feminism is general, relationships are specific

I happen to be of the opinion that the reason why so many people don't self-identify as feminists, even while holding largely conventional feminist beliefs, is that feminism has been subject to a relentless, coordinated, and well-financed misinformation campaign. Those who are opposed to the central tenets of feminism (most importantly and prominently the elementary notion that women are of equal value to men) have worked tirelessly for decades to discredit the movement through distortion. So it didn't come as any surprise to me when, this past semester, my class of upperclassmen universally defined feminism as a man-hating, baby-hating, joyless caricature. Establishment power works to preserve its position of privilege and doesn't play fair.

I bring this up because I am consistently annoyed by a particular vein of argument that goes something like this: many people seem to enjoy behavior X, but behavior X is seen as antifeminist or sexist, therefore feminism prohibits people from doing things that they enjoy. To make this less abstract, consider this post of mine wherein I argue that, for example, rough sex or similar could in fact be part of a loving and progressive relationship between equals. I had a commenter informing me that, nope, if you get rough with your girlfriend in a sexual context, if she's a feminist, she'll "cry rape." So people are forced to choose, in this reading, between their commitment to feminism and their enjoyment of aggression (or whatever) in sex. Feminism prohibits making that choice.

Well, there are indeed a lot of (righteous and necessary) arguments in the feminist tradition that repudiate violence against women. But is a feminist woman forced to thus abandon rough sex, if her partner likes it and she is eager to please him or her? Or if she enjoys it herself? She is not. Feminism, as a part of the classical liberal tradition-- an inevitable consequence of liberal ideals, incidentally-- is a self-limiting critique, which is precisely what gives it its strength. Feminism is not a set of rules that Andrea Dworkin drew up which you must follow or be subject to angry screeds. Feminism, if you'll forgive this dude for doing a bit of defining-- it's sub-optimal for me to be doing so, but I think necessary right now-- is a set of arguments and ideas that work to improve the conditions of women and help address the millennia of oppression that they have labored under.

To the degree that feminism suggests behaviors to avoid, it does so in terms of general behavior. Those rules can be set aside if both or all parties are engaged in effective communication, in a sphere of  true gender equity, and with genuine, informed consent. That means that, yes, there are names a woman's partner can call her when having sex that we would not define as enlightened or consistent with feminism in a broader context. Broadly speaking, feminism deals with general behaviors. Committed relationships (of whatever kind) between consenting adults are about the particularities of two people and their contexts. Communication is both important and frequently difficult, but that's relationships for you. Note that the conditions of genuine equity between partners are essential; a maid might tell her employer that she's okay with him referring to her as "sweetie," but if he's the boss, and she's aware of the importance of a sociable relationship, her consent might not be sufficient.

So consider the gloss on feminism from above, that it prevents (or attempts to prevent) people from doing things that they enjoy. Well, it's true-- sometimes, commitment to feminism compels you to not do things you'd enjoy. I'm sure many men enjoy harassing strangers on the subway, grabbing their secretary's ass, or a whole host of other noxious behaviors. But the idea that you can't, in a committed relationship, with mutual consent between adults, enjoy whatever sexual play you both desire while remaining a feminist is just bullshit. And I imagine that people suggesting otherwise know it's bullshit.

I'm not saying it's always easy. Like any ethical commitment, feminism has consequences. I kind of dig the few Odd Future songs I've heard, but I feel forced by my commitment to feminism to conclude that Tyler the Creator is a misogynist asshole. Whether that means I shouldn't support his band is a complex question, but whether I should tell other liberals that I think so is not. More importantly and directly, my commitment to feminism means that I have to operate in professional and academic settings with a conscious commitment to how I treat and refer to women peers and coworkers. That doesn't mean that I can't, over time and with care, develop relationships with these women that aren't as formal. But such informality can only be earned over time and engaged in with communication and consent.

Don't believe the hype, guys, seriously. I get you-- if I can't call my baby my baby, to hell with it. But that's the thing about a relationship, that you have earned a set of behaviors with one particular person that you wouldn't engage in with other people. And if people insist that's antifeminist, you insist to be shown which feminists are saying that, and in which contexts. 90% of the time, those claims are just part of the antifeminist noise machine.

Read More

military intervention continues to be a crisis of democratic governance

Via Yglesias, things look grim in Libya.

