If you want to see my angry face just come up to me, as a complete stranger and say:Cheer up. Why so sad?
Usually I am just minding my own business at the time and am neither happy nor sad. It infuriates me that strangers think they have a right to demand that my facial features should be set in a certain way.
@Rare Affinity: The only people I'm ok with telling me to smile are the vendors of Street Sense, D.C.'s street newspaper. I really don't know why. But it happens quite often and I do smile and feel better afterwards.
*sigh*
More science?
It's too haaaaard for my ladybrain around here today.
"unless they were told they'd gotten the hormone. "
Now that's just ... creepy. I wish that weren't my visceral reaction to what's actually a fascinating piece of evidence-based information.
Happy or fearful, girls.
Those are the choices we've got.
*looks around*
I don't usually start this early - and I was going to go to the gym - but is there somewhere nearby I can get a martini?
i was driving through n.c. on my way home from thanksgiving, and i heard an ad on the radio for a garage that was owned and operated by a woman. im not sure the gender-makeup of her staff, but the advert was directed to women to come into this women-friendly car shop for their repairs. and i tell you, if i lived around there, i definitely would. not just to support a woman in a male-dominated field, but because i know that i have had male mechanics try and take of advantage me because they assume i don't know anything about cars based on my gender.
my other dream mechanics are the brothers from car talk. i want them to be my mechanics and my bffs.
I remember from high school history classes that after WWI, America and Europe were all "F-You losers" and left them to their own post-war shitty devices. Then that lead up to WWII because everyone in Germany was miserable and disgruntled and so when someone came along and took control, promising something better, lots of Germans (at least initially) were like, "Yes!" And thus WWII. (This was definitely a practice question for AP Modern European History.)
Then after WWII, everybody was like, We can't just leave them alone in the rubble. We have to make sure no more Nazis get delusions of grandeur, and we have to help them rebuild--literally and economically--the country so there's no more misery/poverty/anger that will cause another war. And so there was the rebuilding of Germany. I can't remember if there was a rebuilding of Japan (since it was European history). Now Germany is all set and not trying to start wars. Neither is Japan.
Can someone explain why it was a good idea to rebuild Germany but not Afghanistan? Are these situations at all alike in anything but my wikipedia-like remembrances of high school history?
@Cimorene: Thse countries had much more of an infrastructure and a civil society conducive to bureaucratic government. I think that structural barrier is at least as big a hurdle than the ideological one. I mean, creating a liberal representative democracy out of Pashtun tribal culture would require mass production of those transmogrifiers from Calvin and Hobbes (actually I think Wolfowitz wrote a memo promoting that).
@BearDownCBears: exactly. They didn't have to invent roads, viable legal agriculture, and an education system, a few things militaries may not be particularly suited for.
@J.D.Regent: Plus the workers are targets. Try shoveling asphalt and dodging mortars at the same time. And then, during your lunchbreak, you learn the stretch of highway you finished three days ago is a smoldering crater.
@Cimorene: It has a lot to do with cultural differences. Germans had a religion, language base, government structure and yes, skin color, that many could relate to. There is a large tendency to "other" the Afghans and for them to "other" us. Much of their culture bears little resemblance to the culture of those who would hope to rebuild their country. We (as in the world) have to figure out a way to help them without eradicating the essence of their way of life. We need to be disapproving of their human rights violations while being respectful of their cultural differences. This is a very difficult line to walk.
@Cimorene: Ah, the Marshall Plan. Its a good idea, in theory, but there are several conditions that existed in Germany/war-torn Europe that don't in Afghanistan.
First of all, Afghanistan is nearly in civil war at this point. In Western Europe post WW2, the Nazis were resoundly conquered. As they were a state-run army, once the leaders died/surrendered, the general rank-and-file soldiers didn't keep fighting on their own. That's not the case in Afghanistan. There wasn't any insurgency or Nazi forces in Western Europe after WW2 ended. There also wasn't any local sympathy for Nazis, which makes it easier for rebel forces to survive. There is some of that for the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Secondly, Afghanistan is massively lacking in infrastructure - both human and physical - moreso than almost any other country in the world. Its one thing to rebuild schools and roads and factories that were destroyed in Austria so that schoolteachers and factory workers can return to them, its quite another to build a school or a road where there's never been one before, and where an entire generation is largely illiterate. Its easy to restore civilization to conditions within the same decade, its much harder to create it after everyone who remembers a stable, prosperous Afghanistan (which existed until 1973!) is either dead or has fled the country.
