Speaking on the trail on Saturday, not long before he infamously bowled a 37, thus bringing shame on himself and all men everywhere, Barack Obama was asked a question: does he favor comprehensive sex education?
His answer was an emphatic yes, and that, of course, is being immediately denounced.
In response to the question, Obama said,
“Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn't make sense to not give them information."
Is that the perfect answer that I'd like to see him give? No, not exactly. I'd like him to also have called out the notion that sex before marriage is ipso facto wrong, and I would have liked him to talk a bit about the young men who would be no less complicit -- and no less responsible -- for any mistakes that may occur.
But that's picking nits, and frankly, ignoring political reality. Neither Obama nor Clinton nor anyone who wants to win political office can say flatly that they think it's okay for teens to have sex, even though most Americans had sex when they were teens. It's supposed to be illicit and evil. Politicians have to at least pay lip-service to that, and that's what Obama did.
But his statement was fantastic, for the way he talked about the possible bad results of teen sex, STDs and unwanted pregnancy.
Obama said he did not want his daughters punished for any mistakes they might make. And that is a shot right at the heart of the conservative frame on women's sexuality. It is the view that women who do not guard their hymens deserve to get pregnant early, and that contraception and abortion are keeping women from getting the punishment they so richly deserve -- a child, preferably a white one.
This is one of the cornerstones of the religious right. Rarely is there an anti-choice troll who does not say, at some point, "You're trying to help girls avoid responsibility for their mistakes," as if invasive surgery is not taking responsibility. No, nothing short of forced parenthood is good enough to keep girls from having sex too early.
And this is why Ben Smith at Politico immediately jumped on the comment, saying, "Anti-abortion leaders will be encouraged to make the 'punished with a baby' part famous." And, let's face it, they probably will, because they can't be up-front about their own views. They'll argue that babies are just a joyful gift from God, and that if we give people advice on how to avoid pregnancy, then they'll have sex without getting that joyful gift or having to undergo an abortion procedure, thus...um...er...babies are awesome!
I've been a father for five-and-a-half years, and I'll say that kids are awesome. And they're also a lot of work, and a huge responsibility. And my perspicacious daughter (pictured above) is a constant joy, but also a constant worry.
I'm barely able to handle it at 34. At 14? I would have been in huge trouble if I'd become a father at 14.
And so, like Barack Obama, I want my daughter to not have sex before she's ready, to do so because she truly wants to, and to know exactly how to avoid having sex lead to pregnancy. I also want her to know how to minimize her risk of contracting an STD, and I want her to know the best methods to avoid those, which will probably (but not necessarily) be condoms.
Most of all, I want my daughter to have the information she needs to make an informed decision about when to become sexually active. I don't want her to fear sex, nor do I want her to view it as some unbelievably important thing.
And I want her not to be punished with a child before she's a grown-up. Raising a child is full of difficult decisions, from the minor (do we sign her up for soccer?) to the major (should we put her through surgery to get her tonsils out?). Those decisions are just too big for a teenager to have to answer, even if she's had sex.
Having a child too soon can be a punishment. Having a child ever can be a punishment to the couple that does not want children. And avoiding that child, through contraception and, sometimes, abortion can be a deep and abiding blessing. We are gifted to live at a time when women and men can chart their own reproductive destinies. We are the most ungrateful, idiotic fools if we do not take advantage of that fact.
The Punishment of Babies
Working Undercover for the Man
I know the military is short of its recruiting goals, but this is silly:
A study, written for U.S. Special Operations Command, suggested “clandestinely recruiting or hiring prominent bloggers.”
Since the start of the Iraq war, there’s been a raucous debate in military circles over how to handle blogs — and the servicemembers who want to keep them. One faction sees blogs as security risks, and a collective waste of troops’ time. The other (which includes top officers, like Gen. David Petraeus and Lt. Gen. William Caldwell) considers blogs to be a valuable source of information, and a way for ordinary troops to shape opinions, both at home and abroad.
It is good to know that they’re simply looking for ways to push propaganda, rather than planning to put Jonah Goldberg on the front lines. Not that I don’t want to see the 101st Chickenhawks deployed, but I do care about the soldiers who would have to fight with them.
This does bring up a few questions, though, like exactly how many of our tax dollars are going to fund Blackfive, Instapundit, and Ace O. Spades, Heterosexual. I’m sure they’ll be disclosing that right after these monkeys fly out of my posterior.
Chelsea Asked About Monica AGAIN
This is getting ridiculous. Chelsea Clinton was still a teenager during the Lewinsky scandal and why does it matter what she thinks about it? Even though she is an adult NOW and has hopefully developed some sense of closure with that episode of her life, her coping mechanisms then, are not relevant. Such questions may be political fodder, but she is not the important component of that era. Move on...
Here is a segment from Hardball where Howard Fineman of Newsweek and Michelle Bernard think it is an important question for Chelsea Clinton to answer. Chris Matthews, for once, sorta, kinda, seems sympathetic.
Question of the Day
Howdy Kids! This is an ultra-important Question of the Day. HA!
Would you or have you dated a conservative?
Over at a certain site, a post was titled: Would you, could you, date a liberal? The post linked to an interview with six conservative female bloggers (here is the Memorandum link) and their dating experiences. Of course, those pesky liberals were alright for a date or avoided at all costs, but sometimes conversions were necessary.
Excluding one-night stands (It is so hard to tell during those situations, unless there is a bronze bust of Reagan on the night stand.) most of my serious partners have been of the liberal persuasion. However, I was surprised that after the first year of a relationship, certain tidbits like being pro-life emerged. While that has no practical application in my life NOR any of my partners, I did find it a bit odd they would support FULL gay rights, but exclude women and choice. It was never a deal-breaker for a relationship, but it was hypocritical. Sometimes, I was accused of being conservative. That damn Ayn Rand period still haunts me! One of my exes referred to me as a Nazi during a late night discussion over martinis. The sex was good that night though and the Rand period DID NOT last long.
There has been a pattern with me though. Most of my partners were polar opposites from me. While I am often funky and trapped in my Gothic princess period, at least with home décor, my partners were usually clean-cut, very fond of flannel, and had an air of normalcy cloaking their deviant hearts. They rarely had any interest in politics, let alone movies before 1970. I also fell into a trap of balding, middle-aged, chain-smoking, alcoholics, but that is a different question of the day.
So, I have dated men bordering on conservative, but there was never a need or desire to convert as we accepted each other as we were; unlike, many true conservatives.
Thanks
A year ago Melissa invited me to become a contributor to Shakesville. And what a year it has been.
I can't begin to list the friends that I've made and the insight I've gained from being a part of this community, and I feel very honored and humbled to be included in this wonderful mix of voices and images that have never failed to astonish me in so many ways.
So, thanks, Melissa and all the rest of the Shaker community; contributors, commenters, friends, allies, and even the occasional troll that's good for a laugh. You have kept me sharp, called me out when I screw up, and been there for support and friendship in good times and bad.
As I say at Bark Bark Woof Woof at every milestone, "What's next?"
Ezra Klein Says Something That is True
I don't really have much to add to this:
[I]f you're a white male, please do not loudly proclaim that Hillary Clinton's election would be meaningless for feminism or for women because she's only in this position because she married Bill Clinton or because Barack Obama is the true feminist or because you don't like her. Having talked this through with some of the women in my life, I'm now convinced that, as a white guy, you, and I, have no idea what it would mean to see a woman elected to the presidency. It's just not within our universe of experience. That is not to say Clinton's run is more or less historic than Obama's, and it's not to say that Clinton can't be criticized or should be supported. But 50+ percent of this country is female, a sizable majority of the electorate is female, and of 42 separate presidents, we've never had a woman. It matters, and that should be acknowledged whether or not you support her candidacy.Exactly right. Both Clinton and Obama represent transformative figures in American politics, and one hopes both presage a long run of people who don't look like me running for the presidency, and winning. Whatever the outcome of this election, Clinton's presence in it has been a positive.
Don't know much about history; don't know much biology…
John McCain don't know much about economics, either, which maybe explains why he doesn't understand that it's problematic to talk about how he won't "play election-year politics with the housing crisis" while "two of his top advisers were recently lobbyists for a notorious lender in the mortgage meltdown."
