Boxed-In: February 2010 Archives

The Tea Party has been getting a lot of press lately (mainly from Fox News) and it's becoming a bit disconcerting about whether or not the Tea Party is going to really shape the politics of America.  Massachusetts aside, is the Tea Party really something to fear? 

I don't think so.  Yes, I think individuals who align themselves with a Tea Party have anger, which will carry them far.  They are impatient and nostalgic for the Reagan Era.  This will also help sustain momentum, for at least a little while.  Not to mention they have Fox News propaganda helping them believe that Obama is the next Castro.  Fear, anger, impatience and nostalgia help

However, there is no one Tea Party.  There are a bunch and there is a lot of in fighting too among their different circles.

To give a very simple (and very loose analogy) organizing their political party platform is sort of like trying to order pizza for the office. One person always wants meat.  Another is a vegetarian who doesn't like olives.  A lone person wants pineapple. Of course, someone else always asks, "Why are we getting pizza?  I vote that we get Mexican food instead."  The conversation then turns into where to pizza from, in which every person has a different opinion about the 5 pizza places that deliver. An alliance is invariably dissolved upon the announcement of one person that they actually aren't even that hungry and maybe they'll just grab something later.

To make a better analogy, the Tea Party is crying for anarchy.  They don't want politicians or leaders, and they don't want to answer to the government in any way and they want to overthrow mainstream media. They have no established leadership-- they proclaim themselves as a decentralized movement.  In an interview with Katie Couric, you can see just how much they don't have a clue about what they really stand for.  At one point, a tea party representative said that there are disagreements over which politicians they identify with (which, by the way, they consider Glenn Beck to be a politician), and that they embrace a variety of politicians. The interview ends with a circular answer to what social issues they stand for.  They also admit that they don't have an actual platform with detailed policy plans.  It's like they embrace the idea of, like, freedom and liberty and not being held down the Man.   

Oh, how this reminds me of FoodNotBombs and holding up my hand to show a "C" for consensus.  After 4 hours of heavy debate, we finally agreed to have a meeting the next week.  I am not fearful of anarchist, consensus based and decentralized movements.  I am fearful of those who can organize and lead effectively like Karl Rove.  

Once the economy begins to turn around, progress is made on legislation, and as the midterm elections near, a good portion of tea partiers will begin to abandon the views they once embraced so closely.  Similar to those (like me) who say that they will not vote Democrat in the midterm elections, come October, will really begin to question whether it worth the risk to not vote for the most reasonable (and likely to win) candidate. 

So mainstream media, let's not make this bigger than it is-- it's a meme of political discourse/response-- but they are not a viable party.

An afterthought:  I wanted to mention that the various tea parties are hypocritical.   All tea parties claim they want individual liberty, but no one Tea Party has not embraced the idea of gay marriage, gay adoption, abortion rights or the abolition of the prisons.  In addition, no Tea Party has addressed the areas where regulation or government control has become integral to our society, questioning whether some government control should possibly be maintained, such as: fire departments, public education and FDIC regulation of banks.  Unlike the Libertarian Party which has given substantial thought to these issues to where they are fiscally conservative yet socially liberal, the tea parties seem to want, as Jon Stewart once said, "Want the sunshine without the heat and brightness."   

Hot off the presses:  Georgia's Christian Coalition is opposing a bill that will help prostituted children.  Yup, they are. 

Their efforts are in response to a coalition of child advocacy groups in Georgia that are working to reform the State's response to juvenile offenders, which includes juveniles who have been arrested for prostituted. (Oh, and yes, juveniles (those under the age of consent) are arrested for prostitution when discovered by law enforcement that they are willing to trade sex for money, drugs, housing, etc.) 

I'm hoping that the Left uses this to their advantage as much as possible.  Let's Fox News this shit-- I want a headline that reads as follows:  Christian Coalition Doesn't Care About Child Sex Victims.

Now I'm not a huge supporter of labeling prostituted youth as victims-- I'd rather think of them as survivors of the sex trade.  However, I'm completely in support for knocking down the Right as much as possible.  Let's face it: it's not like they play fair with the media.  Let's use some their own sleaziness for our advantage, shall we? 

I haven't been this fired up since I wrote about the Nelson-Hatch amendment!  No, it's not about how the Democrats have failed again (though they still are-- vote Green!)-- this time it's a greater feminist battle:  the discussion about a woman's social role and gain. 

