Human Relationships: It's the Same Old Patriarchal Story.

For whatever random reason I was searching for INTJs and something on displays of emotion (for info on INTJs, see the Meyers Briggs Temperment Indicator) and ran across a thread in a forum back in '08. The guy in a relationship was asking how to better meet the emotional needs of his INTJ girlfriend.

It was very educational, in a discouraging way.

For starters, the men in it uniformly seem to be operating from the idea that INTJ women like stereotypically feminine stuff, even when they've demonstrated in the relationship (via what might be perceived to be classic masculine, i.e., emotionally closed off, behaviors) that such is not true. Basically, the patriarchy is overwhelming these poor guys' perceptions of what their relationship should be like, so they couldn't see what their relationship actually WAS like.

All of the suggestions for what the clueless INTP guy should do for his INTJ girlfriend were flowing primarily from those sexist belief structures, rather than any awareness of what INTJs might actually like. I saw one or two comments from INTJ women who actually bothered to say anything in this thread, but, when what they said ("alone time, please") was completely ignored, I was, shall we say, less than completely surprised.

For this reason, I believe I will have to update my "care and feeding of your INTJ mate" blog post that I wrote sometime in the last decade.

For now, however:

What do INTJ women want? Time. Independence. Consultation on decisions affecting both of you. Intellectual stimulation. Self-reliance - in you. (An INTJ woman has to be very disciplined to pick up after your ass, so, be a polite roommate even after marriage.) Lots and lots of alone time - which means, you go do something with your friends, and leave her behind. Seriously. Join a soccer league or bowling, or cooking class, that gets you out of the house so she can sit and read, or meditate, or take a long walk and think deep thoughts, by herself. Buy useful gifts like an emergency kit for her car - and consult her on which one she thinks is best. Tell her you were thinking going to (poetry reading, art gallery, film festival, play, CES, IEEE annual conference) might be interesting, and ask would she like to go together? If she says yes, ask her if she would like to plan the weekend/day/evening, or just play things by ear once you get there? ALWAYS follow through on plans once you've agreed to them with her. INTJs are very good at backup plans, so if Plan A is falling to pieces on the fly, call her and tell her, so she can present Plan B and you will both remain in synchronicity with each other, and she will not be nervously wondering what the hell you are doing to her tidy plan. Romantic dinners with flowers, etc., aren't that thrilling to us unless you've proposed a "romantic date night" well in advance, but browsing different sections of bookstores or libraries on a Saturday afternoon and then regrouping to share what you've discovered is lots of fun.

Attorney General Orders Board in DOMA Cancellation Case

I don't plan to make this an immigration law blog, but:

The Attorney General has ordered the Board of Immigration Appeals to make specific findings regarding a (potential) same-sex spouse's eligibility for cancellation of removal.

Cancellation of removal is a type of relief from removal granting someone a green card (permanent residency) if they have been in the U.S. for 10 years or more before being placed into removal (deportation) proceedings, are of good moral character, and show that it would cause "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to a qualifying relative such as a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse, parent, or child. Immigration and Nationality Act 240A(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1).

Here's the language of the Attorney General's order:

BEFORE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Pursuant to my authority set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(h)(1)(i), I order that the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) in this case applying Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), 1 U.S.C. § 7, be vacated, and that this matter be referred to me for review.

In the exercise of my review authority under that regulation, and upon consideration of the record in this case, I direct that the order of the Board be vacated and that this matter be remanded to the Board to make such findings as may be necessary to determine whether and how the constitutionality of DOMA is presented in this case, including, but not limited to: 1) whether respondent’s same-sex partnership or civil union qualifies him to be considered a 'spouse' under New Jersey law; 2) whether, absent the requirements of DOMA, respondent’s same-sex partnership or civil union would qualify him to be considered a 'spouse' under the Immigration and Nationality Act; 3) what, if any, impact the timing of respondent’s civil union should have on his request for that discretionary relief; and 4) whether, if he had a 'qualifying relative,' the respondent would be able to satisfy the exceptional and unusual hardship requirement for cancellation of removal.

