After SNL we stumbled across a Star Trek: TOS episode, one in which Kirk is split into two personalities by a transporter malfunction. I've probably seen this, but don't remember it. I came back in the room roughly 10 minutes in, so missed those crucial intro scenes. When I came in, a blonde yeo(wo)man had smeared lipstick and was explained to Spock and the Captain that the Captain had attacked her, just look at the scratches on his face. But there were none, and thus they realized there must be "an imposter" aboard.

While discussing sexism with my wife, there have been a number of times where I've said "I just don't see it" — meaning either that I literally have never seen the behavior in question, or that I didn't see the interpretation being given. To the first meaning there is a clear rebuttal: its easy to miss something that doesn't affect you (that is, affect me, the guy in the room). With respect to the second, one aspect is that I both don't give enough credit to most people to be deliberately coming up with many of the examples of sexism I've heard about, and I generally assume innocence of motive.

Well, Shakesville's Feminism 101: "Sexism is a matter of opinion" does an excellent job in pointing out the flaws in this naïve analysis, including the use of an excellent Matrix-metaphor. The whole thing is worth reading, but one particular paragraph stuck with me, partially because it applies equally well with the issue of racism:

Let me quickly stipulate and clarify that one can unintentionally express sexism. That innocent intent, or ignorance of the history of how women have been marginalized, does not, however, in any way change the quality of what was being expressed. Something can still be expressed sexism even if the speaker's intent was not to oppress women. And particularly if it does fit neatly into a historical pattern, it necessarily conjures that pattern of sexism, intentionally or not.

Interesting book review covering a new work by Susan Faludi on post-9/11 anti-feminism, partially comparing and contrasting with Bruce Springsteen's new album. The first reaction I had was: do her grim facts really paint the overall picture of the treatment in America? Most of the news coverage I read, see, or hear does not comport to her view of reality — but maybe I just don't pay enough attention to news outside the New York Times, NPR, and the local nightly news.

I'm on a conference call about facilitating interfaith dialogues on the topic of non-violence in religion. I'm multi-tasking as I listen to the introductions; if you've been on many conference calls you'll probably understand the need for multi-tasking.

I wanted to write some useful introduction, but its just not there. So instead, I'll just point you to an interesting op-ed, Jena, O. J. and the Jailing of Black America, and share an extract:

Until we view this social calamity [black incarceration rates] in its entirety — by also acknowledging the central role of unstable relations among the sexes and within poor families, by placing a far higher priority on moral and social reform within troubled black communities, and by greatly expanding social services for infants and children — it will persist.

Over dinner tonight my wife and I were talking about the paucity of major news coverage of women's rights and justice. In the U.S., it seems that you are more likely to find an in-depth look at the current status of women in Afghanistan in a "fashion" magazine than in Newsweek or the other news weeklys. That is definitely a sad state of affairs. We talked about how so many people seemed to have felt that the plight of women was instantly and completely rectified after the overthrow of the Taliban.

Photo used by permission of Flickr user lakerae