What's the most spectacularly out-of-character thing you've ever done?
Without question, my answer is moving to another country for someone with whom I had spent hardly any time in person, someone who was about to move to another country for me.
When I flew to Scotland to live there for awhile in May of 2002, to get to know Iain's friends and family and life before we returned to the US after securing his visa, we had spent a total of five weeks in each other's company. Countless hours on the phone and computer, but only five weeks—and vacation weeks at that, with no jobs or bills or daily stressors—together, face to face, getting to know each other's quirks and idiosyncrasies. Five weeks on our best behavior.
Damn. In retrospect, that was some serious trucknutzery. Neither one of us can believe we actually did it.
It seems to be working out well so far, lol.
Question of the Day
On Surviving and Sex Ed
[Trigger warning for sexual violence.]
In addition to the assault on reproductive rights in Republican-held state legislatures across the nation, there has been a resurgence of interest in mandating abstinence-only sex education. Earlier this week, the North Dakota Senate "approved an amendment to a sex education bill (HB 1229) that would require public schools to teach abstinence-only sex education. The bill passed in the Senate by a vote of 39 to 8 and will now move to the state House for a vote."
It will certainly not come as a surprise to anyone who's spent more than about five seconds in this space that I am categorically disdainful of abstinence-only sex ed and support comprehensive sex education, so I'm pretty unthrilled about what's happening in North Dakota.
In this space, I've written a lot about the relationship between comprehensive sex education and reproductive rights: Empowering young people, especially young women, with good information about their reproduction is the best way to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
But there's another reason, more personal, about which I haven't written as much.
One of the most intractable complications of processing for me, after surviving sexual trauma as a teenager, was my Christian upbringing—a tradition on which a huge premium is placed on purity. (I don't mean to suggest this is true in all Christian traditions, but it was in the one in which I was raised.) I was quite explicitly expected to be a virgin bride.
My mother had been a virgin bride. My father had been a virgin groom. They expected their daughters to be virgins when we married, and we were expected to marry. It wasn't just from my parents that I learned of this expectation: In Sunday school, in confirmation class, in sermons—everyone from my ministers to my peers to Martin Luther himself admonished me to fiercely protect my virginity until I gifted it to my husband on my wedding night.
I was assumed to be straight and exhorted to get married and expected to be a virgin when I did.
I frankly wasn't even sure that I wanted to get married when I was raped at 16, but, after I was, I was sure that I wasn't going to be a virgin bride.
I had deeply internalized the Christian narratives about premarital sex sullying my very soul, and such was the lack of discussion surrounding consent in my young life that the idea nonconsensual sex might not "count" to whatever galactic referee was keeping score of such things never even crossed my mind.
I had also deeply internalized the cultural stereotypes of raped women being irreparably broken, women with broken minds and broken bodies.
Regarding myself as damaged goods, in both spirit and flesh, I figured it didn't matter if I engaged in sexual activity henceforth. And, beyond that grim calculation, that horrible, sad, shrugging relinquishment of my decision-making regarding sex because the decision had been made for me, was something yet worse: I didn't feel like I had any value anymore.
I'd spent my life learning that my worth as a female person was attached to my virginity.
My value as an unsullied cunt was gone; I tried instead to find value as a girl who knew how to give great head.
And, you know, that almost worked for awhile.
There exists a stereotype, a myth, that sexual trauma makes women more promiscuous. (And some women to react to sexual violence with promiscuity; there is no one singular, textbook, universal response to rape, no "right way" to be a survivor.) But it wasn't rape that made me more promiscuous than I otherwise might have been; it was the idea that I had lost my worth as a human and some fundamental goodness which had been wrapped inside my virginity.
Abstinence-only sex ed advocates insist that they're only trying to tell young people that the only 100% effective way to prevent pregnancy in abstinence, but, if that's all they wanted to convey, that line could be part of a comprehensive sex ed program. What they want to convey is that young people's worth, especially young women's worth, is predicated on maintaining their virginity.
That can be a mind-fuck for young women who lose their virginity consensually. For young women who are raped, it can be truly devastating.
I support comprehensive sex education not merely because it is a smarter and more effective program, but because it does not embed in young people bullshit narratives that stand to revictimize those among them who are victimized by sexual violence.
I am unsurprised to find, once again, the GOP does not share my concern.
Sure
Actual Headline: "Battling Big Abortion."
Sure. Like Big Oil or Big Pharma. Big Abortion.
The article, to which I'm not linking but it's easy enough to find if you're so inclined, is about funding Planned Parenthood and was authored by Mike Pence, Republican Representative and world-class embarrassment to Indiana progressives.
What passes for progress
[Trigger warning for LGBT-phobia]
The Institute of Medicine of the National Academies has issued a report on LGBT health:
While some research about the health of LGBT populations has been conducted, researchers still have a great deal to learn. To help assess the state of the science, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) asked the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to assess current knowledge of the health status of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender populations; to identify research gaps and opportunities; and to outline a research agenda to help NIH focus its research in this area.
In order to address this, the committee recommends collecting data on sexual orientation and gender identity in health surveys administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and other relevant federally funded surveys.
Yes, I whole-heartedly agree. In the year two-thousand-and-fucking-eleven, we should consider federal policies that 1) acknowledge the existence of LGBT people, and 2) do not treat us as if we're the scourge of the Earth. That'd be super.
After all,
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals have unique health experiences and needs, but as a nation, we do not know exactly what these experiences and needs are.
Yeah, you as a nation have some work to do.
I suppose it will be another many decades until the data is collected and we, as a nation, can contemplate not acting on any of the trends therein. After all, that's what we, as a nation, do with pretty much all instances where there are massive inequalities in access to health care or other universal human rights.
Sorry, I'm just a bit pissy because I live in a country where even the most privileged trans people (hi Mom!) have trouble obtaining essential medical care. While I suspect that the authors of the IOM study are aware of this, the U.S. is a nation where gaining access to birth control is a tricky matter. Given that fact, I don't see the scenario where those of us whose existence really flies in the face of God'sPlan(TM) have access to appropriate health care.
It's not that we as a nation don't know how to care for queer people, it's that we choose not to.
Via NCTE.
FYI
[Trigger warning for mention of rape.]
I'm getting quite a few emails about the Indiana State Republican Representative and professional dipshit who claims that rape exceptions to legislation banning abortions past 20 weeks is a loophole for women who will just lie about having been raped.
Some of the authors of these emails are quite perturbed with me about having failed to write about this story today.
Let me first note that I cannot write about every single important story every single day: 1. I don't always have the emotional wherewithal to write about every story regarding sexual violence that lands in my inbox. 2. One of the horrible realities of this shitty economy is that more and more people are contacting me with requests for resources on social services, including services for survivors of domestic and sexual violence, public resources for which are having their budgets slashed all over the country. I am spending more and more of my time doing unpaid social work, and sending a pissed off email demanding I write about something doesn't actually give me more time in my day.
