Showing posts with label This shit doesn't happen in a void.. Show all posts
Showing posts with label This shit doesn't happen in a void.. Show all posts

This is so the worst thing you're going to read all day.

[Content Note: Misogyny; gender essentialism; coercion.]

I guess it's Proposal Day at Shakesville. Shakers NineOfCups and IndyM both forwarded me this piece of shit from the NY Post about a woman who decided to earn a marriage proposal from her boyfriend by making him 300 sandwiches.

Listen, whatever you do inside your relationship (short of abuse) is your business. But once you turn it into "a beautifully photographed blog that documents [your] quest to woo [your] boyfriend with bread-and-meat creations" and a column in the NY Post, it's a problem. Especially when you start snarking at a "single gal whose kitchen was used for shoe storage," as if it's inherently better to be making sandwiches for a man than being single and using your kitchen for whatever the fuck you want.

And not when "make me a sandwich" is a thing used to demean women in the world. Even presidential candidates.

I mean:

"You women read all these magazines to get advice on how to keep a man, and it's so easy," [the man who has been made 176 sandwiches] says. "We're not complex. Just do something nice for us. Like make a sandwich."
What. The actual. Fuck.

For the record, I am not opposed to women cooking for men. I do almost all the cooking in our house. (And Iain does all the washing up. TEAMWORK!) But I do it because I'm the better cook, I enjoy cooking more than cleaning, Iain enjoys cleaning more than cooking, and Iain's got a three-hour commute a day that I don't have.

I do it because we both need to eat, not because I'm trying to earn something.

Open Wide...

I Get Letters

[Content Note: Misogynist slurs; reference to racist slur; Oppression Olympics.]

From an email that arrived in my inbox last night, authored by a self-described "young guy who has only just started researching all of this stuff about discrimination and equality":

I've been reading through the feminist 101 posts and, while I agree with the majority of points made in them, found issue with the subject of misogynistic language.

I love words and I love using them. I've never had a problem with swearing because I've always believed that context is what matters; not the words themselves.

If the argument against using these words is that, even if the context is harmless, it slowly but surely reinforces a negative mentality about women … then I would agree.

…Cunt began as a misogynist term; popular usage evolved it into an ordinary insult.

I'll be the first to say that popular usage doesn't erase the original meaning of a word, but popular usage does change the majority of peoples' own meaning of a word; this means that using the word cunt and bitch nowadays doesn't actually reinforce a negative mentality about women at all.

…I'd like to know what you think. If I've missed something or haven't made my point clear, please let me know.
What has been edited out and replaced with ellipses is a bunch of Oppression Olympics about how the n-word is still real bad and stuff. Unlike misogynist slurs. Which are just "ordinary insults," allegedly.

What I find most remarkable about this email, like all the others from men (always men) who feel entitled to email me and demand personal private education, is that its author fails utterly to make even the most cursory attempt to empathize with women who are the targets of misogynist slurs, deployed specifically to remind us that we are less than. He speaks about context as if "cunt" and "bitch" exist in a void. There is no context in which a word that is predicated on devaluing the feminine is "harmless." Not for women.

(And not for men from marginalized populations defined by gender and sexuality who are demeaned with misogynist slurs.)

"Nowadays," he says, misogynist slurs don't "actually reinforce a negative mentality about women at all." Even were it true (it is not) that men (and other women) who call women cunts and bitches are using the words in some sort of magical history-free context that isn't explicitly designed to demean women, and explicitly designed to demean men by comparing them to women, how women who are being called cunts and bitches feel matters.

Even if it were true (it is not) that misogynist slurs do not maintain institutional sexism that marginalizes women, that such slurs don't "reinforce a negative mentality about women" among the people who use them, we know—because multiple studies and millions of public statements by women about their lived experiences confirm this fact—that being repeatedly exposed to oppressive slurs negatively affects the people targeted by them.

Even if it were true (it is not) that misogynist slurs don't negatively affect the slur-users' opinions about women, they still negatively affect women's opinions about themselves.

There are certainly women who don't even bat an eye at being called a cunt or a bitch, myself among them. But it's not because the words don't have the capacity to harm—it's because I'm inured to them after a lifetime of pervasive exposure.

That misogynist slurs have lost their capacity to harm (some women) because of their ubiquity isn't evidence of their neutrality. It's evidence of humans' capacity to normalize abuse in order to survive.

What a luxury, what privilege, that's something my correspondent has never had to consider.

Open Wide...

Prepare the Fainting Couches

[Content Note: Terrorism; violence.]

Hayes Brown at Think Progress—New Study Highlights Threat from Far Right-Wing Groups in the United States:

A new study from a think tank connected to the West Point Military Academy highlights the threat of violent far-right movements in the United States, leading to the conclusion that, while diverse in in their causes, they are similar in their use of violence to achieve their aims.

West Point's Combatting Terrorism Center was founded in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, and has primarily focused its research on international terrorist threats. Titled "Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America's Violent Far-Right," this new report instead looks as the risk that domestic groups pose to the U.S. Breaking down these groups into three categories — the Racist/White Supremacy Movement, the Anti-Federalist Movement, and the Christian Fundamentalist Movement — allows the study to examine the background ideologies and methods of each subset thoroughly, opposed to lumping them all together as most studies have.

Each of the groupings in the study represent competing ideological views, with none of them likely to cooperate in achieving their aims. The chances that each of these groups will use violence also varies. What they share, however, is a use of violence against their chosen targets — be it minority races or abortion clinics — to draw attention to and emphasize their given ideology.
Naturally, conservatives are already refuting the study with great comebacks like: "The $64,000 dollar question is when will the Combating Terrorism Center publish their study on real left-wing terrorists like the Animal Liberation Front, Earth Liberation Front, and the Weather Underground?"

That rhetorical is almost TOO perfect.

I don't know what else I can say about rightwing eliminationist violence that I haven't already said fully one million times. A lack of empathy allowed to fester unchallenged will inevitably become a violent urge. We cannot indulge this toxic intolerance with narratives of "both sides have their extremists" for a moment more.

Open Wide...

Generally Terrible

image of Vice President Joe Biden throwing his hands in the air exasperatedly during the veep debate

"This fuckin' election!"

Here is all the latest news (or at least some of it!) from the long national nightmare that is The Presidential Election 2012: Vote for Whoever You Think Will Destroy the Country Less Quickly!

If you were waiting to decide how to vote based on what British asshole and inexplicable US television personality Piers Morgan thinks, well, you are IN LUCK today! "He's one of the least principled politicians I've met. But I believe Mitt Romney might just save America." Sure.

I know what you're thinking! BUT WHAT DOES JAY MCINERNY, AUTHOR OF ICONIC 80'S SECOND-PERSON NOVEL BRIGHT LIGHTS, BIG CITY, HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THIS?! "We have to give Obama a second chance."

Boy, it just doesn't get any easier, does it? Piers Morgan says Mitt Romney will save America, WHICH IS PRETTY GOOD, but Jay McInerny says that President Barack Obama deserves a second term, WHICH IS ALSO COMPELLING. I hardly know where to turn.

It's no wonder that it's still a tight race going to debate #2!