1 U.S.C. 7 says: "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

What 1 U.S.C. 7 means is that any time a federal agency - like the Citizenship and Immigration Service (part of the Department of Homeland Security) or the Immigration Court (part of the Department of Justice) - interprets a federal statute or federal regulation, the word 'marriage' only means opposite sex unions. Therefore, same-sex married couples are not recognized as being married.

Now, the Attorney General has stated that the Department of Justice will not defend DOMA in court under the heightened scrutiny standard. If you read the letter to House Speaker Boehner, it may not appear obvious to the lay person, but what's happening between the lines is that the AG appears to be saying the reason the DOJ can't defend the statute in court is that it would be a frivolous argument, which is unethical for a lawyer to put forward. AG Holder explains why DOJ believes that a "heightened scrutiny" analysis is required, as opposed to a rational-basis standard being applied, when examining the constitutionality of the statute. A "heightened scrutiny" analysis requires the DOJ invoke, solely, Congress's actual stated justifications for the law, and, as AG Holder puts forth, the legislative history of the statute undermines any defense the DOJ might put forward. What AG Holder says, translated into English (or at least, Sidra-English) is "we can't defend this thing, because there's no legitimate legal argument we can put forth under this legal standard". And lawyers, for all our presentation in the media as manifestations of pure evil, are not permitted to advance frivolous arguments. We face disciplinary action should we do so.

Holder is not saying that the U.S. will fail to defend the statute when the different, lower, rational-basis standard is applied, which means in federal circuits where those courts have already determined that is the appropriate standard, they'll continue to advance arguments under that standard, because the arguments available to make under that standard are legally different.

What's this got to do with the Board of Immigration Appeals? The AG can take up an issue decided by the Board and issue his own ruling. The Board hears appeals of actions taken by Immigration Courts and the Citizenship and Immigration Service (CIS) (I'm simplifying, but...) So, the AG decision above is a decision where the AG is overturning something the Board did, in response to an appeal by somebody of a decision of an Immigration Court or CIS. Executive agencies will still apply DOMA, at least according to Holder's letter to Boehner. Equally obviously, given what he says in this decision, the AG is overturning a decision where someone, either the Court/CIS, or the Board (or both), employed DOMA to, my guess, deny someone cancellation of removal because their proposed qualifying relative was a same-sex spouse.

So, maybe, that assertion in AG Holder's letter that agencies will execute the law even if not defend it when heightened scrutiny will be imposed, is less cut and dried than we might think. Can the DOJ, when tasked to act as a quasi-court (i.e., Immigration Court/Board of Immigration Appeals) do any less, when the Attorney General, the head of the agency, has articulated the proper legal standard for analyzing DOMA, and that under that standard the statute is unconstitutional?

Joanna Russ, RIP

Bye, Joanna. Your words and ideas live on, reaching into the future and touching minds you will never meet directly.

When "marry me" is used as a compliment, it isn't, really.

I was reading along, some various times both past and present, and encountered the use of "are you married?/I want to marry you" as short hand for extreme approval of some statement. I've done it myself but am putting stop to that habit for the reasons below.

Here's the thing, complimenting someone by telling them you love what they've done so much you want to marry them (in jest, of course, because you don't actually, unless of course you do, in which case, this little diatribe of mine is not for you) is an attempt to compliment someone through offering them something of great value, value in accordance with their own demonstrated worth. And what is the thing of great value to which the individual's worth is compared? The marriage state.

Because marriage, in this patriarchal society, is still the mountaintop for which all (women) are told to strive.

This form of compliment, thus, perpetuates the idea that marriage is a state so devoutly to be desired and of such great value that you, having demonstrated your awesomeness, have shown your worth to enter into it, is really pretty backhanded.

This woman has demonstrated great value! What a prize she is! Marry her and claim that prize!

Baloney.

Apt Lesson

Help the oppressor by preventing him from oppressing others

Allah’s Messenger, peace be upon him, said, “Help your brother, whether he is an oppressor or is being oppressed.” People asked, “O Allah’s Messenger! We help the one being oppressed but how do we help an oppressor?” The Prophet said, “By seizing his hand (preventing him from oppression).”

