Palin: wrong woman, wrong message

Sarah Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Hillary Clinton. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.

By Gloria Steinem

September 4, 2008

Here’s the good news: Women have become so politically powerful that even the anti-feminist right wing — the folks with a headlock on the Republican Party — are trying to appease the gender gap with a first-ever female vice president. We owe this to women — and to many men too — who have picketed, gone on hunger strikes or confronted violence at the polls so women can vote. We owe it to Shirley Chisholm, who first took the “white-male-only” sign off the White House, and to Hillary Rodham Clinton, who hung in there through ridicule and misogyny to win 18 million votes.

But here is even better news: It won’t work. This isn’t the first time a boss has picked an unqualified woman just because she agrees with him and opposes everything most other women want and need. Feminism has never been about getting a job for one woman. It’s about making life more fair for women everywhere. It’s not about a piece of the existing pie; there are too many of us for that. It’s about baking a new pie.

Selecting Sarah Palin, who was touted all summer by Rush Limbaugh, is no way to attract most women, including die-hard Clinton supporters. Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Clinton. Her down-home, divisive and deceptive speech did nothing to cosmeticize a Republican convention that has more than twice as many male delegates as female, a presidential candidate who is owned and operated by the right wing and a platform that opposes pretty much everything Clinton’s candidacy stood for — and that Barack Obama’s still does. To vote in protest for McCain/Palin would be like saying, “Somebody stole my shoes, so I’ll amputate my legs.”

This is not to beat up on Palin. I defend her right to be wrong, even on issues that matter most to me. I regret that people say she can’t do the job because she has children in need of care, especially if they wouldn’t say the same about a father. I get no pleasure from imagining her in the spotlight on national and foreign policy issues about which she has zero background, with one month to learn to compete with Sen. Joe Biden’s 37 years’ experience.

Palin has been honest about what she doesn’t know. When asked last month about the vice presidency, she said, “I still can’t answer that question until someone answers for me: What is it exactly that the VP does every day?” When asked about Iraq, she said, “I haven’t really focused much on the war in Iraq.”

She was elected governor largely because the incumbent was unpopular, and she’s won over Alaskans mostly by using unprecedented oil wealth to give a $1,200 rebate to every resident. Now she is being praised by McCain’s campaign as a tax cutter, despite the fact that Alaska has no state income or sales tax. Perhaps McCain has opposed affirmative action for so long that he doesn’t know it’s about inviting more people to meet standards, not lowering them. Or perhaps McCain is following the Bush administration habit, as in the Justice Department, of putting a job candidate’s views on “God, guns and gays” ahead of competence. The difference is that McCain is filling a job one 72-year-old heartbeat away from the presidency.

So let’s be clear: The culprit is John McCain. He may have chosen Palin out of change-envy, or a belief that women can’t tell the difference between form and content, but the main motive was to please right-wing ideologues; the same ones who nixed anyone who is now or ever has been a supporter of reproductive freedom. If that were not the case, McCain could have chosen a woman who knows what a vice president does and who has thought about Iraq; someone like Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison or Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine. McCain could have taken a baby step away from right-wing patriarchs who determine his actions, right down to opposing the Violence Against Women Act.

Palin’s value to those patriarchs is clear: She opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality. She believes that creationism should be taught in public schools but disbelieves global warming; she opposes gun control but supports government control of women’s wombs; she opposes stem cell research but approves “abstinence-only” programs, which increase unwanted births, sexually transmitted diseases and abortions; she tried to use taxpayers’ millions for a state program to shoot wolves from the air but didn’t spend enough money to fix a state school system with the lowest high-school graduation rate in the nation; she runs with a candidate who opposes the Fair Pay Act but supports $500 million in subsidies for a natural gas pipeline across Alaska; she supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, though even McCain has opted for the lesser evil of offshore drilling. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.

I don’t doubt her sincerity. As a lifetime member of the National Rifle Assn., she doesn’t just support killing animals from helicopters, she does it herself. She doesn’t just talk about increasing the use of fossil fuels but puts a coal-burning power plant in her own small town. She doesn’t just echo McCain’s pledge to criminalize abortion by overturning Roe vs. Wade, she says that if one of her daughters were impregnated by rape or incest, she should bear the child. She not only opposes reproductive freedom as a human right but implies that it dictates abortion, without saying that it also protects the right to have a child.

So far, the major new McCain supporter that Palin has attracted is James Dobson of Focus on the Family. Of course, for Dobson, “women are merely waiting for their husbands to assume leadership,” so he may be voting for Palin’s husband.