Hey! Speaking of the debate! The one thing EVERYONE can agree on is that scheduled debate moderator Candy Crowley, Woman, stinks! She has suggested that her role in moderating the town-hall style debate, in which average voters who do not have decades-long careers as professional journalists ask questions of the candidates, could include asking follow-up questions, especially in the event that the candidates are evasive. Naturally, both campaigns are OUTRAGED! They selected a competent female journalist to moderate the perennially awkward to the point of infuriatingly useless town-hall style debate so that she would STFU!
As Crowley put it last week, "Once the table is kind of set by the town-hall questioner, there is then time for me to say, 'Hey, wait a second, what about X, Y, Z?'"

...After Crowley made her "x, y, z" remarks to Suzanne Malveaux on October 5, the two campaign counsels, Bob Bauer for President Obama and Ben Ginsberg of the Romney campaign, jointly reached out to the Commission to express concern that the moderator’s comments seemed in direct conflict with the terms of their agreement. The Commission sent back word that they would discuss the matter with Crowley and reconfirm her function.
Reconfirm her function. Yiiiiiiiiikes. The American Democracy at work!

[Content Note: Racism.]

And in other news, Republicans are still super racist toward the President!

Mark Sanford Says Obama Will 'Throw a Lot of Spears' at Next Debate: "The disgraced former Republican governor of South Carolina on Sunday used a racially-coded term in his prediction that the nation's first African-American president would go on attack and 'throw a lot of spears' at Tuesday's town hall debate. ... 'Completely coincidentally, and not at all related to this, the term 'spearchucker' is a racial slur against black people, but what would a 52-year-old white guy from South Carolina know about that?' [Mediaite's Tommy Christopher] quipped sarcastically."

Wisconsin Senate Candidate's Son Says We "Have The Opportunity" to Send Obama Back to Kenya: "Jason Thompson, the son of former Governor and Wisconson Senate candidate Tommy Thompson, speaking this morning at a brunch attended RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said that 'we have the opportunity to send President Obama back to Chicago—or Kenya.' ... The Thompson campaign emails: 'The Governor has addressed this with his son, just like any father would do. Jason Thompson said something he should not have, and he apologizes.'"

And Getty Images photographer Jamie Sabau snapped an image of a white man at a Romney campaign event in Lancaster, Ohio last Friday wearing a t-shirt reading: "Put the white back in the White House." He was also sporting a Romney/Ryan campaign sticker. Gee, it's almost like running a campaign full of racist dog-whistles and overt racism attracts racist supporters! GO FIGURE!

Talk about these things! Or don't. Whatever makes you happy. Life is short.

Open Wide...

Oh look, it’s time to talk about gamer culture and rape culture again.

by Shakesville Moderator Scott Madin. Cross-posted at Fineness & Accuracy.

[Content Note: Rape culture; sexual assault; harassment; misogyny; objectification.]

I guess I don't need to elaborate here on how I feel these days about Penny Arcade and their bicoastal, twice-yearly paean to conspicuous consumption, PAX Prime/PAX East. They represent some of the worst of gamer culture, they gleefully profit from misogyny and rape jokes, and their convention (increasingly, it seems) disregards its own "no booth babes" rule, making women feel less welcome and encouraging (presumed male) attendees to see all women, booth babe, cosplayer, developer, PR, or "regular" attendee, as sexualized objects there for men's pleasure.

It's distressing, then, but hardly surprising to hear that, at a party thrown by Mojang's Markus "Notch" Persson, noted fedora enthusiast, indie-game-scene darling, and creator of the wildly successful Minecraft, a female game blogger seeking some relative solitude in a corner was accosted, harassed, and sexually assaulted by a male party-goer. Understandably upset, she fled the party, and when her friends sought out security, they were greeted with shrugs.

Some salient points:

  • The party was paid for by Persson himself, not by Mojang. It's not entirely clear to what extent he organized it, and to what extent the party venue handled those details.
  • The party took place during PAX Prime, but was not an official PAX event, nor was it at the PAX venue. However, as it was a party thrown during PAX by a video game celebrity; it's reasonable to assume that the majority of attendees were PAX-goers.
  • A notable exception: some attendees, distinguished (according to Ky, the blogger who was assaulted) by red wristbands, were women hired from a modeling agency.
  • Lydia Winters, Minecraft's "Director of Fun" commented on Ky's blog post clarifying that Persson, not Mojang, had thrown the party and that the models were hired by "the production company" to "have more girls there to up the girl to guy ratio. It's a pretty typical club procedure." (Winters confirmed via twitter that it was in fact her who posted that comment.)
  • It's not clear, then whether hiring the models was in fact Persson's idea, or whether he knew about/approved it. (One would imagine that, if planning were left to the venue or some other third party, given that Persson was paying, he'd at least have been asked to sign off on the expenses.)
  • Persson himself, about three hours ago, tweeted:


  • In an update at the top of her post, Ky emphasizes that she doesn't feel PAX or Mojang is responsible in any way for what happened, and that in her view "The ONLY person who should be held accountable for what happened is the asshole himself." She also states, "Also this post isn't about nerd or gamer culture or blaming those cultures at all, this could happen in any community, at any party, to anyone."
There are a few points I want to make about this.

First: Ky is obviously the final authority on her own experience, and just as obviously the man who attacked her is the only one who bears direct (let alone legal) responsibility for that crime.

Nonetheless, perhaps predictably, I disagree that this incident has nothing to do with PAX or with nerd/gamer culture. There is too much evidence, commonly discussed in this space, that cultural and environmental factors make predators feel they're free to operate in a given situation — and that make bystanders more likely to shrug, to see the warning signs of predatory behavior as "normal".

It's certainly true that things like this can and do happen "in any community, at any party, to anyone" — rape culture is endemic, and no subcultural niche is entirely free of it. However, gamer culture — fueled by Nice Guy (often shading into MRA) bitterness over high-school bullying and lack of "success" with girls (an historical injustice elevated to mythic proportions in nerdism) — clings to especially overt misogyny and objectification. One need only look at the vitriolic response to Liss' criticism of Fat Princess, Anita Sarkeesian's proposed (now underway) "Tropes vs. Women in Video Games" video series, the myriad examples at Fat, Ugly, or Slutty?, or of course the Dickwolves debacle, to see this in action.

PAX encourages and revels in these attitudes — reflecting the views (so far as one can surmise from their actions) of its founders and their core fanbase — but it certainly doesn't start with PAX, or with Penny Arcade. Society's misogyny has always been an element of nerd culture, and nerd culture's tendency to be self-referential, insular, and distrustful of "outsiders", makes it self-reinforcing. Critics, whether from without or within the subculture, are almost invariably dismissed out-of-hand as "not understanding", not being "real gamers". And people growing up in gamer culture — especially young men — have spent a decade, or two, or three, absorbing these attitudes with very little real challenge to them.

So inasmuch as gamer culture is tainted by rape culture, and PAX is one of the purer expressions of contemporary gamer culture, yes, this is about PAX. This is about the kinds of people who felt welcome at PAX, and what they thought they could get away with. It's about the constant presence of "booth babes" at gaming conventions, and the still abysmal representation of women in mainstream games. It's about the kind of people who think it's reasonable to "up the girl to guy ratio" by hiring models to attend a party, because they think their (presumed male, presumed heterosexual) attendees neither possess nor need to be encouraged to develop any social skills, and thus are and will remain repulsive to women not paid to tolerate them. (There are, of course, far too many problems with this to unpack in a single blog post.) And it's about what all this, taken together, in constant dosage over many years, teaches people who didn't even notice they were being instructed: women are decorative objects, there for men's enjoyment; they have no significant interests of their own; they are not skilled; they are not peers; if they are not attractive to men they are failures; they are merely things for men to desire and despise. (If you think I'm overstating, now would be a good time to go look again at those links a couple paragraphs up.)

Now, almost everyone — even in the comments section of her blog post, a rarity here on the interwebs — has reacted to Ky's story with horror and disgust. But almost everyone (including Ky herself) has directed that horror and disgust solely at the individual assailant. It's easy in this case, because "grabbing a stranger's hand and putting it on your penis" is behavior (in point of fact, a crime) even most MRAs will recognize as beyond the pale. Oh, that one guy did something really unacceptable! He's terrible, nothing more to see here. But given what we know about sexual harassment and assault, it's highly likely that he harassed more than one person that night, and furthermore that he wasn't the only one who did. How many of the models paid to be there put up with harassment and perhaps assault? How many female party-goers were harassed by sexist male nerds who thought harassing the models was "part of their job" (nope!) and extrapolated from there that it was an acceptable way to behave toward any women at that party (again, nope!)? Rape culture teaches men that they're entitled to sexual gratification from women, whether visual, verbal, or physical; hiring models to "mingle" with partygoers declares the same thing explicitly.

Ky's assailant is the only case from that party, that we know of, where someone decided he was entitled not only to sexual gratification but to enforce his claim to that gratification with violence — and make no mistake, all sexual assault is violence — and that makes him a relatively egregious example. But that doesn't make him an isolated, unconnected, free-floating Bad Person whose worldview, impulses, and actions come from nowhere and cannot be interrogated. His attitudes came from somewhere, and for every person like him who physically sexually assaults someone, there are dozens or hundreds who hold basically the same views, absorbed from basically the same sources, who "only" harass and intimidate and make gamer culture hostile to everyone who isn't heterosexual, cisgender, white, able-bodied, and male.

Finally, here's the kicker. If past incidents in gamer culture are any indicator (Dickwolves, Fat Princess, Duke Nukem Forever, Resident Evil 5, the Borderlands 2 "Girlfriend Mode" controversy, and countless others) there will be no lasting consequences. A few more people will be alienated from gamer culture, but the majority of gamers will brush it off, and continue to support the institutions that promote these attitudes. The gaming press — even the smart, progressive gaming press — will write about Penny Arcade and PAX and Gearbox and Mojang to talk about their press releases and upcoming games, and will not mention the kinds of things that happen under their various auspices. No lasting opprobrium will attach to any of their names, and the culture will not change. People, even smart, thoughtful, progressive people who understand rape culture and how it works, and work tirelessly to break down race, gender, and sexuality barriers in gamer culture, will keep attending PAX and buying games produced by developers with toxic, misogynist studio cultures. The overwhelming sense will be that yeah, that stuff was bad, but that's all in the past. Like the security guard in Ky's story: "Okay? What do you expect me to do?"

That seems like a harsh way to close, but I don't know what else to say. A lot of people have been patient and polite about this for a great many years, and the results have been rather underwhelming. Nerd culture resists change, and perceives efforts to bring change as attacks, no matter how moderate, no matter how careful the phrasing. I think the best hope is to work to make explicit what it is the pillars of the subculture support: to label their behavior indelibly as sexism, and to finally attach some modicum of shame to behaviors that should always have been seen as shameful. Challenge harmful structures, don't support them. Don't let praise for misogynist companies and institutions go unquestioned. make all but the most committedly sexist nerds uncomfortable voicing their boy's-club attitudes, and make it socially unacceptable for the majority to associate with the hardcore misogynists.

Open Wide...

Here Is a Thing

[Content Note: Eliminationist violence; white supremacy.]

Wade Michael Page, who on Sunday walked into a Sikh temple and started shooting, killing six people and wounding others before he was killed by a police officer, is described, like others before him who committed similar crimes, as a lone gunman.

Which is true. And not true.

Page killed alone, and he is accountable for every pull of the trigger. But his crime doesn't exist in a void. It exists in a culture that fetishes violence; in a culture that prioritizes gun ownership over gun safety; in a culture that privileges whiteness; in a culture that privileges Christianity; in a culture which Others the community that he targeted for mass murder.

He was a lone gunman with plenty of accomplices.

It's impossible to know what would have prevented his specific crime, if anything. But we know that violent acts of racist murder don't exist in a void.

What prevention there can be requires comprehensive solutions. Serious gun reform. Meaningful diversity that decentralizes Christianity in the public sphere. White people treating expressions of eliminationist racism with the gravity they deserve.

"He would talk about the racial holy war, like he wanted it to come," [Christopher Robillard of Oregon, who described Page as "my closest friend" in the service more than a decade ago] said. "But to me, he didn't seem like the type of person to go out and hurt people."
Here, then, is a thing for all of us to understand: Privileged white men who talk desirously about racial holy wars are the type of person who might hurt people.

Just something to tuck away in the old brainpan.

That Page could be a person who spoke long and lustfully of a war in which white Christians would wantonly slaughter non-whites and non-Christians, for no other reason than white Christians merely having unassailable privilege is insufficient dominance to quell their restless insecurity, but nonetheless be viewed by his peers as a man who "didn't seem like the type of person to go out and hurt people," is incredible evidence of pervasive indifference to the fact of violent racism.

There are people who commit violent racist acts. If not the men who yearn for race wars, then who? Who seems like "the type" to hurt people?

That is an ignorance, an apathy, so cavernous that it engulfs the terrible lie of the lone gunman. Everyone who shrugged at his eliminationist fantasies, everyone who creates and maintains a culture in which eliminationist fantasies are so ubiquitous that they might be casually dismissed (and those who sound alarms deemed hysterics, rather than citizens), is complicit.

And we are all tasked with prevention. We are all tasked in imagining a culture in which violent fantasies of racial holy wars cannot be and are not considered an eccentric affectation, but a red flag—an unacceptable expression of an intolerable urge.

Open Wide...

Trayvon Martin Updates

[Content Note: Racism, violence, capital punishment.]

Two stories of note:

1. FBI may charge George Zimmerman with hate crime: "State prosecutors said Zimmerman, a neighborhood watchman, profiled and stalked 17-year-old Trayvon Martin before killing him, so the FBI is now looking into charging him with a hate crime. ... FBI investigators are actively questioning witnesses in the retreat at the Twin Lakes neighborhood, seeking evidence for a possible federal hate crime charge." If Zimmerman was charged with and convicted of a federal hate crime, he would potentially face the death penalty.

2. George Zimmerman prosecutors file list of witnesses, evidence in Trayvon Martin shooting: "Most names were redacted from the witness and evidence document obtained by the Orlando Sentinel, but six civilian witnesses were named: Trayvon's parents, Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin; his brother, Jahvarius Fulton; and Zimmerman's neighbor Frank Taaffe, friend Joe Oliver and father, Robert Zimmerman. The document listed 18 Sanford police officers as primary witnesses, including lead Investigator Chris Serino."

And in related news: Autopsy Shows African-American Teen Kendrec McDade Was Shot Seven Times By Police. It's not just Stand Your Ground laws we've got to worry about, of course. There's an entire culture of racist violence that we've got to meaningfully address as a nation. I just really wonder when the fuck we might get around to doing that. By which I mean: When the privileged white majority might start fucking listening to the people who have been trying to have that conversation for hundreds of years.