John Green, the senator's chief liaison to Congress, and Wayne Berman, his national finance co-chairman, billed more than $720,000 in lobbying fees from 2005 through last year to Ameriquest Mortgage through their lobbying firm, disclosure forms reviewed by the Daily News show.All aboard the Straight Talk Express! Beep beep!
Ameriquest, which since has been bought out, was forced to settle suits with 49 states for $325 million. More than 13,680 New York homeowners got taken for a ride by the company, records show.
"They would be defined as the most blatant and aggressive predatory lenders out of everybody," said Bruce Marks, head of the nonprofit Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America.
Says Nicole Belle, who gets the hat tip, "But will the media bother to confront McCain about this derailing from his 'straight talk' against special interests and lobbyists? Nah, I don't think they will either." One more ticket for the "no chance" train, please.
What's Wrong with this Sentence?
Investigators have questioned a young woman they suspect gave birth to a fetus found in a restroom on a Continental Airlines plane after it landed in Houston, police said Monday.Here's a hint:
- The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.
- In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.
You cannot give birth to a fetus. You can miscarry a fetus, and you can give birth to a child, but the word "fetus" refers to the unborn young.
There actually is a difference between a fetus and a child, AP folks. It's probably even in your own style guide. Just a friendly reminder.
Sometimes…
I just close my eyes and pretend that the media still plays a useful role in the republic, the Democrats are a genuine and effective opposite party, our government isn't being sold piecemeal to corporations, our elections are fair, we've got universal healthcare, and Al Gore is really our president.
And sometimes I just close my eyes and pretend I'm making out with Al Gore.
But mostly the president thing.
More Endorsement News
On the tail of James Wilkie Broderick's announcement comes word from noted feminist 50 Cent that he is no longer endorsing Clinton:
"I heard Obama speak," he said. "He hit me with that he-just-got-done-watching-'Malcolm X,' and I swear to God, I'm like, 'Yo, Obama!'Umm, yeah, okay.
"I'm Obama to the end now, baby!"
I've nothing to add to this.
(H/T to Lena, who no longer has a blog.)
Caption This Photo
Enlightenment is not the property of a singular species;
it is there for all to attain.
Naha, Japan: Conan, a male chihuahua, mimics Buddhist priest Joei Yoshikuni at Jigenin temple
Photograph: Toru Yamanaka/AFP
(Via CuteOverload)
Monday Blogwhoring
Sock it to me, Shakers!
Recommended Reading:
Bryan: The Best Health Care in the World?
Pam: WaPo Ombudsman: Paper Wrong to Recloset Deceased Gay Soldier
Kevin: Alice Walker on the Democratic Nomination
Katecontinued: Laughing at Shit
Jen: Yahoo's Pink Shine
Andy: Orlando Orders Male Nipples Erased from WWE Billboard
Happy Blogiversary...
...to Kate, too! She is celebrating one year of being a big fat pain in the ass of humanity, which I trust everyone will recognize as the enormous compliment I intend it to be.
Snap crackle pop, bitchez!
Lou Dobbs is a Racist Pig
UPDATE: Oops. Jeff beat me to it, but I typed out the transcript, so I'll leave this one up for my Shaker deafies.
Not exactly news, I know—but even despite his well-known reputation, it's sickeningly hilarious to hear him stumble away from using "cotton-picking" in the middle of a tirade about how black politicians (like the named Condi Rice and unnamed Barack Obama) shouldn't be the "moderator" on a national discussion of race. Presumably because a hero of race relations like him should be.
[Transcript and commentary below.]
Blitzer: …check in with Lou, uh, he's got a show coming up in about an hour, but I want to pick his brain on some intriguing comments from Condoleezza Rice involving race in our country. You saw what she said?The irony would be delicious if it weren't so nauseating.
Dobbs: I saw what she said, that the United States has a "birth defect" on the issue of race. Uh, I think it's really unfortunate that Secretary of State Rice believes as she does. The fact is, most Americans don't have a problem talking about race. What we have is a problem, uh, talking about race without fearing, uh, recrimination and distortion, uh, and someone using whatever comments are made for their own, uh, purposes, usually political purposes.
The reality is, this is the most socially, ethnically, religiously, racially diverse society on the face of the earth. Now, Wolf, we don't make enough of that in the national media; we listen to some idiot say "You can't talk about race" or "There ought to be these responses when you talk about race or ethnicity." And too often, in fact, nearly always, we fail to point out that there is no country on the face of the earth as progressive, as racially and ethnically diverse, as our own.
It's something for us to be proud of. And if any—and to hear a politician, whoever it may be, talk about how difficult it is to talk about race, well, the heck with 'em! We're living with the issue of race; we've gotta be able to talk about it. And I can guarantee you this: Not a single one of these cotton—myah—these—just—ridiculous politicians should be the moderator on the issue of race. We have to have a far better discussion than that.
Blitzer: Lou, we'll see you back here in one hour. Thanks very much.
Dobbs: You got it.
I love, by the way, how Dobbs: King of the Strawmen casts Rice's comments (and, obliquely, Obama's) as some sort of PC-policing, telling "most Americans" (i.e. whites) that they can't talk about race except in specific and rigidly-defined ways acceptable to people of color—as opposed to reality, in which Rice and Obama were both addressing not "race" generally so much as institutionalized racism and exhorting people to consider their nation's difficult and complex history with regard to race.
Tomato tomahto.
Also kudos for his taking a brave stance on noting that "most Americans" (i.e. whites) "don't have a problem talking about race" except insomuch as they fear "recrimination and distortion." Uh-huh. It's too bad "most Americans" can't make their astute observations about race—like "nappy-headed hos"—without some cotton-picking brown person using it against them!
Stay Classy, Lou Dobbs!
Lou Dobbs can always be counted on to show great sensitivity and care when talking about issues of race. Like this video, where he complains that it's crazy to say America has race problems, because America's super-tolerant, and he's sick of the cotton-pickin' -- er, politicians -- complaining:
Lou Dobbs: proudly destroying relations between races, one ethnic group at a time.
Björk- Official Wanderlust Video
Her official video for "Wanderlust" was released on Yahoo. There are plenty of YouTube copies but the quality sucks. The Yahoo version is slightly better. I really want to see the 3D version.
Previously, Björk in 3D.
(Cross-posted)
Search Trouble
by Shaker SKM
So, remember how Amazon used to respond to the search string "abortion" with the helpful query, "did you mean adoption?" And "homosexual" yielded titles like "loving homosexuals as Jesus would", etc. It's like the Church Lady is hunkered down inside the Amazon servers, pursing her lips and clucking as she sends out search results.
So just now I was looking for a copy of Judith Butler's Gender Trouble, and here are my top three search results:
Mmmokay...Neither the title nor the author name for the third entry is anything like my string. There were no other books with "gender" or "trouble" in the title that might warrant a third place slot? Based on customer reviews, Lee's book is about how gender is NOT socially constructed; rather, Lee holds that society is constructed by natural gender (and she pulls some "quantum physics" out her ass to "prove it"). Just keeping it balanced, and, hey, every point of view is equally valid, right? Even if I didn't search for it!
Quote of the Day
"It's a strange turn of the road when I find among the candidates running this year that the one, in my opinion, closest to the Kennedy legacy, the John F. Kennedy legacy, is John S. McCain."—Sen. Joseph Lieberman on ABC’s "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" this weekend.
I'm trying to figure out what, precisely, is supposed to make McCain so much like JFK. The military service? The infidelity? The contributions to a clusterfucktastrophied land war in Asia? I'm flummoxed.
Did Jack Kennedy ever refer to a fellow senator using "a curse word associated with chickens"?
That seems more like Johnson's shtick to me.
Happy Blogiversary...
...to Driftglass, celebrating three years of, let's face it, basically drinking everyone's fucking milkshake.
Also, I would just like to note that I have met Mr. Drift Glass in person, and not only is he exactly as awesome as you'd expect; he has a spectacular sense of style.
Something Else?
William Kristol comes to the breathtaking conclusion that John McCain will have to run on something other than his biography.The McCain campaign’s first general election ad, released Friday, includes moving footage of him as a prisoner of war. What was Democratic Chairman Howard Dean’s reaction? “While we honor McCain’s military service, the fact is Americans want a real leader who offers real solutions, not a blatant opportunist who doesn’t understand the economy and is promising to keep our troops in Iraq for 100 years.”
That last line really resonates, especially after the last seven-plus years.
