You know. I was going to write a really good post about the current state of healthcare legislation. I was planning on being informative and eloquent.
And then I saw this and completely lost my train of thought.
Saturday morning cartoons. When I was a kid, it was the nectar of geniuses. Or ambrosia. Or something like that.
Anyway, I want to know why they left out the part where Massachusetts gets a Republican senator and the Democrats don’t think the bill is good enough to pass before he gets seated.
I guess school bus stop signs engendered more of a feeling of consensus back in the 80s.
The most difficult thing about all of this is having to sit back and watch the politicians do their thing. Which is annoy the hell out of us.
P.S. I don’t think the bill is good enough to pass before he gets seated, either. Just FYI.
And, yes, I’m recycling a (very slightly modified) post from before anybody read my blog. You got a problem with that? I figure that people with real jobs (ha, ha) get six weeks maternity leave. As of Wednesday, I will only be at week four, so expect a few more recycled posts. This one is about feminism… as the title indicates. I apologize for the length, but, I was not the succinct and polished blogger that I am today when I wrote the following post (ha ha, again).
**************
I was sitting in the ninth circle of hell yesterday, or what some people call a “training session.”
Just as I was going to try to muster up my long forgotten high school talent of sleeping with my eyes open, our moderator, an unnaturally chipper young woman in her 20s, said, “So, we have such and such speaker coming next month who will be discussing the evolution of the feminist movement over the past few decades in this and that room.” Then she rolled her eyes and said, “I mean, I’m not a feminist or anything, but, if that’s your thing, you should come.”
After much deliberation I have decided that this young woman simply does not know what feminism really is and that is the only logical explanation why such a bright person would be so negative about feminism.
So, I asked around to find out how other people define feminists. Apparently, people think that feminists are almost always lesbians with an aversion to depilatory procedures who hate men and think the world would be a better place without them.
This is not only untrue, it is just stupid. I know that’s harsh, but facing up to our stupidity is perhaps the ugliest of all human burdens.
Believing that a feminist is always the above described person (who by the way is a perfectly acceptable sample of a human being) is as stupid as believing that one particular race of people are inferior due to the color of their skin or believing that Lindsay Lohan is never going to rehab again.
So, let’s discuss the American feminist movement as painlessly and quickly as possible. (Dear College Freshman, do not base your paper on modern feminism on this post, you will get a “C.”)
Feminist movements of the 19th and 20th century centered upon suffrage, or the right to vote.
The feminist movements of the 60s centered upon social issues, such as women’s right to equal access to education, equality in the workplace and reproductive choices (this includes but is not limited to the issue of abortion). A few feminists in this era burned some bras, but the majority of them, contrary to popular belief, did not.
These days, feminism builds upon these past concepts, but also recognizes that Western women should not be dictating feminist agendas to the world’s diverse populations (or even the diverse populations within their own countries.)
The Oxford American Dictionary defines feminism as “the advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social and economic equality to men.” If you live in the United States of America, you really should not have a problem with that.
In fact, you should be for that.
If you live outside of the United States, well, according to most new generation feminists, also called “post feminists,” we might not agree with how women are treated in your country, but we believe that they should be the ones who set the agenda for those changes, not us. (This is a particularly complicated issue, so I’m not going to delve too deeply here.)
I find it ironic that many Americans will roll their eyes at the mention of feminism, but quickly jump on the “Saudi’s need to let their women drive” bandwagon. Interestingly, we decry feminism at home, but champion its cause as we attempt to denigrate cultures and value systems outside our own with the intent of, at least culturally, subjugating them.
Let me wrap this up by telling you what I believe American feminism is not.
American feminism is not an excuse to point out the flaws of men. As a matter of fact, many men are feminists, too. Not because they are afraid their “butch” wives are going to beat them up, but because they believe women are their social, political and economic equals.
Feminism is not a platform aimed at disintegrating motherhood, staying at home or family values.
Feminism is not the reason kids in our society seem to be from another planet (I personally believe this one can be attributed to Nicole Ritchie and Paris Hilton who are, in fact, from another planet).
When someone brings up the movement for racial equality in the United States, do you go out of your way to distance yourself from it?
Do you roll your eyes or get a stupid grin on your face like someone has just said something very funny?
No, you don’t.
Unless of course your white hood and robe are drying on a gentle setting and you’re running a few minutes late for your weekly cross burning.
So, why do Americans do this when the feminist movement is brought up?
I’ll end with the following correspondence, which I have no intention of sending:
Dear Ms. 20-something,
American feminism has a long history, over 130 years in its making.
You don’t have to be feminist if you don’t want to, I don’t mind if it’s not your thing.
However, since you are a woman living in America, I respectfully ask that you appreciate what these women did for you and treat them with more respect by refraining from acting like they are crazy PETA members who throw red paint on celebrities wearing fur.
