The Proper Way to Ogle Women

Effective Catcalls

Buzz Feed put out the following video, What Men Are Really Saying When Catcalling Women. Given the material, it’s actually pretty bad. The actors are all quite good, but the writing is weak. It does, however, get to the what catcalling is all about, even if it isn’t aware of it. And it misses an opportunity for an effective ending by giving men a pass I think they don’t deserve.

After showing various somewhat true statements, it ends with an 18 second riff on, “I do this ’cause I’m lonely.” If that were true, it would still be a pathetic ending. But in fact, it is not true. Catcalling is all about signaling that the catcaller is a virile and heterosexual man. And who is he signaling it to? Mostly to himself.

It is a sad truth that male culture as I have found it in America is primarily about convincing everyone that you aren’t gay. This isn’t to say men are a bunch of closeted homosexuals. But there is such a taboo about male homosexuality that you would think that every football party was on the verge of breaking into an all mall orgy. You may remember last year I wrote, These Are Victims: Matthew Shepard and Emmett Till. In it, I noted Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty and his “creepy obsession” with anal sex. He is not an exception but very much the rule in the “real man” culture.

I don’t know how the objects of catcalling respond to it. I suspect there is a wide range. Introverted women probably find it very upsetting. But I’m sure there are women who do take a certain pleasure in the public confirmation that they are nubile. Still, even for such women, I’m sure men sneaking glances does the job as well. We men are not nearly as subtle as we think we are. And certainly, as Dan Arel noted at Patheos, “I joked about never meeting a couple who had the story about meeting when, ‘I was walking down the street and he yelled to me from his car about my ass and we have been together ever since.'”

There is, of course, a reason that you never hear a story like that. I don’t think it matters who you are, what is most attractive is self-confidence. It is hard to get too worked up about people who seem adrift. And catcalling does not say, “I’m virile and heterosexual!” It says, “I’m afraid I’m not virile and that you might think I’m homosexual!” And that isn’t attractive. Much better is to act the way that Mike Birbiglia and I act when confronted with an attractive woman: stare at your feet uncomfortably and avoid looking at her. Because it communicates the same information without nearly as much noise.

Now that’s how it’s done!

The Roots of Republican Reagan Idolatry

John QuigginThe outsize Republican idolatry of Reagan is explained in part by the fact that there’s no one else in their history of whom they can really approve. The Bushes are a bad memory for most, Ford was a non-entity and Nixon was Nixon. Eisenhower looks pretty good on most historical rankings, but he’s anathema to movement conservatives: Eisenhower Republicans were what are now called RINOs. Going back a century, and skipping some failures/nonentities, Theodore Roosevelt is problematic for related but different reasons. Going right back to the beginning, and skipping more nonentities and disappointments, some Repubs still try to claim the mantle of the “Party of Lincoln” but that doesn’t pass the laugh test. As many others have observed, the “Party of Jefferson Davis” is closer to the mark. So, they have little choice but to present Reagan as the savior of the nation.

—John Quiggin
Reagan and the Great Man in History

Emiliano Zapata

Emiliano ZapataOn this day in 1879, the Mexican agrarian reformer and revolutionary Emiliano Zapata was born. He was a huge figure in the Mexican Revolution. But I must admit: I find the Mexican Revolution baffling. It is so complex with different factions and constant changes in alliances. But I’m not so much interested in Zapata as a revolutionary. I’m interested in him as a reformer and I think in a different time and place, that’s all he would have been. His participation in the Mexican Revolution was from beginning to end about reforming the system and freeing the peasant community.

During his whole life up to the Mexican Revolution, Mexico was an autocracy with what was effectively a feudal system. I find this more and more in my reading of history. Feudal system are an equilibrium that societies very often fall into. We know that feudalism in England turned into capitalism. But as we see in our own country, capitalism has a tendency to creep back into feudalism. It is very simple: money and power are positive feedbacks. The more money the rich have, the more they can manipulate the political system to their advantages. And this is exactly what happened in Mexico. According to Wikipedia, “These officials [of autocrat Porfirio Diaz] became enforcers of ‘land reforms’ that drove the haciendas into the hands of progressively fewer and wealthier landowners.” Sound familiar? (For the record, Diaz was nominally the democratically elected president.)

By the age of 30, Zapata was elected council president of his home town of Anenecuilco. He worked peacefully to get the hacendados (large land owners; think: oligarchs) to return land to peasants. He was somewhat successful. But most had no intention of giving land back and, in fact, continued to steal land. The state government was not at all interested in doing anything. So eventually, he used the local militia to simply take over disputed land. Now, a common conservative complaint about this kind of thing is that it is wrong to take someone’s property by force. But this is the ultimate conservative trick, claiming that however things are at a given time is how they should be. This land was stolen by the hacendados, generally from peasants who were still alive and wanted it back. And the state government understood what modern conservatives understand: if they just do nothing, then the rich win.

In 1910, Francisco Madero became a viable threat to Diaz. So Diaz had Madero arrested. Zapata aligned with him and this was pretty much the start of the Mexican Revolution. Madero did become president in 1911 and stayed in power until 1913 when Victoriano Huerta (with the help of Diaz supporters and the United States government) staged a coup d’etat. He was subsequently assassinated. Zapata spent much of the next several years at war with Huerta’s forces. If you look at photographs of the players in all of this, you can see why the United States would align with Diaz and Huerta: they were white. The more you know of American history, the more you see how large racism looms over it.

Once in power, Madero did what most powerful people do: he abandoned his ideals and the people’s interest. One of the first things he did was to appoint a governor of Zapata’s home state of Morelos who, like governors Diaz had appointed, supported the interests of hacendados. Zapata was very unhappy. In response, he wrote the Plan de Ayala. Much of it involved the revolution itself. But the main thing is that it called for land to be taken away from the hacendados and given back to local townships and individuals. Talk about local control! Libertarians always tell me that’s what they want, but I have a feeling that they would be totally against this.

Zapata’s assassination in 1919 pretty much ended the Mexican Revolution. Many of his reforms were eventually enacted, although never on the scale that he had wanted. And Zapata stands today as a hero whereas everyone sees Diaz and especially Huerta as villains. So there’s that.

Happy birthday Emiliano Zapata!

Afterword

Warren Zevon’s second album has a song called “Veracruz” about the US troops leaving Veracruz after having occupied it for much of 1914. I’ve always liked it. Now I see it as kind of a pro-Huerta song, with the characters being wealthy land owners. I mean, why is the American troop withdrawal from Veracruz the death of the city? I know that Zapata practiced modern warfare, but still: who didn’t? Regardless, it is a nice song and it is responsible for my first introduction to the Mexican Revolution: