Recently in Analysis Category

Danah Boyd gave a thoroughly thought-provoking presentation at the Personal Democracy Forum this week about how the politics of class play out online -- and thoroughly debunked the idea that the Internet is a Utopian paradise in which we are "all equal."

To get specific, Boyd looks at the divide between Facebook and MySpace users. She quotes Kat, a 14-year-old from Massachusetts:

"I'm not really into racism, but I think that MySpace now is more like ghetto or whatever, and Facebook is all... not all the people that have Facebook are mature, but its supposed to be like oh we're more mature."

That's right, a "ghetto." Boyd goes on to note that teenagers from wealthier backgrounds are more comfortable engaging in "adult" environments than teenagers from poorer backgrounds -- hence wealthier teens are probably more likely to favor the "mature" social networking site, Facebook. And here's the part where I am just going to quote from Boyd's analysis extensively, because she is so freakin' smart:

The fact [is] that MySpace is still quite popular among a certain segment of the population. Only a month ago, I was doing fieldwork in Atlanta where I found heavy usage of MySpace among certain groups of youth. They knew of Facebook but had no interest in leaving MySpace to join Facebook.

Herein lies the reality that makes all of this quite messy to deal with. It wasn't just anyone who left MySpace to go to Facebook. In fact, if we want to get to the crux of what unfolded, we might as well face an uncomfortable reality... What happened was modern day "white flight." Whites were more likely to leave or choose Facebook. The educated were more likely to leave or choose Facebook. Those from wealthier backgrounds were more likely to leave or choose Facebook. Those from the suburbs were more likely to leave or choose Facebook. Those who deserted MySpace did so by "choice" but their decision to do so was wrapped up in their connections to others, in their belief that a more peaceful, quiet, less-public space would be more idyllic.

This dynamic was furthered by the press, an institution that stems from privilege and tends to reflect the lives of a more privileged class of people. They narrated MySpace as the dangerous underbelly of the Internet while Facebook was the utopian savior. And here we get back to Kat's point: MySpace has become the "ghetto" of the digital landscape. The people there are more likely to be brown or black and to have a set of values that terrifies white society. And many of us have habitually crossed the street to avoid what is seen as the riff-raff.

The fact that digital migration is revealing the same social patterns as urban white flight should send warning signals to everyone out there. And if we think back to the language used by teens who use Facebook when talking about MySpace, we should be truly alarmed. Those who are from privileged backgrounds tend to be far more condescending towards those who are not than vice versa. Many of us in this room come from privileged worlds where we want to "help" those who are not well-off. Here is where a privilege-check is necessary. How often do our language and mannerisms reflect a problematic level of condescension? Perhaps we should look at our teens. They are certainly speaking in a manner that reveals distrust and condescension.

Just go read the rest of her speech. She is one smart cookie.

A lot of smart people have weighed in on Michael Jackson's life and legacy. Here are just a few takes...

First up, Tammy Johnson of Colorlines (via Isak):

You could say he was just another celebrity, another pop star, the King of Pop, but Michael Jackson did have an impact on our society. For his time, he made it ok for white girls to scream at a black man, to say that they wanted him. He made it ok for white boys to do the moonwalk. But you know, it wasn't ok for Michael Jackson to be Michael Jackson. It was written all over his face -- or the face that he changed into. And that's a shame.

Adrienne Maree Brown on the responsibility of his fans:

When it became clear that the boy's face we had loved had become the face of a man who didn't love himself; we judged him. We tore at him and he fell apart. He was living proof of the impact of our rabid pop culture, an early sacrifice to the new mechanisms of fame which allow no privacy, no time to learn, no mistakes.

Still, he kept producing for us.

When the rumors and the truth were all too prevalent (the children, both his and others), and he wasn't getting the psychological support and accountability he needed, we turned from him and derided him. We made the distinction of loving the child, but ridiculing the man.

Toure at the Daily Beast on how Jackson broke the color barrier with his music:

I like Off the Wall and Dangerous better, but I can't help but think about Thriller's massive socio-cultural impact. Rev. Al Sharpton referred to Michael as a pre-Obama Obama-esque figure in that he's a black man who knows how to make millions of blacks and whites fall in love with him. He's an integrationist, a racial unifier. He made two pop songs as overtly about race as anyone's ever made: Ebony and Ivory with Paul McCartney and Black or White. He was a Motown guy, after all. But he left Berry Gordy's house and went to CBS/Epic, a big-time label, to forge an adult solo career. CBS pushed his record as hard as they did their huge white stars and Off the Wall was a huge crossover success: young Michael was established as not an artist for black fans but an artist for everyone at a time when that was rare. Four years later, when Thriller came out it broke the radio color barrier: black and white stations played its singles until MTV, which had not previously played videos by black artists, had to play Michael. For a while they played Thriller every hour at the top of the hour. Back then he was MTV's Jackie Robinson.

After seeing the video of the Iranian protester Neda being shot through the heart, the world has been forced to think about role of women in the fight for a democratic Iran. Dana writes at Tapped a little bit about why women might be so involved,

Only 13 percent of Iranian women participate in the paid work force, compared to over 25 percent of women in Turkey and over 38 percent in Indonesia. With the permission of a court, fathers can arrange marriages for daughters under age 13. Polygamy is legal, and under Ahmadinejad, Parliament even tried to ease restrictions on the practice. Women cannot run for president, and family law discriminates against them when it comes to divorce, child custody, and inheritance. Dozens of feminist political leaders have been arrested and detained since 2006, when police violently attacked a women's rights demonstration in Tehran, leading to the founding of the One Million Signatures Campaign for women's legal equality.

Women have a lot to lose if Ahmadineajd returns to power. Mousavi clearly has a better stance on gender with more room to change policy concerning the lives of women and specifically because his wife, Zahrad Rahnavard, is a known advocate of women's rights.

It is in historical moments like this that I often reflect on a powerful book I read in my MA program in Women's Studies called the Eloquence of Silence by Marnia Lazreg. I continually go back to the chapter on nationalism and how nationalism produces itself in times of conflict. She calls out feminists that minimized the involvement of women in the Algerian resistance as women somehow being duped into fighting. She was writing about Algeria and the fight against colonization so the context is different, but she discusses specifically this idea of how women in the Middle East are homogenized and not written about in their full complexity.

Similar to previous forms of feminism, the mainstream media sometimes represents women protesting in Iran with shock and awe, even heralding them as fallen angels or martyrs. This is not to downplay the tremendous power being built by women in Iran or to suggest all the coverage has been in this vein, but this shock directly stems from assumptions about a homogenized group of women "Middle Eastern" or "Arabic" that are complacent, oppressed, without agency or will. Ultimately, my hope is that as the conversation expands and more and more talk about the role of women in the historical fight for democracy in Iran, perhaps this trend is changing.

But finally, the video that has been passing around the internet is creating that similar "shock," which is not to say its content isn't jarring. I haven't watched it actually, I can't get myself to. Kate Harding has a good explanation of why she couldn't either and I think the point she makes of exploitation is a solid one. In deciding to finally watch the video, she writes,

Dave Letterman made a bad joke. Here is him talking about it.

Whoops, bad joke and a PR fail as he will lose to the angry antis that are ready to cry sexism on their ideal future of feminism, her majesty Ms. Palin. Yes, I think it is funny that people who clearly do not support full human rights for women, decry sexist jokes. That said, his jokes were in bad taste at best. Megan at Jezebel writes,

David Letterman's "jokes" about Palin's daughters -- which, as Rachel Sklar pointed out today, Barack Obama suggested people stop doing last September -- struck me last week as pathetic and gross. Just because he said it was supposedly about Bristol -- you know, 'cause she's obviously "slutty" or something -- doesn't make it ok. Just because you don't like Sarah Palin or think she's using it to score political points with her base doesn't excuse the jokes in retrospect. On this point, Anna and I vociferously disagree -- I think it's pretty easy to defend Sarah Palin because I don't want those jokes told about the Obama girls; because I've commented repeatedly on how shitty it was when Rush Limbaugh and John McCain made them about Chelsea Clinton; and because I come from a family and a background where you just don't stand for people insulting your family or your friends. Maybe she's playing it up -- she is, after all, a politician and every politician is going to try for a homer on an easy pitch like Letterman handed her -- and maybe she's pissed (the fact that Todd Palin said anything after months of basically being told to keep his trap shut is, to me, telling) that Letterman went there, sexually with her daughters. Either way, I still think it's gross and indefensible.

I have no problem saying that Sarah Palin is a jerk because of her politics, yet I don't think it is OK to make sexist jokes about her or her daughters. Amanda Hess does a good job deconstructing the following debate between Huffington Post's Katharine Zaleski and the Washington Times' Amanda Carpenter discussing Letterman's joke.

Letterman apologized last night and while I think Letterman's jokes were in poor taste, let's not forget that Palin's actual stance that has been legislated and made into policy is far worse. Does this make joking about her or her daughters OK? Definitely not. But watching those two women duke it out, I think it is so interesting listening to conservative women use feminist talking points. It is smart and calculated and plays so well into the often rudimentary understanding Americans have about the fight for women's rights.

