Hosted by Sir Shakes-a-Lot.
The Virtual Pub Is Open
[Explanations: lol your fat. pathetic anger bread. hey your gay.]
TFIF, Shakers!
Belly up to the bar,
and name your poison!
On Being a Thin Friend to Fatsronauts
[Content Note: Fat-shaming; body policing; bullying; gaslighting.]
Last night, in the comments to Big Fat Love, Shaker rvh asked, in response to a line in my piece:
"maybe your thin friends passive-aggressively use your weight to make themselves feel better about their insecurities"...This is a particular issue for women, since "diet/weight talk" and body policing are so central to much of female communication—it's a source of solidarity or contention (or both) between mothers and daughters (and sisters, etc.), a means of bonding between female friends and colleagues, a competitive frame between women, a means of auditing inclusion and exclusion in female groups—and is thus the source of a lot of good feelings and bad feelings among women. It is not, however, exclusive to women. One of the worst examples of ongoing, explicit, and profoundly harmful body policing around weight that I know is between a father and a son.
How does this work? I am asking because I wouldn't ever want to do it and I genuinely don't know what behaviour would fit into that category.
First, a caveat: Fat people police one another, too. (See Brian's great post, "Fat Isolation," which addresses some of the ways in which fat people engage with fat-shaming narratives.) This post isn't about how fat people are perfect saintly victims of meany thin people: Some of the most vicious fat-shaming ever directed at me has been by fat people who just weren't as fat as me, and boy howdy was their fragile self-esteem wrapped up in simply not being the fattest person in the room. And fat people even have their own special narratives of shaming one another, like the old "at least I'm proportionately fat!" chestnut, used to shame anyone whose fat body is fatter on the bottom, or on top, or in the torso, or the limbs, or some variation on failing to be a perfectly plump version of a thin person.
But, what we don't have is thin privilege, of the sort that gifts one the luxury of never having to consider the ways in which our language, and our public participation in the culture of weight-obsessed "diet/weight talk" and body policing, can inadvertently hurt and dehumanize the (other) fat people around us. That's central to the question rvh asked, and that's the question I'm going to answer.
Sometimes, it's just a function of unexamined privilege. It may not be your conscious intent to use a fat friend's weight to counterbalance your own insecurities, but that can be an unintended communication in habits like constantly referring to yourself as fat, or saying you "feel fat," or announcing that you need to lose weight, or body policing other people in front of a fat friend.
If you're saying things that could quite reasonably make your fat friend think, "Jesus, if zie thinks that about hirself/that other person who is not as fat as I am, what must zie think about ME?!" that's a problem.
If you're saying things that oblige your fat friend reassure you, "No, you're not fat; you look great!" that's a problem.
If you routinely talk about "looking good" and "being fat" as mutually exclusive concepts, e.g. "Oh, I look terrible in that picture—look how fat I look!", thus implicitly conveying to your fat friend that zie can't be fat and look good at the same time, that's a problem.
And, if your fat friend points out one of these unintended communications to you, and your response is either gaslighting ("I didn't mean it that way; you're putting words in my mouth because you're just sensitive about your weight!") or trying to create some secondary beauty standard just for fat people ("It's not that fat people can't look good; you just good look in a different way, but you really know how to work what you've got!"), that's a problem.
One of the things that thin friends have done to me my whole life, often without any malicious intent, is treat my general (but not total) lack of participation in the unwinnable game of achieving the beauty standard, as either evidence of my having "given up" or the logical response given how far outside the privileged aesthetic I am. Why bother, when you so obviously can't achieve anything resembling beauty, anyway? Oof.
There is truth to the fact that deviating so wildly from what is culturally regarded as "objective" beauty failed to inspire in me any ravenous desire to attain status on my appearance (though feminism was frankly a greater disincentive; I was still a small in-betweenie when I formed boundaries around how much I was willing to conform to imposed norms). But thin friends have often unintentionally conveyed harsh messaging about how (un)satisfied I should be with my body, by remarking on how evident it is I don't care. A lot of backhand-complimentary messaging verging on "letting yourself go" memes.
That's a problem, too.
And if you react differently to a thin friend's self-policing than to a fat friend's, if you figure that a thin friend wants to hear, "Oh, I hate my body, too!" and a fat friend wants to hear, "Oh, but your face/hair/blouse is so pretty!" that's also a big problem. Not only does it convey that fat friends should hate their bodies, but hey here's a weak compliment, it also conveys to fat friends that the body policing which is an invitation for inclusion in a sisterhood among thin women does not extend to us.
Your flaws are so big or multitudinous, we don't even know what do to with you. Often, thin women, in a failed bid at sensitivity, exclude fat women from self-policing with platitudes, instead of just not doing it at all. One of the least obvious but most common ways thin women hurt their fat friends is with pity.
Sometimes, it's evidence of an agenda. Most of us have thin friends who do this sort of thing out of thin privilege—simply not considering what it unintentionally communicates—and many of us also have thin friends (or family members, etc.) who do this sort of thing with an agenda. That is, they fat-shame with the desired objective of feeling better about themselves.
I have a thin friend who incessantly gripes to me about how "fat" she's getting. She will examine herself in a mirror, or look down at her leg while she's wearing shorts, or grab her flesh and say things like, "Look at this disgusting cellulite!" She then looks at me pointedly, waiting for me to "compliment" her by observing the manifestly obvious: That she is not fat.
(I trust I don't need to elucidate why obliging me to treat "You're not fat" as a compliment is no fucking fun.)
Or she'll grouse about having not accomplished some professional goal she thought she'd have accomplished by her current age, or about getting grey hair, and say, "Well, at least I'm doing better than X. I just saw her at the store and OMG she has gained SO MUCH WEIGHT." She then carefully scrutinizes my face, searching for evidence that I feel terrible about being fat, so she can feel better about herself because at least she's not fat and feeling terrible about it!
Inevitably, I disappoint her by saying instead, "Your body is strong and healthy, which is such a privilege for which to be thankful!" or "Oh, I'd love to run into her. She was always so nice/funny/smart/whatever."
I disappoint her by failing to give her the satisfaction of seeing me crushed at the implication I'm a monstrous wreck in comparison to her—an implication that cannot be overtly challenged, because, of course, she gives herself plenty of room to say, "That's not what I said! You're just being insecure!"
We are old friends, but I don't see her very much—for reasons that I'm guessing are obvious, but I will state it plainly nonetheless: My body does not exist to make other people feel better about theirs, and I do not consider my fatness the negative benchmark on a competitive scale.
You may be wondering how you're supposed to convey that you're unhappy with your body in a way that doesn't effectively imply there's something wrong with your fat friend's body. And the truth is: Maybe there isn't. Like other forms of privilege, thin privilege means that complaining of some aspect of that privilege, even if it is a legitimate complaint, can make you look like a real asshole to people who don't share it.
"My raise at work wasn't enough that I can buy the dream home I wanted, and I'm super disappointed!" is a valid thing to express, when you've worked hard and laid plans and been given promises by an employer who didn't deliver. But it's also something most of us realize isn't a concern about which we want to oblige consolation from our unemployed friend who's just lost hir home to foreclosure.
Body policing and "diet/weight talk" are so pervasive, and fat hatred so accepted, that it's not considered bad form for people with thin privilege to oblige commiseration from fat friends. (In fact, some thin people get miffed when fat people object to being drafted into such conversations: "I thought you of all people would understand!") The first step in avoiding trading on thin privilege is simply to acknowledge that even participating in policing, of self or others, can convey negative, judgmental messaging to fat friends.
Obviously, every friendship is unique, and some fat friends are completely comfortable discussing body image with thin friends. But that should not be assumed, even if fat friends have previously joined in weight talk and body policing. Fat people are expected, and often pressured, to join in, and can use that participation as a self-defense mechanism, even if it makes them anxious and unhappy.
(For me, as one example, I'm comfortable discussing body image with some friends, and not others, based on individual levels of empathy and sensitivity, and the quality of the discussion—attention-seeking negativity I can't abide, but straightforward or humorous self-evaluating is something I value with many of my friends.)
