6'1" - Liz Phair
One of the many things that continues to amaze me in the current kulturkampf is the degree to which in 2012 feminism remains an object of attack and scorn for those on the right. The radical proposition that women are equal to men remains contested ground not just among conservatism's many deeply insecure and misogynistic men, but also its despicable ladies' auxillary. [These are just representative samples of the ongoing madness -- there is a mind-boggling amount of it being written these days.]
The current imbroglio in Virginia over the incredibly offensive attempt to impose trans-vaginal ultrasounds as a requirement before having an abortion should be seen not as simply another attempt to erect obstacles to exercising a constitutional right, but part of an overall fight against women controlling their fertility generally. Thus, we have right wingers not only asserting their alleged "pro-life" agenda, but also affirmatively attacking contraception, something that for most people ceased to be controversial sometime around the Nixon presidency. These attacks go to the heart of women's autonomy and particularly their sexual autonomy. (Which is why the right wing can manage simultaneously to denounce contraception while also decrying the large number of women who are giving birth while unmarried in apocalyptic terms.*)
The ability and right to control one's fertility is an essential element of women's health, not some kind of frivolous luxury. It is also crucial to being able to attain the kind of advanced education and work opportunities that result in being an economically self-sufficient individual -- something one might think these brave Galtians would all favor. But no, when it comes to women the message is one continuously based on fear-mongering -- "you'll end up alone with withered ovaries and no one but a cat with whom to spend your sad miserable final days" -- you know, that sort of thing. And nothing infuriates them more than women don't succumb to the fear and settle for that willing man. Except women who have sex outside of marriage and pretend to enjoy it.
I honestly would think that these debates would be firmly in the past by now. I have been married for twenty-four years to someone who -- and trust me it kills me to say this -- is smarter than I am. (I also had several relationships in my pre-married days where this was true as well.) It never occurred to me that my wife's ambitions should be deemed less worthy than my own. As a result, we figured out strategies to share the burden of home and child-rearing while both of us worked full time. In part, we did this by having only one child, but I've seen many other people -- probably with a higher tolerance for sacrifice than me -- who have managed the feat with larger families. I have also had the pleasure of working with a host of extremely competent women in my professional life -- superiors, mentors, peers, colleagues, friends, fellow professionals, and now that I am an old guy, quite a few mentees (if such a word exists).**
Does anyone seriously want to argue that we as a society would be better off with all of this talent shunted into domesticity or appropriately pink-collar career choices? Does anyone really think women generally or society writ large would be happier if we returned to the social constraints of yesteryear with respect to women's work and sex lives? Would men be happier? I suppose a certain kind of man -- Taranto and Rod Dreher and the small-dicked mouth breathers at NRO I guess -- but no one who is remotely sexually and socially well-adjusted.
It is discouraging that these battles continue to have to be fought, but as with gay marriage, l think this is a last gasp before what is actually happening out there in the real world renders these arguments obsolete.
*I am actually a bit uneasy with all of the single parenting -- not out of any moral concerns, but because I continue to believe that parenthood is best done in teams and as I have observed here before, sometimes two isn't enough. I worry about things like the stresses of one parent grappling with ill health, unemployment, or any of the other myriad things that sometimes require a reliable backup. I also remain a huge believer in marriage, again not out of any kind of religious hogwash, but because as a lawyer I really like the bright line certainty that marriage brings to families in terms of both rights and obligations. As someone who does a fair amount of work with things like medical coverage and pensions and the like, marriage really simplifies a host of legal matters that have a huge impact on the daily lives of parents and children. It's one of the reasons that I am so vehement in my support for marriage equality. In the end, though, family structure will continue to evolve and people will try to figure out ways to make their lives and those of their children work. A state that took care of things like health care, mandatory sick and parental leave, day care, and a guaranteed minimum income with a child allowance would go an awfully long way to minimizing some of the worries I've cited.
**And, of course, I have the benefit of the wisdom of the many women who comment at this blog.
What say you? And what else is happening out there?
