laura.fo

Newsweek has an article about the differences between Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, and Michelle Rhee, chancellor of D.C. schools. Anyone familiar with Rhee's work can see where this is going; as chancellor, she has become (in?)famous for her almost single-minded determination to "demand accountability" in schools — read: blame and fire teachers. As head of one of the country's largest teachers' unions, Weingarten predictably disagrees.

Both women are also known for their uncompromising personalities. I have my misgivings about both of their stances on educational reform and labor issues; I'm sure I'm not alone there. But I'm also capable of recognizing this argument for what it is, which is a professional disagreement. Newsweek, however, seems to think it's a sequel to Mean Girls. Under the headline Schoolyard Brawl, we get a story that might as well come with a cartoon of them pulling each other's braids in the girls' bathroom. It's creepy and it's sexist. To wit:

Rhee has a chance to set a strong example for weeding out incompetent teachers—if she doesn't overplay her hand against Weingarten, who is a formidable foe. "You have two strong-willed and very smart and determined women with very different agendas," says Chester Finn Jr., a former assistant secretary of education and a senior fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution. "It has an almost gladiatorial aspect to it."

"Gladiatorial"? Really?

I think what's really going on here is the Bechdel test playing out in real life. The Bechdel test is an idea from an old Dykes to Watch Out For comic, in which a character says she will only watch a movie if it has 1) at least two women 2) who talk to each other 3) about something other than a man. It's amazing how many movies fail.

Out in the real world, we're accustomed to seeing women in the public eye when they're in fields where their bodies are paramount (actors, athletes), and, increasingly, in politics (Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi). But how often do we see a woman engaged in a public debate with another woman, over ideas?

Rhee and Weingarten, who first tangled about five years ago when Weingarten was running the New York City teachers' union and Rhee was testifying against her as the head of a nonprofit organization promoting school reform, clearly dislike each other.

Well I would hope so! It would be hard to have much integrity if they were having tea every week.

This isn't Jennifer and Angelina. It's a debate about one of the thorniest problems in school reform: how to get rid of bad teachers without any fair and reliable measure of what constitutes bad teaching. Rhee and Weingarten occupy the extreme ends of the argument. In a field that is overwhelmingly female, but where administrative positions are still largely held by men, it is refreshing to see women in leadership roles. As I said, I disagree with both of them on any number of issues. But it would be nice if those ideas could be discussed without falling back on stupid gendered stereotypes.

I'm kind of fascinated with the question of Michael Jackson's funeral, and whether or not it will be Muslim. Jermaine ended his press conference with "may Allah be with you" and now even Andrew Sullivan is posting about it.

Reports that Michael Jackson had converted to Islam created a minor buzz on Muslim blogs last fall, but I didn't hear much about it elsewhere. Part of me was okay with that: the guy had become so weird that I'm not sure he did Islam's image any favors. But most Muslim bloggers who talked about it reported it as a happy event and welcomed him into the fold, under his new name, Mikaeel Jibril. A few other articles came out a week or two later saying it was just a rumor: that Jermaine had converted in the '80s, but Michael never did. Both Yusuf Islam and Dawud Wharnsby Ali, who were supposedly present at said conversion, said it wasn't true. Michael himself neither confirmed nor denied the story, though he certainly must have been aware of it.

We'll never know. But I thought the silence outside of Muslim Blogistan was telling. There are more Black Muslims in the U.S. than there are Arab Muslims, their history here pre-dates immigrant Islam, and most of them are Sunni, not Nation of Islam. But in the media they are presented as exceptions, or at best as avid followers of Louis Farrakhan. The Islam of someone like Dave Chappelle is rarely mentioned, and Michael Jackson was probably likewise considered an outlier, as he was in so many other ways, so reports of his conversion were ignored, doubted, or dismissed as a stunt, despite the otherwise obsessive interest in his personal life. Thus the narrative of who counts as a "real" Muslim remains intact. A Pakistani man who kills his wife does so because the Qur'an told him to, but even during the height of the War On Terror the D.C. sniper — also Muslim — was slotted into the Violent Black Male category. Not a category that's any better, mind you, but evidence of the way both stereotypes are calcified. Black and Middle Eastern men are both dangerous, but for different reasons.

In contrast, there was the case of John Walker Lindh, a devout Muslim by about any standard you care to employ, but he was white, so the media treated him like a mixed-up boy-child from northern California who dabbled in terrorism because he was spoiled by his hippie parents. Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, a Black Muslim convert who killed an army recruiter in Arkansas, was not treated as part of a larger conspiracy until it was discovered that he'd traveled to Yemen, although he was charged with terrorism — unlike Scott Roeder, a white man who engaged in a different politically-motivated murder one day earlier. Roeder was described as mentally ill.

