Dismal Numbers

Cambridge, MA -- My colleague Garance Franke-Ruta presented some data that showed some pretty intimidating numbers about the pool of people that the upper tiers reach from: opinion magazines like The Nation, TNR, The American Prospect, Reason, and The American Spectator. By far, women more often have titles that include the word "assistant" and don't get promoted as often as their male colleagues. Even the bylines are dismally disproportionately male.

A/B and AIDS

Today the NYT reported that the AIDS effort lead by Bush are limited by his restriction on spending, according to a panel of medical experts that testified in Congress yesterday. The three major problems they found were:

¶The requirement that 33 percent of all money for prevention be spent teaching chastity and fidelity, even in countries where most cases are spread by drug injection.

¶The need for separate Food and Drug Administration approval of AIDS drugs that the World Health Organization has already approved.

¶Laws forbidding the use of taxpayer money to give clean needles to drug addicts.

These testimonies are hardly surprising. I've long thought that such focus on AB or "abstinence/be faithful" instruction will do little to stop such an epidemic. Perhaps we should be listening to medical experts when it comes to a medical crisis like AIDS.

What's the place of feminism in the media?

Cambridge, MA -- At the WAM! conference, women are discussing the role of minority and gender-based publications versus more "mainstream" policy-oriented publications. Both consider themselves as writing from a feminist or anti-patriarchal perspective, but they often compete for the same funding or find frustrations in the narrowness the coverage they see in each others' publications. What I've noticed is that the people of color see the media through an entirely different lens than the policy wonks see it.

My instinct is that more collaboration between these two different kinds of outlets would be mutually beneficial, but it's hard to get the two kinds of approaches to connect in a meaningful way. The nature of the business is both collaborative and competitive. I don't know what the answer to this is, but it seems like there should be more cross-pollination between the two outlets. Links are an easy and free way to do this, but more time- and cost-intensive ways are also useful.

Admitting Defeat

It's hard. I know it's hard. No one likes to lose, especially Americans. But in a recent WSJ column, I was reminded of the ever-so-popular argument against any kind of funding reduction or timetable for troop withdrawal.

There is no precedent in American history for succeeding in a war when the commanders were taking battlefield direction from members of the House and Senate.

It sounds like someone is in denial. What the right still maintains is that somehow, this war is still "winnable," even if they're not really sure how to define a win. What I would like to hear from the right, like I'm starting to hear on the left, is what would be considered an end point. Right now, conservatives seem to be advocating a vague and indeterminate time in the future when the war will have been won, and peace and democracy reign in a free Iraq. In that case, we'd be there for not only months, not only years, but decades.

What much of the American public is starting to catch on to, along with what the left has known for a long time: that the war is hopeless, there's nothing more we can do, and the violence will only continue, no matter how many troops we may have on the ground.

Although the argument that Congress cannot manage a war is somewhat arguable, but I would say it holds little water. The people are using democracy to stop a government from doing something that they disapprove of -- using the good old checks and balances. Besides, saying that Congress is passing legislation that is unconstitutional is a bit in poor taste, when the Bush administration has taken to slashing up the constitution in any number of ways.

Guns and Girls

This AP photo that the WaPo had on its homepage tonight shows the reality that Iraqis are living with. Whose fault is it again? Oh yeah.

Female PTSD and Rape

The NYT magazine story about women in the military has some startling quotes from women:

''You're one of three things in the military - a bitch, a whore or a dyke,'' says Abbie Pickett, who is 24 and a combat-support specialist with the Wisconsin Army National Guard. ''As a female, you get classified pretty quickly.''

'They basically assume that because you're a girl in the Army, you're obligated to have sex with them,'' Suzanne Swift told me at one point.

Not so surprisingly, when approached for sex by their commanders, women feel coerced into saying yes, since the demand comes from a position of authority. The worst part is, these kinds of assaults seem to be on the rise in wartime. Although the VA has made progress in making it easier for women to report the assaults, it seems that women report that the overarching patriarchal culture discourages them from even reporting the assaults. There's a sense that women must fight the stereotype and be just as "tough" as the men.

I have problems with this attitude. Many women who work in extremely male-dominated fields seem to adopt attitudes about higher standards and an acceptance of harassment. By adhering to the standards, accepting the attitude, these women are in a way saying it's "okay" to treat women this way. It's true that the personal cost for reporting harassment is often discouraging enough, but I think we should reward the women that are willing to come forward and take a stance against such patriarchal dominance. No woman should have to choose among three choices: bitch, whore, or dyke.

Shirker

I realize that Congress is responsible for changing the laws on immigration, but "I'm just a simple member of the executive branch"? Come on.