It is true that Planned Parenthood receives federal grant monies. It is also true that Planned Parenthood offers abortion services, though these amount to a mere 3% of its operations.² Yet, as a result of this decision, countless low-income women would lose access to the breast screening programs offered by Planned Parenthood as part of its mission to provide critical medical and reproductive care to those who could not otherwise afford it. Planned Parenthood has always maintained that not a single penny of taxpayer funds assists in providing abortion services within its operations.

The announcement was greeted mostly with shock and outrage. Long-time supporters of the Komen Foundation, those who had pledged money of their own or participated in the popular fund-raising walks, expressed feelings of betrayal that the Foundation could be suddenly so blind to the needs of women in this country. While the media wing of the Foundation repeatedly denied that there was a political motivation to this decision, the actions of Komen’s Vice President of Public Policy, Karen Handel, tell quite a different story. This image (originally posted at MoveOn.org) of Handel’s Twitter page is very revealing:

There are a few problems with the sentiment expressed in the original tweet. First is the use of the term “pro-abortion“. This is a classic example of using constructed language to characterize someone or something with an inaccurate (and, usually, negative) connotation. I can safely say that I have never met anyone who is “pro-abortion”, yet members of the Religious Right love to characterize Planned Parenthood and its supporters (myself included) with this label. My fellow supporters of Planned Parenthood and I recognize that abortion is sometimes necessary; many even view it as regrettable on one or more levels. It is not viewed as a desirable ambition for anyone. We would neither applaud nor support a young woman who said, “I’m going to get pregnant just so that I can have an abortion, because I think having an abortion would be fun.” The supporters of Planned Parenthood, those women and men who label themselves pro-choice, value life, freedom, and individual liberty. Further, we respect a woman’s right to bodily autonomy. But members of the Religious Right refuse to accept that point of view.

A second problem with the tweet has more to do with the bio offered of Handel herself. If you use Twitter³, you know that each user supplies hir⁴ own profile. This means that it was Handel’s own choice to be identified as a “Lifelong Conservative Republican“. Why, you may ask, is someone so politically vocal being placed in a position of authority within an organization that has managed to remain largely apolitical since its inception in 1982? That, I believe, is a good question. It seems that the bending of the Foundation’s agenda toward the Right began shortly following Handel’s appointment. In fact, Handel has been known as a longtime anti-Planned Parenthood crusader for much of her career, no doubt one of the reasons Handel’s failed gubernatorial campaign was endorsed by Sarah Palin. Given that Handel’s predisposition is well known, the following – an excerpt from an excellent post at Jezebel – should not come as much of a surprise:

According to Jeffrey Goldberg at The Atlantic, former employees of Komen told him that the rule was, in fact, designed to single out Planned Parenthood. The former employees told Goldberg that Karen Handel was behind the new rule, which was instituted in December. Employees of Komen also told Goldberg that Handel and her cronies saw the Planned Parenthood Congressional investigation as an opportunity to finally end Komen’s relationship with the family planning organization.

So much for the Susan G. Komen Foundation™ remaining apolitical. In the wake of the burgeoning controversy, the CEO of the Komen Foundation, Nancy Brinker, delivered the first in a series of completely tone-deaf statements:

Brinker’s second media catastrophe came during this interview with Andrea Mitchell of NBC News:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

For a detailed analysis of the video, please allow me to direct you to Jay Rosen’s Press Think. Rosen does an outstanding job breaking down the interview, though I do believe he goes a step too far when he wishes cancer upon Brinker. I cannot tell if Rosen is attempting to be ironic when he does so, but as a past and current cancer patient I cannot wish the disease upon anyone, no matter how vile I believe hir to be. However, I do agree with Rosen when he writes:

The fractured syntax, the thoughts that do not connect, the zombie-like performance, the whole train wreck that this interview became: I think it all originates in a lie the house bought about itself. We don’t do politics. Miraculously, such a statement might have been true at one time. But when the board took the decision to cut off Planned Parenthood it ceased to be true. What if Susan G. Komen lied to itself about that fateful moment? What if the Foundation sent Nancy Brinker out there, not to explain its decision but to project that lie, no matter what?

Since that interview, the Komen Foundation has reiterated that the current grants already in place with Planned Parenthood will remain active. However, the organization has carefully couched all further press releases with language that does not preclude the possibility of the grants being denied during the next grant cycle should Planned Parenthood apply again.

