The New Yorker: The Language of the Trump Administration Is the Language of Domestic Violence. By Jessica Winter, June 11, 2018.
“Look what you made me do has emerged as the dominant ethos of the current White House. During the 2016 Presidential race, many observers drew parallels between the language of abusers and that of Trump on the campaign trail. Since his election, members of the Trump Administration have learned that language, too, and nowhere is this more vivid than in the rhetoric they use to discuss the Administration’s policies toward the Central American immigrants crossing the U.S. border. Informally since last summer, and officially since April 6th, the Department of Homeland Security has been separating parents from their children at the border, taking the parents into criminal custody and handing the children over to the Department of Health and Human Services to be placed in shelters and foster families, sometimes thousands of miles away from their parents. The process is compounded in its brutality by its perhaps intentional disorder, as a Boston Globe piece detailed on Sunday: parents in custody often have no idea where their children are, how to get them back, or if or when they will see them again.
There has always been a sickening intimacy to Trump’s insults and cruelties, whether he was sexualizing his daughter or sexually humiliating and physically dominating Hillary Clinton during the second Presidential debate. For many observers, especially women, that debate—coming days after the release of the “Access Hollywood” tape—triggered a fight-or-flight response, unleashing their own memories of harassment and abuse. And, for many observers, especially parents, the news coverage of the atrocities being committed at the border in the name of American prosperity and security triggers a similar physiological response—except that this time the trigger is instantiated by sadistic, totalitarian force. (I cannot be the only mother of small children who slept on the floor of her kids’ room the night that “All In with Chris Hayes” reported on a baby seized from his parents, one week past his first birthday.) A slow, quiet terror continues to spread through the American populace. We are all being made into complicit bystanders in Trump’s violence. We are all members of Trump’s toxic, traumatizing family now.”
Link via MetaFilter.
Outside: Going it alone. By Rahawa Haile, April 11, 2017.
“What happens when an African American woman decides to solo-hike the Appalachian Trail from Georgia to Maine during a summer of bitter political upheaval? Everything you can imagine, from scary moments of racism to new friendships to soaring epiphanies about the timeless value of America’s most storied trekking route.”
Buzzfeed: How Black Books Lit My Way Along The Appalachian Trail. By Rahawa Haile, February 2, 2017.
“I can confirm that one does not walk 2,000 miles across the face of this country as a black woman without building up an incredible sense of self.”
Links via MetaFilter.
The California Sunday Magazine: “Whatever’s your darkest question, you can ask me.” “A secret network of women is working outside the law and the medical establishment to provide safe, cheap home abortions.”
Link via MetaFilter.
Die Zeit: Frances McDormand: Die Unerschrockene. “Ungeschminkt und unabhängig: Frances McDormand zeigt, wie Hollywood aussehen könnte, wenn Frauen nur für ihre schauspielerische Leistung beurteilt würden.” Von Barbara Schweizerhof.
“Bei allen Verleihungen, egal wie glamourös sie waren, erschien die Schauspielerin fast ungeschminkt, die kurzen, grauen Haare nur nachlässig in Fasson gebracht, und in Kleidern, die in Form und Farbe das Gegenteil von dem waren, was man figurbetont oder sexy nennt. Wenn die Kamera während ihrer Dankesreden prominente Gesichter im Publikum zeigte, wurde der Kontrast noch deutlicher: Jessica Chastain, Sally Hawkins oder Carey Mulligan, Meryl Streep, Margot Robbie oder Emma Stone, alle mit sorgfältig aufgelegtem Fest-Make-up, Dekolletés und Glitzerlook, wirkten fast wie artige Püppchen gegenüber dieser Frau, die unerschrocken ihr Alter zeigt und schon vor Langem aufgehört hat, im herkömmlichen Sinn gefallen zu wollen.”
The Economist: The link between polygamy and war. “Plural marriage, bred of inequality, begets violence.” (December 19, 2017)
“Wherever it is widely practised, polygamy (specifically polygyny, the taking of multiple wives) destabilises society, largely because it is a form of inequality which creates an urgent distress in the hearts, and loins, of young men. If a rich man has a Lamborghini, that does not mean that a poor man has to walk, for the supply of cars is not fixed. By contrast, every time a rich man takes an extra wife, another poor man must remain single. If the richest and most powerful 10% of men have, say, four wives each, the bottom 30% of men cannot marry. Young men will take desperate measures to avoid this state.
This is one of the reasons why the Arab Spring erupted, why the jihadists of Boko Haram and Islamic State were able to conquer swathes of Nigeria, Iraq and Syria, and why the polygamous parts of Indonesia and Haiti are so turbulent. Polygamous societies are bloodier, more likely to invade their neighbours and more prone to collapse than others are. The taking of multiple wives is a feature of life in all of the 20 most unstable countries on the Fragile States Index compiled by the Fund for Peace, an NGO”.