RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
How Elizabeth Warren Is Yanking Hillary Clinton to the Left Print
Friday, 16 January 2015 10:03

Foroohar writes: "Elizabeth Warren, the famously anti-Wall Street Senator from Massachusetts, has become the lunar goddess of liberal politics."

Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton. (photo: Reuters)
Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton. (photo: Reuters)


How Elizabeth Warren Is Yanking Hillary Clinton to the Left

By Rana Foroohar, TIME

16 January 15

 

lizabeth Warren, the famously anti–Wall Street Senator from Massachusetts, has become the lunar goddess of liberal politics. Just as the moon pulls the tides, Warren is slowly but steadily towing the economic conversation in the Democratic Party to the left. Witness the barn-burning speech she gave on the Senate floor in December, railing against the fact that lobbyists from Citigroup and other big banks had been allowed to squeeze a rider into the latest congressional budget bill that would make it easier for federally insured banks to keep trading derivatives, which Warren Buffett once described as the “financial weapons of mass destruction” that sparked the 2008 crisis. Then there was her opposition to President Obama’s most recent Treasury nominee, Antonio Weiss, a banker who Warren told me “has no background to justify his nomination other than working for a big Wall Street firm.” (Weiss dropped out shortly after Warren began denouncing him.) Couple that with her continued calls to break up the big banks and criticism of policies espoused by longtime Democratic economic advisers like Bob Rubin and Larry Summers, and you’ve the makings of a consequential gravitational pull.

Warren is more than just a dogged critic. The former Harvard law professor’s influence comes in large part because she’s tapped into an existential crisis on the left: namely, liberals’ belated anxiety over the capture of the Democratic Party by high finance, which began two decades ago. Ronald Reagan might be the President most closely associated with laissez-faire economics, but both Republicans and Democrats have frequently turned to finance to generate quick-hit growth in tough times, deregulating markets or loosening monetary policy rather than focusing on underlying fixes for the real economy. Shrugging and citing a market-knows-best philosophy to avoid difficult political decisions has been a bipartisan exercise for quite a long time now.

And the anxiety is deepened because democrats, like Republicans, bear blame for the financial crisis of 2008. Jimmy Carter deregulated interest rates in 1980, a move that pacified consumers and financiers grappling with stagflation but also helped set the stage for the home-mortgage implosion. In 1999, as President Bill Clinton’s Treasury Secretary, Rubin signed off on the Glass-Steagall banking-regulation death certificate, a move that many, Warren included, believe was a key factor in worsening the crisis. Loose accounting standards supported by many Democrats during the Clinton years also encouraged the growth of stock options as the main form of corporate compensation, a trend that French academic Thomas Piketty, Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz and many other economists believe exacerbated the staggering gap between rich and poor in the U.S. today. I asked Warren whether she blamed such policies for our current wage stagnation, which has persisted despite robust economic growth. “I’d lay it right at the feet of trickle-down economics, yes,” she says. “We’ve tried that experiment for 35 years, and it hasn’t worked.”

Speculation has been rife that Warren might consider a presidential run of her own, taking on front runner Hillary Clinton just to make sure the same trickle-down team doesn’t end up in office again. When I ask her flatly if she’d run if she thought a Rubin or Summers would be making economic policy for the next four years, she paused. “I tell you … I’m going to do everything I can. I’m going to fight as hard as I have to. This has to change.”

Change won’t come easily. Resetting the economic table is not just about breaking up big banks or raising the minimum wage. Real change would mean grappling with a deep, multidecade shift from a society in which the state, the private sector and the individual all shared responsibility for economic risks to one in which individuals are now increasingly left on their own to pay for the trappings of a middle-class life–health care, education and retirement–while corporations capture a record share of the country’s prosperity without necessarily reinvesting in the common good. Complaining about too-big-to-fail banks, sleazy lobbyists and the 1% is easier than crafting an entirely new, inclusive growth policy.