They gave you choices and opportunities that women in other parts of the world are literally dying to have.
They fought for your right to vote, your right to be educated in any field of your choosing, your right to work in any field of your choice, your right to make decisions regarding your reproductive system, your right to have legal recourse if someone says or does sexually inappropriate things to you in your workplace and many other rights that you now take for granted.
No, feminism may not be your thing, but, Ms. 20-something, feminism is your blessing.
P.S. Please stop calling other women your age “girls.” Girls play with Barbies and Little Ponies. You are a woman, as are other women your age.
P.P.S. And stop saying “like” every two minutes.
P.P.P.S. And don’t bounce when you talk. It’s distracting.
At 7:49 PM last night, August 12th, there was a trembling of the earth, a darkening of the skies, and crop failures around the world. Oh, and Faiqa and Tariq’s newest creation was plucked, mewling, from the dark vestiges of her womb.
She had asked me to put up a post once the baby was born, and since I get to post on her blog about her newborn son, I get to name him. From henceforth he shall be known as Yanni Mohammad Barack Tariq Guadalupe Avitable Khan, but you can call him “Y”.
He weighed 7 pounds 13 ounces and measured at 21 inches. His penis, however, weighed 3 pounds, 2 ounces and measured at 11 inches.
Faiqa has given me permission to post this exclusive photo of baby Y, before anybody else has even seen him!
The new addition to Faiqa and Tariq's family
Please join me in the comments and wish Faiqa and Tariq congratulations on the birth of their new son and N. congratulations on the arrival of her new baby brother.
Hmm, am I the last blogger on the Internet to find out that Jon Stewart schooled Jim Cramer of CNBC’s “Mad Money” on Thursday night?
(Yes, hello, pregnant women have a hard time staying up after 9:30p.m.).
I only know because Tariq forwarded me an e-mail in which my hero (Jon Stewart) decimated his hero (Jim Cramer).
Now, I know why people watch sporting events.
There’s an incredible rush that comes from a vicarious victory, even if it is a moral one, that can only be displayed in moments such as these.
If you, like me, live under a rock you can go here for a quick update.
I don’t necessarily agree with the contention in that article that Stewart failed to “deliver a knock out punch.” Considering that Stewart proves generally amiable towards his guests, I thought he handed Cramer’s head to him on a platter. Plus, Jon wasn’t funny, at all. This added to the decimation.
Angry Jon Stewart, by the way, is extremely uncomfortable.
Remember a few years ago when Stewart went on “Crossfire”? He was funny and poignant.
The tone with Cramer on Thursday night was completely different, but the message was essentially the same.
“You’re hurting America.”
Despite my hero worship of Mr. Stewart, I have to wonder if he’s not being too idealistic, and, in many ways, if his thoughts don’t reflect the general idealism with which Americans view the responsibilities of “the media.”
We feel victimized. We rant about their negative influence. We complain about the selective nature of their reporting. We casually glance over the obvious fact that if a news station is live seventeen hours of the day that there may not be enough time to actually check on the facts associated with the headline.
In the end, aren’t we’re responsible for what we choose to believe?
How is blaming CNBC for duping the American people out of researching their investments and economy not a twinkie defense?
Is Jon Stewart right? Yes, in the ideal sense, I think he is.
But he’s arguing an antiquated concept. He’s arguing for an unbiased media whose priority is delivering accurate information to the population.
We have got to rework this definition. For the past fifteen years, since I started caring about the news, I’ve noticed that the priority lies squarely within entertainment value. Accuracy of information has played a secondary role in these matters. This is why hardly anyone watches PBS and CSPAN.
It’s all about advertisers and ratings. Couldn’t we just deal with the reality of our television media instead of waiting around for the real media to show up? This is our real media.
(Incidentally, we should also stop confusing commentators with journalists. We really should know better. Peter Jennings? Journalist. Keith O.? Commentator).
It’s time to grow up, America, and realize that we can’t fully rely on our television to tell us how to invest, who to vote for and what to think. We, gasp, have to do it ourselves.
This might translate into a personal shift in priorities. It might mean we’ll have to write a senator for clarification. Read several papers instead of one. Watch CSPAN.
The way I see it, it’s either that, or stop blaming the media for not protecting us from all the bad things we think are happening to us and actually take responsibility for our unquestioning and childlike acceptance of televised information.
Nonetheless, I did love Stewart’s performance on the show. I’m a big believer in discussing how the world should be. Even if the chances that it will ever be that way prove slim.
My favorite part was when Jon Stewart, in uncharacteristic seriousness, vented “I can’t reconcile the brilliance you have with the intricacies of the market with the crazy bullshit you do every night.”
Louisiana governor and the GOP’s “great beige hope” for 2012 Bobby Jindal was on CBS’s 60 Minutes Sunday night. So great is the Republican hope for Jindal that we’ve already begun discussing it less than two months after the inauguration of President Obama.