Also the Marshall Plan was incredibly expensive.
I'm NOT saying the US shouldn't pump hundreds of millions of dollars into Afghanistan in terms of infrastructure and economic development. We totally should. Its just that we won't.
ETA: Oh also! We were resoundingly treated in Europe as liberators. Everyone outside of Germany (and possibly inside as well?) was more than happy to see us. While that might have initially been the case in Afghanistan, it definitely no longer is true.
@CherriSpryte: But how would pumping money into a country do any good without somebody babysitting the projects? I mean, Germany and Japan were occupied. Granted, I don't know too much about international aid, but I see enough articles about aid workers killed in Afghanistan and Darfur to get the idea that sending a ton of civil servants into a war zone without security is risky to say the least. I mean, isn't it a pretty serious threat that if you fund NGO's in Afghanistan with little to no security detail the Taliban will sniff it out and behead as many participants as they can get their hands on?
@BearDownCBears: I completely agree with you - if the US were to try for Marshall Plan-like changes in Afghanistan, it would take a massive amount of troops and humanitarian workers. And also a huge push by I-don't-know-who to get men to treat women as equals - a gigantic factor that, again, wasn't part of the equation in Europe.
But what we're talking about is the textbook definition of nationbuilding. Which isn't happening.
I'm more pessimistic than Glenn Greenwald. I think the American public has shown it doesn't care about women's right in America. So I'm not sure why the president would be expected to think we would care about women's rights anywhere else.
That said, I think Greenwald's point is great. But I do hope we can manage to leave a standing government in that country that views all people are equals. Though that's clearly too much to expect when our own legislators fail at that, right?
@JerseyGrrrl: Personally, I'm tired of "women's rights!" being shouted by people (men) justifying the U.S. presence in Afghanistan. Men that are never concerned about women otherwise, suddenly become very passionate about women's equality when it allows them to justify military action in the Middle East.
@Gumbina80: Agreed. I also think it has something to do with the extent of the injustices against women and other marginalized groups in that country and region. While most men here don't think women have it that bad and few can get too excited about the inequality of pay or poor access to choice, very few men can hear about the plight of women there and the issues facing them without being somewhat moved. When we're talking about stonings, legalized rape and outlawed education, it's hard to find men who can remain completely nonplussed.
However, things are just as bad (and maybe worse, but who's comparing?) for women in other parts of the world, and we've got no interest in affecting change in those places, so you've probably got it right.
@JerseyGrrrl: If the U.S. military became some kind of crusader for gender and sexual equality across the globe, I could get behind that. Invading and fighting countries that oppress women. For some reason, though, I don't think that's what these hawks have in mind.
@Gumbina80: The one thing that I think often gets lost in the "humanitarian war" justifications (when that's not, of course, as you point out, really what's at stake) is that when you bomb a country, you are bombing women. When you kill Iraqis and Afghanis, you are killing Iraqi and Afghani women and the people that they love, and the members of their community. That's not to say that no one should fight, for example, fascism in Europe in World War II. But that most people aren't seeking to gain their liberation through the guns and bombs of a foreign invader.
@individa: Also, when your cause isn't existential, your home front has severe war ADD, perhaps leaving the almost-liberated in a worse state than before.
I don't know when we as a country, culture, society, world, whatever, went back to being so far entrenched in the idea that war can fix not only some problems, but all problems. For a while after VietNam, I do think people in this country had started to feel that perhaps a military response was simply not always going to fix things and often made things worse, but now ... I just don't get that sense anymore.
If that is truly why President Obama did not pull out the "we're the good guys, getting rid of evil" card in the speech, because he does not believe the human rights and women's rights horrors are not fixable through military means, then I have to applaud him, because it's so easy to try to justify it that way.