This is what those who yearn for the "Good Ol' Days" ask for

Triangle: Remembering the Fire

We don't teach this history in our schools, so I'm glad to see HBO doing this sort of documentary. It's important that we understand what it took to get so many of the things we take for granted right now and now easily we could go back to these days if we don't understand that the ultra-rich basically consider most of us a commodity that's expendable. And before you read the excerpt from the book below, a warning that some of it is not safe for work due to a few curse words. It's pages 186-191 of the book and recounts the incident at Triangle and the other strikes and the lifestyles of the Robber Barons around the time of the fire at the Triangle factory.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. The rich are using the same playbook now that they did back in the early 1900's. Control the press so you propagandize the public, go after public education, use religious leaders to help your cause and trash unions.

So. It is International Women's Day.

I am a woman with predominantly First World Problems. In the grand scheme of things, like most other people (women and men) my life is pretty meaningless. We're born, we live, we try to add meaning to our lives, and then we die. But it's *my* life, and that means my problems matter a great deal to me.

Whether the problems a woman encounters are the first world version or otherwise, many of these problems are caused by a global system called "patriarchy". These problems root themselves in a fear and hatred of women. These are problems that women on this planet steep in, every day, to varying degrees and in different ways.

Some examples are:

Rape as a tool of war.
Fistulas caused during childbirth and no access to medical care to repair them.
Being denied jobs or being underpaid for a job due to gender.
Having ones ideas dismissed by co-workers, teachers, supervisors, due to gender.
Domestic violence in the home being considered as normal.
Religions that consider women lower than men.
Femicide.
Rape as a tool of oppression of women.
Rape culture - dismissiveness of rape, victim-blaming, rape jokes, etc.
Being evaluated based on one's desirability to men.
Objectification of women as anything less than real, whole human beings.

What can you personally do to change this world? You can change your attitude. You can donate to micro-loan programs that help women. You can stop making rape jokes. You can make yourself a better person. It's what you, personally, can do. You can advocate for equal rights for women in the workplace. You can take complaints of sexism seriously. You can listen. No one said changing the world was easy. But it is a thing worth doing, if you operate from the basic assumption that we are all human on this planet together, and that each of our lives matter to us, as much as your life matters to you.

Power Corrupts. Absolute Power...

Representatives of the One True Church, the Universal ('catholic') Church, raped, pillaged, and then covered it up. Women died. Children grew up suffering the trauma of abuse. And it mattered not to the leaders of this Church.

Vatican confirms report of sexual abuse and rape of nuns by priests in 23 countries.

23 Countries. That's not some "certain negative situation" that should be allowed to be swept under a rug. It's criminal. It's immoral. It's betrayal of the community of faith.

I try not to hold the acts of the Church against those who are members of it. You know, you don't get to choose what crimes others engage in in the name of your faith. The problem is, when you embrace the name Catholic, when you go to Mass and put your money in the poor box or the collection plate, you are supporting in word and deed the actions of your church.

If you disagree with the things this Church as done in the name of your faith, you must act. You must disavow. You must investigate. You must punish. You must make restitution. And as long as the leaders of the Catholic Church don't, how can any "good Catholic" continue to be a member of this Church at all?

How to Write Good Code

You know, after years as a software developer, trying to explain that it is impossible to accurately estimate development times (hence the building in of extremely large safety margins - how long do you guess this subtask will take? OK, multiply by 3, because the only thing you know is that you are wrong, dead wrong, in your guess, or that something else will be hideously buggy and take forever to get right), and how you can either do it fast, or do it right, when I could just have let XKCD do it for me.

Good Code

QOTD

QOTD: "Break thou in pieces and consume to ashes, Thou foul accursed minister of hell!"

Truer Words Were Never Spoken

If tech discussion was really about tech, it wouldn’t be sexist."

More women than men discuss sexism, and it is not because we find the topic more fun, entertaining, or enjoyable than men. It is because sexism gets in the way of our freedom. I blog about sexism in geek culture not because it’s my passion, but because it gets in the way of my passions.

Emphasis added.

I don't blog and care and argue about patriarchy and oppression and gender roles because I think it's fun. I do it because sexism is an obstacle in the way of a full and complete enjoyment of my life. If you had a thorn in your paw, wouldn't you bitch about it, too?

So, let's do this rather than make me eat cat food in my 70s

Budget baloney: Social Security isn't to blame for deficit. "In a former life I was a trustee of the Social Security trust fund. So let me set the record straight."

Remember, the Social Security payroll tax applies only to earnings up to a certain ceiling. (That ceiling is now $106,800.) The ceiling rises every year according to a formula roughly matching inflation.

Back in 1983, the ceiling was set so the Social Security payroll tax would hit 90 percent of all wages covered by Social Security. That 90 percent figure was built into the Greenspan Commission’s fixes. The Commission assumed that, as the ceiling rose with inflation, the Social Security payroll tax would continue to hit 90 percent of total income.

Today, though, the Social Security payroll tax hits only about 84 percent of total income.

It went from 90 percent to 84 percent because a larger and larger portion of total income has gone to the top. In 1983, the richest 1 percent of Americans got 11.6 percent of total income. Today the top 1 percent takes in more than 20 percent.

If we want to go back to 90 percent, the ceiling on income subject to the Social Security tax would need to be raised to $180,000.

Presto.

Sounds good to me. Let's do it.

Lady Antebellum

OK. First, points for a name that requires some exposure to Latin to fully parse.
Second, points for winning 5 grammies! Well done, and congratulations!

Third, wow, that's a hell of a name with its racist connotations evoking slavery and an implicit yearning for the period when it was a common practice. I really have to ask how deliberate that was. Or was it just privilegedly thoughtless? Seriously? If the answer to "where'd the name come from" was "we just thought it'd be cool", I guarantee you the band members are all white. (Yep, just checked the band's website.)

*Sigh*

So, you should really just go read What Tami Said on this subject, because Tami is far more eloquent than I.

I wish to make one critical point - whenever you yearn for some feudal, antebellum, medieval, whatever-nostalgic-past - you always yearn to be at the top of it. Those from oppressed minorities, however, shall we say, have a much harder time with the necessary suspension of disbelief to imagine oneself in that position. Because one knows that the place of a member of such a group, in such a nostalgic, dreamy, racist, sexist, classist past, wouldn't be at the top, but the very bottom. Or dead in a field/ditch/shallow grave/Atlantic Ocean/etc.

Viva Free Egypt 11 Feb '11

Mubarak has stepped down as President, in what has, given the what can only be called minimal violence for a fricking REVOLUTION[*], been an absolutely stunning example of what (relatively) peaceful, unified insistence on their rights by a people can bring into the world. Congratulations, people of Egypt. That was self-determination in its purest form.



[*] To the families of the dead: that does not make your loss any less painful; I am truly sorry.

Life in the Patriarchy

Picture this conversation, if you can:

Guy: I loooove cake!

Girl: Not a big cake fan, myself. I prefer cookies. With M&Ms.

Guy: What?

Girl: I said I'm not a big cake fan.

Guy: What? But you have to love cake!

Girl: Huh?

Guy: What's wrong with you?

Girl: Nothing's wrong with me. I like cookies more than cake.

Guy: You can't love cookies more than cake. Trust me, you love cake. You have to love cake. Everybody loves cake. You need a perspective adjustment.

Girl: But I really like cookies.

Guy: But I love cake.

Girl: So, love your cake. And I'll love cookies.

Guy: I love cake, so you have to love cake, too.

Girl: I. Prefer. Cookies.

Guy: Prove it. What do you have against cake?

Girl: I don't have anything against cake. Cake is fine. You should love cake. I'm glad you love cake. I don't love cake.

Guy: Listen, I'm the man in this relationship and I love cake. That's just the way it is. You're going to have to live with it.

Girl: Fine! Love cake! Why do I have to love cake, too? Why is my preference automatically invalidated while yours isn't? Cookies! With M&Ms in them! Are great!

Guy: I know you really love cake. That's why you can't come up with a good argument against my cake.

Girl: *blink* *blink*

Guy: See? I'm right. I'm always right. You love cake. Told you.


In the radical feminist ending, she takes a flamethrower to him.

In the real world, he nags her endlessly until she agrees with him just to get him to shut up.