If you want to discuss body image with a fat friend, my recommendation is this: Talk to them explicitly about their comfort level with that subject. If you're not good enough friends to have that conversation, don't discuss it all.
Today in Rape Culture
by Shakesville Moderator Scott Madin
[Content Note: Rape, rape culture, rape apologism/trivialization, misogyny, racism/Orientalism.]
Recently a company called Soda Pop Miniatures launched a Kickstarter project to fund a card game called "Tentacle Bento". The game features anime/manga-style art, mainly of busty young women in stereotypical "schoolgirl" uniforms, and is set at "Takoashi University"*, a fictional school in Japan. (Note here that John Cadice, the owner of Soda Pop and lead artist on the game, is a white American.)
The game riffs on the conventions of tentacle hentai, with players taking on the role of the monsters, and competing to "snatch" the most "girls". As I understand it, there is no actually explicit or graphic art or language in the game, nor is the action of the game referred to as "rape" at any point — what's happening is conveyed by innuendo and an assumption of prior understanding of the genre's conventions.
Games journalist Brandon Sheffield (@necrosofty on Twitter) was the first person I saw publicizing that Kickstarter was hosting a project that trivialized rape for entertainment, and after further commentary and complaints to Kickstarter that this violated their terms on "prohibited content", Kickstarter canceled the project. (For those unfamiliar with Kickstarter, when a project launches a funding deadline is set, and Kickstarter users can pledge to back the project; projects offer backer rewards at different pledge amounts, but no one's credit card gets charged unless the project reaches its funding goal, and then only once the deadline arrives.)
(At the $500 pledge level for Tentacle Bento, a backer could choose to submit a photo of "yourself or your wife/girlfriend" to be used as a model for a victim card; as far as I can tell these special cards were only going to be included in promotional card decks sent to backers, not the retail product. Eight people had pledged at the $500 level when the project was canceled.)
Sheffield and other critics fielded a lot of backlash after Kickstarter canceled the project, in all the predictable forms. Then Mike "Gabe" Krahulik of Penny Arcade (who I'm sure you all remember from the enormous mess that erupted over their "dickwolves" comic strip) decided he'd support Soda Pop — who moved their fundraising efforts to their own website after Kickstarter pulled the plug on them — by tweeting a link to their donation page.
I'm sure everyone can guess how things went after that.
Following are the main links I know of about the game, its cancellation on Kickstarter, and the controversy that's followed. Please feel welcome and encouraged to drop additional links into comments.
The Kickstarter Page. (The pages for canceled and unsuccessful projects, as well as successful projects remain up — I'm not sure for how long.)
Trailer Video. (In this trailer, as @diannapevensie noted, exclusively white actors portray the students and staff of a purportedly Japanese university.)
Brandon Sheffield: Tentacle Bento and Kickstarter: When No Regulation Is Bad Regulation.
Anna Anthropy (@auntiepixelante): Do You Really, Really, Not Get the Difference?
Alex Raymond (@elenielstorm): Kickstarter Cancels Tentacle Rape Card Game.
Shawn (@Counterpower): Why I Didn't Attend PAX East.
Mat Jones (@pillowfort): Penny Arcade, Tentacle Bento, A Summation.
Alli Thresher (@AlliThrasher), guest-posting at Alyssa Rosenberg's blog: A Tentacle Rape Game – Why Are People Supporting This Again?
Sheffield: The Boundaries of Humor: An Interview with John Cadice, Creator of Tentacle Bento.
Dianna E. Anderson (@diannapevensie): Making a Game of Rape.
--------------------
* I don't speak or read Japanese, but from what I can gather "tako" means "octopus".
BushQuotes!
Chapter 3, page 37: "The newspaper deliveryman, a man with a gimme cap and without several teeth, was loading the rack of papers when Karen saw him stop and look at the huge picture of me on the front page."
Still talking about the hunting incident. So instead, I thought I'd share with you how George W. Bush views the classic Texan hoi polloi. Toothless and trucker-hatted. Obvs.
This book is the worst.
[From George Bush's A Charge to Keep, gifted to me by Deeky, because he hates me. In the US, all people who plan to run for president write a shitty book. (Some are less shitty than others, by which I mean the Democrats' books.) A Charge to Keep was George W. Bush's shitty I-wanna-be-president book, published in 1999. I am blogging one random quote per page every day until I have either made my way through the book or lost it behind a couch.]
Friday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by piano music.
Recommended Reading:
Paige: A Planet Under Pressure, and Why Gender Matters
Jesse: What Did JPMorgan Execs Know and When Did They Know It?
andreana: Set it Off: On Obama, Marriage, and Visibility [Content Note: The post at this link includes discussion of homophobia, transphobia, gender policing, and associated violence.]
Andrew: Gay Families Meet with Lawmakers in D.C.
Laura: There's Nothing Radical About Transphobia
Jim: Facts Are Cool [Content Note: The post at this link includes statistics about oppression and violence, discussion of privilege, and use of ableist language.]
Lesley: A Rape Survivor Speaks [Content Note: The post at this link is a survivor's impact statement, which includes details of a sexual assault and its aftermath.]
Melissa: Trailer Watch: Won't Back Down [video]
Leave your links and recommendations in comments...
Random Nerd Blogging: Everything's Better With Sea Monkeys!
...because "Everything's Better With Brine Shrimp" just didn't have the same ring to it.
[Description: An advertisement which says "Only $1.00!" in one corner, over a picture of monkey-looking, anthropomorphized sea creatures which amazingly resemble a white hetero-normative family: Dad, Mom with blond hair in a bow, and two monkey young'uns. In an inset cartoon, a white, heteronormative HUMAN family--Dad, Mom with blonde hair, and two boys--is gazing excitedly into a bowl full of tiny critters. Text: "Enter the Wonderful World of Amazing Sea-Monkeys! Own a BOWLFULL of HAPPINESS! Instant Pets! Just add water--that's all! In one second your amazing Sea-Monkeys actually come to life! Yes they hatch instantly, right before your eyes. Now simply grow and enjoy the most adorable pets ever to bring smiles, laughter, and fun into your home. SO EAGER TO PLEASE, THEY CAN EVEN BE TRAINED! Always clowning around, these frolicsome pets swim, stunt, and play games with each other. Because they are so full of tricks, you'll never tire of watching them. And raising Sea-monkeys is so easy, even a six year old can do so without help. Sea-Monkeys eat very little, and they keep their water so clean, they require only a minimum care although they LOVE attention. Anyone who enjoys the company of pets will ADORE Sea-Monkeys.Best of all, we even teach them to obey your commends like a pack of friendly trained seals. What a way to surprise your guests.]
Scanned from the Sep-Oct 1973 Justice League of America, no 107.
Generally Awful
Mitt Romney, just doing normal campaign stuff.
In today's totally trenchant election news, Team Romney has launched its first general election ad campaign, and, naturally, it's hilarious. The spot opens with the question, "What would a Romney presidency be like?" HA HA TERRIBLE! That is definitely the perfect question to ask—the one that makes me LOL and yell "SO TERRIBLE! HIS PRESIDENCY WOULD BE THE WORST!"
Text Onscreen: "What would a Romney Presidency be like?" (HA HA GARBAGE!)Text in parentheses mine, in case that wasn't evident.
Male voiceover, over images of Romney campaigning: "What would a Romney Presidency be like?" (HA HA VILE!)
Text Onscreen: "Day 1."
Male voiceover, over images of industry and people working, then over more images of Romney campaigning: "Day one—President Romney immediately approves the Keystone Pipeline, creating thousands of jobs that Obama blocked. (Please note how candidate Romney is called PRESIDENT ROMNEY, but President Obama is called OBAMA. Subliminal messaging I get, but holy lord that is some disrespectful shit, right there.) President Romney introduces tax cuts and reforms that will reward job creators, not punish them. President Romney issues orders to begin replacing Obamacare with common sense healthcare reform. That's what a Romney presidency will be like. (A dictatorship that evidently disbands Congress? Cool.)
Mitt Romney voiceover, over black and white photograph of him holding hands with his wife: I'm Mitt Romney, and I approve this message.
What a terrific campaign advert! Good job, Mitt Romney! You continue to be the best that the GOP has to offer, apparently.
In other news, Newt Gingrich is back on the campaign trail, to convince his supporters to back Mitt Romney, whom Gingrich spent the entire campaign viciously attacking. Mitt Romney is so pleased, I'm sure.
Mitt Romney has also started vetting his veep picks. Ha ha pick Sarah Palin! She's great!
Meanwhile, President Obama is out there in the world, doing his thing. Which, during the election, will mainly consist of not being Mitt Romney.
Talk about these things! Or don't. Whatever makes you happy. Life is short.
Quote of the Day
"I'm not familiar precisely with exactly what I said, but I stand by what I said, whatever it was."—GOP Presidential Candidate and Professor of Geniusology at Integrity University Mitt Romney, on his previous and current positions on using the Reverend Jeremiah Wright to attack President Barack Obama.
Solid candidate, Republicans. Great job.
Trayvon Martin Updates
[Content Note: Violence; racism; victim-blaming.]
Three new news items to share:
1. Orlando Sentinel—Encounter between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin 'avoidable,' cops said in report: "Sanford police believed the encounter between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin was 'ultimately avoidable' if Zimmerman had 'remained in his vehicle and awaited the arrival of law enforcement'." In their coverage of the same item, USA Today reports the police document also notes: "Zimmerman had reported 'suspicious persons, all young black males' to police on three previous occasions in 2011."
2. MSNBC—Trayvon Martin killed by single gunshot fired from 'intermediate range,' autopsy shows: "Florida teenager Trayvon Martin died from a single gunshot wound to the chest fired from 'intermediate range,' according to an autopsy report reviewed Wednesday by NBC News." That conflicts with previous reports saying the gun was pressed against Martin's chest when fired, which are based on a conclusion drawn by a Florida Department of Law Enforcement firearms expert from the presence of powder burns on Martin's hoodie and shirt.
3. New York Daily News—Trayvon Martin had marijuana in system the night he was gunned down: "Trayvon Martin had marijuana in his system the night he was gunned down in a Florida condo complex, according to a medical report released Thursday. Martin's autopsy report shows he had traces of THC, the active ingredient in pot, in his blood and urine."
Guess which one of these is getting the most attention?
If you guessed "Trayvon Martin was HIGH!" give yourself 1,000 points, then please donate them to the Center for Constitutional Rights.
Apparently, in the US in the year 2012, you still need to say out loud that even if someone uses weed, that is not a justification for killing them.
And, you know, during the fully one million times I have smoked weed in my life and then walked down a street, no one has called the cops on me and/or tried to murder me. That's not a coincidence. That's evidence of racism which privileges my high white ass.
UPDATE: Think Progress also has an item today about Zimmerman being a racist bully at work. And eventually getting fired for incessant complaints to HR about his colleagues.
Question of the Day
If you could be a contestant on any reality competition or gameshow, which would you choose?
"I would never be on any of those shows in a million fucking years" is also a viable answer.
In fact, it would be my answer, were it not for the existence of the Amazing Race. I would love to be on the Amazing Race, despite my patent inability to travel/move/live without pain, drive a stick-shift, or run flat-out for at least a quarter-mile, lol.
Iain and I like to watch the Amazing Race and decide which one of us would do which individual tasks. He'd do all the eating gross stuff ones. I'd do all the dangling from, climbing on, jumping off, or balancing on high places ones. If he even glimpses a bungee cord, he exclaims, "YOURS!"
BushQuotes!
Chapter 3, page 36: "Long pause."
That is an actual quote from the page, the entirety of which recounts a hunting anecdote I've no interest in sharing.
You're welcome.
[From George Bush's A Charge to Keep, gifted to me by Deeky, because he hates me. In the US, all people who plan to run for president write a shitty book. (Some are less shitty than others, by which I mean the Democrats' books.) A Charge to Keep was George W. Bush's shitty I-wanna-be-president book, published in 1999. I am blogging one random quote per page every day until I have either made my way through the book or lost it behind a couch.]
Assvertising
by Shaker QLH, who has a very cute dog.
[Content Note: Fat hatred, body policing, food policing, and bullying.]
I was watching Hulu the other night when, with no warning, something disgusting happened all over my monitor.
It was a Geico commercial, part of their "easier way to save" series. Perhaps you've been subjected to it, too. The premise is: A middle-class, middle-aged white man hires a trio of thin teenaged girls to fat-shame him, supposedly as a cheap alternative to a weight-loss program.
White middle-aged man in button-down shirt and tie, sitting alone on a couch as if for an interview. He says, "Weight-loss programs can be expensive, so to save some money I just got the popular girls from the local middle school to follow me around." Cut to the man in his home at night, wearing a t-shirt, opening refrigerator in darkened kitchen. He pulls a sandwich on plate from the fridge and sniffs it. At the sound of voices, he turns around; we see the trio of "popular girls" standing there.This commercial inspires me with many impulses. Among them is the desire to buy my insurance anywhere besides Geico.
Girls: Ew. Seriously? So gross.
He gives the food another look, as if guiltily reconsidering, and puts the plate back in the fridge. Cut to a scene in a brightly lit diner. A plate of waffles with whipped cream and strawberries is delivered to his table. As the plate is set before the man, the girls lean over from the adjacent booth.
Girls: Ew. Seriously? That is so gross.
His shoulders slump dejectedly and he reaches for the menu. Cut to a scene in a parking lot at night. The man is alone in his car, dressed in a hooded sweatshirt over a t-shirt, eating a burger, with an open fast food bag at his side. Through the car windows, the fast food establishment is visible. A flash pops; the girls are at his car window and one has just taken a photograph of him biting into the burger. Mustard and ketchup are smeared on his cheek.
Girls: Ew. Seriously? Dude, that is so totally gross.
The man sighs and tosses the burger back into the bag. "Gross, I know," he says.
Male voiceover, over Geico logo: There's an easier way to save. Geico. Fifteen minutes could save you 15% or more.
Stacy Bias has done a good job of teasing out some of the nuances of the bullshit on parade here.
Main dude's a moderately chubby white guy, clearly a professional, but made to be a schlubby one as he's wearing a button-up shirt and tie, but no jacket. This gives the impression straight-away of mediocrity. He sits submissively, with his hands folded in his lap and his expression is alternately eager and dull. He's the underdog 'everyman', likable but visibly flawed, a little bit lonely (he's never shown with anyone else, save the tormenting triad), intelligent but lacking in common sense and self-control. He's passive, approval-seeking, malleable and clearly unsatisfied with himself.This commercial suggests not only that it's funny to fat-shame people, but that it's effective. That by fat-shaming and food-shaming people, you're helping them. And that when people shame you, you should immediately change your behaviors and make different choices, lest they do it again.
The teen girls are not just any teens. They are the "popular girls" and, for the purpose of this ad, that detail is important. This guy could have been a family man; he could have hired his daughter and her friends or the girls from next door. Instead, he is pictured as single and the iconic 'unattainables' of male adolescent fantasy are called in to provide a metaphor for his lack of sexual currency and respect from self and others. He is transported by his lack of will-power from his agency and authority as an adult male back into the role of the bullied and rejected youth.
Note the secret eating (in his car, alone, in a parking lot, late at night – the paparazzi-flash of the teen girls' camera phone capturing his mustard-stained cheek and indicating this as a humiliating moment that risks his social exposure), the seeming 'childishness' of his food choices (the strawberry waffles, thick with whipped cream and covered in sprinkles), slovenliness (an uncovered sandwich, bread half-off, pulled from the fridge in an old t-shirt, indicating inactivity.) Each of these stereotypical representations further naturalizes the myth of the fat individual as a byproduct of weak-will, poor food choices, excessive consumption and inactivity. They also reinforce the hierarchy of thin vs. fat wherein it is socially acceptable to critique others bodies and/or eating habits providing they appear to be less healthy than yours.
The commercial also posits that fat-shaming should include both food- and behavior-policing. In one scenario, the man is eating fast food, which can be high in fat and sodium, and overly processed, and may not be a good nutritional choice for the individual character in this commercial, which people apparently no longer need a professional nutritionist who's aware of one's budget, everyday eating habits, etc. to assess, because judgmental teenaged girls are a sufficient alternative. (Ah, the summer job opportunities I missed in my youth!) But he's eating it alone, in his car, at night, as if it's something secret, something shameful, and he's eating so quickly and greedily that he's smearing it on his face, which is exactly how those gluttonous fatties eat, amirite? Self-control and napkins are for thin people!
The girls comment on his food, but then one of them additionally takes a picture of him. Since we all know that fat people are constantly stuffing food into their faces, seeing a fat person eat shouldn't be all that remarkable, but of course the point isn't that what he's doing is so extraordinary it warrants a snapshot, but that his shameful behavior must be documented and exposed.
In another scenario, he's eating leftovers. I don't know how he even has access to leftovers, because he apparently lives alone and everyone knows that fat people are so goddamned greedy that they never leave a crumb behind, but let's suspend disbelief for the sake of selling insurance and pretend that he'd been gorging himself in a food-smearing frenzy earlier and a morsel of food had escaped unscathed. So he's eating leftovers. He's alone again, at night again, and once more the scene has the sense of him sneaking food, of him engaging in shameful behavior. There's the implication, as in the car-eating scenario, that the girls are policing both the food itself and his behavior.
In the other scenario, he's eating in public in a diner during daylight, not sneaking food secretively at night. Presumably, he's going to eat it right at that table, not squirrel it away in shame. But who does he think he is to indulge in such a delicious and beautiful meal right out in the daylight like that? Fat people eating openly in the daylight without guilt is almost as terrible as fat people eating secretively in the nighttime wracked with shame! Plus, waffles with whipped cream are self-indulgent (and a little feminine). Gross!
(Who calls waffles gross? These girls are not from Pawnee!)
What are we to take from this? That the food is gross; that the man's behavior is gross; that the simple sight of this man eating is objectively gross; that this man himself is gross, as all fat people most certainly are.
What's clearly not gross, though, is shaming other people. Shaming other people is a good thing! Bullying is helpful! It's totally a valid problem-solving approach! And being fat is definitely a problem; you should definitely get to work on that immediately. Even if you're not fat yourself (and our definition of "fat" absolutely extends to include this guy, because he's as fat as we can safely portray on television without endangering children), you should feel very good about policing other people's behavior. We encourage you to examine and comment on what other people put into their own bodies. It's for their own good, you know. They'll be grateful for it! Trust us! We sell insurance!
It was especially smart of him, don't you think, to hire teenaged popular girls to shame him. Mean girls, as we all know, are ubiquitous and can be found at any school in the USA. It would've been ineffective to hire boys, who aren't as adept at bullying behavior, what with girls being so much more uniquely cruel. And more vocal about their opinions! I know that many of the middle-aged white men I know are very quick to change their behavior based on the opinions of teenaged girls. So that's certainly accurate.
Except that it's not accurate at all, and it suggests that something's wrong with him to be so affected by the words of teenaged girls (who, when they're not strutting around like sadistic hyenas, are frivolous and silly and don't understand how the world works, according to pop culture and conventional wisdom). He's a loser, you see. And a fat loser is certainly something new and different on my TV screen.
Also, bullying is funny. We've all definitely learned that by now.
Maybe, instead of investing in a trio of popular girls, he could invest in a meeting with a nutritionist. Or buy a HAES book.
And maybe, instead of buying my insurance from Geico, I'll choose another company. I don't want Geico putting "mean girls" in my backseat to mutter derogatory comments about my driving habits! If waffles are gross, how do they feel about a left turn signal? Disgusted, I'll bet!
There's so much to discuss here, we really should praise Geico for packing all of that garbage into a short thirty seconds. And by "praise," of course I mean "send contemptuous letters of disgust."
Contact Geico.
Photo of the Day
"The fuck?"
United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks to reporters at the State Department in Washington May 17, 2012. [Reuters Pictures]
OH NOES
Carol Morello and Ted Mellnik in the Washington Post—Census: Minority babies are now majority in United States.
For the first time in U.S. history, most of the nation's babies are members of minority groups, according to new census figures that signal the dawn of an era in which whites no longer will be in the majority.Underlying white people's alarmism about this statistic is the fear that people of color will "get into power" and treat whites as badly as whites have been treating people of color. (Whoooooops!)
Population estimates show that 50.4 percent of children younger than 1 last year were Hispanic, black, Asian American or in other minority groups. That's almost a full percentage point higher than the 49.5 percent of minority babies counted when the decennial census was taken in April 2010. Census Bureau demographers said the tipping point came three months later, in July.
...The census has forecast that non-Hispanic whites will be outnumbered in the United States by 2042, and social scientists consider that current status among infants a harbinger of the change.
Which is: 1. Why so many white people fiercely defend white privilege, in order that whites may remain a dominant minority; and 2. Reflective of a profound ignorance rooted in the assumption that people of color are monolithic and/or united in a hatred of white people, with no issues of racial animus creating divisions among non-white racial groups. (Which white supremacists help foment.) It's just one big wave of brown and black people with locked arms intent on destroying white people!
I'll leave you to deconstruct the many layers of fuckery embedded in white fear of non-white babies in comments.
I will first, however, just quickly note that the "darkening of America" reaching this apocalyptic tipping point and the simultaneous enactment of a record number of anti-choice restrictions in state houses across the country is not a coincidence. The white male Republican legislators primarily responsible for these restrictions are trying to force white women to have more white babies. (Never mind women of color will be forced to have more babies, too.) Conservative legislation, conservative Christian reproductive movements like Quiverfull, conservative broadcasting showcasing huge white broods like the Duggars, conservative anti-immigration policies, border walls—it's all been a response to this moment.
And yet the world spins on.
Look at What Joshua Ledet Did This Week
Have I mentioned I love Joshua Ledet? I love Joshua Ledet. Last night, the three remaining American Idol contestants sang three songs: One the judges chose for them, one producer Jimmy Iovine chose for them, and one they chose themselves. This is the song Joshua Ledet chose for himself:
Joshua Ledet, "Imagine"
Okay, so the thing about "Imagine" is that it's Iain's favorite song. And I already had tears streaming down my face watching Joshua Ledet sing this, immediately after a video showing him visiting his hometown in Louisiana, a place that clearly knows poverty—but then Iain said something about the song connecting John Lennon growing up poor in Liverpool, and Iain growing up poor in Edinburgh in the next generation, and Joshua Ledet growing up poor (or close to it) in Louisiana in the generation after that, and all the people still imagining, and it was at that point I could barely even see the Very Important Texts I was sending to Jessica aka scATX, because my eyeballs had exploded.
For his final performance, Joshua Ledet did the song chosen for him by Jimmy Iovine:
Joshua Ledet, "No More Drama"
Do you even remember Mary J. Blige doing this song at the Grammys? I didn't think anyone could touch that, ever, but hello let me introduce you to Joshua Ledet.
I WILL BUY ALL THE ALBUMS! ALL OF THEM!
Btw, I loved the cuts to his BFF Hollie in the audience, looking so mightily proud of him. Tres adorbz.
His third performance of the night, the song chosen by the judges, is here, which is the Etta James song "I'd Rather Be Blind." The imagery in the song is super problematic, but he sings it well. It's an old-fashioned kind of song, but it doesn't sound old-fashioned to me when he sings it. That's partly a testament to his skill, and his ability to update something just enough, while staying true to what makes it special, to make it sound modern, but it's also partly a testament to performers like Adele and other "throwback artists," who have made a space for that sound on the radio again.
Film Corner!
[Content Note: Misogyny; violence; infanticide; xenophobia; fat hatred.]
Just for the record, if I have to see this advert for Sacha Baron Cohen's new film The Dictator one more time, I am going to lose my shit.
Male voiceover, over the scene of a parade from the film: Time magazine raves The Dictator is "infernally funny." [Quoted text appears onscreen.]I agree that narratives, attitudes, and beliefs resulting in widespread female infanticide need to be challenged. I don't think that ironic "jokes" at which murderers of female babies could laugh without a moment's discomfort is the way to do it.
Cut to a scene of Sacha Baron Cohen as The Dictator working in a deli. A fat white boy tells him, "Shut up, loser." SBC kicks him into a stack of boxes; the kid yells and SBC laughs.
Voiceover, over scene of crowd cheering for The Dictator: Roger Ebert says Sacha Baron Cohen is today's "best comic filmmaker." [Quoted text appears onscreen.]
Cut to a scene of SBC as The Dictator delivering a white woman's baby. "Bad news—it's a girl," he says. "Where's the trashcan?"
"No!" cried the father. "That's the one we wanted!"
Voiceover: The Dictator. Rated R.
And not to get all What About the Menz? about it, but SBC's characters function as stand-ins for entire classes of people, and the men of Arabic extraction who love and value their daughters are being disappeared under the weight of this outsized stereotype—which, you know, doesn't actually help the cause of valuing daughters.
It's not that I don't get the joke, even though I am the Most Humorless Feminist in all of Nofunnington. I get it. I just don't think it's funny.
Generally Dreadful
The BIG NEWS today is that there is a Republican Super PAC with major plans to make this election EVEN MORE TERRIBLE and EVEN LESS SUBSTANTIVE. You can read their megacool plan to "[run] commercials linking Mr. Obama to incendiary comments by his former spiritual adviser, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr." here. I recommend printing it out and then folding it up to use as a barf bag afterwards!
Leaving aside the twenty million or so words I could write on the unethical nature of this line of attack, and the forty million more I could write on garbage campaign finance laws that give undue influence to small but powerful (rich) groups of unprincipled dirtbags for whom policy obfuscation is not a bug but a feature of their slimeball ad hominem politics, I will just express my mystification at pursuing a strategy that didn't even work the last time around, when Barack Obama was a virtually unknown quantity.
Well. I don't profess to understand the mind of the profoundly indecisive centrist cover. Maybe four years of birtherism, dog whistling, and explicit racist attacks on the President will make his connection to Reverend Wright somehow more appealing than it was four years ago. In which case: Whooooops your bigotry!
Meanwhile, Mitt Romney "repudiates" the efforts of this super racist Super PAC. What a man of principle! Ha ha just kidding. It's not like he supports comprehensive finance reform to prevent this shit from influencing elections. Hells no! He supports letting Super PACs run amok and then sternly repudiating their tactics, even as he stands to benefit from them.
Welp, maybe he'll support sweeping reforms once he loses. Like John McCain.
Talk about these things! Or don't. Whatever makes you happy. Life is short.
Number of the Day
Eight: The number of years the state of Massachusetts has had marriage equality:
On May 17, 2004, the first legal same-sex marriages in the United States began taking place in Massachusetts. In the eight years since then, 18,462 same-sex couples have wed in the state, according to MassEquality. As of 2009, 28 percent of Massachusetts married same-sex couples were raising children, and 93 percent of them reported that their children were happier and better off as a result of their marriage.And the world hasn't even ended or anything!
Happy anniversary, Massachusetts!
Reproductive Rights Updates: DC, LA, NH, MO, VT
Today the House Subcommittee on the Constitution will hold a congressional hearing regarding a bill (HR 3803) that Rep. Franks (R-Arizona) introduced. There is a companion bill in the Senate intro'd by Utah senator Mike Lee (R-idiculous). These bills ban abortion past twenty weeks gestation under the pretense of "fetal pain". If you are just tuning in, the "fetal pain" idea has been debunked. But who cares about science!
Washington DC delegate Eleanor Norton was refused by the committee to testify. Del. Norton has chosen to speak up whenever legislation that specifically affects DC is under consideration. Franks, as co-chair of the committee discussing his legislation, could have accepted her request. He did not. Norton released a statement saying:
“The post-20-week D.C. abortion ban bill targets an entire group of individuals, women who live in the District of Columbia, and their constitutional rights. Using the women of one congressional district to reach for extreme encroachments on women’s reproductive rights has become a pattern of the House Republican majority, but also reflected nationwide. We will vigorously fight the bullying tactics of the Republican majority against the District’s women, and in standing up for ourselves, we recognize that we are also in the larger fight to protect the reproductive rights of women everywhere."Del. Norton has said she will be participating in a press conference before the hearing.
Here are the men (of course!) on the subcommittee:
Mr. Franks, Chairman (R-AZ)
Mr. Pence, Vice-Chairman (R-IN)
Mr. Chabot (R-OH)
Mr. Nadler (D-NY)
Mr. Forbes (R-VA)
Mr. Quigley (D-IL)
Mr. King (R-IA)
Mr. Conyers (D-MI)
Mr. Jordan (R-OH)
Mr. Scott (D-VA)
The hearing will be at 4pm EST.
***
In Louisiana, a few different bills were advanced from committees. One is yet another "pain capable" act that bans abortions past 20 weeks, the other defunds Planned Parenthood, and yet another has to do with a person hearing a fetal heartbeat before an abortion.
The Senate Health and Welfare Committee approved two measures: Senate Bill 593, which would outlaw abortions after 20 weeks, and House Concurrent Resolution 11, which asks Congress not to fund Planned Parenthood."They provide health care to many low income, uninsured & under-insured citizens but they also provide a health care service I don't like! Sorry citizens who need Planned Parenthood, you're S.O.L.!" -- Rep. Hoffman's so-called moral logic.
At the same time, the House Health and Welfare committee backed Senate Bill 708, which would give women the option to listen to their unborn baby’s heartbeat before receiving an abortion.
State Rep. Frank Hoffmann, R-West Monroe, said Wednesday would be remembered as a great day in the fight against the procedure that terminates pregnancy. He noted that a “right-to-life” group hosted a breakfast for legislators that was followed by simultaneous hearings on two anti-abortion bills on both sides of the State Capitol.
[...]
On a 3-2 vote, the Senate health committee approved another anti-abortion measure aimed at stopping federal funds going to Planned Parenthood. HCR11, which has passed the House and now goes to the full Senate, would ask the U.S. Congress to defund activities of the group that deals with women’s health issues and family planning.
“I’m sure they do many good things but they lead the nation in abortions,” said Rep. Frank Hoffmann, the resolution’s sponsor.
***
The Tyranny of OH HELL IT BURNS: Introduction
[Content note: I'm reviewing a book by Jonah Goldberg, so it's safe to say I'll be discussing some pretty awful shit. This particular post includes mentions of eliminationism, homophobia and antisemitism.]
A number of you (zero is a number) have written me to ask about my Goodreads bookshelves. "Kate," you ask, "I see that you're currently reading Take Me There: Trans and Genderqueer Erotica and Jonah Goldberg's The Tyranny of Cliches: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas. Should I assume you're working on some sort of awesome slash fiction?"
YES. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I AM WORKING ON. No.
Liss hooked me up with a pre-release copy of two-time Pultizer Prize nominee entrant (WHOOPS!) Jonah Goldberg's latest book. I wasn't sure I wanted it, but two things were clear:
1. It comes recommended by Marco Rubio, Mitch Daniels, and the guy from Wedding Crashers.
2. The good people at Penguin were really excited for me to have a free copy. Who wouldn't be? Yay!
I plan on reviewing a chapter a week until I either finish the book or find something more amusing to do with my time. There are twenty-four chapters, plus an introduction. Think of it as an advent calendar, only instead of getting shitty candy in honor of Jesus' birth, you'll be getting nothing in honor of Jonah Goldberg's career.
BTW, the book's been available to the public since the start of May. I sincerely apologize to the people at Penguin for not getting on this sooner. I was mesmerized by the amazing centerfold of Grover Cleveland.
IT BEGINS:
"According to legend, when George Will signed up to become a syndicated columnist in the 1970s, he asked his friend William F. Buckley...."
Two random thoughts:
1. On the subject of slash fiction, I am now terrified.
2. Let's flip ahead to the last sentence, to see if this gets better. Hmmm..... "It is the man-- or woman [as if!]-- who stands up to the mob and says: You will not lynch this man today." HELL ASS DAMN FUCK IT DOES NOT GET BETTER DAN SAVAGE YOU ARE A LYING ASSHOLE.
As for the 277 pages in between, Goldberg's basic premise is that libruls are losers. More intellectually stated, I think he's saying that liberals like to use strawmen (or women!) as a stand in for legitimate intellectual discourse. According to Goldberg, in addition to being intellectually dishonest, this is a BFD because
"Some incredibly ideological ideas simply ride into your head like the dream spelunkers in the movie Inception-- setting up, working their way through your programming-- all because they're wrapped in the protective coating of cliches."Wait, was Inception a prerequisite for this bullshit? I'm so in over my head.
Anyhow, to get the juices flowing (NOBODY SAID THAT. THAT IS NOT WHAT HE SAID.), Goldberg throws out a few examples.
EXAMPLE 1: "One Man's [Or Woman's! Ladies?] Terrorist is Another Man's Freedom Fighter"
Goldberg thinks this saying is "pithy hogwash." He also implies, on the basis of HE IS JONAH GOLDBERG, that liberals are saying this all the time.
He quotes
EXAMPLE 2: "The Center"
Goldberg thinks that there are issues for which siding with "the center" is not at all reasonable. There are things that aren't up for compromise. I'm sure he can come up with a good example of this....
"[T]he [presumably fictional?] Wahhabis want to kill all the gays and the Jews. The Sufis don't want to kill any gays or Jews. So the moderate, sensible position must be to kill just the gays, but not the Jews. Or maybe the other way around? Or half of all the gays and Jews? Or maybe all the gay Jews? Or maybe we can have a very complicated compromise along the lines of last year's debt-ceiling negotiations [remember all that compromise?], where a small percentage of Jews are killed now and we kill a large number of gays in the out years?"YES. THAT IS AN ACTUAL METAPHOR THAT TOTALLY DOES NOT GET A RISE OUT OF ME.
Goldberg goes on to talk about how moderates want to build a bridge halfway across a river (I HEAR LIBRULS SAY THIS ALL THE TIME.) Then, he makes with the humor:
Undecided centerists are "a**holes who think they must be at the center of the universe."Yes, Goldberg did write an entire paragraph about a hypothetical situation in which a group of people sought to exterminate Jews and gay people, and then redacted the second and third "s" from "assholes", lest people become offended. He continues:
"Now, hold on, I mean that in a fairly literal way."By "literal", he means that he's going to go on for a few pages about Galileo and "the anal aperature of the universe, literally." THAT IS LITERALLY WHAT HE DID, BY WHICH I MEAN LITERALLY AND NOT FIGURATIVELY.
This is all proof the liberals are wrong.
I actually have tons (literally) of disagreements with many lines of liberal reasoning, so I feel like I'm in a good position to evaluate Goldberg's blanket claim that liberals are smelly. Alas, he's not even trying (not that he needs to with two Pulitzer Prize entries under his belt) to link liberals (which liberals?) to his
Example 3: Hindsight is 20/20
I hear liberals use this cliche (IM NOT USING ANY
"We shouldn't have sought out a**hole undecided centrists during that electoral campaign"
"There was no way to know that Saddam Hussein didn't have WMDs."
(Just kidding. I have not recently heard liberals say the former.)
Liberals believe silly things about history:
"The Marxists believed that history was predictable and unidirectional..."
There are a lot of typographical errors in the introduction, but that one was definitely my favorite. I remember when the last Marxist died in captivity, shortly after endorsing Jimmy Carter....
The rest of the chapter (or introduction) is basically just red baiting. Goldberg talks about how "pop gurus like Thomas Friedman" (
Soooooo.... that's the introduction. Only 260 more pages about how liberals are cheating in the "war of ideas." I don't really see what anything thus far has to do with liberals, but wev. Goldberg also points out that he "does not claim that the conservative mind isn't bound by cliches from time to time", so clearly he's being something here.
Next Week: Ideology
(Yay!!!!!!)
The Academy in the Era of Austerity and Fundamentalism
[Content note: classism, homophobia]
Two higher education-related stories caught my eye this morning.
One concerns the growing crisis in Quebec, where the Jean Charest-led provincial government has announced it is suspending classes in response to continued student protests over proposed hikes to student tuition that will send the price of education skyrocketing. There is no sign that the government is backing away from the fee increases, and it will use force to keep classes open in the fall if it has to:
But Mr. Charest made it clear he was not backing away from the planned tuition fee hike for this fall and promised a tougher approach to ensure classes can resume in August, with stronger police intervention to guarantee access.
Students show no signs of meekly going home and accepting austerity measures which will seriously change the accessibility of higher education:
The more militant student and union coalition known as CLASSE promised to keep mobilizing its 75,000 members and continue demonstrating against the tuition-fee hikes. “The bill that the government is proposing to table is an anti-union law, it is authoritarian, repressive and breaks the students’ right to strike,” said CLASSE spokesman Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois. “This is a government that prefers to hit on its youth, ridicule its youth rather than listen to them.”The other story concerns Michael Wilson, a librarian at Shorter University in Georgia, who refuses to sign on to the school's new homophobic "lifestyle statement." Wilson, who is gay, is one of many faculty and staff who are prepared to leave their jobs rather than comply with the increasingly oppressive requirements of the Georgia Baptist Convention, with which the University is affiliated. The University lost a legal battle to break away from the Convention in 2005, and the climate has been increasingly hostile for non-fundamentalists ever since:
The first president chosen by the new board took office last year, and the lifestyle statements were introduced in October. Wilson said he knew right away he could not sign: “It’s a matter of conscience,” he said. Since the statements were first proposed, controversy has raged. An anonymous survey in April found only 12 percent of faculty and staff plan to stay. Save Our Shorter, a group opposing the changes, has a list on its website of more than 50 faculty members who are leaving as a result of the new policies. Several departments, including science and the fine arts, have been “eviscerated,” Wilson said.
It's no joke to walk away from a tenured or even tenure-track job. For that many faculty to leave (or be forced out) is mind-boggling in the extreme.
I don't have much commentary on these stories, save to add: the common thread here is access. Whether the limits are being placed by Christian fundamentalist bigots who want to make sure that faculty aren't teaching anything good about TEH GAYZ! Or whether it's austerity-loving governments who expect students to either borrow their way into lives of debt (or alternatively, forgo higher education altogether), there's a clear message here for the not-powerful: get out. And stay out.
Quote of the Day
"I don't know whether Barack Obama was born in the United States of America. I don't know that. But I do know this, that in his heart, he's not an American. He's just not an American."—Rep. Mike Coffman (R-Colorado), at a recent fundraiser. Coffman has since apologized(ish).
I always love the suggestion by conservatives that there is only one way to "be an American." By their singular definition, I am not an American in my heart, either.
And I frankly don't think that's anything to be ashamed of.
Adventures in Blogging, Part Wev
[Content Note: Racism; fat hatred.]
So, in March, someone posted a fake OKCupid profile using my picture (one from the hat series), then linked to it on Reddit. The profile was, of course, full of fat jokes, but it was also deeply racist: The entire premise of the "hilarious" profile was that I desperately want to have sex with black men, and there were all kinds of plays on the stereotype of fat white women and black men, and the objectification of black men as sexual studs.
Stealing my picture to make fat jokes is so routine that I don't even give a shit anymore. Stealing my picture to set up a fake dating profile is an issue: I don't want people who might recognize me thinking I'm cheating on Iain. But stealing my picture in order to perpetuate racism is a serious fucking concern.
I contacted OKCupid, who evidently have no quality control that prevents people using their property to promote rank racism and fat hatred, and they eventually removed the profile. I did, however, have to sign up to OKCupid in order to confirm that, because, despite requesting confirmation of removal, I received none, and, once the profile was taken down, the message served indicated the profile was merely "private" and visible only to OKCupid members. Only once I signed up could I confirm it was actually gone (and it was), but OKCupid essentially used the exploitation of my image and complaint about bigotry to oblige me to sign up to their service. Gross.
That was not the end of the story. Now the image, tagged with text from the profile, is going around Tumblr:
I'm getting emails about it from people who recognize me, so part of the reason for this post is just to publicly say: Yes, I know about it.
Another part is to acknowledge that my image is being used in a racist meme, which is upsetting.
I'm pissed to have been put in a position where some people will misconstrue my objection to the meme as embarrassment (or some other negative reaction) to the suggestion I'd be sexually intimate with a black man, as opposed to being angry my image is being used to perpetuate oppressive stereotypes of black men as: 1. A Mandingo monolith; and 2. Consolation prizes for white women considered undesirable by white men.
That is not how I think of black men, and I am unthrilled, to put it mildly, to see those narratives being promulgated in the year of our lord Jesus Jones two thousand and twelve, no less that my image is being used in the process.
Finally, I'm writing about this to underscore, once again, the cost of being a fat woman who has the unmitigated temerity to put her picture on the internet. My picture has been used in all sorts of violent and pornographic imagery; it's been used to mock me specifically, and to mock fat women generally; it's been appropriated as "the face of morbid obesity"; and now it's been used in a racist meme. I'm sure pictures of me have been used in ways of which I'm not even aware.
The only option is to not post pictures of myself. But the reason I post pictures of myself in the first place is because there is a dearth of imagery of fat women, especially fat happy women enjoying their lives. That's partly because of media that disappears fat people unless it's to shame us, and partly because fat women know that their images will be abused. Oh the irony, etc.
I'm not going to stop posting my picture. That's a calculated risk. Pictures of me are going to be stolen, appropriated, exploited, abused. When they're used in a way that demeans other people, I will have to write posts like this one.
Hi!
Question of the Day
What's for dinner?
I haven't decided what I'm making yet tonight, so here's last night's menu from Shakes Manor: Chicken breast, black beans, corn, garlic, and scallions sauteed in olive oil infused with habanero, with a homemade fire-roasted red pepper sauce, wrapped in butterhead lettuce leaves.
Healthy, easy, and delicious!
What Does a US Olympian Look Like?
[Gabrielle Douglas, gymnast. Joe Klamar/Getty Images]
[Howard Bach, badminton player. Lucas Jackson/Reuters]
[Holley Mangold, weightlifter. Lucas Jackson/Reuters]
[Jerome Singleton, sprinter. Lucas Jackson/Reuters]
[Brittney Reese, long jumper. Joe Klamar/Getty Images]
[Julie Zetlin, gymnast. Joe Klamar/Getty Images]
[Jennifer Nichols, archer. Joe Klamar/Getty Images]
[Joseph Diaz, Jr., boxer. Joe Klamar/Getty Images]
[Wallace Spearmon, sprinter. Victoria Will/AP]
[Brendan Hansen, swimmer. Joe Klamar/Getty Images]
There are so many more beautiful images at the link.
Number of the Day
Two: The number of months you're going to have to wait to buy George W. Bush's book detailing his strategies for economic growth.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL FOREVER.
At Think Progress, Pat writes:
That Bush believes the country needs his thoughts on how to create economic growth is laughable. After all, under his watch, "growth in investment, GDP, and employment all posted their worst performance of any post-war expansion," while "overall monthly job growth was the worst of any cycle since at least February 1945, and household income growth was negative for the first cycle since tracking began in 1967."Whooooooooooooops!
...As the New York Times' David Leonhardt noted, "the competition for slowest growth is not even close, either. Growth from 2001 to 2007 averaged 2.39 percent a year..." Bush also presided over the formulation of the worst recession since the Great Depression.
If Mr. Bush's new career as author of smart things doesn't pan out, he could always give motivational speaker another go. I'm pretty sure that worked out great.
Trayvon Martin Updates
[Content Note: Violence; stalking; victim-blaming.]
There are two pieces of news today, which are widely being cited by his supporters as proof that killer George Zimmerman did not commit second-degree murder:
1. Autopsy results show Trayvon Martin had injuries to his knuckles. This information is being axiomatically construed to prove that Zimmerman's claim he acted in self-defense is true. Except that the injuries cannot be definitively stated to be offensive wounds: Legal analyst Bill Sheaffer notes they "could be consistent with Trayvon either trying to get away or defend himself."
And, again, even if Martin attacked Zimmerman, to pretend that happened unprovoked is absurd in the extreme, given the available recording of Zimmerman talking to police from inside his vehicle and being advised against following Martin, who was not engaging with Zimmerman in any way. From Trayvon Martin's perspective, he was being stalked by a man unknown to him. If at some point he felt obliged to defend himself, that ought to be eminently understandable.
2. Medical report says Zimmerman had broken nose, other injuries after fight. This CNN piece on the medical report buries an important piece of information 11 paragraphs in, but at least CNN reports it: The medical report which says Zimmerman had a "closed fracture" of his nose, two black eyes, and two head lacerations was done the day after the shooting, by a family physician.
The Martin family has questions about the medical report, said Benjamin Crump, the family attorney.There certainly seems to be a disparity between what emergency personnel thought of Zimmerman's injuries and what a family physician thought of his injuries. That doesn't mean the family physician was wrong, but it is a troubling discrepancy when medical staff without a prior relation to Zimmerman and/or his family found his injuries to be less severe and thus not consistent with a battering that required taking another person's life to save his own.
"The family has very strong positions about this family physician's report that was done the next day," Crump said. "What we do know is on February 26, the ER personnel did not believe his injuries were significant enough for him to go to the hospital. They didn't even put a Band-Aid on his head. That's important."
The headlines on most of these reports today suggest that there's no other possible explanation than Zimmerman has been honest all along. That's not the case. This is just more victim-blaming, more storytelling about a young man who isn't available to tell his side of events. Which is pretty damn convenient for George Zimmerman.
Seen
[Content Note: misogynist language/slur]
On Sunday I found myself at a red light behind a Kia Sorento, whose owner had decided to have words scrawled (professionally!) across the entire back window.
The image is below the break since it may be NSFW.
More Anti-Choice Garbage in Kansas
[Content Note: Reproductive rights; Christian Supremacy.]
Because it is more important to indulge the presumed right of conservative Christians to force everyone else to bend to their beliefs than actually promote meaningful tolerance of a diversity of religious and irreligious traditions, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback, who was a garbage nightmare as a senator and is now a garbage nightmare as a governor, has signed into law "a new expanded conscience clause bill in Kansas," which is breathtaking in its scope.
Brownback has now legally blessed a virtually open-ended number of situations in which "religious" workers can refuse to assist women under the guise that they believe they "may be" terminating a pregnancy.Science has left the building. Now as long as someone "believes," even if wrongly, they "may" be "assisting in terminating a pregnancy," they are allowed to refuse to do their fucking jobs.
Advocates of the law argue that it "updates existing law." But by changing the law to include refusal to administer any drug that they believe may terminate a pregnancy, it opens the door to refusal of birth control and emergency contraception -- both of which many anti-choice medical workers and pharmacists erroneously charge end very early pregnancies rather than preventing conception. The law could also allow refusal of even more medically-necessary drugs simply because they may relate to abortions.
Idaho already had a case of a pharmacist who refused to fill a prescription for a woman who needed drugs to stop bleeding, believing that the woman may have had an abortion which caused her blood loss, and the pharmacist received no punishment for the action. How long will it take for that to become the rule, rather than the exception, as the Kansas law goes into effect?
"Assisting in terminating a pregnancy" has already become an overly expansive phrase that many anti-choice activists are applying to even more unrelated situations -- from the nurses who refuse to do intake of women in the hospital for a termination to the bus driver who won't drive a route to Planned Parenthood.
And if you're a patient who doesn't share those beliefs, well, you're shit outta luck. I guess you should have been born in a country that prioritizes healthcare over the childish indulgence of individual faith beliefs on the job.
Now, if you are a pregnant person living in Kansas, in addition to the concern that your health insurance (if you're privileged enough to have it) might limit your coverage to religiously-affiliated healthcare facilities that will deny you a life-saving abortion if they deem it a faith-based inconvenience, you also get to wonder if every individual doctor, nurse, and care provider whom you cannot personally choose will be willing to provide additional types of care, or decline to provide it on the basis that they erroneously believe it to be potentially harmful to your fetus.
I don't know how else to say this: We live in a country with legal abortion. If you are not willing to participate in healthcare procedures that you perceive, rightly or wrongly, to be associated with abortion, then find another profession.
It should be no one's obligation to sacrifice their health to indulge another person's faith belief.
That this is a controversial notion in the United States is truly contemptible.
Daily Dose of Cute
As I've mentioned before, Dudley loves the fuck out of this huge grass bush in the garden. Every time he goes outside, he's got to rub himself all up in it, even though he's got a grass allergy. Basically, the thinking seems to be: "I love this bush! My eyes are itchy! This bush feels scratchy and good on my itchy eyes! I love this bush! My eyes are itchy! This bush feels scratchy and good on my itchy eyes! I love this bush!"
He's also recently added sliding along the chain-link fence to the routine. "Ooh, this fence feels good, too! But not as much as the bush! Gosh, I love this bush! Boy, my eyes are itchy! Well, at least this fence is here! But it's not as good as the bush!"
I cannot dissuade him. I give him his allergy medication and let him carry on his love affair with his unrecognized nemesis.
Video Description: Dudley walks face-first into a large grass bush. He rubs his face in it, then rubs his eyes with his paw. He looks at me and grins, then walks around the bush, back into it, through it, and to the fence, where he commences to rub his face along the fence as he walks alongside it. He turns around and walks back the other way, rubbing the other side of his face. He flaps his ears, then walks right back into the grass bush. Rubs his eyes. Back to the fence, grinning and tail wagging. Walks around the far side of the bush. Rub rub rub. To the fence. Rub rub rub. Rinse and repeat forever.
"What?"
Photographer Zanele Muholi's Work Stolen
[Content Note: Theft; homophobia; misogyny; racism; eliminationism.]
I cannot even imagine the feelings of loss and anger and insecurity having five years of work stolen would cause me. This story is heart-wrenching:
An award winning photographer who has devoted her working life to documenting the lives of black lesbians has had five years worth of her work stolen.The investigation into the theft is ongoing. A fundraiser to replace her equipment and help with other expenses is here.
Zanele Muholi, described by the Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa as "one of the country's foremost artists", had more than 20 external hard drives stolen from her flat in Vredehoek, Cape Town on April 20.
The hard drives contain stills and video footage, including photos from the funerals of victims of homophobic hate crimes. It is thought that the burglars were targeting Muholi's work, as little else was taken from her flat, and back up hard drives were also taken.
Muholi's partner Liesl Theron, with whom she shares the flat, said that her possessions were left untouched, except for a laptop which was stolen, further fuelling belief that Muholi was the intended target of the crime.
The work taken had been captured across South Africa, Zimbabwe, Uganda and Malawi, according to the Cape Times. Also stolen was work due to be shown at an exhibition in July, which Muholi believes she will now have to cancel.
Despite the volume of work stolen and the imminence of the planned exhibition, Muholi's plight has been largely ignored by the media. It is believed that the lack of publicity is due to the nature of her work, which shows a different side to the black lesbian community than that usually represented in the mainstream media.
"I'm not myself. I can't even sleep at night since I've heard about the burglary," the devastated Muholi told DIVA. She has appealed for anyone who knows the whereabouts of the hard drives to return them.
I don't even know what else to say about this crime, other than to express my profound sadness that there are people in the world who so object to human diversity that they are moved to quash its celebration with physical and/or psychological violence.
It's rather terrible this story is not getting more notice, because it appears so pointedly eliminationist in nature. Someone hates black lesbians so thoroughly that zie literally disappeared images of them. That seems worth a moment of contemplation, seems to me.
[Thanks to Shakers jjdactyl and Monika for passing this along.]
Q: How cheap am I?
Also so cheap that, even though the thing is now a total pain in the ass to use, I will not pay to replace it until I literally can't use it at all, lol.
"Cheap," of course, has terrible connotations. I am "frugal."
(No, I'm definitely cheap.)
Wednesday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by a Walkman.
Recommended Reading:
GLAAD: New York Times Does Not Retract Dehumanizing Coverage of Death of Trans Woman [Content Note: The post at this link contains discussion of transmisogyny, violence, and victim-blaming. See Monday's Blogaround for background.]
Dayvoe: A Birther Update
Christiane: Dresscode: Blue Tie and Male [Content Note: The post at this link includes discussion of misogyny.]
John: Straight White Male: The Lowest Difficulty Setting There Is
Lily: The HAES Files: Uncommon Knowledge about Changes in Body Weight, Part One and The HAES Files: Uncommon Knowledge about Changes in Body Weight, Part Two [Content Note: The posts at these links include discussion of narratives associated with "the obesity epidemic" and fat hatred.]
Digby: Dana Does It Again [Content Note: The post at this link includes misogyny and discussion of bullying.]
Pam: Thoughts about the NYT's 'Can You Call a 9-Year-Old a Psychopath?' [Content Note: The post at this link contains a description of animal cruelty.]
Fannie: Statistics of the Day
Mannion: Once upon a time there was this person I used to know as Me.
Andrew: Freedom To Marry And SLDN Explain DOMA's Impact On Military Families [Video]
Soraya: The Avengers: Are We Exporting Media Sexism or Importing It?
Leave your links and recommendations in comments...
BushQuotes!
Whoooooooooooooooooops I forgot to do BushQuotes! yesterday, so here are two for the price of one:
Chapter 3, page 34: "Heading toward fall, the campaign [for governor] was building momentum. Then came the photo that went round the world. Me, in blue jeans, khaki shirt, and hunting vest, holding a shotgun in one hand and the wrong bird in the other."
I remember the photo he's referencing, but I couldn't find a copy of it after at least five solid seconds of searching, so please enjoy this classic Bush With Bird image in its stead:
And thus heralds the gun portion of the chapter. Yippee, etc. Privilege and Ammo.
[Content Note: Guns; rape culture.]
Chapter 3, page 35: "Governor Richards had been criticized for vetoing a referendum that would have allowed Texans to express their opinion on a conceal-and-carry law. I argued that Texas should have this law. I knew that many law-abiding citizens, including many women who worked late at night or alone, were carrying weapons to protect themselves."
Conservative politicians always say this: They know shitloads of ladies who are packing heat to defend themselves on the job. But, despite having not a few female friends who are conservative and/or gun owners, including some who have been sexually assaulted (which is the implied crime against which women need to carry weapons to protect themselves), I have never known a woman who routinely carries a weapon. I'm not saying it never happens, and I'm sure some flesh-and-blood women carry weapons for self-defense, but do "many" women not made out of straw really do this? I suspect not.
On the other hand, many (for realz) conservative male politicians argue, without a hint of compunction, that women should be allowed to carry concealed weapons in order that they might defend themselves against rapists, even though a woman is more likely to be raped at gunpoint than successfully use a gun to deter a rapist.
And that's not because women are shrinking violets who can't handle weaponry: It's because women are exponentially more likely to be raped by someone they know, in a familiar space, than by a stranger. And it's not all that easy for any human being to shoot someone they know, even when that person is hurting them.
Women also tend to have some intuitive sense, if they don't explicitly know, that women who use violence to defend themselves are often punished for it. Men like Bush say they want women to defend themselves by any means necessary, but, when it comes right down to it, they don't. It's the same old "he said, she said," except now she's not just "crying rape," as the apologists like to say, but "claiming rape as a justification for hurting an innocent man." See how that works?
There are so many fallacies underlying what a swell idea it is for women to carry concealed weapons. Using women to justify carry-and-conceal laws is audaciously exploitative, and fucking stupid to boot.
[From George Bush's A Charge to Keep, gifted to me by Deeky, because he hates me. In the US, all people who plan to run for president write a shitty book. (Some are less shitty than others, by which I mean the Democrats' books.) A Charge to Keep was George W. Bush's shitty I-wanna-be-president book, published in 1999. I am blogging one random quote per page every day until I have either made my way through the book or lost it behind a couch.]