I love getting tips from readers; I am hugely appreciative for them. I just ask that you please understand that managing this community has additional responsibilities to writing, and that, even if it didn't, I can't and won't write on demand.
Oh, and, by the way: Another reason I haven't written about that story today is because I wrote about it yesterday.
Bring Out Your Espadrilles!
Since we're all so fondly remembering the Eighties today...
[Video transcript: Corey Haim gets funky and punky, with a free jazz improvization that's part Herbie Hancock, part Harold Faltermeyer. Corey explains his inspiration: "I think that we were all born with a certain inner-rhythm. Hearing a certain song can remind you of a time or event in your life that's special. Music is an expression that I can't live without."]
From Corey Haim: Me, Myself and I. Sorry, it's not as cool as James Brady at the White House, but it's kind of fun. Kind of. It reminds me of the time Stevie Wonder appeared on The Cosby Show. But in a different way, you know?
Speaking of the Cola Wars
James Brady was at the White House yesterday lobbying for gun control legislation.
Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to run to Montgomery Wards to pick up some shoulder pads for a Dynasty watching party tonight. It's gonna be wild. Ever mix TaB with Bartles & Jaymes? Just sayin'.
In Shit I Couldn't Make Up
The GOP War on Uteri evidently now includes treating the word "uterus" like it's a dirty word:
During last week's discussion about a bill that would prohibit governments from deducting union dues from a worker's paycheck, [Florida] state Rep. Scott Randolph, D-Orlando, used his time during floor debate to argue that Republicans are against regulations -- except when it comes to the little guys, or serves their specific interests.Only by the unbearably stupid calculations of the GOP could it be considered "mindful and respectful" of (cis) female spectators of the proceedings to treat a party of their body like a shameful secret.
At one point Randolph suggested that his wife "incorporate her uterus" to stop Republicans from pushing measures that would restrict abortions. Republicans, after all, wouldn't want to further regulate a Florida business.
Apparently the GOP leadership of the House didn't like the one-liner.
They told Democrats that Randolph is not to discuss body parts on the House floor.
..."It's not like I used slang," said Randolph, who actually got the line from his wife. He said Republicans voiced concern about young pages hearing the word uterus.
...House GOP spokeswoman Katie Betta: "The Speaker has been clear about his expectations for conduct on the House for during debate. At one point during the debate, he mentioned to the entire House that members of both parties needed to be mindful of decorum during debate.
"Additionally, the Speaker believes it is important for all Members to be mindful of and respectful to visitors and guests, particularly the young pages and messengers who are seated in the chamber during debates. In the past, if the debate is going to contain language that would be considered inappropriate for children and other guests, the Speaker will make an announcement in advance, asking children and others who may be uncomfortable with the subject matter to leave the floor and gallery."
[H/T to Shaker MMC.]
A Thought
I'm beginning to think the "Third Term of Bush" label used on posts like the one below are unfair.* Given Obama's fondness for trickle-down economics, meddling in Latin America, and a grudge match with Qaddafi, perhaps it would be more accurate to call this the Third Term of Ronald Reagan.
Ah, well. It's not like he didn't warn us.
-------------------------
* No, I'm not.
[Related Reading: Obama Wishes the Gipper Happy Birthday, Whoops I Barfed on Your Time Magazine.]
Meanwhile, in Latin America...
Dispatch From El Salvador: Obama's Drug War Feels Eerily Familiar.
On the other side of San Salvador, in a heavily air-conditioned meeting hall of the Central American Parliament, Stanford-educated international relations expert Hector Perla responds to a recurring question from the crowd of academics, legislators, journalists and policymakers gathered to discuss U.S.-Salvadoran relations in the Obama era: "Are you saying that President Obama is no different from other U.S. Presidents?"I am truly at a loss for words to explain the depth of my regret and the overwhelming helplessness I feel in regard to US foreign policy.
"What makes Obama different is the Obama doctrine," says Perla, an organizer of the conference who is a colleague of mine and an assistant Professor of Latino and Latin America Studies at the University of California, Santa Cruz. "The Obama doctrine," he explains, "uses the rhetoric of respect for human rights, the rhetoric of peace, poverty alleviation and social justice on the one hand, while promoting militarization with the other hand. You can see it clearly in [Obama's] visit to the tomb of Monsenor Romero, a man recognized for his calls for peace. Obama visited the tomb as he was ordering the bombing and killing in Libya."
Nowhere are the contours of the Obama doctrine clearer, said Perla, than in the recent announcement of his $200 million anti-narco-trafficking initiative for Central America. Obama says it is the foundation for a "new joint security strategy" set to begin this spring. Perla noted that, in talking about the program, Obama emphasized its aim to "strengthen courts, civil society groups and institutions that uphold the rule of law"—but he left out mention of the funds to train and equip El Salvador's police and military forces.
Especially disturbing to Perla, a Salvadoran-American with family on both sides of the U.S.-Salvadoran divide, is that "nobody is talking about the failure of those plans (Mexico, Colombia)—how we've seen an astronomical rise in the numbers of killings and human rights abuses in Mexico and ongoing counterinsurgency and human rights abuses committed under cover of fighting the drug war in Colombia."
"In El Salvador, the U.S. is talking about policies of growth and security, promoting 'citizen security'," said Perla. "But when you look close, you see an expansion of many of the same policies of the Bush administration, only now you will have Plan Centroamerica to connect and integrate Plan Mexico to the north and Plan Colombia to the south."
That the same old violent shit is being peddled under human rights rhetoric somehow makes it even worse.
The battle hymn of a dangerous black woman…
It's been awhile, but Shakesville still feels like home!
Shall we?
Cross-posted from AngryBlackBitch.com
I am a black woman.
This is so the worst thing you're going to read all day.
[Trigger warning for fat hatred, body policing.]
Fat Stigma Spreads Around the Globe. With the single exception of the quotes from Marianne and Alexandra Brewis, everything about that article is horrendo.
To be sure, jokes and negative perceptions about weight have been around for ages. In Mexico, for instance, a nickname like "gordo" which translates as "fatty," raises no eyebrows.Sure. No one in Mexico has ever been bothered by being called gordo (or gordita) before. Except, of course, for the people who have.
Stephen McGarvey, a professor of community health at Brown University who studies Samoan health issues, noted that 25 years ago, Samoan study subjects living in Samoa and New Zealand who viewed thin and large body silhouettes mostly had positive feelings about bigger bodies. (The exception was young, educated women, who showed a preference for slimmer silhouettes.)A preference for the silhouettes, or a preference for the status associated with slimmer silhouettes and the privilege slimmer silhouettes afford them? That's not semantics. That's the whole point of the concerns being raised in the article. And yet here it is, the preference for a "slimmer silhouette" just being reported without the merest suggestion that it might not be the thinness itself that's ultimately at the center of the preference, but the avoidance of all the negative associations with fatness.
Dr. McGarvey said that more extensive study was needed to determine just how much that had changed, and that it was important that public health campaigns intended to curb diabetes and high blood pressure did not end up creating negative images of overweight individuals.Too late!
Don't get me wrong: I'm glad that Dr. McGarvey is raising these concerns, and I'm glad this issue is getting more attention. It's just, ugh, the reporting. I'm not sure the best way to present the idea that fat stigma is dangerous and proliferating by including quotes from a man who hates "fatties" on the bus and a woman whose friend would rather her children be anorexic than fat, but none from the fat people who are victimized by these attitudes.
(Note to the editor: Congrats on getting the message that headless fatty pix are dehumanizing garbage. Now apply same message to pix of disembodied female parts, thin or otherwise. Thanks.)
[H/T to everyone in the multiverse, and thanks to each and every one of you.]
Top Chef Open Thread
Top Chef season four winner Stephanie Izard, because I didn't even watch last night's
The Fourth War
So, while we're still at war with in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan (shh!), the President has "secretly" expanded the scope of our support in Libya to include a covert force to assist rebel forces: "President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, government officials told Reuters on Wednesday. Obama signed the order, known as a presidential 'finding', within the last two or three weeks, according to government sources familiar with the matter."
According to anonymous officials speaking to the New York Times, that order has already been put into action and clandestine CIA agents have been inserted "to gather intelligence for military airstrikes and to contact and vet the beleaguered rebels battling Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi's forces."
In addition to the C.I.A. presence, composed of an unknown number of Americans who had worked at the spy agency's station in Tripoli and others who arrived more recently, current and former British officials said that dozens of British special forces and MI6 intelligence officers are working inside Libya. The British operatives have been directing airstrikes from British jets and gathering intelligence about the whereabouts of Libyan government tank columns, artillery pieces and missile installations, the officials said.Meanwhile, Secretary Clinton reportedly informed Congress that "the White House would forge ahead with military action in Libya even if Congress passed a resolution constraining the mission." As profoundly infuriating as that is, there should be no surprise that this is the Obama administration's position, given that Obama himself did not consider his predecessor's expansion of executive power a breach of the president's authority. (Something I was assured didn't matter during the election.)
American officials hope that similar information gathered by American intelligence officers — including the location of Colonel Qaddafi's munitions depots and the clusters of government troops inside towns — might help weaken Libya's military enough to encourage defections within its ranks.
In addition, the American spies are meeting with rebels to try to fill in gaps in understanding who their leaders are and the allegiances of the groups opposed to Colonel Qaddafi, said United States government officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the classified nature of the activities. American officials cautioned, though, that the Western operatives were not directing the actions of rebel forces.
David Dayen wonders if the order "has anything to do with the Libyan expat resident of Northern Virginia, 10 miles from Langley, showing up in Benghazi to command the rebel army" and says, quite rightly, the debate, such as it is, about this action "looks like a clown show."
And Emptywheel, noting that we're technically providing materially support to terrorists, "no matter how we try to spin arming rebels as an act of peace," asks where Obama will try himself for material support for terrorism.
I guess since Gitmo's still open, he can just send himself there. Indefinitely.
Question of the Day
Where is your favorite place to meet people?
Interpret as you wish: It could mean your favorite place to make new friends, your favorite place to meet potential romantic partners, your favorite place to network, whatever.
Meat space and virtual space responses welcome, too, natch.
Ms. Popular
In Gallup's latest polling, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's favorable ratings are one point off her all-time high:
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's favorable rating from Americans is now 66%, up from 61% in July 2010 and her highest rating to date while serving in the Obama administration. The current rating is just one percentage point below her all-time high rating of 67%, from December 1998.I find it interesting, but not surprising, that Clinton appears to be held to different standards re: the unpopular Libya intervention than the President and the Secretary of Defense.
...The latest results are from a March 25-27 Gallup poll conducted while the United States was actively involved in enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya, a policy Clinton reportedly advocated. The same poll finds Clinton rated more positively than other top administration officials. Obama receives a 54% favorable rating, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, 52%, and Vice President Joe Biden, 46%.
Clinton enjoys extraordinary popularity among women, and particularly women 50 and older. She also receives support from a solid majority of independents and 40% of Republicans.
Underscoring that views of Clinton and Obama are not one and the same, Clinton is seen in a favorable light by 45% of those who separately say they disapprove of the job Obama is doing as president. Naturally, she is also viewed favorably by 89% of those who approve of Obama's job performance.
One might argue that she's the beneficiary of the soft bigotry of low expectations, that the numbers are reflecting the prejudice that she's a woman and thus can't be held responsible for hawkishness. But I'm guessing whatever influence that might have, it's counterbalanced by her being the target of claims that Obama is being manipulated by his female advisers, a cadre of warmongering harpies led by Clinton.
My thought instead is that Clinton's long career of advocating for the marginalized, alienated, and dispossessed has created a context for her advocacy that Obama and Gates do not enjoy. (And this high-larious anecdote does not make her seem a hawk, but a rebel ally.) If one believes that it is, in fact, eminently possible to support military intervention in good faith, I believe that good faith is being (quite understandably) extended to Secretary Clinton.
Totes Pro-Life
Your totes pro-life GOP, ladies, gents, and gender rebels:
A proposed law making its way through the South Carolina legislature would loosen gun ownership to an astonishing level. If passed, legal gun owners could bring their weapons to restaurants, day-care centers, and churches. The bill's sponsor, state Rep. Thad Viers (R), says that expanding the places that one can carry a concealed weapon in the state is an effective anti-crime measure:That would be truly hilarious if it weren't so fucking frightening.
"It puts criminals on the defense," said state Rep. Thad Viers, R-Horry, a co-sponsor of the bill and the owner of about 25 firearms and a concealed weapons permit. "Criminals don't know if you're carrying or not."Amazingly, the only debate in the legislature appears to be whether the bill goes far enough. Ed Kelleher, president of GrassRoots South Carolina, a powerful gun group in the state, says the bill "violates the constitutional rights of gun owners" because it only allows for adult, state residents to carry guns in these places — not young people or out-of-state residents. "While the bill might make it better for people in South Carolina, it's going to be a lot worse for others, including those visiting us," Kelleher said. "We depend on tourism here, and this has chilling effect on that."
At Think Progress, George also notes: "South Carolina has the ninth-highest rate of firearm murders by state, according to FBI statistics. Just over 68 percent of murders in the state are done with a gun."
"MORE OF THAT!" - The GOP.
Daily Dose o' Cute
Back in the summer of 2007, I started looking for my kitty companion. I came across a lovely organization, Cat Adoption Team, and browsed through their listings. I kinda, sorta had a vague idea that I wanted a kitty who resembled a seal-point Siamese, an all-orange, or an all-black cat. I came across the listing for a fostered family of six kittens, all who had been born March 30th. Three of the kittens--all the boys--were all orange. Of the girls: one was a long-haired tortie, one was grey with black stripes, and one was a mish-mash of everyone with multiple colors, some stripes, and just enough long-hair influence to resemble a cat who has been slightly shocked by static electricity. All of them had names for different Italian cities and the last, multi-colored girl was called Sicily. She wasn't anything that I really thought I had been looking for but I there was just something about her in her picture that made me pick up the phone to ask about her. She was available and her foster mom didn't live very far from us.