Michael Jackson's funeral won't answer any questions about his relationship with Islam, if there even was one. The need for an autopsy means he couldn't have been buried within 24 hours, and at any rate it's common among American converts to have mixed ceremonies. But the conversation still interests me.

'Battlestar Galactica's' trip to the United Nations

Mary McDonnell and Edward James Olmos appeared with two of the show's executive producers, four UN officials, and moderator Whoopi Goldberg at a panel to discuss human rights, religious conflict, terrorism, gender issues, and other moral conflicts and dilemmas addressed on Battlestar Galactica. The whole panel (about two hours) is available on the UN webcast archives (scroll down to 17 March 2009).

Later, McDonnell responded eloquently to a question about the imperatives of the military versus the rule of democracy and Roslin’s role in executing the fleet’s enemies. For a woman who had been perceived, early on, as a tentative former schoolteacher, President Roslin didn’t blink when it came to tossing a fractious Cylon into space. In fact, in time fans started to call her character “Madam Airlock.”

“She can talk about how she was haunted by the airlock,” Eick said. “But she’s also the one who made it a verb.”

The next time someone tries to talk to you about the misogyny behind the hijab, comparing it unfavorably to the freedom of Western fashion, please direct them to this link: Nina Ricci Fall 2009 Shoes

I need to go soak my feet in hot water just thinking about it.

I haven't seen Religulous yet, but I've followed Bill Maher for over a decade, through his nomadic journey over at least three networks, and I'm aware of his stance on religion. This review captures my feelings well:

While Maher more broadly frames the film around the question “how can people believe,” (and, in so doing, repeatedly references talking snakes, being swallowed by a big fish, and the Rapture), the underlying message of the film holds up (rather than undercuts) a number of key stereotypes – namely, that Christians are stupid and weird, that Muslims are violent, and that Jewish people are smart yet miserly.

The majority of the film focuses on debunking Christian faith. This problematically places Christianity at the center, as the ‘gold standard’ of religion, and, in so doing, entrenches Christian normativity rather than debunking it.

My other issue with Maher is his tireless belief that all religious people are literalists. Whenever he has a guest who "claims" to be religious, but not a literalist, he praises them as one of the good ones but clearly the exception, and maybe not religious at all. Except — they're not the exception. Catholics use birth control at the same rate as the non-Catholic population. Muslim families encourage their children to study science and medicine to the point where it is almost a cliche, and one that Muslim kids joke about. The belief in a 4,000-year-old earth and in dinosaur fossils that were placed here by God to test our faith and, Maher's favorite example, "talking snakes" — this is the exception.

In a related vein, Maher never asks what people gain from religion, because he believes he already knows: religious people, he says time and again, think they have God in their back pocket, and with that smug knowledge they can take their prudish self-righteousness on the road and use it to oppress smart people. In this sense they are both ridiculous ("talking snakes") and dangerous ("marriage is defined as a union between one man and one woman"). I'm in complete agreement with him, when he's talking about that brand of theology.

But there is much more to religion than this. In The Hunger of Memory, Richard Rodriguez writes that the Catholic church was the only place where his immigrant parents were treated as fully human, where their opinions counted and their subjectivity respected. They were not treated like this in their workplaces, in their communities, or in their children's schools. I've yet to see any institution that can compete with the church (or mosque, or temple…) in this respect. I say this not to defend religion, exactly, but to criticize those who dismiss its appeal.

I understand atheist mockery of religion's worst excesses. I get it, and have engaged in it. And Maher is right when he says that at 20% of America, non-believers constitute a larger segment of the population than Jews, Latinos, African Americans, NRA members, teachers, and many other groups that are considered crucial to winning elections, so the political taboo around admitting a lack of faith should be retired. But it's not the odd joke he's throwing out there; it's a die-hard belief that religion is at the core of everything that is wrong with the world. Forget racism, capitalism, imperialism, and other contests for power: it's the belief in talking snakes that is screwing everything up.

I'm just not seeing it.

Pop quiz time!

The antonym of "Arab" is:

a) decent
b) family man
c) citizen
d) all of the above.

If you, like John McCain, answered "d," pat yourself on the back. You've just earned yourself some praise from unexpected corners — including much of the liberal blogosphere — for finally reining in the vitriol of your most rabid supporters. In this case? By agreeing with a woman in your audience that the word "Arab" is a slur. She pins the word on Obama; McCain says that's just not nice.