At 37 years old, Governor Jindal is an impressive young man. By all accounts, I think he’s the kind of Republican that I respect. I don’t agree with most of what he believes, but I respect him.
Educated, ethical (as ethical as a politician from Louisiana can get, anyway) and ambitious, Jindal represents the mirror image to President Obama. A Darth Vader to Luke Skywalker. Or maybe more like a Faith to Buffy. Or a Spike to Angel. Thankfully, I’m just shy of being geeky enough to come up with something clever here.
Many of you probably already know that he declined when asked to submit his name for the McCain vice presidency. Like the good ol’ boy Southern politicians of the 19th and early 20th century, he’s going to have to be asked several times until he offers a reluctant, yet highly calculated, “Well, alrighty, if y’all really, really want me to, I’ll serve ya’.”
(And please don’t let that drawl confuse you, the man is an Ivy League educated Rhodes scholar. This only proves my point that gifted minds can and do use the phrases “alrighty” and “y’all”). I think this act is slowly ingratiating him into the heart of the American people… mind crushingly boring rebuttals to Presidential addresses notwithstanding.
And, now, let us finally get to the point.
In case you haven’t noticed, Bobby Jindal, born “Piyush (prounounced pee-yoosh) Jindal” is of the Indian ethnicity.
He picked up the name “Bobby” while watching “The Brady Bunch.” (Do you even remember Bobby, Governor? He was the youngest one who tattled on all the other Brady kids and was hall monitor at school? My next post on Jindal: What kind of kid looks up to Bobby Brady?!)
Anyway, this name changing business is fine. I have no problem with Indian/Pakistani people who genuinely bear or have intentionally adopted anglicized names. Never mind, that I have stubbornly endured thirty three annoying years of having to say “It’s pronounced Fie-Kah, like the tax.” So, Harrises, Rogers, Sonias, Petes, Robs, Marys, Sophias, Adams, and Saras can just rest easy. This isn’t about that.
I do get a little annoyed when I hear people from the subcontinent or of its origins say one of the following, though:
“Did you know that the governor of Louisiana is Indian?”
“There are lot of South Asians in Americans politics, take Gov. Jindal, for example.”
No. The governor of Louisiana is not Indian.
He. Is. American.
And this is not me that is saying this. It’s him and his lovely red clad Nancy Reagan channeling wife, Supriya, on their shameless promo for the 2012 election. “60 Minutes“.
Asked if their family maintains any of the Indian traditions, Supriya Jindal told Safer, “Not too many.”
“No, they’ve been here for so many years that…,” her husband said.
“Years that we’ve sort of adapted. And we were raised as Americans, you know? We were raised as Louisianans. So, that’s how we live our lives,” Supriya Jindal explained.
He’s a classic example of the American melting pot. This oyster and crawfish-eating Louisianian tends to downplay his ethnic background
…
“He clearly presents himself as true blue American,” Safer remarked.
“And he is the genuine article. He’s deeply, by nature, deeply conservative, deeply patriotic.”
And, you know, that’s fine, too, if they don’t celebrate Indian traditions.
But, you know what I find exasperating?
Aside from the sad masses of Indian expatriates all over the world attempting to appropriate Governor and Mrs. Jindal as Indians when clearly they don’t want anything to do with being Indian?
I find it irritating that there’s an implication that if you do celebrate your heritage that you were somehow not raised as an “American.”
A “classic example of the American melting pot” does not include dismissing one’s heritage. Classic examples of the American melting pot incorporate their heritage, and they assert its value as an integral part of being American. Right?
The Jindal family’s choice not to identify closely with their Indian heritage is fine with me, and I don’t disparage it. It’s not necessarily a classic example of the melting pot, though. It’s an example of the shedding of one identity for another. This is a respectable and legitimate American phenomenon among immigrants concerning ethnic identity. One of many.
It is in no way a proof of inherent patriotism or American-ness, though.
Chinatowns, Little Italys, Cinqo de Mayo, St. Patrick’s Day and countless other ethnic celebrations are American entities, now. They may have originated elsewhere, but these celebrations exist as pieces of American heritage because a few citizens refused to downplay their ethnic identity in attempts to be perceived as more American.
These infusions are, in my eyes, a gift to the American people. Something that enriches all of our lives.
These inclusions are the classic examples of the “melting pot.” More so than say, the choices that seek to “downplay” identity.
I respect the Jindal’s choices to not celebrate their heritage, but the underlying assumption that this makes them more American or more patriotic is just… a little sad.
And infuriating.
For those of you who missed it, you can watch Jindal’s interview on “60 Minutes” right here.
UPDATE: Gov. Jindal didn’t actually decline the nomination. He did not submit his name when asked to for the “vetting” process by the McCain campaign.