With Libya essentially divided in half by conflict, the U.S.- and NATO-backed rebels who control much of the east are carrying out what many view as a campaign of retaliation against those once aligned with Gaddafi, according to relatives and rebel commanders and officials. Such targeting raises questions about the character of the government taking shape in eastern Libya and whether it will follow basic principles of democracy and human rights. Moreover, such acts could further deepen divisions in Libya’s tribal society and diminish the sort of reconciliation vital for stability in a post-Gaddafi era.

I know I keep making this argument, and I know that it isn't exactly burning up the Internet, but I continue to think that military intervention, outside of the specific and limited cases of self defense of ourselves or our allies, is antithetical to the principles of an informed polity directing a democratic nation. I actually think that those who are pointing out that we didn't have sufficient information to intervene in Libya aren't giving us enough credit. It's not that we didn't have sufficient information about Libya, but that it's impossible for foreign powers, isolated by distance, language, and culture, to have enough understanding to intervene in a way consistent with pragmatic purpose and support for humanitarianism.

There are many issues that force free peoples to decide issues with imperfect knowledge. But we attend to them because we are in fact forced to address them. We most certainly were not forced into action in Libya. Some people hate the term "wars of choice," but I find it an elegant and sensible metric. Now that we have chosen to intervene in this immensely complicated conflict, and it is Libyans, not Americans, who will live with the consequences of our ignorance. You don't have to be a crazy lefty and believe in the ideas of self-determination and national sovereignty (as long as we have the state) to oppose the endless projection of American military power. You only need to believe in our limits-- financial, informational, moral.

I think about Samantha Power when I read about this retaliation. Does she recognize that she has blood on her hands? Would that kind of recognition puncture her resolve? I am reminded of the danger of Americans doing good, and I think about what a perfectly quiet American she is.

Read More

credit where due

Because of my incredible influence and vast readership, and because I know how desperately the Internet yearns for my opinion on recent blogging about Israel/Palestine:

• Matt Yglesias is at the height of his considerable powers when it comes to the conflict, and has really shined lately. See this post for a good example. I really believe liberals online need to do a better job of making the case for our values, and I think Yglesias writes about the conflict in just that spirit. 
• I will echo Andrew Sullivan in saying that Jeff Goldberg, whatever my reservations about how he defines the conflict or his history, has been on fire.
• This from Jon Chait is characteristically well-expressed and (in foreign policy discussion at least) uncharacteristically sober and fair.
• Natasha Lennard offers a good rundown of some of the nutty reaction to Obama's invoking the (absolutely banal) use of the 1967 borders as guidelines for a two state solution.

To respond to an emailer, I want to point out that I can endorse particular posts from particular people and that shouldn't be taken as a blanket endorsement of that person's general attitudes towards Israel and Palestine. Yes, I am disturbed by the way that the mainstream political media, in describing this conflict, foregrounds Israeli needs above Palestinian needs as a matter of course. Yes, it is occupiers who bear responsibility for ending occupation, not the occupied. Yes, there is a disturbing tendency for people to treat both participant groups in this conflict as equally culpable in the name of moderation. Yes, pursuing this particular path to peace involves cooperation with some noxious actors, like the bigoted Benjamin Netanyahu. (Or, potentially, the vile terrorist elements within Hamas.)

But I believe there is genuine opportunity here. If the United States, given its unique relationship with Israel, bears a moral responsibility to help to ease the suffering of the Palestinians and restore lost legitimacy to the Jewish state, then that responsibility is shared by the members of the American democratic polity. And as much of an idealist as I am, and as much as I hate compromise, this is a situation where the status quo is simply untenable. To abandon this opportunity for peace because we dislike some of the actors involved would be disgraceful.

Read More

the great thing about progress resulting in more choices is that YOU GET TO CHOOSE

I could go on a long rant here and talk about how "progress" is discussed on the Internet-- it's almost always a way to undermine opposing viewpoints of the future and to enforce a particular vision of what progress entails. (One of the central tragedies of the Internet is that it is potentially a vehicle for genuine diversity and is in practice a vehicle for conformity.)