Being a hope-a-holic, however, I can see two long-term bipartisan gains from this contest.

Republicans may learn they can’t appeal to right-wing patriarchs and most women at the same time. A loss in November could cause the centrist majority of Republicans to take back their party, which was the first to support the Equal Rights Amendment and should be the last to want to invite government into the wombs of women.

And American women, who suffer more because of having two full-time jobs than from any other single injustice, finally have support on a national stage from male leaders who know that women can’t be equal outside the home until men are equal in it. Barack Obama and Joe Biden are campaigning on their belief that men should be, can be and want to be at home for their children.

This could be huge.

Gloria Steinem is an author, feminist organizer and co-founder of the Women’s Media Center. She supported Hillary Clinton and is now supporting Barack Obama.

The fashion industry has been attacked for promoting unhealthy body images for years. Recently, the industry has been speaking out against itself. In 2006 Madrid banned overly thin models (cnn.com). This was a huge change in the modeling industry…you mean there actually is something called TOO thin? All of this of course followed the death of model Ana Carolina Reston, in 2006, from complications due to anorexia nervosa. Ana is often written up as the first famous person to die of anorexia, did the world forget about Karen Carpenter?

We watched her whither away to nothing. When her death was explained as cardiac arrest caused by the strain of anorexia nervosa, one of the causes of her disease was blamed on a cultural pressure to be thin. This was in 1983. It is 2008.

The list of people who have spoken out about having had or currently suffering from and eating disorder is surprisingly large. Carre Otis, model, spoke out about complications and medical issues she experienced due to her anorexia in 2008. Paula Abdul, bulimia; Maria Conchita Alonso, bulimia; Fiona Apple, anorexia; Barbi twins, anorexia bulemia; Justine Bateman, bulemia; Victoria Beckham, anorexia and binge eating; Kate Beckinsale, anorexia; Melanie Chisolm (another spice girl), anorexia; Kelly Clarkson, bulimia; Nadia Comenici, anorexia bulemia; Nichole Richi, anorexia; The list just goes on and on. These are just the people who have spoken out, you can imagine how long the list of people who know they have an eating disorder but are keeping quite. Imagine adding the people who think they are just dieting.

In 2000 the British Medical Association reported that there was a definitive link between eating disorders, advertising and fashion.

This is a very accurate representation of body dysmorphia. This is the body of someone suffering from an eating disorder and this is the reflection they see. This is the very tip of the iceberg. The woman in the reflection, in fact, is beautiful and healthy, but not to the ED sufferer. To someone with the disease that body is morbidly obese. This image cannot begin to capture the mental pain of this disease, but it does offer a good starting point for understanding.

A great website that helped scare me into treatment was Anorexicweb.com . It is filled with horrific pictures, real stories and the realities of eating disorders. It is an extensive site, and can be somewhat confusing, but well worth spending the time to explore. It might give you a better understanding of where someone with an ED is coming from or help scare you out of your ED and into treatment.

An blog was posted today from a fashion designer openly speaking about how he was unwittingly personally responsible for causing his daughters eating disorder. It is well worth the read.

Cell phones and texting have become a way of life for teens and tweens…ok, lets face it, they have become a way of life for all of us, period. There are ongoing discussions of the dangers of talking while driving, health risks and correlations between cell phones and infertility, and redefining etiquette protocols.

To text or not to text, that is the question. Tis nobler to ignore your friends for a family dinner or take arms against the sea of trouble you parents will reign if you answer that call. Face to face conversation seems to be lost in the quagmire of texting privacy. Kids are texting each other while sitting next to each other because they don’t want their parents to hear. Parents are feeling overwhelmed by the overabundance and over use of technology in their children’s live. And society keeps asking why kids are running rampant and out of control? Well, who can keep up with facebook, myspace, friendster, texting, phone calls, emails, IM’s, chat rooms, twitter…and the list keeps going. Everyday a new hip social network pops up. How can any parent keep track of all of it? And what about the accounts your kids set up under nom d’plum’s? Little 13 year old Sally is pretending to be 25 year old Jessica on myspace…and of course you don’t know about it.

Privacy has become an integral part of every child life, way beyond that of a secret diary. Now it is a secret blog, available to the whole world; well, the whole world except mom and dad because that is just invasive and don’t you respect MY privacy. Yeah, I think we need to redefine privacy. But this has become an issue for adults as well. Texting and social networking has become a way for people to live secret lives. It is no wonder kids are so enamored with it when all the grown ups are doing it too.

