Hosted by a Central Indian Forest Owlet. Photo by Jayesh K. Joshi.
This week's Open Threads have been hosted by rare birds featured in
National Geographic's 2010 Best Rare-Bird Pictures Contest.
Open Thread
Hosted by a Central Indian Forest Owlet. Photo by Jayesh K. Joshi.
This week's Open Threads have been hosted by rare birds featured in
National Geographic's 2010 Best Rare-Bird Pictures Contest.
The Virtual Pub Is Open
[Explanations: lol your fat. pathetic anger bread. hey your gay.]
TFIF, Shakers!
Belly up to the bar,
and name your poison!
And don't forget to tip your bartender!
Discussion Thread: Pet Origin Stories
Olivia
By request, after Olivia's origin story won us a prize just slightly less exciting than a fra-gee-lay leg lamp, below are the origin stories of the other furry residents of Shakes Manor. Please share your pet origin stories and pix in comments!
[Commenting Note: Please note that some people need to purchase pets from breeders for reasons of allergies, and some people will have purchased pets from pet store chains in years before info about puppy and kitten mills was widely known. This should be a fun thread, so I'm requesting no judgment on how pets were acquired.]
BushQuotes!
Chapter 3, page 44: "My enthusiasm for our mission is exceeded only by my confidence that we can succeed. And when we do, those who feel left behind will have new hope, those who have grown cynical will begin to care, and our children will grown up in a more prosperous and more peaceful state."
That is something George W. Bush said. For real. Without a trace of irony.
[From George Bush's A Charge to Keep, gifted to me by Deeky, because he hates me. In the US, all people who plan to run for president write a shitty book. (Some are less shitty than others, by which I mean the Democrats' books.) A Charge to Keep was George W. Bush's shitty I-wanna-be-president book, published in 1999. I am blogging one random quote per page every day until I have either made my way through the book or lost it behind a couch.]
Market Magic!
I am supposed to believe there is such a thing as real competition in this country. I just got off the phone with Comcast, telling them I wanted only the bare minimum of services, reduced from what I currently have.No one ever believes me when I tell them. I believe you, Susie! Iain and I go through this with Comcast I MEAN XFINITY all the time. We'll be wondering where we can save some money, and we'll say, "Let's get rid of HBO." So Iain will call Comcast and try to cancel, and we'll end up with HBO and Showtime for $5 less a month. Not promotionally—permanently. I don't know how the fuck it happens.
I keep going through this exercise, and I keep forgetting how Kafkaesque the whole thing is: By cutting off premium and HD channels, I can save (wait for it) $1.89 a month. Wow.
No one ever believes me when I tell them, either. Comcast just threw in a $15 a month credit and free HBO and Showtime if I keep the same service for $2 more. This is some crazy shit.
Daily Dose of Cute
Yesterday afternoon, I went into the garden at midday for a moment of meditation to push through a bit of writers' block. I sat in the grass, crossed my legs, and breathed. When I opened my eyes, this is what I saw:
"Zup, Two-Legs? When you're done sitting there all stupid, wanna run around in circles?"
Later, in my office, I turned in my chair after finally finishing this piece, to discover this business:
As you can see, the crate door is open (the only time he's crated is when we're both going out for a long while, because otherwise he gets anxious), and there's a dog bed outside the crate right beside it. (There's also another dog bed beside that one.) He just occasionally likes to wander in there for awhile and hang out. Because Dudley.
Quote of the Day
"We let Willow cut her hair. When you have a little girl, it's like how can you teach her that you're in control of her body? If I teach her that I'm in charge of whether or not she can touch her hair, she's going to replace me with some other man when she goes out in the world. She can't cut my hair but that's her hair. She has got to have command of her body. So when she goes out into the world, she's going out with a command that it is hers. She is used to making those decisions herself. We try to keep giving them those decisions until they can hold the full weight of their lives."—Will Smith, in an interview with Parade.
I love this so, so much.
[H/T to Shaker alabee, who saw it at STFU Conservatives.]
Friday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by sepia globes.