I went to see her that very evening. When I sat down in the room with all the kittens, she came right up to me and crawled into my lap. Her foster mom said she normally didn't do such a thing--typically she ignored people (as others had come to check out her brothers). She picked me as much as I picked her. In what would turn out to be the three weeks I had to wait to bring her home, I went over and over in my brain what I'd name her since she just was not a Sicily. I decided on Zoë. Here is the original announcement about her, btw (the pic was taken when I first met her, at the foster mom's house).
Relaxing isn't all she does, as Miss Zoë has had her share of adventures, too.
She's my baby-cat, no matter how old she may be. Happy 4th birthday, Zoë-girl!
Feminism 101: Situational and Relative Privilege
Tami's got a great post today about the kyriarchy, intersectionalism, and privilege—specifically, what might be called situational privilege (when the marginalized parts of one's identity can be a privilege in a specific situation) and relative privilege (when the privileges parts of one's identity can give one privilege even within a marginalized population).
Tami provides an excellent example of situational privilege in her piece:
Being a black woman is certainly not a privilege in our society. But, for instance, when dealing with law enforcement, I am privileged in comparison to my brother or husband or son. (Even as I lose that privilege in comparison to white men and women.)The ongoing discussion of which Tami's post is a part is about white female privilege, which is an example of relative privilege: I am marginalized on the basis that I'm female, but, among all female people, I am privileged because I am white and straight and cisgender and have an invisible disability.
All of us have intersectional identities, and many of us have both marginalized aspects and privileged aspects in the same body. Part of auditing our privilege is identifying all of its aspects, and identifying the situations in which our typically marginalized aspects become a privilege. There are, for example, certain situations, especially around childcare, in which I would be privileged over a man simply by virtue of my femaleness.
The most important distinction between situational and relative privilege is that situational privilege is typically an anomaly, an exceptional quirk of some other institutional privilege, while relative privilege merely reflects the familiar hierarchies of institutional privilege within a marginalized group.
In simpler language, situational privilege is basically an exception to the rule, and relative privilege is the rule.
(Being privileged for my femaleness around children [situational] is an exception to male privilege; being privileged for my whiteness among other women [relational] reflects the rule of institutional racism.)
So, those are the definitions. What's the big deal?
Well, as with any privilege, it's really tough to not express and trade on one's privilege if one isn't even aware of it, so there's that. But there's also the issue of how unexamined relative privilege in particular destroys social justice movements by subverting solidarity.
This goes back to what I mentioned earlier today, and about which I've written in more detail here, regarding practicing a feminism that never obliges a woman to wrench apart pieces of her identity in exchange for my alliance.
Those of us with privilege who participate in any social justice movement must be conscious of the reality that we have relative privilege to other members of our community—that even though a straight, cis, able-bodied, typically-statured, thin, wealthy, white, Western woman still lacks male privilege, is still marginalized on the basis of her femaleness, still has cultural narratives and stereotypes and prejudices working against her in visible and invisible ways all the time, is still denied a fuckload of rights and opportunities on the basis of being a woman, a poor fat disabled trans lesbian of color (for example) has SIX fuckloads of the same.
The concept of "equality"—or, to be more precise, the denial of equality—is way more complicated the more marginalizing characteristics one has. Which means that achieving full equality for a straight, cis, able-bodied, typically-statured, thin, wealthy, white, Western woman, is a less complex process than achieving full equality for a poor fat disabled trans lesbian of color—because achieving equality in those areas denied her on the basis of her femaleness doesn't mean that she has achieved equality as a lesbian. Or a fat woman. Or a disabled woman. Or a trans woman.
Which ultimately means she has not achieved equality as a woman. As a whole person.
And when "progress for women" comes at the expense of, say, the gay community, that's not actually progress for women at all. That's just progress for straight women. When it comes at the expense of women of color, that's just progress for white women. When it comes at the expense of trans women, that's just progress for cis women. And so on.
That's why an inclusive feminism is the only feminism that ultimately makes any sense—and an inclusive feminism is only possible when privileged women (white women, straight women, cis women, thin women, able-bodied women, Western women, wealthy women, employed women, etc.) acknowledge their relative privilege to other women.
Which is, of course, only the starting point. Examining that privilege, and learning to trade on it only as an ally, is a lifelong process.
But it's a process that begins with owning our situational and relative privilege.
Number of the Day
14: The number of years John Thompson spent on death row, coming within weeks of being executed, for a crime he did not commit before he was exonerated after evidence of prosecutorial misconduct.
In yet another garbage decision, the Supreme Court has overturned the civil jury verdict that awarded Thompson $14 million in damages, because evidence of the prosecutors' misconduct, including hiding a blood test and concealing witnesses that would have proved Thompson's innocence, did not prove "deliberate indifference."
Okay, players.
As per usual, the decision was 5-4, with Justice Clarence Thomas delivering the decision for the conservatives and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivering the dissent for the progressives.
Wednesday Blogaround
This blgoaround brought to you by Shaxco, publishers of the bestselling cookbook, Spudsy's Guide to Cauliflower 1000 Ways.
Recommended Reading:
Jonathan: The Lesson the U.S. Is Teaching the World in Libya
Helen: ENDA
Andy: 'The Hold Is Over': Immigration Discrimination Against Gays Is Back On, Says Agency
Andrea: Chicago Abortion Fund Opposes South Side Billboard Campaign
Molefi: Two Classes of Racism in New Keys
Jorge: I Make My Own Almond Milk Now
Leave your links in comments...
Here Comes The Judge
CBS is reporting that Roy Moore, the Alabama Supreme Court justice who lost his job over the Ten Commandments, is exploring a run for the presidency.
The aide, Zachery Michael, said Moore's platform will be focused on repealing the health care overhaul law, replacing the progressive income tax with a flat tax and bringing "commonsense solutions" on immigration and border control.It's ironic that the more extreme the candidate, the more they like to talk about "commonsense" solutions... like massive deportations of brown people or taking over a woman's body by the state the minute she gets pregnant.
Michael said Moore is entering the fray because "we're just seeing the same type of politicians run for president." He said Moore is someone "who can connect with over 300 million Americans across the country, which is something we've been lacking with today's leaders across society."
Michael said Moore should not be thought of simply as a culture warrior, arguing that he has been a strong advocate for limited government.
"He not only stood up for his faith, he stood up against the tyranny of government," he said.
Well, we've already got Bachmann, Palin, Cain, Gingrich, Huckabee and Trump, but there's always room in the clown car for one Moore.
Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.
I Write Letters
Dear Avocado Oil:
Where have you been all my life? I love you so much. We are totes BFFs now.
Love,
Liss
cc. Olive Oil, who shouldn't worry 'cuz I still LYLAS.
The GOP War on Uteri
Earlier this month, Misty wrote about a bill that had been introduced by House Republicans in my great state of Indiana, which is likely to pass and would "make most abortions illegal after 20 weeks, while current law restricts most abortions after the fetus is considered viable, generally around 24 weeks. Among its other provisions, the bill also requires abortion providers to tell patients that abortion carries risks, including the possibility of breast cancer."
So, basically a swell bill that forces doctors to lie to their patients, in addition to eroding women's legal rights, agency, and bodily autonomy.
State Democrats have unsuccessfully tried to tame the legislation with a variety of amendments, including one "which would have exempted from the bill women who became pregnant due to rape or incest, or women for whom a pregnancy threatens their life or could cause serious and irreversible physical harm."
The author of the legislation, GOP Rep. Eric Turner, urged his colleagues to oppose that amendment, because of the "giant loophole" it creates, in his estimation.
"I don't want to disparage in any way someone who's gone through the experience of rape, incest," Turner said. "But someone who is desirous of an abortion could simply say that they'd been raped."Right. You know how those lying bitches are.
I'm going to go ahead and flatly say that I believe denying access to a legal medical procedure to women is so thoroughly unethical and so thoroughly breaks faith with women that even if they did have to lie to gain access to abortion, it would be entirely reasonable.
But the entire argument is a red herring in the first place. Turner's reasoning (such as it is) is based on a bullshit narrative about the abundance false rape reporting and a bullshit narrative about the legions of pregnant women with unwanted pregnancies who leave termination until 20 weeks because they're forgetful or irresponsible or indecisive or cruel.
Most pregnant people who seek terminations after 20 weeks are carrying non-viable fetuses, are themselves having a health crisis related to the pregnancy, or had to hide the pregnancy for self-protection. Homicide remains the third highest cause of death of pregnant women, and 20% of women who die while pregnant are murdered.
There are women who seek terminations after 20 weeks for whom none of the above are considerations, whose pregnancies are viable, whose health is fine, who are not pregnant as a result of rape or incest and do not fear for their lives. They are typically young and usually poor, and they tend to live in states where abortion access is severely restricted. They have to schedule time off to travel, sometimes to a different state, they have to save up money, because the government won't pay for an abortion and, if they even have insurance, it may not cover the procedure, and, if they have other children already, they have find childcare while they make an out-of-state trip for the procedure, possibly at a clinic with a long waiting list.
By the time those fucking stars align, it's pretty easy for 20 weeks to have passed. And the more advanced state of a pregnancy doesn't alter the circumstances that made termination the best option in the first place.
All of which, of course, is not a bug of anti-choice legislation, but a feature. It's designed specifically to make abortion hard to get quickly, and then close the window to force more women into missing the deadline.
Because anti-choicers know what's best for women. And that's having babies.
[Via @trustwomen.]
Quote of the Day
[Trigger warning for misogyny, disablism, violent imagery.]
"The reality is that women are treated differently by society for exactly the same reason that children and the mentally handicapped are treated differently. It's just easier this way for everyone. You don't argue with a four-year old about why he shouldn't eat candy for dinner. You don't punch a mentally handicapped guy even if he punches you first. And you don't argue when a women tells you she's only making 80 cents to your dollar. It's the path of least resistance. You save your energy for more important battles." — Scott Adams, Dilbert creator and apparent men's rights activist, in a (now deleted) blog post.
The Feminist Portrait Project
Bitch is currently celebrating feminist click and anti-click moments with a Feminist Portrait Project Blog Carnival. Lena Chen, the Co-Founder of the Feminist Portrait Project and Feminist Coming Out Day, requested submissions from feminist bloggers around the web, and responses are posted at the link. Additionally, feminist and womanist bloggers are invited to submit their own pieces about their click (coming to feminism) and anti-click (realizing the limitations of feminism) moments.
The piece I submitted is overtly about a click moment, but it's really my anti-click moment, too, as I was fortunate to come to feminism as part of a broader social justice awakening. I've always been keenly aware of feminism's limitations, and, at the same time, understanding the breadth of its limitations is an ongoing process for me.
My objective and my challenge as I fumblefuck my way through this every day is to practice a feminism that never asks one of my sisters who do not share my privileges to wrench apart pieces of their identity in exchange for my alliance, a feminism that respects, admires, and loves women, in which women see ourselves not just as men's equals, but as each other's.
I hope you will check out the Feminist Portrait Project Blog Carnival and submit your own stories, too.
Bill Maher: Feminist Troll
[Trigger warning for misogyny.]
After calling Sarah Palin a twat and a cunt, and calling Palin and Rep. Michele Bachmann bimbos, Maher was asked about his "controversial" comments on Hardball yesterday by guest host Chuck Todd, and Maher responded:
There's a lot of people in America who have, of course, nothing to do except look for something to get mad at. And I've been a frequent target, and I'm happy to provide that service. I always say, as I've said many times in these kind of situations, if I hurt somebody's feelings – I'm always sorry about that, I'm not trying to hurt somebody's feelings. But if you want me to say, "I'm sorry what I said was wrong" – no, sorry, I can't go there.OMFG he did not just play the "feminists are just looking for things to get mad about" card.
If you want to understand the grim state of women's equality in the United States, here it is: One of the great liberal heroes of the left is approximately as sophisticated in his thinking regarding women as your average troll at a feminist blog.
Quite genuinely, it is laughable that anyone could suggest that women have reached some semblance of parity when we still cannot criticize the use of cunt, twat, and bimbo as casual slurs against a former vice presidential candidate without being accused of looking for things to get mad about.
Perhaps—just perhaps—it's not that feminists who object to the substitution of misogynist slurs for substantive criticism are too sensitive, but that Bill Maher is not sensitive enough.
Because if demeaning women with misogynist slurs isn't worthy of criticism, despite the fact that it is such "little things," such pervasive, ubiquitous, inescapable "little things," that create the foundation of a sexist culture on which the "big stuff" is dependent for its survival, I wonder what would meet Maher's threshold for our attention.
Not that I really give a shit, since I'm (shockingly) not of the belief that a straight, white, cis, able-bodied, wealthy, Western, undilutedly privileged man should be the arbiter of to what issues feminists and womanists should direct their attentions.
Particularly when, despite his claims to objectivity, he has a vested interest in having us direct our attentions elsewhere. Ahem.
In any case, I don't want an apology from Bill Maher. I don't care if he feels bad, and I don't care if he admits he was wrong, and I don't care if he says he's sorry or feels sorry or whatthefuckever. I just want him to stop using misogynist slurs.
It doesn't matter one tiny, infinitesimal speck to me whether he apologizes or not, and the fact that he evidently believes that this is all a big game of "Gotcha!" in which pretend-aggrieved people fake-complain in order to rack up some insincere apology on a scorecard, is further evidence of his utter lack of respect for women. And, yeah, I realize there are some conservatives who are playing that game, but there are also feminist and womanist women (and men) who are asking him, in good faith, to please knock it the fuck off because that shit doesn't exist in a goddamned void.
Of course, convincing himself that there's no such thing as good faith criticism, just people looking for things to get mad about, is a pretty neat justification to avoid listening to criticism altogether.
Doesn't change the fact he's contributing to a culture of sexism he purports to disdain.
And not only that, he's obliging other liberals to twist themselves into knots to defend his misogynist shit, thus more deeply entrenching the increasingly cavernous divides on the left between those who consider women's equality to be a centerpiece of progressivism and those who consider it a negotiable item.
New Rule: If you're not helping, shut the fuck up.
Oh, and by the way, Maher: Just for the record, I'm not offended; I'm contemptuous.
Question of the Day
What is your favorite plant, tree, bush, or shrub?
There are an awful lot of possible answers that come to mind for this one, but I am perhaps most fond of the weeping willow, which is not only an inordinately lovely tree upon which to gaze in my estimation, but provides one of the best spaces to read a book underneath its sorrowful branches.
Obviously
Professor James Franco, who has already taught a course in Francology for Columbia College Hollywood, is also planning to "start teaching a third-year graduate class on directing at NYU's Tisch School of the Arts," from which he will receive his MFA in film production later this spring.
"He's here to teach because he really knows something about directing that he can share with our students," John Tintori, chair of the graduate film program at Tisch, told the Post. "He's incredibly prolific, and that comes from a real work ethic—and that's another thing to impart to our students."Whatever, Dean Yawnsworthy. He's there to teach because James Franco, that's why.
Film Corner!
Below is the trailer for the awesome new romantic comedy No Strings Attached Friends With Benefits, starring Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis as two very good-looking straight white people who discover the path to love is denying your emotions, with a little help along the way from a wacky, uncomfortably sexually liberated mom, being played by Patricia Clarkson because Hollywood hates women over 40, and a zany, pun-sputtering gay friend, being played by Woody Harrelson because THAT MAKES SENSE.
Video Paraphrase: City! Emma Stone breaks up with Justin Timberlake. Andy Samberg breaks up with Mila Kunis. Witty banter! Relationships are hard. Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis are DONE with relationships. But he's "emotionally unavailable" and she's "emotionally damaged" so they can have lots of sex together. Wacky, uncomfortably sexually liberated mom is wacky and uncomfortably sexually liberated. Zany gay friend is zany and gay. Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis learn cute things about each other. They do cute things that are SO CUTE I'm beginning to think that emotions can't HELP but get in the way of all the emotion-free sexytimes! Mila Kunis is cool because she's a misogynist who calls Justin Timberlake a "pussy." Not like those OTHER GIRLS with SELF-RESPECT! Zany gay friend sputters SO many gay puns! Oh oh—Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis talk to friends about how complicated this arrangement is getting. KEEP YOUR EMOTIONS IN YOUR PANTS, HIPSTERS! Stupid plot devices that aren't funny and don't resemble anything that actually happens in the real world. Fin.
My only question is: Are there strings attached? It's really hard to tell, due to the lack of barfinatingly clunky metaphors.
This is so the worst thing you're going to read all day.
Jonah Goldberg—or "Goldbeg," as he is currently being (mis)identified by the LA Times (and here's a screencap for posterity in case they ever bother to fix it)—has written a GREAT piece about feminism.
And he's an expert, so you should definitely read it.
Feminism as a "movement" in America is largely played out. The work here is mostly done.The "plight of women in other countries" is "dire," you see.
...The good news for those who want to continue the fight for women is that there is plenty of work left to do — abroad.
That's an assessment with which I don't disagree. I do, however, disagree with his contention that it's not dire here. But I guess Goldberg thinks that it's good enough for his daughter to make 3/4 of what she's worth, have a 1 in 6 chance of being raped, and have no right of bodily autonomy, just for a start. Cool.
I also have this wacky notion that I don't have better solutions for women abroad than they have for themselves. I am happy and eager to play a support role, and it is important to me to personally support as well as publicly promote programs like Prajwala and SANGRAM and Kofaviv and CARE.org, among many others. I have given permission to every international women's organization who's ever asked to translate and reprint feminist content from Shakesville that they find useful, and I always will.
I do not find that it is my place, as a white Western feminist, to "save" women in other parts of the world. (Frankly, I'm not inclined to tell any other woman at all how to do feminism.) That's not solidarity; that's colonialism.
I'm not surprised to find Goldberg doesn't know the difference.
[H/T to Shaker scatx.]
Today in Rape Culture
[Trigger warning for sexual violence, classism, and racism.]
Following up on the Cleveland, Texas gang rape case (previous Shakesville posts about which are here, here, here, here, and here), the New York Times has published an extensive story with more details about the case.
I have various criticisms about the reporting, most notably the way that the story continues to be told in code: Most or all of the accused perpetrators are black; their victim is Latina; many or all of the investigators and prosecutors are white. This is not plainly stated. We are given hints and meant to infer as much, but evidently expected to believe it does not matter.
Just another irrelevant fact that can't be openly acknowledged. Ahem.
And, naturally, what gets inserted into the reporting is always as interesting as what gets excluded: I question, for example, the inclusion of the fact that the victim's father "sometimes slept during the afternoons" on a trampoline outside their "small house." Its relevance is indefensible; its purpose, of course, is clear.
There are two different, and inextricably linked, and frequently competing, threads to this story: One is the incident itself—the repeated sexual assault of an 11-year-old girl by as many as nineteen boys and men ranging in age from 14 to 27, over the course of several months, against a backdrop of poverty, disability, and racial divisions. The other is how that incident is being reported and received by the public, and the associated victim-blaming and rape apologia.
This story, more than most, underscores the inherent problem in writing about the rape culture: So much of the public discussion of sexual violence is so fubared that media deconstruction often eclipses discussion of surviving and preventing sexual violence. But challenging those narratives is itself a necessary part of prevention (and, for many of us, integral to our survival). Still. It's just one piece.
One piece that's incredibly hard to get past. And around and around we go.
The Vaudevillian
The world must have seemed a tantalizingly big place to John Edward Noble, because he fibbed his way into the military just to start seeing every bit of it he could as soon as possible. The misrepresentation of his actual sixteen years was, however, only one of two lies that made their way onto his induction papers, the other being that the son of Elizabeth O'Rourke of Ireland and John David Noble of Scotland was a German-Italian. Inexplicably, John Noble the younger would spend his entire life telling this lie, though at the time of his birth in 1878, there was nothing particularly to be gained by claiming a heritage of sauerkraut and pesto over one of cabbage and haggis. What sense there was to be made of this curious lie was not made while he was alive; there's no hope to make sense of it now, forty-nine years after his death.
Just pieces of him now remain—and not enough to know him well by proxy. Pictures, some newspaper clippings. Facts—a date of birth, a year of death, a wedding anniversary. His favorite joke. It's said that one's favorite joke says something about a person. John Noble's favorite joke was the one about the guy who complains to his buddy that his wife is a terrible housekeeper, just filthy; "I've got to move the dirty dishes every time I want to piss in the sink." A touch of appreciation for the absurd then, it seems. But mostly, there is just enough left of John Noble to draw an outline, with the rest to be filled in by supposition and imagination.
He was fiery—that much is sure. And he loved a good fight. It was a terrible habit that would stick with him throughout his life, yielding lost jobs but great stories. A man of small stature with an outsized need to prove himself, he was dishonorably discharged from the military service he had lied his way into, sometime just around his 20th birthday and the Spanish-American War. In later years, he would draw an imposing man into a fistfight on the bus, because the guy was eating a salami and "blowing his salami breath" at the irascible scrapper.
At 19, he married the 16-year-old Elisabeth Rogatz, forming a union that no one thought could possibly last; they were too young; they were foolish. And for more than sixty years, John Noble marked their anniversary by saying, "They were right—it's never going to last. I'm going to divorce her." It was a weirdly wonderful union that lasted until death parted them, just as they had promised each other it would, probably because it was such a perfect, peculiar match. His foul temper was nothing to her; the angrier he would get about something, anything, everything, the more she would laugh, and the more she would laugh, the angrier he'd get. He loved to bake, and once made her two cherry pies, which were still cooling when she came in and said, "Oh. I wanted apple." John Noble picked up the pies and flung them against the wall, sending Elisabeth into gales of laughter as he stormed out and pie slid down the wall.
Then again, maybe what made their marriage work was spending much of it separated as John Noble was touring the world.
(John Noble is the clown on the bottom, twisting his body into its own trapeze in the advertisement to the left.)
Small but incredibly strong, and flexible, he made a career for himself as an acrobatic contortionist. He trained with his aunt and his uncle, known as The Nolas, and for some time, the three of them worked together, ever pictured in the same order, with young John Noble on the right. After his time with The Nolas, which, one imagines, ended with the retirement of his relatives and mentors, he spent the next several years as a part of various acts, though none of them found him any measure of success beyond a living, no small feat itself in those days.
It wasn't until John Noble founded The Richard Brothers: Comedy Gymnasts that he began to make a name for himself, even if it wasn't his name. The other Richard Brother was not his brother, though they shared at least one notable trait in common—not being named Richard. From whence the name was taken is anyone's guess.
The Richard Brothers
The Richard Brothers toured for many years, traveling all over the world. In one of John Noble's notebooks, he keeps a record of their destinations, and he can be followed from Rockaway Beach to London to Australia and back again, until his penciled notes are suddenly obscured with newspaper clippings—adverts for and reviews of their shows. Over time, the Richard Brothers move from opening act to headliners. The comedy gymnasts could draw a crowd, ladies and gents.
And John Noble always came home to Elisabeth. During the years he was a Vaudevillian, they had two daughters—and later, as a complete surprise, a son, born when his sisters were already nearly adults themselves and his father's aging body was soon to end his career as a traveling acrobat. This son was called Gene, and he was my grandfather.
One night in 1958, John Noble said to his son, like him an ardent stamp-collector, "Gene, I can't die yet. I've got too much work to do on those stamps." Though John Noble was 80 years old, he was in perfect health, strong in body and mind. Gene said, "You'll live another ten years. What are you talking about?" That night, John Noble died in his sleep.
His granddaughter, Mama Shakes, remembers him to me, tells me of his beloved cat Tommy, tells me of the time he hit his head on the edge of a trampoline and came home with his entire head bandaged and one wee eye poking out. Some of these are simply stories she has heard, part of the oral tradition of our family, and I search for myself in them. What part of John Noble has passed to me?
I have felt him my whole life in my body, stretchy and bendy and able to contort itself into awkward pretzels. My joints, my tendons, my curving fingers—they are his. Gene could wiggle his ears; I can roll my eyes in opposite directions. I am short and strong, with muscled legs, like Mama Shakes and Gene—and John Noble, who wanted to see the world.
Looking through his things, the remnants of his life, on Easter Sunday, Mama Shakes pulls an ancient, flaking newspaper from a bag, and Iain picks it up gingerly to look at it. "This is a paper from Britain!" he exclaims. It is a copy of The Performer, from May 1914, on the very precipice of World War I, and there is no hint in its pages of the imminent conflict. Iain reads apartment listings for London and Edinburgh. He turns brittle pages gently. We look at advertisements for the Vaudevillians converging in London from all over the world.
"Isn't it amazing," says Iain, "that ninety-three years ago, this paper was brought from Britain, and now here's a Scotsman, reading it in Indiana." As big as the world ever may have felt to John Noble, in that moment, it felt beautifully small to me.
The Vaudevillian, John Noble
[Originally published April 2007.]
Sarah Palin Sexism Watch, Part 29
[Trigger warning for misogyny.]
Last week, I mentioned that Bill Maher had called Sarah Palin a "dumb twat" on his show. On the next episode, he called Palin and Rep. Michele Bachmann "bimbos." Then, Sunday night, during a comedy show in Dallas, he reportedly called Sarah Palin a "cunt," because "there's just no other word for her."
Except twat and bimbo, of course.
Now, it's no secret that I don't like Bill Maher, who relies on deeply misogynist, routinely homophobic, fat-hating, ableist, transphobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, religion-hating jokes, and is a one-man rape joke machine, and then wonders why it is that marginalized people in the US tend to disagree with his assertion that we've got it so good here; what the fuck are we complaining about?
Maher's certainly not the only public humorist who pulls the same shtick, but one of of the particulars about the frame of his comedy is that he's a rational, thoughtful, intellectual guy. And he quite observably is smart enough to understand how institutionalized prejudices like sexism work, but chooses to utilize perpetuating language anyway.
Someone as clever as Maher cannot be confused about why it's problematic for a girl to be born into a world in which a powerful woman can be demeaned as a twat, bimbo, and cunt by people who disagree with her.
Someone as clever as Maher cannot be mystified by the concept that a misogynist slur against an individual works specifically and only because institutionalized sexism is directed against the collective; its power comes from the narrative that women, as a whole, are less than.
Someone as clever as Maher cannot be bewildered by the fact that calling Palin a cunt does not happen in a void, but in a culture that continues to marginalize women's voices across the political spectrum.
Someone as clever as Maher cannot be ignorant about what he's doing when he calls a woman (or a man) a twat or a cunt: If you're turning a (typically) female body part into a slur to insult someone, the implication is necessarily that twats/cunts are bad, nasty, less than, in some way something that a person wouldn't want to be or be associated with. That's how insults work. When twat/cunt is used as a slur, it is dependent on construing a (typically) female body part negatively—and it thus inexorably insults women in the process.
Someone as clever as Maher, who writes and talks for a living, also probably has other words in his vocabulary that he could use, if he needs to express his contempt for Sarah Palin—words that aren't inherently misogynistic, words that don't demean other women in the process of discussing a particular woman.
I challenge him to use those words, and prove to us he's actually as smart a guy as he thinks he is.
----------------
Related Reading: Double Standards, Tea Party Crumpets, Vanity Unfair, Same Boat; Grab a Paddle, Sarah Palin Sexism Watch, Part 28, On Choice, Parity for Palin.
[H/T to @scatx. Sarah Palin Sexism Watch: Parts One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen, Fourteen, Fifteen, Sixteen, Seventeen, Eighteen, Nineteen, Twenty, Twenty-One, Twenty-Two, Twenty-Three, Twenty-Four, Twenty-Five, Twenty-Six, Twenty-Seven, Twenty-Eight. We defend Sarah Palin against misogynist smears not because we endorse her or her politics, but because that's how feminism works.]
Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime
Lady Gaga: "Born This Way"
Lady Gaga released the above new single last month. It's being marketed as something of a gay anthem, with its catchy lyrics like "No matter gay, straight, or bi, lesbian, transgendered life, I'm on the right track baby, I was born to survive." The overall theme seems to be "love yourself for who you are" which is, undoubtedly, a nice sentiment.
On the other hand, there's been some question about the appropriateness of the lyrics. For example, her use of the word chola (among others), with one critic stating:
Are Latinos supposed to be grateful that a white superstar, born of privilege, included a racist shout out to our community? Not all Latino ladies are 'cholas' in the barrio, some of them are teachers, writers, engineers and nurses and doctors.
Here are the complete lyrics:
It doesn't matter if you love him, or capital H-I-M
Just put your paws up
'Cause you were born this way, baby
My mama told me when I was young
We are all born superstars
She pulled my hand and put my lipstick on
In the glass of her boudoir
"There's nothin' wrong with lovin' who you are"
She said, "'cause He made you perfect, babe"
"So hold your head up girl and you'll go far,
Listen to me when I say"
(Chorus 1)
I'm beautiful in my way
'Cause God makes no mistakes
I'm on the right track, baby
I was born this way
Don't hide yourself in regret
Just love yourself and you're set
I'm on the right track baby
I was born this way
(Chorus 2)
Ooo there ain't no other way
Baby I was born this way
Baby I was born this way
Ooo there ain't no other way
Baby, I was born this way
I'm on the right track baby
I was born this way
Don't be a drag - just be a queen
Don't be a drag - just be a queen
Don't be a drag - just be a queen
Don't be!
Give yourself prudence
And love your friends
Subway kid, rejoice your truth
In the religion of the insecure
I must be myself, respect my youth
A different lover is not a sin
Believe capital H-I-M (hey hey hey)
I love my life I love this record and
Mi amore vole fè, yay (love needs faith)
(Repeat Chorus 1 and 2)
Don't be a drag, just be a queen
Whether you're broke or evergreen
You're black, white, beige, chola descent
You're Lebanese, you're Orient
Whether life's disabilities
Left you outcast, bullied, or teased
Rejoice and love yourself today
'Cause baby you were born this way
No matter gay, straight, or bi,
Lesbian, transgendered life
I'm on the right track baby
I was born to survive
No matter black, white or beige
Chola or Orient made
I'm on the right track baby
I was born to be brave
(Repeat Chorus 1 and 2)
The video features pink triangles and unicorns and I don't know what the fuck else, which I guess is gay? I am no fan of pink triangles, and steadfastly refuse to wear one. But hey, reclamation and all that, I guess, so wevs. All kinds of other stuff goes on in the video that I don't feel qualified to comment on.
Anyway, what say you? New inclusive anthem of queer empowerment? Or insensitive cultural appropriation? Neither? Both? Discuss.
This Is A Real Thing In The World
[Image: A bag of imported Doritos featuring two mascots (maybe) that are, I dunno, wrassling perhaps, or doing acrobatics, one of whom has their foot planted firmly in the other's "bathing suit area."]
If anyone knows what's going on, feel free to explain. And if you can translate the bag, I'd appreciate it. I want to know exactly what flavour these are.
Really, Gearbox? Really?
by Shaker and Shakesville Moderator Scott Madin. Cross-posted at Fineness & Accuracy.
[Trigger warning for objectification, sexual assault, broad-spectrum misogynist fuckery.]
I had really expected that nearly two years ago would be the last time I'd write about Duke Nukem. I'd happily put the character, the franchise, and its gleeful participation in the worst traits of gamer culture, out of my mind. Until Gearbox Software announced they had acquired the rights and that the vapor-for-fourteen-years Duke Nukem Forever would be seeing release after all. So, thanks for that, guys. That's just swell.
Since that miserable announcement, almost like clockwork, predictably awful globs of congealed misogyny have been flung forth from Gearbox HQ, splattering all over the gaming press. They held a press event at a strip club; they flagrantly violated PAX's longstanding "no booth babe" policy (a policy which, it seems, contrary to how it was presented, was basically voluntary all along); and most recently they announced that the multiplayer capture-the-flag mode (a de rigueur component, of course, of any multiplayer shooter) would be entitled "Capture the Babe," and that when a player had "captured the babe," slinging the presumably-otherwise-passive female character over his shoulder, she would occasionally "freak out," and need to be slapped (on the ass, Gearbox hastened to clarify, not the face! So that's OK then) to "calm her down."
...yeah. The aim of the game mode is to 1) abduct sexually objectified "babes" who have no agency of their own, but 2) who hysterically "freak out" at being bodily lifted up and hauled around, 3) who you then physically abuse to ensure their compliance, and 4) collect them as trophies.
I was going to write at more length about this, but Gunthera1's excellent post at The Border House pretty much covers it, so I recommend reading her if you need more background or detail.
I'll add a couple of other notes, however. As a bit of background, Randy Pitchford from Gearbox was on the "Irrational Interviews" podcast produced by Boston-based Bioshock developers Irrational, back in February, and when asked about the challenges of marketing games, he (I'm afraid I'm paraphrasing from memory, but I don't believe I'm misrepresenting him) explained that seeing marketing materials for a game is like "when you meet a girl (sic), and you decide in 5 seconds 'would I do her, or not?'" It's obviously a total shock that a fellow like that might be insensitive to concerns about sexist content in the game he's making.
And finally, Penny Arcade — having, perhaps, after the Dickwolves debacle, decided to prove everyone wrong who ever praised them for attempting to take a thoughtful approach to game-related controversies — have joined in, with a comic showing Tycho, in an exaggerated "moral scold" posture, wagging his finger at Gabe and declaiming, "Did you know there's a mode in Duke Nukem where you slap a woman's bottom?" In the second panel, Gabe, looking bored, responds, "Did you know there's a mode in Call of Duty where you murder, like, a million people?" as Tycho appears taken aback. In the third panel, Gabe continues, "It's called Call of Duty."
In an echo of their deliberate misrepresentation of criticism of the "Sixth Slave" comic, here they misconstrue the DNF criticisms as being solely about the slap rather than about using women as trophies — literally objects — ignoring that at least within the conceptual framework of the game enemy soldiers in the Call of Duty games have agency and contend directly with the player, and slandering hundreds of thousands of soldiers as "murderers" into the bargain.
It seems like for every lovely moment like David Gaider's eloquent rebuttal to an aggrieved "Straight Male Gamer," there's still a half-dozen episodes which (to borrow Mr. Walker's phrase) make my spine hurt. This is why we can't have nice things, game industry.
