Creative Destruction

May 17, 2006

Link Farm & Open Thread #25

Filed under: Link Farms — Ampersand @ 3:13 pm

Here we go again! You know the drill – feel free to post whatever you’d like, including links to your own stuff, in the comments.

New Blog: The Rape Crisis Blog
Blogging rape-related news stories, mostly from the USA. Looks like it could be a good resource. Check it out.

Women of Color Blog: The Truth of Brown Motherhood
I want to quote from this post, about the oppressive experience of being a black mother in a racist culture, but there are too many excellent bits to pick just one. Go read it.

Debatige: On The Practice of Women Taking Their Husband’s Names When They Marry

A Womb of Her Own: Excellent Post on Power, Politics, and Adoption

Reappropriate: Unbound Feet
Excellent, not-easily-summed-up post about sexism in the Asian American community, with attention to how racism against Asian American men is used by some men as a rationalization for their own racist sexist against Asian American women. See also this disturbing follow-up, about some of the reactions Jenn received to her “unbound feet” post.

Afghan Women’s Rights Leader Moves Every Night Because of Death Threats

Creative Destruction: Are Men Responsible?
Daran thinks he’s found a contradiction in my views.

Video: A Chink in the Armour
This 25-minute video, created by a Chinese Canadian filmmaker, takes a very funny look at Chinese stereotypes, testing Chinese Canadian volunteers on a number of stereotypes (driving test, math problems, how well they hold their drinks, etc). The last one was especially funny, I thought. Curtsy: Reappropriate.

Third Estate Sunday Review: Excellent Post On That Burger King “I Am Man” Commercial
Focusing on Helen Reddy.

Bitch | Lab: Ad Industry Portrays Men as Children Who Will Never Grow Up

Jay Sennet: Tampons are a Women’s Rights and a Human Rights Issue

Woman of Color Blog: To the Trans Community
Brownfemipower is a model of how people should approach becoming an ally. The discussion following the post is excellent, too – don’t skip it.

Fetch Me My Axe: Speculation about the source of misogyny: The ideology of “true love”?

Hit And Run: Anti-Smoking Activists Spread Statistical Lies About Secondhand Smoke

Immigrants Are Good For The US Economy
And not just the computer programmers.

Kaka Mak: A Feminist Defense of Paris Hilton

Noli Nothis: Defining Bigotry
A response to the “I don’t want to be labeled a bigot, but I think gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed” school of thought.

Feminist Law Professors: The Anti-Contraception Movement
And after you’ve read this excellent post, read further comments on it at The Debate Link.

Abyss2Hope: How Men Can Help Prevent Rape

Gothamist: Interview with Jessica (of Feministing)!

Language Log: How Meth Stings Frame Innocent Immigrants With Poor English Skills
Curtsy: Magicthise.

Plucky Punk: The “Pro-Family” Crowd Is In Fact Anti-Family
Think that drawing up a will and other legal documents in any way provides same-sex couples with the legal protections of a legally recognized marriage? Think again.

Written World: Don’t Step In The Meta-Text
Interesting discussion of how a DC comics writer has reconsidered a minor superhero, turning him from a mind-controlling good guy into a date rapist.

YouTube: Don’t believe racist stereotypes, or you’ll look like a hillbilly stereotype.
A textbook example of why just being against something, without actually having any analysis, isn’t enough. Remember, racism is bad because it makes individual white people ugly, and ugly people are bad. Curtsy: Blac(k)ademic. Some of the comments there are very on-target, check them out.

Livingston, I presume: On Giving Birth in Prague

When I tell people here that Connery was born in Prague, I inevitably get the question of whether I was scared to give birth in a place like the Czech Republic. My answer is always the same: If it came down to a choice just of the better place to have a baby, I would do it in the Czech Republic again in a heartbeat. There’s just no comparison. (Curtsy: Ezra Klien).

Obsidian Wings: The Republican Solution to Corruption? Make Sure No One Has The Authority To Investigate.

So, to recap: Bush appoints someone from his campaign to an important job: auditing Iraq reconstruction funds. That person turns out to be surprisingly independent, and discovers a lot of fraud. […] Our government’s response? Recategorize Iraqi reconstruction funds so that he doesn’t get to audit them anymore.

Majikthise: A reason to like Qwest
Not every phone company turned over its call records.

Daily Kos: How the Right Wins The War Of Ideas



  1. Daran thinks he’s found a contradiction in my views.

    I think I’ve found another one. He said:

    virtually all men benefit from sexism. Virtually all men have in some way gotten gains that we don’t deserve, at the expense of women.

    But more recently He said:

    Patriarchy has always hurt the large majority of men.

    Comment by Daran — May 17, 2006 @ 11:13 pm | Reply

  2. Oops, ballsed up the second cite.

    Comment by Daran — May 17, 2006 @ 11:14 pm | Reply

  3. I don’t see any contradiction there. It is possible – and, I’d argue, the norm – for men to benefit in some ways from patriarchy while being harmed in other ways.

    Comment by Ampersand — May 17, 2006 @ 11:53 pm | Reply

  4. That’s not a contradiction, Daran. Things can help you and hurt you at the same time.

    If I were to go down to the tobacconist’s and get a pack of Djarums and smoke them, it would be really good for me. God, I would enjoy the sweet taste of the smoke, and the relaxation would be good for my mind and my heart.

    On the other hand, the carcinogens would be bad for my cellular repair mechanisms and the smoke would be bad for my lungs, and so on.

    Amp’s de-patriarchizing program doesn’t fail because it’s self-contradictory, it fails because it simply moves around the injustices in society and replaces one class of winners with another class. That being pointless other than to the people who would be in the new class of winners, very few people outside that element are in support of the program.