Recommended Reading:
Amanda: How The Zero Weeks of Paid Maternity Leave in the US Compare Globally
Zerlina: In Defense of S.E. Cupp [Content Note: The post at this link contains discussion of misogyny and issues of sexualization incompatible with consent.]
Cheryl: A Tale of Two Hoodies: Mark Zuckerberg vs. Trayvon Martin
sheridf: The Wait of the Nation [Content Note: The post at this link contains discussion of fat bias and body/food policing.]
Terry: Limbaugh Rewrites His History of Attacks on Michael J. Fox; Gets Fox's New Remarks Wrong [Content Note: The post at this link contains discussion of ableism.]
Helen: Sports Illustrated on Trans Athletes
Ragen: Dieting and Logic Make Poor Bedfellows [Content Note: The post at this link contains discussion of fat bias, dieting, and eating.]
Joe: The Obama Era Assessed: A Bibliographical Note on a New Qualitative Sociology Issue
Courtney: Quote of the Day: Margaret Powell
Leave your links and recommendations in comments...
The Patriarchy Kills People
[Content Note: Self-harm; bullying; misogyny.]
Reading this profoundly sad and enraging article about a 7-year-old boy who hung himself as a result of bullying, I was already heartbroken, and then I got to this part:
The mother told police that her son "had been depressed due to her recent separation from his father; the fact that he had been bullied continuously by the children at school, in addition to the constant teasing that he had endured because he was the only boy in the home of eight females," a report says.And that's when I burst into tears. Because the world hates women so much that little children bullied a male classmate just on the basis that he lives with eight of them, and subjected him to so much (probably homophobic and transphobic) bullying on that basis, on simply being a boy among women and girls, that he killed himself.
And obviously there were multiple factors at play here, but his father's absence was what made him the only male person in the home, and the constant bullying about it was a reminder of his father's absence, so it was a vicious cycle centered around gender, each issue exacerbating the other.
The Patriarchy makes an absolute fucking trainwreck of the lives of so many boys and men, too. Feminists are stereotyped as man-haters, but I am a feminist because of this story as much as any woman-centered story I will ever write about. As long as women and men are not regarded as equals, no one is truly safe.
My sincerest condolences to his family and friends.
[Via Andy.]
A Reminder: Harper's Conservatives Are Terrible
You know what is an awesome idea in a weak economy? I'll tell you what is an awesome idea (awesome if you are part of Stephen Harper's Conservatives, that is). Change Canada's EI rules make sure that already-marginalized workers are forced into taking shitty jobs that don't even pay for the gasoline it takes for the commute! THAT IS AN AWESOME IDEA, HARPERCONS!!!
The changes, expected to go into effect early next year, would create new regulations spelling out what types of work the unemployed must be willing to accept and the effort they must make to find a job. If they don't meet the new requirements, they face getting cut off benefits or not qualifying in the first place.... Earle McCurdy of the Fish, Food and Allied Workers union said the government appears set on even further marginalizing seasonal workers, such as fishermen on the Atlantic coast. "Clearly seasonal workers are a target. It's clearly designed to make third class citizens out of seasonal workers," he said. Newfoundland Premier Kathy Dunderdale, a Conservative, has asked for a meeting with Prime Minister Stephen Harper to discuss the issue, but said at first blush the new rules appear to make little sense for some workers in remote areas. "In a province where we don't have public transportation, if you were working a minimum wage job and you have to travel 40 miles away to work at another $10-an-hour job, is that sensible? Is that prudent?" she asked.
As a former resident of Atlantic Canada, I cannot even begin to wrap my head around how this is supposed to help put people back to work where there ARE NO EXTRA JOBS. The fisheries are seasonal, period. Tourism is seasonal, period. Harvesting Christmas trees is seasonal, period. There is no magic way to put more fish in the water or make loads of people want to visit Newfoundland in February. Other major regional employers, like the Department of National Defence, aren't going to magically start needing more workers either. Shipyards are never going to stop having down periods in between contracts. And in a less-than-vigorous economy, employers are not exactly going to start expanding their hires, particularly in the small, rural coastal communities where many seasonal workers live.