I have no idea why this post stopped accepting comments. I put up a new post, so hopefully comments will work there. God forbid I should need to exercise some technological competence.
it's a fight against women being considered fully human.
helluva thing to still be fighting.
Posted by: kathy a. | February 24, 2012 at 07:33 PM
I'll admit I'm completely mystified by men so insecure they feel compelled to keep women barefoot and pregnant to bolster their sense of masculinity.
Posted by: Don K | February 24, 2012 at 08:29 PM
Thousands of years of patriarchy are hard to erase overnight. It's only in the past 40 years that American culture has started to realize the value women bring to it beyond their "traditional" roles. And this country is at least a little ahead in some respects, although not politically (meaning the number of participants in national legislatures who are women is smaller in this country than in others).
Posted by: Linkmeister | February 24, 2012 at 08:41 PM
I've been married for almost 30 years to a man who's secure enough not to mind that I now make more money than he does; his attitude is "hey, it's more for us, so who cares?" He totally supported me going back to school. My 2 best friends at work are both men, who appreciate me as a competent colleague as well as a friend. One of them has been posting criticisms of the GOP war on women on his Facebook page all week. I've been watching these last few weeks in utter disbelief, as I just can't fathom how birth control has suddenly become controversial. When did we all board a time machine and go back to the '50' s?? Incidentally, I read a long and well-researched book called "The Wealth and Poverty of Nations" a few years ago, in which one of the author's primary theses was that failure to incorporate women into a country's economy is a major predictor for that economy to remain underdeveloped. By the way, Sir C, if you don't mind me asking, I'm curious: what does your wife do?
Posted by: beckya57 | February 25, 2012 at 12:42 AM
I suppose a certain kind of man -- Taranto and Rod Dreher and the small-dicked mouth breathers at NRO I guess -- but no one who is remotely sexually and socially well-adjusted.
Aren't you missing a very famous one, besides Taranto & Dreher)? Or at least infamous, by the standards of the lefty blogosphere? ;-)
Posted by: Phil Perspective | February 25, 2012 at 01:50 AM
Re children born out of wedlock: am taking quick lunch break from studying so don't have time to look it up, but sometime recently I saw figures suggesting that children being raised in families other than married couples were even more common in Europe than the U.S., although a much higher percentage of the European households tended to be unmarried but two-adult households.
Posted by: Lex | February 25, 2012 at 01:00 PM
Linkmeister,
Yeah, I think the U.S. is culturally ahead of most countries in this sphere -- and would be a lot more so but for the pernicious influence of the evangelical right -- but really lacks in terms of government-sponsored infrastructure. In a way, the strides for equality are fairly impressive given the improvisational nature of adjustment and the continued presence of religious traditionalist in the country.
becky,
She has spent the last twenty years working on reproductive health and reproductive rights issues. We have competitions from time to time to see which of our causes is more under the gun.
Lex,
My sense is the same as yours -- that unmarried European households tend to be dramatically stabler than they are here. Additionally, given the generosity of the universal welfare state in most of these countries, marriage is materially less consequential in terms of rights and benefits. Marriage as a legal institution is remarkably embedded in so many aspects of American economic life that we don't even notice it much of the time.
Posted by: Sir Charles | February 25, 2012 at 03:40 PM
I can't respond to this post soon due to shock at the climate the GOP has created which now seems to be 'real' right now. Back later to report on the hub's sit-down with the bishop this past week -- demoralizing and dismaying, to say the least. See Amanda at Pandagon. She's not tired -- I sure am.
Ugh x manyfold.
Posted by: nancy | February 26, 2012 at 12:10 AM
Also -- does the ERA effort need to come out of mothballs? You lawyers probably know what that might accomplish...or not.
Posted by: nancy | February 26, 2012 at 12:14 AM
nancy,
I read Amanda's post later last evening. It was right on. I was amused that we seemed to be working on such similar posts at the same time.