    Comment by Robert — May 17, 2006 @ 11:58 pm | Reply

  5. Ampersand:

    I don’t see any contradiction there. It is possible – and, I’d argue, the norm – for men to benefit in some ways from patriarchy while being harmed in other ways.


    That’s not a contradiction, Daran. Things can help you and hurt you at the same time.

    Trouble is, neither quote stands for that proposition. They were not intended to be read together, and a person reading one passage and not the other would not infer that this is his view.

    Comment by Daran — May 18, 2006 @ 8:51 am | Reply

  6. It’s true – reading either post alone, no one would successfully infer all of my views on men and patriarchy. My view is more complex and multifaceted than you might infer from reading either post in isolation.

    That shows I’m a poor writer, perhaps. But it’s not a contradiction in my views. A contradiction would be if I had advocated for two logically exclusive views.

    Comment by Ampersand — May 18, 2006 @ 1:53 pm | Reply

  7. What do you all say to my
    compromise proposal
    at eggandsperm?

    I hope everyone understands what a compromise is, and what can be accomplished if we resolve the marriage debate before November.

    Comment by John Howard — May 18, 2006 @ 8:33 pm | Reply

  8. And btw, Amp, i think that contradiction shows you are truly a feminist.

    Comment by John Howard — May 19, 2006 @ 1:34 pm | Reply

  9. Robert, Daran, how come I haven’t heard from you about conception rights and my marriage compromise? I could really use help spreading the topic around, too many people have not considered the ethics of same-sex conception.

    Comment by John Howard — May 19, 2006 @ 1:37 pm | Reply

  10. You haven’t heard from me because I’m not particularly interested in the issue. It’s a premature battle; you’re trying to set safety standards for the fission-powered cars that haven’t been invented yet. I’ve got more issues to deal with than time allows; issues that aren’t yet ripe can pretty much go hang.

    Comment by Robert — May 19, 2006 @ 3:21 pm | Reply

  11. But Robert, we are all talking about the rights of same sex couples right now, aren’t we? Well, should conception be a right of same sex couples right now? Clearly not! This battle should be fought before anyone tries it, that’s the whole point of banning it, so that no one tries it. Why waste time? Why waste the resources (billions of dollars, hundreds of scientists) that could be put to work right now on actual health care? And why allow people to continue to think that having a baby with someone of their own sex might be a possibility for them someday, it is cruel.

    I’m not trying to set safety standards, I am trying to rule out all forms of conception that do not join a man and a woman. I don’t see why you would want same-sex conception to remain legal. It’s a big fat obvious NO to the question of equal rights for same-sex couples. But you don’t want to mention it?

    Please think about it some more Robert, establishing conception as a right of both-sex couples only (of marriages only, preferably) would help you with every other issue you are working on!

    Comment by John Howard — May 19, 2006 @ 3:49 pm | Reply

  12. I think my time can be spent more productively on other issues, John. You are free to demur, and to use your own time and energy as you see fit.

    Comment by Robert — May 19, 2006 @ 4:42 pm | Reply

  13. John Howard:

    Robert, Daran, how come I haven’t heard from you about conception rights and my marriage compromise?

    I guess I’m with Robert on this one, just not particularly interested in the issue.

    Comment by Daran — May 20, 2006 @ 3:17 am | Reply

  14. Actually, John, although my approach and/or language may be gruff, I don’t necessarily disagree with you. I think you should do some research and analysis and write a book or a single-issue blog on this topic. (Or both.)

    Comment by Robert — May 20, 2006 @ 3:20 am | Reply

  15. It’s frustrating because the idea gets dismissed because “even Robert doesn’t take you seriously”.

    I want to test the power of the blogosphere. I think lots of people agree with me, as you do, but don’t realize what could be accomplished if we all pushed the idea. It’s really hard to argue with: same-sex couples should not have conception rights. The whole “equal rights” thing blows up when it is pointed out how inherently unethical and crazy same-sex conception is. If the public knew that “equal marriage” same-sex conception must be allowed, and if they knew about Kaguya and her 450 sisters, they would have different a opinion about equal marriage. I think we should shed some light on this issue right now.

    Comment by John Howard — May 20, 2006 @ 8:47 am | Reply

  16. I skimmed John Howard’s proposal and think it’s bunk. For the government to recognize and prohibit certain “conception rights,” as Mr. Howard puts it, would be intrusive and premature.

    People procreate. It’s a basic function of life. I’m not enamored of the idea of same sex conception, and I think any scientist who would pursue that area of inquiry is foolishly playing with fire (just as with human gene splicing), but there have got to be better uses of our time than working to enact more bans on procreation.

    Maybe next we could agitate to have government ban the food chain and tornados.

    Comment by Brutus — May 20, 2006 @ 11:08 am | Reply

  17. Not “certain conception rights” but all conception that does not combine a man and a woman’s sperm and egg. Why do imagine this would be difficult? It is a stroke of the pen, and then, yes, I suppose if someone went ahead and attempted it, then someone would have to enforce the law and arrest the people involved. But that’s what Congress is planning on doing with the cloning ban, so this just expands the cloning ban to cover all non male-female conception attempts.

    It’s not intrusive, because people’s sex is public, we could easily know if this person and that person are allowed to attempt to conceive together. And it is not premature, it has to be done before people try it. There is certainly no right to do it NOW, and in the future, it might be harder to make that claim. If it is ever done, and there is a smiling baby on the front page, it will be hard to make the claim that the child’s two biological parents should not be married, or that other couples should not be allowed to also do it.

    Comment by John Howard — May 20, 2006 @ 2:01 pm | Reply

  18. Why waste time? Why waste the resources that could be put to work right now on actual health care? And why allow people to continue to think that having a baby with someone of their own sex might be a possibility for them someday, it is cruel.

    Comment by Daniel — November 28, 2006 @ 9:33 am | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: