Posts Tagged ‘politics’

film review: 8: the Mormon Proposition

I can’t tell you how glad I am to hear my state’s GOP lawmakers are reviving a push to pass an amendment banning gay marriage. Which reminds me: I’ve recently started reviewing films for my local public radio station, WFIU. You can see my first review, of the documentary film 8: the Mormon Proposition, here.I’m also including the beginning of the review below.

Just FYI, this review led WFIU to post, for apparently the first time ever, a disclaimer explaining that my views do not necessarily reflect those of the station. TOTAL WORLD DOMINATION.

Movie Review: ‘8: The Mormon Proposition’

Because I’m a fan of exposing bigotry and hypocrisy whenever possible, because I’m a fan of following the money trail in politics, and because I’m a fan of tearing down cultural institutions that encourage hate, the new documentary 8: The Mormon Proposition is the kind of film I really want to like.

The man behind it, Reed Cowan, has explained that his goal was to break through the “impenetrable fortress” of the Church of Latter Day Saints, in order to expose its role in the passage of California’s Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment that made it illegal for gays to marry in the state. That’s a cause I’d love to get behind—if the film didn’t commit some of the very sins it hangs on the doorstep of the Mormon Church. (read the rest of the review here.)

Jim Gee: Thoughts on the current state of American politics

The thoughts below come from Jim Gee, who’s been doing a lot of really awesome writing about the politics of America these days. He explains that in thinking about the conservative / liberal dichotomy,

we have four features: a focus on justice, a focus on enterprise, a focus on engineering, and a focus on tinkering.  They give us four possible political orientations: justice/engineering (a classic liberal); justice/tinkering (a conservative liberal); enterprise/engineering (a liberal conservative); enterprise/tinkering (a classic conservative).  In reality, a person might be one of these for one issue (e.g., health care) and another one for another issue (e.g., school reform), though many people are fairly consistent across issues.

What I am calling conservative and liberal are tendencies rooted in a person’s genetics, upbringing, and life experiences.  Below I summarize a number of contrasts between these two ways of seeing and being in the world socially and politically:

CONSERVATIVE/LIBERAL

  1. At risk of the sin of greed/ At risk of the sin of pride
  2. Tinkering/Engineering
  3. Oriented toward past/ Oriented toward future
  4. Focus on human fallibility/Focus on human perfectibility
  5. Favor a republican form ofgovernment/Favor a democratic form of government
  6. Favor an authoritarian form of parenting/Favor a more permissive form of parenting
  7. Favor status quo/Favor change
  8. Distrust human knowledge/Trust human knowledge
  9. Trust tradition/Distrust tradition
  10. Favor free markets/Favor regulated markets
  11. Focus on family/ Focus on society
  12. Focus on charity/ Focus on social welfare/justice
  13. Focus on liberty/Focus on justice
  14. Focus on merit/Focus on equity
  15. For small government/For larger government
  16. Focus on society’s winners/ Focus in society’s losers

These are tendencies.   As I said above, a conservative need not (though some do) disavow social justice.  However, the conservative will see enterprise as a route to, or crucial element in, social justice.  A liberal need not disavow enterprise.  However, the liberal will see social justice as a force to mitigate and, when necessary, “trump” enterprise.

A person could be on one side of the above chart for some items and not others.  There are people who “pick and choose”.  But many people tend to be much more heavily on one side than the other.  And, of course, these choices can change with education, experience, and age.

I consider myself a liberal and really love the descriptors on the righthand side of the chart. I wonder if people who consider themselves conservative love the descriptors on the lefthand side. Anyone have any thoughts?

the best anti-veganism argument I’ve ever read

I’m not vegan, but I’ve been a lacto-ovo vegetarian for 18 years, since I was 15 years old. I sometimes wonder whether the relatively minor health problems I deal with are linked to my dietary decisions, which is why this post by a former vegan hit extremely close to home. The author, advised by her physician that veganism was slowly destroying her body, decided to try eating meat again after all alternative efforts fails. She writes:

The changes that I experienced were manifold and occurred so quickly and decisively I almost couldn’t believe it. Within one week I was able to stand up without seeing black spots in my eyes, and I was sleeping peacefully through the night. To my relief, my constant stomach pains and bloating completely vanished. Within 2 weeks I noticed my allergies were diminishing, even at a time when all the trees and flowers in our community were beginning to bloom. Also at 2 weeks I no longer needed a sweater just to sit on the couch, my toes and fingers had stopped feeling like perpetual icicles. At 3 weeks I could complete a light 20 minute cardio workout without feeling dizzy or nauseous, something I had been unable to accomplish for months. At 3 weeks I also noticed the most amazing change of all: my depression was diminishing. Days would go by when I wouldn’t succumb to hours of sobbing or listlessness. At 4 weeks I noticed three very strange things: my mysterious lower back pain that had been bothering me for nearly a year had vanished, even though I hadn’t changed my shoes or done any physical therapy; the skin on my face was plump and full and the fine lines that I had figured were just a sign of being nearly 30 had faded so much they were barely discernible, even though I had not changed anything about my skin care routine; and finally, I noticed my hair was thicker, shinier, and much fuller than it had been in years, even though I hadn’t changed anything about my hair care routine.

At 5 weeks I noticed a steady, permanent buzz of energy that carried me throughout the day. I started being able to run errands, work out, and do my writing, all in the same day without needing frequent rest stops. I kept waiting for exhaustion to sneak up on me…but it never once reared its ugly head.

I mean, you just can’t tell, can you? About what is ‘feeling normal’ and what shouldn’t be tolerated. Of the above symptoms (among others listed by the author), I have had regular encounters with the following:

  • heart palpitations
  • difficulty gaining and maintaining weight
  • low energy level
  • exhaustion
  • sensitive skin / dry skin
  • back pain
  • increasingly severe allergies
  • inability to sleep through the night
  • stomach pains and bloating
  • coldness in extremities
  • inability to maintain body termpature
  • lightheadedness upon standing

But what’s normal, and what’s a ‘symptom’? And even if these things are symptoms, what are they symptoms of? Who’s to say the problem is that I haven’t intentionally consumed animal flesh in over a decade and not, say, the fact that I almost never eat breakfast and sometimes wait until 4 or 5 p.m. to eat my first meal, a meal that’s often comprised primarily of bread products?

I dressed as the 12th Doctor Who for Halloween this year. I'm frequently surprised at how sickly I look in photos, compared to how I actually think I look.

But here’s something else worth chewing over: The author, Tasha, makes the best argument against political veganism that I’ve ever encountered. She considers whether the vegan movement is perhaps one of the most effective ways of keeping angry women from agitating for change:

As a revolutionary feminist and anti-imperialist, veganism seemed to be yet another way I could fight the injustices we are facing. But as the years wore on and my body began devouring itself for the sustenance that my vegan diet couldn’t provide, I began to lose the will and the energy to do the vital work I had so loved. I no longer had the mental clarity to write my famous scathing exposes, or the physical energy to teach, organize, and build solidarity. I was sputtering out, grinding to a screeching halt. I realized that veganism, my choice to buy ‘cruelty free’ foods, was quickly becoming my only avenue for activism. It was the only thing I really had energy for anymore. As a staunch radical I’ve always been opposed to capitalism’s emphasis on the personal solution, I refuse to buy into the mainstream myth that we can shop our way out of catastrophe. And yet…with my dwindling energy reserves and devastating health problems I realized that was exactly what I was doing. When I stumbled along this quote about veganism by Megan Mackin it seemed as if it had been written for me: “It begins, eventually, to look like a very effective way to co-opt a movement: take the most passionate activist-minded, girls especially, and get their focus on a way of living that drains energies and enforces conformity in others. The Big Boys still run things, but now even more freely – with out much interference.”

Okay, so what do we do with that? Is it an obvious defense for a lapsed vegan, or is it an argument for ethical–and omnivorous–dietary habits?

