Generally, I don’t mind getting those somewhat pesky emails from Amazon.com that use my past purchases to predict what I “might want to check out” in the future.  Occasionally, they stumble on something new that I might not have otherwise found.  Unfortunately for Amazon, I’m not the target market that immediately buys whatever they suggest, nor do I spiral into a spending frenzy after being reminded of the infinite consumer options on their website.

However.  Before today, their “friendly suggestions” have avoided sending me into a fit of rage.  Now, Amazon?  The gloves are off.

Several years ago, I ordered a book called “Mexican American Women Activists: Identity and Resistance in two Los Angeles Communities”.  It is an academic book, written by Professor Mary Pardo.  It is NOT political propaganda.  It is NOT a manifesto about immigration politics.  It IS a book about mobilization and the politics of urban change.  The DETAILS matter here – check it out:

“Unlike many studies, the stories told here focus on women’s strengths rather than on their problems.  We follow the process through which these women empowered themselves by using their own definitions of social justice and their own convictions about the importance of traditional roles.  Rather than becoming political participants in spite of their family responsibilities, women appeared to have greater power because of their responsibilities, social networks, and daily routines separate from men in the communities.”

Okay – everyone with me?  This is a book about community activism.  This is a book about resistance.  This is a study about the co-constitutive relationships among activists, social forces, and political structures.

So.  I was more than just slightly nonplused to see Amazon suggest that because I bought that book, I would ALSO probably enjoy “Refounding America: A Field Manuel for Patriot Activists.”  (I’d give you a link to follow, but I don’t want them getting the traffic)……..Refounding America……Refounding America….WHERE have I heard that before?  OH RIGHT.  A few years back it was Glenn Beck that suggested we “refound America”!  What a clever man!  Could it be that this sort of “refounding” that Glenn Beck had in mind aligns in some way with the politics of resistance that Pardo studied in Los Angeles?

In case you didn’t catch my rageful foreshadowing, the answer is: NO.  Lemme give you a little taste of how this “Refounding American” book sets the scene for contemporary politics:

“America is fighting a Civil War today. Between the Citizen and the State. On one side are the Patriots, people who support the Constitution and our system of government: limited in its power over your life. A system of checks and balances and small government where the important decisions are made by the States, not Washington. A system where ‘We the People’ has real meaning, where Rights apply to individuals, and where the Government has only duties. Patriots trust the people. On the other side are the Progressives, people who believe that ethics and morality and law come not from God but from the Government. Their vision is for a system where the Government becomes the Nanny State, and in the process Big Brother, taking care of them from Cradle to Grave. All you have to give up for this Utopia is your personal freedom and all your Rights – which turn out to be not so inalienable after all. Progressives trust the State. Refounding America is about fighting this Patriotic War against the Progressives who would have their State take over every aspect of our lives. Their prescription for “hope” and “change” is Socialism, the first step on the slippery slope to Marxism. Over 60 years ago, George Orwell warned us about this coming totalitarian dystopia in his works 1984 and Animal Farm. In the latter, all the animals were equal – except the elitist Pigs, who were more equal. Sound familiar? Refounding America is the field manual for the other animals in the barnyard who want their own personal freedoms back and are sick and tired of the Pigs telling them what to do. Refounding America is the handbook loaded with practical, tactical strategies to “Take Back America Now”, and win the battle against the Progressives.”

Pretty…..lofty aspirations, eh?  And wow….that language is kinda….loaded.  We’re in a “Civil War”?  There is a coming “totalitarian dystopia”?  Sprinkle in a dash of implied Marxist class-warfare (wrapped in an Orwellian blanket) while simultaneously eschewing Marxism as the root of the coming plague.   We’ve got ourselves the making of a tautological, circular argument!  Bravo, “Patriots”…I’m simultaneously horrified and confused.