Open Wide...

Their Bootstraps Made Them Do It

[Content Note: Terrorism, violence, disablism.]

Once upon a time, the United States had a president named George W. Bush.

Nowadays, conservatives don't talk much about their man Dubya, as he was affectionately known, but when he was king, boy, how they loved him. He was their Golden Boy, the Platonic Ideal of the Modern Conservative—a man of extreme privilege with the fabricated veneer of a country boy, a corporate shill who gave an insidious wink at the working man, the teetotaler with whom every Real American wanted to have a beer.

Like some kind of malevolent genie pulled out of a bottle in oil-soaked Texas, George Bush tumbled headfirst into unfettered conservative wish fulfillment, and introduced The Ownership Society to America.

It was ostensibly about property ownership: Bush had a vision of getting everyone into their very own homes with their very own shiny mortgages. "We're creating...an ownership society in this country, where more Americans than ever will be able to open up their door where they live and say, welcome to my house, welcome to my piece of property," he said—and, well, we all know how that turned out.

But it was also about personal responsibility, that favorite of all favorite conservative mantras. Let them eat bootstraps, and all that.

There are a lot of reasons that George Bush's Ownership Society was and is a garbage disaster for the United States. Among them is the fact that this notion of every bootstrapper for hirself has more deeply entrenched the idea that people's individual actions exist in a fucking void.

Yesterday morning, in my piece about the murder of Trayvon Martin, I noted that the excuse-making for George Zimmerman on the basis that he is "crazy" has already begun. Later in the day, in my piece about Rick Santorum's vile bigotry, I addressed the ubiquitous habit of marginalizing him on the basis that he is "crazy." This morning, I wrote about the firebombing of a pro-choice State Senator's office, and—wouldn't you know it?—the man who has been arrested for the incident is, we are informed, a homeless man who is "crazy," just like the man who firebombed a clinic in Florida, and just like the man who was arrested for threatening to kill Rep. Jim McDermott, and just like the man who tried to kill Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, and just like the man who attempted to bomb a Martin Luther King Day parade, and just like the man who killed Dr. George Tiller, and on and on and on until I want to fucking puke.

Each and every one of them are individually and independently "crazy" and their actions exist in a void and there's nothing to see here, move along. Their bootstraps made them do it.

Guess who else is "crazy"? Anyone who sees a pattern of anti-progressive violence—and, very specifically, misogynist and/or homophobic and/or racist violence—and has the unmitigated temerity to suggest that, hey, maybe this shit isn't happening in a void.

Maybe the nakedly misogynist, unapologetically homophobic, and dangerously racist policies of the Republican Party and its even more extreme rightwing have something to do with this homegrown terrorism that everyone in Washington is carefully ignoring because to call it out would be impolitic and partisan and, worse yet, might hurt someone's reelection chances.

That's just "crazy" talk. Their bootstraps made them do it.

Maybe the fact that the Republican Party has been actively courting bigots under the guise of "tradition" and exploiting their bigotry to get elected for four decades, increasingly legitimizing extremist views and demonizing progressives and/or members of marginalized groups in the process, has a little something to do with this homegrown terrorism.

That's just "crazy" talk. Their bootstraps made them do it.

Maybe the toxic combination of demonizing vulnerable populations, lax gun laws, and violent rhetoric—otherwise known as the Republican Platform—has facilitated an environment in which the murder of Trayvon Martin, the legitimacy of Rick Santorum, the assassination attempt on a sitting member of Congress, and the widespread attacks on women's clinics and abortionists are not aberrations, but inevitabilities.

That's just "crazy" talk. Their bootstraps made them do it.

Maybe the failure of ostensibly progressive allies to speak the fuck up and call this homegrown terrorism by name, the failure to be all in, all the time, because it's not politically expedient or because it's "woman's work" or because where ya gonna go? is kind of a goddamned problem, too.

That's just "crazy" talk. Their bootstraps made them do it.

Just a series of lone gunmen and bombers, none of whom are connected by anything. Except for how they are connected by all being men living in the same culture—a culture that is increasingly conservative, increasingly tolerant of violent rhetoric and actual violence, a culture hostile to consent, a culture that asserts state ownership of marginalized bodies, a culture that advocates individual responsibility and sneers at collective responsibility, that treats as a punchline concepts like "universal healthcare," underlining the fact that even if these men are indeed mentally ill, it is nonetheless our shared responsibility for not providing comprehensive services to address that health crisis before other people get hurt.

Conservative ideology scoffs at such hippie nonsense and advocates an Ownership Society. Every person for hirself, and fuck you if you get in the way of an individual who's been failed by this fucked-up culture and makes use of the fact that we treat gun ownership as a right but not access to healthcare.

But a society of disconnected individuals without responsibility for one another isn't a society at all. And no matter how hostile to the notions of a social contract conservatives may be, the fact stubbornly remains that we are all connected to and influenced by a culture—a culture that has been severely weakened and imperiled and made infinitely more dangerous for its oppressed members by a conservative approach that rejects human interdependency and shared accountability.

To imagine that, even (or maybe especially) if an individual is dangerously mentally ill, pervasive cultural memes do not influence in what direction they direct their violent impulses is to fail to understand how culture works.

(Which is to say nothing of the likelihood that mentally ill people are more likely themselves to be victims of violence than perpetrators of it.)

But instead of acknowledging the reality of having created more dangerous spaces for marginalized people, instead of owning it, conservatives dismiss these homegrown terrorists as "crazy" in a void, and double down on the notion of individual responsibility. And there are always plenty of fauxgressives happy to play along, even if just by fastidiously maintaining their silence.

We are in this together. "He's crazy" doesn't fucking cut it.

A dead teenage boy. A wildly radical Christian Supremacist candidate vying for the nomination. A dead doctor. A terrorist campaign against women and other people with uteri, and their doctors and allies, who just want access to a legal medical procedure.

This is your Ownership Society in all its violent grotesquery, Republicans. Own that.

Open Wide...

Number of the Day

[Content Note: Racism; violence.]

15: The number of things compiled by Think Progress that everyone should know about the murder of Trayvon Martin.

I have linked to two great pieces at Crunktastic that address the murder (which is a legal term that I should technically not be using unless and until George Zimmerman is arrested, tried, and convicted, but fuck that it was a fucking murder), but I have not written anything myself, and it is not because I don't care about the story.

It is because I don't know what to write.

I'm so fucking sad and I'm so fucking angry, and I don't know where to put all those feelings or what to do with them. I want to be able to do something, now, or support something, participate in something meaningful that's going to put an end to this never-ending violence and the never-ending apathy punctuated by moments of quickly fading outrage, but there's no such thing.

This is racism, and to imagine there is some swift and decisive measure to be taken against racism is the same sort of nonsense underlying "the war on terror," a military action against a tactic.

Dismantling institutional oppression isn't accomplished by a single blow; it's a process. I know that, but it just isn't satisfying today.

Open Wide...

Today in Totally Not Terrorism

[Content Note: Anti-choice terrorism.]

There are a lot of things that don't get called terrorism in this country, but chief among them is the anti-choice movement, which is the most brazen, unapologetic terrorist campaign in the US, its co-ordination and orchestration done right out in the open, where no one in the media or politics will call it what it is. It is an inherently violent ideology, backed by a decades-long campaign of intimidation, harassment and violence directed at abortion providers and abortion seekers, that is ignored by one party and mainstreamed as a central plank of its party platform by the other.