Most Americans want to be told we can leave Iraq sooner rather than later. McCain has chosen instead to tell Americans the hard and unpopular truths that we’ll be there for a while, and that there’s no sacrifice-free path to defeating our enemies and securing a lasting peace. This is “blatant opportunism”?
The McCain ad must have alarmed Dean because McCain’s biography is so much more impressive than Hillary Clinton’s or Barack Obama’s. McCain will spend this week trying to reinforce his biographical advantage, embarking on a “Service to America” tour to places associated with his own, and his family’s, service to the country — from McCain Field (named for his grandfather) near Meridian, Miss., to Annapolis, to two of his stateside Navy postings in Florida.
This is a perfectly reasonable way for McCain to spend time while most of the country enjoys the Democrats’ rollicking demolition derby.
But here’s something for the McCain campaign to remember: Democracies don’t always elect the man who has done the most for his country.One can lament this “progress” of modern democratic politics, away from rewarding real merit based on past achievement, toward a present-oriented shallowness and a future-oriented wishfulness. One can regret that in our day, historical memory is so short, respect for past accomplishments is so thin, and gratitude for service rendered is so lacking.
In other words, shouldn't Mr. McCain be telling us how he's going to fix everything that the Republicans screwed up since they've been in charge? So far he's done squat except to say that people who got sub-prime loans shouldn't have gotten them in the first place.
But our ingratitude may be the flip side of a healthy hardheadedness, and our focus on the present the byproduct of a sensible pragmatism. When we elect a president, we’re not giving a lifetime achievement award. We’re choosing someone to govern for the next four years. The qualities of a young military hero may not be those of a successful president.
McCain knows this. As an elected official, he’s never rested on his P.O.W. laurels, remarkable though they are. He’s been a major player in the Senate — in foreign policy and military matters, and as a successful sponsor of (sometimes misguided) domestic reform legislation.
As a presidential candidate, McCain is running, as one would expect, a substantive foreign policy campaign, as shown by his fine speech last week before the Los Angeles World Affairs Council. But with recession on the horizon, three-quarters of the American public thinking the country’s on the wrong track, and the president and Congress at historically low approval levels — shouldn’t we be seeing more of McCain the domestic reformer?
Mr. Kristol can put on the all the brave fronts and bluster that he likes, and he can make his jabs and japes at the Democrats for their on-going primaries, conveniently forgetting that right-wing stalwarts like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter were calling for the exile of John McCain before he became the Great Inevitable. Referring to the Democrats primary as a demolition derby shows that Mr. Kristol is capable of transference, although he may not appreciate the irony.As Obama and Clinton go at it over the next couple of months, McCain can ignore the Democrats and set forth his own policy agenda. His focus on substance could provide a nice contrast to their political bickering. And his policies, combining conservative principles with reformist energy, could contrast well with their stale liberal orthodoxy. Then Howard Dean will really be sputtering.
If Mr. Kristol thinks that what either Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama is offering is "stale liberal orthodoxy," -- in spite of the fact that neither candidate or their positions are stale or orthodox (and there are a lot of people who don't think they're sufficiently liberal) -- then what does John McCain offer? The same "compassionate conservative" principles we've been getting for the past eight years, only now it's coming from him, not Bush?
(Cross-posted.)
Finally!
At long last, the hugely important and race-alteringly influential endorsement we've all been waiting for!
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama may be hard at work on the campaign trail, but the senator from Illinois can count on James Wilkie Broderick, Sarah Jessica Parker and Matthew Broderick's 5-year-old son, for his support in his battle for the White House…That's so funny! I love building things and spending time with my mommy and daddy, too! God, who knew I'd have so much in common with such a political juggernaut?
"He's really, truly into this election," [Parker] says of her little guy's interests. "He's come to this conclusion on his own based specifically on Barack's gender. It's that deep. He's a fan and a true supporter of Barack Obama."
Aside from politics, Parker, 43, says James loves building things and spending time with his mommy and daddy.
I'm just glad I found out about JWB's endorsement now. I still hadn't made up my mind what I was doing in Indiana's upcoming primary, but now I'm definitely going for Barack.
Unless I hear that JLo's twins like Hillary.
(I'll leave you to have fun with "He's come to this conclusion on his own based specifically on Barack's gender" in comments.)
I Write Letters
Dear Democrats and Democratic Partisans,
You know how I've been saying that your attempts to pressure Clinton out of the race make it impossible for her to drop out without looking as though she were bullied, and how the last thing anyone with the most basic sympathy for gender equality should want for the first ever viable feminist female presidential candidate is to see her bullied out of the race, of which Clinton is certainly aware, so even the appearance of bullying will make her more entrenched and less inclined to appear as though she allowed herself to be pushed to the sidelines? Yeah:
In comments leaked to the New York Times, Mrs Clinton is said to have told aides that she would not be "bullied out" of the White House race and in a conversation with two allies compared her plight to "big boys" trying to bully a woman.And given that, in the last few days, three members of her own party—Senators Chris Dodd and Pat Leahy and erstwhile candidate Bill Richardson—have made public calls for her to get in line behind Obama, amidst a slew of media urging the same, often in deeply misogynist frames, it's pretty difficult to argue with her.
It's also pretty difficult not to wonder why so many people in her own party—in D.C., in the blogosphere, throughout the country—seem so reluctant to give her the room to drop out with dignity and on her own terms. Because at the moment, from where I'm sitting, it looks like you're not just content to see her lose; you want to make sure she's humiliated in the process, too. Otherwise known for centuries among Uppity Women as Standard Operating Procedure.
Try to be better than that, wouldja? It's 2008, for fuck's sake.
Love,
Liss
More Gayest Looks for Jay
New looks are up! Including one from Matilda, posing with what Paul the Spud calls my Big Gay Afghan:
If that look doesn't do it, nothing will. I expect to see my compatriot Mr. Whitty on The Tonight Show accepting an apology any time now. Well done, Tilsy!
Isms and schisms
Barbara Kingsolver in Pigs in Heaven tells a Mayan story about hell and heaven that summarizes what bothers me about the talk of racism and sexism running through this political season.
A group of people sits around a large bowl of soup, but they can't eat it. The only spoons they can use are magical ones with immensely long handles that can't be touched anywhere except at the very end. The people try every possible contortion to empty the soup into their mouths, but the handles are just too long. All they accomplish is to spill soup everywhere and slowly starve to death, tantalized by the aroma.
There is also another group of people with the same bowl and the same spoons. But these people are well fed and happy. They're not even trying to feed themselves. They use the long-handled spoons to feed each other.
Barack doesn't need to address racism, first and foremost. He's not a racist, and he's not the one who needs to change to cure the condition. In this election, whites (of any sex) are the ones who need to understand racism. Hillary shouldn't be the one addressing sexism. She's not a sexist, and she's not the one causing the problem. Men (of any color) are the ones who should be worrying about sexism.
Instead, we're fighting for ourselves instead of each other. The sad thing is we don't have any alternative. Once one person starts, everyone else can either settle for being a second priority, or make the mess worse by also fighting for themselves. Once it starts, there are no good choices. That's got to be the essence of hell.
(Crossposted to Acid Test.)
Read These Now and Pleasure Seekers Will Move to the Muzak
Olympic Torch Arrives in Beijing."The Treasury Department will propose on Monday that Congress give the Federal Reserve broad new authority to oversee financial market stability, in effect allowing it to send SWAT teams into any corner of the industry or any institution that might pose a risk to the overall system." (NY)Thirty men have been arrested in a so-called morals raid on a private home in the Iranian city of Esfahan an international human rights groups said Friday. (365 Gay)Gay rights activists in Greece are celebrating after their government has decided not to deport a 40-year-old man back to Iran. (Pink News)"Striking Argentine farmers will meet the president, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, today, 19 days after the start of nationwide action that is generating food shortages across the country. In scenes not witnessed since the country's economic implosion just over six years ago, many people took to the streets last week to bang saucepans in solidarity with protesting farmers. Supermarkets are running out of meat and other staples as tractors and trucks block roads into big cities." (Guardian)Housing Secretary Alphonso R. Jackson is expected to resign Monday. Pernod buys Absolut."Frustrated by tape that won't peel off the roll in a straight line? Angry at wallpaper that refuses to tear neatly off the wall? A new study reveals why these efforts can be so aggravating." (Eurekalert)"Parents should not worry when their pre-schoolers talk to themselves; in fact, they should encourage it, says Adam Winsler, an associate professor of psychology at George Mason University. His recent study published in Early Childhood Research Quarterly showed that 5-year-olds do better on motor tasks when they talk to themselves out loud (either spontaneously or when told to do so by an adult) than when they are silent. (Eurekalert)April Fools' Day Facts: Behind the Laughs."Garments that can measure a wearer's body temperature or trace their heart activity are just entering the market, but the European project BIOTEX weaves new functions into smart textiles. Miniaturised biosensors in a textile patch can now analyse body fluids, even a tiny drop of sweat, and provide a much better assessment of someone's health." (Science Daily)Huge Meteorite Impact Found In UK -- Britain's Largest.Alvin Ailey at 50.The film "Fitna" -- an Arabic term sometimes translated as "strife" -- intersperses images of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States and Islamist bombings with quotations from the Koran, Islam's holy book. (Yahoo)The Armory Show at Pier 94 was a success for some. (Art Newspaper)
The B52s- "Funplex" (official video)
D.C. to President: Drop Dead
George W. Bush threw out the first pitch of the baseball season for the Washington Nationals tonight. His reception was what one would expect.
Of course, I do love the announcer praising Dubya's ability to throw a ball. No, he's not competent to run a country -- but boy, he can play catch like nobody's business!
Dean: "Nobody Tells You When To Get Out"
Howard Dean, also not hurrying Hillary Clinton out the door:
Party Chairman Howard Dean says he was "dumbfounded" at the suggestion by Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy Friday that Sen. Clinton should pull out.
"Having run for president myself, nobody tells you when to get in, and nobody tells you when to get out," Mr. Dean said. "That's about the most personal decision you can make after all the time and effort you put into it."
I think Dean may have given an unparsable statement in favor of Clinton staying in the race until she decides to leave it. But we'll see.
UPDATE: Melissa questioned whether I was taking a shot at anyone with the above sentences. I wasn't. I was trying to express my pleasure that for once, a statement has been issued that can't be taken wrong by anyone, on either side of the race for the nomination. Because right now, the level of trust on all sides is, let's face it, pretty low. And Dean's statement is welcome because he left no room for interpretation or questioning: Hillary, like he once did, is running for president, and it's up to her when or if she quits. Period. (Whether Dean finds a way to undermine this in the future...well, we'll see. I give it even odds.)
But I do want to say this: If Obama and/or Clinton and/or anyone else is getting their statements parsed right now, they have only themselves to blame. Months ago, both sides could have taken affirmative steps to keep sexism and racism out of this campaign. Neither side took the opportunity to do so, and now the level of trust between the warring camps is nil. And so when Hillary Clinton says Obama is not a Muslim as far as she knows, Obama supporters do not react by accepting what appears to be the plain meaning of those words; they focus on the end clause, and say that Clinton was insinuating Obama might be Muslim after all. When Obama says Clinton can stay in the race, and is a fierce opponent, it is assumed that he's subtly saying she's just being stubborn, and by the way, she's scary. Pat Leahy obviously was acting on his behalf, just like Geraldine Ferraro was working on Clinton's behalf. It's obvious, if you don't have trust.
Trust has to be earned, and once lost, it's hard to recover. Obama and Clinton have both been guilty of playing footsie with the worst elements in the Democratic party. We can debate all night who has been the worst actor, and we'll get lots of references to scorched earth and Donnie McClurkin and claws coming out and pictures in Somali garb. All that's beside the point; the point is that neither candidate has clean hands, and both have done a lot to make their opponent's supporters question their commitment to progressive ideals. Barack Obama himself has used sexist dog-whistles. Hillary Clinton herself has used xenophobic dog-whistles. And so why should a feminist feel trusting of Obama? Why should an African-American feel trusting of Clinton?
Both campaigns have only themselves to blame. And either candidate could choose, right now, to start rebuilding the dike, to start asserting that racism and sexism have no place in this campaign, especially in the Democratic party. Hillary Clinton could tell the Archie Bunker Democrats that she doesn't want their support if they're backing her for the color of her skin, and Barack Obama could tell them to stay home if they're backing him because he's male.
But I'm not holding my breath for either campaign to do that, and I wouldn't suggest you do, either. Both campaigns seem to be trying to walk the line, to accept bigoted support without exactly embracing it. And so both campaigns should be unsurprised when others fear they are bigoted themselves, because most of us know that the only thing to do with a bigot is to rebuke them. And when we see someone instead accepting them...well, it does make one wonder what else they're willing to accept.
Caption This Photo
President Mondo Fucko throws out the first pitch at Nationals Park earlier today. In keeping with the Bush Doctrine of the preemptive strike, he refused to take the mound until a count of 0-1 was registered on the board.
The United States: Not isolationist now, not isolationist then, not isolationist ever
[The Democratic Party has] been effectively taken over by a small group on the left of the party that is protectionist, isolationist and basically will – and very, very hyperpartisan. So it pains me.
-- Joe Lieberman, March 29, 2008
For an American to use the word "isolation" in any form when regarding U.S. foreign relations, it's not just stupid, it's a horrifying insult to the millions around the world that have lost their lives in one way or another to the U.S. military and U.S. policies.
Nottheenemy.com puts the number of people killed due to U.S. foreign policy since World War II at anywhere between more than 10 million to almost 17 million. And that hasn't even counted the current Occupation of Iraq and most of the Afghanistan attack.
In 2001, Matthew White of the "Historical Atlas of the Twentieth Century," put the number killed in wars for the 20th century at 188 million with the U.S. more than playing its part in it all. And with a great hand from the U.S., there seems to be little that would make one think that number will be any smaller when historians count up the number of people killed by war in the 21st century.
There are three remaining candidates for who will be the next U.S. President. And John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are far from being isolationists. Because that's the last thing the U.S. has ever been. And there isn't enough optimism on the planet for one to think that will change in the next four-to-eight years, if not ever.
The U.S. is a warring nation. Period. When the United States Government wants something of another country or its own citizens, people die. And the entire world knows it.
It's why Turkish journalist Elif Özmenek wrote that the U.S. should be put in the Guinness Book of World's Records as the "Most Interventionist Nation in History." And it's why any American who tries to make an argument that the U.S. "can't afford to be isolationist" should be immediately sent off to Iraq, or Afghanistan, or anywhere else where America is using its military might to get the change it desires. Or more perhaps more correctly put, to get the dollars it desires.
Here's just a partial list of U.S. military involvements, from squashing internal strife, to overthrowing elected officials, to fighting in massive world conflicts, from Wounded Knee to Fallujah:
The United States is Not Isolationist
SOUTH DAKOTA 1890 (-?) Troops 300 Lakota Indians massacred at Wounded Knee.
ARGENTINA 1890 Troops Buenos Aires interests protected.
CHILE 1891 Troops Marines clash with nationalist rebels.
HAITI 1891 Troops Black revolt on Navassa defeated.
IDAHO 1892 Troops Army suppresses silver miners' strike.
HAWAII 1893 (-?) Naval, troops Independent kingdom overthrown, annexed.
CHICAGO 1894 Troops Breaking of rail strike, 34 killed.
NICARAGUA 1894 Troops Month-long occupation of Bluefields.
CHINA 1894-95 Naval, troops Marines land in Sino-Japanese War
KOREA 1894-96 Troops Marines kept in Seoul during war.
PANAMA 1895 Troops, naval Marines land in Colombian province.
NICARAGUA 1896 Troops Marines land in port of Corinto.
CHINA 1898-1900 Troops Boxer Rebellion fought by foreign armies.
PHILIPPINES 1898-1910 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, killed 600,000 Filipinos
CUBA 1898-1902 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, still hold Navy base.
PUERTO RICO 1898 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, occupation continues.
GUAM 1898 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, still use as base.
MINNESOTA 1898 (-?) Troops Army battles Chippewa at Leech Lake.
NICARAGUA 1898 Troops Marines land at port of San Juan del Sur.
SAMOA 1899 (-?) Troops Battle over succession to throne.
NICARAGUA 1899 Troops Marines land at port of Bluefields.
IDAHO 1899-1901 Troops Army occupies Coeur d'Alene mining region.
OKLAHOMA 1901 Troops Army battles Creek Indian revolt.
