Thoughts on Proposition 8

People are surprised that it passed–I’m not surprised. I grew up in Orange County; I’m not surprised at all. I think that San Francisco and Los Angeles might be surprised by the result, but the rest of the state clearly isn’t. I fully expected it to pass. I attribute its success to a few things:

1. California isn’t as left as it’s often portrayed. The coasts (minus the OC) are, to a large degree, but head into the agricultural heart of the state and you’ll see something quite different in terms of political belief.

2. People hate being bullied. The commercials and campaigning on both sides were atrocious and incredibly boring. And no one likes getting phone calls about it–the roomies and I have about 9 unheard messages on our apartment voicemail regarding said prop.

The No on 8 supporters were definitely more militant than the pro side. Much more aggressive. I believe there was some screaming on bruinwalk, and more than once I almost got stickered without knowing it. I suspect that people who where on the fence did not take kindly to being told that they were intolerant and the equivalent of racists if they voted Yes. Perhaps this makes the No on 8 activists feel energized to say these things, but I would wager that it is not very convincing or attractive to the undecided voters.

I saw the Yes on 8 people talking to individuals, quietly, one-on-one, whereas the No on 8 supporters were shouting a few feet away and waving their signs around like madmen.

The No side very much used the language of the Civil Rights movement to make their case. To be honest, I don’t think that this sits well with people, particularly some African Americans who feel that the two causes are quite different.

3. Religious concerns. The ultimate concern behind many religious people’s support for this proposition is, I think, that churches, mosques, synagogues etc. will be forced to change their theology to accommodate the social institution of gay unions. The nightmare, is of course, that this is a slippery slope to the government demanding that churches allow gay people to marry in church, at the cost of religious freedom.

Therefore my suggestion is that we do away with the institution of marriage as a state-sponsored thing. I think any couple–gay or straight–should be allowed to have a civil union. Then they can go to the religious institution of their choice, if they so desire, and get married or call the civil union a marriage or whatever.

Protected: State of the Apricot, Feb ‘08

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

Center stage 2!!

As I was standing in the hallway of my ballet studio last night, I glanced at the bulletin board and saw…drumroll…an audition announcement for CENTER STAGE 2!!!

Center Stage was in no way a good film. But it was high camp with pretty pretty ballerinas…who could resist? I spent many a snowy evening at Dartmouth huddled in my room watching dance melodrama with friends. For me, there’s more than a little nostalgia involved in Center Stage. Despite such gems as “I’m the best goddamn dancer in the American Ballet Academy! Who the hell are you?! Nobody!”, the movie had heart…even if that heart was sparkly with wee prancing unicorns inside it.

Naturally, the sequel will be awful; but you know you’re going to see it. Resistance is futile.

***update***

I checked the board again and it looks like Peter Gallagher and Ethan Stiefel will be reprising their roles in Center Stage 2. They’re casting for two female characters (one nice, one snob) and one young man. I think it will be pretty similar to the first film; a girl with “heart”, and an uppity chick (Maureen in the first; they’re calling her “Suzanne” in this movie).

eugenics for the modern age

I was interested to see two new eugenics-related items in the news. First, the scary-ass philosopher John Harris:

If it is right to save life, Harris says, it is right to postpone death ad infinitum by stemming the flow of diseases that carry us to the grave. We should engineer ourselves to be free of such curses as cancer and dementia, instead of believing that they are acceptable inevitabilities of human life. And we should make any such technology available as soon as we can, even if it means the human race initially splitting into the strong, clever, beautiful, immortal haves and the dumber, disease-ridden have-nots.

Sci fi come alive!

I’m all for longevity, but come on. Also, clearly this boy is ignoring issues of race, class, etc.. Obviously he is thinking of himself when imagining this glorious, posthuman immortality; perhaps an eternal orgasm of self-satisfaction.

St. Aldous Huxley pray for us. Personally, I find his view of existence–a neverending rat race to be long-lived, gorgeous, smart, drugged-to-happiness–so fucking depressing. In any case, such developments are not likely to occur, I think. If they do occur, I feel a touch of schadenfreude in believing that they won’t happen until after John Harris himself is a corpse (hopefully plundered of his organs). Scientists haven’t even managed to cure the cold that plagued my sinuses last week; what makes him think science is going to add a few million years more to his life?

Harris also claims that Nazi racial policies were not so much intended to create a “better human” as to eliminate  Jews, gypsies, etc. Apparently he has not been reading the same eugenics books as I have. Where does the man get his data?? I’m intrigued, but not sure that I have the time to waste on this bullshit while I’m thinking about writing my prospectus.

And then there’s James Watson,  hearkening back to the “Bell Curve” and claiming that blacks are dumber than everyone else. The article observes: “He said he hoped that everyone was equal, but countered that “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true’.” If he’s relying on such anecdotal evidence, btw, I would have to add my anecdotal evidence to the pot–the African students at Dartmouth surpassed pretty much everyone else academically.

It’s sad to see a near-mythical figure (deserving or not) in the study of DNA take such a reactionary stance. I’m not surprised, however; I read an article of his awhile back for my genetics class that signalled his acceptance of eugenics. This seems to be a natural extension of such a stance, with the added flavor of grandpa-style tenured loudmouthery.

On the bright side of things, all this means that my historical research in eugenics will keep me employable for years to come. Still, scary stuff. Is anyone else frightened? Or am I just a coward in facing this brave new world?

Harry Potter and the Apathetic Grad Student

Sorry for the lame title. You would be lame too if you spent all week reading about the American Revolution (and I still don’t know the difference between Bailyn’s formulation of Republicanism vs. Gordon Wood’s. I feel dumber by the page).

I wanted to buy a card for a member of my cohort who is getting married next month (in the shmancy Mormon temple!), so I made my way to Borders about 2 hrs ago. Little did I realize that the Harry Potter premiere was tonight of all nights! The place was swarming with people in Potter garb, and their bedraggled parents/friends/spouses. Really quite festive. There were balloons, streamers…I could feel the electricity in the air.

I wish I could share in the fuss. But I have never gotten into Harry Potter, which is peculiar because I am a big fat science fiction/fantasy aficionado. And I’m not a terribly picky scifi consumer; along with the classic Bradbury, Asimov, Clarke, Heinlein, I also read Dune, all things Tolkien, even the novelized Star Wars series. I think I even read the Anne McCaffrey series about fire-breathing dragons. As for juvenile scifi/fantasy, I adored the Tripod trilogy, and all of Lloyd Alexander’s books. I was and still am omnivorous when it comes to fantasy and science fiction.

I encountered HP in high school, when I read Harry Potter A L’ecole Des Sorciers–the very first Potter book–for AP French. It was OK, but didn’t capture my interest in the slightest. A few years later, shocked at all the hubbub, I borrowed a friend’s copy of…the Goblet of Fire, I believe…to see if I had made a mistake, and to see if I could blame the French for my indifference. Alas, I was simply not into it. Luckily I read the His Dark Materials series immediately after, and my faith in children’s fantasy was reaffirmed. Philip Pullman is bitter about the Harry Potter success, and rightly so; His Dark Materials is just…mind-blowingly good, echoing Paradise Lost with humor, fantastic characters, and a wide imaginative scope. I wept at its end.

I admit to being in the minority in my feelings toward Harry Potter. But in all honesty: I felt the narrative was weak, the characters thin, and the prose too full of cliches. The emotional development of the characters was akin to a Sweet Valley High book. However, Sweet Valley High with wizards is just that: Sweet Valley High with wizards. And the little shiny things like the Bertie Bott’s Beans! and FedEx owls! and wizard shopping mall! made it feel hackneyed and forced. In good fantasy, I want to be seduced by wondrous things; J.K. Rowling tried to bribe me with fluff and clumsy whimsy.

That said, I appreciate how much this book means to so many people. I loved being around those Potter-ites, and love hearing about my friends’ plans to be among the first to read it. It’s just so…exciting!

I do think swollen academics like Harold Bloom need to de-bunch their panties about the whole affair. This review from 2000 certainly echoes some of my own dislikes about the series, but I’m not sure Potter-mania is associated with the dumbing down of American civilization.

Uncle Tom’s Cabin was a pretty badly written piece of popular fiction, but still significant and worth a look for all that. And we still had Flannery O’Connor, Hemingway, Robert Penn Warren, etc. after Harriet Beecher Stowe published her piece of mediocre blaxploitation. All is not lost. In any case–and I am glad for it!, Potter fans are not going to pay attention to me or a mumbling professor that looks like a depressed Grouper. Unless his name is Dumbledore, or whatever.

*edit: one thing that makes me extremely happy about HP is that a children’s book author is richer than the Queen of England. All hail J. K. Rowling!

The Future of Marriage?

Random question: does legalization of gay marriage mean that we must legalize polygamy as well?

Provided, of course, that all these marriage contracts are between consenting partners…why should polygamy be illegal?

My very unsophisticated rationale is that two’s a party, three’s a crowd. And that polygamy (of the one male, multiple females variety) will inevitably create a gender imbalance in society based on which men hold power and wealth.  I mean, look at Hugh Hefner. Blecch.

Coming from a family in which polygamy was practiced, there are some horror stories passed down about how second, third, fourth wives were treated, and the tangled relationships that resulted. I guess it could be argued that monogamous marriage doesn’t have such a great track record, either. Still, I think the human capacity for jealousy should not be underestimated. Thus: couples of any sex, fine by me. But two’s the limit.

Thoughts? I don’t think my rationale has any legal basis, considering that the idea of marriage as currently touted by most people is “legally binding union between adults.” Legally speaking, what would be the logic of permitting marriage between a man and a woman, two men, or two women, while not permitting it between 3+ people?

A Touchy Topic

Yesterday, I was sorting through my notes from the genetics class I took a term ago. Talking about eugenics was a big part of it, and although I’m all about history, the projection of what might happen in the future regarding gene & infant selection and society really interested me. Much of this is in the future, dependent on whether or not certain traits can be specifically selected for.

The current touchy topic is, I think, abortion as selection.

A peculiar situation arises when disability activism and pro-choice feminism clashes. Pro-choice feminists often argue that each person has the right to control their own body. Therefore if a woman decides to abort a fetus, for whatever reason—including deformity/disability, it should be legal and socially acceptable. The right to choose has moved beyond whether to choose to birth a child or not; it has become the right to choose what kind of children we will have.

On the opposing side, from what I’ve read, disability activists often argue that living with disabilities is possible, and that people with Down’s Syndrome, for instance, often can lead good and happy lives. Thus they frequently oppose prenatal screening and/or abortion of fetuses with Down’s Syndrome or other “abnormalities.” Some 90% of fetuses diagnosed with Down’s Syndrome are aborted. This, to me, is clearly a form of eugenics, albeit one not enforced by the state.

This trend suggests that women are choosing fetuses that are “normal.” However, what is normal? This is a very fluid category. It seems to me that people with Down’s can lead very satisfying and productive lives.

To bring the argument forward a few years: it has been suggested that in the future, some sort of genetic basis for homosexuality will be found. Same with obesity. Should this occur, should women be allowed to test for and abort fetuses with these genetic inclinations?

What is the ethical difference between aborting a fetus because you don’t want the costs of raising a child, or aborting a fetus because it might grow up to be fat or gay? I’m not completely sure.

