Lessons from Rome

OR ~ Why the GOP should have paid attention in history class

Contributed by Katie Foley

Today, while working, I watched a few episodes of Terry Jones’ BBC series, “The Hidden History of ….”

                 

One of the videos closed with the following monologue from Mr. Jones,

It’s the story of a society that “was run as a mafia-like business; of Senators worth $30,000,000, who supported a system that let the poor go to the war while they supported free trade and low taxes for the businessmen. It’s the story of a society in which the [prosperous][1] families flaunted their wealth while the majority drifted into relative poverty. A society based on inequality, on the tantalizing luxury that was possible for a few, as long as the vast proportion of the population had no rights at all, or could be fooled into compliance with [Miller Lite][2] and [football][3].”

This particular monologue came at the end of “The Hidden History of Rome.” I was astounded by how well the quote had been crafted to span the centuries from ancient Rome to modern Western society. That we are still trying to make these ideas work is nothing short of lunacy. 

Sterling Archer from FX's "Archer"

So how about we try something new guys? Tax breaks for the wealthy and free trade (including the free trade of slaves) did not end well for Rome. The next time you think you’re bringing new ideas to the table, I suggest you first follow Sterling Archer’s advice and, “Read a book!”

Or, you could just watch a historical documentary hosted by a Monty Python alum….

---

[1] “Noble” in original quote

[2] “Bread” in original quote

[3] “Circuses” in original quote

Senate District 41 - Thoughts on Redistricting

Contributed by Rachel Nelson, a.k.a. Katie Foley

            I loved my DFL family in the old SD50. Barb Goodwin’s candidacy for the Minnesota Senate gave us a common purpose around which we could unite. This single event, which took place over several months, gave our district the common struggle and history that gives rise to lasting relationships.

            When the Court came down with its redistricting plan, it was a plan about which I could not form a real definitive opinion. Sure, it put a lot of really good sitting DFL legislators against each other, but it did the same for the GOP. I did not have to be too anxious about meeting a bunch of new Democrats because much of what comprised SD50 had been swallowed up by the new SD41. Also, SD41 managed to nab some of the great party leaders of the districts neighboring the old SD50.

            However, it was not until last night that I became truly excited about the new SD41. As Connie Bernardy’s endorsement campaign coordinator I’ve been in a unique position to learn the names of the delegates from the new House District 41A. Last night Connie and her husband Dan hosted an HD 41A get-together. It was very well-attended, including an appearance and speech by Congressman Keith Ellison. But perhaps more important than the campaign atmosphere and upbeat endorsements from Ellison and Carolyn Laine was the chance I had to meet some of the people with whose names I have become so familiar.

            I met and spoke with people who are bursting with ideas and talents that could really make SD41 a shining example of what works for DFL politics. Fundraisers, the centralization of information, complete lifetimes of knowledge and experience – the people I have so far had a chance to meet from the new SD41 have reinvigorated me.

            So I suppose that have I finally had a chance to form a real opinion about the Court’s redistricting plan. State-wide it gives the DFL a chance to take back the majority in the state legislature, giving Minnesota’s policy makers a real chance to enact policies that will make Minnesota great once again. Locally, I couldn’t be more excited about the ideas, energy, wisdom and thoughtfulness displayed by my new DFL family. Let the fun begin!

SHAMELESS SELF-PROMOTION: Elect Rachel Nelson for SD 41 Chair at the DFL Senate District 41’s Endorsing Convention on March 31 at Columbia Heights High School. 

In Defense of Millennials

Contributed by Katie Foley

The other day I read this article and it got me thinking, Are Millennials, or “Generation Y” as this author refers to us, really “going nowhere?”

To prove their point, Mr. and Ms. Buchholz cite the fact that 18 year olds are getting their licenses at a rate 15% lower than their 1980’s counter parts. Also, twice as many young adults were living at home in 2008 compared to 1980, and the likelihood of a young person moving to another state has dropped 40% in the same time frame.

What’s to blame? To start with, the authors blame Facebook. Apparently studies have shown that the more time a young person spends on the internet, the more likely they are to delay getting their driver’s license. We’re more risk adverse, we’re too quick to believe “luck” plays a major role in life’s events and we’re more sedentary. As the authors pointed out, even a decrease in bike sales indicates that we’re literally going nowhere.