It's funny -- I was just mulling the ERA question the other day. I don't know that it would make a huge substantive difference in our politics at this point. I also doubt it could pass, strangely enough. The same right wing paranoia that derailed the amendment back in the 70s -- I am sure it would do the same this time. Indeed, I am not sure the ERA could even command a majority vote in the House at this point.
Posted by: Sir Charles | February 26, 2012 at 01:05 AM
the so-called "climate" is just insane. especially when the frou-fra is built up on something resolved culturally and legally decades ago, like birth control.
ERA passed in congress in 1972. 35 states ratified it; 38 are necessary. it is a thorn in my side -- yes it is -- that the necessary number of states have not been able or willing to call women equal in all these years. this sure as shit does not look like the year it is going to happen. and i'm not putting my money or effort there, because it isn't happening, and there are other things that need doing immediately, like putting the clown car into decommission, stopping the crazy, and protecting women in the most basic ways. i am pretty darned angry this year.
Posted by: kathy a. | February 26, 2012 at 01:14 AM
Sir C -- I know that [politically], but it finally died, deadened anyway, because the 14th amendment supposedly made the ERA unnecessary. Now, I'm back to wondering about resurrecting the argument under our 2012 (!) circumstances. Or maybe it would, once again, be a political energy drain the GOP would welcome. I don't know. But one battle at a time, state by state, across the country, (and boy are they lined up)...that's a dispiriting and exhausting killer. Good heavens.
Posted by: nancy | February 26, 2012 at 01:31 AM
kathy a.,@07:33/24 spot on. As a male, I am deeply ashamed by the behavior of some of my peers. But then, in another sense they are obviously not my peers, they may indeed be males, but more prominently they are selfish children. Except they have power, which they abuse to harm those different from themselves. Contradictory as it may be to all my other points of view, from them, I think there may be some justification for the death penalty, because nothing can persuade them to embrace reason and abandon dogmatic hate. It is incredible in a way.
Don K, yes and no. I understand why you are mystifyed, perhaps your are young, it is understandable, life is complex.
Linkmeister, yes they are and no they are not. You see we have this apparently unquie tool at our disposal called reason, with which we can distinguish between the biological imperitives which we have inherited for a few million years, and what we can discern because we have invented a means of predicting the future that is mostly right. It is a process of weaning humanity from the teat of faith and belief to the functional mouth of deliberate and carefully considered predation.
beckya57 - I share a lot of your experience, I have been with my SO for roughly 40 years. We like each other. The details are nobody else's business. When I have worked with women I have always tried to treat them as absolute equals. If I ranked them I asked, what do you want to accomplish? Then I would try to help them accomplish that. When I was subordinate I always asked, what are your goals and what do you want me to do to support and further those goals. That didn't always work out smoothly, nor did the former, but I know I have tried to be fair.
PP and yes, obvious as can be, wearing shoes and stockings and a speedo while walking on the beach at Ipanema.
SC - the institurion of marriage is nothing more than a neck shackle. It drags the realm of emotion, feelings and care for others into the squalid cesspool of legalisms. Don't misunderstand me, my own profession is infested with many kinds of crooks.
nancy @ 12:14 I think for the ERA to come up would require a new vote of congress. The amendment failed to pass in the required number of states if I recall.
Getting back slightly to the point, what we are witnessing is akin to something like a pre-teen tantrum being thrown by a lot of big boys who have out grown their short pants but not figured out how to hem thier long ones. It would be sad and pathetic if constrained to the school yards, but in the halls of power it is more nightmarish and surreal.
If it were not for the religious troglodytes who insist that everyone else must adhere to their delusional view of the world, who knows what out world might be now?
What happens when we stop carrying the 1% on our backs?
Posted by: KN | February 26, 2012 at 04:36 AM
it truly is shocking that contraception is now thought to be a matter for public debate. and thanks, rep. issa, for that mansplaining congressonal session on birth control -- dog forbid a woman should have anything to say in the matter.
but the agenda of beating women and other unworthies back to the dark ages is broader. women and minorities know that there remains a dark undercurrent of repression even after all these years, but normally the dudes obfuscate and excuse their conduct in "neutral" ways. santorum, for one, isn't even trying very hard to neutralize his core beliefs. birth control is against god's will. women should not work outside the home. obama's desire to give every child access to college is "elitist," because ummm you know, he went to college and law school and look how that turned out.
santorum could not be more plain that he believes only men, and the right men, should have opportunities for economic self-sufficiency and independent social advancement. he doesn't want to just wrest control of their fertility and health from women, but discourage access to jobs and even education to get decent jobs. he doesn't just want to punish poor people for being poor, but to shut doors to advancement for their kids.
the mean-spiritedness is unbelievable.
Posted by: kathy a. | February 26, 2012 at 04:34 PM
Not ending my time-out, just had to pass this on. Yes, the Anniston STAR has long been the most liberal paper in Alabama, but in the climate you imagine -- with newspapers of all sorts dying also -- you'd think it would have pulled back or gone out of business long ago -- not be the flagship of a five-paper Alabama chain that seems to be flourishing.
Won't stop back to read replies, or the 'time-out' will be over too soon. Thanks for the good wishes, and the time-out is to clear my head as well as avoid leg pain -- okay, and to wait until the upcoming primaries are past so I have more data.
See you with the final Alabama report, and then, probably after Super Tuesday -- unless one letter I sent to a different editor gets published.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | February 26, 2012 at 04:51 PM
Great link, prup. Political dementia, indeed! I hope you stay well and get out in the spring air.
Posted by: Paula B | February 26, 2012 at 05:03 PM
Anybody else hearing echoes of "The Handmaid's Tale"?
Posted by: beckya57 | February 26, 2012 at 05:29 PM
here's the scoop on pre-abortion sonograms, from an ob/gyn.
becky -- scarily like the handmaid's tale.
Posted by: kathy a. | February 26, 2012 at 06:09 PM
kathy -- thanks for that blog intro. the doctor was just what i needed after these last weeks under siege. food, manhattan and women's health. one-stop shopping. very nice.
Posted by: nancy | February 26, 2012 at 09:02 PM
At various times over the past 20 years when they felt like the world was moving their way, you could feel the wingnuts starting to aim their guns at contraception.
One recent instance was in the wake of the 2004 election when they tried to pass 'conscience' laws in a number of states that would have protected pharmacists from being fired or otherwise suffering adverse consequences in their jobs if they chose, on their own, to refuse to dispense contraceptives.
So I'm appalled at what's going on right now, but surprised? Only by just how far they've tried to take things on this wave.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | February 26, 2012 at 09:32 PM
ltc -- In the previous thread, I left a link to a Seattle Times report about a ruling in WA state last week in favor of just such a pharmacist. And if it stands here, it can stand most anywhere, at least for a time. The assumption made by the judge was that a choice of pharmacy renders the 'problem' negligible, which, of course is untrue in many, many places -- small towns, in particular, where there may be a single pharmaceutical dispensary and no other for miles.
I'm inclined to return to a four-word handy and economical adolescent phrase I've not heard in a while, in response to all of this current nonsense: 'eat sh*t and die', I believe it went.
Posted by: nancy | February 26, 2012 at 10:05 PM
Abruptly unladylike, I know. My apologies. But as kathy indicated earlier : i am pretty darned angry this year.
Posted by: nancy | February 26, 2012 at 11:04 PM
nancy: no apologies necessary, that comment is quite appropriate IMHO. I'm mad too.
Posted by: beckya57 | February 26, 2012 at 11:12 PM
nancy -- there is nothing wrong with an unladylike response to things as they are. also, your recollection is correct. ;)
i felt really upbeat last presidential election. this time, my anger about what is passing as "issues" on the GOP side and my interest in some downstream election things are going to motivate me more than any election ever has. thou shalt not piss off smart women, or any people who think, or anyone who cares about those people you hate -- that is what the entire GOP should take home after this thing is over.
