Cue the Backlash

This blog seems, over the past month, to have become mostly a Friday affair. Nothing wrong with that, but it's a little curious. However, it (the blog) remains fascinated, perhaps unduly so, on U.S. politics. So get ready for another helping of Obama.

We're starting to see some of the inevitable backlash against Obama, now that he's three weeks and change into his life as the undisputed presidential nominee for the Democrats. There's more scrutiny on him now, and campaigning against McCain has forced him to make pragmatic decisions that often contradict the "new kind of politics" messaging that elicited an almost religious reverence from some quarters during the primary season. It's one thing to try and win over the Democratic base, another thing to go fishing for votes in independent and Republican pools, so expect Obama's messianic rep to take a beating in the next few months as he tries to appeal to more conservative voters.

This will upset some people, of course, but it serves as a reminder that citizens in a democracy should place facts ahead of hype and rhetoric. And anyone upset by Obama's more cynical turns needs to give his or her head a vigorous shake. No, he's not the political equivalent of the Christ child. He may not even be especially nice. But he stands for political and religious freedom, women's rights, racial equality and a thoughtful, imaginative approach to foreign policy, whereas McCain is anti-abortion and an ardent supporter of the Iraq war.

Will Barack Obama fail to live up to the ethical and ideological bar he set for himself when the presidency was just a glimmer in his eye? Yes. But if you're an American voter and your beliefs align with his in terms of policy, there's no question where your vote should go. 

T.O.'s retro sports

First the Toronto Maple Leafs hired Cliff Fletcher for a second go-around, 11 years after his first stint as the club's general manager ended. Now the Toronto Blue Jays signal their nostalgia for the glory years of the early 90s by bringing back Cito Gaston to manage the baseball club. All we need now is for the Raptors to bring back Isiah Thomas to run the basketball team into the ground and harass employees  and it'll be 1995 all over again. 

What's notable about Gaston's hiring is that, despite winning back-to-back World Series titles with Toronto in 1992 and 1993, he was never hired as manager by any other club after leaving the Jays in 1997. Which is baffling, considering the number of managers that have been hired and rehired over that period without ever reaching Gaston's level of success.

Why was this? It's tempting to point to race, but Major League Baseball teams have shown more willingness to hire black managers in the past few years (Dusty Baker, the recently-fired Willie Randolph, etc) - although the number of non-white managers and general managers still doesn't reflect the ethnic diversity on the field. So while race might have been an issue in some cases, there were likely other factors. Maybe he had a reputation for being difficult to work with, or for not working well with young players (Gaston won a ton with a star-studded roster, but started to flounder when the Jays shed payroll after their second championship). 

It could just be that Gaston wasn't the right man at the right time for the jobs that came up. But after 11 years and dozens of managerial changes, is it really possible that not one club thought a guy with two World Series rings was the best available choice? Weird.

Who cut the red wire?

So much for the "explosion of conversation."

Well, since nobody asked (and really, doesn't that define the blog experience?), here are my thoughts on the Philip Weiss piece in a recent issue of New York magazine, which suggests that men have a greater biological requirement for sexual variety than women and are thus more prone to infidelity:

The short version is, what a crock of shit. 

The longer, more explanatory version is the same cop-out argument that men have been trying to make for years, and Weiss doesn't present anything new. The only reason this idea's been trotted out again is that the Eliot Spitzer case has made it "timely." 

Now, I'm not opposed to the concept that male and female sexuality could be different in fundamental, biological ways. In fact, I'd bet the farm that it is - with all the obvious physical differences between the sexes, I think it's silly to expect that men and women are exactly the same when it comes to sex, even if it's politically expedient to believe that. 

What I don't buy is the idea that men cheat because they're compelled to by some primal force that women don't share. That MIGHT be true, but there's absolutely nothing in Weiss' piece, or anything else that I've read, that offers anything close to conclusive proof. For example, Weiss gives us a version of the "spread the seed" explanation for why men want multiple partners (while also, admittedly, paying a little lip service to possible biological imperatives that might lead women to cheat). 

But no biological argument that I've encountered better explains the disparity in infidelity between men and women better than simple economic history. In a patriarchal society where men have typically held the majority of economic power, men have always had an easier time mitigating the consequences of cheating. They've had the money to keep their affairs discreet. When they've been found out, their financial power over their spouses has allowed them to convince (blackmail?) those spouses into maintaining the partnership. And typically, men who get dumped by their wives or girlfriends have been better positioned, from a financial security standpoint, to land on their feet. 

Women, meanwhile, have not historically had the independent financial security to keep their cheating a secret and because of the financial imbalance have had more to fear from a break-up. Not to mention the fact that society largely pardons men who stray, while women guilty of the same offence are labeled sluts and whores.

Nature likely does play a role in the differences in sexuality between men and women, but there's just too much "nurture" evidence to convincingly make the case that biology is the reason that husbands stray more often than wives. Chris Rock once joked in an HBO special that "A man is as faithful as his options." As women get more and more options, I wouldn't be surprised if the cheating numbers start to even out.

The Plug-osphere

Currently without an original thought, so I'm going to plug a couple of blogs by people whose thoughts are very original and worth reading.

This one's in its embryonic stages but an inside source (me) thinks it's going to be good. Get in on the ground floor and be sure to comment up a storm.

This one doesn't need my help - it belongs to a well-respected cultural anthropologist. But I've interviewed this guy for a work assignment and he's an insanely knowledgeable, enthusiastic and engaging conversationalist. These qualities come through on his blog, which is a great read for anyone who likes their anthropology, pop culture and marketing discussion served up in one highly intelligent gumbo.

Read these guys...but please come back here from time to time.

Sex bombs

With the weekend on the way, I thought I'd lob a grenade into the blog in the form of this piece in New York Magazine by Philip Weiss. Helpfully, Weiss has already pulled the pin out, and I'm hoping that this post results in an explosion of discussion. 

The article concerns cheating, prompted as it was by the Elliot Spitzer scandal. Weiss examines infidelity through the prism of male desire, dragging out well-worn chestnuts about the differences in the sexual hardwiring of men and women. I'm being reductive here, but essentially Weiss seems to feel that men are genetically programmed to require sexual variety, while women aren't (so much, at least).

A posse of female writers at Slate have had a go at the piece, and you can check out some of their musings here. My own views I'll keep to myself for now, but I'd love to hear from anyone with an opinion about the Weiss piece and the idea of fundamental differences in male and female desire for sex and sexual variety. 

And really, how can you not have an opinion on this? Is the article offensive? Is it truthful? Is it both? Please discuss.

Aftermath

I've posted so much about the Democratic primary in the past that I'd be remiss not to write something in the aftermath of Barack Obama's official clinching of his party's presidential nomination. It's just that I don't feel like I can add a whole lot to what's already been written in the last few months. And rewritten. And written yet again.

It's worth reading this piece by Slate press critic Jack Shafer, who points out that for all the talk about what Hillary did wrong, Obama did an awful lot right. He managed to defeat, however narrowly, an incredibly popular and politically savvy opponent in one of the most heated nomination contests in history. Shafer puts forth what should be a fairly obvious conclusion to draw - Obama won more than Clinton lost.

The focus on the loser is depressing given that, since the field of Democratic candidates was whittled to two, the party's nominee was guaranteed to be a glass ceiling-breaker based on either gender or race. Regardless of who won, it was supposed to represent progress for people who have been marginalized in the American political system. It's still historic, of course, but it somehow feels a little bit hollow given that so many of the supporters of both candidates hardened into such antagonistic stances. That so many Clinton supporters, in particular, say they're going to skip the election or vote for John McCain - an anti-abortion conservative whose policies are antithetical to feminism - is completely baffling, given the similarities in policies between Clinton and Obama.

There are five months to go until the general election, and Clinton will almost certainly rally her supporters to back Obama. And with more time to shine and a less impressive opponent with whom to share the spotlight, Obama is more than capable of cranking up the wattage and getting people talking about hope and unity again (hopefully with more specifics about how those things are to be achieved). 

Right now, though, there's a numb feeling. That a black (or more accurately, biracial) candidate could win the nomination should be a good omen for women. Likewise, had Clinton won, it should have been a good omen for non-white candidates. But what started as a win-win campaign has ended with an undue focus on the loser, and that, for now, has dampened the celebration.