Language and Politics: 'Slut' and the Idea of Promiscuity

For any man, venturing into women's health topics is an inherently dangerous proposition.  Different types of female feminists encourage more male participation in these conversations while others deride us for failing to fully grasp the issues and insist that we remain out of the discussion altogether.  So I will only treat the periphery of the preeminent political maelstrom of the past two weeks: Rush Limbaugh's rant against Georgetown Law Student Sandra Fluke.

The use of one word in particular struck me as rather odd (thought not from Limbaugh), and that was the word 'slut' - an apparently illogical reference to Fluke having so much sex she couldn't afford all the birth control needed.  Numerous sources have already pointed out that more sex does not, in fact, require more birth control, so I need not address that particular concern.  What do concern me, however, are the value judgments surrounding the frequency with which one has sex.

Limbaugh directed an epithetical use of the word 'slut' at Fluke because in Limbaugh's world, female promiscuity is immediately connoted with immorality.  For Limbaugh and his followers, a woman's morality is inversely correlated with how frequently she has sex.  Now the feminist movement has done extremely well in liberalizing attitudes towards sex.  There is certainly less stigma attached to a woman who has intercourse frequently than there was 50 years ago.  Nevertheless, far too much stigma remains.

However, the feminist movement, and to a certain extent the left more generally, understands that this remains a serious problem.  In fact, while not often, sometimes a feminist woman can feel that having lots of sex makes a political statement.  Unfortunately, it probably does.  But if we are to truly transcend a world of stigmatized sex (including orientation) we must also move beyond correlating, in any way, frequency of sex with any moral value.

As I mentioned already, the left has done a decent job of understanding this as it pertains to women.  The stigma is not anywhere near gone, but the left at least understands that it is an issue that must be dealt with.  Unfortunately, the less severe but just as frequent stigmatization of men who have relatively little sex remains rather absent from these conversations.  In fact, negative moral judgment of men who have little sex is simply the flip side of the same coin.

When this alternative but highly related issue is ignored in conversations like the one about Limbaugh's assault on Fluke, an enormous opportunity is lost.  Men can simply brush off the entire discussion as relating only to women's issues.  If we are not constantly reminded that the stigmatization surrounding gender norms is oppressive of both men and women, men will forget that they are stakeholders in the conversation.  In large part, I believe this has been the single greatest failing of the feminist movement to date.

Of course, we are all stakeholders in these issues even when we are not directly oppressed by them.  Institutionalized racism in the United States is bad not just for racial minorities, but for whites as well.  And we have already seen how draconian immigration laws in Alabama have resulted in the incarceration of corporate executives and the ire of Alabaman farmers who have no one to pick their crops.  But when discussions surrounding these issues focus only on the marginalization, it is easy to forget the ways in which those not directly marginalized benefit from the destigmatization of oppressive social norms.

As leftist theory moves into its 3rd century (pre-Marx, it's difficult to conceive of a left-right political spectrum), it is time to make men more central to feminism, it is time to make whites more central to the elimination of racism, and it is time to make straight people more central to the fight to end homophobia.  Leftist variety of all sorts must cease to view these groups as the "oppressors" and begin to reach out and explain how they, too, are marginalized by oppressive norms.  The onus must be on the left to convince those who don't live the oppression consciously and daily what is at stake for them in these debates.

American Theocracy: Americanism

It is my contention that American society is not, first and foremost, a democracy.  Although it contains some key democratic elements, American society much more closely resembles a theocracy than any other concept of government. 

What is a theocracy?  There are several definitions.  From Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, 1977: “literally, the rule of a state by God or a god.”  Less, literal, but more helpful is Webster’s 7^th New Collegiate Dictionary, 1967: “government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials regarded as divinely guided.”  And more comprehensively is The American Political Dictionary, 1982: “any political system in which political power is exercised directly or indirectly by a clergy, and in which church law is superior to or replaces civil law.  The implication is that decisions are made by a Supreme Being and are transmitted to human beings through agents who rule in a theocracy.”