What's notable here is that McCain, like everyone in his audience, knew immediately where she was going with this. He knew that to "respect" Obama in this case meant to defend him from the (supposedly heinous) charge of being Arab, and he did this not by saying "actually his father's family is Luo, from Kenya…" but by calling Obama a decent family man, a moniker he apparently believes no Arab could claim.

Ana Marie Cox of Wonkette, who was present at the event in question, reports that the woman, Gayle Quinnell, said "Arab terrorist," which would render McCain's comment more defensible. But in the video there is no indication that Quinnell said "terrorist." She just said "Arab." Some have wondered if the word "terrorist" was inaudible. This might be true, but Quinnell keeps speaking after she says the word "Arab," before McCain reclaims the mike.

I am guessing Cox simply misremembered the exchange: that the words "Arab" and "terrorist" are so thoroughly linked by now that to make the former an adjective of the latter has become second nature.

I've never been much of a comics fan, but I was much impressed with Broken Mystic's two-part blog series, "Female, Muslim, and Mutant: A Critique of Muslim Women in Comic Books."

The first entry talks about the portrayal of the X-Men's "Dust" character, an Afghan heroine introduced to the series in 2002. The second contrasts this with the portrayal of Muslim women in two comics by Muslim writers, especially "The 99," a series based on a fascinating time period in Islamic history, the attack on Baghdad's Bait al-Hikma (House of Wisdom) in the mid-13th century. I haven't read either series, but it looks like "The 99″ has a compelling plot with a much more diverse cast of female characters.

(Incidentally, there is a wonderful children's book called House of Wisdom, by Florence Parry Heide and Judith Heide Gilliland and illustrated by Mary GrandPre, that also deals with this time period. It appears to be out of print, but it's worth hunting down if you are interested in the role Baghdad played in dragging Europe out of the Dark Ages and kick-starting the Renaissance.)

Friday I went to see a movie. I've seen American movies in Egyptian theaters and Egyptian movies in my American house, as well as here of course, but this was my first time watching an Egyptian movie in an Egyptian theater. Suddenly I understand the parts that feel cheesy or over-the-top when you're sitting alone in your living room — it's a completely different experience watching it in a theater, where 200 people are laughing with you. (It's like how I don't get people who own Rocky Horror and watch at home, by themselves.) I wonder it's the same with Bollywood movies?

The movie was Hassan and Markus, with Omar Sharif and Adel Imam. Omar Sharif played a Muslim cleric who denounced Islamism, had his house firebomed, and was put into some kind of witness protection program where he was given a Christian identity. Adel Imam played a Christian who denounced pro-Christian violence, had his car blown up, and was put into the same program, posing as a Muslim. They unwittingly move into apartments across the hall from each other and their families become friends, each thinking they are "secretly" the same religion as the other. Wacky hijinks ensue.

Best line: After a building is blown up in a terrorist attack, some government PR guy trying to do damage control has a meeting with the press and says, "We are happy to report 75 were killed, all of them Egyptians! Not a single foreigner was harmed in this event!" The audience was rolling.

I really liked it and thought it was funny, but it was definitely a "message" film, with the Muslim (but really Christian) saving the lives of the wife and daughter of the Christian (but really Muslim) at the end, after their house is set on fire, and ending with both families bravely walking arm-in-arm through a riot scene between Muslims and Christians who are all screaming "Allahu akbar!" and "We will die for the cross!" and beating each other with sticks.

Not that I'm intolerant of "message" films. I was raised on afterschool specials, after all. But this one had a too-tight equation of the Muslim and Christian experience in Egypt, which I think is apples and oranges in a lot of ways. Coptic Christians are facing persecution for their religion, i.e. as minorities. Muslims' complaints against the government are broader, and more political than religious, though they take an Islamist form and use Islamist rhetoric. To go from one scene of the Muslim trying to muddle through a Christian prayer to another of the Christian trying to muddle through a Muslim prayer, and so on over and over, ignores the different social and economic position of both groups, in Egypt and internationally, reducing everything to a matter of faith and fanaticism, full stop. Maybe there was more I was missing because my Arabic is so bad and it wasn't subtitled, but I don't think so.

Although, as I said, I did like it. Especially because I like Adel Imam.

Lila Abu-Lughod has some good articles on the way Egypt, through its government-controlled media (which includes the censorship of film), has controlled the portrayal of Islam and Islamists. She's worth looking up if you have access to a university library.