Setting my political persuasions aside, there’s more going on here.  There’s something about this language that’s a little fishy.  “Civil War”, you say?  That’s…familiar.  I seem to remember we hosted that party some 150 years ago.  What was that about, again?  OOOOOH, RIGHT!  Slavery!  Ha.  I guess I forgot about that attempt to “refound America”.  No wonder this political trope sounded so familiar.  But…why would we be using that imagery…now?

You don’t think they’re talking about…<hushed tones>…race, do you?  I mean…no.  It couldn’t be.  It’s not like there have been any major electoral issues about race in the past few years.  You know, where, maybe some people might think that suddenly now “race matters” to “the State” in a new way?  They don’t mean… “we” (white people?) should keep people of color out of decision-making capacities in government, do they?  Like, cuz “we” are threatened by leadership from non-white people, or whatever?  This isn’t cuz they’re pissed about race (just now, in their white, privileged eyes) “in” politics?  That’d be unfair to read that into their rhetoric, right?

Maybe they’re talking about religion?  Yeah.  “God” kinda swoops in there from outta nowhere when the authors tell us that some people called “Progressives” don’t believe that he should be a part of government.  So I guess…these “Patriots” believe that God DOES have  role in government.  It’s kind of unclear here…they say that they want LESS government because they want more God (in charge of “morality and ethics”)…but then they want a NEW government founded on some Godly principles?  I guess I got kind of side-tracked by the bit about Socialism.  It’s confusing.  Somewhere in there is the implication that we’re on some sort of teleological trek towards Socialist government.  Further, it doesn’t sound like (their version of) God likes that idea.

Which, I guess brings us back to the war we’re fighting.  And how this book will be showing us how to get involved.  I GUESS that part of the deal here is that the authors (and their invocation of Glenn Beckitude) want a constitutional democracy do-over.  After wading through the string of non-sequitors that define the content of their message, it seems to be that it boils down to this:

They are definitely pissed.  They definitely believe that the “Patriots” (Constitutional Framers??) were on to something.  They remember an historical moment when violence and succession was aimed to shore up the Patriots’ freedom to keep people of color in “their place”.  These Patriots seem to remember that this Civil War failed us once…but they’ll be damned if it happens again.

I guess once they “win” this (implied) Holy War, they’re a *little* short on details for what comes next.  They just have a sense that they will definitely be in charge.  They will not use the word “Socialism”.   And the good news is we will FINALLY do away with “hope” and “change” in their new utopia.  (Thank goodness, btw, I was so sick of the smothering promise of optimism.)  At some point, they seem to believe that their new government is going to have some “duties” to follow thru on…but for now, they just plan to take care of enacting their rights.  Rights, which seem to boil down to: We do whatever the ***k we want, and you uppity Progressives: stop talking.

Which…….brings me back to Amazon.  I mean, I can see how they got to that recommendation.  They were really doing me a solid!  I guess if all we noticed was that both books were about race, resistance, conviction, and using community to enact social change…they ARE pretty much in the same vein.

Assuming, of course, that it’s opposite day.  And Amazon doesn’t mind me telling them to shove it.

1. The economy!  J/K, it sucks. And I need it to turn around so some of my awesome friends can find some awesome jobs.

2. Bikes bikes bikes bikes!  Check out me riding today!

3. Coya (the green bike in question) and my yet to be named fixie, not featured.  I bike all places possible.

4. Argyle (see photo for kick ass jersey)

5.  Bill Bryson.  Funniest writer in my collection.  I space out my reading of his books so they last…and last….and last.

6. Feminism and Politics.  The reasons I bothered to go back to school for all these g.d. degrees.  My belief that it’s possible is closely tied to #17.

7.  The Gender Command Center!  Where I do my work.  So named by a dear friend Jason.  Fellow in the struggle.

8. Inspiring quotes.  The most important on in my 29th year?  “The main this is, you fight back.”

9. Rowing.  And the federal law (Title IX) that enabled me to find a sport, a career, and a politics to fight for.

10. Windchimes.  For having a strange way of ringing right when it was time for me to calm down, move on, or let something that had burdened me… go.