Karzai may be marginally better than the Taliban, but he has demonstrated that he is happy to cater to the extremists in his country in return for political support. Remember the marital rape law? I am nothing but pessimistic about the outcome of this war.
Ugh, I have hated this war from the beginning and really resented when Bush tried to act for a second like he was invading to save the women who he previously took no notice of, and then acted like invading their country was a fucking favor. I really appreciate Greenwald's points, like a lot a lot. We did not invade Afghanistan because of how the Taliban treats women, and there is something disingenuous (mission creep, "humanitarian" bombs, etc.) about suggesting that we are staying for that reason. I am also interested in hearing how the invasion itself has affected Afghani women, and what efforts BESIDES bombing shit we have going to support the rights of women and girls . However I also get the idea that, since we are a warlike nation, why AREN'T women's rights worth fighting for? I guess when you have a hammer all you see are nails. Or when you are a nail all you see are hammers. Or something.
@J.D.Regent: I agree with Greenwald too. I think it is important to press our Afghan allies to focus on women's rights, and to focus on services for women in any rebuilding effort, but feel good photos of women voting does little to address the basic calculus of whether this war is winnable, and who exactly we need to beat.
There are reasons women, uniquely, don't feel the same allegiance to one another the way other marginalized groups do.
Unlike other groups, we live intimately with those that benefit from our oppression. We get cookies from them when we disavow shrill feminism.
Also, inextricable from the construct of womanhood, is taking care of others, particularly men. We're considered selfish if we put our issues first, if we won't put it aside for the "greater good" of electing a candidate that doesn't care about us, or if we don't take on other oppressions with our activism.
People don't demand that other movements incorporate feminism the way other groups demand that feminism take on their issues.
I get that Linda Hirshman wants me to be pissed. Except she never fails to make me pissed at her.
Maybe a lot of the large donors she named don't feel the need to advertise their threats for Ms. Hirshman's benefit. It reminds me somewhat of the story about Meredith Baxter Birney from this morning. Do powerful female Democratic donors need to send out the town crier with their intentions so as not to face speculative public ridicule by the 84 people who actually know who they are? These power players are mostly unseen by the voting masses anyway.
Honestly, I try not to be an asshole about this sort of thing, but sometimes I feel like we're all crabs in a bucket in this "feminism" of ours. I don't understand it, this impulse to blame instead of organize. Confusing.
@PilgrimSoul: I think some of it comes from an assumption that all women, or all feminists even, want the same thing and all agree on how to get there.
I think a key point Latoya makes is "it can take years of dedicated organizing (along with continued slights from the majority) to galvanize enough people to take action" I think a lot of 'in-sniping' comes from the fact that we assume our battles and our priorities are the same for everyone else, its a tough one.
10:56 AM
Usually I am just minding my own business at the time and am neither happy nor sad. It infuriates me that strangers think they have a right to demand that my facial features should be set in a certain way.
11:13 AM
12/08/09
More science?
It's too haaaaard for my ladybrain around here today.
"unless they were told they'd gotten the hormone. "
Now that's just ... creepy. I wish that weren't my visceral reaction to what's actually a fascinating piece of evidence-based information.
Happy or fearful, girls.
Those are the choices we've got.
*looks around*
I don't usually start this early - and I was going to go to the gym - but is there somewhere nearby I can get a martini?
12/04/09
But the other part of me that is learning disabled in spatial relationships knows I'd install an engine upside-down and backwards.
Sigh. I have to continue putting up with assholes at the office.
12/03/09
i was driving through n.c. on my way home from thanksgiving, and i heard an ad on the radio for a garage that was owned and operated by a woman. im not sure the gender-makeup of her staff, but the advert was directed to women to come into this women-friendly car shop for their repairs. and i tell you, if i lived around there, i definitely would. not just to support a woman in a male-dominated field, but because i know that i have had male mechanics try and take of advantage me because they assume i don't know anything about cars based on my gender.
my other dream mechanics are the brothers from car talk. i want them to be my mechanics and my bffs.