My thoughts on the two hijabi women kicked out of an Obama photo-op.

A couple of articles about the media:

One on the presentation of the Iraq situation prior to the war, from the founder of FAIR:

In the fall of 2002, week after week, I argued vigorously against invading Iraq in debates televised on MSNBC. I used every possible argument that might sway mainstream viewers — no real threat, cost, instability. But as the war neared, my debates were terminated.

In my 2006 book Cable News Confidential, I explained why I lost my airtime:

There was no room for me after MSNBC launched Countdown: Iraq — a daily one-hour show that seemed more keen on glamorizing a potential war than scrutinizing or debating it. Countdown: Iraq featured retired colonels and generals, sometimes resembling boys with war toys as they used props, maps and glitzy graphics to spin invasion scenarios. They reminded me of pumped-up ex-football players doing pre-game analysis and diagramming plays. It was excruciating to be sidelined at MSNBC, watching so many non-debates in which myth and misinformation were served up unchallenged.

It was bad enough to be silenced. Much worse to see that these ex-generals — many working for military corporations — were never in debates, nor asked a tough question by an anchor. (I wasn’t allowed on MSNBC unless balanced by at least one truculent right-winger.)

Except for the brazenness and scope of the Pentagon spin program, I wasn’t shocked by the recent New York Times report exposing how the Pentagon junketed and coached the retired military brass into being “message-force multipliers” and “surrogates” for Donald Rumsfeld’s lethal propaganda.

The biggest villain here is not Rumsfeld or the Pentagon. It’s the TV networks. In the land of the First Amendment, it was their choice to shut down debate and journalism….

What makes me really angry? Is that this article is followed by comment after comment saying versions of "I don't watch TV," "who watches cable news?" "who believes this stuff in the first place?" "we all know Corporate Media lies," on and on.

Hurray, you don't watch television. HOW FANTASTIC FOR YOU. I appreciate non-participation as one strategy — will even call it the best strategy — against the way the Big Media^TM machine is currently constructed, but that yawn-and-dismiss tactic is INSUFFICIENT. Not when millions of other people DO watch television, DO get the majority of their international news from cable television, and DO use that information to vote and otherwise influence political events. I don't have any great answers here myself; it's not like I run something larger than the Pentagon and can combat this kind of thing in my spare time. But this guy is making some excellent points, if not strictly new ones, and I would appreciate having many more discussions about the issue without seeing them consistently bogged down in "you watch Hardball? what's wrong with you?" discussion-closers.

Sheesh.

Another one, this one about Debbie Almontaser, the Yemeni-American woman who was forced to resign as the principal of NYC's first Arabic bilingual high school. It's long-ish, but worth reading, especially pages 4 and 5, for another example of the oh-so-helpful role media (this time local media) play in defining political issues. Even I — who had been following this case, and wrote about it elsewhere last summer — was under the impression that she was fired because she was wearing an "intifada" t-shirt. While I personally don't have any problems with that, this article says she wasn't even doing that much: she was on the board of an organization that had an office that was sometimes used by a group of young women who were selling an "intifada" t-shirt:

Critics of the Madrassa Coalition say its tactics are typical of campaigns singling out Muslims: They lean heavily on guilt by association. The nuances of the claims against Ms. Almontaser were lost as the controversy lit up the blogosphere, said Chip Berlet, a senior analyst at Political Research Associates, a liberal organization outside Boston that studies the political right. One Web site, MilitantIslamMonitor.org, displayed photographs of Ms. Almontaser wearing her hijab in different styles, suggesting that she had undergone a public relations makeover to “disguise” her “Islamist agenda.”

But no worries. "She's certainly not a terrorist" –Mayor Bloomberg.

Congratulations HijabMan! First he makes The New York Times, then USA Today, and now, awesomely, The Colbert Report!

1. I finally saw Out of Africa, 22 years after it came out. In the past, this was one of the few movies guaranteed to put me to sleep. I've tried to watch it at least three times and could never stay awake. This time I soldiered on because it came on tv, coincidentally, just as I was finishing the book.

The book was published in 1937 and is as racist and colonialist as one would expect. There is much talk of the Natives, and their charming Native habits, etc. What it wasn't, though, was sexist, and watching the movie I was up in arms at little things I wouldn't even have noticed had I not read the book (for the first time) and watched the movie (for the first time) both in the same week.