Warren is likely to conjure more change by being a progressive foil to Clinton than by running herself. Her sway has old economists scrambling to learn new tricks. The Center for American Progress, a think tank with close ties to the Clintons, is releasing a new report on wages and the plight of the middle classes on Jan. 15. Its chief author: none other than Summers. Meanwhile, Clinton recently took an ideas meeting with Stiglitz, once considered too far left to touch. In politics, stars may rise, but the moon is constant.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Turns Out the US Oil Boom Was Just a Fairy Tale Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=30675"><span class="small">Heather Smith, Grist</span></a>   
Friday, 16 January 2015 09:49

Smith writes: "With one quick drop in the price of oil, the shale oil boom is officially bust."

Sixty-one oil drilling operations closed up in just one week, with another 400 to follow by spring. (photo: Inthinc.com)
Sixty-one oil drilling operations closed up in just one week, with another 400 to follow by spring. (photo: Inthinc.com)


Turns Out the US Oil Boom Was Just a Fairy Tale

By Heather Smith, Grist

16 January 15

 

ith one quick drop in the price of oil, the shale oil boom is officially bust. In less than a week, 61 oil rigs across the United States closed up shop, according to the most recent rig count from Baker Hughes. The U.S. has 1,750 oil rigs still hunting for new oil wells, but that number is expected to fall by another 400 rigs by the time spring rolls around.

The whole episode is a wake-up call about just how much of a fairy tale North America’s oil boom really was. It was a fairy tale with real drills, sure — and since it was exempt from the Clean Air and Clean Water acts, it will continue to have real consequences for the people living near it. But when it costs Saudi Arabia $10 to get a barrel of oil and it costs shale oil operations around $65 to make that same barrel, it should have been obvious that America was only a titan of oil production because another country was letting us be.

The U.S. got the excitement of overtaking Saudi Arabia and becoming the biggest producer of oil in the world for a few months this summer. Then Saudi Arabia did what it always had the power to do and raised its oil output so that prices fell.

“Those who are producing the most expensive oil — the rationale and the rules of the market say that they should be the first to pull or reduce their production,” Suhail Al Mazrouei, oil minister for the United Arab Emirates, told reporters recently, sounding more than a little like an Econ 101 professor. “If the price is right for them to produce, then fine, let them produce.”

That price — which was $110 per barrel this summer, and $80 three months ago — is now hovering at $46. Goldman Sachs estimates that it will drop to $40 in a few months, since it will take a while for production to slow down and adjust to the new pricing. the United States has cut 10 percent of its oil exploration, and Canada has cut back 25 percent

Since late November, the United States has cut 10 percent of its oil exploration, and Canada has cut back 25 percent. If this continues, expect the oil boom towns of Alberta, Texas, North Dakota, and Colorado to start looking more like ghost towns.

When are prices likely to rise again? Goldman Sachs estimates they’ll begin rebounding at the end of 2015. Others warn that the situation could be more like the oil price drop of 1986, which lasted about five years.

All of which means that TransCanada may well find itself delighted that protesters stopped it from building a big, expensive pipeline to get now-unprofitable tar-sands oil to market. I wouldn’t count on that one, though.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Sing Sing Reacts to Police Shootings Print
Thursday, 15 January 2015 15:45

Taibbi writes: "In his unit at Sing Sing, Denis is respected for another reason. He keeps a current Almanac in his cell and has become something akin to the human Google search of his unit. At night, when the inmates watch the news on TV and argue aboutcurrent events, they turn to Denis to be the arbiter of factual disputes. It's a respected job that he fulfills with relish and a lot of humor."

Matt Taibbi. (photo: Current TV)
Matt Taibbi. (photo: Current TV)


Sing Sing Reacts to Police Shootings

By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

15 January 15

 

first met Denis Martinez late last summer. A mutual friend brought me up to Sing Sing, the infamous "Big House" prison that just as infamously sits "Up the River" from Manhattan.

A 29-year-old native of the Dominican Republic, Denis is up there finishing a 13-year sentence for a non-lethal shooting he committed in New York back in his teens. When I met him, he had a year to go. (Now it's a matter of months.) At the time, I was looking for an inmate willing to work as a columnist for our doomed Racket website.