The unalloyed right to choose may have some major consequences on society. Take China, for instance. Selection for male fetuses has really messed up the makeup of recent generations, with severe social problems to come when women are scarcer than men. But if we reject abortion on some grounds (Down’s Syndrome, sex), how can we countenance it on other grounds (social circumstances, the right to choose)? Does the right to choose include the right to reject fetuses for disabilities, sex, sexual orientation, eye color, and so on? I’m at a loss.

Despite not being an organized-religion person myself, I think that certain religious conservatives (Roman Catholics, mainly) really have it easy with this one, philosophically. If all life is sacred/holy/gift of God, then it’s unacceptable to abort a fetus that has Down’s syndrome, is male/female, has genetic inclinations towards homosexuality, has blue eyes, etc. etc. Very black and white. I envy them, while the rest of us are mired in gray.

When I grew up in a very, very conservative community, I maintained a staunch feminism throughout my junior high and high school years that went against most everyone else’s opinions about abortion. This continued through college. I still don’t think abortion should be totally illegal. However, these days, I find this issue less straightforward. I never thought I’d be reassessing my views on abortion, but here I am.

I’d love discussion on this topic, if anyone’s interested, but let’s keep it civil.

The Shootings pt. 2

Here’s an interesting article by a sociologist in the Chronicle about the psychology of shooters like Seung Cho. It discusses some of the reasons these kids murder. One excerpt:

School shooters are problem solvers. They are trying to turn the reputations they live with as losers into something more glamorous, more notorious. Seung-Hui Cho, a student of creative writing, probably didn’t get a lot of “street cred” for his artistic side. Young men reap more social benefits from being successful on the football field. When their daily social experience — created by their own ineptness, and often by the rejection of their peers — is one of disappointment and friction, they want to reverse their social identities. How do they go about it? Sadly, becoming violent, going out in a blaze of glory, and ending it all by taking other people with them is one script that plays out in popular culture and provides a road map for notoriety.

So, going back to the first discussion on the Virginia shootings–I affirm that there is nothing we can do about the fact that there are crazy mofos out there. Yet I do believe something about popular culture amplifies this aggression and directs it in negative ways. Legislation is, I think, necessary but only part of the solution.

Now I’m a wee bit scared to be a TA or a professor–God forbid there should be such a tragedy on my watch! I’m not sure if I have the courage exhibited by some–blocking the door, shielding students, etc; I guess I can only hope I do.

The shooting

Words fail.

Mr. P and I were talking about it last night and he asked if I was surprised to learn that the shooter was Asian. I thought it was an odd question, but as I got to thinking about it, I discovered that yes, I was surprised he was of Asian descent.

I think that speaks to some cultural assumptions on my part. And probably on many people’s parts. Never has the Model Minority myth gone down so abysmally and horribly. I admit that I am a little disturbed to see news article that regularly cite the shooter as “a student from South Korea”, which makes it seem like he was a recent immigrant or exchange student. Finding out that he was an English major makes me think he was probably fairly well-steeped in American culture, so just how relevant is his racial/ethnic status? He and I are the same age, and we only had a few years separation between our respective immigrations, and we were both English majors; what’s immigration got to do with it? Not a whole lot, I think.

I think this shooting is symptomatic of something wrong with American society. I think it has something to do with the respect that we, as a culture, accord human life. I don’t think that violent video games make people kill per se, but I think it’s likely that the idea of killing-as-entertainment or shooting-as-entertainment or death-as-entertainment has some effect on our real-life attitudes.

As for the gun nuts who point to this as proof of our need to allow everyone to carry a gun to protect themselves–stfu. Why are these school shootings happening in America and not everywhere else in the world? Why? I know there are ideological reasons people murder each other (in Iraq, for instance), but this shooting was non-ideological.He had no political or religious agenda. It was mechanical, precise, and soulless. What is it about our culture that contributes to this kind of behavior?

I know that the kid had some psychological/brain chemistry problems. But people have always had these issues. Why are these mass killings happening now? In our schools?