The Compulsory Inauguration Post

I didn't want to just be repeating what everyone else was saying, so I wasn't initially going to post on the inauguration. However, there are so many rich gems in this event I don't see any harm in holding them up to the light to catch yet another glint.

One point that has been made before is that Obama's heritage is about more than being black. When he was born it was still illegal for black men to marry white women in quite a few states. His election isn't just going to mark a breakthrough for blacks, its going to make what used to be called miscegenation completely legitimate, indeed actually cool.

I was reminded how significant this is when something triggered a memory of the sitcom CBS "Kate and Allie", about two single mothers who move in together. In one episode one of the characters finds herself at the dentist when the lights go out, combining her two worst phobias. She's talked through her fears by a charming sounding man, who eventually she asks out. He's doubtful, but agrees. Then the lights come on and it is clear he is black (and very good looking).

He warns her that they will experience racism going out together, but she initially thinks she'll cope. However, eventually she decides it is all too hard. When breaking it off with him she says, "You know my kids thought it was great we were seeing each other. Maybe soon it won't matter." I was surprised when I saw this episode. This was the late 80s. In Greenwich Village. Surely such things were now the province of Deliverance country?

The actors who played Kate and Allie's kids would be past thirty now, too old even to have been the shocktroops of Obama's campaign. But they're part of the generation that did this. And their children won't understand the episode at all.


Update: I looked up the show on Wikipedia and discovered that one of the kids went onto play Leo's daughter Mallory in The West Wing. How sweet is that?

Confirmation Bias

A friend of mine posted this link on her facebook site. It's an article about opening up monogamous relationships. I'm responding, not the article itself, but to one of the comments, which claims: Having been in and known dozens and dozens of people involved with open relationships, I can think of less than a handful for whom it has worked.

Of course defining which relationships "work" and which don't can be pretty hard, but it struck me that a case could be made that most relationships don't "work" at least if your test is having them last for life.

When I was at university I knew of perhaps three openly non-monogmous relationsips, although there were probably a few others who were keeping it quiet. Naturally this was out of hundreds (possibly thousands) of relationships within my friendship circle over the years.

The other day I opened the newspaper to an interview with someone who was part of one of those non-monogmous relationships, who has now become a moderately famous author. His partner is drifting around during the interview, occasionally intervening. And yes, its the same partner. They've been together more than 20 years, since well before I met them.

The thing is, I can only think of four other relationships from my peer group that have made the distance. So the "failure" rate is actually a lot higher for the conventional relationships than the very small sample of open relationships.

But when monogamous relationships break up outside observers seldom blame monogamy. When open or polyamourous relationships don't last, it's the first thing everyone else grabs for.

It's not a very original observation of course. It's called Confirmation Bias. When we see something that supports our prejudices we file it away as evidence, when it counteracts what we expect we often, although not always, disregard it.

But it would be nice if, on a lefty website, people of explicitly progressive politics were not so clearly applying it to bash others.

On Beauty

There's a very moving (and beautifully written) post over at Hoyden about the Beauty Myth and what happens to women's self identity as they age and are no longer noticed/praised for being desirable. Although the thread sometimes degenerates there are several comments as insightful and revelatory as the original.

I'm particularly cautious of thread derailment on feminist topics so I thought I'd post over here and just link there.

I'm interested in the other side of the coin - how to avoid perpetuating and reinforcing the message. For a long time I'd almost never comment on a woman's appearance at all, lest it be reinforcing of the idea that this was what matters. More recently I've slipped into sometimes telling a woman how attractive she looks, and it struck me the other day that I've said nice things about one particular friend's looks more often than her intellect/academic success. (Since she's well into a PhD in a hot area of science the latter is considerable, but she's not entirely confident of her abilities, so its not like such comments would be superfluous)

I realised that as a society we're so conditioned to talk about women in terms of their appearance that it takes a fair amount of effort not to. Certainly such effort is pretty minor compared to the efforts women have to go to in order to block out the messages that their worth is measured in milli-Helens[1], but I'm pondering how important this is, and if any comments are too many. May post in more depth later.


[1] In case this is not self-explanatory, the milli-Helen was a measure of beauty proposed at one point on the basis that if Helen of Troy had "the face that could launch a thousand ships" beauty could be measured on the scale of how many ships would be launched to rescue/recapture an individual. I'm not sure how tongue in cheek the idea was, but besides the sexist (and hetrosexist) assumptions, it is does reveal that in a society where cultural notions of beauty are strongly reinforced such a scale is much less use than one in which diverse visions of beauty are encouraged.