And still, every goddamn episode of blatant terrorism against women's clinics is treated like an isolated incident.

Today, another story about a fire at a women's clinic in Pensacola, Florida—a clinic which has already been bombed twice and was the site of the fatal shootings of Dr. John Britton and clinic escort James Barrett—and CNN manages to report it without ever using the word "terrorism" in its piece.

Again, this despite the fact that it has already been the site of two terrorist attacks, and in spite of Pensacola Police Chief Chip Simmons having told the Pensacola News-Journal that to call the fire suspicious "would be an understatement."

"Obviously somebody doesn't like abortion," resident Danielle Moulden told WEAR. "I'm against it myself, but I'd never go that far."
Well, at least we got to hear from someone who's against abortion. That's the important thing.

[H/T to @OnTheIssues.]

Open Wide...

This is racism.

[Trigger warning for racism, violence, torture, eliminationism, white supremacy.]

For the past three hours, I've been trying to figure out how to write about, and what to say about, this horrendous story about a group of white teenagers in Mississippi who are accused of (and were recorded by surveillance camera) attacking James Craig Anderson, a 49-year-old Black man, beating him while shouting racial epithets and white supremacist slogans, and then running him over with a truck, killing him. Anderson was not known to them; they reportedly just set out that night with the explicit intent to do harm to a Black person.

I can't seem to form a cohesive response from my jumble of thoughts.

I want to extend my sincerest condolences to Anderson's family, friends, and colleagues. Losing a loved one is difficult in the best of circumstances; I cannot begin to fathom what it is like to lose someone under these circumstances, to try to find a way to mourn through the reverberating fear and shattered security caused by hate crimes. To know that he is gone only because of violent hatred, to be reminded of that seething, murderous bigotry every time they remember that he is gone, to have to try to navigate one's way to some semblance of peace through that wrenching anger, is just one of the most horrible things I can imagine.

I want to express my sympathies to every person of color who feels this morning just a little less safe, or a little more cynical. I have written before about the lack of familiar and comfortable words we have to offer to survivors of violent crimes; we have none for members of communities targeted by hate crimes, either—because, of course, we don't have those sorts of conversations as a country, which is part and parcel of how we create the atmosphere in which those precise crimes are inevitable.

I want to scream about how badly we failed James Craig Anderson, by failing to communicate the simple idea that racism is wrong. I don't mean someone, anyone, just failing to tell his killers, straightforwardly and clearly, that racism is wrong—although that, too; I mean failing as a culture to practice the idea that racism is wrong, as opposed to constantly treating as if it's axiomatic the idea that racism is wrong while upholding institutional racism in everything from casual slurs and "jokes" to disproportionate representation in Congress. This shit doesn't happen in a void. It happens in the context of profoundly entrenched racial prejudice and white privilege.

I want to write something about that white privilege, which I have, and about how, when white people are provided, over and over, with irrefutable evidence that white privilege is the backdrop against which hate crimes like the murder of James Craig Anderson happen, to simply assert that not actively trading on that privilege, that not being an overt racist, is enough, is bullshit. There is no neutral. There is only actively working to dismantle white privilege and institutional racism, or abetting it with silence.

I want to note that being All In as an ally is hard, and sometimes you fuck it up, at least I do, but it's a lot about knowing when to listen and when to talk, i.e. listening to people of color and talking to other white people about privilege. I wonder who failed the young men charged with killing James Craig Anderson, who failed to teach them to listen, who failed to talk to them. And I remember my own childhood, and I imagine that it was pretty much everyone.

And I want to underline that this ghastly murder is why ideas that we live in a "post-racial" country are both foolish and dangerous, and why the Oppression Olympics are such utter, contemptible garbage. There are a lot of reasons, actually, why the Oppression Olympics are utter, contemptible garbage, but perhaps none so succinctly demonstrable as this: In the Oppression Olympics, the death of James Craig Anderson is the gold fucking medal.

RIP Mr. Anderson.

[H/T to @PeterDaou and Shaker The_Great_Indoors.]

Open Wide...

Chrissy Lee Polis' Attacker Pleads Guilty

[Trigger warning for transphobia; violence.]

Back in April, I wrote about Chrissy Lee Polis, a trans woman who was attacked and beaten at a McDonald's in the Baltimore suburbs by two teenage young women, ages 14 and 18.

Today, the elder of the two, now 19, pleaded guilty to to one court of first-degree assault and one count of a hate crime.

Prosecutors expect to seek a prison term of five years when [Teonna Monae Brown] is sentenced next month.

The girl who was charged as a juvenile in the same attack admitted her role in juvenile court on July 1 and was committed to a locked facility, [Baltimore County State's Attorney Scott Shellenberger] said.
This was an excellent application of a hate crimes statute. I fervently hope that the two young women who attacked Polis will, during their incarceration, have access to rehabilitative therapy that challenges and ultimately changes their transphobia, which would be comprehensive justice for Chrissy.

[H/T to Bil.]

Open Wide...

Today in Totally Not Terrorism

[Trigger warning for anti-choice terrorism.]

There are a lot of things that don't get called terrorism in this country, but chief among them is the anti-choice movement, which is the most brazen, unapologetic terrorist campaign in the US, its co-ordination and orchestration done right out in the open, where no one in the media or politics will call it what it is. It is an inherently violent ideology, backed by a decades-long campaign of intimidation, harassment and violence directed at abortion providers and abortion seekers, that is ignored by one party and mainstreamed as a central plank of its party platform by the other.

Last week, I wrote about a Planned Parenthood clinic in Texas which had been damaged by a Molotov cocktail, and now, via Robin, I see that the FBI is seeking tips after a women's clinic in Detroit was damaged by a suspicious package.

The FBI is asking for the public's help in identifying whoever is responsible for leaving a suspicious package outside of the Summit Women’s Center in Detroit earlier this month.

The package, according to a news release from the FBI, caused damage to the building, located at 15801 W. McNichols. The package was left sometime after 1:30 p.m. July 16 and before 8:30 a.m. July 18, according to the FBI.

According to the center's Web site, the center is an abortion clinic and provides gynecological services, STD testing and birth control option counseling.
This shit doesn't happen in a void. It happens in a toxic cultural mix of endemic misogyny, hostility for choice and consent, violent rhetoric, and a political climate in which even ostensible defenders of reproductive choice talk about abortion in dishonest and unhelpful and clueless ways; that is, when they're not being totally silent on the issue.

We are without serious allies.

Open Wide...

Today in Totally Not Terrorism

[Trigger warning for anti-choice terrorism.]

There are a lot of things that don't get called terrorism in this country, but chief among them is the anti-choice movement, which is the most brazen, unapologetic terrorist campaign in the US, its co-ordination and orchestration done right out in the open, where no one in the media or politics will call it what it is. It is an inherently violent ideology, backed by a decades-long campaign of intimidation, harassment and violence directed at abortion providers and abortion seekers, that is ignored by one party and mainstreamed as a central plank of its party platform by the other.

Tuesday night, in McKinney, Texas, another Planned Parenthood clinic was the target of another incident of Totally Not Terrorism, during which, fortunately, no one was physically injured:

A heavy glass door is all that stood between damaging flames threatening a family planning clinic in McKinney and an arsonist's sights.