Denis Martinez grew up in the South Bronx and Washington Heights sections of New York. As a teenager, he'd had only a few minor, quality-of-life style brushes with the law (including driving a motor-scooter without a license) before a fateful night over a decade ago in which, after a night of partying, he fired a gun out of the window of a car in a dispute between two groups of people who were hanging out in Fort Tryon park.

The bullet hit a young man in the leg. Denis shortly thereafter was tried and convicted for aggravated assault, and given that 13-year sentence. Absent some extraordinary intervention, he will be automatically deported to the Dominican Republic upon the completion of his term next August.

I first met him this past August, when a friend of his brought me up to the Sing Sing visitor's lounge, a sweeping gymnasium-sized room in which the mostly nonwhite relatives of inmates share bittersweet vending machine meals over a surprisingly beautiful view of the Hudson river.

Denis is a soft-spoken young man of medium height and build, clean-cut with deep brown skin and a shaved head. He smiles a lot and has an easy, patient, almost fatalistic manner about him. In our first meeting, I got the sense that he went through the remorse phase a very long time ago and has long since moved on to learning to survive and make sense of his situation.

Denis is known throughout the prison for having finished its college program (he has a Bachelor's and a Master's Degree), for excelling in International PEN prison-writing competitions and most notably for his artwork.

He makes incredible, carefully rendered portraits of iconic historic and political figures like Sojourner Truth and Sitting Bull and Malcolm X. When I first saw these pictures, I'll be honest, I thought they were good, but I didn't see what was so terribly special about them. Then his friend asked me to take a closer look. I did and was shocked to learn that his pictures were made entirely out of ink fingerprints, an insanely time-consuming and interestingly symbolic genre Denis seems to have invented.

He even made the New York Times last month when intermediaries abroad delivered his fingerprint portrait of the three crosses at Golgotha to Pope Francis, who in turn sent back a rosary and a promise to keep the Sing Sing inmates in his prayers. Denis is not so much of a Catholic, but he was overwhelmed to have received the attention of the Pope. "I couldn't believe it," he says now. "I never expected anything like that to happen."

But in his unit at Sing Sing, Denis is respected for another reason. He keeps a current Almanac in his cell and has become something akin to the human Google search of his unit. At night, when the inmates watch the news on TV and argue about current events, they turn to Denis to be the arbiter of factual disputes. It's a respected job that he fulfills with relish and a lot of humor.

"You'll hear every kind of opinion up here," he says. "It ranges from the absolutely crazy and ignorant and racist to the very thoughtful and insightful." He pauses. "But the thing is, people take these discussions seriously. There's not a lot to do except think about things. So there's this lively debate and discussion about everything on TV. Outside, people probably just sit on the couch and pass the time when the news is on. Not in here."

As he told me about this, Denis and I formed a plan for an opinion column that would be about these nightly cell block debates around the TV. It would be a kind of diary of his last year of prison life based around the daily "action" of watching the news with the other guys in his block.

Way back on September 10th, he sent in a piece about the Ray Rice case that included the reaction of all the guys in his wing to the infamous video:

"I wish any motherfucker would punch my lil' sister like that," says Ricky, tying his dreadlocks together. "I'll have to catch a body and do this bid again."

In the piece, Ricky then boasts that Rice wouldn't have gotten away with what he did if his girlfriend had been Jamaican, because "a Jamaican gyall would've stabbed his ass." Right away, one of the other prisoners fires back.

Almost choking on his coffee, a laughing Dorian taunts Ricky. "A Jamaican chick would've gotten knocked out and then deported. Now, an Italian chick," he continues, "would have gone home and killed his black ass the next day."

Anyway, Denis worked hard at developing characters like Ricky, a dude nicknamed Brain Dead, the somber Muslim theorists Ali and Musa (who had some strong feelings about Gaza and ISIS), and others. We exchanged letters about it in the fall and his first pieces were weird and upsetting and often very funny.