Last week was the World Economic Forum on Africa with a critical focus on the role of girls in the economic development of Africa. The World Economic Forums are a series of convenings led by a Swiss non-profit of the same name. Their platform focuses on the role of economic development and its relationship to social development with the simple vision to be, "the foremost organization which builds and energizes leading global communities; the creative force shaping global, regional and industry strategies; the catalyst of choice for its communities when undertaking global initiatives to improve the state the world." I suppose it is always hard to understand the depth of intent of these types of meetings without being present and while I am critical of top-down economic focused development plans for "developing nations," I think they still make profound contributions, if not just in giving us statistical and analytical data.

Maria Eitel, president of Nike Inc., and the person nominated by Obama to be in charge of the Corporation for National and Community Service (they run Americorps and Peacecorps) was at the meeting and took some interesting notes that I found via Huffington Post that included the following themes discussed at the meeting,

1. 1. Investing in girls as smarter economics
2. 2. Economic solutions are often masked by culture
3. 3. It's urgent - we can't wait. We must reach girls before they are 12
4. 4. Girls won't count until we count them...specifically
5. 5. A little bit of support is not enough

I think these are apt conclusions considering the precarious conditions for girls in Africa. But I do wonder is it empowering for these girls to have outside organizations doing development work? Or is that the only way at this point? I struggle with this questions a lot.

Melissa Harris-Lacewell is a genius and this article is a perfect example of why. In response to Tavis Smiley's TV special Stand (a film about a bus trip with Smiley and his "boys" exploring the black male experience--trailer above) she dissects the myopic view of identity politics, black history and social change that they explore through the film and the lens through which they determine that Obama doesn't talk about race enough.

She writes,

Its low production value, wandering narrative, flat history and self-important egoism did little to reveal the shortcomings of the Obama phenomenon. Instead, the piece exposed and embodied the contemporary crisis of the black public intellectual in the age of Obama.

The film and its participants (two of them my senior colleagues at Princeton University) appropriated the legacy of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. to implicitly claim that they, not Obama, are the authentic representatives of the political interests of African-Americans. They used King's images and speeches, gathered on the balcony where King was assassinated, and explicitly asserted their desire to play King to Obama's LBJ, and Frederick Douglass to Obama's Lincoln.

This question of authenticity in identity is a very frequent theme in argument between different types of feminists and specifically different generations of feminism. The older "watchdogs" are disappointed with what they see is a diluted brand and less than tough stance on issues by younger generations. The reality that material conditions have changed for women, people of color and other disenfranchised communities is not explored in depth, which has allowed for different types of political identifications, different types of movements.

She continues,

African-Americans are now citizens capable of running for office, holding officials accountable through democratic elections, publicly expressing divergent political preferences and, most importantly, engaging the full spectrum of American political issues, not only narrowly racial ones. The era of racial brokerage politics, when the voices of a few men stood in for the entire race, is now over. And thank goodness it is over. Black politics is growing up.

The men of "Stand" yearned for an imagined racial past. By their accounting, this racial past had better music, more charismatic leaders and a more-involved black church.

Their romanticism ignores the cultural contributions of contemporary black youth, forgets the dangerous limitations of charismatic leadership and revises the fraught, complicated relationship of black churches to struggles for racial equality. And these men ignored the democratizing effect of new media forms, which revolutionized the 2008 election.

Black people were not duped by some slick, media-generated candidate. African-Americans were co-authors of the Obama campaign. Through social networks, YouTube videos, political blogs and new-media echo chambers, black people were equal partners in shaping the candidate and his campaign. There was no need for the entrenched pundit class to tell black voters what to think or how to behave; they figured it out for themselves.

Still, there is plenty to criticize in the young Obama administration: the refusal to prosecute those implicated in the torture memos, civilian casualties caused by drone attacks, bank bailouts and inadequate defense of gay rights to name a few. But black communities are already engaged in these critiques and many others. Black local organizers, elected officials, bloggers, pundits and columnists have taken substantive, specific positions on a broad range of issues.

Read the whole article as she lays out perfectly the tension and oversight by public intellectuals, thinkers and journalists that are resistant to new modalities of social change. It is interesting this tension between recognizing that political discourse around race has changed as have lived conditions for people of color, yet we are not in a post racial space.

As I have written about before, this tension between recognizing progress and claiming wins in the service of people of color verse the post-racial stance (most liked by moderates, where radical positions on race are ignored or made fun of) is at the heart of the tension in current racial dialogue. We are at a crossroads where we have to recognize the nuanced ways that racism (including tokenism) plays out, even in liberal politics and then the strategic and nuanced ways we are winning, at least in the conversation, if not via material conditions.