Lori Gottlieb wrote this article in 2008, which advised that women should settle and just get married.  Yes, you heard me right, settle.  Not only should you settle, but you should do it early when at least you can get a kid out of it.  Rightly, there many responses to her article, such as here and here and here. 

But Lori Gottlieb's article has now become a book!  Titled Marry Him: The Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough, her book is already being sold on Amazon.  (Not posting the link-- I don't want a flood of feminist clicks to signal Amazon that they should be carrying more of these types of books).  Once again, and rightly so, critics are responding to her article debunking many of her claims. 

That is not my feminist tirade, however.  My tirade is how all of the critics have focused on the wrong issue:  Lori Gottlieb.  Turns out that Lori is a 42 single mom, and that she herself cannot actually bring herself to settle because she can't think of anyone whom would be good enough for her kid.  As Ms. Gottlieb states, "It's one thing to settle for a subpar mate; it's quite another to settle for a subpar father figure for my child."  Ha ha, look at the hypocrite! 

Yes, yes, it's all fun and games to point out when someone does not, in fact, walk their own walk.  However, Ms. Gottlieb's personal life doesn't bother me.  To me, she is merely a person who is lamenting about what she wished she could have (or maybe what she wished was different), and, really, her personal choice to not get married, now desire to be married, be a mother, have a father for her child and write about her feelings are her own personal choice.  Yay for feminism to allow her to write things so openly that I vehemently disagree with.  Another yay for feminism that she is a famous social commentator who has been featured on NPR, This American Life, The New York Times, The Atlantic and Salon, among others. 

But not one of her critics used this opportunity to discuss critical feminist theory.  The idea that women have been so ingrained with the thought that marriage is required for a happy life is just absolutely sexist, awful and plain wrong.    Gottlieb's article (and now book) speaks to women's settling as a natural thing.  This is true-- women constantly settle-- but only because societal conditioning has reinforced the idea that girls should "play nice" and "get along," which goes hand in hand with compromise and settling. (As you notice, there are few articles advising men to just settle. In fact, it's generally quite the opposite-- most men's magazine articles speak to how to get the girl of your dreams (aka, that hot chick at the bar) and how to never to take no for an answer).

Then there's the idea that all individuals want marriage.  As Gottlieb says, "And all I can say is, if you say you're not worried [about getting married], either you're in denial or you're lying."  Oh, if only it were that simple.  See, there are these things called open relationships, nontraditional relationships, polyamorous relationships, asexuality, not married by default (aka, being gay and not living in a kick-ass state) and just plain not interested in being married.  While I could march out some evidence that such relationships exist and compare them to your average heterosexual marriage, I have a better idea: let's just take people at their word when they say they don't want to be married.  And better yet, if they are over 30, let's just let them live their lives the way they want to and not fall into the cultural mindset that they should somehow be pitied or congratulated for their bravery.

Furthermore, when someone (a woman, according to Gottlieb) says that she doesn't want to get married (either by choice or because she hasn't met the right person), let's not shove our own cultural expectations down their throats.   

Next tirade goes to violence against women.  Oh yes, I know, domestic violence and intimate partner violence can be against men as well-- and it does not receive nearly as much attention as it should.  The reason why I have framed my tirade as violence against women is because Gottlieb's article focuses on why women should settle, which falls in perfectly with a batter's comment that the abused isn't good enough to find someone else-- he's all that she'll have.  Plus, Gottlieb's comments also fall into the idea that being with a man (regardless of the quality) is still better than no man at all.  From my years of domestic violence advocacy, I can attest that both lines of thinking are alive and well, and many battered women take them to heart. 

So let me say this:  even though I think Gottlieb's premise is awful, if you are going to settle, just make sure you settle for someone who at least respects you as a person, does not threaten or intimidate you in any way and allows you the independence required to live your own life with dignity. 

But if you want to be like me, you'll adopt the following saying:  I would rather be by myself in the company of friends than be in a relationship where I'm miserable and afraid to go to home. See Ms. Gottlieb?  I'm a woman close to 30 who is not in denial or lying to myself-- I truly understand my options and I choose the option of being happy.  Once again, yay feminism for telling the world that it's bad to be in an unhealthy relationship!

There's so much more to write, including how she completely disregards queer folks, but it's too late to keep writing.  Post to be continued!