Then Racket blew up, and Denis lost a job. Separately, we were both really bummed. I felt particularly badly because he had worked so hard at learning the new genre. He'd even submitted to the indignity of learning what a "lede" is.

But then a few weeks back I asked the editors at Rolling Stone if Denis could do something on the magazine's website. They were good enough to agree.

So I went back up to Sing Sing just before Christmas, and over some truly atrocious vending-machine coffee we hashed out a new format.

It would be a little like the old concept, based around the guys in his wing watching the news, except we'd do it this time in the form of a personal correspondence.

We discussed what might be a good subject to start with and settled upon the murders of New York police officers Henry Ramos and Wenjian Liu. Ferguson, the Eric Garner case, and the ensuing protests were major, much-discussed events in the prison population, and news of the Ramos/Liu murders hit the Sing-Sing population like a tornado.

As he explained, there were all sorts of opinions about the murders, but overall, the reigning feeling was one of sadness and disappointment. He said it was complicated and that he would explain it all in his first letter.

It arrived just before Christmas and after a few logistical road-bumps, I'm finally able to print it. If it works out, Denis and I are going to write back and forth some more, perhaps with readers chiming in, and I'll publish his letters as often as I can.

A disclaimer: I know Denis committed a serious crime and I in no way want to diminish or make light of that. I don't believe he would want that, either. Also, he's his own person and I don't take responsibility for his opinions, any more than he does for mine.

Anyway, here goes. Incidentally, I think his next letter is going to be about the gallery's reaction to the Charlie Hebdo massacre. For now, many weeks late, here's the reaction from Sing-Sing on the Ramos-Liu killings.

December 23rd, 2013

Dear Matt,

The gallery this week has been awfully quiet compared to how it was just a few days ago. When those two cops were killed, the excitement over the "I Can't Breathe" and "Hands Up, Don't Shoot!" marches seemed to die with them. It's as if all the air has been sucked out of our lungs. Even Ricky's usual anti-authority rhetoric has cooled.

For weeks before this Saturday [when Liu and Ramos were killed], we'd been glued to the news outlets to cheer the national movements against police brutality. Every time a new city erupted in protests, the whole gallery equally erupted in cheers, as if the protesters in Staten Island or Ferguson were able to hear our encouragement.

Besides the Occupy Wall Street movement several years ago, this was the first time in more than a decade that I've been in prison that there has been a major protest against what I call the machinery. Even I, who often complain about my complacent generation (millenials!) and always say I was born in the wrong era (I'd have fit in better with the activist Boomers), was filled with a sense of pride when I saw so many twenty- and thirty-somethings participating in "die-ins" and getting involved with good ole civil disobedience. Thoreau would've been proud.

But now, the only recurring comments I hear from the prisoners in the gallery are those of lament, despair, and general condemnation of the young (black) shooter. The observation all these comments have in common is that the shooter was crazy. There's no way a person with sound mind, they say, would be dumb enough to think that killing two cops would in any way advance the movement. Even Ali and Musa, who are usually the apologists of many Muslim extremists, were praying the guy wasn't Islamic.

Most of us in the gallery have been direct victims of police misconduct and have reasons to mistrust or resent the NYPD. We may have been constantly stopped and frisked, arrested unnecessarily, assaulted in the process of being arrested, or even roughed up in a precinct by an overzealous detective during interrogations.

But even after all of this, most of the guys in the gallery are horrified by Saturday's events.

But by saying "most," I acknowledge that not all of the guys in the prison disapprove of the killing of the two cops. Outside of our gallery, some of the most unreasonable and misguided prisoners say that cops shoot black men with impunity, and so – out of frustration with a system that seems to disregard this injustice – these guys believe that killing two cops is justified.

It doesn't seem to matter to them that the two cops weren't known for any type of misconduct, or that one of them was against brutality and supported the demonstrators.

I'm not surprised by these dumb comments, though. To me they're only the symptoms of a system that incarcerates the poor and uneducated. Does it really surprise anyone that the literacy rate in prisons is lower than in the general population? Or that this illiteracy makes men feeble-minded and easily swayed by a savvy charlatan like Louis Farrakhan?