So what gives? Are we just too involved with our virtual world to explore the natural world around us? Do we settle for mediocre jobs instead of pursuing our dreams because of an innate laziness we picked up somewhere? Are Millennials complacent?

I don’t think so. The authors talked about every modern American generation through the Baby Boomers, then skipped Generation X. Is Generation Y really the first generation of “why bother?” In my lifetime, I have always known that AIDs existed, that it could infect anyone regardless of sexual preference or promiscuity, and that you could not get it from a toilet seat. I was born into a pre-Google world, but the internet was around by the time I was ready to start browsing. Until recently, there has never been any doubt in my mind that I had a right to use contraception and that women could go just as far professionally as men, even if they weren’t there yet.

But as I grew into adulthood the world around me has all but imploded. A vibrant economy during my adolescence has turned into the “Great Recession.” Home ownership, touted as part and parcel of the American dream, has turned into a nightmare in neighborhoods around the country, as reported on the nightly news. People who cannot understand what a computer network is are trying to draft laws regulating them. Every day we see drug users who are not violent, not lazy and not on the road to a serious and debilitating addiction. On 101.3 Drake sings, “It’s my birthday I’ll get high if I want to,” while AM 1130 is promoting the same “War on Drugs” propaganda that has characterized this  doomed movement from the start.

Millennials understand the value of an open community, an online community of people around the globe that share our interests and vision. It is because young people were able to set up proxy servers faster than the government could find them that videos of the 2009 Iranian uprising made it to our television screens and computer monitors. Some of the greatest modern protest movements have gained recognition, validation and exposure through the use of the internet.

Using today's dollars, the average cost of private college tuition is 3.4 times more expensive, public college tuition is 4 times more expensive, and private law school is 4 1/2 times more expensive now than it was when I was born in 1985. Regardless of whether cars and gas prices are more or less expensive now or then, the cost of college alone has become something young people must consider when developing a life plan.

Perhaps it’s just our priorities that have changed, not our values. Instead of buying $75,000 homes we’re buying $75,000 educations. Rather than spend our limited funds meeting our friends and associates over coffee, we utilize technology in a way that allows us to meet virtually. Maybe we aren’t complacent, maybe we just realize that if we are going to make this country work we better buckle down together and do some problem solving. It’s possible that what the Boomers and Gen Xers don’t fully understand is that “It’s not that we don’t care, we just know that the fight ain’t fair.” [1] Don’t worry, once you’ve finished making a mess of things we’ll swoop in to save the day. 

And stop patronizing us by pretending to be concerned about your legacy. . . 

[1] "Waiting on the World to Change" by John Mayer, lyrics available here

Let's Talk About Sex - Part II

 Contributed  by Katie Foley

Contraception
   

As a woman born into the Millenial generation I find it mind-boggling that contraception, and whether I should be able to access it, is still such a hot button political issue. I was born in a post Eisenstadt v. Baird world, a world where women can determine where, when and whether they bear children without having to sacrifice physical intimacy. In a way, the pill and other forms of contraception allowed women finally to be able to “have their cake and eat it too,” when it came to sex – something that has been a strictly male domain since, well, forever.

Women have always gotten the short end of the stick where sex is involved. Since property interests were directly tied to a man’s descendants, and the only way to ensure a woman’s offspring were any one man’s was to ensure the only man with whom she had been intimate was the man in question, a woman’s life was ruined if she “gave it away.”

In fact, “ruined” is what they called a woman who had sex before she was married. She became damaged goods, a person ostracized for having “given in” to a biological urge that men were encouraged to explore. If the woman became pregnant it was seen as her fault, never mind that women were often kept ignorant of the consequences of intimate encounters. And if someone from the upper class impregnated someone from a lower class she could just about forget about having her child acknowledged by that man or his family.

It’s the same old story. Woman gets pregnant. Woman tells man she’s pregnant. Man denies the child is his. Woman proves the child is his. Court orders man to pay child support. Man pays child support reluctantly, if at all, bitterly complaining the whole time about the injustice of it all. However, if woman complains bitterly about how her life has changed, about the expense (in both monetary terms and in terms of time) of raising a child, she is told that she “should have thought of that.”

And now the right wing, led by Rick Santorum, is again raising hell about whether women should even have access to birth control. Time and again it is suggested that women should just keep their legs together. Boys will be boys, but girls will be sluts. The funniest thing about it is that the Catholic Church did not explicitly prohibit the use of contraception until 1930, well after women got franchise rights. Letting women vote was all good and well until they started using their new right to assert self-determination. Suddenly women were deciding whether to have children. Suddenly women were able to delay child bearing in a way that allowed them to pursue educational and professional opportunities. Suddenly women posed a threat to the paternalistic establishment.

However, the men in charge had an ace up their sleeves. Since women are often seen as the backbone of a society’s morality they portrayed the use of contraception as morally repugnant. The crazy thing is that almost a half-century has passed and men are still trying to tell women that they don’t deserve to set their own course in life, that they should not explore the sexuality that pervades our society on an individual level, that they should simply keep their legs closed. Why are men I’ve never met so damn interested in my uterus?

I have a couple theories.

1) In an increasingly fast paced society, skills such as communication, stress management, collaboration and multi-tasking can make the difference between mediocrity and success. It just so happens that these are things at which women are better than men.[1] It could be that as more women come into positions of power and prestige, men will use whatever tool necessary to keep them from succeeding. Since child-rearing and home-making is still a primarily female realm, it’s only natural to try to use that against us. I can’t compete against men for a high powered job if I’m taking care of kids at home.

2) The future of our country’s economy is dependent upon my generation keeping the birth rate sufficiently high to create the next generation of tax payers and corporate slaves. As the boomers age it becomes more and more important for there to be an available workforce to pay for Social Security and medicine for the three chronic medical conditions the average elderly person suffers. By not having children we are jeopardizing the tax base of the future – and we all know they aren’t going to make up the difference by increasing capital gains and inheritance taxes. Oh no, the solution is for me and my sisters to start, as George Carlin would say, “pumping out a unit now and then.”

I don’t know what men are so afraid of or threatened by; I don’t know why it is that they feel they have any right to prescribe my sex life and dictate whether I bring a child into this crazy world of ours. However, I have a friend who has a brilliant solution to the moral issues surrounding contraception. Since vasectomies are reversible, wouldn’t it make sense to put every boy under the knife at about age 8? Then, when they’ve decided they’re ready for children, men can go have the procedure reversed. But then, we wouldn’t want to tell men what to do with their bodies now would we? That wouldn’t go over well at all.

For a more in-depth discussion of the role of the Catholic Church in women's rights, read this article.

---

[1] See http://socyberty.com/sociology/10-things-women-do-better-than-men/, http://www.cosmopolitan.com/advice/tips/21-things-women-can-do-that-men-cant, http://hazelmwalker.com/three-things-that-women-do-better-than-men-%E2%80%93-when-networking/,

http://arabia.msn.com/lifestyle/him/mu/2011/march/thingswomencando/10-things-women-can-do-that-men-cant.aspx

My Email to Keith Ellison

Contributed by Katie Foley

As I've previously mentioned, I'm on more political email lists than I can count. Somehow I've ended up on Mr. Keith Ellison's. Today I received an email inviting me to take a survey to tell Keith what issues are important to me. At the end they provide an email address in case "our" issue was not included in the survey. In response I sent the following email:

Dear Mr. Ellison (or at least his campaign committee),

I am writing to tell you that you missed a very important issue in the survey.

I am talking, of course, about getting marijuana reclassified as a Schedule II substance under the Controlled Substances Act, telling the DEA and other federal agencies to stop interfering with medical marijuana laws in states that have them, and to allow for the production of industrialized hemp as a viable and cost-efficient alternative to many of the current organic products used in our society today.

First I'll address the issue of rescheduling marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule II substance. One of the favorite reasons cited by "the government" for not approving medical marijuana is that there is insufficient scientific evidence indicating the medicinal value of cannabis. Yet, every time someone approaches the FDA and DEA to conduct a study they are denied the ability to do so because of the fact that marijuana is a Schedule I substance. This is ridiculous and counter-productive. It's like telling a child that they can't watch TV until they read a book about fairies, then making sure there are no books about fairies available for the child to read. It's both counter-productive and stupid and its time for marijuana to stop occupying the same schedule as heroin and PCP. While I'm all for legalizing and taxing this estimated $18 Billion (yes, with a "b") industry, I'd settle for rescheduling it so that real, up-to-date scientific studies can be conducted.

Secondly, allowing for the growth of industrial hemp for oil, food products, textiles, paper, etc. would do many things. For starters it would relieve the ecological disasters that have resulted and continue to result from deforestation. A 1916 report by the U.S. Department of Agriculture stated that one acre of hemp could yield as much pulp for paper as 4 acres of trees, and hemp grows faster and can be harvested more often than trees. Not only can hemp be used for paper, it can also be used to develop building materials. Hemp fiber is more ecologically and economically viable than cotton fiber and the oil from hemp can be used for everything from fuel to cooking. Yet, even though smoking an entire field of hemp will give you naught more than a headache and sore lungs, the DEA consistently considers hemp and it's psychoactive cousin marijuana as the same plant. This is a product that, instead of importing from places like China and Russia, could help get family farms up and running again in the face of agribusiness.

I once heard Mr. Ellison say that he was all for "states rights," yet when I asked him whether the federal government should allow states to decide their own marijuana and hemp policies he waffled. In my experience Mr. Ellison is both an excellent speaker and an excellent waffler. I haven't ever heard him say anything new or profound, I never hear stories on MPR about Mr. Ellison being a man of the people, who boldly stands up to conservative opposition. I actually am not sure I've ever gotten a straight answer from him on anything. Mr. Ellison is fluent in politi-speech. Lucky for him he represents a "safe" district and there are no liberals willing and/or able to rise up and challenge him for the DFL endorsement. That doesn't mean he should fall back on his laurels, knowing that he doesn't have to talk straight because he's not going to have any real challenger.

44% of Americans favor a blanket legalization of marijuana (78% of self-described "liberals") and 50% of Americans support legalizing it for medical use. The trend is changing, with more people in support of legalization in one form or the other, and yet the government and the elected officials that occupy its hallowed halls are stubbornly refusing to alter their long-held beliefs about marijuana, beliefs born out of racism and a capitalistic urge to eliminate competition in the lumber industry. This is a real issue with real facts and it's not just tie-dyed hippies munching cheetos on the couch that are talking about it. I would love if Mr. Ellison joined the conversation in a meaningful way. 

Thank you for your time,

[Katie Foley]

Name Calling in Politics - A Rant

Contributed by Katherine Foley

It's a sin of which I am guilty, but is it possible to engage in today's political climate without resorting to name calling? If I were a gambling woman I would be willing to bet that many liberals do not consider themselves socialist. I'd be willing to bet that many conservatives are thoughtful about their beliefs, not raging bigots. I'd be willing to bet there is not a thoughtful, politically involved person who actually emulates or resembles Hitler. 

But my favorite of all the names that the left and right fling at each other is, "hypocrite." You see, we're all hypocrites - everyone of us. It's part of the human condition that we don't always hold ourselves or our loved ones to the same standards that we apply to those in the "out group." If we are going to actually engage in meaningful dialogue, should we not resort to being the proverbial pot calling the kettle black? 

I would suggest that everyone's a little bit racist. It's an evolutionary instinct to distrust people who are different from ourselves. I would suggest that we all have formed opinions without being fully aware of the facts and that we've all said things that we were aware were less than true. It's true that not all of us are running for president, and not all of us have a pulpit from which thousands, if not millions, of people can hear what we have to say. However, let us not fall into the pattern of dismissing someone we identify as opposition by over-generalizing them or their beliefs.

I don't know how many times I've vehemently disliked someone, only to get to know them and discover that they are an amazingly worthwhile person to know. Whether this is because I judge people to harshly upon first impression or because I am willing to accept that I was wrong about someone or something, I don't know. But if I can do this in my personal life I should surely be able to do the same in my political life. 

Opposition either strengthens our own position or demolishes it. We should not be afraid to be proven wrong, or have too much pride to admit if someone else is right. Let us not call people names as a quick way of discrediting their position. If you think someone is factually inaccurate, correct them. If you think someone has said something ignorant or acted in an ignorant manner, correct them. Calling them names will only expand the breach between your points of view - and that is what's wrong with politics today. 

We should be building bridges, not using dynamite to widen any chasms that legitimately exist. 

Vikings Stadium: Proponents Warn Against Opponents' Free-Riding Mentality

PAM’s Response to SaveTheVikes.Org

The Vikings’ proposal to build a stadium in Arden Hills has created many a heated opinion among the residents of SD50. The overwhelming majority of the active members of SD50’s DFL are opposed to the stadium, and some of those people are even Viking fans.

But lately the website SaveTheVikes.Org intimated that most people who support the Arden Hills stadium proposal are employed, whereas those who oppose the plan are unemployed and are upset “because the government isn’t giving them enough.”

“As with any public hearing we do expect to hear from opposition on a Vikings stadium and given the time slot, the advantage goes to opponents. We typically see those who are unemployed or on a fixed income advocating against a new stadium because the government isn’t giving them enough. All while the majority of the Vikings 2.5 million fans are working." (sic throughout) cite

That’s right – opponents are unemployed socialists who oppose a tax-payer supplemented stadium who want a bigger handout,* while proponents are hardworking (dare I say, “free market”) Vikings fans. They fail entirely to mention Zygi Wilf or his net worth, which he has declined to make public but which is estimated to at least exceed $1.

“I thought you'd appreciate this.”

You thought correctly, Mr. B. Thanks for sharing! Thanks also for the foresight to take a screen shot of the website, in case they modify it later.

*Apparently government money is okay (to help the wealthy in the form of stadium funding or an absurdly low capital gains tax), it's government ownership and control that’s offensive

Tonight I Fell In Love

Contributed by Katie Foley

Tonight, whilst browsing when I should very well have been sleeping, I discovered Alan Grayson. He's fantastic. At the very least, I have a new celebrity crush.  However, given the totality of the circumstances, I wouldn't be surprised if tonight I dreamt 1990's Disney-animated dreams, in which Mr. Grayson and I dance in the moonlight while Elton John and/or Phil Collins croon/s in the background about Love. 

The point is, I recommend browsing through the links on his website if you work in a cubicle or just have some time to kill on-line.

The best of what I found by him, however, was the following, which he is credited as having said on November 22, 2011. 

 “Last time, the [Republican] nominee was named McCain.  Now the person who is leading in their race is named Cain.  You have to consider the possibility that it’s because of the name.

“You have to consider that possibility.  It might just be the name.

“And what is that story?  I mean, think about it.  Why would they be so attracted to somebody named Cain?  As I recall the story, he killed his brother with the jawbone of a donkey, which probably meant he wanted to blame it on the Democrats.

“And then when God said, ‘Where’s your brother?’, Cain said, ‘Am I my brother’s keeper?’  As if he had no idea.

“And that is actually the fundamental question that separates us from them, right?  Am I my brother’s keeper?  Our answer is, ‘Yes, we are.’  We are.”  

Well said, Mr. Grayson. Well said.

SD50 Volunteers at Habitat for Humanity Event

Saturday dawned breezy but clear, with blue skies and a warm November sun. Around a dozen volunteers from the SD50 DFL found themselves enjoying the unseasonably warm weather by helping a new family feel welcome to the district. 

After many inquiries, Todd Olin finally found a project that could use volunteers from SD50. That project was to help with a Habitat for Humanity build right in Columbia Heights. Nile Harper* generously provided t-shirt commemorating the event and DFLers, Habitat for Humanity workers and the Homeowners spent a lovely Saturday painting, sanding, staining, sodding, hammering, sawing, cutting, measuring, building and laughing. 

As the party of openness and advocacy for the underprivileged, it is important that the community perceive the DFL as the party willing to go out in the community and make its members feel welcome. I, for one, look forward to a future full of volunteer events such as this one. 

* Thanks also to Deb, Deb and the Rjolstads for providing food! I can't recall who provided the baked goods (Betty?) but thanks to you as well!

Let’s Talk About Sex - Part I

Contributed by Katie Foley

           
Intercourse. Coitus. Making love. F^#$ing. Whatever you call it, sex has been a hot topic for much of human history. Whether it's because I am twenty-something or because I read between 2 and 5 romance novels a week, I often find myself involved in discussions of cultural attitudes toward sex.

Rape Culture in America

A couple of weeks ago I attended a forum discussion entitled, “Dismantling Rape Culture, Dismantling Capitalism.” The forum was hosted by the Socialist Alternative at Mayday Books in Minneapolis.¹ A presentation opened the discussion, during which the speakers sought to establish sexism (and racism, ageism, homophobia, xenophobia, etc) as a tool that Capitalists use to execute their “divide and rule” style of governance. By wedging apart natural economic allies, Capitalists are able to prevent the working class from uniting in a meaningful way, in a way that would invalidate the Capitalists’ exploitation of their underpaid employees. 