PANAMA 1901-14 Naval, troops Broke off from Colombia 1903, annexed Canal Zone 1914.
HONDURAS 1903 Troops Marines intervene in revolution.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1903-04 Troops U.S. interests protected in Revolution. KOREA 1904-05 Troops Marines land in Russo-Japanese War.
CUBA 1906-09 Troops Marines land in democratic election.
NICARAGUA 1907 Troops "Dollar Diplomacy" protectorate set up.
HONDURAS 1907 Troops Marines land during war with Nicaragua
PANAMA 1908 Troops Marines intervene in election contest.
NICARAGUA 1910 Troops Marines land in Bluefields and Corinto.
HONDURAS 1911 Troops U.S. interests protected in civil war.
CHINA 1911-41 Naval, troops Continuous occupation with flare-ups.
CUBA 1912 Troops U.S. interests protected in civil war.
PANAMA 1912 Troops Marines land during heated election.
HONDURAS 1912 Troops Marines protect U.S. economic interests.
NICARAGUA 1912-33 Troops, bombing 10-year occupation, fought guerillas MEXICO 1913 Naval Americans evacuated during revolution.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1914 Naval Fight with rebels over Santo Domingo.
COLORADO 1914 Troops Breaking of miners' strike by Army.
MEXICO 1914-18 Naval, troops Series of interventions against nationalists.
HAITI 1914-34 Troops, bombing 19-year occupation after revolts.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1916-24 Troops 8-year Marine occupation.
CUBA 1917-33 Troops Military occupation, economic protectorate.
WORLD WAR I 1917-18 Naval, troops Ships sunk, fought Germany for 1 1/2 years.
RUSSIA 1918-22 Naval, troops Five landings to fight Bolsheviks
PANAMA 1918-20 Troops "Police duty" during unrest after elections.
HONDURAS 1919 Troops Marines land during election campaign.
YUGOSLAVIA 1919 Troops/Marines intervene for Italy against Serbs in Dalmatia.
GUATEMALA 1920 Troops 2-week intervention against unionists.
WEST VIRGINIA 1920-21 Troops, bombing Army intervenes against mineworkers.
TURKEY 1922 Troops Fought nationalists in Smyrna.
CHINA 1922-27 Naval, troops Deployment during nationalist revolt.
HONDURAS 1924-25 Troops Landed twice during election strife.
PANAMA 1925 Troops Marines suppress general strike.
CHINA 1927-34 Troops Marines stationed throughout the country.
EL SALVADOR 1932 Naval Warships send during Marti revolt.
WASHINGTON DC 1932 Troops Army stops WWI vet bonus protest.
WORLD WAR II 1941-45 Naval, troops, bombing, nuclear Hawaii bombed, fought Japan, Italy and Germay for 3 years; first nuclear war.
DETROIT 1943 Troops Army put down Black rebellion.
IRAN 1946 Nuclear threat Soviet troops told to leave north.
YUGOSLAVIA 1946 Nuclear threat, naval Response to shoot-down of US plane.
URUGUAY 1947 Nuclear threat Bombers deployed as show of strength.
GREECE 1947-49 Command operation U.S. directs extreme-right in civil war.
GERMANY 1948 Nuclear Threat Atomic-capable bombers guard Berlin Airlift.
CHINA 1948-49 Troops/Marines evacuate Americans before Communist victory.
PHILIPPINES 1948-54 Command operation CIA directs war against Huk Rebellion.
PUERTO RICO 1950 Command operation Independence rebellion crushed in Ponce.
KOREA 1951-53 (-?) Troops, naval, bombing , nuclear threats U.S./So. Korea fights China/No. Korea to stalemate; A-bomb threat in 1950, and against China in 1953. Still have bases.
IRAN 1953 Command Operation CIA overthrows democracy, installs Shah.
VIETNAM 1954 Nuclear threat French offered bombs to use against seige.
GUATEMALA 1954 Command operation, bombing, nuclear threat CIA directs exile invasion after new gov't nationalized U.S. company lands; bombers based in Nicaragua.
EGYPT 1956 Nuclear threat, troops Soviets told to keep out of Suez crisis; Marines evacuate foreigners.
LEBANON l958 Troops, naval Marine occupation against rebels.
IRAQ 1958 Nuclear threat Iraq warned against invading Kuwait.
CHINA l958 Nuclear threat China told not to move on Taiwan isles.
PANAMA 1958 Troops Flag protests erupt into confrontation.
VIETNAM l960-75 Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats Fought South Vietnam revolt & North Vietnam; one million killed in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in l968 and l969.
CUBA l961 Command operation CIA-directed exile invasion fails.
GERMANY l961 Nuclear threat Alert during Berlin Wall crisis.
LAOS 1962 Command operation Military buildup during guerrilla war.
CUBA l962 Nuclear threat, naval Blockade during missile crisis; near-war with Soviet Union.
IRAQ 1963 Command operation CIA organizes coup that killed president, brings Ba'ath Party to power, and Saddam Hussein back from exile to be head of the secret service.
PANAMA l964 Troops Panamanians shot for urging canal's return.
INDONESIA l965 Command operation Million killed in CIA-assisted army coup.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1965-66 Troops, bombing Marines land during election campaign.
GUATEMALA l966-67 Command operation Green Berets intervene against rebels.
DETROIT l967 Troops Army battles African Americans, 43 killed.
UNITED STATES l968 Troops After King is shot; over 21,000 soldiers in cities.
CAMBODIA l969-75 Bombing, troops, naval Up to 2 million killed in decade of bombing, starvation, and political chaos.
OMAN l970 Command operation U.S. directs Iranian marine invasion.
LAOS l971-73 Command operation, bombing U.S. directs South Vietnamese invasion; "carpet-bombs" countryside.
SOUTH DAKOTA l973 Command operation Army directs Wounded Knee siege of Lakotas.
MIDEAST 1973 Nuclear threat World-wide alert during Mideast War.
CHILE 1973 Command operation CIA-backed coup ousts elected marxist president.
CAMBODIA l975 Troops, bombing Gas captured ship, 28 die in copter crash.
ANGOLA l976-92 Command operation CIA assists South African-backed rebels.
IRAN l980 Troops, nuclear threat, aborted bombing Raid to rescue Embassy hostages; 8 troops die in copter-plane crash. Soviets warned not to get involved in revolution.
LIBYA l981 Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down in maneuvers.
EL SALVADOR l981-92 Command operation, troops Advisors, overflights aid anti-rebel war, soldiers briefly involved in hostage clash.
NICARAGUA l981-90 Command operation, naval CIA directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants harbor mines against revolution.
LEBANON l982-84 Naval, bombing, troops Marines expel PLO and back Phalangists, Navy bombs and shells Muslim positions.
GRENADA l983-84 Troops, bombing Invasion four years after revolution.
HONDURAS l983-89 Troops Maneuvers help build bases near borders.
IRAN l984 Jets Two Iranian jets shot down over Persian Gulf.
LIBYA l986 Bombing, naval Air strikes to topple nationalist gov't.
BOLIVIA 1986 Troops Army assists raids on cocaine region.
IRAN l987-88 Naval, bombing US intervenes on side of Iraq in war.
LIBYA 1989 Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down.
VIRGIN ISLANDS 1989 Troops St. Croix Black unrest after storm.
PHILIPPINES 1989 Jets Air cover provided for government against coup.
PANAMA 1989 (-?) Troops, bombing Nationalist government ousted by 27,000 soldiers, leaders arrested, 2000+ killed.
LIBERIA 1990 Troops Foreigners evacuated during civil war.
SAUDI ARABIA 1990-91 Troops, jets Iraq countered after invading Kuwait. 540,000 troops also stationed in Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Israel.
IRAQ 1990-? Bombing, troops, naval Blockade of Iraqi and Jordanian ports, air strikes; 200,000+ killed in invasion of Iraq and Kuwait; no-fly zone over Kurdish north, Shiite south, large-scale destruction of Iraqi military.
KUWAIT 1991 Naval, bombing, troops Kuwait royal family returned to throne.
LOS ANGELES 1992 Troops Army, Marines deployed against anti-police uprising.
SOMALIA 1992-94 Troops, naval, bombing U.S.-led United Nations occupation during civil war; raids against one Mogadishu faction.
YUGOSLAVIA 1992-94 Naval NATO blockade of Serbia and Montenegro.