This is no different than the way a working-class redneck in the South is brainwashed into voting against labor unions, his or her only protection against corporate exploitation. So we shouldn't be surprised about the dumb things that come out of the mouths of all involved.

Yes, two murdered cops is a tragedy. But I hope this (very rare) event doesn't become a red herring for what has been an endemic problem in the U.S. – the overuse of lethal force on black and brown people by law enforcement.

Until next time

A Sing Sing Prisoner

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
How Fragile the Belief of an Islamist Must Be Print
Thursday, 15 January 2015 15:32

Zizek writes: "We should, of course, unambiguously condemn the killings as an attack on the very substance our freedoms, and condemn them without any hidden caveats (in the style of 'Charlie Hebdo was nonetheless provoking and humiliating the Muslims too much'). But such pathos of universal solidarity is not enough - we should think further."

Slavoj Žižek. (photo: Christian Sinibaldi/The Guardian)
Slavoj Žižek. (photo: Christian Sinibaldi/The Guardian)


How Fragile the Belief of an Islamist Must Be

By Slavoj Žižek, New Statesman

15 January 15

 

ow, when we are all in a state of shock after the killing spree in the Charlie Hebdo offices, it is the right moment to gather the courage to think. We should, of course, unambiguously condemn the killings as an attack on the very substance our freedoms, and condemn them without any hidden caveats (in the style of "Charlie Hebdo was nonetheless provoking and humiliating the Muslims too much"). But such pathos of universal solidarity is not enough – we should think further.

Such thinking has nothing whatsoever to do with the cheap relativisation of the crime (the mantra of "who are we in the West, perpetrators of terrible massacres in the Third World, to condemn such acts"). It has even less to do with the pathological fear of many Western liberal Leftists to be guilty of Islamophobia. For these false Leftists, any critique of Islam is denounced as an expression of Western Islamophobia; Salman Rushdie was denounced for unnecessarily provoking Muslims and thus (partially, at least) responsible for the fatwa condemning him to death, etc. The result of such stance is what one can expect in such cases: the more the Western liberal Leftists probe into their guilt, the more they are accused by Muslim fundamentalists of being hypocrites who try to conceal their hatred of Islam. This constellation perfectly reproduces the paradox of the superego: the more you obey what the Other demands of you, the guiltier you are. It is as if the more you tolerate Islam, the stronger its pressure on you will be . . .

This is why I also find insufficient calls for moderation along the lines of Simon Jenkins's claim (in The Guardian on January 7) that our task is “not to overreact, not to over-publicise the aftermath. It is to treat each event as a passing accident of horror” – the attack on Charlie Hebdo was not a mere “passing accident of horror”. it followed a precise religious and political agenda and was as such clearly part of a much larger pattern. Of course we should not overreact, if by this is meant succumbing to blind Islamophobia – but we should ruthlessly analyse this pattern.

What is much more needed than the demonisation of the terrorists into heroic suicidal fanatics is a debunking of this demonic myth. Long ago Friedrich Nietzsche perceived how Western civilisation was moving in the direction of the Last Man, an apathetic creature with no great passion or commitment. Unable to dream, tired of life, he takes no risks, seeking only comfort and security, an expression of tolerance with one another: “A little poison now and then: that makes for pleasant dreams. And much poison at the end, for a pleasant death. They have their little pleasures for the day, and their little pleasures for the night, but they have a regard for health. ‘We have discovered happiness,’ - say the Last Men, and they blink.”

It effectively may appear that the split between the permissive First World and the fundamentalist reaction to it runs more and more along the lines of the opposition between leading a long satisfying life full of material and cultural wealth, and dedicating one's life to some transcendent Cause. Is this antagonism not the one between what Nietzsche called "passive" and "active" nihilism? We in the West are the Nietzschean Last Men, immersed in stupid daily pleasures, while the Muslim radicals are ready to risk everything, engaged in the struggle up to their self-destruction. William Butler Yeats’ “Second Coming” seems perfectly to render our present predicament: “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.” This is an excellent description of the current split between anemic liberals and impassioned fundamentalists. “The best” are no longer able fully to engage, while “the worst” engage in racist, religious, sexist fanaticism.