I suppose that with workers forced to take jobs outside their industry, at any pay rate, and potentially at a significant commute, there is the possibility that thre will be some very low-paying "job creation" of the sort that will only leave marginalized workers even further behind. But take heart: driving two hours in your truck to work at the Hot Bootstrap Sandwich Depot is actually a GOOD job! Or so says Minister of Finance Jim Flaherty, citing his own experience as a cab driver and hockey ref as evidence of this "fact." Mmmm, Hot Bootstraps Sandwiches, dripping with Condescension Gravy!
Look, Cons: the only way to defend these policies is to buy into the biased right-wing mythology that unemployed people are just lazy. Frankly, I can't think of anything more insulting to my friends and family who make their living in seasonal or otherwise intermittent employments, jobs which are often quite physically demanding. So, really, Jim Flaherty and the rest of the Con crew: go fish. And while you're at it, go harvest dulse, go work in a fish plant, go build ships, go wait tables, and then tell me all about the lazy, unmotivated, periodically unemployed workers. If you have any energy left.
Generally Dreadful
SO MANY great election news stories today, y'all! I can barely believe how much excellent and TOTALLY TRENCHANT election news stories I've read already today. Probably around one million, if I had to guesstimate.
After reading all those terrific and very educational stories, like about how President Obama smoked weed once, and about how Mitt Romney is so rich (did you know he's rich? apparently he's so rich!), I feel like I really have a better handle on who these gentlemen really are and what kind of presidents they'd be! Thank you, US news media! JOB WELL DONE AS ALWAYS!
This Guy: Not Arrogant Any More.
That Guy: Mitt Romney and the Women Who Don't Love Him.
Poll! Reuters: "Most Americans, no matter what their political party, believe there is too much money in politics and reject the idea that people should be allowed to spend what they want, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed on Thursday."
Here's my favorite story today about what a great candidate for the presidency of a diverse nation Mitt Romney is—Romney campaign begins quiet push for African American voters:
Mitt Romney's campaign team has been quietly laying plans for an outreach effort to President Obama's most loyal supporters — black voters — not just to chip away at the huge Democratic margins but also as a way to reassure independent swing voters that Romney can be inclusive and tolerant in his thinking and approach.Can I vote for Madaline G. Dunn for president? Because I totally would, just on the basis of that assessment of Mitt Romney alone.
That plan, still in its early stages, ran headlong into the harsh political realities on the ground in Philadelphia on Thursday, when Romney was treated to a hostile welcome on his first campaign swing through a poor black neighborhood this year.
A few dozen protesters met him with chants of "Get out, Romney, get out!"
Madaline G. Dunn, 78, who said she has lived there for 50 years, said she is "personally offended" that Romney would visit her neighborhood.
"It's not appreciated here," she said. "It is absolutely denigrating for him to come in here and speak his garbage."
I'm guessing—BUT I COULD BE WRONG!—that this next Romney campaign plan was devised for reasons other than demonstrating "that Romney can be inclusive and tolerant in his thinking and approach." I'm guessing—BUT I COULD BE WRONG!—that it was designed more to trade on the absurd fallacy central to the ideology of the Republican base that every one of us could be billionaires someday if only we buckle down and work real hard at the bootstrap factory.
Ha ha sure! That is definitely a perfect appeal to the 99%! "Give us your money, and you'll be entered in a lottery where, if you win, you'll get to have dinner with DONALD TRUMP, the most aggressively obnoxious billionaire in America!" Ha ha YOU'RE FIRED!
Romney is so in touch with the average US voter, it's almost like he's TOO in touch! It's like, hey, Mitt Romney, back off—I FEEL LIKE YOU'RE READING MY MIND!
Talk about these things! Or don't. Whatever makes you happy. Life is short.
No More Medical Abortions in Wisconsin
[Content Note: Reproductive rights; war on agency.]