BOSNIA 1993-? Jets, bombing No-fly zone patrolled in civil war; downed jets, bombed Serbs.
HAITI 1994 Troops, naval Blockade against military government; troops restore President Aristide to office three years after coup.
ZAIRE (CONGO) 1996-97 Troops Marines at Rwandan Hutu refugee camps, in area where Congo revolution begins.
LIBERIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.
ALBANIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.
SUDAN 1998 Missiles Attack on pharmaceutical plant alleged to be "terrorist" nerve gas plant.
AFGHANISTAN 1998 Missiles Attack on former CIA training camps used by Islamic fundamentalist groups alleged to have attacked embassies.
IRAQ 1998-? Bombing, Missiles Four days of intensive air strikes after weapons inspectors allege Iraqi obstructions.
YUGOSLAVIA 1999 Bombing, Missiles Heavy NATO air strikes after Serbia declines to withdraw from Kosovo. NATO occupation of Kosovo.
YEMEN 2000 Naval USS Cole, docked in Aden, bombed.
MACEDONIA 2001 Troops NATO forces deployed to move and disarm Albanian rebels.
UNITED STATES 2001 Jets, naval Reaction to hijacker attacks on New York, DC
AFGHANISTAN 2001-? Troops, bombing, missiles Massive U.S. mobilization to overthrow Taliban, hunt Al Qaeda fighters, install Karzai regime, and battle Taliban insurgency.
YEMEN 2002 Missiles Predator drone missile attack on Al Qaeda, including a US citizen.
PHILIPPINES 2002-? Troops, naval Training mission for Philippine military fighting Abu Sayyaf rebels evolves into US combat missions in Sulu Archipelago next to Mindanao.
COLOMBIA 2003-? Troops US special forces sent to rebel zone to back up Colombian military protecting oil pipeline.
IRAQ 2003-? Troops, naval, bombing, missiles Saddam regime toppled in Baghdad. US and UK forces occupy country and battle Sunni and Shi'ite insurgencies. Clashes on border with Syria.
LIBERIA 2003 Troops Brief involvement in peacekeeping force as rebels drove out leader.
HAITI 2004-05 Troops, naval Marines land after rebels oust elected President Aristide, who was advised to leave by Washington.
PAKISTAN 2005-? Missiles, covert operation CIA airstrikes on Al Qaeda refuge villages kill civilians
SOMALIA 2007 Missiles, naval AC-130 strikes; naval blockade and Cruise missile attacks against Islamist rebels
...
--WKW
Four Word Movie Review: 10,000 B.C.
[Attended $5 Twilight Matinee with Mr. Shakes and Kenny Blogginz. Much to mock. Worth every discounted penny.]
Must-Reads
Zuzu: Why Calling Out Misogyny Matters
Susie Madrak: Media Bias
In particular, note Eric Boehlert's assessment (in Susie's piece) of the blogosphere's dereliction of duty on behalf of Hillary and the unfair media treatment she's gotten: "What's happening online now is potentially dangerous: HRC has gotten dreadful press, not fair, 'gotcha,' and so on—there's a portion of the blogosphere that has ignored that and there's a portion that has encouraged that. [...] [W]e can't very well say, 'You can't go after our candidates … except this one'."
The deafening near-silence on "Blue Dress Day" was one of the most disappointing days for me as a progressive feminist blogger in almost four years of blogging.
Gore 4 Pres
I totally don't think this scenario will happen in a nonillion years, but, if it did, I would find it utterly, transcendently, incandescently hilarious.
Because I always have been, am now, and always will be Al Gore's love slave.
Right this way, President Foxypants.
Prominent Obama Supporter Talks About Clinton Dropping Out
There is no shortage of discussion about whether Hillary Clinton should withdraw from the race and clear a path for Barack Obama. Pat Leahy suggested just that on Friday, and sparked a heated discussion here about whether it's appropriate to call for Clinton to exit the race.
Saturday, a prominent Obama supporter waded into the fray to give his opinion on whether Clinton should continue or not. That Obama supporter was Barack Obama himself, and he said that Clinton should stay in the race:
Senator Barack Obama had a few words of advice Saturday for his rival, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton: Do not drop out on my account.
“My attitude is that Senator Clinton can run as long as she wants,” Mr. Obama, of Illinois, said at a news conference in a high school gymnasium here. “Her name is on the ballot. She is a fierce and formidable opponent, and she obviously believes she would make the best nominee and the best president.”
One would hope this would end the calls for Clinton to drop out, though one's hopes have been dashed often this primary season.
The Large Hadron Collider Will Eat Your Children...No, Seriously.
More specifically, it could create a black hole which will proceed to eat you and your children and your shoes and Africa and the moon and, well, everything. Don't believe it? Just ask these two gentlemen, who have cleverly saved time for doomsday-related litigation by not actually becoming physicists. I mean, graduate school is tedious. And you show me one career scientist who has time for court dates; most of them barely shower.
According to the plaintiffs, the supercollider located at CERN should be prevented from operating until further safety reports have been made, due to the possibility of a universe-ending result of the ensuing proton-smashings. I've heard mention of such hypotheses before, but now that there's a lawsuit attached, I'm inclined to take them more seriously. After all, I make no attempt to deny my emotional attachment to matter. Everyone I know is made of it. And if you ceased to exist tomorrow, wouldn't you be pissed off? I know I would.
Sidenote: Randall Monroe is so sarcastic. Jeez.
News from Shakes Manor
Iain (aka Mr. Shakes) just brought me flowers. The reason: "Tae fank ye foor being sooch an adoorable wifel!"
Liss: Oh, thank you, babe!
Iain: Yoor welcoome, hoonsel.
Liss: They're beautiful, and you are lovely.
Iain: Fank ye, hoonsel. Yer noot bad yerself.
Liss: Let me take your picture.
Iain: Why? Ye canny poost it.
Liss: I would never do such a thing.
Iain: News froom Shakes Manoor, here I coome!
Take Your Boobs and Go Home Watch
My thanks, ahem, to Nicholas Kristof for inspiring the title of this post.
Lest anyone presume that I have to go looking for this shit, I found all three of today's examples at the aggregator Memeorandum, and had absolutely no intention to write a post about this topic until I read all three examples and felt obliged to do so. And, just because I've had to say this in comments a few times lately, I'll say it again here: I have not endorsed either of the remaining candidates since my candidate, John Edwards, dropped out. Neither Clinton's nor Obama's records particularly inspire me, both of their levels of religiosity and triangulation bug me, and any appearance or actual failure of even-handedness on my part is not deliberate; it happens that Obama has more (and quicker) defenders among the contributors at Shakesville, for one thing, and, for another, I'm an active feminist and this campaign has, much to my chagrin, required all too much of my attention be drawn in defense of Clinton.
So, that said, let's look at who's telling Hillary to take her boobs and go home today...
Slate's Hillary Deathwatch
I don't guess I need to point out the whole "deathwatch" thing is a little creepy, made even more so by the fact that it is introduced with the declaration "Hillary Clinton is as good as dead," as opposed to "Hillary Clinton's campaign is as good as dead." Bonus points for referencing their own atrocious Clintometer, which measures "the chances of a Lewinsky-related ousting," right in the explanation for the "Hillary Deathwatch." I mean, it takes real class to reference a woman's husband's mistress from a decade ago in a piece where you're declaring her political fortunes dead.
Newsweek's Jonathan Alter with "Hillary's Consolation Prize?"
Perhaps Patrick Leahy really was being generous when he exhorted Hillary to drop out and move on with a "tremendous career in the Senate," because the alternative is evidently pushing her out of Washington altogether. Bonus points for noting that her husband has reportedly dismissed the idea "out of hand." If you're like me, I know you can't read an article about Hillary without thinking, "I wonder what Bill thinks about all this!"
New York Magazine asks "Who'll Stop the Pain?"
Good question. I've also been wondering "Who will stop that harpy from talking?" because her shrill tone and witch-like cackling is hurting my ears. The amazing thing about this piece is, despite its opening with an interesting anecdote (which happens to confirm what I've heard privately) about how Edwards was quite pleasanly surprised by Clinton's "solicitous and respectful" response after he withdrew from the race, and its concession that she stays in because she has a genuine fear that McCain would beat Obama, she is still, in the (literal) end cast as a maniacal freak obsessed with her own "long-range self-aggrandizement." And then, of course, there's the subhead—simultaneously suggesting her husband knows what's best, and it's that she should drop out, but she just won't listen to him!—and the artwork, which seriously could not be a more perfect visual of the idea that Hillary is a bad girl who needs scolding by the Big Boys. I can't imagine where people could be getting the impression that underlying many of the calls for Hillary to leave is some pretty nasty misogyny.