However, do the terrorist fundamentalists really fit this description? What they obviously lack is a feature that is easy to discern in all authentic fundamentalists, from Tibetan Buddhists to the Amish in the US: the absence of resentment and envy, the deep indifference towards the non-believers’ way of life. If today’s so-called fundamentalists really believe they have found their way to Truth, why should they feel threatened by non-believers, why should they envy them? When a Buddhist encounters a Western hedonist, he hardly condemns. He just benevolently notes that the hedonist’s search for happiness is self-defeating. In contrast to true fundamentalists, the terrorist pseudo-fundamentalists are deeply bothered, intrigued, fascinated, by the sinful life of the non-believers. One can feel that, in fighting the sinful other, they are fighting their own temptation.

It is here that Yeats’ diagnosis falls short of the present predicament: the passionate intensity of the terrorists bears witness to a lack of true conviction. How fragile the belief of a Muslim must be if he feels threatened by a stupid caricature in a weekly satirical newspaper? The fundamentalist Islamic terror is not grounded in the terrorists’ conviction of their superiority and in their desire to safeguard their cultural-religious identity from the onslaught of global consumerist civilization. The problem with fundamentalists is not that we consider them inferior to us, but, rather, that they themselves secretly consider themselves inferior. This is why our condescending politically correct assurances that we feel no superiority towards them only makes them more furious and feeds their resentment. The problem is not cultural difference (their effort to preserve their identity), but the opposite fact that the fundamentalists are already like us, that, secretly, they have already internalized our standards and measure themselves by them. Paradoxically, what the fundamentalists really lack is precisely a dose of that true ‘racist’ conviction of their own superiority.

The recent vicissitudes of Muslim fundamentalism confirm Walter Benjamin's old insight that “every rise of Fascism bears witness to a failed revolution”: the rise of Fascism is the Left’s failure, but simultaneously a proof that there was a revolutionary potential, dissatisfaction, which the Left was not able to mobilize. And does the same not hold for today’s so-called “Islamo-Fascism”? Is the rise of radical Islamism not exactly correlative to the disappearance of the secular Left in Muslim countries? When, back in the Spring of 2009, Taliban took over the Swat valley in Pakistan, New York Times reported that they engineered "a class revolt that exploits profound fissures between a small group of wealthy landlords and their landless tenants". If, however, by “taking advantage” of the farmers’ plight, The Taliban are “raising alarm about the risks to Pakistan, which remains largely feudal,” what prevents liberal democrats in Pakistan as well as the US to similarly “take advantage” of this plight and try to help the landless farmers? The sad implication of this fact is that the feudal forces in Pakistan are the “natural ally” of the liberal democracy…

So what about the core values of liberalism: freedom, equality, etc.? The paradox is that liberalism itself is not strong enough to save them against the fundamentalist onslaught. Fundamentalism is a reaction – a false, mystifying, reaction, of course - against a real flaw of liberalism, and this is why it is again and again generated by liberalism. Left to itself, liberalism will slowly undermine itself – the only thing that can save its core values is a renewed Left. In order for this key legacy to survive, liberalism needs the brotherly help of the radical Left. THIS is the only way to defeat fundamentalism, to sweep the ground under its feet.

To think in response to the Paris killings means to drop the smug self-satisfaction of a permissive liberal and to accept that the conflict between liberal permissiveness and fundamentalism is ultimately a false conflict – a vicious cycle of two poles generating and presupposing each other. What Max Horkheimer had said about Fascism and capitalism already back in 1930s - those who do not want to talk critically about capitalism should also keep quiet about Fascism - should also be applied to today’s fundamentalism: those who do not want to talk critically about liberal democracy should also keep quiet about religious fundamentalism.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Women Can't End Sexism in the Workplace Just by Showing Up Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=30488"><span class="small">Jessica Valenti, Guardian UK</span></a>   
Thursday, 15 January 2015 15:25

Valenti writes: "Feminists insist that the more women, people of color and LGBT individuals are visible, the better off - and more egalitarian - the world will be. But is simple representation the best answer to sexism?"

