Thoughts on Christmas, now we’ve survived it.
1. I Heart Doctor Seuss: On Christmas eve, my (Jewish) partner and I found ourselves reading “How the Grinch Stole Christmas.” I was newly aware that what makes this story so great is its moral complexity. Unlike George “you’re either with us or against us” Bush, Dr. Seuss presents his central character as both villain and hero. Dr. Seuss may be laughing at his grinch, but he also seems to identify with him; who hasn’t sometimes felt their stomach turn and their heart shrink when witnessing this saccharine celebration of purchasing piles of cheaply made crap? The over-indulgence in tinsel, toys, and gorging that grosses out the Grinch is repugnant. His theft of all the ticky tack in Whoville is mean, but it is also a gift, clearing out room for the Whos to remember the real spirit of Christmas.
2. Down with White Christmas, Up with Herald Angels and Satan’s Grasp: When I listen to the Bing-era Christmas songs, I hear the jingle of cash registers. I can’t separate these modern secular songs from malls and mobs of bargain hunters. On the other hand, I’m no Christian, but I get choked up when I hear “Joy to the World,” “Hark the Herald Angels,” “We Three Kings, and “Holy Night” (way, way better than the sentimental pap of “Silent Night”). These songs are serious and sometimes dark. (Note the minor key of “God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen” and the reference to freeing us from “Satan’s grasp when we had gone astray.” Not for nothing is this song, and that very line, the background of the ominous last scene in “Three Days of the Condor.”) The joy is therefore earned and real. What they celebrate is the possibility of the redemption of the world through the birth of a child. This is the miracle we all participate in with every birth.
Bah humbug and happy Boxing Day (don't forget the presents for the servants). On to Three Kings Day.
Friday, December 26, 2008
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Build windmills and wipe babies' bottoms
A number of critics have begun to note the macho slant of Obama’s job plan, as it’s being outlined so far. Katha Pollitt, for one, has done so, but then she would, wouldn’t she? (I mean that very much as compliment.) More noteworthy are columns in The New York Times, the Boston Globe, and, believe it or not, Forbes.
The economist Randy Albelda writes in the Boston Globe that although we certainly need bridges, roads, windmills, and efficient cars and the jobs that go with them, those jobs will overwhelmingly go to men. Albelda notes that “almost one-quarter of families with children under the age of 18 are headed and supported by women as are the majority of single-adult households without children.” You wouldn’t think that you’d have to point out that leaving out women leaves out most of the country, and the majority of its breadwinners, but you do.
Writes Linda Hirshman in the New York Times, “Mr. Obama compared his infrastructure plan to the Eisenhower-era construction of the Interstate System of highways. It brings back the Eisenhower era in a less appealing way as well: there are almost no women on this road to recovery.” This column is almost enough to make me forgive her for her earlier polemics.
Neither Albelda nor Hirshman include in their criticism the demand that Obama’s jobs plan should include aggressive affirmative action and efforts to pull women into apprenticeship programs in the construction trades. In Forbes, Ruthie Ackerman makes this point. “The answer is not, as Hirshman suggests, to create more low-paying jobs "in fields like social work and teaching, where large numbers of women work." The solution is redefine what we consider women's work.”
I can’t help feeling that Hirshman and Ackerman both have it half wrong, and both carry some misogyny around, Hirshman in assuming that women will always do “women’s work” in social work and teaching, and Ackerman in rejecting that work as unimportant. Ackerman would do well to read her fellow Forbes columnist Thomas Cooley arguing for investment in education as part of the stimulus package, not because it helps women, but because it will have the biggest long-term payoff.
Ackerman describes the trades as unsexy. Not to me. A person who knows how to build something—that’s pretty sexy. When my sweetie puts on a pair of Carharts, I go a little mushy. That kind of apparel puts me in mind of the men who worked as part of the original stimulus plan, in the Civilian Conservation Corps, building the trails, bridges, picnic tables, and other amenities I enjoyed throughout my childhood and that my children still enjoy. My daughters ought to get a chance to build such things and say proudly to their daughters, “I built that.”