Posted by: kathy a. | February 26, 2012 at 11:40 PM
thanks becky and kathy. i wish i could calm down about all of this. i just, just can't. i know i've lots of company, but this is so worrisome in the extreme. 'make these people stop' is our mantra. but they are happily and blithely doing such damage.
it is to weep, as oddjob has said on numerous occasions here.
Posted by: nancy | February 27, 2012 at 12:12 AM
Prup - the Brooklyn Botanical Garden provides a nice respite from the urban chaos. Check it out for a few hours.
Posted by: KN | February 27, 2012 at 01:53 AM
And also do check out the Brooklyn Museum (right next to it). I love that place.
Posted by: Mandos | February 27, 2012 at 08:23 AM
When did we all board a time machine and go back to the '50' s??
When the GOP decided to hitch its political fortunes to fundamentalist Christians.
Posted by: oddjob | February 27, 2012 at 10:33 AM
"Six months before this thing got going, every Republican I know was saying, ‘We’re gonna win, we’re gonna beat Obama.’ Now even those who’ve endorsed Romney say, ‘My God, what a fucking mess,'"
- Ed Rollins
Posted by: oddjob | February 27, 2012 at 11:00 AM
(Hat tip, Sully.)
Posted by: oddjob | February 27, 2012 at 11:00 AM
Nancy---I hear your pain and, like you, wish these people would just go away, but I’m going to save my weeping until we see large numbers of women rising up in support of Santorum’s vision for the US. Until then, he can sanctify all he wants. Men feel threatened, I guess, and his message gives them some comfort. Nothing new there, however most men show more constraint.
If you look around at US culture --- at how people live, what they do, what they read, watch and listen to, and look at the US Census data, it's clear that St. Rick's crap has nothing to do with the reality of American life. In fact, that unreality may be his charm. He's a novelty act, playing to the nostalgia mystique that surfaced with the nomination of Annie Oakley -- a/k/a Sarah Palin -- in the last election. This time, instead of rallying the country to return to the values of the American West, Santorum attempts to instill a yearning for 14th Century Europe. After all, there are a certain number of people in this country who live in another world, fantasizing their role in some elaborate imaginary and romantic theater, as if they could will the reversal of time. I know a few and you probably do, too. (I don't think you're going to find many inside the Beltway, SC, but I see them in dead-end small towns and rural enclaves.) Fortunately, they die off. Kids being kids, their next generation runs off to be part of the mainstream.
I'm betting Santorum soon goes the way of the Lovely Sarah, the Pizza baron and all the rest of the flash-in-the-pan nut jobs who have stolen most of the recent media attention. When people really try to visualize a US with no women in the workplace, no kids in public schools, more mouths to feed on half the paychecks and only a handful of dreams for female children to aspire to, they'll give up this craziness. Don't forget, as well, the voting power of atheists, agnostics, Unitarians, Mainline Protestants, Jews and Muslims. Although they might not ordinarily go out of their way to butt heads, the un-confirmed are not going to be wild about rearranging their lives to suit the Catholic Church.
Soon, the GOP will be left with but one candidate, and he will be someone almost nobody likes.
And, over there at 1600, BHO works quietly and steadily, keeping things moving in the right direction. I read yesterday that the unions are finally speaking out for him. It's about time.
Posted by: Paula B | February 27, 2012 at 11:15 AM
My Tweets from last night:
With so many elitist snob sons of single moms in US, how can kids raised in $$$, 2-parent homes succeed?
Re: #Santorum's reaction to JFK church/state speech.http://wapo.st/xsmyds Funny, I have the same reaction to Santorum's speeches.
No dialogue, no animation, no special effects, no color, no billionaire stars. The Artist has everything. Who needs Hollywood?
____________I'm getting to really like Twitter.
Posted by: Paula B | February 27, 2012 at 11:30 AM
Okay, I did it, from Alabaster and Albertville to Vestavia Hills and Wetumpka, I've read every available on-line Alabama newspaper -- and as i think I mentioned, this state is so far behind the times that they actually read newspapers and keep them in business. There were somewhere betwwen 6-12 papers that were gone since the listing (The ABYZ list of papers in every state) was compiled, maybe two dozen more that were behind paywalls, but that left over a hundred newspapers, as well as radio and tv news programs to be looked at.