I don't even know what to say anymore:
A clinic in Wisconsin has ended medication abortions as a result of a law signed by Governor Scott Walker in April, "The Coercive and Web Cam Abortion Prevention Act," which puts harsh and ambiguous restrictions on the procedure. The law, also called Act 217, requires women seeking non-surgical abortions to visit the same doctor three times before taking the pill. It also makes the doctor responsible for determining that a woman has not been coerced into an abortion. Additionally, it prohibits the use of web cams (used for physician consult) during medication abortions. Last month, Planned Parenthood announced it would no longer offer medication abortions in Wisconsin as a result of the law. Yesterday, Affiliated Medical Services in Wisconsin made the same announcement. According to RH Reality Check, "it is now impossible to receive a medical abortion from a provider in the state."[NB: Not only women are affected by this legislation.]
Lisa Subeck, Executive Director of NARAL Pro-Choice Wisconsin, said in a press release, "Wisconsin women will suffer because of Governor Walker's actions. It is unacceptable that women are losing health care options because Walker has put his extreme social agenda ahead of what is best for women's health. Women lose out when out of control politicians like Scott Walker practice medicine without a license and interfere in the relationship between doctors and their patients."
Nearly a quarter of abortions in Wisconsin are medication abortions.
I have run out of ways to describe what despicable, comprehensive bullshit this is. I want the right to a full spectrum of healthcare services. I want agency over my own goddamn body. I want this hostile, paternalistic, autonomy-subverting, ideological warfare on women and other people with uteri to end.
If freedom is to have any meaning at all, we are not free without agency over our selves.
Question of the Day
Suggested by Shaker April23: What is a value you once held deeply, that you no longer adhere to?
God belief. And I am personally a much better person without it.
Seen
Seen last weekend, while Iain and I were out and about: The Man Game. "May the BEST MAN win! WARNING: Women can play...but they better not win!"
Women Challenge Ground Combat Rule
Two female soldiers have filed suit in an attempt to overturn the U.S. policy which currently bars women from direct ground combat positions:
U.S. Army reservists Jane Baldwin and Ellen Haring, in a lawsuit filed today in Washington, said policies excluding them from assignments “solely because they are women” violate their right to equal protection guaranteed by the Constitution’s 5th Amendment. The complaint names Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Army Secretary John McHugh as defendants. “This limitation on plaintiffs’ careers restricts their current and future earnings, their potential for promotion and advancement, and their future retirement benefits,” the women said in the complaint filed by Christopher Sipes of Covington & Burling LLP in Washington.
I really have no idea how they will fare in court, but I will note that their chances of receiving a favorable hearing may be enhanced by the recent draft report of the Military Leadership Diversity Commission, which recommended the ban be removed. Among other problems with the ban, it significantly hampers women in the Army and the Marines from career opportunities. Since the primary mission of those forces is ground combat, it's pretty difficult to rise above a certain point when you are barred from the infantry and other specialties most central to the service. Recognizing this, the Army has recently announced it will crack open that barrier--slightly--by allowing women to serve directly in combat battalions. This will open up six previously closed specialties, but about 30% of jobs will remain men-only.
But while I can't predict the outcome of this lawsuit, I'm afraid I can predict the wave of misogynist and gender essentialist bullshit which will roll down from certain quarters in response to this news. (Having served-while-female myself, I am EXTREMELY familiar with this horsepuckey.) Here goes:
We will hear how women are super-duper terribad for Dudely Morale and Unit Cohesion and Arglebargle Blah Blash blah--despite the fact that there is zero evidence for this assertion, save in the imagination of the complaining person. As the commission's report notes:
... to date, there has been little evidence that the integration of women into previously- closed units or occupations has had a negative impact on important mission-related performance factors, like unit cohesion. ... Furthermore, a study by the Defense Department Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (2009) actually found that a majority of focus group participants felt that women serving in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan have had a positive impact on mission accomplishment.
Whooops your ASS-umptions, misogynists!
We will also hear a lot about how women just aren't physically or mentally capable of holding up in conditions of combat, blah blah blah blahbitty misogytty bang bang. Despite the fact that the U.S. Marines and Army have been quietly attaching women to combat units since very early in the Iraq War.