Such a definition is, however, still a little narrow.  It seems to correlate theocracy only with Christian rule.  Obviously, a theocracy could exist in which church law is not Christian law, but rather Koranic (Sharia) or Talmudic or Confucian law.  So we could amend the definition to say ‘religious law’ in place of ‘church law.’  Those who do not yet see where this is going will likely point out that our Congressmen and Senators are surely the furthest thing imaginable from a collective of religious leaders.  Insofar as religious leaders are supposed to be the moral conscience of our society, politicians are clearly as far from a moral conscience as possible.

But what is the religion of the United States?  Christianity, you might say.  Well, 55% of Americans agree with you, but I’m not here to debate that point.  The Constitution clearly indicates the separation of church and state.  Christianity is NOT the state-sanctioned religion of the United States.  So what is?  Americanism. 

And so we’re back to definitions – what is Americanism?  Americanism combines a belief in politicized American Exceptionalism (that America is the best country in the world) with a devotion to all things America.  What’s great about Americanism is that it’s not exclusive.  You can be an Americanist and a Christian or an Americanist and a Muslim or a Jew or an Atheist.  Nevertheless, Americanism has many of the same components that other organized religions have. 

What are the essential components of organized religion? 

Scriptures.  Americanism has the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution – Check. 

Deity or Deities.  Americanism has a whole host of people, referred to colloquially as the Founding Fathers (no religious overtones there).  George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Adams, Thomas Jefferson, etc., etc., etc. – Check. 

Places of worship.  If you’re an Americanist, like other religions, you must pay homage to the deities.  You do so at the temples constructed in their honor: the Washington Monument, the Jefferson Memorial, the Lincoln Memorial.  These temples are even constructed in the Ancient Greek style so as to evoke the only polytheistic tradition with which many Americans are familiar – Super Check.

A clergy.  The role of the clergy in traditional religion is to help the ordinary citizen interpret the scriptures.  This role in America is played out by politicians generally, but by the courts in particular.  At the highest level, Supreme Court Justices interpret the meaning of the Constitution so that it can be understood and obeyed by all Americanists.  They even wear clothing that distinguishes them from ordinary citizens – Check.

There exist innumerable other similarities.  How does one become a member of most organized religion?  The vast majority of followers of any particular religion arrive there by birth and upbringing.  The same is true of Americanism.  One becomes an Americanist by being taught throughout his or her upbringing that America is the greatest country in the world and that her Founding Fathers were divinely inspired. 

Of course, like other religions, Americanism does allow for converts.  I’m not speaking about immigrants.  I would argue that most immigrants are actually raised Americanists, that they were Americanists long before moving to the United States.  When I speak of converts to Americanism, I’m speaking of people who are initially raised not within the Americanist tradition but then come to it later.  They first believe that America isn’t any better than other countries, or perhaps even worse, but eventually they are persuaded that America is, in fact, better.

Furthermore, like Christianity for example, certain followers can become sanctified.  Such seems to have been the case with John F. Kennedy, and is gradually becoming the case with Ronald Reagan.  These are people who were so unwavering in their commitment to the Americanist cause that they are deserving of worship.  Currently there is debate over the manner in which Dwight D. Eisenhower’s transcendence is managed.

Moreover, Americanism has a long history of waging war to assert its righteousness.  Like the crusades, which attempted to demonstrate that the Christian God was the one, true, God, Americanism waged a genocide against the indigenous population of North America to assert its dominance.  This, coupled with imperialistic aims around the world (see the Philippines, Cuba, Grenada, Nicaragua, Panama, Colombia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc., etc., etc.) has created an enormous swath of the world that buys at least part way into the Americanist vision. 

So when I say that the United States is a theocracy supported by the official religion of Americanism, I mean that any other perspective is so far removed from the public discourse as to be politically untenable.  Part of the Americanist tradition is freedom of religion, so one isn’t forced to be an Americanist by virtue of being an American.  However, not to be an Americanist is to be excluded from public discourse by the hegemonic ubiquity of Americanism.  To participate in the governance of the country, one must agree with the ideas of divinely inspired Founding Fathers and an exceptional history, and  possess blind faith in the greatness of the United States.

Thanksgiving

Every year, Thanksgiving is a time to be with family and, as the name suggests give thanks for those things that make your life better. This tradition is a great one, and I want to take nothing away from it. I would, however, like to expand in two directions.