Now we are in more frequent and ever available communication with each other. Bringing our bond with our children closer because they can contact us at any moment. We are also saying less and less to one another. Calling to ask where you are is not a substantive conversation. So now we are saying a lot less with a lot more frequency. Which is worse? More conversation and saying less or less conversation but saying more? Or is our ever connectedness just breeding a generation of people who can’t be alone? Are we creating techno-codependency?

Well, if you are really wondering what your kids are texting to each other, here is a dictionary of acronyms.

Watch a video of Morse code v. Text messaging, which is faster? look to the right, its on the side bar

Below is an interesting article posted in the NY Times about texting, cell phones, your kids and you.

March 9, 2008
Text Generation Gap: U R 2 Old (JK)

By LAURA M. HOLSON
AS president of the Walt Disney Company’s children’s book and magazine publishing unit, Russell Hampton knows a thing or two about teenagers. Or he thought as much until he was driving his 14-year-old daughter, Katie, and two friends to a play last year in Los Angeles.

“Katie and her friends were sitting in the back seat talking to each other about some movie star; I think it was Orlando Bloom,” recalled Mr. Hampton, whose company produced the “Pirates of the Caribbean” movies, in which the actor starred. “I made some comment about him, I don’t remember exactly what, but I got the typical teenager guttural sigh and Katie rolled her eyes at me as if to say, ‘Oh Dad, you are so out of it.’ ”

After that, the back-seat chattering stopped. When Mr. Hampton looked into his rearview mirror he saw his daughter sending a text message on her cellphone. “Katie, you shouldn’t be texting all the time,” Mr. Hampton recalled telling her. “Your friends are there. It’s rude.” Katie rolled her eyes again.

“But, Dad, we’re texting each other,” she replied with a harrumph. “I don’t want you to hear what I’m saying.”

Chastened, Mr. Hampton turned his attention back to the freeway. It’s a common scene these days, one playing out in cars, kitchens and bedrooms across the country.

Children increasingly rely on personal technological devices like cellphones to define themselves and create social circles apart from their families, changing the way they communicate with their parents.

Innovation, of course, has always spurred broad societal changes. As telephones became ubiquitous in the last century, users — adults and teenagers alike — found a form of privacy and easy communication unknown to Alexander Graham Bell or his daughters.

The automobile ultimately shuttled in an era when teenagers could go on dates far from watchful chaperones. And the computer, along with the Internet, has given even very young children virtual lives distinctly separate from those of their parents and siblings.

Business analysts and other researchers expect the popularity of the cellphone — along with the mobility and intimacy it affords — to further exploit and accelerate these trends. By 2010, 81 percent of Americans ages 5 to 24 will own a cellphone, up from 53 percent in 2005, according to IDC, a research company in Framingham, Mass., that tracks technology and consumer research.

Social psychologists like Sherry Turkle, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who has studied the social impact of mobile communications, say these trends are likely to continue as cellphones morph into mini hand-held computers, social networking devices and pint-size movie screens.

“For kids it has become an identity-shaping and psyche-changing object,” Ms. Turkle said. “No one creates a new technology really understanding how it will be used or how it can change a society.”

Marketers and cellphone makers are only too happy to fill the newest generation gap. Last fall, Firefly Mobile introduced the glowPhone for the preschool set; it has a small keypad with two speed-dial buttons depicting an image of a mother and a father. AT&T promotes its wireless service with television commercials poking fun at a mom who doesn’t understand her daughter’s cellphone vernacular. Indeed, IDC says revenue from services and products sold to young consumers or their parents is expected to grow to $29 billion in 2010, up from $21 billion in 2005.

So far, parents’ ability to reach their children whenever they want affords families more pluses than minuses. Mr. Hampton, who is divorced, says it is easy to reach Katie even though they live in different time zones. And college students who are pressed for time, like Ben Blanton, a freshman who plays baseball at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, can text their parents when it suits them, asking them to run errands or just saying hello.

“Texting is in between calling and sending and e-mail,” he explained while taking a break from study hall. Now he won’t even consider writing a letter to his mother, Jan. “It’s too time consuming,” he said. “You have to go to the post office. Instead, I can sit and watch television and send a text, which is the same thing.”

But as with any cultural shift involving parents and children — the birth of rock ’n’ roll or the sexual revolution of the 1960s, for example — various gulfs emerge. Baby boomers who warned decades ago that their out-of-touch parents couldn’t be trusted now sometimes find themselves raising children who — thanks to the Internet and the cellphone — consider Mom and Dad to be clueless, too.