Despite the fact that U.S. military women have dealt with being under fire in prolonged and stressful ground combat conditions since at least the Battle of Bataan. Despite the fact that U.S. military women have been decorated for their actions in, er, well, ground combat. Despite the fact that in, oh, say, the Canadian Forces, all military specialties are open to women--and Canadian women serve just as capably (and just as INcapably) as their male comrades.Yes, despite those facts, we will hear how those women weren't REALLY in combat, or how decorated women didn't really deserve it (but their male counterparts did!), and how Planet Canadiana is of course TOTES DIFFERENT from Planet Murika, etc. Because "my girlfriend can't do pushups," or wev. Plus I knew this one woman in the army once and she was horrible so they are all horrible! Also: every male soldier looks exactly like Stallone at his prime, and can carry 6 million tons of dishsoap in his backpack for a week, and women can only carry 1 million tons of dishsoap, which is of course all TOTALLY RELEVANT to the way wars are fought. Ahem.
But whatever. The world is changing. Sadly, it is not changing to the point where wars no longer happen, and therefore nobody fights in them. It's not changing to the point where wars become any less terrible and costly, or less filled with tragedy, atrocity, and horror. But I hope that AT LEAST it is changing enough that the human beings who choose to serve the United States by wearing its uniform can be judged on their actions (good and bad) and their abilities (competent and not), rather than being pre-judged by their genders. In a country with a very long cultural tradition of relating military service to notions of citizenship and patriotism, this stuff matters for reasons even beyond the obvious injustice of workplace discrimination.
I wish Command Sergeant Major Baldwin and Colonel Haring all the best.
Today in Totally Not Terrorism
[Content Note: Anti-choice terrorism.]
Amanda at Think Progress: Suspicious Fire Breaks out at Second Reproductive Clinic in Georgia.
Investigators are still trying to determine what caused a fire at an obstetrics and gynecology clinic — the second suspicious fire at a Georgia reproductive clinic this week. No one was injured in the Wednesday morning fire that started on the third floor of the Cobb County clinic, which anti-abortion advocates regularly protest, according to local news reports. Employees told a local TV station they saw "suspicious activity" before the fire:Emphasis original.
Clinic workers believe the fire started on the third floor. They said two unknown men went upstairs and left shortly afterward, minutes before the fire was discovered.On Sunday, a fire was reported at another clinic in Gwinnett County. In addition to the recent fires, women's health clinics reported break-ins and stolen computer equipment in March after the Georgia legislature approved a restrictive bill preventing abortions after 20 weeks.
"We have patients here. They're under anesthesia. This could have been life-threatening," employee Angela Buckner told Channel 2's Ross Cavitt.
Have I mentioned once or twice or three million times that this is fucking terrorism? Have I mentioned that maybe our president should say something about it?
It is. He should.
[H/T to @scATX.]
Fatsronauts 101
Fatsronauts 101 is a series in which I address assumptions and stereotypes about fat people that treat us as a monolith and are used to dehumanize and marginalize us. If there is a stereotype you'd like me to address, email me.
[Content Note: Fat hatred, food policing, disordered eating, reference to fridge-locking.]
#2: I can tell how someone eats all the time, because of how they eat around me.
Nope! You can't.
This myth is a big part of maintaining the "Everyone who is fat is fat for the same reason" myth, because we feel entitled to extrapolate from what we see at one meal, or in public, or on a special occasion, or lunch in the office every day, or whatever, in order to make conclusions about what and how people, especially fat people, eat all the time.
There are a few problems with that calculation.
Problem One: Not everyone eats the same in front of other people as they do when they're alone. This is true of people of all sizes, and, while it is certainly a feature of disordered eating (associated with either fatness or thinness), it is also just a feature of eating, full-stop, particularly in a culture which strongly associates eating habits with morality.
Because food is judged (Bad cupcake! Good salad!), and thus are the people who consume that food similarly judged (Bad cupcake-eater! Good salad-eater!), there is strong incentive to view eating as a performance—specifically, a demonstration of one's ethics.
Both the quantity and quality of the food one eats in front of others is frequently altered, based on presumed judgments (or the lack thereof), consideration for others' dietary needs/preferences, and avoidance of or desire for particular character assessments.
An omnivore might modify meat intake when dining out with vegan friends. A fat man might eat less in front of a critical parent with a history of fat-shaming. A person with a raging sweet tooth might skip dessert only after dinner with a diabetic friend. A thin woman might eat less than she usually does on a first date at a restaurant, but more than she usually does on the third date when her date cooks for her. Etc.