First, I'd like to encourage you to express your gratitude to those people who may not know that they have had an impact on your life. Maybe there's someone you interacted with only briefly, but made a huge impact on your life. Or maybe you only got to know someone professionally, but even in that capacity the person made a big impact and doesn't know. These can often be the most rewarding messages of thanks to receive.

Second, it wouldn't be a Digression if it didn't include haughty derisive criticism, so I've compiled a Top 10 list of people and organizations which deserve our thanks in spite of all evidence to the contrary:

10) Jerry Sandusky - Not only did he bring down the best college football program in the FBS, he has managed to consume "news" headlines for practically an entire month. At least we got a little bit of entertainment out of his interview with Bob Costas. Raping little boys is also a big minus. We can, however, thank his case for bringing awareness to institutions that perpetuate systems of hierarchy and oppression.

9) UNESCO - UNESCO is - scratch that - WAS an important organization of the UN. That was before it decided to welcome Palestine as a member. Don't get me wrong, of course Palestine deserves statehood, but the only thing welcoming Palestine into UNESCO did was to cut their funding by 20% because the US was obligated to stop funding them. Now they're considering taking money from Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, the dictator of Equatorial Guinea who has amassed a vast fortune exploiting the have-nots in one of the must unequal societies in the world. Why do we thank UNESCO - for showing how truly incompetent the current iteration of world governance can be.

8) Herman Cain - the man is accused of sexual assault by four women, seems to have no clue of whether Libya is a continent, a country, or the girl next door, and has an odd numerological fascination with the number 9. Cain is proof of just how insane the combination of a fanatic right-wing American public and a media willing to buy into the game show "Anyone But Romney" really is. If anyone ever wakes up and realizes, it will be because This is Herman Cain.

7) Congress - Failed Supercomittee, Passed a reaffirmation of a reaffirmation of the motto "In God We Trust" which was originally passed only 55 years ago, and reaffirmed unnecessarily for the first time 5 years ago. Thank you, for giving everyone else in the country a self-esteem boost. Now we all know that there are people who are even more stubborn, anti-social, and difficult to interact with than we are.

6) Kim Kardashian - You are famous because you are famous. You possess no skills, talents, particular beauty, or anything else that would otherwise distinguish you from most Americans other than your wealth. Nonetheless you have managed to parlay your wealth into fame and that fame into even more wealth. Thank you for epitomising the reproduction of capital. Also, you win an award for most fitting name anagram: Khaki Sin Drama. Yeah, that seems about right.

5) Police - I know, I know, you keep us safe. But you turn up with guns and pepper spray at non-violent Occupy rallies and don't even bother showing up for Tea Party gun rallies? Thank you, for revealing the ridiculousness of weaponry at a non-violent protest, with a special shoutout to the University of California police.

4, 3, 2, and 1) Sporting Bureaucracy. NCAA, FIFA, Bud Selig, Roger Goodell, take your pick. The NCAA, that upstanding body that protects the scholastic integretiy of our young student-athletes, has now decided it too wants a piece of the Jerry Sandusky pie. Thank you for reminding us not to be greedy at the Thanksgiving dinner table. Bud Selig decided his own team should play in the National League, so moved it there a decade ago, creating imbalanced leagues. Now everyone knows why because Major League Baseball paid off the new Houston Astros owner to move to the American League, when the team has always been in the National League. Thank you, for reminding us that conflict of interest ALWAYS results in bad decisions. Roger Goodell lays out indiscriminate and arbitrary fines for "unlawful" hits. Thank you for demonstrating how autocratic rule, even over people who aren't losing anything of value (what's $25,000 out of several million a year?), results in civil discontent. To the NBA Lockout, thank you for reminding us of the utility of collective bargaining, even if you are all greedy bastards. And finally, to FIFA (and Sepp Blatter), thank you for demonstrating the true incompetence of bloated bureaucracy and old age.

So in spite of their mishaps, let's give thanks for these abhorrent people and institutions. If we cannot learn from them, are we really any better than them?