Now radio is a special case. It has always been the 'media of the right' going back to Goat Gland Brinkley and Ma and Pa Ferguson. I am unable to think of any progressive political commenter -- unlike a Murrow, who was a journalist who seemed progressive because of 'reality's liberal bias' -- who has gathered and kept a substantial nationwide audience, but I'm sure you'll remind me of some.
But I was wrong, and I'll admit it. I was sure after the first few that I'd find the Tea Party in poor health, dying, on life support. That the rhetoric had been turned down fifty to seventy-five per cent, that the subtle slanting in news stories would be minor, that there would only be a few posts like ones I'd seen previously condemning Richard Shelby as a RINO, that on tv only the FOX channels would be heavily slanted, but that there would be a fair number of posts praising different Presidential contenders as 'the one who can save us from four more years of Obama.' But I was wrong. In Alabama the Tea Party is not dying.
It is dead. [Insert your favorite lines from the Dead Parrot sketch here]
Oh, not that the state is filled with liberal or centrist Democrats. Hardly, it is still a Republican state and a Conservative one. But there is a difference, in tone, in language, and in emphasis between "Conservative Republican" and Tea Party, there is a difference between political arguments, even if misguided and based on false 'facts' and apocalyptic predictions of doom. There is a difference between dislike of a candidate from the opposite side and the sort of soul-searing hatred that Sir Charles predicted.
It was not there, not blatantly -- as it had been in the past -- not subtly, or in code, or in dog whistles. (The nearest thing to it were two comments in one early paper -- didn't take notes because I knew if i did, the project would take five times as long -- calling Obama a Muslim, and one of those might have been snark. "What a choice, a Muslim or a cult member." And there was one mention of 'communism; but that came from a guest columnist from the Mieses Institue.) I will admit that I deliberately skipped the columns that occasional House Members posted.
I even read occasional sermons to see if there was a variant of the religious version. Nope. (There was considerable coverage of one religious meeting -- called to protest the severity of the Immigration law.)
There was no visible excitement over any of the candidates -- and where there were mild praises in occasional letters, they were based on 'beating' Obama, not 'saving us from' Obama.
And what were the issues they were mad about. The usual Republican -- not TP -- ones. The worst issue was the high price of gas -- and Obama's refusal to permit offshore drilling. Amd there were more than a few arguments on the contraception issue, claiming that Obama was infringing on religious liberty -- but none that claimed a "War on Religion."
Maybe the most surprising thing was that even the news shows on FOX-affiliated stations were authentically 'fair and balanced' with almost no references to FNC's coverage. (Their main source was the AP, and the articles were highly critical of the 'clown car' not of Obama.)
In fact, by the time I started the 'T's a page of TP rhetoric would have been as shocking (and seemed as anachronistic) as would me finding a Progressive blog and seeing "Power to the People, Right On!" or "Never Trust Anyone Over Thirty," or praise for the wisdom of Mao.
Now maybe Alabama was an exception. And I have no doubt that there were still pockets of hate and insanity that didn't show up -- but there are those in New Jersey as well. I'll be at least checking out papers in WV, WY, and OK, if not quite as comprehensibly.
(And I'll check back on some of the Alabama sites in the week between Super Tuesday and their own primary, just in case.)
But I had the feeling that the country was waking up from its Tea drunk -- I just hadn't expected it to be this fast. It is so similar to the total and sudden disappearance of the New Left, radical, revolutionaries of the late sixties.
The question -- for me, at least -- is how similar the aftermath will be. I have argued for years that the reason the Democratic Party got so thrown off balance -- to where it still hasn't recovered, see my comments on Obama -- was that the "New Left" (in the broadest sense, and mostly referring to the hangers-on that Lennon addressed in his line about 'pictures of Chairman Mao') did not, on waking up, become good Progressive Democrats but fled politics altogether, devoting their energy towards 'self-realization,' 'mysticim,' 'spirituality' or just going back to college and getting a degree that would help them make money. (There were, of course, a few dozen -- no more -- who turned to 'direct action' and violence, but they were condemned as entirely by what was left of the Anti-War movement as they were by society as a whole.)