* * *
You know, I actually get the perplexity about why those of us defending her right to keep campaigning don't concede that it's "obvious" she can't win and should drop out, and about why we don't see the "undeniable logic" that, even though Obama might not be able to win outright, either, he's closer than she is. I really do get the bewilderment. I do.
And I don't know if I can properly explain why that "obvious" conclusion and "undeniable logic" don't appeal to or persuade us, but here's the thing: Lots of us are women who have been told "You can't" for much of our lives, or had seemingly unnavigable barriers put in our way by people who didn't want us to succeed. Lots of us are women who, had we played by The Rules, wouldn't have gotten where we are—because The Rules are designed so that we fail. The odds have been against us our whole lives; everything we've ever done has been in defiance of the distinct likelihood—and expectation—that we would settle for less than we wanted.
Our routes have been nontraditional, our strategies neither obvious nor logical by traditional standards. By design, and by necessity.
What if we'd all taken our boobs and gone home, when someone who saw the perfect logic of it told us to...?
Thank You...
...to everyone who nominated me as their favorite female blogger at Women's Voices Women's Votes' contest in honor of Women's History Month. Incredibly, I made the Top 10, so, um, vote for me. Or one of the other bloggers there. (Just not Jill Stanek!)
And, truly, thank you so much to the people who nominated me in the first place. I am completely surprised and, as per usual, incapable of gracefully taking a compliment. Blush. Thank you.
In Which I Ramble About Attraction
So, Shapely Prose readers might have seen this douchehound responding to my gayest look the other day:
Goddamn Kate. You are an unbelievably unattractive woman!!
signed,
every straight man with a set of eyes. (except for your closeted boyfriend, of course)
The funny thing is, Sweet Machine approved it because she only skimmed, and thought he was calling me an unbelievably attractive woman. Funnier still, Fillyjonk and I both thought the same thing when we first read it, even though I puzzled over the closeted boyfriend bit (and the fact that he would pick that picture to swoon over, frankly). But still, even while misreading it as a compliment, I agreed heartily with Shapeling Jen's immediate response: "Go fuck yourself."
There were two reasons for this:
1) The closeted boyfriend bit--seriously, go fuck yourself.
2) The fact that he presumed to speak for "every straight man with a set of eyes." Dude, whether you're telling me you think I should be living under a bridge or gracing magazine covers, you cannot speak for everyone. Attraction is subjective. And it irritates the living fuck out of me that this culture tries so hard to divide people into categories of "attractive" and "unattractive," as if individual preferences don't even exist--when in fact, individual preferences (conscious and unconscious) are at the core of attraction as it plays out in the real world.
Want evidence that attraction is subjective? Well consider the fact that all three of us SP bloggers, each of whom fares quite well on reading comprehension tests, completely missed the "un" on the front of that "attractive." I cannot imagine such a collective failure happening if all three of us believed that I am an unbelievably unattractive woman, and furthermore, everyone knows it. If we were primed to agree with this douchehound, we undoubtedly would have read it exactly as written--but we weren't, because we all know plenty of people find me plenty cute, and I have gotten numerous comments extolling my hotness before. (They were all from Jon B., but that's beside the point.) Despite the number of trolls we get, a comment calling me pretty is really no more unusual than one calling me a bloated, fugly cunt.
Know why? Attraction is subjective.
I was thinking about this recently while writing a piece on fat women and sexual power for Jaclyn Friedman and Jessica Valenti's upcoming anthology, and then it came up again yesterday while reading a comments thread on my superhero girlcrush Breakup Girl's blog. (MAJOR Sanity Watchers warning there, I am not kidding--and if you're faint of heart, you might even want to skip the rest of this post, 'cause I'll be quoting from it.)
A woman wrote to BG's alter ego, Lynn Harris, asking what to do about a guy she'd had this great connection with in e-mails and phone calls, who then saw a picture of her and said, "Call me when you lose some weight." Lynn's advice (he's got a right to his preferences; you've got a right to blow him off and should totally exercise that right; also, how the hell did you go 6 weeks without exchanging photos?) is right on the money in my opinion, but when she opened it up to comments on the BG blog, a whole lot of people disagreed.
'Cause, see, the problem here is not just that she fell for a guy who doesn't dig fat chicks, which could have been avoided by coughing up the photo a lot earlier. The problem is that no normal guy in the whole entire world digs fat chicks, which means she is Categorically Unattractive and must lose weight if she doesn't want to die alone.
Several commenters went down the fucking evo psych path with that:
We are programmed to look for healthy in every sense….healthy is attractive. Forcing the argument that people should accept others who are overweight goes against this natural selection switch, and makes it impossible for some people to accept.
Society has not conditioned us, evolution has. Men are attracted to women that represent the best chance of bearing their young and caring for them. This means young and physically fit.... This is not opinion, it is fact.
Evolution has produced men who are attracted to women who appear to be good prospects for bearing HIS children.
(HIS children! Got that, ladies?)
But most didn't even try to pretty it up with "science." They just flat-out don't bother themselves with trifles like the distinction between opinion and fact.
very few guys want to date over-weight women
She should trim up or accept that people will not be attracted to her for her size.
Ok,before everyone jumps down my throat. I used to be height/weight proportionate but over the years I’ve gained weight. I’m a chunky woman ok. I’m not denying it. And I know that’s why I don’t have a BF.... OK, men are really not that complicated and we women are just wasting our $ buying all these books. You don’t even have to be that pretty. You just have to be THIN. That’s right, crucify me now. YOU HAVE TO BE THIN.
Most guys don’t want heavy babes. Unless of course they are larger themselves. Just reality. While the recent move to accept larger people proliferates, and, while it is good to feel good about yourself-self love and all it’s just too much.
You can’t expect someone to agree to marry someone else who is obese.
the fact of the matter is that men prefer shapely over fat or large or whatever you want to call it. Until woman “get” this they will always wonder why they don't have as much success dating as they could or should. It is not rocket science.
Are you really that naive? seriously. You KNOW what guys want, look around! They want that hot, sexy, body, a gal to make them look good too. MOST men do not prefer an overweight woman.
This lady just doesn’t GET it. Some men just AREN”T sexually motivated, or attracted by a chunk. Girls, get the picture…If you want to be happy in your own skin, as all these self help horsecrap books talk about, remember, the author is hoping you buy her book, because she wants your money, so she is going to say it’s OK for you to be fat. NEWSFLASH ! You just might be happy in your own skin ALONE. Yes, you DO actually have a responsibility to look good, if you want to be accepted.
Noone likes fat people except fat people and that’s just how it is. It’s sloppy with rolls of fat hanging, creases, pendulous breasts and persperation.These are all the thoughts of the normal mind and rightfully so as it is not a myth.Take a thin person in a restaurant eating, no one takes a second look. Take a fat person eating and one will think, “slovenly overeater” That’s just the way it is. By the way, I’m fat and I think it’s ugly!
(Bold emphasis mine in all cases; caps are their own.)
You might be surprised--though I wasn't, sadly--just how many of those commenters identified themselves as fat in the midst of their tirades against fat people. Of course, they could have been thin and full of shit, but they probably weren't. My primary raison de blog, after all, is trying to help fat people hate themselves less--if other people learn to hate us less, too, that's just gravy. (Mmm, gravy.) Internalized self-loathing exists among every marginalized group, but among fat people, it's rare to find someone who doesn't believe every last thing we're told to feel about ourselves. You're ugly. You're disgusting. You're sloppy. You're lazy. You're embarrassing to be seen with. You're out of control. You have no self-discipline. You will never be loved unless you lose weight.
(P.S. I'm only telling you this because I'm concerned about your health.)