This brings us to the underlying motivation of this fiasco: money. By denying further funding to Planned Parenthood, the Komen Foundation enters the world of politics abruptly and immediately chooses a side. In doing so, the Foundation – through an apparent combination of agenda and naïveté – has become a tool of the patriarchy. To what extent that was a willing decision, one that I would not put past Handel herself, is likely to remain unclear. How is the Susan G. Komen Foundation™ shilling for the patriarchy? Patriarchy exists by the promulgation of privilege, the stratification of society into disparate castes, wherein those of most favorable status rule society. The denial of services to those who are perceived to be of lower social value is a common tool of oppression, and here we have an example of a woman-centered organization acting to deny other women basic lifesaving services.

Take a moment, and let that sink in.

Patriarchy knows that it can flourish if it can turn against each other those members of society who are not of the elite, ruling class. Members of our ruling class are white, wealthy, Christian, heterosexual, and (almost exclusively) conservative. As long as women are busy battling women, their power remains unassailed. This is the outcome they desire, to remain in power and to propagate the system that gives them that power. By turning the Komen Foundation against Planned Parenthood, the patriarchy knows that it will remain in control one day longer. It has created a fantastic show for the masses by siccing one of the most well-known and beloved “charity” organizations on one of its most popular scapegoats.

Yes, this chapter in the continued struggle for bodily autonomy for all is an important one. But it is not the most important struggle taking place at this time. We must remember that the underlying system that promulgates these types of spectacles must be challenged, too.

So, for now, we will stop wearing Komen Foundation t-shirts. Pink ribbons will be removed from our car bumpers and windows. We’ll fight this fight and then move on. But we must remember that the underlying system must be turned on its head. Until such time as the question of personal autonomy is no longer a question, there will still be work to be done. I, for one, will continue to do that work. Will you?

Until next time, dear readers, be good to each other. Namaste.

1. Please note that these details are posted on a site with an agenda quite different from my own.
2. Steven Colbert’s breakdown of Planned Parenthood’s operations is priceless: http://gawker.com/5791100/watch-stephen-colberts-defense-of-planned-parenthood
3. I do. Follow me at https://twitter.com/#!/radicalmale for blog-related updates or at https://twitter.com/#!/paduanbenedick for my personal feed.
4. hir – One of a new set of pronouns, singular in number, meant to indicate either (or no) gender; more efficient than writing “his or her” or “her or his”; more grammatically correct than writing “their”. The nominative pronoun in this group is ze.

From blogger warbyparker:

Ten years of evolution: 2011 iPod vs. 2001 iPod.

The iPod on the right is one of the original debut models; the one on the left shows what a decade of advances in storage media (it features a solid-state drive rather than an actual hard disk), touch interface technology, and user interface developments can do. Can you imagine what a similar image will depict in 2021?

Most people realize that AIDS came from the homosexual community — it was one guy screwing a monkey, if I recall correctly, and then having sex with men. It was an airline pilot, if I recall.

Wait, it gets better…

My understanding is that it is virtually — not completely, but virtually — impossible to contract AIDS through heterosexual sex…very rarely [transmitted].

and better…

[Homosexuals] do not naturally reproduce. It has not been proven that it is nature. It happens in nature, but so does beastiality. That does not make it right or something we should be teaching in school.

There are so many problematic – and, honestly, downright evil – assumptions layered within these statements that it is difficult to know where to begin. Let us examine the statements of this gentleman – a term I use with only the loosest connection to its actual meaning – through the lens of radical masculinity and ask ourselves the question, “How do these statements support the Patriarchy?”

First, the Patriarchy survives by othering. By separating those members of society who do not conform to the ideological dictates of the ruling class, they are subjugated by and to it. The dictates in this situation ooze heteronormativity. Homosexuals, it would seem, are judged as traitors to their gender and to their roles in society. Men are supposed to act in a certain fashion, and loving other men does not conform to that paradigm.

In this particular instance, the Senator further clouds the issue by conflating homosexuality with zoophilia, which is a particularly ridiculous claim. There is no connection between the two. But by tying them together in the minds of his constituents, the senator is playing upon as many factors as possible to disturb and disgust the delicate sensibilities of his bible belt constituents. This is a particularly useful tactic in the arsenal of the Southern politician, but its success does not in any way validate its use. It is a lie, based in fear and misunderstanding, meant to achieve a particular end.