Those of us with enough privilege to pick and choose how much and what type of food we eat tend to make adjustments based on a variety of factors, including what we want to communicate about ourselves, what we don't want to communicate about ourselves, avoidance of playing into stereotypes, preempting criticism, self-shaming, and/or other considerations.
And then there's this: Someone with the healthiest (for hir) regular diet on the planet might use "going out" as an opportunity to treat hirself from an otherwise rigidly kept eating plan. Someone with the shittiest (for hir) regular diet on the planet might use "going out" as an opportunity to eat better (for hir) than normal, because zie finds anything more than microwaving pre-prepared meals demands time or talent or ability zie does not have.
Extrapolating from a single meal, or even a series of public meals, is flatly not a good metric for determining what someone's regular eating habits are.
Problem Two: And, even if you see someone for a lot of meals, or live with another person, you still can't presume to wholly know hir diet—unless you're some sort of criminal who's padlocked the fridge and taken control of hir income, in which case, please turn yourself in to the nearest police station immediately, because you have derailed.
I do the grocery list, Iain and I grocery shop together (seriously, it's so much fun!), and I do virtually all the cooking, but he still eats two meals a day away from home. I can't claim to know precisely what he's eating every day by extrapolating based on what I see him eat at dinner each night.
I could, however, ask him, and trust that he's telling me the truth, because he's a grown-ass adult with agency and the capacity to audit and regulate his own sustenance, which is why I wouldn't even ask him in the first place.
Note: Iain would tell me the truth, and I him, because we have done a lot of discussion around safe communication regarding food talk and body image, where both of us have individual sensitivities. (Again, not that either of us ever asks or score-keeps each other's eating.) That I would be honest with him doesn't mean I would be honest with anyone who asked me what I've been eating. I wouldn't lie; I would just refuse to answer, because fuck off.
The point is, even asking someone with whom you don't have clear boundaries around such discussions might not get you an honest answer.
Someone who's dishonest about what they eat when not around you may have disordered eating, or a reflexive defensiveness born of an acute awareness that any amount of food is "too much" when you're fat—or they may just feel like not being food and body policed by someone who clearly has a different idea of what the best eating plan for their body is.
Problem Three: Fat people who are noticed eating anything are frequently assumed to be eating a lot.
I can't stress enough how common this is—any fat person eating in public is routinely regarded as gluttonous, irrespective of what we're actually eating.
And it truly doesn't matter what we're eating: A regular entrée; shoulda been the "diet plate." The diet plate; shoulda been a salad. A salad—omg look at that hippo putting dressing on her salad; doesn't she know what she looks like?!
Whatever it is, it's too much, or it's wrong. Never mind that thin people at the same restaurant might be eating the same things, in bigger quantities: If a fat person is eating it, it's axiomatically perceived to be grossly oversized—the hatred for us projected onto our food.
(Thin people, especially thin women, similarly get portion-policed: If I'm full after half a sandwich and ask for a doggy bag, that's the least I can fucking do and good for Fatty Boom Balatty, but if a very thin woman is full after half a sandwich and asks for a doggy bag, she's "starving herself." Can't fucking win.)
And, you know, sometimes a fat person is eating a lot in public, because they're fucking hungry! Or because something is very tasty! That doesn't mean that fat person eats that way all the time.
Maybe they do—but you can't know that.
Problem Four: Extrapolation usually has an agenda.
People who don't food and body police don't give a fuck what or how much other people are eating. There's no reason to assess someone's meal and then try to figure out what that says about them, unless you've already decided that there's a problem.
For shits and grins, let's say that a fat person in your general vicinity does actually have a legitimate health or diet problem. (NB: "Being fat" is not a problem.) That doesn't mean it's your problem. It's theirs. And unless they invite you to be part of it, unless they solicit your advice or input or help, it's only theirs.
Because—and if you ever take on board one thing I say from this entire series, let it be this—no fat person needs to be told that zie's fat. We are aware. Oh my god, we are soooo aware.
Back |