Obviously, my ideal hope is when we start to have a conversation so nuance that we see the way homophobia and sexism are tied into racism, but like I said last week in talking about Sonia Sotomayor, it is a damned if you do, damned if you don't type of situation (aka, I love you, I can't touch you anymore.)

*Trigger warning, this radio cut of pro-life Pastor Wiley Drake is a scary view into the mind of the wing-nut*

Well, if that was not scary enough for you check out the more "friendly" pro-life apologisms of Ross Douthat. According to him, religious right-wing fundamentalists that use scare tactics and kill abortion doctors do it because they feel disempowered and don't have enough access to legal avenues to stop and "keep humane" abortion laws.

If anything, by enshrining a near-absolute right to abortion in the Constitution, the pro-choice side has ensured that the hard cases are more controversial than they otherwise would be. One reason there's so much fierce argument about the latest of late-term abortions -- Should there be a health exemption? A fetal deformity exemption? How broad should those exemptions be? -- is that Americans aren't permitted to debate anything else. Under current law, if you want to restrict abortion, post-viability procedures are the only kind you're allowed to even regulate.

If abortion were returned to the democratic process, this landscape would change dramatically. Arguments about whether and how to restrict abortions in the second trimester -- as many advanced democracies already do - would replace protests over the scope of third-trimester medical exemptions.

The result would be laws with more respect for human life, a culture less inflamed by a small number of tragic cases -- and a political debate, God willing, unmarred by crimes like George Tiller's murder.

If you can stomach it read his entire "persuasive" argument about how to find a common ground with right-wing terrorists that harass, intimidate and kill doctors. He throws in some slut-shaming disguised in the form of making legible the difference between excusable and inexcusable forms of abortion (and highlights women that have *gasp* multiple abortions).

Jamelle at USJ breaks down two key things that are off about this column,

This is my ballad to identity politics in America.

The conservative reaction to Sonia Sotomayor has not only been telling of the clear paranoia and fear that conservatives have around women of color and their appropriate place in our society, but is also really predictable. That doesn't change how racist it is. Lindsey Graham's testament to how he is critical of Sotomayor for her "fiery" temperament is probably the best encapsulation of white male fear of a woman of color in a position of power. Fiery is frequently a term used to describe women of color that are considered outspoken or hot. It is both racist and sexually demeaning, catering to fantasies about Latina women's sexual potency. It wouldn't make sense as a pejorative if the one accused was white or was not female.

There has already been a lot written about Sotomayor, both about her stance on judicial issues (imagine that!) and about the racism endemic in many of the criticisms of her. All I can really add to this is that it is a sad state of affairs that she is being called a "reverse racist" and as Roger Simon discusses in anunusually solid piece (or, as Mattbastard called it, so full of WIN), it seems the only kind of racism conservative white men get enraged about.

How come the only racism that bothers some people is reverse racism?

People of color have been oppressed for centuries in this country, and while progress has been made, it has come slowly.

But Sonia Sotomayor makes one speech suggesting that her background as a Latina might actually give her superior insight or wisdom to a white man, and there is an explosion -- an eruption! a volcano! -- of indignation.

She is a reverse racist! She has dared to suggest that a nonwhite woman could ever be superior in any way, under any circumstances, to a white man. So how can she now sit on the Supreme Court (a court that for most of its existence has resembled a country club board)?

Newt Gingrich, a former Republican speaker of the House, called her a "Latina woman racist" and said she should withdraw her name from consideration.

Pat Buchanan, an MSNBC commentator and former Republican presidential candidate, said on "Hardball With Chris Matthews" that Sotomayor was an "affirmative action" choice for the job.

And so while the Repubs play their unwieldy and inaccurate "damned if you do, damned if you don't," game of identity politics, liberals have been forced to call it out for the racism it is. And while I obviously fall on the leftier side of things, I am concerned about this kumbaya attitude about Sotomayor feeds into the post-racist doctrine a tad bit. Sotomayor is a good person for the job and then also happens to be a person of color. The way that racism functions, we can't have both things without them being related to each other. Liberals want her to be a POC because this shows that the American dream works, POC can be whatever they want irrelevant of their POC-ness. Conservatives want to highlight her POC-ness to show how she is different and play off stereotypes of how she is both unfit for the job and also because she doesn't deny that she is a POC or the keen and unique insight this might give her, is also a reverse racist.