11. Water.  For the times I have rowed on it, forced myself to swim in it, re-hydrated with it, or been calmed by the light reflecting off it.

12.  Dr. Seuss.  For teaching me how to read.

13. Bike Posters by Adam Turman.  Google him.  Buy it.  Love it.

14. Graph Paper.  The organization, people!  The MATH!  The joy.

15.  Feminist and quasi-feminist musicians: Ani, Brandi, Indigo Girls, Patty.

16.  Emma Freeman Photography.  For all your lovely photography needs.

17.  My fantastic dissertation committee.  4 reasons I did not quit grad school the 9898589458 times I considered it.

18. Jigsaw puzzles!!  Yesssssssssssss.  This is the one I’m kickin’ thru now.

19. Seinfeld.  “The HEAT Mrs. Seinfeld, MY GOD THE HEAT!”

20.  Inspiring blogs that can change the world.  Like this one!

21. Inspiring radical scholarship that can change the world.  i.e. This crazy collection of books on my windowsill, fit for reading this summer!

22. NPR, MPR, Ira Glass, and Radio Lab.

23. Learning that “writing is thinking” (thank you, Sally K.) and accepting that is going to take me a long time to think as clearly as I’d like to.

24.  Homemade smoothies (nom nom nomming one right now).

25.  Learning things the hard way.  Learning things the painful way.  And learning enough to know how to avoid the latter repeating itself.

26.  Differing opinions.  And learning how to find common ground by having many of them with my mom.

27. My family.  They’re all nuts.  And hilarious.  And I love them.

28. My friends.  They are intriguing, interesting, wise and fulfilling additions in my life.  And I love them.

29.  The Emma.  She’s talented, comical, caring, forgiving, wise, generous, and I love her.

30.  Health (in good proportions), Wealth (both relative and in good measure), and Wisdom that comes with living long enough to feel it developing.

Thanks to all my fantastic people for a lovely birthday.  30 feels fantastic!

At the same time, this story implies a lot of realities out of which we could tell a richer story about college athletics.  Embedded in Walker’s story is a story about the powerful closeting dynamics at work for coaches of NCAA Division I teams.  These dynamics, which the story reveals lead Walker to avoid confronting his sexuality until his mid-20s, are almost palpable in college athletics.  The liberatory practices of “coming out” that are preached by the many in the LGBT community are noticeably subdued in college athletics.  Whether among coaches, athletes or administrators, rare are the valorized stories of individuals who proudly announce their sexual preference or sexual identity to a public audience.  To do so would open up ones personal life to judgment, ridicule, or perhaps risk painful rejection by players, recruits, fans, or teammates.  Not only does the threat of rejection loom large; so does the fear of retaliation.  Common, instead, are the quiet stories (like that of Walker) or the absent ones.  Omission or intentional silence on these issues by players, coaches and athletic administrators are the norm in college athletics.  And that silence, for gay athletes and their allies, can be deafening.

Whether there are greater or fewer gay-identified people in college athletics than the general population is an open question.  Further, it is a question whose answer remains obscured by the oppressive forces (some touched upon in this article) that act to subtly tell coaches, players, and administrators that this private/public distinction in personal/coaching lives is an important one to maintain.  Fear promotes silence.  Silence promotes a culture of apparent absence.  The apparent absence of fellow LGBT people and allies promotes an ambiguous culture of fear.  This viscous cycle repeats itself in many teams, communities, and athletic departments around the country (including the one in which I have been active).  The article skirts around this reality without naming it.

What the article could have also mentioned was that this is not merely a problem solvable by honesty on the part of LGBT coaches.  Further, it is not a problem that has already been quietly solved.  We must not merely hope for the quiet acceptance expressed by Walker’s players, but actively generate athletic communities that are defined by safe space for LGBT people.