One of the hallmarks of sexism is the idea of traditional gender roles.  Have women, throughout the 200,000 years of human history, always been ideologically limited to being barefoot and pregnant in front of the hearth? What gave rise to what are now known as “traditional” gender roles?    

The answer to the first question is a resounding “NO!” For 95% of human history we are hypothesized to have subsisted in hunter-gatherer or forager societies. It is hypothesized that gender roles as we would define them did not exist in a hunter-gatherer society. The society was egalitarian, with all members contributing to the benefit of the whole. Some of the tasks associated with male physical strength were performed by men in these equalitarian societies, but it was because of their strength and not their possession of external genitalia. Furthermore, child bearing was not the “blessing” it is today because it was a huge tax on resources for a hunter-gatherer society to raise to maturity another human being.  For that reason, infanticide was not uncommon and hunter-gatherer societies tended to be very small communities of people.²

Barefoot and Pregnant ³

 Around 10,000 years ago humans stopped relying primarily on hunter-gatherer techniques and began cultivating food to grow. This allowed the establishment of permanent settlements which in turn provided for the first surpluses in human history. The need to manage these surpluses arose and a governing class and/or managing class developed.  Those in “power” were then able to manipulate the surpluses in a way that allowed them to accumulate wealth. The ability to accumulate vast amounts of wealth during a lifetime brought with it the issue of inheritance. How does a powerful man ensure that his land, possessions and other forms of wealth are secured and going to be enjoyed by his progeny? Enter sexism.

In a time before paternity testing, the best way to ensure that the baby a woman carried belonged to any particular male was for that male to have been the only possible father.  Monogamy was a tool “unilaterally enforced against women” to ensure that there were no questions about a child’s paternity. Suddenly a woman’s virtue was prized above any other contribution she may make to society and the ruling classes cosseted and protected their female offspring until they could marry her off, thus continuing the cycle of isolation and repression followed by procreation.

Women were kept cosseted at home, producing a child every once in awhile if she was a good wife who performed her “wifely duties.” Since women were home anyway it only made sense to utilize them as keepers of the household, whether she was a poor women doing all the child-rearing and household work, or an upper class woman whose job it was to ensure the smooth running of the household by the hired help.  Women bought into their own oppression by judging harshly other women who failed to adhere to society’s strictures, something that still occurs and is a phenomenon to which anyone who has spent any time with high school girls could attest.4

To this day exists the ideal of the virtuous whore, a woman who is aware of and appreciates her own sexuality, but who does not herself engage in promiscuous behavior.  It reminds me of an advertising campaign that attempts to unify the advertising axiom “Sex sells” with the ideal of abstinence.⁵ This idea could likewise be summed up by a line from Coyote Ugly, “The trick is to look available but not be available.” Yet even though we are still trying to idealize the nexus between sensuality and chastity, a woman who is sexually assaulted often faces probing questions about which (potentially) risky behaviors she may have been engaging in prior to the rape.  

“Control your fate or someone else will.”⁶

Women, it seems, are in charge of their own sexual destiny.  This includes whether she will be the one in six women who is a victim of rape or attempted rape.⁷ To that end, a young lady we’ll call the “reasonably prudent woman” is expected to act with a certain degree of circumspection in her social dealings. For example, as a college student I knew to never let my drink out of my sight, going so far as to [mildly] physically assault a friend who had failed to babysit my keg cup. I have walked with my keys between my fingers, or alternatively, with a lanyard sporting a canister of “bear spray” around my neck. I know not to dally alone on a dark street and have insisted on accompanying more than one friend home from the bar, lest they find themselves walking alone at night.

To some extent people are in charge of themselves and there are cautious behaviors one can adopt to help protect against being victimized. But the first question that comes to mind after hearing that a woman was raped should not be anything along the lines of “Well, what was she wearing?” Focusing on what actions women can take to not be raped can force those who are raped to feel as though they could have avoided the situation if they had only ………what? Not been a woman who came into the consciousness of a man who would not take “no” for an answer?  Followed the advice of the illustrious NYPD and wear pants so as not to attract any potential rapists she may come across as she lives her life?  This type of sanctioned advice is not only insulting, it is disingenuous.  Rape is seldom about sex but about power.  If it was about sex, rape would all but disappear during winter months, since snow suits are not in the least provocative. Rape is a serious issue, yet the best solution I’ve heard is to carry a mace key chain and wear pants.

I recently went to the theater and then out for a few cocktails with the friend I assaulted in college for losing sight of my cup (among other things). While observing the dance floor, her and I noticed a particularly sketchy looking man dancing with a very young looking woman.  I looked closer and asked my friend, “Does her hat say ‘I like to party’?” To which she replied, “Yeah. I hope she likes to get raped too…” We both laughed, but then I was disappointed at myself for having fallen back into my college, it’s-your-job-not-to-be-raped mindset when the issue of how to destroy this mentality has been percolating in my brain for weeks. We have to stop “blaming the victim” in order to confront the fact that we have systemically reinforced sexism in America through how our culture addresses rape. This will not, however, be an easy accomplishment since there is not a person among has not blamed the victim either explicitly or impliedly at some point in their lives.


In order to function, capitalism needs poverty. Poverty is certainly not unique to the human existence, nor to capitalist economic systems in particular.  However, we apply our "blame the victim" mentality not only to the issue of rape, but to te issue of poverty as well. We tell people that have to "work harder" or "pull themselves up by their bootstraps." Many in our society are unabashed in their view that the impoverished are morally deficient. Maybe instead of seeking examples of how the poor are lazy or lack the requisite work ethic to "make it," we should be critically discussing the systemic forces at work that prevent most impoverished people from ever rising above their poor diets and mediocre housing. When people dare suggest that perhaps the poor are facing an uphill battle, the Right cries, "Class Warfare!" again implementing their "divide and rule" style of governance. If we could eradicate this "blame the victim" mentality we could not only go a long way toward eliminating sexism, but a long way toward meaningful discussion on how to address the issue of poverty.


Perhaps we need to change the conversation, shift the paradox in some way. Women should not be compelled to feel as though they alone are responsible for not being a victim of sexual assault, just as men should not sleep with a woman and then fear she may misconstrue the exchange as nonconsensual. The culture and attitudes surrounding rape exemplify the larger issue of sexism in our society and the "blame the victim" mentality spans across multiple social issues. By continuing to judge each other harshly, by blaming those who are victimized rather than those who do the victimizing, we are we are perpetuating the sexism that is used to drive a wedge between people with economic interests in common. People vote against their economic interests solely on the basis of wedge issues such as abortion, a women’s rights issue, which in turn perpetuates the cycle of poverty. By changing the conversation surrounding rape we can loosen the grip sexism has on our society, which would take us one step closer to spanking those greedy Capitalists where it hurts most, their bottom lines.  

¹ Like many people, I experimented with being a Socialist in college – going so far as to help bake and decorate cupcakes for a Socialist Alternative fundraiser. Though I have since moved back into the fold of a mainstream political party, I remain networked through Facebook with many of my former Socialist comrades, which is how I came to know of the event.

² I’ve never studied anthropology, but this is among the more fascinating aspects of human social history.  This is a great scholarly article on the subject, though it’s a bit dense.  You could, of course, always Wikipedia the subject. Also, here is the SparkNotes on the famous book, The History of Sex

 ³ Much of the information in this section is uncited, and for that I apologize. Blame intellectual laziness if you’d like, but the information is derived from the presentation and various books I have read along the way.  For Example, I recommend Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond. If you do not feel I have been factually accurate, please tell me so that I can either correct or verify the statement.

⁴ The movie Mean Girls is pretty great and is a believable example of how terrible women can be to one another.                                                        

⁵ See also http://jezebel.com/5333434/abstinence-the-sexy-way
6 Credited to Heinrich von Pierer

7 Rape statistics are difficult to measure as rape is the most under-reported crime in America. See http://www.musc.edu/vawprevention/research/sa.shtml for a discussion on the modern history of rape, statistics related thereto and a discussion of the evolution of the legal definition of rape and sexual assault.

Liberté, égalité, fraternité

Contributed by Katie Foley

In another nod to the fact that GOP candidates for president don’t “get it,” Herman Cain explained to Bob Schieffer of CBS’ Face the Nation that he stood by his earlier comments that the Occupy Wall Street protesters and the tens of thousands around the nation participating in solidarity protests are simply “jealous” of those whom they are protesting.  He described the protests as “un-American” and an example of “class warfare.”

On the same program, Mr. Newt Gingrich, another GOP presidential nomination “contender” voiced his opinion “that a ‘bad education system’ that taught ‘really dumb ideas’ was to blame for the protests.”

First I’ll address the idea that these protests are un-American.  The Founding Fathers, you know, those men about whom the Tea Party and others of their ilk tend to wax poetic, created this country from the smoldering ashes of revolution. Protesting the government, in their case the English government, is at the very heart of our nation’s founding. Therefore I fail to see how exercising rights important enough to have been in the First Amendment could be construed as un-American.

As for the idea that the protesters are laboring under the mistaken assumptions imparted upon them by their crappy public school educations, how do you explain all of the well-educated participants? My exposure to a “bad education system” got me a 28 on my ACT and two higher education degrees by the time I was 25. How do you explain my participation?  Or was it the silly ideas of  “personal liberty,” “work hard, be rewarded,” or “you too can have your American dream” I was taught that have left me cheering for the occupations taking place around the nation?

Perhaps, for some people, the claims of Misters Gingrich and Cain are correct.  Maybe some people are jealous of bankers’ “golden parachutes.”  It’s possible that drastically reducing public school funding has left many of those protesting with less-than-adequate educations. But more than likely the people protesting Wall Street, claiming to be the 99%, would not include “jealousy” among the emotions they feel. 

For example, I’m not jealous of Herman Cain’s net worth of $18 million USD, I’m just exhausted from working three jobs to pay for my peanut-butter-and-jelly diet. I’m not jealous of Herman Cain’s wife and two grown children, I just regret that working three jobs leaves me no time to date. I’m not jealous of his M.A. from Purdue University, I just resent that, in this economy, my J.D. is worth less than the paper upon which the degree was printed. 

I’m not jealous that Herman Cain used to be CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, I’m just dismayed that my J.D. has gotten me to where I am able to deliver Chinese food for minimum wage. I’m not jealous that Herman Cain has a pulpit from which to preach his offensive brand of politics, I’m disillusioned by the fact that people are taking a man who has never been elected to public office seriously.

I’m not jealous that Wall Street stock brokers drive BMWs and Mercedes, I’m distraught that I barely make the car payment on my Chevy Cobalt each month.  I’m not jealous that the wealthiest 1% can afford haute couture or designer clothes, I’m just bitter that I have to budget a trip to the Goodwill. I’m not jealous of those who live in Beverly Hills mansions or estates in the Hamptons, I’m just perturbed that $300 rent credit to clean the building I live in has been a godsend this past six months. 

I’m not jealous that Wall Street banks were bailed out by the government, I’m just disgusted that conservatives still have the nerve to call ours a “free-market system.” I’m not jealous of people fortunate enough to have pulled up their bootstraps sufficiently to land them in a prestigious career, I’m just enraged by the idea that the rest of us just need to “work harder.” I’m not jealous of people who have such wonderful health insurance coverage that they fear a single-payer system, I’m just incredulous that Obamacare protestors want to keep government out of their Medicare. I’m not jealous of all of the press the Tea Party got by demanding “their America” back, I’m just incensed that it took so long for the so-called “liberal media” to even begin covering the Wall Street protests.

I’m also angry that I do not have the funds or credit to visit my mother in Florida.  I’m frustrated that I don’t have the funds to replace the clothes I bought ten years ago while I was in high school. I’m disturbed that I have been so hungry that I’ve eaten the food off of the plates of strangers while I’m clearing their table. I’m resigned to the fact that receiving an $80 grocery gift card from my step mom causes me to weep with gratitude. I’m stunned that the GOP insists that there is nothing wrong with the current economic system, when in actuality the whole global monetary system is at risk. I’m reluctant to exercise my Constitutional right to peaceably assemble because I’m not sure I can take the time off work to participate in Occupy Minnesota. I’m also fed up with the fact that the movement is being deliberately misunderstood by people like Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich. 

But most of all, I am determined to keep working my ass off so that I can make my life work on my own terms.  I am relieved to have friends and family that love and support me. I’m optimistic that this movement could lead to the type of change that Obama promised and then failed to deliver, and I’m invigorated that the 99% have finally rose up to strike fear into the hearts of their oppressors.

So you see, I’m a lot of things, jealous is just not one of them. So, Misters Cain and Gingrich, along with all of you other conservative talking heads who want to discount the movement as nothing more than lazy, unemployed hippies who want everything for nothing, I have only one thing to say to you and your need to deliberately misconstrue the growing desperation of the working/middle class: you had better be right, because I’ve read about something like this before, and I can tell you that it didn’t end well for those in the upper classes.