Sotomayor is caught in the trap that most women of color face when they gain any degree of visibility. Their race and gender is necessary to the conversation for both camps to justify or deny her progress. It is still a form of tokenism, even if an unavoidable form. It is progress on one level that she is a WOC that is going to be on the SCOTUS. She is hardly the most liberal person for the job, which is what keeps her in the running and such a smart choice. But the question I am grappling with is, is this really progress or just another round in the identity politics game? Is her nomination going to change the way Latina women are treated globally? (Or am I the one "asking the wrong questions and opening the wrong doors"...as Stephin Merritt would say..)

I suppose it would follow that, after a byproduct of anal sex has been named after you because you do things like group together gay sex with incest, you would shut up and never open your stupid mouth about anything that has to do with copulation, dating, or really anything. You would think that, but that is not the way of Rick Santorum. Only this time it is about how black men don't like to get married and if the Obamas want to be a role model they better stick to some more normal and regular dating rituals.

via Salon quoting Santorum,

Number one, I think it's great that the president has a date night with his wife. He's a role model.He's a role model in particular, whether he likes it or not, in the African-American community.

And you have an African-American community, particularly in the poor inner city areas, we're looking at out of wedlock birthrates in three quarters to 75 percent (sic) of children being born out of wedlock. Marriage is an institution that's a bridge too far for too many African-American woman and is not desirable among African-American males

Um, what? Conservative logic is baffling and will stop at nothing to demean, since it is not just gays that are destroying the institution of marriage it is those "welfare queens and deadbeat dads too." Santorum has to play off every stereotype he can find.

But he continues,

Here we have a president of the United States who says that marriage is cool. You have respect for your wife, and you treat her with the respect and dignity that she deserves. And she is part of this team. And it's not just part of professional team, but it's also part of a personal, romantic team. I think that's all great. So I think it's important that he keeps having his date night.

I think he has to realize that flying to New York is self-indulgent. Go down to the corner bar and have a drink, a shot and a beer. It does not matter where you go with your wife, is that it's with your wife. That's really the point... I would make the argument, the simpler the date, the more normal it is.

Santorum is so glad that Obama is being an Upstanding Black Man, but lest he get too showy, Santorum must put the Obamas on notice, since he knows how to be "normal."

I know it is hard to deconstruct something that is so devoid of logic, you start to feel like you are talking in circles. It is not just an insult to the black community that they are "looking at out of wedlock birthrates in three quarters to 75 percent (sic) of children being born out of wedlock." That is not just offensive but it is inaccurate. Statistically more women are choosing to have children out of the institution of marriage. It is certainly not a sign of a crumbling world and a crumbling community, but instead showing us that marriage is not something that should be the backbone of our society as would have it.

Personally, I think the date thing was not something to get all in a fit over, but I also didn't fall for the "oooh ahhh they love each other so much, marriage is so great and the Obamas have shown me why!" Great, people are excited that the First Lady and her dude have a great thing going, but the bigger issue of what constitutes as normal marriage and not hasn't changed. The Obamas have to play up their marriage as stable and normal so they can fight every ignorant stereotype about black people and marriage, along with reinforce that fundamental to the American dream is getting married, being "normal," staying married and having some babies within the sanctity of that marriage. It is quite a conundrum.

That's right, if you need any more proof that conservative policy agendas hurt women, then look at this study of fathers of daughters as opposed to sons, who tend to vote more liberal on issues of reproductive rights, among other issues.

via FiveThirtyEight.

Andrew J. Oswald and Nattavudh Powdthavee write:

In remarkable research, the sociologist Rebecca Warner and the economist Ebonya Washington have shown that the gender of a person's children seems to influence the attitudes and actions of the parent.

Warner (1991) and Warner and Steel (1999) study American and Canadian mothers and fathers. The authors' key finding is that support for policies designed to address gender equity is greater among parents with daughters. This result emerges particularly strongly for fathers. Because parents invest a significant amount of themselves in their children, the authors argue, the anticipated and actual struggles that offspring face, and the public policies that tackle those, matter to those parents. . . The authors demonstrate that people who parent only daughters are more likely to hold feminist views (for example, to favor affirmative action).

By collecting data on the voting records of US congressmen, Washington (2004) is able to go beyond this. She provides persuasive evidence that congressmen with female children tend to vote liberally on reproductive rights issues such as teen access to contraceptives. In a revision, Washington (2008) argues for a wider result, namely, that the congressmen vote more liberally on a range of issues such as working families flexibility and tax-free education.

Interesting stuff. What if your child is gay, lesbian, queer, trans, etc? Are they then also more liberal? I feel like we have some examples to the contrary, but would be interesting to see what patterns are in general. Thoughts?