This important (and deeply political) step cannot only fall on the shoulders of those whose primary relationships are called non-normative.  We cannot merely wait for coaches, players, and administrators with same-sex partners to do the hard work of living “out”.  For those of us involved in athletics, as players, coaches, or spectators, we must all be “out” about our alliances with and for LGBT people.  The safe space for honesty is not generated by accident.  It comes thru education, care for diversity, acceptance and acknowledgment of the myriad people and preferences that already populate our athletic teams.

Kirk Walker is assuredly already a part of generating these spaces for honesty.  But we must not forget the personal costs often quietly borne by those strong but potentially vulnerable players, coaches, and administrators in college athletics who fear what backlash their honesty might evoke.  If the world is to resemble the just and verdant place I would like it to embody, we must not rely on only the Kirk Walkers.  We must all take chances to start the difficult conversations about fear and acceptance when the stakes are low.  College athletics need not only change on the backs of those profiled by Outsports.com or the New York Times.  It need not merely hope for the future that Walker envisions at the end of this article.  If you are an ally, make it known.  Empowering the quiet moments of honesty that this article reveals starts with each of us engaged in college sports–athlete, coach, administrator, or spectator.

For more on this and other LGBT sports-related topics, check out Professor Pat Griffin’s blog.  Though it may sound glib, I conclude on a point that is assuredly not.  Change in the relationship between sexuality and sport must start with all of us.  Thus it is to each of us that I extend the call to make the wide world of sports the sort of space we can be proud of, regardless of our identities.

The Washington Post (of all places?) wrote this article about her back in February.  It spends an inordinate amount of time focused on how great it is that she isn’t “that” much of an activist…probably because it’s in the Post…but in doing so, really shows just the extent to which she is *highly* political active.

This is why I love the Rach.  Progressives have to sit around and live with the reality that the conservative spin machine is hard at work on Fox News, The Patriot (local MN AM radio station) and any number of shows in syndication that spew conservative rhetoric masked in “news”…it’s about time we had one of our own striking back.

Furthermore, let’s think through the reasons Rachel is simply…better than Rush, Sean, Bill, Glenn and all the rest of those doofuses:

• HUMOR.  Get a clue dudes — politics are serious business, but all your flustering, pompous, roid-raged shouting is just giving us high blood pressure.  Rachel makes us laugh.  Laughing lowers blood pressure.  Lower blood pressure = longer life.  So, go on killing yourself…if that’s what you’re into.
• Counter-spin and debunk, much?  Rachel does.  I.e. Exposing Dick Armey for the two-bit, back-door “movement generator” that he and Freedom Works were last summer.  Someone has to get on up in that echo chamber.
• Hooded sweatshirts and retro athletics shoes.  That’s what she wears off the air.  And…so do I.  Not that this is about me…except it’s a little bit about me.  And how Rachel makes my “style” look “cool”.
• POLITICAL SCIENCE, PhD.  She is one.  And it *gasp* makes her way smarter again all the bloviating she’s up against.
• Finally: she’s not a dude.  We got plenty of them telling us what to think about politics.  On the left AND the right.  Bring in the broads.

Anyway…read the article.  It’s about her work on DADT.  Which I should blog about another day.  Certifiably effed policy.  Rachel reflects on her work on this policy (and others), stating:

“For me it’s a question of whether you’re doing advocacy journalism or not. It’s not activism — you see a lot of that at Fox, using news coverage to inspire political participation.”

Interesting distinction.  And an increasingly blurry one.  Blurred by political committments, the pulpit TV commentators, and personal identity.  Rachel also goes on to say (with regard to “bias” and her coverage of DADT):

“I can’t do the show as a non-gay person. I don’t have that option.”

Interesting, right?  And begs the question, do we consider “bias” generated from positionality of politically and socially marginalized identities as problematic?  Meaning, must it really be “bias” because Rachel covers a topic that pertains to those with whom she shares some identity characteristic?  And even if it is “biased”, isn’t it about damn time those “biased” ideas had a mainstream forum to be voiced?

Go on, Rachel.  I, and a lot of other “biased” types have got your back.

Constance.  Age 16.  Knows herself well enough to know she’s gay.  Stable enough as a young queer adult to have a long-term girlfriend.  Strong enough to fight back, when told by her high school that she could NOT bring her gf to the high school prom.  Articulate and calm enough to go public about this wrong in the small (and as we shall see, HOMOPHOBIC) town of Fulton, Mississippi.  Self-confident enough to withstand the potential public shaming that this town would go on to enact upon her when she called them on their bluff.  In the end, she proved that their homophobia was not just a bluff, was not just huffing and puffing to shore up heteronormativity in Fulton, MS.  In the end, she is strong enough to stand as a powerful symbol of what it means to know wrong when we see it and call it out into the light.  In the end, Constance McMillen is indeed a hero.

So what’s this all about?  To get y’all up to speed: the facts.  Constance’s story came to my attention on March 13th.  It broke in the media a few days earlier shortly after her high school cancelled their prom.  They did so after Constance tried to buy two tickets: one for herself, and one for her girlfriend.  School policy explicitly indicated that dates must be of the opposite sex.  This was only the first indication of their shameless hetero-exclusivity.  Unfortunately for the school district, Constance’s claim was backed by the ACLU.  In time, they obtained a court ruling that indicated the high school was not allowed to discriminate on the basis of sex (uhhh…..duh, assholes).  The school, however, indicated the prom was off due to the “distractions to the educational process caused by recent events”.  Gay people.  SOOOO distracting.  Never mind that “distraction” is ALL about the disruption of normalcy which only happens when the dominant group gets all itchy that there may be proof their so-called “normal-ness” is just a statistical regularity rather than a immutable reality.

In any case, they tell Constance the prom is off.  Then they go on about planning a “secret prom” that they don’t bother to invite her to.  Basically, they perpetrate a fraud against the court who ruled that this was illegal, against Constance who the ruling was meant to protect, and against their role as a non-discriminatory social institution.  Then, last Friday  night, they tell Constance the prom is back on, she should attend it with her gf, at the local country club.  Constance and her gf show up….and there are 7 students there….total.  Her school principal and several teachers attended, along with several students who were identified as having learning disabilities.  (this factoid is suitable for a post on all its own…for now, let’s just sit slack-jawed at the multiple fronts of “othering” the secret-prom-planning committee was under-taking.)

Are you outraged yet?

Let’s think about who had to collude in order to pull this off….

1. The other students at the high school.  Constance reports that several of them lied to her face about where the dance was being held.  They knew that few intended to show up at the country club…and they attended another prom-party the same night in a different location.  Evidently, almost ALL of them had no trouble nesting in their straight (or closeted) privilege to not end up being part of the out-crowd.

2. The parents of students at the high school.  It is reported that they were the one organizing the “real” prom at the not-country club.  In doing so, they not ONLY directly undermined a court order, they taught their kids an important lesson about hetero-privilege: Don’t like gay people?  Pay to set up your own special straight space and buy a world where same-sex couples are erased!  Happy valley!  Separate-but-equal lives in institutional settings AND as an important lesson on which to skate into adulthood.  Difference is bad, so go ahead and use your privilege to construct a world where it doesn’t exist.  Disgusted yet?  *Tsk*   They should be ASHAMED.

3.  The administrators at the school.  Not only did they make the wrong decision ONCE, I refuse to believe they didn’t collude it making sure it happened twice.  And seriously…NONE of them had the wherewithal to stand up to injustice and stand with Constance?  SHAME on them for, if nothing else, “leaving children behind.”

Meanwhile…we have Constance.  A 16 year old young woman.  Defiant and strong to the end.  Potentially humiliated by her school, her classmates, and her community, Constance simply says:

“I needed to show them that I’m still proud of who I am.  The fact that this will help people later on, that’s what’s helping me to go on.”

16.  And she’s already learned that being “different” often means being forced to be the martyr for future generations.  A lesson she learned, no doubt, from the community that refused to accept her for who she is in the CURRENT moment, instead of the histories not-yet-written.

As we shame a community for allowing this form of homophobic hatred of a young woman, I suggest that we also valorize Constance.  Few young people would have had the strength she showed at any stage in this orchestrated arrangement of gay-hatred.  Fewer still would have the courage to go public.

If America is looking for more “heros”, I suggest we look to Constance McMillen.  At the ripe age of 29, I certainly find myself looking up to Constance.  The forces that change portions of society that  hate diversity are distressingly slow to move.  Yet when they do, it is often on the backs of and in the life events of a strong minority.  Constance McMillen is one of those people in 2010.  Without flames or guns, she stands for something we should all hope for: an American democracy free of hate and fear of those exceptional souls in homogeneous communities.  If a vision of America as the land where such diversity is valued, celebrated, and embraced is not what we all valorize…then I don’t want to go where we are headed.

Constance McMillen, I hope for all of us that you are never again, left to party alone.

Now….first of all…I just had like 4 flashbacks to college chemistry.  Not only was it the class in which I received my worst grade ever, it was the one in which I had quite a mix of passion and pain.  Passion for an understanding of the universe as infinitesimally tiny, yet organizable on a delightful rubric…and pain that I could never seem to memorize those factoids properly.  So ended my quest to be a medical doctor.

That aside…….is it not a crazy-ass world where in we can still be DISCOVERING ELEMENTS??  And the answer is yes.  Evidently, this is associated with these handle little devices called “particle accelerators”.  Do I understand what they do?  I most certainly do not.  HOWEVER, in  my mind’s eye it is much like the Kentucky Derby of elements.  For like…60 circular miles.  I also have a running theory that if they ever get that one up to full speed in Europe, we’re all likely getting sucked into a black hole.  For interested readers, I have a parallel theory that in fact we already ARE inside a black hole and we don’t know it.  And if you ask me on what I base this, the answer is again nothing.  But let’s all enjoy a non-sensical relationship with black holes while we can, eh?

And while we’re at it…dream up a better name for “ununseptium”.

So.  All of that is well and good.  I’ve resigned myself to the fact that PhDs SHOULD be friggin hard so that they actually mean something both to those who do and don’t have one.  But to have it become the consuming drive of most of my waking hours?  ehhhhh this is a problem.  Especially when the world is such a big, crazy, interesting, unpredictable place.

And thus we arrive at my quest for new hobbies.  Basically, I’m looking for things that are going to motivate me to squeeze as much into the hours at the lab as I can, so I can get on home to doing the fun stuff.

Caveat: my nerdery is STILL the driving force behind both of these projects.  You need to know this, kind reader, because when I reveal to you (as I’m about to) that one of my new hobbies is going to be putting together a JIGSAW PUZZLE, you need to table your nerd judgment.

Okay.  So, there you go…new hobby intervention #1: jig saw puzzling. 

I suppose if I felt like explaining this, I could give you a few reasons.  One MAY be that I am secretly 70 years old on the inside…but let’s not look at that possibility too closely, just in case it’s true.  <ahem>  Other contenders: it’s SO FUN to make sense of a mess someone else intentionally made for you.  There’s always an answer.  You find it through logical deduction.  And in the end, it makes a pretty picture.  Abut this next to most of the stuff I spend time thinking about (unsolvable social inequities that are totally effed with no easy or necessarily plausible solution) and maybe you can see beyond the nerdery with me.

Next, a series of small victories eventually collude to make a large victory (re: finished puzzle!).  Tell me you don’t want to wrap yourself in that metaphor and soothe away all your irritations with big problems?  Exactly.

Finally, my grandpa used to love puzzles.  I think that’s how he go through most of his retirement.  He passed away almost exactly one year ago after a long descent into Alzheimer’s.  This makes me  feel just a little bit closer to the man we lost.

So there you have it.  Hobby endeavor #1.  Add to this a few other noteables: I want to kick this blog back into gear.  I want to make all my old rowing t-shirts into a t-shirt quilt.  And I want to find a single-speed bike to ride all over the town (and country, since I’m traveling to some far-off lands for my dissertation research this summer).  I’m pretty sure I’ll be busy enough.  Stay tuned for more posts.

WHY IS IT THAT we imbue genetic relationships with a potency that borders on magic? How many among us have trolled through genealogy records in search of unknown relatives or have welcomed strangers into our homes and hearts in instant intimacy simply because a genetic connection is suddenly revealed? Grandpa Harry’s older brother’s grandchild just found us on the Internet! A lovely man! Let’s have him over for dinner! The emotional connection between newly discovered kin is trenchant because we believe the genetic link to be significant, allowing us to embrace a stranger who — if that tie were lacking — we would never otherwise blindly accept. But what happens when we believe a tie exists, as Mike did, and then discover it doesn’t? If betrayal and money are taken out of the equation, would everything look different?

It seems that with each story I read about Hillary Clinton, the woman becomes more my hero.  This piece in Vogue Magazine of all places, is no exception.

This is a woman who, the more I read about, seems to bear the prolonged brunt of anti-feminist rage.  Who must constantly ignore her detractors.  Who must ignore the personal and mean-spirited attacks on her character, motivations, and public goals.  Who, after literally nearly twenty years as the conservative right-wing’s punching bag still has this to say about her own role as in inspirational woman:

I [the Vogue reporter] bring up something I have been thinking about during the whole time we have been in Africa: Why is Hillary such an inspirational figure to so many women?…  “Well, I don’t really understand it myself,” she says, finally. “But it may in part be because people feel like they know me; they have watched me on the world scene for seventeen years now. They’ve seen my ups and my downs.” She lets out a dark little chuckle. “They’ve seen my best and my worst. They’ve seen my public and my private—they’ve seen everything.

“So many women feel like I’m on their side,” she says. “I somehow, through my life or their perception of me, give them courage to do things. And I think it’s also that, whether I am meant to or not, I challenge assumptions about women. I do make some people uncomfortable, which I’m well aware of, but that’s just part of coming to grips with what I believe is still one of the most important pieces of unfinished business in human history—empowering women to be able to stand up for themselves.

“I try to live my life in a way that I think has meaning,” she continues. “I was raised to believe that I have to give back, that I was incredibly blessed to be an American, to have a good education, to have an intact family with two parents who encouraged me. I never felt in my family that I couldn’t do anything I set my mind to because I was a girl, which was unusual even when I was growing up. I have a great partner who has been enormously supportive to me. I have a wonderful daughter. I have a 90-year-old mother who lives with us. I have so many blessings. And yet I know how hard it is even for people in today’s world who have all of the attributes of education and income. Life is challenging for everybody.” She takes a deep breath, leans back, and looks at me with those bright-blue eyes. “That’s the best I can come up with!”

If that’s not a role model, I don’t know who is.

Now, as a GENERAL rule, I would dislike such an act of obvious gender difference essentialism that suggests boys require a special space to read their boy books.  However in this case, and in light of the persistent U.S. Dept of Ed stats that confirm a gender difference in reading ability (favoring girls), I’m kinda into this.  Why?  Well, bitch writer Jonathan Frochtwajg convinced me when he wrote:

“…if boys are having problems with reading, that negatively affects how the men they become see both themselves and women.  When we read, we see from other perspectives–including other perspectives on gender.  The uncommonly honest accounts of men’s and women’s experiences that can be found in literature make the gender construct seem a cartoon of human experience, and offer boys the chance to transcend simplistic, dehumanizing notions of masculinity and femininity.  For boys to access those accounts, though, they first have to want to–they first have to make sense of those squiggles on the page.”  (winter 09, page 11)

Further, I go to grad school with a LOT of guys.  Almost all guys, actually.  And they are becoming some of my dearest people.  Many of them–openly identifying as feminists!  You know what they do a lot of?  READING.  While I doubt their current reading list is on this site, someone along the line musta been helping them buck the trend.

So here’s a future of good parenting and providing the next generation of young feminists with books to broaden their perspectives.