Sepp Blatter is not a Giant Bird

Sepp Blatter, believe it or not, is not a giant bird. There have been some suggestions he is a chicken, and while in the metaphorical sense, this is definitely true, his physical appearance more closely resembles a slightly addled sloth. There have also been a number of suggestions that he is an ostrich. While his head is certainly stuck in the sand, and he does seem to get his feathers ruffled rather easily, I'm glad to report that soccernet.com has officially declared that he is not an ostrich either - see the caption.

This latest report comes amid yet another public relations disaster for the FIFA executive (the possibility of Blatter being a baboon has not yet been categorically denied) in which he claimed that there is no racism on the football pitch. And whatever racism there is can be resolved with a simple handshake at the end of the match.

Several months ago, Blatter came under fire for suggesting that gays and lesbians attending the World Cup in Qatar (the bribery capital of the world) 2022 refrain from engaging in sexual activities. His comments on racism are just another in a long line of obvious ignorance about the oppression of othered peoples in our world.

Perhaps when attempting to find the animal most suited to Blatter's personality, we should be looking a bit larger. He demonstrates all the sensitivity of a horny rhinoceros.

Thoughts on the USMNT friendlies against France and Slovenia

Undoubtedly, these were two difficult tests for the US. Both teams are currently ranked ahead of the US in the FIFA world rankings. Despite its relatively small population, Slovenia has been to the last two World Cups, so they're no pushover. And in spite of their well-publicized implosion in South Africa, the French team has brought in a lot of new blood, and managed to qualify directly for the European Championships next summer.

Given the strength of the opposition, it's not surprising that the US only produced one good half of football (the first against Slovenia). They scored three goals - all three of them well deserved - and had it not been for a miss-of-the century candidate from Jozy Altidore, it may well have been four. It's certainly the best the USMNT has played under Jurgen Klinsmann, and it was refreshing for the fans, who were just beginning to get a little nervous about the lack of offense.

But if it shouldn't have been surprising that the US didn't walk all over Slovenia or get a result against France, it was nevertheless shocking just how bad they were against France and in the second half against Slovenia. They managed to create, without any exaggeration, zero quality opportunities against France. Neither Brek Shea nor Danny Williams knows how to keep the ball, and however good Edu is defensively, he doesn't offer much of anything going forward. The three of them were replaced with Edson Buddle, Fabian Johnson, and Michael Bradley, and the result was the best half of football the US has played since the first half of the Confederations' Cup Final against Brazil.

Buddle was solid up front, converting a difficult chance from distance on the volley, and offering a little more pace and energy than Altidore, although Altidore certainly holds up play better. Fabian Johnson was the revelation of the match against Slovenia, looking consistently comfortable on the ball, with good close control and good passing. Michael Bradley was excellent in the first half, but looked gassed in the second, and his inability to find balls out of the midfield was a big part of the reason why the US did virtually nothing in that second half.

As for the defensive side of things in the two games, the game against France wasn't really bad. The goal, which every one of the commentators said was clearly Clarence Goodson's fault seemed much more like Bocanegra's to me. Bocanegra stepped up, but failed to win the ball. A runner came into his space from the outside (maybe Chandler should have gone with the runner), and Goodson couldn't reach him in time to get the challenge in. Interestingly, Slovenia's first goal was almost a carbon copy. Bocanegra came out, failed to get the ball, and a runner ran into the space he vacated in the back line. Goodson came across, but again, wasn't there in time. But Bocanegra being captain seems to mean that no one commentating wants to say anything against him.

The second half against Slovenia was a disaster, and I think the US can feel a bit lucky to have escaped with a win, even given their stellar first half performance. Even in spite of the fact that the defense certainly outperformed the offense over the course of these two games, I'm left with much more confidence in the offense going forward. I lineup that includes Dempsey, Altidore, Donovan, Bradley, Fabian Johnson, Brek Shea, and Edson Buddle is going to get goals. They're not great players, but they're all good players. With Bocanegra and Cherundolo both nearing the end of their international careers, the player I'd most bet on having a starting role in Brazil 2014 is Timothy Chandler. But he's been tested very little so far.

World Cup Qualifying begins soon for the US, and it won't be an easy task. Mexico, Costa Rica, Honduras, Panama, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Jamaica all have teams capable of beating the US on the right day. The kinks should have been ironed out by now. That they haven't been means the uneasiness will continue until the first really solid full competitive game.