place. I had not heard of this before yesterday.

I can find no reference of "feminist" on the sight anywhere. Has NOW heard of this?

Incidently: some comics for you to check out.
Neil Gaiman is a great writer. His Sandman stuff is more grown up and metaphysical than most comics, so much that it won a literary award (and the panel in charge made a rule so that no comic could ever win again). Read it and contemplate.
I just read his Marvel: 1602 trade. THAT was good. Marvel superheroes, in 1602 Europe/America. Spanish Inquisition and Queen Elizabeth and such. A nice refresher from the "realistic tone" of modern comics.

A good introduction to the comics world: CrazySexyGeeks: The Series (These videos have a tendency to pop up elsewhere)