And, really, with all of these confounding variables, how can we ever tell the difference? How do we even know anymore what it means to ‘listen to our bodies’?

neutral as in ‘Grandpa’s arsenal,’ not as in ‘Switzerland’

Image by Joe Salmon, taken from http://www.uiiu.co.nz/neutral.html, sort of without permission so I hope he's ok with it.

I’m a fist-shaking, bleeding-heart, critical pedagogy, politiciany sort of guy. I believe that it’s useless and even potentially damaging to treat learning as apolitical, and I believe that learning theorists of all political bents do themselves a disservice and learners an injustice when they assert an ideologically neutral stance. Because there is no such thing as an ideologically neutral stance.

  • We may mean ‘neutral’ as in ‘Switzerland,’ as in ‘we choose not to get involved.’ When we choose not to get involved, we choose not to throw our weight against any particular wheel. We choose to allow the people with the most guns to have their way.
  • We may mean ‘neutral’ as in ‘agnostic,’ as in’ no opinion either way.’ When we choose not to state an opinion, we choose not to throw our weight against any particular wheel. We choose to allow people with the loudest voices and the most microphones to have their way.
  • We may mean ‘neutral’ as in ‘multipurpose,’ as in ‘there is no ideology built into this theory,’ as in ‘guns don’t kill people, people kill people.’ Nope. Cotton balls don’t kill people. Kool-Aid packets don’t kill people. Why? Because their design makes it really hard to use them as murder weapons. Whereas guns are a tool of choice for killing people, because they’re designed to be very good at sending projectiles at a very high rate of speed toward people’s heads.

We are reminded by Kris Gutierrez (2002) that “culture is encoded not only in practices, experiences, and beliefs; culture is also indexed in language” (p. 313). It follows, then, that the very crafting of theoretical claims about learning indexes individual and shared beliefs and value systems, and that, therefore, the most dangerous utterance a learning theorist can make is: “I am ideologically neutral in my approach to learning.” Any theory that claims to be “ideologically neutral” is probably simply so well in line with dominant cultural practices that the beliefs it indexes are simply too broadly accepted to strike anyone as worth challenging on the level of ideology.

I believe, then, that claiming that a learning theory is ‘ideologically neutral’ is so deeply troubling, so dangerous to all learners and to education in general, as to make it effectively and practically indistinguishable from educational malpractice.

MCCSC referendum passes

This is a good thing, sort of. No, no, it’s a really good thing, no qualifications necessary.

It’s just that…

Well, this school board has shown a confusing enthusiasm for taking money away from programs that are used primarily by disadvantaged, struggling learners and funneling that money into programs embraced by wealthier, more privileged learners and families. I voted for the referendum, even though I don’t trust this school board to make decisions that work at their core in the best interests of all learners in this school corporation. I voted for the referendum, even though I know the money will probably be disproportionately directed toward the kids who need it least.

And I’m glad that it passed, even though I know I’m going to be bitterly disappointed in how the resulting funds will be used. All I can do now is hope that Superintendent J.T. Coopman and the MCCSC Board prove me wrong.

The Bloomington Herald-Times has put up a paywall around its online news, which is problematic at best in good times and abhorrently shortsighted and socially damaging during hard times. It’s also civically irresponsible to paywall election coverage. For these reasons, I’m posting the entire text of today’s Herald-Times article on the referendum passage below.

MCCSC referendum passes

By Bethany Nolan 331-4373 | bnolan@heraldt.com
November 3, 2010, last update: 11/3 @ 1:03 am

A request by MCCSC to raise about $7.5 million more next year in property taxes was approved by voters Tuesday.

With all local precincts reporting vote totals at about 10:45 p.m., the public question had received 17,712 votes for it vs. 11,194 votes against it. Only voters within the Monroe County Community School Corp. district voted on the referendum request, which will increase the district’s general fund property tax levy by 14 cents per $100 of assessed valuation for each of the next six years.

MCCSC Superintendent J.T. Coopman praised volunteers, who he said pounded the pavement, made phone calls and talked to their friends and neighbors to ensure they were aware of the issue, saying, “I think the community has responded, and indicated they believe in supporting public schools.”