Cellphones, instant messaging, e-mail and the like have encouraged younger users to create their own inventive, quirky and very private written language. That has given them the opportunity to essentially hide in plain sight. They are more connected than ever, but also far more independent.

In some cases, they may even become more alienated from those closest to them, said Anita Gurian, a clinical psychologist and executive editor of AboutOurKids.org, a Web site of the Child Study Center at New York University.

“Cellphones demand parental involvement of a different kind,” she said. “Kids can do a lot of things in front of their parents without them knowing.”

TO be sure, parents have always been concerned about their children’s well-being, independence and comportment — and the rise of the cellphone offers just the latest twist in that dynamic. However it all unfolds, it has helped prompt communications companies to educate parents about how better to be in touch with their children.

In a survey released 18 months ago, AT&T found that among 1,175 parents the company interviewed, nearly half learned how to text-message from their children. More than 60 percent of parents agreed that it helped them communicate, but that sometimes children didn’t want to hear their voice at all. When asked if their children wanted a call or a text message requesting that they be home by curfew, for instance, 58 percent of parents said their children preferred a text.

“Just because you can reach them doesn’t mean they have to answer,” said Amanda Lenhart, a senior research specialist at the Pew Internet & American Life Project, which is studying the impact of technology on adolescents. “Cellphones give teens more of a private life. Their parents aren’t privy to all of their conversations.”

Text messaging, in particular, has perhaps become this generation’s version of pig Latin. For dumbfounded parents, AT&T now offers a tutorial that decodes acronyms meant to keep parents at bay. “Teens may use text language to keep parents in the dark about their conversations by making their comments indecipherable,” the tutorial states. Some acronyms meant to alert children to prying eyes are POS (“parent over shoulder”), PRW (“parents are watching”) and KPC (“keeping parents clueless”).

SAVANNAH PENCE, 15, says she wants to be in touch with her parents — but also wants to keep them at arm’s length. She says her father, John, made sure that she and her 19-year-old brother, Alex, waited until high school before they got cellphones, unlike friends who had them by fifth grade. And while Savannah described her relationship with her parents as close, she still prefers her space.

“I don’t text that much in front of my parents because they read them,” she said. And when her parents ask who is on the phone? “I just say, ‘People.’ They don’t ask anymore.”

At first, John Pence, who owns a restaurant in Portland, Ore., was unsure about how to relate to his daughter. “I didn’t know how to communicate with her,” Mr. Pence said. “I had to learn.” So he took a crash course in text messaging — from Savannah. But so far he knows how to quickly type only a few words or phrases: Where are you? Why haven’t you called me? When are you coming home?

When his daughter asks a question, he typically has one response. “ ‘OK’ is the answer to everything,” he said. “And I haven’t used a question mark yet.” He said he had to learn how to text because his daughter did not return his calls. “I don’t leave a message,” he said, “because she knows it’s me.”

Savannah said she sends a text message to her father at least two or three times a day. “I can’t ask him questions because he is too slow,” she said. “He uses simple words.” On the other hand, her mother, Caprial, is more proficient at texting and will ask how her day was at school or how her friends are doing. (Her mom owed her more facile texting skills to being an agile typist with small hands.)

Early on, Savannah’s parents agreed that they had to set rules. First, they banned cellphone use at the dinner table and, later, when the family watched television together, because Mr. Pence worried about the distraction. “They become unaware of your presence,” he said.

Mr. Pence is well aware of how destabilizing cellphones, iPods and hand-held video game players can be to family relations. “I see kids text under the table at the restaurant,” he said. “They don’t teach them etiquette anymore.” Some children, he said, watch videos in restaurants.

“They don’t know that’s the time to carry on a conversation,” he said. “I would like to walk up to some tables and say, ‘Kids, put your iPods and your cellphones away and talk to your parents.’ ”

But even he has found that enforcing rules is harder than might be expected. He now permits Savannah to send text messages while watching TV, after he noticed her using a blanket over her lap to hide that she was sending messages to friends. “I could have them in the same room texting, or I wouldn’t let them text and they would leave,” said Mr. Pence of his children. “They are good kids, but you want to know what they are up to.”

Other families face similar challenges.

In 1999, Marie Gallick got a family plan for her and her three children and found that each of them had a different approach to cellphone use. One of Ms. Gallick’s sons likes to talk, she said, while her other son, Brandon, who lives near her home in Raritan, N.J., preferred to text. How much they communicated with her, she said, depended on their mood. And she found she had to be careful about what she said and how.