I am not one of those people who needs a perfect match between the book and the screenplay, and even if I were, Out of Africa wouldn't be one of the darlings I felt obligated to protect. I also realize that a movie is dependent on dialogue in a way a book is not, and having Meryl Streep sitting alone in her kitchen saying "I am observing something about the Maasai…" just wouldn't work.

BUT, the way they chose to handle this was to turn the movie into a romance between Streep and Robert Redford, and put the author's words into his mouth. That's right, he explaaains Kenya to her, in his rugged, been-there-done-that way, and she, the sheltered woman, nods sagely at his wisdom, with just enough intelligence (this being Streep, not Paris Hilton) for the viewer to think, "my, what a good, almost-equal partner she makes! he's so independent, but she's smart enough to appreciate him! what a well-matched couple!" — when in reality the things he's explaaaining, about Gikuyu history and big game hunting, are taken almost verbatim from the book, i.e. stolen from the female narrator. Those should have been Streep's lines, with Redford, if he had to be there at all, being the one to do all the intent listening, all the thoughtful nodding.

Moreover! Because they made it into a romance above all else, the movie was actually more racist than the book was, even though it was made 50 years later. Because they'd turned Streep into a woman who primarily pined for her man, alone out on the sweeping African hills (how poetic!), the myriad relationships Isak Dinesen had with Kenyans were written out. It's true she did have this lover who would come and stay with her every now and then, and I'm sure that was hot and everything, but most of her energy was spent trying to make her farm work and on interacting with people who weren't out on safari ten months a year. Although her relationships with Kenyans were deeply problematic in a colonial context, at least those relationships _existed_, and took up a good portion of her attention and thus a good portion of her ink.

In the movie, however, she's got a couple of African servants or something, whatever — cut to a shot of her on her porch! wind in her hair! wishing her white boyfriend would come home and kiss her on the mouth. Both of them are portrayed as outsiders among the other colonials, which was true in the memoir as well, but making Redford the leading man (as opposed to occasional visitor) forces whatever knowledge he's acquired of the culture and the landscape to be packaged as evidence of his rugged independence, rather than evidence of things he's learned from the Kenyans, and because Streep's the girl and can't out-independent him, her relationships are even more superficial. There's no room for African characters in that set-up, at least none with any background, history, complexity, or expertise in anything that would outshine Redford. So they mostly plant coffee and sweep floors and do things in large mobs.

2. I also saw World Trade Center. From the trailer, I thought it would be a sappy sentimental ode to cops and firefighters, and how surprising would that be, because that's not anything I've heard before in relation to 9/11. Instead it was a disaster movie about some heavy stuff that fell on these two guys.

Even the army says '24′ goes too far — New Yorker article about the politics of the creators of 24, and a visit they got from West Point asking them to stop, please, just stop.

Whether or not you watch or like the show, it's an interesting look at the "but it's just television!" defense, used repeatedly and then interspersed with comments from soldier-fans in Iraq (who just happen to be *actual interrogators*), and meetings the writers have with the likes of Mary Cheney and Karl Rove.

I finally went to see Fahrenheit 911. What a disappointment. I really liked Bowling For Columbine and from everything I'd heard this was supposed to be way better.

Okay okay the three things I give Michael Moore credit for: 1) his use of music is always fun, 2) his I Am Mister Joe Average American Patriot story is not to be misunderestimated; it's about time someone reclaimed that from the Right (though even there there are problems; see below), and 3) his "wait, you're just walking away???" shtick, first perfected in Roger and Me and later used in, well, just about everything he's done, is preferable to the mainstream media's boot-licking attitude toward "access."

The best scene in the whole film, I thought, was the split-second shot of an Iraqi man carrying a boy, presumably his son, maybe eight or nine years old, to get medical help. There was a stain on the boy's jeans; it was clear he'd wet himself. Had I been watching that on video I would have hit pause and taken some time out to go get a sandwich or something, taken some time to get over myself, because the thought of a child my daughter's age peeing his pants in fear was even more powerful than the litany of injuries, burn marks, and amputations that followed, as was the image of his father scooping him up and carrying him to whatever safety he could find: forgiving the boy, under the circumstances.

But the message of the film as a whole? About everything I want to say has already been said here. Add to that some irritation at the equation of Bin Laden and The House of Saud. The only support he offered for that assertion was a clip of someone saying Bin Laden actually wasn't that much of a black sheep, as evidenced by two family members attending his son's wedding or something. Granted I got up to pee at one point and maybe that's where Moore made his airtight case for linking the two. If that's the case, please fill me in.

Visit his store here.