Jeannine Butler, MCCSC school board member for District 7, stands outside the Monroe County Courthouse Tuesday asking voters to vote for ballot question #2, a school funding referendum. Jeremy Hogan | Herald-Times

As for next steps, Coopman said administrators and school leaders will work to maximize the referendum dollars for the benefit of local students, including prioritizing smaller class sizes for the 2011-2012 school year by restoring the approximately 70 positions cut due to a state funding shortfall.“That will be a major priority for us, to put those dollars into the classroom,” he said. “We will be good stewards of the taxpayers’ dollars, and the faith they’ve placed in us.”

Megan Mahaffey, a Highland Park Elementary School parent and volunteer, said Tuesday she supported the referendum.

“From my perspective as a parent and school volunteer, I’d seen the realities of what we were dealing with already,” she said. “I couldn’t fathom what we’d see going forward without this replacement funding.”

School officials have said the referendum dollars will be used to make up for $5.8 million in cuts made earlier this year in response to state funding shortfalls. The district’s request to raise more than what was cut is partly because that $5.8 million is a net figure — meaning more total dollars were cut, but were offset by savings in other areas, according to MCCSC comptroller Tim Thrasher — and partly because the district still expects to see more cuts from the state.

School board members have approved a budget allocating the $7.5 million in referendum dollars for 2011 which, among other things, restores salaries for lost positions, including teachers, assistant elementary school principals and counselors. Any unspent referendum dollars will accrue in the district’s cash balance, which Thrasher has said is seven to eight times lower than recommended.

Taxpayers will see the property tax increase on their spring 2011 property tax bills.

brb making you cry

This is the most touching “It Gets Better” video I have seen. I think it’s literally impossible not to cry while watching it.

via Gawker

a time when I didn’t speak up against anti-gay behavior

This graphic is brought to you by Genderbitch, who describes herself as “Just another pagan, kinky, queer trans chick with disabilities”:

I found the genderbitch blog because of a recent post published there on “calling out” bigoted behavior, and because I’ve been thinking about a recent incident in which I chose not to “call out” a classmate who said something homophobic in front of (but not about) me and a small number of my colleagues. I didn’t say a word when it happened and, upon later reflection and rehashing, decided that even if I could do it again I still wouldn’t speak up.

You know me, right? I don’t have a problem with making enemies, and I have no problem with calling people out when it’s deserved. I even sympathize with the author of Genderbitch when she writes, of her struggle with the idea of “allies”:

I’m not gonna lie, I find the entire concept of an ally to be vile and revolting. Mostly because I think creating an above and beyond the call of duty label for people to just be decent human beings (which is what fighting oppression makes you) gives them more entitlement and a greater capacity to hold their efforts hostage to influence us.

I don’t mind making enemies, and I feel fine about my ability and willingness to stand up against bigoted behavior. Yet I didn’t call out the bigotry when it happened right in front of me. Why?

In part because while the bigotry wasn’t about me, it sort of was about me. I mean, in the sense that anyone who’s paying any attention at all can figure out that there’s something gender-y, perhaps even queer, going on with me. I wear men’s clothes and men’s shoes and I keep my hair very, very short. For example:

If you say something homophobic near me, you’re also saying something homophobic about me, to me, and at me. Which means, in case you were wondering, that I have a right to call you out if I choose to.

In this situation, I didn’t choose to. Because at that moment, I was busy learning that my classmate was at best oblivious and at worst ignorant about gender politics. Because at that moment, it became clear that there was no point in calling out the bigotry–if he hadn’t figured out that he shouldn’t be all gaybashing in front of me already, there was no point in bringing it to his attention. Because his bigoted comment was enough hostility, directed though it was at someone else, for me to bear for one day.

And, most importantly, because my colleagues–who didn’t speak up either–brought it up to me later and asked if we could talk about what we should have done. There wasn’t a question in anybody’s mind that something anti-gay had happened; the question was whether any one of us should have or could have handled it better. My colleagues–all of whom are, to the best of my knowledge, straight.

Straight, but allies. Allies who believe they had a responsibility to speak up against bigotry even though I wasn’t willing to speak up myself.

There will always be bigots, right? What we hope is that there are enough people who abhor bigoted behavior that sometimes it’s not necessary to call bigotry out. Sometimes it’s enough to just turn your back on it.

remembering 9/11

On the morning of September 11, 2001, I was at the offices of the Holly Herald and Fenton Independent, a pair of local weekly newspapers in southeastern Michigan. I was a reporter. Our most recent paper had just gone to press, it was early in the next news cycle, and I was sort of easing into my day.

My sister called to tell me about the attack, and what I remember most of all is not being able to connect to a single news site. The internet was overloaded by a crush of people trying to find out what was going on. We had no TV in the office. I tried my car radio but NPR was, as everybody soon found out, playing a syndicated repeat of an earlier, pre-attack show. So when the second tower fell I was still on the phone with my sister, who was watching it live on her home television. I can still remember the panic edging her voice, though not the exact words, when the second plane hit the second tower.

In the hours, days, and weeks following the attacks, analysts and politicians announced somberly that 9/11 had changed everything. I don’t think there’s any doubt that they were right.

Is androgyny in academia a deal-breaker?

file under: let me in, coach–I’m ready to play


Earlier this summer,  I got my hair cut very short in what can accurately be described as a boy style. I know this because after the haircut, I was immediately and consistently mistaken for a boy.


photo of my short haircut

closeup of my haircut

I was surprised and thrilled to be mistaken for a boy, for reasons that are sort of hard to explain. I enjoy performing gender in ways that confuse people. I love seeing a boy with my face when I look in the mirror. I’m not trying to ‘pass’ as a boy, and most people figure out quickly enough that I’m actually female. But I love that moment of fumbling. I love that double-take. I love it even when I cause myself to do a double-take when I’m brushing my teeth or checking my hair.

Even though I love my boy cut, I’m considering growing it out. It has been suggested to me, more than once, that a masculine haircut will make it hard for me to do my job.

If you’ve read my blog, you know I’m an educational researcher–a doctoral student in a Learning Sciences program at Indiana University. This means I work with teachers and administrators, and it means I present research at conferences directed at educators and at researchers. Ultimately, it means that I will be facing a hiring committee whose job it is to decide whether I can or will be allowed to do my job. I take my work extremely seriously, and I’m extremely ambitious.

But I’m also deeply political. I believe that my work, my words, my actions, and my body are sites of local and global battle toward a more just and equitable culture. The political life is a life of struggle, large and small. It can be no other way.

The question, then, becomes: On which combinations of struggle should I focus my energy and time? If it’s true that, as others have suggested, teachers are less likely to respect me, less likely to take me seriously, if I present with an androgynous hairstyle, am I doing more harm to myself and to the educational issues that matter to me than if I fought the gender battle in different ways? If my physical appearance makes me less likely to attain a tenure-track job, am I simply fighting the wrong battle?

Of course, these questions assume that something as trivial as a haircut can make me lose the respect of academics and the attention of educators. I suppose the jury’s out on that one, although at least on the academia front there’s some evidence that appearances and gender performances do matter, and more than we would like. (There’s this article in the Chronicle of Higher Ed about why the writer didn’t trust that a [male] academic who wore an earring could possibly serve as a university president, and of course there’s continued evidence that academics who exhibit visible symptoms of femaleness such as breasts, ovaries, or a woman’s name are less likely to get tenure, get published, and get promoted in academia.)

Which is sort of fine by me. I’m basically not happy unless I’m fighting something, and the institutionalized gender biases of academia are pretty much right where I plan to land a sustained smackdown.

What makes me worried, though, is the possibility that I will struggle to gain teachers’ respect and attention. So far, none of the people who have warned me about teachers not taking me seriously have actually been teachers, so I’m not sure if there’s just a general assumption that educators are conservative without evidence to support this assumption. Or maybe some teachers and some administrators really would be taken aback by an androgynous researcher.

What do you guys think? Should I be worried?