feminism

Mad Men is great trainwreck theatre full of those “oh no they didn’t” moments all shot sumptuously like cookbooks with supersaturated colour from that era. Call me a crank, but the female characters in last night’s episode reminded me of lines from Henrik Ibsen plays…

Joan & her less than “Sterling” reputation:: “Oh courage…oh yes! If only one had that…Then life might be livable, in spite of everything.”—Hedda Gabler

Peggy Blue Got Harried {in the Ideological Divide}:: “Whether I pound or am being pounded, all the same there will be moaning!” —Peer Gynt

Dr. Faye “Donning” doormat apparel:: “Your squirrel would run about and do all her tricks if you would be nice, and do what she wants.”—Nora in A Doll’s House

Twitterversion:: [blog] The women of mad men channelled through Henrik Ibsen. https://thesocietypages.org/thickculture/?p=3074  @ThickCulture @Prof_K

No matter how you slice it, Roman Polanski is a divisive figure. I blogged about his detainment by the Swiss police last fall {that post details the case}, when the Los Angeles District Attorney was angling for extradition. I should add that like I said in my earlier blog, I’m not a Polanski apologist and my concerns have to do with civil liberties. The story stirred up quite a bit of emotions with the anti-Polanski camp calling him a child rapist, the victim wanting the whole affair to go away, and his Hollywood supporters making pleas to sway public opinion. Today, the Swiss Justice Ministry refused to extradite Polanski, citing that the LA prosecution failed to provide enough evidence, among other factors. There is no expectation that U.S. authorities will appeal and he’s a free man.

First, I think it should be addressed why the Polanski affair angers so many people. It’s a reminder of an ugly chauvinistic past and the seeming existence of a two-tiered justice system that a CBC article summed it up quite well last fall::

“…For generations, women have suffered unfairly in rape cases, particularly at the hands of the courts. The onus of guilt was often shifted to the woman under the phrases ‘she should have known better’ or, even worse, ‘ she asked for it.’

These ugly phrases and the often lack of support from the police and courts caused untold numbers of women to suffer in silence rather than seek justice in a public forum.

Fortunately, things are changing, but not far enough nor fair enough. Polanski’s efforts to avoid prison —coupled with all the prominent people who are rushing to support him — are a reminder to many women of the unfairness of both public sentiment and the legal system.”

In my previous blog on Polanski, I called into question issues of due process and prosecutorial misconduct. On a Facebook wall, my arguments were reduced to saying that I was equating his crime with possible misconduct::

“[Kenneth Kambara] is trying to equate purported legal misconduct with admitted statutory rape. I think the latter is proven–by admission–and the former possible but unproven. And the efforts to prove it cannot be attempted from Europe.

Polanski wanted to return to the US, that’s why his lawyers were pushing this issue. If extradition is achieved, he will get his wish. He has nobody to blame but himself.”

I must admit I found this to be a curious statement, as in my mind it highlights how the public wants justice and may not have the patience for due process. The above statement refuses to acknowledge that flaws in procedure matter, regardless of the crime and how reprehensible it might be. Nevertheless, being a stickler for due process can upset the sensibilities of fairness when someone who seems dead-to-right guilty gets away with punishment by faulty due process. Yet, without upholding due process, what kind of legal system would there be?

In 1986, Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, Rose Elizabeth Bird {appointed by Jerry Brown}, and several other “liberal” justices were not confirmed in the general election. One of the major issues was the death penalty and how she overturned cases. The reason? Due process. Bird argued in several capital cases that there were flaws in procedural due process and to try again without the flaw. This holds police and the judicial system to a high standard of conduct, in order to limit the incarceration or death of the wrongly accused. I think this can be frustrating to those thinking that this is a travesty of justice, but it goes back to what type of legal system do the people want.

The Swiss Justice Ministry claimed that they didn’t consider Polanski’s crime, but the LA court’s procedures. The ministry requested documents from the meeting where Polanski’s lawyers met with the original 1977 judge, Laurence Ritterband. The U.S. Justice Department refused, citing confidentiality. Arguably, those documents may have proven embarrassing to the California court and harmed the case. The Swiss threw out the extradition request, which only occurs 5% of the time, citing a lack of support for the request and the fact that it came years after U.S. authorities knew Polanski had a residence in Gstaad since 2006, but failed to act until 2009.

I think FoxNews Entertainment hit the nail on the head on how the State of California managed to look like the bad guy in a child rape case::

“…And [Robert] Reuland [a New York City-based criminal defense attorney] says that while California is probably embarrassed by Switzerland’s decision, this could also be the end of their efforts to pursue Polanski, which is probably costing millions and millions of dollars.

‘At some point, California prosecutors have to decide whether they want to keep at something that is taking so much effort and cost. His public nature plays a big role in why they have pursued it for so long now. But after a certain point, California starts looking like the bad guy in a severely botched case,’ he said.

It’s pretty hard to look like the bad guy in a child rape case, but somehow California managed to do it.”

Song:: Echo & the Bunnymen-‘Do It Clean’

Twitterversion:: [blog] Why the Polanski affair is such a hot topic & the intersection of fairness & due process. #ThickCulture @Prof_K

Notes from north of 49ºN

“But how could she mince around in high heels and then, in the next breath, work as a crisis volunteer for rape victims and march in Barrie’s Take Back the Night rally? Isn’t that a conflict of character?”

“It seems to me that she’s pushing the boundaries of several stereotypes about what makes a woman attractive. In fact, according to The Independent, “she entered the contest in the hope of launching a modeling career that might fund her athletics training.” So the lady was just using the contest to meet her “real” desire: to be an Olympian. Nothing wrong with hustling the system, right?”

Iceland has recently passed a law banning profit from the nudity of its employees, which may spell the end of the sex industry. The relatively small country is home to 320,000 people, where 100 immigrant women have come to work in strip clubs.  The legislation is based on feminist not religious reasons and it is argued that the rise in the number of female parliamentarians (almost 50%) and a strong womens’ movement that is united against the sex industry. Additionally, Iceland has a female prime minister who is openly lesbian, who has been a strong feminist presence in the parliament, the Alþingi {Althingi}. In the US and the UK, feminism is divided, as the sex industry is debated as being degrading or empowering.

What’s interesting is the interaction of culture and feminism in Iceland. The Nordic countries have increasingly negative attitudes towards prostitution and it appears that the feminism is Iceland is less fragmented in its values. I’m curious what the attitudes towards sex are in Iceland and the degree of openness there is towards it, which may explain how feminism is socially constructed in Iceland. I get a sense that places where sex is more taboo and a cultural hot-button topic, the more fragmented feminism will be. I’m not using fragmented pejorativelyJust a thought.

Well, as the strip clubs in Iceland fade away, perhaps they can sell the brass poles on eBay. This NYTimes article from a few years back reports that the owners of the strip club used as a location shoot for The Sopranos auctioned off the stripper poles due to an impending remodel.

Twitterversion:: Iceland banning strip clubs for feminist, not religious reasons. Intersection of culture, sex work, & feminism. #ThickCulture

Song:: Bjork-‘The Hunter’ & ‘Human Behaviour’

See update below on LA District Attorney, Steve Cooley-30 September 2009 11:25 PDT.

First off, my opinion is that director Roman Polanski is guilty of rape, a rape that took place in 1977.  A few days ago, he was arrested in Switzerland, after police there were tipped off by US authorities.  Here’s an overview::

Over on the Salon.com broadsheet, Kate Harding wants us all to remember that Roman Polanski raped a child.  I often take issue with Salon, as several times in the past they have used gender as a wedge issue, intentionally framing things so as to stir controversy.  In this case, Harding wants the Polanski case reduced to one note:: child rapist.  While this may strengthen the emotional impact of her argument, it negates and dilutes the complexity of the situation and how others involved need to be held accountable for their actions that have led us to this point.

Those wanting the lurid details can easily find them online thanks to the prosecution, so I won’t go over those here.  I will state what Polanski was initially charged with back in 1977::

“rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance (methaqualone) to a minor.”

The prosecution, stating they wanted to spare the the girl the trauma of having to go through a trial, offered a plea bargain, where Polanski copped to the charge of ::

“engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.”

So, why did he flee the country and avoid extradition back to the US for over 30 years?

Allegedly, word got out that the media hungry judge, Laurence J. Rittenband, the “judge to the stars,” was getting a sense that the public would be outraged by this plea deal and was set to throw the book at Polanski.  Polanski fled.  This judge later went on record stating that he would stay on the bench until Polanski was returned.  That didn’t happen.  He retired from the bench in 1989 and died of cancer in 1993.  When he retired, he quoted Gilbert and Sullivan stating, “I got him [Polanski] on my list.”  {Don’t get me started on crank judges quoting showtunes and Shakespeare.}  Now, echoing those statements, Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley wants justice to be done::

“He received a very, very, very lenient sentence back then, which would never be achievable under today’s laws, and we’ll see what the court wants to do in terms of the sentence and the parameters within the case settlement they had back then.”

First off, one has to be suspect of the political motives for a DA to go after such a high-profile figure, which is reminiscent of the book/film, Bonfire of the Vanities. It seems odd to suddenly be going after a 75 year old fugitive from justice.

Update:: I have found out that Steve Cooley is on his third term as District Attorney.  He will likely be seeking another term in 2012, after successfully blocking a referendum instituting term limits for the office. – more background

I think there are more dangerous criminals who, I’m just throwing this out there, are in the LA area that pose a greater threat.  So, I find this to be a curious “triaging” of pressing cases by Cooley.  Moreover, Cooley has allowed lurid details to get out and the victim herself just wants the matter dropped ::

“[The District Attorney] has, yet one more time, given great publicity to the lurid details of those events for all to read again…True as they may be, the continued publication of those details causes harm to me, my beloved husband, my three children and my mother…I have become a victim of the actions of the district attorney.”

She received a civil settlement from him and just wants to go on with her life.

Harding in Salon will have none of that::

“Shouldn’t we be honoring her wishes above all else?

In a word, no. At least, not entirely. I happen to believe we should honor her desire not to be the subject of a media circus, which is why I haven’t named her here, even though she chose to make her identity public long ago. But as for dropping the charges, Fecke [a blogger] said it quite well: ‘I understand the victim’s feelings on this. And I sympathize, I do. But for good or ill, the justice system doesn’t work on behalf of victims; it works on behalf of justice.'”

Really.  In the same article she reminds us::

“Regardless of whatever legal misconduct might have gone on during his trial, the man admitted to unlawful sex with a minor.”

So, legal misconduct doesn’t factor into justice.  This isn’t a cafeteria where one can choose aspects of the case to embrace or ignore and legal misconduct sure factors into the appeal process.  So, those hoping for a Polanski extradition should be cautious of what they wish for.  It begs the question, is this really about justice or is it about vengeance and retribution?  What precisely is the difference in a sociocultural sense of US values?  How does this relate to the feminism{s} of today?

I’m far from a Polanski apologist, but I do care about how the system of jurisprudence operates.  I dislike the reduction of complexity to catchy and emotion-stirring soundbites and I think its irresponsible and short-sighted.  I’m not for glossing over his crimes, but how about holding the judge and prosecution responsible for letting things get to this point and treading cautiously given the implications of stirring up a flawed case, despite slam-dunk evidence.  Let’s think about what was proper and improper outside of the bedroom, but in the courtroom.

Twitterversion:: #RomanPolanski faces extradition to US for sentencing of 1977 rape, but what are the stakes for due process? @Prof_K

Song:: Desperate Danger – Pray For Polanski

Jack Welch, ex-CEO of GE, online MBA namesake {this Economist article is funny}, and policy critic is no stranger to controversy.  Here’s “Neutron” Jack warning of Obama running up deficits::

I have no problem with criticizing policy, but when it drifts from rhetoric towards potshots, my patience wears thin remarkably fast, regardless of the ideology.  Welch offered the curious advice of a “fake plan” after revisions of the deficit came out and Obama already responded to the news.  In my book, Welch isn’t offering analysis, but just stirring the pot and trying to seem relevant in the eye of the public.

Fast forward to June 28, when Welch offered up more controversy at a human resource management conference and was quoted in a Wall Street Journal article.   Now, after his comments have gotten into the press, Welch is getting into a bit of hot water for statements he made on there not being such a thing as a work-life balance.  Welch said those taking time off for family won’t be there “in the clutch” and could be passed over for promotions.

“We’d love to have more women moving up faster…But they’ve got to make the tough choices and know the consequences of each one.”

According to Welch, there is a consolation.  While you might not get to the top for trying the career-family balancing act, you can still have a nice career, nevertheless.  Some praised Welch for his bluntness, while others lambasted him for being “out of touch.”

One comment on the article accused the WSJ of attempting to increase pageviews with inflammatory articles and another accused Welch of trying to peddle his book.   The Twittersphere was abuzz with Welch’s statements, as of 7:12 EDT, with plenty of retweets of the article and quite a few naysayers.  Welch himself, who has a Twitter account, is in the hospital with a serious spinal infection, so don’t expect anything from him on the matter any time soon.  One Tweet called him a grumpy old man, as did a blog at The Conglomerate {via Salon}.  Grumpy or not, is he right?

While his words might seem to apply to both men an women equally, the fact of the matter is that there are key perceptual gendered differences in organizations when it comes to family, bringing up a double-standard.  Scott Coltrane’s paper, “Elite Careers and Family Commitment: It’s (Still) about Gender,” makes this point clear::

• “Family men” are viewed as having mature leadership qualities
• Women getting married or having children can derail their previous “fast track” status, as that choice renders her as less-qualified

Welch is advocating what some in sociology call a “separate spheres” ideology, regarding gender, allowing the double-standard on the meaning of “family” to persist.  The fact of the matter is that even if you talk about “family” with respect to both men and women, the meanings aren’t the same.  Research on CEO succession are consistent with the tenets of economic sociology, i.e., if one desires to be heir to the CEO throne, social relations within the organization and with the corporate board matter {e.g., See Cannella & Shen}.  So, if you’re up for a CEO spot, it matters how others perceive you, whether you like the double standard or not.  Welch is promoting a mythology of the CEO as an individual totally committed to the organization.  Along with his other statements, CEOs and managers all should have a draconian stance and total obeisance to the almighty shareholder value, or perceptions thereof {including cooking the books?}.

It’s a bottom-line world, right?  Companies face a reality and Jack is simply reflecting it.  Maybe not.  BusinessWeek taped a Q&A session with the CEOs of Sony {Howard Stringer} and Best Buy {Brad Anderson}, two companies with very different attitudes towards the “balance” issue::

“What became apparent in subsequent discussions from both CEOs was that personal time was pretty hard to come by. Stringer talked about the differences in the Japanese and U.S. career cultures. The Japanese work much longer hours including one weekend day, and the idea of a great deal of leisure time, or time spent in their homes with their families, is still not part of their culture. He also noted that many employees, manager level really, were still mostly male (something he hoped to help change).

This was in stark contrast to the recent changes at Best Buy and their new flexible hours program being implemented at all levels of the company. Mr. Anderson gave the example of two women (working mothers) promoted to manager who were now able to job share, since neither due to child care commitments could work the hours required.”

Organizations are social systems and are often in states of flux.  Welch is advocating a received-view way of thinking, but on the basis of what logic?  I would argue that we need to rethink the role of the CEO, away from organizational financial performance and towards meaning and leadership.  A strong leader creates meaning, which guides actions throughout.  It would be interesting to compare the meaning systems of Sony and Best Buy and how it affects corporate culture and decision-making.  Maybe students in Welch’s online MBA programme can take that on.

Twitterversion:: Jack Welch stirring pot w/comments on work-life balance. Oldschool ideas reinforce faulty logic. #Fail  http://url.ie/21sr #ThickCulture @Prof_K

Song:: Work Is A Four-Letter Word – The Smiths

The conservative French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, has expressed concern that the burqa is subjugating women in France.  Addressing both parliamentary houses in the Palace of Versailles::

“The burka is not a sign of religion, it is a sign of subservience…It will not be welcome on the territory of the French republic.”

The BBC clarified the different types of Islamic headscarves {below}.  Sarkozy emphasized that this isn’t about disrespecting Islam and a group of cross-party French legislators are interested in examining whether women wearing the burqa is undermining French secularism and also whether womem wearing the veil are doing so voluntarily.

The French government banned the Islamic headscarf and other conspicuous religious symbols in 2004 although within the government, there is no consensus on the issue.  In the US, somehow I think that no matter how hard the polygamy and abuse angles are pushed, there won’t be any bans on FLDS garb.

Last year, the Urban Affairs minister, Fadela Amara, born in France to Algerian parents, has been a harsh critic of the burqa.  A feminist who has fought racism for decades, Amara grew up in one of the rough banlieues of Paris, knowing the often ugly intersections of race, culture, and gender.  After a 2008 court case case denying a Moroccan woman citizenship was upheld, Amara said she supported the ruling, in the hopes that it would  dissuade fanatical Islamic followers from imposing the burka on their wives.  In an interview with Le Parisien, she said::

“The burka is a prison, it’s a straitjacket”

“It is not a religious insignia but the insignia of a totalitarian political project that advocates inequality between the sexes and which is totally devoid of democracy.”

This brings up an interesting issue, since banning clothing has been associated with anti-immigration politics throughout Europe.  The fact of the matter is that if France decides to move towards a banning of the burqa, some argue this is likely to limit radical Islamic women’s freedom even more, as men may not allow them out at all.

Barring the possibility of some celebrity starting a burqa trend, i.e., secularizing it, such a ruling would be in conflict with the French concept of laïcité , a variant of the concept of the separation of church and state.  More subtle is an idea that banning the burqa does symbolic violence to the “other.”  Pierre Bourdieu notes in Distinction how subjugation and control are manifested in the everyday::

“…the social relations objectified in familiar objects, in their luxury or poverty, their ‘distinction’ or ‘vulgarity’, their ‘beauty’ or ‘ugliness’, impress themselves through bodily experiences which may be as profoundly unconscious as the quiet caress of beige carpets or the thin clamminess of tattered, garish linoleum.”

The Islamic veil has been isolated and socially categorized.  The attention given it has stigmatized it.  Ironically, within extreme Islam, it has its own symbolic baggage, particularly as it crosses national borders.  While scrutiny of the Islamic veil can foster a political agenda by conservatives and a feminist agenda, is doing so through such symbolic violence the best way to institute social change?

Twitterversion:: #Burka under fire in #France. #Sarkozy and #feminists meeting in anti-extreme Islam common ground? #feminism #Bourdieu http://url.ie/1wt4 #feminism @Prof_K

Song:: La Danse Des Negresse Vertes – Les Negresses Vertes