If I had sons, I would want them to be proud of jobs they'd had caring for children, to point to flourishing people and tell their sons, "I helped raise that." If such work were better paid, such a thing would be far more likely.
How about both and? Get people (including women) building trails, daycare centers, and windmills, and give people (including men) well-paid jobs caring for our elders and children. I want it all. We can do it.
The economist Randy Albelda writes in the Boston Globe that although we certainly need bridges, roads, windmills, and efficient cars and the jobs that go with them, those jobs will overwhelmingly go to men. Albelda notes that “almost one-quarter of families with children under the age of 18 are headed and supported by women as are the majority of single-adult households without children.” You wouldn’t think that you’d have to point out that leaving out women leaves out most of the country, and the majority of its breadwinners, but you do.
Writes Linda Hirshman in the New York Times, “Mr. Obama compared his infrastructure plan to the Eisenhower-era construction of the Interstate System of highways. It brings back the Eisenhower era in a less appealing way as well: there are almost no women on this road to recovery.” This column is almost enough to make me forgive her for her earlier polemics.
Neither Albelda nor Hirshman include in their criticism the demand that Obama’s jobs plan should include aggressive affirmative action and efforts to pull women into apprenticeship programs in the construction trades. In Forbes, Ruthie Ackerman makes this point. “The answer is not, as Hirshman suggests, to create more low-paying jobs "in fields like social work and teaching, where large numbers of women work." The solution is redefine what we consider women's work.”
I can’t help feeling that Hirshman and Ackerman both have it half wrong, and both carry some misogyny around, Hirshman in assuming that women will always do “women’s work” in social work and teaching, and Ackerman in rejecting that work as unimportant. Ackerman would do well to read her fellow Forbes columnist Thomas Cooley arguing for investment in education as part of the stimulus package, not because it helps women, but because it will have the biggest long-term payoff.
Ackerman describes the trades as unsexy. Not to me. A person who knows how to build something—that’s pretty sexy. When my sweetie puts on a pair of Carharts, I go a little mushy. That kind of apparel puts me in mind of the men who worked as part of the original stimulus plan, in the Civilian Conservation Corps, building the trails, bridges, picnic tables, and other amenities I enjoyed throughout my childhood and that my children still enjoy. My daughters ought to get a chance to build such things and say proudly to their daughters, “I built that.”
If I had sons, I would want them to be proud of jobs they'd had caring for children, to point to flourishing people and tell their sons, "I helped raise that." If such work were better paid, such a thing would be far more likely.
How about both and? Get people (including women) building trails, daycare centers, and windmills, and give people (including men) well-paid jobs caring for our elders and children. I want it all. We can do it.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
What kills children?
What poses the biggest threat of death to children? You might think infectious diseases, and that’s true for infants. But if a child survives infancy the single biggest cause of fatal injury is cars. Cars are the single biggest killer of children ages 10 to 19.
That’s true around the world and across cultures.
This has implications for President-elect Obama’s jobs and infrastructure program: better make sure all that road building includes plenty of sidewalks, in short supply across much of the U.S. And how about bike paths, traffic-calming intersections, crosswalks, and stoplights?
Yet again that old socialist bogeyman Sweden comes out well on this issue, with much safer streets than other countries. Obama should be studying Sweden for lessons on infrastructure projects, as well as how to rescue a banking system.
That’s true around the world and across cultures.
This has implications for President-elect Obama’s jobs and infrastructure program: better make sure all that road building includes plenty of sidewalks, in short supply across much of the U.S. And how about bike paths, traffic-calming intersections, crosswalks, and stoplights?
Yet again that old socialist bogeyman Sweden comes out well on this issue, with much safer streets than other countries. Obama should be studying Sweden for lessons on infrastructure projects, as well as how to rescue a banking system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