Further, it would be impossible to overlook the factual inaccuracy of the Senator’s second statement. Given that the demographic population whose incidents of HIV infection show the highest rate of growth is heterosexual women², the statement is, on its face, without veracity. It is nothing more than a desperate attempt to cling to what the Senator would no doubt call “the sanctity of the traditional family” by ignoring science (something at which Republicans and the Religious Right are quite adept, it would seem) in favor of a social paradigm that is dying a slow, torturous death.

As this situation garners more media attention, I’m sure that I will return to the subject. Additional, I’ll follow the “Don’t Say Gay” bill and any other hate mongering legislation that appears in the Tennessee legislature. Unfortunately, I’m sure that I will have a great deal about which to write.

Until next time, dear readers, be good to each other. Namaste.

1. – Which stands for Republican, of course, but could be aptly abbreviating Reprobate, Ridiculous, or Ruthless.
2. – See http://www.avert.org/usa-race-age.htm for more information.

Which brings me to my questions for you:

1. What do you think of the layout?
2. What do you think of the color scheme?
3. What do you think of my font choices? (This includes the font itself, its size, and its color.)

I look forward to reading your opinions; I’d rather know now than wait too long and build a site that most readers find unappealing or annoying. Please just leave a note in the comments section of this post or send your thoughts to me via email. You can email me by following the “Email” link in the “Subscribe” section in the right sidebar, or just send a message to radicalmale [at] gmail [dot] com.

Until next time, dear readers, be good to each other. Namaste.

1. Alternatively, I could convince all the IE users to switch to another browser. There are three major, cross-platform options:
   1. Mozilla Firefox;
   2. Google Chrome; and,
   3. Safari.

   This list is by no means comprehensive. I haven’t even mentioned the lesser-known browsers like Raven, Camino (although this one isn’t officially supported anymore, it has a fascinating history), and Opera. However, if you’re currently using Internet Explorer as your primary browser, I strongly recommend that you find an alternate browser that suits you.

So, I hear you ask, why Radical Masculinity? Good question; thank you for asking. A major part of this blog will be the discussion of politics and current events, which will dovetail nicely with a conversation regarding social dynamics and nuances, from which one cannot but address the issues of the Patriarchy in modern life. For those unfamiliar with the term, patriarchy refers to a “system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.” (as defined by Google [here]) Part of this weblog will be a reminder that asking questions is essential in life; this, I believe, is especially true in any society that claims to be free. If we cease to question the political double-speak that is promulgated by our leadership, we lose the ability to hold them accountable for their actions and decisions. The beauty of a Representative Republic (which is not the same as a democracy, but that’s the subject of another post) is that these elected representatives are intended to voice and to advocate for the opinions of their constituents rather then their own. Though, admittedly, the system usually falls short of that ambitious goal, we have an inspiring system of government in the United States. Unfortunately, sometimes our government gets in our way (e.g., Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 08-205 (2010), 558 U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 876 (21 January 2010)), and we must fight our way past such decisions.

But what does any of this have to do with masculinity, you may ask. The answer is really very simple. In our society, men and women are expected to conform to certain sets of social norms. Women are to be docile, quiet, emotional, giving, nurturing, demure, and subservient. Men are to be aggressive, emotionless (unless that emotion is anger), and dominant. There are, however, other options. Men are not obligated to conform to these social strictures; indeed, a lack of conformity to them is fundamental for being radically masculine.

Am I contending to have all the answers? Not at all; I know that I fall down more often than most people. The concept of the Radical Male is an aspirational one for me. In fact, I cannot even claim the terminology as my own. If memory serves, I borrowed the phrase Radical Masculinity from well-known blogger and public speaker Greta Christina¹ when she used it to describe a class of men who were allies of the LGBTQAI² community. There is, however, more to being radically masculine than supporting gay rights (which, as Secretary of State Clinton has pointed out on more than one occasion, are nothing more or less than human rights). The radical masculinity to which I aspire is supportive and compassionate, honest and open, courageous and fallible. It recognizes the power of privilege, but it refuses to wield that power (to whatever extent that is possible, a debate for another day). It supports the rights of personal and bodily autonomy for all persons, not simply all persons who meet certain socially-elite criteria. Radical masculinity challenges the very system that elevates it.

So, will you be coming back to read more? I hope so. I’ll be here, and I’ll be writing. It could be about anything – technology, pop culture, linguistics, or even Star Wars – but it should be interesting (I hope). And, I hope, the lens through which the daily conversations are filtered will be as revealing and informative as the conversations themselves.

Until next time, dear readers, be good to each other. Namaste.

1. – You can find her blog by following the link in the sidebar to the right.
2. – Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Asexual, and/or Intersex