“There is emotion behind it,” she said. Once, one of her sons didn’t answer his cellphone when she called, so she sent him a text saying, “NICE OF YOU TO TURN ON YOUR PHONE.”

“They thought I was mad,” she said. Ms. Gallick did not understand that using capital letters was the same as yelling. (She said she had the same problem when she began using e-mail, which, perhaps, makes her problem as much about adapting to digital shifts as it is about communicating with children.)

Brenda Ng, vice president for consumer insights at T-Mobile, the cellular provider, said her company’s studies show that while cellphone use can cause division, it, too, is “the glue” that cements relationships. “It may seem mundane, but they keep people together,” Ms. Ng said.

Consider this: Brandon Gallick, who is 23, recalled a night last year when he was driving home on a country road near Hillsborough, N.J., and a large donkey ran in front of his car. He couldn’t wait to get home to call his mother. “I had to text my mom right away,” he said, noting he sent text messages to friends, too. “I wanted to tell her about it because it was so funny. We don’t see many donkeys in New Jersey.”

Ms. Gallick appreciated the message. “I like it when he does that,” she said. “It makes me feel special.” But again, the unintended consequence was more miscommunication for her.

“It took five texts before I thought he really meant it,” she said. “What I find is that you have to text each other more to understand each other than if you just picked up the phone. You are constantly asking, ‘What did you mean?’ It is a form of alienation but at the same time it is keeping us in contact.”

In fact, texting appears to be easier than talking for some cellphone users, providing yet another distraction for them inside their cars. Mr. Blanton at Vanderbilt, like many of his peers, texts his mother and friends even when both of his hands should be on the steering wheel.

“I can text without looking at the phone,” he said. “It’s definitely not safe. Sometimes I’ll look up and I don’t remember where I’ve been driving.”

MS. TURKLE, the M.I.T. professor, says cellphones offer another way for the Facebook generation to share every life experience the second it unfolds.

“There is a slippage from ‘I have a feeling I want to make a call’ to ‘I need to make a call,’ ” she said. “You don’t get to have a feeling before sharing that feeling anymore.”

Ms. Turkle recalled a vacation with her daughter in Paris, where she hoped to immerse her in the local culture and cuisine. “Part of the idea of Paris is being in Paris,” Ms. Turkle said. But during an afternoon stroll, her daughter received several calls and text messages on her cellphone from friends back in Boston. Her daughter, she said, felt compelled to return every one.

When Ms. Turkle asked why she didn’t turn off her cellphone and enjoy the city, she said her daughter replied, “I feel more comfortable talking with my friends.” But her daughter’s friends didn’t even really want to talk. “They just want to know where you are,” Ms. Turkle said. “It’s a new sensibility.”

It is a new sensibility on many fronts. Jan Blanton said her relationship with her son, Ben, is closer because cellphones make reaching out so simple. And that has caused her to reflect on her relationship with her own parents.

In the early 1980s, when she left home to attend college, Ms. Blanton said, her relationship with her parents was frayed. “We didn’t have open communication,” she said. “I wasn’t close to them. Maybe once a week I’d call. My parents were happy when we were out of the house.”

Ms. Blanton wonders if things might have been different if they had text messaging back then. Her son now sends frequent text messages to his grandfather, discussing baseball and fishing. “I can write better than I talk,” said Ms. Blanton, whose relationship with her parents is now close. “I think we would have had a better experience.”

It is likely that in just a few years, younger members of the digerati will consider cellphones like those the Blantons are using to be relics. While many consumers have become fashion-conscious about the latest in technological devices, analysts say that young children and teenagers are particularly so and more likely than their parents to continually gravitate to something new.

Mr. Hampton said his daughter Katie recently asked for a BlackBerry so she could better send e-mail to her friends and have unfettered access to the Internet.

“I said no,” he recalled. “It’s not necessary.”

But then again, Mr. Hampton said, he may change his mind. “No one is teaching kids how to use these things,” he said. “But in fairness, adults don’t know how to use them, either.”