Now if the TP does follow the same path -- and I have no evidence one way or the other about that, yet -- it gives us a wonderful opportunity to really turn things around. But even at worst, the arguments made in my link above are true. We shouldn't, needn't, and would be exceptionally dumb to, write off the South and the other states. No, we don't have unlimited money, but then, even Romney is spending so much in the primaries he's spending twice what he brings in and will probably have to loan his campaign more millions this time around.
And while I'm still 'on vacation' from COG, i will stop back later today or tonight to read and reply to comments, and maybe to give an idea of how it is looking in the other states I mentioned.
(And thanks for the suggestions. I have been to both and enjoyed them, and may spend some time there again, but getting out and around is becoming somewhat more difficult. I have a friend who also serves as a paid driver -- and even can be sent on shopping trips on his own. But I have been reluctant to even try to climb the large number of steps up to the local 'subway' which, in my part of Brooklyn is still an 'elevated.')
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | February 27, 2012 at 01:18 PM
prup, are you saying there is no elevator or escalator to the train? that's nuts!
we live in the SF area, and i forget that not every area is so good about providing public access for anyone with mobility problems -- on public transit and in public places. apparently ADA compliance is one of those things often considered low priority or expendable. a person need not be in a wheelchair to be daunted by lots of stairs.
Posted by: kathy a. | February 27, 2012 at 02:18 PM
Jim,
I think the place to look to see the attitude that I have discussed is not so much the articles in the newspapers but in the reader comments section. It's there you tend to see the underlying ugliness in vivid if misspelled prose.
kathy,
The NYC subway is pretty brutally bad in terms of access for the disabled. Stairs everywhere. The same is true to some extent in Boston. These are really old systems and they are perennially cash-strapped, so upgrading accessibility is always on the back burner. The sad thing is that as DC's system turns 35 its once fabulous level of access erodes on a daily basis due to near constant elevator and escalator outages.
Posted by: Sir Charles | February 27, 2012 at 03:15 PM
are you saying there is no elevator or escalator to the train? that's nuts!
There are still some (not many, but still) commuter rail stops in Metro Boston that lack "handicapped access". The ones on the train I take are stops out in the wealthier communities north of Boston (where the stops are small & picturesequely quaint and thus building an elevator for handicap access will probably mar all the lovely visuals - places like Beverley Farms and Manchester By The Sea). Boston's subways are pretty good about handicapped access at this point.
Posted by: oddjob | February 27, 2012 at 03:29 PM
Boston's subways have improved enormously in the last ten years as a significant number of stops (e.g. Airport, Maverick, North Station, Suffolk Downs, etc.) have undergone very badly needed complete renovations that included elevators.
Posted by: oddjob | February 27, 2012 at 03:33 PM
Santorum Exposes the Real Republican Party
Nice read and spot on. It reminds me that Santorum's stances are essentially an embrace of ousted Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore's understanding of our laws and a repudiation of the Founding Fathers' understanding as expressed in the unanimous Senate ratification of the Treaty of Tripoli.
Posted by: oddjob | February 27, 2012 at 04:05 PM
Institutions of Uppity Learning
LOL! Sob.......
Posted by: oddjob | February 27, 2012 at 04:15 PM
yeah, i noticed a lot of escalator outages during my visit to DC... i have no familiarity with boston or NYC transit.
when we went to japan almost 2 years ago, the train service everywhere was great; accessibility not so much. little outlying stations (away from cities) had these machines that walked down stairs carrying a wheelchair -- i swear i'm not making this up -- but that was scary-looking, required 2 attendants, and provided no solution for people who weren't wheelchair-bound but had some difficulty with the stairs. many of the large stations had access, but it was very hard to find.
Posted by: kathy a. | February 27, 2012 at 04:33 PM