Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Shop the Truthdig Gift Guide 2014
December 17, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!


New York State Bans Fracking






Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
A/V Booth

Truthdig Radio: Helen Caldicott, Mr. Fish on Ice

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Mar 31, 2011
Photo illustration from an image by Colin Grey

(Page 2)

Kasia Anderson: Yeah. And to pull a quote from your column, you say “As Phil Molé details in a thorough and important post, ‘the worst cases of misogyny in the world today are rarely even deemed newsworthy.’ ” Well, you’re making that topic newsworthy by writing a piece about it, and I’m personally glad you did. But what’s new about this brand of masculinity, as such? I mean, masculinity and misogyny, actually?

Marcia Dawkins: Yeah. I mean, I think that’s a great question. It’s one that a lot of readers have kind of said in the comments, made notes about, and then contacted me personally. And so I’ve given it a bit of thought. And I think you’re right to ask that question, because mad masculinity as we’re seeing it, or misogyny as you’re also calling it, has been around for so long. And I think they’re embedded in our language, our values and our culture to such a large and great degree that we’ve become desensitized. So what I’m noticing is this rise in mad masculinity as reflective of a more blatant and extreme variety for today’s viewing pleasure. So what I’m seeing, and what I think a lot of people are responding to, is this blatant misogyny that’s designed to get us to pay attention and ultimately, in the case of, let’s say, Charlie Sheen, to pay money for this as a form of entertainment. So it’s doing a lot of different things. I think old-school misogyny, if we can even call it that, is no longer just a byproduct of media images. But what we’re seeing now with this rise of mad masculinity and misogyny is that it’s becoming a media image in and of itself. So they don’t need to be critiqued; they don’t need to apologize; in fact, all they require is endorsement, which we’re finding, I think, across a range of media outlets: reality TV, talk shows, news…

Kasia Anderson: “Dancing With the Stars”… [Laughter]

Marcia Dawkins: Oh, my goodness. Everywhere. These places we would never even think to even look.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
Kasia Anderson: Right. But what would your response be to the argument that paying attention to this phenomenon, whether it’s positive or critical, actually does something to support it, whether or not you intend to do that?

Marcia Dawkins: I think…I think there is a small degree of truth to that, because I think insofar as all of us as audience members attend to these issues—and I tried to address that in the latter part of my article—but we are, to some degree, guilty. So the question becomes, “What are we going to do about it?” No. 1. I think the second question is, as long as we kind of keep this discussion limited to the realm of entertainment—or even worse, gossip entertainment, right?—we’re kind of letting ourselves off the hook. So we don’t have to take it really seriously; we don’t have to think more critically about cases in misogyny off the TV screen. For instance, a lot of people have been talking—or haven’t been talking, actually—about the horrific child rapes in Texas and California, or the Indian bride burnings, or just a couple of weeks ago a 14-year-old girl was charged with adultery and lashed to death in Bangladesh. And I think a focus on this issue as entertainment can be great for calling attention to it, but also hides other, more pernicious, more political and even more serious cases of violence and abuse of women.

Kasia Anderson: So would it be fair to say that you’re suggesting that what we see happening in this kind of rarefied world of celebrity has something to do with what goes on on a larger scale, both in the U.S. and abroad?

Marcia Dawkins: Absolutely. And the thing that’s most frightening to me is that we’re turning it into entertainment in a way that at least I haven’t ever seen before, or read about before.

Kasia Anderson: Mm-hmm. And, kind of expanding on the celebrity theme—this is a little different from the question I asked you earlier, I think—is that this kind of recurring argument about the spectacle of celebrity—and that’s a term that scholars have used, but I think it’s easy to understand on kind of a more accessible level too—but paying attention to the world of celebrity is inherently a distraction from the things that matter more. And it’s sort of a bread and circuses argument—that, you know, you keep the masses entertained and distracted, and then all these other things kind of can be done under the radar. Do you see a danger of that in having these types of conversations?

Marcia Dawkins: Yes, I do definitely see that there is a danger there. But in today’s world where, to your point, so many people are involved with and perhaps even distracted by celebrity, we have to meet people where they are. So people may not respond if we call out instances of misogyny in other nations that, for whatever reason, we can’t connect to. But if I say Charlie Sheen or Chris Brown, someone knows what I’m talking about. And so I think the onus is on us, as part of the news, as scholars, as people who want to do something about this issue, to meet people where they are even if that is in the realm of pop culture and celebrity—but then get us to look at the larger world, and the larger political world, around us.

Kasia Anderson: Yeah, and it should be noted now that as we are having this discussion, there’s the big Wal-Mart sexual discrimination case at the Supreme Court being deliberated…

Marcia Dawkins: Absolutely.

Kasia Anderson:…and, you know, showing that there’s definitely still systemic problems going on that need to be legislated about, talked about, that have to do with discrimination. But also, since you wrote this piece, I read this morning that Chris Brown, who’s one of the celebrities you mentioned at the beginning, his latest album has hit the No. 1 spot.

Marcia Dawkins: Mm-hmm.

Kasia Anderson: So…

Marcia Dawkins: Well, I know that his album—I don’t know if the album itself was No. 1, but I know that he had at least three No. 1 singles at the time that this incident occurred, about now, last week. And so I think it’s fascinating that we have Chris Brown and we have Charlie Sheen, who are then able to turn…to turn this misogyny into real dollars. And to create a platform just for it to be displayed ever so brazenly. And I think you can see the frustration in both their handlers, right, who just quit on them…but nevertheless, fans—we—seem to be enthralled; we can’t get enough of this behavior. And so that’s another thing, another aspect of the popular culture angle, that I think is important for conversation. So it’s not just a bridge to reach people about the larger issues, but also then for us it’s to figure out, well, why is this so attractive? Why is this image of manly power the image that seems to resonate most for us?

Kasia Anderson: Yeah. And with that we’re going to have to…we’re going to have to end our discussion now, but it looks like misogyny might make for good publicity [laughs], unfortunately.

Marcia Dawkins: Unfortunately, absolutely.

Kasia Anderson: Well, thanks so much for your time, Dr. Dawkins.

Marcia Dawkins: Well, thanks for having me, Kasia. It was a pleasure.

* * *

Peter Scheer: This is Peter Scheer with Josh Scheer, and we are speaking with Loretta Napoleoni. She is an economist and best-selling author whose new book, “Maonomics,” will be coming out soon. And she has calculated the size of the terror economy. So, could you just describe what the terror economy is, and give us a sense of how big it is, and an introduction to that?

Loretta Napoleoni: Well, yes. The terror economy is a parallel economy to our economy that was created after World War II by armed organizations, and it kept growing. It is very much an economy that is based upon the funding of armed organizations. So we have the criminal economy, which of course is interlinked with the terror economy; for example, smuggling of drugs. But also there is a section of this economy which is perfectly legitimate, and that includes donation by people that sponsor terrorism, up to salaries of individuals who are part of armed organization. And they use this money in order to carry out attacks. And I calculated the size, which before 9/11 was about $500 billion, of which one-third was produced and generated by legitimate businesses. And in this economy—this is very important to bear in mind—this economy doesn’t move by itself, does not exist in a vacuum; it’s actually interlinked with the criminal economy and the legal economy. So together, these three components are about—before 9/11 were about $1.5 trillion, which was roughly 5 percent of the world economy.

Josh Scheer: And—I was going to jump in—you began your study with the Italian Red Brigades, if I’m not mistaken, right, in the early ’90s?

Loretta Napoleoni: Yes, I started in 1993, interviewing the Italian Red Brigades. Because they declared the end of the armed struggle, and they made a list of people with whom they wanted to talk to tell their story, and I was one of the people on the list, because my childhood friend had become a leader of the Red Brigades. So I had to change profession, I left my job, I went back to Italy, I interviewed them. And then I became really fascinated by terrorism, and I’ve been working on terrorism ever since.

Josh Scheer: And I know there was a quote that you said early on, that terrorism is an expensive business and that as much as they wanted to do things, they also needed money, right? Is that a…that’s a driving force.

Loretta Napoleoni: Yes. Yes. It’s an expensive business because, unlike a criminal business, it’s a business that consumes every single profit in order to carry out the armed struggle. So everything that is produced by the terror economy is then used in order to fight—the state, or whoever is considered the enemy. While in the case of the criminal economy, some of the profits are actually used in investment. So the criminal economy actually is productive, while the terrorist economy is not productive.

 


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Voltaire, April 5, 2011 at 7:39 pm Link to this comment

@diedaily Sorry Dude but the links you sent say “page not found” would have
loved to read them but they’re not accessible.

Report this

By NadePaulKuciGravMcKi, April 5, 2011 at 5:54 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Fukushima Internal Emitters
 
An ill wind comes arising
Across the cities of the plain
There’s no swimming in the heavy water
No singing in the acid rain
 
Absalom Absalom Absalom

Report this

By Voltaire, April 5, 2011 at 2:22 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

@diedaily I’m fine thank you. More worried about what’s coming out of Japan than
France right now!  As I said not a fan of nuclear energy at all but you’ve got to
admit that Caldicott’s insults are no way to get people in her corner! I still believe
it was unnecessary and gratuitously belligerent.  Can we agree on that?

Report this
DieDaily's avatar

By DieDaily, April 5, 2011 at 7:50 am Link to this comment

...continued from below:


The champagne produced from France’s illustrious
Champagne region may have some radioactive elements
in it.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/273411/nucle
ar_waste_sites_may_affect_french.html?cat=5; As many
as one-third of the utility’s reactors have been out
of service simultaneously this year.
http://www.businessweek.com/blogs/europeinsight/archi
ves/2009/12/french_nuclear.html; 8th nuclear Incident
Tricastin France, nuclear fuel building evacuated
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/8-th-nuclear-incident-
tricastin-france-nuclear-fuel-building-
evacuated#ixzz1Ie9T5Qud; French nuclear incident
highlights problems at Gravlines plant.
http://www.bellona.org/news/news_2009/french_incident
; Problems at French nuclear construction site for
company seeking Ont. contract
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2008/04/0
3/ont-nuclear.html?ref=rss

Repeated incidents raise questions about French
nuclear safety http://www.liveleak.com/view?
i=ab3_1216650036&comment_order=newest_first; FRENCH
NUCLEAR REPROCESSING – FAILURE AT HOME, COUP d’ETAT
IN THE UNITED STATES
http://www.citizen.org/documents/Burnie paper on%
20French reprocessing.pdf; BEST OF ALL:
http://www.psr.org/nuclear-bailout/resources/nuclear-
power-in-france-setting.pdf (DUDE, PUH-LEEZ READ THIS
ONE!!!!)

Report this
DieDaily's avatar

By DieDaily, April 5, 2011 at 7:49 am Link to this comment

@Voltaire: hey buddy, you ok???

450-tonne shipment of depleted uranium from the port
of Le Havre http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=31466;
Concern over French nuclear leaks
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7522712.stm; Will French
Leaks Harm Nuclear’s Revival?
http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/jul2008
/gb20080728_585698.htm; French Nuclear Watchdog Says
EDF Has Problems With Flamanville EPR Liner
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-30/edf-has-
welding-problems-at-flamanville-epr-reactor-french-
watchdog-says.html; French “nuclear miracle” crowds
out renewables
http://www.windpowerengineering.com/policy/french-
“nuclear-miracle”-plagued-by-fast-
rising-costs-crowds-out-renewables/

Report this

By Voltaire, April 4, 2011 at 5:01 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I’m no fan of nuclear plants but Ms. Caldicott almost made me one! First she is
factually wrong saying the French pour nuclear waste into the sea “as we speak”. It
is an utter lie. It’s the only nation that has invented and perfected a system of
recycling over and over again nuclear waste (and the U.S. has asked the French to
teach them and shipped some of the U.S. waste for recycling to France) and then
contains the little bit left by interment in massive, several layered-containment
“boxes”, further covered in cement. It is the most regulated industry in the world
and no “pouring into the sea” is remotely allowed.  Then she went on to insulting
the French, which was completely unnecessary, I pity her son in law the Count!
Calling us nuts, arrogant, ignorant, clinging to our food and agrarian economy will
not improve our relationship with people like her.  All it does is make me want to
put one of our Rafale planes up her rear end to teach her manners. Enough with
gratuitous insults.

Report this
DieDaily's avatar

By DieDaily, April 2, 2011 at 1:01 am Link to this comment

I was captivated by this broadcast. It was very high
quality and most thoughtful. I first saw Dr.
Caldicott in Edmonton, AB in the late 80s. Her
lecture was spot-on then as it is now. She argued
that Reagan was a demented psychopath (along medical
lines) and I was was well and fairly convinced.

Minor complaint: Caldicott’s segment was small. It’s
a bit cheesy to name only the headline band on your
gig poster. grin

But, all in all, a fantastic broadcast. I enjoyed all
of the other guests even if they were sneaked in a
bit surreptitiously. Keep it up. I understand you
guys have to make a living, so I’m going to go and
buy something from one of your advertisers now.
Please, please, everyone else do the same so that
these poor TruthDiggers can stop with the Waspington
Post articles. All of our nausea levels could be
greatly reduced by this. I personally pledge to buy
something from an affiliate every single time that a
week goes by during which no WP shill is allowed to
mangle your message. I understand that for now this
is a safe bet on my part. For survival purposes, I
guess one must occasionally consort with the Devil.

Report this

By prosefights, April 1, 2011 at 8:46 pm Link to this comment

Ms Caldicott may be a BS artist?

Report this

By gerard, April 1, 2011 at 7:48 pm Link to this comment

?
  ?
      ?
        ?
            z z z z z z z z .....

Report this

By gerard, April 1, 2011 at 7:45 pm Link to this comment

?
  ?
    ?
      ?
          ?
            zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz ...

Report this
Peter Knopfler's avatar

By Peter Knopfler, April 1, 2011 at 5:38 pm Link to this comment

CORPORATIONS ARE KILLING HUMANITY GENERAL ELECTRIC ONE
SIDE EXXON, BP etc. ON THE OTHER SIDE
ALL FOUR CORNERS CORPORATIONS KILLING HUMANITY:
THIS LONG HOT SUMMER COMING WILL BE HISTORY Breaking!!!
IN THE STREET, more people in the street globally.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, April 1, 2011 at 4:05 pm Link to this comment

It would only happen if there was enough dedicated, billionaire supporters of our point-of-view to get them up and running an on air. Not on the computer but on the radio waves. Not in this universe any time soon.

Report this
Clash's avatar

By Clash, March 31, 2011 at 9:52 pm Link to this comment

Finally fish you have now got the right idea and are talking to the right person, but like always just 40 years to late.

Report this
MK Ultra's avatar

By MK Ultra, March 31, 2011 at 8:43 am Link to this comment

This is just so cool!  smile

We need more radio stations like this to compliment and continue the work of Amy Goodman and DemocracyNow!

Way to go Truthdig!

Report this
 
Monsters of Our Own Creation? Get tickets for this Truthdig discussion of America's role in the Middle East.
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Zuade Kaufman, Publisher   Robert Scheer, Editor-in-Chief
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.