What did you do for International Women’s Day on Saturday? According to Carolyn Byerly of WIMN’s Voices, you probably did nothing, since IWD was so roundly ignored by the media this year. “My own hometown newspaper Washington Post had not a single op-ed piece today, nor national or local news,” laments Byerly. “IWD doesn’t exist here in the nation’s capital, as far as this agenda-setting paper is concerned.” The first national women’s day was observed in 1909 in New York after the Socialist Party of America designated the day to honor striking garment workers; the day went international in 1911 when Copenhagen socialists adopted March 8 as a day for women’s rights advocatin’. Perhaps it is the pinko taint of IWD that keeps some women away — it certainly ruffled the feathers of insane conservative and anti-ERA agitator Phyllis Schlafly!

Continue reading at Jezebel

Minstrel shows are an important part of American history, but that is how we think of them, as history. A recent comedian has just made past history current by reviving the old minstrel show and giving it a new twist, cross dressing. Charles Knipp is a white gay comedian who performs in blackface as Shirley Q. Liquor ““a welfare mother with nineteen kids who guzzles malt liquor, and drives a Caddy.” If there were a meter for offensive comedy, this should have busted the mercury bulb.

I feel to fully grasp this horrow-show being passed as comedy, it is important to have a brief understanding of what a minstrel show is and where it came from. The minstrel shows were popular primarily in the 1800’s. They were performers, both white and black, who painted their faces with burnt cork and acted out the worst of the prominent stereotypes of the chosen culture. At this point some of you are wondering why I am being vague by using the word cultures. Well, this is where some of the misunderstandings of minstrel history come in to play. The minstrel shows are generally thought of as white people making fun of black people or black people making fun of black people. This is part of the truth. However, there was a time when the Irish and the black communities were at end with one another as to who was the most societally denigrated and discriminated against. Before you start rallying about that, there is a lot of research to substantiate this, but I am not going into in this posting. If you are interested go read, Ronald Takaki “A Different Mirror” or any of the books listed below. These books go into depth on the establishment of Irish as white, which just touches the surface on race as a social concept. But I digress, the minstrel shows often featured grotesque caricatures of Irish and Black men and women being sexually inappropriate, drinking excessively, joking, laughing, acting like children, being overly aggressive and being represented as just a step above animals.

The Irish and blacks were often paired against each other, spurned forward by the acceptance of the dominant white culture. Here is a drawing of an black man being weighed against an Irish man and the two coming up equal.

As you can see, this is not a flattering portrait of either culture. What the minstrel shows often became where blacks and Irish making fun of each other for the pleasure and acceptance of the white culture. The Jim Crow Dance, was actually a combination of and African and Irish jig. So on stage you had black and Irish men and women all wearing black face grotesquely making fun of one another in the hopes of gaining favor with the racist demeaning dominant white culture.

Lets jump back to today. Now we have a white gay man putting on black face representing a caricature of black women in a comedic attempt to elevate gay culture? If you are gay is this how you want to be elevated? Is this how you want to gain your equality by denigrating another culture? Is this where we want society to return to? I know there has been a lot of talk about returning to family values, but just how far back are we going?

This is a white man wearing black face makeup and makeup painted on like a clown. His humor consists of the most base stereotypes, which have been around since slavery, about drinking and sex and excessive reproduction, riding the government dollar, being stupid or “ignant” as he so nicely puts it. He is degrading to all women and all black culture and should be offensive to all who see him. He is a racist and should not be thought of in any other light.

You can go to the website Ban Shirley Q. Liquor and see some of this disgusting humor for yourself and while you are there, sign the petition to ban this comedian from performing.

When people say, why can’t black people stop revisiting the slave legacy? Well, Shirley Q. Liquor is a good reason why, because that legacy still exists in our society and right now it is loud and proud. We ended the minstrel show by making it unacceptable in society, it is time to repeat history.

If you or a lover react to each other as though you’re a
parent, you might consider this:

Bob Hoffman suggests you developed one of your (or your
lover’) personality facets, the Inner Brat, from your emotional pain
and from adopting parents’ worst traits. If parents didn’t
completely love and accept themselves and others, their
childrencopied this. Parents couldn’t model self-love and
overflowing love to others if their parents, in turn, didn’t model a
totally loving model for them to imprint.

As a child, when you lacked genuine love, you settled for
attention. Hoffman says that whether you deadened yourself
emotionally or developed a “nice” person or rebel facade, you’re
still angry at your parents. You try to hurt your parents by failing,
as though defeating yourself (as they defeated themselves) hurts them
for not giving you unconditional love. You continue self-defeating
behavior because it lets you to vent your childish anger.

Self-defeating behavior is also a desperate plea for their
sympathy and love. Your emotions remain childish, defiant, falsely
compliant or dulled, though your body and intellect continue to
grow. Your adult intelligence may tell you that smoking,
overreacting and pushing people away are self-defeating. Yet you
continue these behaviors because you remain a brat inside, still
copying or rebelling against your parents and their symbolic
substitutes.

When you’re unloving and self-defeating, you express
negative
love you learned from your parents. You can unlearn it. Stop being
a brat still getting even with them. Let your emotional development
catch up with your intellectual and physical development. “Get a
loving divorce from Mother and Dad.”

You achieve a loving divorce when you rise above parents’
negative example and realize they’ll never meet your childish demand
to love you “selflessly, wholeheartedly, and with nothing asked in
return.”
In Hoffman’s system, you prosecute Mom and Dad as you
remember and emote anger for the poor examples they exhibited and
wrongs they did you. You next put yourself in their places and
understand how the negative attitudes their parents gave them
conditioned them to imprint your negativities. You then experience
deep compassion, forgiveness and love toward your parents.

You copied some of your parents traits (by “parents,” I
designate the older folks in charge of you as you grew up–whether
biological, adopted or other). You probably love some traits you
copied–maybe Mom’s manners or Dad’s humor.

You could also have copied traits you’d like to change. If
so, try the rites in this section. Explore your mother’s model, then
father’s. Then reprogram yourself and you’ll love and forgive your
parents and yourself. You’ll leave your parents’ limits behind.
This model may, of course, help you understand why your lovers may
treat you like a parent, and you could discuss Hoffman’s model with
them.

Mend Mom’s Mistakes When You Mate

Hoffman suggests that one of your personality facets, your
Inner Brat, developed from your emotional pain and from adopting your
parents’ worst traits. If Mom did not completely love and accept
themselves and others, you copied this. If she couldn’t model self-
love and overflowing love to others if her parents, in turn, didn’t
model it. If that’s the case, when you’re unloving and self-
defeating, you express negative love, some of which you adopted from
her.

Stop getting even with Mom. Lovingly divorce her, rise above
her negative example, realize she’ll never meet your childish demand
to love you with nothing asked in return. First prosecute Mom: you
emote anger for her example and for wrongs she did you. Then you put
yourself in her place. You get how she was molded into giving you
negative attitudes by her parents’ attitudes. Then you then
experience deep compassion, forgiveness and love toward your mother.

Delete Dad’s Defects in Your Love Life

Hoffman says that if Dad didn’t completely love and accept
himself and others, you copied this. Divorce Dad, rise above his
negativies; realize he’ll never love you unconditionally. You express
anger, then you put yourself in his place and feel how his parents
imprinted him to imprint you. Finally, you forgive him and tell him
you love him.

[Based on Hoffman, B., Getting Divorced From Mother and Dad, New
York: Dutton, 1976.]

We all know that the lunar cycle effects our menstrual cycle. Women’s monthly tidings have been guided by the moon since we have been women and the moon has been a moon. In many cultures, this is part of the reason the moon represents the goddess or feminine energy. Women often fall into two categories, full moon or new moon cycles. With the prevalence of hormonal birth control and our disassociation from the natural world, women are less tied to their lunar calendar and more tied to their scheduler on their blackberry. Actually, we can even choose not to have a period at all, forget the moon just don’t forget the pill!

The connection surrounding the moon is not isolated to our cycles. Women are more fertile during certain times of the lunar cycle. Hospitals report higher numbers of women going into labor during full moons, as well as mentally ill people acting up more than normal…hence the phrase lunacy.

Whether or not you have an awareness of your cycle in relation to the moon, I notice that women are often affected by her pull. I know for me, though I am part of the hormonally regulated masses, that when I am off my full moon tenancies, that my body will feel like I am premenstrual during the full moon, even when I am not.

Tonights full moon is a little different. Tonight is the last lunar eclipse for the next three years. If you are on the east coast go outside at about 10:30 and the moon should be orange! Beautiful! Anyway, so beyond this amazing astronomical phenomenon, I have been wondering if an eclipse effects our hormones more than a simple full moon?

In my message boards and among my friends I have noticed a higher number of women complaining about PMS. They are saying that they are more hormonal than normal. I am not in my cycle, but am feeling the effects of PMS. I just chalked it up to my personal lunar sensitivity. But maybe the eclipse effects us. Maybe the eclipse makes us a little more sensitive. I have also been reading about a lot of women talking about spotting around eclipses, longer lasting periods, longer PMS, hormonal cycles feeling like they are lasting for 40 days, etc. Though no one source says this is because of the eclipse, and people are quick to try to explain it away, I believe there is a direct correlation.

I find this connection to be incredible. In a time when we are so often disconnected from the natural world, when people stand up for going green yet central park is the wilderness, when a squirrel is a wild animal, that we can still have an uncontrollable biological connection to nature. Some people think that this is sexist to say that women become more sensitive during PMS and that we are affected by something like the moon. I don’t think it is sexist. I think it is amazing. It shows a deeper connection to the whole. Why is feeling MORE a disadvantage? Though I am not throwing my Midol out the window, I do believe that we should embrace our periods and our connection to nature and other women, it is a universal connection that every woman around the world can understand.

Here is a link to a blog talking about this effect. There are also a lot of comments from women speaking to their experience with menstruation and the moon.

Are you affected?

Try to avoid February’s whenever possible.

Valentine’s Day is the one day of the year when unhappily married women don’t envy their Happy Single Friends and their happily single friends are tempted to spend their “shoe money” on a dating service.

VD, a day when even penicillin won’t cure what’s ailing you.

Valentine’s Day is the day when Happy Singles envy something they don’t necessarily even want.

Chorus in the song Valentine’s Day Lament: “What’s wrong with me”.

Chorus in the song I Survived Valentine’s Day: “What was I thinking”.

Valentines Day is like the measles. We all have to go through it and hope we survive. If we don’t scratch the irritation, we’ll have fewer scars. So let’s duck tape mittens to our hands and not scratch.

After all, it may be one “mother” of a long day but it’s only one day.

Suggestions on how to get through it intact: read on

The first recorded association of Valentine’s Day with romantic love is in Parlement of Foules (1382) by Geoffrey Chaucer:[5]

‘For this was on seynt Volantynys day
Whan euery bryd comyth there to chese [choose] his make [mate].’

This poem was written to honor the first anniversary of the engagement of King Richard II of England to Anne of Bohemia. source

Following Chaucer’s newly created tradition of courtly love developed a true “high court of love”

Using the language of the law courts for the rituals of courtly love, a “High Court of Love” was established in Paris on Valentine’s Day in 1400. The court dealt with love contracts, betrayals, and violence against women. Judges were selected by women on the basis of a poetry reading. source

It is a comfort to think that within the celebration of love there is a protection of women and relationships.

In 1969 the Roman Church took Valentines Day off their saints calendar. Though St. Valentine was buried on the 14th of February, they could find no other reason. The official reason was:

“Though the memorial of Saint Valentine is ancient, it is left to particular calendars, since, apart from his name, nothing is known of Saint Valentine except that he was buried on the Via Flaminia on 14 February.” - alendarium Romanum ex Decreto Sacrosancti Œcumenici Concilii Vaticani II Instauratum Auctoritate Pauli PP. VI Promulgatum (Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, MCMLXIX), p. 117″

However, it was in the mid 1800’s when the tradition, as we know it today, was started.

The reinvention of Saint Valentine’s Day in the 1840s has been traced by Leigh Eric Schmidt. In the United States, the first mass-produced valentines of embossed paper lace were produced and sold shortly after 1847 by Esther Howland of Worcester, Massachusetts. Her father operated a large book and stationery store, but Howard took her inspiration from an English valentine she had received, so clearly the practice of sending Valentine’s cards had existed in England before it became popular in North America. The English practice of sending Valentine’s cards appears in Elizabeth Gaskell’s Mr. Harrison’s Confessions (published 1851). Since 2001, the Greeting Card Association has been giving an annual “Esther Howland Award for a Greeting Card Visionary.”

Thanks to Esther, Valentines has become the second largest card sending holiday of the year, leading to revenues exceeding $1 billion dollars. It is also estimated that 85% of the senders are women. Isn’t today the day that men are supposed to romance women? That seems to be more of an urban legend, at least according to the Greeting Card statistics.

Valentines Day is also known as Singles Awareness Day (SAD). This is a day where singles get together and celebrate and commiserate being single. They often wish one another “Happy SAD!” It is also a rejection of the “commercialization” of Valentines day.

So if you are celebrating Valentines day or wishing someone Happy Sad, if you participate, make people feel good about what they have instead of bad about what they don’t. It is a day of love, not I’m in a relationship now let me shove it in your single face and make you feel bad.

To read more about the The Cultural Thread of the Happy Single Woman and the public media response to her, click here. To read the Counterpoint from the mens perspective, click here. Click here to Why women are free to NOT marry.