McKinney police and fire crews responded to a small fire that broke out around 10:05 p.m. Tuesday at the front door of the Planned Parenthood clinic, located in a block of stories in the 1700 block of Eldorado Parkway, clinic, police and fire officials confirmed on Wednesday.

...Holly Morgan, director of communications for Planned Parenthood of North Texas in Dallas, said the person or persons involved in the attack threw a Molotov cocktail, consisting of diesel fuel in a glass bottle with a lit rag, at the clinic's front door.

...The incident is also unique because the McKinney location does not provide surgical procedures or abortions for their approximately 4,000 clients, Morgan said.

"It's an all-preventive care location: well-woman visits, breast and cervical cancer screenings, birth control," she said. "They don't provide legal safe abortions, only preventive care."
This shit doesn't happen in a void. Now even clinics that are providing exclusively preventative care to women are being targeted by terrorists because of the incendiary rhetoric of Republicans across the nation who demonize abortion, demonize abortion providers and abortion seekers, and mendaciously frame Planned Parenthood as an abortion mill.

As an interesting side note, the original URL at which this story appears to have been located now takes you to a story about a local town winning an award for online financial transparency. That story also appears in their Most Popular, Most Emailed, and Most Commented sections, which seems wildly unlikely given the content.

The mysterious switcheroo happened after Ben Armbruster linked to it from Think Progress. (I mentioned it to him this morning, and now his piece has been updated with the correct link, which he also helpfully provided to me.) Naturally, I can certainly imagine how and why such a mysterious switcheroo might have happened, although I'm quite certain such expressions of cynicism would be resoundingly dismissed as the fantastic hysteria typical of people who write about Lady Business.

Open Wide...

The Global Echo of Violent Misogyny

by David Futrelle

[Trigger warning for violence, terrorism, eliminationism, misogyny, racism, Islamophobia.]

We all know that Norwegian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik, who killed dozens of people in attacks last Friday, was motivated by a toxic mélange of far-right ideology largely revolving around his intense hatred of Islam. The 1500-page "manifesto" he posted to the internet – a grab-bag of his own writing and material cut and pasted from assorted right-wing sites and even the Unabomber's manifesto – crackles with denunciations of Muslims, "Marxists" and the assorted other bogeymen that haunt right-wing dreams.

But what has yet to be fully appreciated is the degree to which he was also motivated by a deep hatred of women.

I've spent much of the past year seeking out and exposing (and often simply mocking) online misogyny for my blog Man Boobz. I find much of it in what some have taken to calling the "manosphere" – a loose collection of interlinked sites devoted to Men's Rights Activism, pickup artistry, and a strange separatist movement of sorts called Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW). The overwhelming majority of these sites – the most popular of which include The Spearhead, A Voice for Men, In Mala Fide and MGTOWforums.com (to which I won't be providing direct links, but they're easy enough to find, if you're so inclined)– are steeped in misogyny (and in some cases racism). I've become very familiar with their standard misogynist "arguments" and rhetorical tropes.

After a blog reader alerted me to the misogyny in Breivik's manifesto, I read through those sections of the sprawling work that dealt specifically with feminism. I was struck again and again by how utterly familiar it all sounded. Much of it could have been taken word-for-word from the manosphere blogs I read every day. (Not to mention from some of the misogynist trolls who regularly comment on my site.) The ideology is the same, the language is the same, even the specific obsessions are the same – from no-fault divorce to the evils of "Sex and the City."

Here's one typical passage, which appears to have been written by Breivik himself:

It's the destructive and suicidal "Sex and the City" lifestyle (modern feminism, sexual revolution) which we are taught to revere as the truth. In that setting, men are not men anymore, but metro sexual and emotional beings that are there to serve the purpose as a never-criticising soul mate to the new age feminist woman goddess. The perfect matriarchy has now been fulfilled …

Isolated, "sex and the city lifestyle" is relatively harmless, but if you glorify it and ram it down the throat of mainstream society like we see today it becomes a lethal and destructive societal force as we are witnessing which eventually leads to a complete breakdown of moral/ethics, the nuclear family model and a sustainable fertility rate which again is leading us to the extinction of Europeans.
Breivik goes on to rant about STDs and no-fault divorce, before moving on to another favorite obsession of manosphere misogynists, the supposed sexual "capital" of manipulative women:
Females have a significantly higher proportion of erotic capital than males due to biological differences (men have significantly more prevalent sexual urges than females and are thus easily manipulated). The female manipulation of males has been institutionalised during the last decades and is a partial cause of the feminisation of men in Europe. This highly underestimated factor has contributed to the creation and rise of the matriarchal systems which are now dominating Western European countries.
Obsessed with the purported danger that Islam will outbreed the West, Breivik offers an assortment of creepy solutions to increase the fertility of Western whites. (It's not altogether clear to me if these are all his own views, but they certainly are consistent with what he says elsewhere in the manifesto.) After suggesting limiting contraception and banning abortion, Breivik offers this idea:
Discourage women in general to strive for full time careers. This will involve certain sexist and discriminating policies but should increase the fertility rate by up to 0,1-0,2 points.

Women should not be encouraged by society/media to take anything above a bachelor's degree but should not be prevented from taking a master or PhD. Males on the other hand should obviously continue to be encouraged to take higher education – bachelor, master and PhD. …

Womens "new role" should be actively illustrated and glorified through series, movies and commercials. …

The end result for implementing the above reforms would be an increase in the fertility rate up from 1,5 to approximately 2,1-2,4 which would be sustainable.

However, this will also involve significant restrictions in women's rights and media rights.
That last "side effect" does not seem to be much of a problem for Breivik.

Large chunks of the manifesto consist of cut-and-pasted blog posts from an anonymous far-right Norwegian blogger known as Fjordman. (See my post here for an extensive number of quotes from Fjordman that Breivik included in his manifesto.) Like Breivik's own writings, many of Fjordman's writings could be lifted virtually word for word from "manosphere" blogs.

One internet prankster conducted a little experiment that proved pretty clearly just how unexceptional this sort of rhetoric is in the manosphere, posting an assortment of misogynist quotes from Breivik's manifesto (all of them taken originally from Fjordman) to Reddit's Men's Rights forum – without identifying them as being from Breivik.

Despite – or perhaps because of – the blatant misogyny, the post initially received numerous upvotes and some positive comments ("Nice post man") from the regulars. Once it was revealed that the quotes had come from Breivik's manifesto, the downvotes and critical comments began to stack up. (I wrote about the incident here.)

But Reddit's Men's Rights subreddit is actually one of the most moderate and least misogynistic Men's Rights hangout online. Others in the manosphere have stepped up to defend Breivik's manifesto (if not his actions) plainly and explicitly, in full knowledge of just whose ideas they are endorsing.

On In Mala Fide, blogger Ferdinand Bardamu praises Breivik's "lucidity," and blames his murderous actions on the evils of a too-liberal society:
[A]nother madman with a sensible manifesto. Another completely rational, intelligent man driven to murderous insanity. And once again, society has zero introspection in regards to its profound ability to turn thoughtful men into lunatic butchers.
He's not being sarcastic here. He continues:
That makes HOW many rage killers in the past five years alone? And not just transparent headcases like Jared Loughner or George Sodini, but ordinary men like Pekka-Eric Auvinen or Joe Stack who simply weren't going to take it anymore. No one bothers to ask WHY all these men suddenly decide to pick up a gun and start shooting people – they're all written off as crazies. Or the rage killings are blamed on overly permissive gun laws …

Here's an idea – sick societies produce sick individuals who do sick things. Anders Breivin [sic] murdered nearly a hundred teens (not children, TEENS – they were at a summer camp for young adults) and must pay the price, but the blood of those teens is ultimately on the hands of the society that spat him forth. He is the bastard son of a masochistic, degenerate, rootless world that pisses on its traditions and heritage to elevate perversity, mindless consumerism and ethnic self-hatred to the highest of virtues.
That final reference to "ethnic self-hatred" seems to be Bardamu's euphemistic way of complaining that not enough white people are white supremacists.

Meanwhile, Chuck of Gucci Little Piggy offers what appears to be a somewhat more restrained, if ultimately more puzzling, defense of Breivik's manifesto – or at least that portion of the manifesto that Breivik borrowed from the writings of far-right blogger Fjordman.

After first complaining, incorrectly, that feminists are "try[ing] to blame Breivik on MRAs" (he cites me and Hugo Schwyzer as examples), Chuck goes on to endorse Breivik's (and Fjordman's) notion that feminism "grease[s]the wheels to allow Islam into his country," as Chuck summarizes the argument. The rest of Chuck's post elaborates on, and endorses, Breivik's/Fjordman's theories, arguing that feminism's "emasculation of Western men has taken the organic policing mechanism out of the hands of men in society" and thus rendered Western society helpless before the Islamic cultural invaders. (More on Bardamu and Gucci Little Piggy's arguments here.)

But the strangest response I've seen so far to the massacre in Norway comes from Sofiastry, an antifeminist blog that seems to be broadly sympathetic to the "alt" (that is, the "intellectually" racist) right. Apparently taking her cue from Bardamu, Sofia offers an appreciation of sorts for Breivik's repellant manifesto:
[A]lthough his actions were cruel beyond belief, and committed by a delusional, psychopath driven by his delusions of political grandeur, there is lucidity and sense in much of what he writes. He never seemed to explicitly advocated [sic] for a genocide of Muslims within Europe, but superficially claimed that he just wanted to sustain European culture.
So, let's weigh Breivik's pros and cons here. CON: He murdered dozens of people in cold blood, motivated by a hateful ideology. PRO: He didn't explicitly call for actual genocide?

And then it just gets, well, weird:
I feel that Breivik is being tried for more than his cruelty within the feminist community. The fact that he belongs to the privileged group of the white male makes him hate-worthy along with every other privileged white male who might sympathize with his ideology, even if they don't happen to be psychotic. Breivik exemplifies White Men, even though Osama Bin Laden to the very same liberal ideologues did not represent Every Muslim.

It's another symptom of our culture that feels it is OK to hold white men to higher standards of political correctness, self-flagellation and martyrdom whilst simultaneously relentlessly berating and mocking them on a cultural level.
Yep, that's right. She thinks we hate Breivik … because he's a white dude.

I can't speak for every feminist, but for me, it's more the murdering, and the misogyny, and the racism. But mostly the murdering. (For more on Sofia, see here.)

Despite the many undeniable similarities between Breivik's repellent misogyny and misogynist beliefs that are widespread in the "manosphere," some MRAs profess to be shocked –shocked! – that anyone would connect the dots. MRA bloviator Bernard Chapin, for example, responded to my first piece on Breivik with an angry, incoherent ten minute YouTube diatribe expressing his outrage that I would possibly suggest any connection between MRA thought and a "psychopath" like Breivik. It's a classic case of someone protesting too much. The connections are clear to anyone willing to see them.

No, Breivik is not an MRA. No, he didn't take his marching orders from The Spearhead or In Mala Fide. But he is steeped in the same kind of hatred that is prevalent on those sites, and many of his repugnant beliefs about feminism and women in general are virtually identical to beliefs widespread in the misogynistic manosphere – a fact that a few in the manosphere are already willing to acknowledge out loud, as we saw above.

No, not every misogynist is going to pick up a gun. But ideas do have consequences. Vile, hateful ideas have vile, hateful consequences.

PS: For more on Breivik's misogyny, see Michelle Goldberg's Norway Killer's Hatred of Women in TheDailyBeast.

Open Wide...

I Write Letters

[Trigger warning for violence.]

Dear President Obama:

Today marks two years since Dr. George Tiller, a reproductive rights advocate and one of the precious few physicians in the country who performed lifesaving late-term abortions, was murdered at his church.

The day after his murder, I wrote you a letter, begging you to "stop relying on dangerously dishonest rhetoric about abortion, its supporters, and its opponents," and to stop drawing an equivalency between the pro-choice and "pro-life" positions, as if both sides have an equally valid point, and as if activists who defend reproductive rights and activists who seek to subvert them are somehow two sides of the same coin.

Since that time, the Republican Party has, on both the state and federal levels, endeavored to undermine access to abortion, to contraception, and even to woman-centered healthcare providers. More than 500 pieces of anti-choice legislation have been introduced across the nation so far this year, at least one in every single state legislature. More than half of the state legislatures are considering restrictions on private health insurance plans to disallow them from paying for abortions. At least one state legislator has suggested that women should have to bear the cost of a separate insurance policy in case of needing an abortion in the event of being raped.

All of this has been done under the auspices of "valuing life," despite the fact that forcing a woman to carry to term an unwanted or unviable pregnancy against her will is the opposite of a respect for life, if the definition of "life" is to have any meaning at all.

Last week, a man was arrested in Madison with a plan "to lay out abortionists because they are killing babies." That didn't happen in a void. That happened in a political climate in which it is considered an acceptable position to value a blastocyst over a living, breathing, sentient, existent human being.

It happened in a country in which every state legislature, and the national Congress, are trying to find ways to limit access to abortion—and in which the ostensibly pro-choice president remains silent on that matter. Except, of course, when he's bragging about ceding ground to anti-choicers to pass legislation, while insisting it's "not an abortion bill."

It happened in a country in which we are expected to trade everything away, including our civil liberties, in exchange for protection from the existential threat of nebulous foreign terrorists, but in which one of the most brazen, unapologetic terrorist campaigns in America, its co-ordination and orchestration frequently done right out in the open—at meetings, on websites, in email alerts—and potentially affecting the lives of more than half the population, is ignored by one party and mainstreamed as a central plank of its party platform by the other.

Mr. President, the vicious murder of Dr. Tiller was an act of terrorism committed by a terrorist. It should have been a wake-up call to this nation, and to you, to acknowledge the ugly reality that the anti-choice movement is a serious domestic threat.

Instead, the anti-choice movement has gained momentum with the unilateral support of the Republican Party, turning what was once a radical fringe movement into nothing less than state-sponsored terrorism, in defense of an inherently violent ideology.

And in response to this onslaught of violently misogynist activity by people who seek to rob people with uteri of their agency, their bodily autonomy, their right of self-determination, their access to a legal medical procedure, their ability to do that most basic of life management in the modern world—control their reproduction—your party has been all but silent.

You, Mr. President, have been silent.

Two years ago, I told you I was crying because I was sad and scared and angry. Today, sir, I cry because you have allowed Dr. Tiller's murder to happen in vain.

With colossal contempt,
Melissa McEwan

Open Wide...