12/03/09
Then after WWII, everybody was like, We can't just leave them alone in the rubble. We have to make sure no more Nazis get delusions of grandeur, and we have to help them rebuild--literally and economically--the country so there's no more misery/poverty/anger that will cause another war. And so there was the rebuilding of Germany. I can't remember if there was a rebuilding of Japan (since it was European history). Now Germany is all set and not trying to start wars. Neither is Japan.
Can someone explain why it was a good idea to rebuild Germany but not Afghanistan? Are these situations at all alike in anything but my wikipedia-like remembrances of high school history?
12/03/09
12/03/09
12/03/09
12/03/09
12/03/09
First of all, Afghanistan is nearly in civil war at this point. In Western Europe post WW2, the Nazis were resoundly conquered. As they were a state-run army, once the leaders died/surrendered, the general rank-and-file soldiers didn't keep fighting on their own. That's not the case in Afghanistan. There wasn't any insurgency or Nazi forces in Western Europe after WW2 ended. There also wasn't any local sympathy for Nazis, which makes it easier for rebel forces to survive. There is some of that for the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Secondly, Afghanistan is massively lacking in infrastructure - both human and physical - moreso than almost any other country in the world. Its one thing to rebuild schools and roads and factories that were destroyed in Austria so that schoolteachers and factory workers can return to them, its quite another to build a school or a road where there's never been one before, and where an entire generation is largely illiterate. Its easy to restore civilization to conditions within the same decade, its much harder to create it after everyone who remembers a stable, prosperous Afghanistan (which existed until 1973!) is either dead or has fled the country.
Also the Marshall Plan was incredibly expensive.
I'm NOT saying the US shouldn't pump hundreds of millions of dollars into Afghanistan in terms of infrastructure and economic development. We totally should. Its just that we won't.
ETA: Oh also! We were resoundingly treated in Europe as liberators. Everyone outside of Germany (and possibly inside as well?) was more than happy to see us. While that might have initially been the case in Afghanistan, it definitely no longer is true.
12/03/09
12/03/09
But what we're talking about is the textbook definition of nationbuilding. Which isn't happening.
12/04/09
12/03/09
That said, I think Greenwald's point is great. But I do hope we can manage to leave a standing government in that country that views all people are equals. Though that's clearly too much to expect when our own legislators fail at that, right?
12/03/09
12/03/09
However, things are just as bad (and maybe worse, but who's comparing?) for women in other parts of the world, and we've got no interest in affecting change in those places, so you've probably got it right.
12/03/09
12/03/09
12/03/09
12/03/09
If that is truly why President Obama did not pull out the "we're the good guys, getting rid of evil" card in the speech, because he does not believe the human rights and women's rights horrors are not fixable through military means, then I have to applaud him, because it's so easy to try to justify it that way.
12/03/09
12/03/09
12/03/09
12/03/09
12/03/09
12/03/09
12/03/09
12/02/09
Unlike other groups, we live intimately with those that benefit from our oppression. We get cookies from them when we disavow shrill feminism.
Also, inextricable from the construct of womanhood, is taking care of others, particularly men. We're considered selfish if we put our issues first, if we won't put it aside for the "greater good" of electing a candidate that doesn't care about us, or if we don't take on other oppressions with our activism.
People don't demand that other movements incorporate feminism the way other groups demand that feminism take on their issues.
12/02/09
12/02/09
Either way you're going to bleed to death.
This country does not give a fuck about women.
12/02/09
Maybe a lot of the large donors she named don't feel the need to advertise their threats for Ms. Hirshman's benefit. It reminds me somewhat of the story about Meredith Baxter Birney from this morning. Do powerful female Democratic donors need to send out the town crier with their intentions so as not to face speculative public ridicule by the 84 people who actually know who they are? These power players are mostly unseen by the voting masses anyway.
I've given this way too much thought already.
12/02/09
12/02/09
I think a key point Latoya makes is "it can take years of dedicated organizing (along with continued slights from the majority) to galvanize enough people to take action" I think a lot of 'in-sniping' comes from the fact that we assume our battles and our priorities are the same for everyone else, its a tough one.