Senator Mazie Hirono and Vice President Joe Biden, 2013. (photo: Hirono.senate.gov)
Senator Mazie Hirono and Vice President Joe Biden, 2013. (photo: Hirono.senate.gov)



ALSO SEE: The Problem With Women in the Workplace Is Men


Women Can't End Sexism in the Workplace Just by Showing Up

By Jessica Valenti, Guardian UK

15 January 15

 

eminists insist that the more women, people of color and LGBT individuals are visible, the better off – and more egalitarian – the world will be. But is simple representation the best answer to sexism?

Women are still scarce in many places of power: there’s a dearth of women in Congress, a lack of female experts on the Sunday morning talk shows and a shortage of women CEOs, law partners and bylined reporters. (One scholar is even studying what the lack of women in comments sections does to the public debate.)

The push for eventual parity, however, often means that the first women in traditionally male spaces – be it politics, gaming or even firefighting – are saddled with the responsibility of taking abuse until a critical mass is reached and (hopefully) the culture shifts, and of making that space more woman-friendly.

But why must women sign up to be professional vanguards in order to get the job they want? As California’s Senator Barbara Boxer told Liza Mundy in a Politico piece about the sexism women in Congress face, “I never wanted to be a disruptor; I wanted to be a legislator.”

Women still make up barely over 24% of all legislators nationwide, though, in Oklahoma and Louisiana, only 13% of people in office are women. And there’s still only 32 women of color in the House, and only one – Sen. Mazie Hirono - in the Senate.

And while we know that women legislators, for example, are more likely to support feminist and progressive policies, it’s unclear if their presence in Congress has had much impact on the behavior of their male colleagues (or the continually sexist culture in politics). Judging by the outrageous sexism recounted in Mundy’s article and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand’s book last year that included her treatment by male coworkers, it seems whatever progress has been made is happening at an unacceptably slow pace.

Debbie Walsh, the director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University, tells me that we simply don’t have enough women represented yet to know what a critical mass might do. “The fact that we’re still counting women is because there’s not that many of them,” Walsh says.

“You’re still looking at an institution that is overwhelmingly male; it’s still the most exclusive men’s club in the world”, she said.

“Any person breaking in to a space where they’re not of the dominant culture – it’s hard”, Walsh added.

Take former FDNY Captain Brenda Berkman, for example. Berkman was one of a group of women who sued the fire department for sex discrimination in 1982 and won; she became one of the first women firefighters in New York City. The harassment she faced was downright dangerous - in addition to her male colleagues playing sexist pranks like covering her locker in a huge bra, they also tampered with her protective equipment and drained her air tanks. Berkman has said they were sending a clear message: Your life might be at risk if you pursue this.

Asking individual women to enter hostile spaces to make them better is really asking women to make men better – and to make men better at women’s own risk. But it shouldn’t be women’s responsibility to fix men or deal with their misogyny. Instead, men should be taking it upon themselves to treat women with respect, and demand their other male colleagues do the same.

Emily May, Executive Director of the anti-street harassment organization Hollaback!, told me, “The answer lies in representation, but not representation alone.”

“We need to regularly ask underrepresented folks: what would support look like to you? And then develop concrete, ongoing systems to provide that support.”

That means if a female politicians want more bathrooms, get them more bathrooms and lay off the potty jokes. It also means developing support and training in nontraditional jobs for women, and demanding that straight white men do as much to make spaces friendly for underrepresented groups as those groups themselves. Women – and women’s presence – aren’t the only things that can end sexism, and closing gender gaps is more than just a number’s game. So let’s look forward to the day we can stop counting.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 2581 2582 2583 2584 2585 2586 2587 2588 2589 2590 Next > End >>

Page 2589 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN