Yes, we’re late posting again today, but, the haiku of
our Honored Guest Peggy Willis Lyles is always worth
the owl’s cry dilates
lunch at the zoo
even among gorillas
some who sit apart
of the pepper mill –
graveside rain . . .
the old hymn fading
into earth scent
“brideGroom” Walter Olson at Overlawyered.com tells us today that public complaints
have caused the temporary shelving of proposed legislation in Indiana, which would
have ”sharply limited the use of assisted reproduction medical technologies
by married couples, and banned them for everyone else.” Under the proposal
by State Sen. Patricia Miller, R-Indianapolis:
“couples who need assistance to become pregnant — such as through
intrauterine insemination; the use of donor eggs, embryos and sperm;
in vitro fertilization, embryo transfer or other medical means — would
have to be married to each other. In addition, married couples who
needed donor sperm and eggs to become pregnant would be required
to go through the same rigorous assessment process of their fitness
to be parents as do people who adopt a child.” (Mary Beth Schneider,
“Legislator drops controversial plan”, Indianapolis Star, Oct. 5, 2005).”
notes that some of the Commentors at the American Values’ Family Scholars Blog
were sorry the bill didn’t go farther. After representing hundreds of children
in Family Court, I am well aware of the difficulties that arise in single-parent
families (as well as in both “broken” and intact married families), but this
legislation is far too broad and far too intrusive to be a valid response to those
problems. Ironically, many who would support such restrictions do so in the
name of the most famous child ever artificially conceived by an unmarried mother.
Transcripts please! When podcasting pioneers create a piece that is important
and should be widely read, discussed and quoted, I (a confessed podriah) wish
they would provide transcripts. Case in point: Coast to Coast‘s pow-wow on
reason I’d like to read the content of the audio meeting is my inherent skepticism
when I hear diversity-participation worries about a medium that can be easily
and cheaply entered by anyone. I’d like to know why smart people are concerned.
As far as the absence of women goes, I believe that the inherent “loudness” of
the conversation at many weblogs — with much sarcasm, partisanism, egoism,
and fanaticism — is very much (and, speaking as a male, sad to say) a “male
thing,” and has turned many women off to the weblog medium.
update (Oct. 12, 2005): see Marcy Peek’s take on gender, weblogs and academia
at PrawfsBlawg. Prof. Peek says, in part:
“[It] is my intuition that the atmosphere that plays out in elementary
schools and in high schools in regards to gender imbalances in class
discussion and class participation may bleed over (on a larger scale)
into academic discussion and thought.
“. . .In other words, academic women have perhaps shied away from
expressing their personal views on matters in spheres such as blogging
due to their unwillingness to subject themselves to criticism and negativity
in a medium that is not required for tenure or promotion review.
“. . . However, I made a decision long ago to live my life by my own
personal and spiritual creed, rather than by the world’s criteria.
“So this means that I have to walk the walk and not just talk the talk.
So here I am. And this is who I am.
“But it’s still not easy – in fact, it is damn hard.”
Marcy makes my point: While males jump into the rough-and-tumble with glee,
an outspoken female law professor sees blawgging as taking some sort of heroic
courage and effort.
I enjoyed seeing this progression today: On my Came From Page, I
resulted in that post (pointing to our discussion of the difference between haiku
thanking Alison (in the UK) for the pointer. Besides ease and speed, the
internet makes doing research so much more personal — for the searcher
and the searchee.