So here's Ned Resnikoff, doing good work in opposing the shallow hordes who want to tell you that because ereader technology now exists, and they prefer ebooks, therefore there is no legitimate preference for paper books. You'll hear lots of different arguments (and I use the term lightly) for why YOU MUST CONFORM TO TECHNO UTOPIANISM but the long and the short of it, as Ned suggests, is just that people need to enforce their taste. There's a great insecurity underneath the snark and smug superiority that attends to most enforcement of gadget worship, which is part of a larger tendency on the Internet: people who so desperately need to have their choices validated that they must deny that other choices exist. What's clear to me is that, more and more often, people are so insecure, so lacking in self-possession and so toweringly solipsistic, that they need not only to be flattered by media that tells them they are correct in what they choose (whether it's products or services or media), but that they need to undermine the very idea that other rational, thinking people could make their own adult decisions and make other choices.

What makes this so frustrating is that a huge part of the point of progress in capitalism is more to choose with how you spend your money. If every time a new choice appeared it eliminated some other choice, that wouldn't be progress at all. New innovations don't have to drive out established ways that work very well; to think so is a sure sign of a facile mind. If you'd always prefer the new new hotness, choose it for yourself. These things are true: many choices are subjective. Personal taste is real. Arriving at different and equally valid choices from similar evidence is possible. Goods that deliver similar experiences through different means exist. Adults can determine their own criteria for what is useful, valuable, or worthwhile.

Here's the beauty of it: I own an ebook reader. I also continue to purchase more paper books than I can afford. Some people will only buy ebooks. Some will only buy paper books. That's freedom for you! Choice is the point of progress, in capitalism. If you want to only consume books electronically, be my guest. Enjoy. Bully for you. And if you want to tell other people why you prefer ebooks, base on  your personal taste, fine. Just stop with the nonsense that this discussion is about anything more than what you like, and perhaps ask yourself why you're so invested in other people doing exactly as you do. It's grating, and frankly, antidemocratic.

Update: This is a very cool response.

Read More

withdrawing to the pre-1967 borders is a matter of law

Jeff Goldberg does good work pointing out the simple fact that Israel withdrawing to the pre-1967 borders is in fact an idea that is so widely recognized as to be banal. I also think it's worth reminding those who are showily attacking that idea as "anti-Israel" that a large part of the reason for this is that the occupation, now in its 44 year, is a violation of international law and treaties that Israel is bound to uphold.

There are plenty of practical and moral reasons for Israel to withdraw, as I've written about for years, and certainly some of them are in the best interest of Israel, as Goldberg has written about for years. But it's always worth pointing out that Israel is a signatory and contracting power of the Geneva Conventions  and the Hague Conventions of 1907, both of which forbid the occupation. That statement is controversial, of course-- nothing regarding Israel and Palestine is not. But most would agree that the occupation violates the spirit of these treaties that Israel is bound to uphold. And certainly, I can imagine very few who would defend the legality of the destructive presence of the settlements in the occupied territories. I'm a skeptic of the practical importance of international law-- laws are made by victors-- but the symbolic importance of restoring the borders to a condition consistent with Israel's treaty obligations shouldn't be underestimated.

The shamelessness and opportunism of conservatives in government and media would astound, if movement conservatism hadn't extinguished any sparks of credibility years ago. They say that they are defending Israel while trying to perpetuate a status quo that isolates Israel internationally, dooms it through demographics to a small handful of equally noxious choices, and undermines the moral legitimacy of both the state and the righteous purpose of providing a safe home for Jews in the world. (How many movement conservatives, if they were honest and actually consistent in the application of their religious beliefs, would be forced to say that all Israeli Jews are condemned to hell?)

Solving this conflict is not merely a matter of delivering justice and self-governance to the Palestinian people; it is about restoring the legitimacy of the Israeli government and ensuring that the principles of democracy and freedom which attended its creation, albeit in a flawed and partial manner, are carried out in practice. I'm a pessimist by nature, and this conflict has defied good intentions and optimism for decades. But I am deeply encouraged by the slow evolution in our political dialogue and the rise of Palestinian activists who are dedicated to nonviolent resistance. There are always going to be those who claim that one must favor one side in an Israeli/Palestinian binary, but we must insist on nothing less than freedom, justice, and peace for both Israel and Palestine. If there's ever a time for idealism, this is it.

Read More

annoying critical habit (preemptive edition)

I adore Terrence Malick.

I adore Terrence Malick.

I adore Terrence Malick.

So now that you know that, and have an appropriate context, I just want to do a little bit of preemptive arguing about The Tree of Life, which is not out yet and which I have not seen. One of the things Malick does consistently in his movies, and which the above trailer strongly suggests is present in Tree of Life, is to have various characters engage in voice over narration that does not focus directly on what happens onscreen, or even fit into the narrative of the movie. Often this narration speaks in unapologetically philosophical or symbolic terms, about some of the most broad and meaningful questions of human existence. Some find this maddening and trite. In combination with his gorgeous visuals, sense of scale, and almost unspeakable delicacy, I find it enchanting. Sorry to gush. Your own taste is your own taste.

However, while no one is obligated to feel any one way about Malick's films, I really am annoyed by a consistent tic in critical reviews of his work. A lot of times, film critics will take individual lines from the narration, totally deprive them of context, and remark at how moony or pretentious the words are. You can find this all over-- check Malick's Rotten Tomatoes-- but here's just one example from Charles Taylor:

Malick has seized on the interior monologues of Jones' characters and smothered the movie in the voice-over narration he used in "Badlands" and "Days of Heaven." And it's easy to see why. If everything is explained to us, Malick doesn't have to dramatize it, and thus nothing gets in the way of his presentation. "Only one thing a man can do," begins one of the movie's inscrutable ponderances. "Find something that's his. Make an island for himself."

After having encountered this trope several times, I find it infuriating. Of course the effect is lost when you totally deprive the words of the context that makes them work. It's true that taking any individual lines or shots of a movie and discussing them in a review is always, to a degree, denying context. But in this kind of reading, the presentation of Malick's lines is done so showily, and so meticulously designed to inspire ridicule, that it is simply critical malpractice. I find this to be exactly like going to a club, finding an individual dancer who is moving her body in a throng of others, and videotaping only her. No one could look anything less than silly so removed from the necessary context; no one but a fool would think that such an exercise has anything to do with the experience of the dance.

On a related note-- I will spend not one moment of my life worrying about whether I'm being pretentious. Not one solitary instant. That's not an argument that I'm not pretentious; I'm quite certain I am. But I am also certain that living the kind of life I need and want to live, where I can surround myself with the kind of beauty that I feel is necessary to endure the slow motion tragedy of living, means abandoning concerns about pretense. Others will have to adjudicate that. The events of my life have taught me that self-possession can steel you against a whole array of big tragedies and petty indignities. Meanwhile, all the time you spend sitting around your apartment, not being pretentious, is no defense against anything at all.

Read More

the analogy holds

So first, I have a new post up at Balloon Juice about private school vouchers.

Second, via his little Twitter sidebar, I see that Matt Yglesias and Ned Resnikoff are chatting about it. Yglesias says, regarding my piece, "I think it's absurd to write about school choice without talking about housing policy. The non-poor have lots of choice!" To which Resnikoff responds, "Not sure I understand what you're getting at. Is this about picking a school district to live in?" To which Yglesias replies, "Exactly -- the non-poor have school choice by choosing where to live, the poor aren't allowed to move to good school districts."

First, in my defense, posts should only be so long, particularly when they are at somebody else's digs. I'm a guest at Balloon Juice. There's much that could be talked about in terms of housing policy, sure. I will talk about it sometime I'm sure. But for now-- I think Yglesias is actually reinforcing my point. Yes, indeed: the non-poor have more choices in life than the poor. This is not the damning criticism he seems to think it is. Think again about transportation. Not only do the rich have the ability to not ride the bus, they have the ability to choose a Honda Civic or a Ferrari or a team of sherpas to carry them around. Do the rich have more options? Yes. Yes, of course. I don't see how that's an argument for voucherizing public programs.

Like me, Yglesias supports universal access to quality health care. Does that mean that, if we get it, the rich will suddenly stop having more options? Of course not. They'll have the option to jet to France to get medical care or to see some New Age shaman or just go to different doctors that those receiving socialized health care can't. I don't understand how this lack of "choice" is any different from the poor's inability to pick up sticks and go to public schools in Palo Alto. Yes, things are better for the rich. Yes, that entails more choice. It sucks. I can think of some ways we can change that, and I'd like to implement them, but they involve dramatically changing our system of resource distribution. If Yglesias is asking for that, then I like him more already.*

*Note to my endless cadre of emailers: more than I already do. I have written many more words of praise for Yglesias in my life than I have words of criticism. Look it up.

Update: See E.D. Kain for a sympathetic but different perspective.

Update II: Yglesias in comments:

Short of radically changing the distribution of income (though that could be be) is radically changing housing policy. In prosperous suburbs all across the United States it's generally illegal to build the kind of apartment buildings full of small dwelling units that poor people would be able to afford.

I'm on board!

Read More