Consider this commenter, who breaks my fucking heart:
I actually married a guy that can’t stand my fat! Yes I did. Some would say I am stupid, but he treats me well, and we have a great life together. It is though, very difficult at times for me. I used to be very obese (almost 300lbs), and I am down to a size 14 and I am happy. Any one who knows anything about losing weight - when you have lost that much, you are really flabby. I can out-do my husband in the exercise department and he will admit it. I have put about 30lbs back on since we engaged, then married. I admit, I got a bit lazy and now I just can’t seem to get it back off. We talk about it frequently, and he apologises for the way he feels, but he claims he can’t change that and I have to lose more weight. He wants me into a size 8!! Hahaha - that will never happen and I tell him that. Anyway - I often wonder where I would be if I had been more true to myself.
The cognitive dissonance, it burns.
Fat people end up in relationships like that--or alone, too crippled by low self-esteem to even put themselves on the dating market--all too often, in large part because of this myth that there are Attractive People and Unattractive People, and every fat person falls into the latter category. Common sense should tell us this can't be true--if fat people aren't having sex, how the hell did so many fat people get here? Spaceships? Pods? But somehow, it has become a universal "truth" that no one wants to fuck, much less love, a fatty. Ever. Period.
Lose the weight and gain the power to choose.
How chilling is that? If you're fat, you don't have the power to choose a romantic partner. I can't be the only one hearing shades of this shit:
- if any man would want to rape your gigantic ass, i’d be shocked
- whoever raped you could have just waited at the exit of a bar at 3am and gotten it consenually without the beached whale-like “struggle” you probably gave
- These fat whores would be lucky to even get raped by someone.I hope you whiny cunts find your way on top of a pinball machine in the near future.
If you're thin, you get to choose who you want to have sex with. If you're fat, you'd be lucky to be raped. Face it, ladies! I'm just being honest!
No. This is the farthest thing from honesty. This is bullshit. Hateful bullshit. Bullshit that causes fat people to stay in abusive relationships or cut themselves off from relationships altogether. Bullshit that causes thin, growing grade-school girls to put themselves on diets; bullshit that triggers eating disorders in those predisposed to them; bullshit that causes feminists and non-feminists alike to identify a "somewhat underweight" woman as "maximally attractive."
The world is not full of Attractive People and Unattractive People. It's full of people who are attractive to some and not to others. I hear from trolls all the time who complain that they don't want to be "forced" to find nasty, ugly fat women attractive--which utterly baffles me, since the last thing I want to do is encourage fat-hating dicks to date fat women. You don't find fat people attractive? Fabulous. Don't date them. I will find a way to pick myself up and move on without your love. But to assume your lack of sexual interest in fat chicks must be universal--or that the mere existence of self-confident fat people having healthy relationships somehow "forces" you to find fat attractive--is the height of fucking narcissism.
I use this as an example all the time, but I find Brad Pitt to be kinda meh, physically. (I also find him pretty charming in interviews, which does ratchet up my attraction to him somewhat, but I just do not get the concept of looking at a picture of him and swooning.) Obviously, he ain't suffering for my personal lack of Brad Pitt lust. But it goes to the point: even someone widely considered to be our culture's physical ideal isn't universally, objectively attractive. I was at a bar last week with Colleen, Tari, and Ottermatic, when a Prince video came on, and we started arguing about whether Prince is, in fact, hot. Colleen and Tari pointed out the obvious: tiny, tiny man, very weird. Meanwhile, Ottermatic and I pointed out what was equally obvious to us: BUT HOT. And of course, the upshot is that there is no fact there, just four opinions, split down the middle.
Another story I've told before, but bear with me--when I started dating Al, he asked what celebrities I'd dump him for (only because I'd asked him first, I should note; he found the whole convo ridiculous). I started with George Clooney, but he deemed that too cliche (fair enough), so I added the likes of Peter Saarsgard, Paul Giamatti, Jon Favreau, Philip Seymour Hoffman--and probably Prince, too, come to think of it.
Al: Oh, I get it. What you're saying is, you like unattractive men.
I handed him his ass for that one (especially after he told me that made him understand why I was into him)* because he was missing the whole fucking point: I, Kate Harding, am very attracted to all those men--and to Al. It doesn't make a goddamned bit of difference if they ring anybody else's bell (though they're all doing just fine for themselves, thanks), 'cause mine was the bell in question. Al's list (which I had to drag out of him) included Catherine Keener, Maura Tierney, Queen Latifah, and maybe sorta Frances McDormand--none of whom look remotely like me, but I wasn't losing any sleep over that, because the list itself proves that attraction is not about a single set of physical characteristics.
I was recently interviewed by a Trib reporter for a "personal profile" (that may never come out, alas), which involved me running down my whole damn life story. In talking about dating during my twenties, I referred to this boyfriend and that boyfriend and that other boyfriend and that guy I was hooking up with for a while and then that other guy I was hooking up with for a different while, until the reporter finally stopped me and said, "So, even though you struggled with weight and body image, it sure sounds like you never lacked for male attention." Me: BWAH!!!! That was an entire decade, lady, and years of it were spent alone and believing that unless I got and kept myself thin, I would never find love (again). Because fat people are Unattractive People. Full stop.
But at the same time, she was right--and that comment was really enlightening to me. Because until that moment, I looked back on my romantic life as a series of long, lonely periods punctuated by a few fluke relationships, when I could just as easily look back on it as a series of relationships punctuated by a few fluke lonely periods. I spent almost exactly half of that decade in long-term relationships and half not--but given all the flings and fruitless dates in the off years, the balance actually tips toward periods where I did have "male attention." (And that's without even getting into all the times I found out after the fact that some guy had been interested in me, and I was too damned clueless to see it.) So far, I've spent 2/3 of my thirties in relationships (most of that with Al), and only 1/3 alone. If this one doesn't work out, I should be a fucking dating machine when I'm in my forties.
And have I mentioned I'm fat?
But Kate, I already hear some of you saying. You're not that fat. You don't even know.
You're right, I don't know. And there is no doubt whatsoever that the fatter you are, the more discrimination you face in every phase of your life, including dating. But there is also no doubt whatsoever that people much fatter than me are hooking up and falling in love all over the place, every friggin' day. Because there are people who prefer fat partners, and people who are attracted to all shapes and sizes, and people who think they're not attracted to fat folks until they meet the right one and go gaga. Because--wait for it--attraction is subjective.
But Kate, that doesn't change the fact that in this culture, more people are attracted to thin people than to fat people.
No, it doesn't. But that fact doesn't mean that fat people need to choose between losing weight and getting used to the company of cats. It just means we're looking for our respective needles in a slightly bigger haystack. And on the upside, we've automatically weeded out the people who think adhering as closely as possible to the cultural beauty standard is a prerequisite for deserving love--who wants to date those assholes? I have dear friends who are damn near the Barbie standard, and half of their romantic lives have been spent fending off guys like that in the first place or figuring out how to dump them; our net relationship success is about even. So who's better off?
The fact is, I am "an unbelievably unattractive woman"--and also an unbelievably attractive woman, a kinda meh woman, a kinda cute woman, and everything else on the spectrum between "eww" and "ooh." It all depends on who's looking--and further depends on whether they've actually talked to me, whether they dig mouthy broads or dog people or spacey writers, whether I remind them of their mothers, whatever. One of the few culturally desirable attributes I possess is a huge rack, but I've met more men than you could imagine who say they actively prefer small boobs--and more than one who has deemed my tits "scary." (SCARY. Not kidding. More than one.) Meanwhile, I have stubby, drumstick-shaped legs, and yet the majority of my boyfriends, when asked, self-identified as Leg Men rather than Breast Men. How the hell did they end up with me? Attraction is not about a single set of physical characteristics.
Attraction is weird and unpredictable and dependent on about 8 zillion variables. If it were actually based on a list of identifiable characteristics, we could all just walk around comparing lists with each other until each of us found a perfect match. And I don't know, maybe that's how some people actually do it--the people who have strict rules about only dating thin, white blondes or tall, rich guys with full heads of hair. The people who think about potential romantic partners in terms of how others will see them, not in terms of what they see. But the rest of us just have to stumble around and wait for the zing!
The waiting can suck, if you prefer being in a relationship. It can suck a lot. But the zing! does not depend on thinness or whiteness or blondeness or tallness or richness or haired-ness. It depends on the time, place, and person, on a host of things you can't control, and on another host of things you can't even consciously recognize.
That is the reality, people. That is a fact. That is just me being honest.
*This did, however, produce one of the best Al quotes of all time: "I mean, I could look like Philip Seymour Hoffmann... if I worked out."