Yet Another Completely Isolated Act of Terrorism

[Trigger warning for gun violence, eliminationism, misogyny, vigilantism, Christian supremacy, and body policing]

On Wednesday night, police in Madison arrested a man who had come to town with plans to kill people at the local Planned Parenthood.

Ralph Lang, 63, told a Madison police officer at the Motel 6, 1754 Thierer Road, that he had a gun “to lay out abortionists because they are killing babies,” according to a criminal complaint filed Thursday in U.S. District Court.

Lang said he planned on shooting the clinic’s doctor “right in the head,” according to the complaint. Asked if he planned to shoot just the doctor or nurses, too, Lang replied he wished he “could line them up all in a row, get a machine gun, and mow them all down,” the complaint said.
And of course, that was just the beginning of his plans:
Sgt. Bernie Gonzalez looked around Lang’s motel room and saw a box that contained several documents, including a map of the U.S. with dots in each state and the handwritten words “some abortion centers.”

Also written on the map was “Blessed Virgin Mary says Hell awaits any woman having an abortion.”
Police only found out about the plot because the man accidentally shot his gun off in his hotel room.

Of course, this wasn't the first time Lang had threatened Planned Parenthood. He was cited for disorderly conduct in 2007 after standing outside Planned Parenthood's Madison clinic calling for the assassination of everyone inside. That happened three years before he bought a gun for the purpose of doing "what [he felt] police officers fail to do.”

I can't imagine where Lang [TW] got the idea that this sort of behavior is appropriate. Oh [TW] wait, I do.

Interestingly enough, just yesterday President Obama signed a four-year extension of the Patriot Act, an act designed to give the US government absurd powers that many politicians claim are necessary to protect its residents from acts of terrorism.

Yet the president has been silent as virtually every state (Louisiana is still on winter break) [Correction: they're back!] has seen the introduction on legislation seeking to restrict women's rights to abortion.

Yet the president acts as if there are two equal sides to this "issue".

Yet police are unable to do anything about a known anti-choice terrorist until after he buys a gun and shoots a hole in his hotel.

Obviously, I'd like to think that the arrest of yet another violent vigilante will finally alert those with political power to the dangers of their (at best) indifference. Sadly, I'm afraid I know better.

Via

Open Wide...

All In

[Trigger warning for violence, transphobia, transphobic hate crime, racism.]

Last week, Chrissy Lee Polis, a woman who is trans, was viciously attacked and beaten at a McDonald's in the Baltimore suburbs after she used the women's bathroom. Her attackers were two teenage young women, ages 14 and 18.

Polis is physically okay, despite the attack having triggered a seizure. Her attackers will be charged: The elder may face hate crimes charges. And should, in my estimation.

Here, you can see Polis address what the attack against her means for members of the whole community, how such vicious hatred reverberates. Which is, of course, the very raison d'être for a hate crime designation.

The details of the attack, including the video that was taken by a McDonald's employee and uploaded almost immediately to the internet, are available at Bilerico. Alex has a follow-up here, which includes responses from McDonald's, who has fired the employee who filmed and uploaded the attack and calls the incident "reprehensible."

I almost don't know where to begin discussion of this incident. It's so terrible—and yet to be shocked by a crime of this nature against a trans woman is a privilege. I am horrified and I am profoundly sad and I am angry—because this shit doesn't happen in a void. I am relieved that Polis is physically okay, but my heart hurts for the lingering psychological effects she may experience. And I ache for members of the trans* community, and their loved ones, who have yet another pointed reminder of the hatred and fear felt by so many cis people, socialized in a trans*-hostile culture that rigidly forces people into a gender binary and lazily relies on gender essentialism and arbitrarily privileges cisgenderedness.

And I am depressed that, because Polis is white and her attackers are black, white racists are using this incident to engage in despicable racism—which is, whether effectively or intentionally, just a way of silencing discussion of cis privilege.

And I am pleased that the police are taking this case seriously, and that much of the media reporting of the incident is actually decent and respectful, and that the local community is rallying around Polis, and that she has so much online support, and that McDonald's was unequivocal in denouncing the violence against her, all of which ought to be givens but unfortunately aren't.

And I am listening hard to the reminder, care of the elderly cis woman who stepped into the attack to try to help Polis, and who got a black eye herself for her trouble, standing between Polis and her attackers while Polis wrapped her arms around the stranger's leg, the importance of being All In.

And I am listening hard to the same reminder, provided by her attackers—and their tacit admonishment to be an active ally every day, to prevent shit like this from happening in the first place.

[H/Ts to Shakers Kay, Reba, and Lila.]

Open Wide...

Prejudice Doesn't Exist in a Void

Shaker Imagynne emails, which I am publishing with her permission:

I'm a researcher who works in the area of population health and racism. I recently came across a paper outlining the ways in which peer attitudes influence individuals' expressed prejudices and acceptance of stereotyping. From the introduction:
Individuals often conform to the intergroup attitudes and behaviors modeled by their peers in a given situation. They express more tolerance of racist speech following a peer's expression of racist views, and less tolerance after a peer condemns racism (Blanchard, Crandall, Brigham, & Vaughn, 1994); they adjust to the current peer consensus on stereotyping when reporting their own racial stereotypes (Sechrist & Stangor, 2001; Stangor, Sechrist, & Jost, 2001); they are more tolerant of discrimination against minorities and women after overhearing racist or sexist jokes (Ford & Ferguson, 2004; LaFrance & Woodzicka, 1998) and when they perceive prejudice against those groups to be socially acceptable (Crandall, Eshleman, & O'Brien, 2002). A signal as subtle as a peer's antiracism t-shirt can go so far as to influence an individual's unconscious, uncensored prejudice (Lun, Sinclair, Glenn, & Whitchurch, 2007; Sinclair, Lowery, Hardin, & Colangelo, 2005).
I thought I would forward it to you since it fits in so neatly with the idea that rape jokes facilitate acceptance of rape and so on.
This is what I'm talking about when I say, over and over like the broken record that I am, whether it's about marginalizing humor, rape jokes, images and objects of disembodied women, "odd news," advertising, movies and other pop culture, et cetera, that it is the pervasive, ubiquitous, inescapable little stuff that creates the foundation of cultural prejudices on which the big stuff is dependent for its survival.

Which is why the recommendation to "get over it," so often intertwined with accusations of looking for things about which to get offended, is not merely ill-advised and totally fucking obnoxious, but counter to the ultimate goal of social justice. We can't ignore "the little stuff," because that's Itthat's the stuff, that's the fertile soil in which everything else takes root and from whence everything else springs, that's the way that the fundamental idea of inequality is conveyed over and over and over again.

Asking me to "let it go" is thus asking me to participate in my own marginalization and/or the marginalization of others, and I can't do that. I won't. I'm all in.

Open Wide...

Compassionate Conservatives Eliminate Domestic Violence Funding

by Shaker Moderator Aphra_Behn

[Trigger warning for domestic violence]

You remember Georgia's Nathan Deal, he of the homophobic campaign ads and stinktastic record on women's issues. Well, he won the Governor's seat, and so did a whole bunch of GOPeople, so many that the Republicans control both Houses of the GA Legislative Assembly. Now they have to make tough decisions about the budget (when they're not busy totally failing at job creation, that is!) and they've gone about it with exactly the "pro-family" priorities we've come to expect from the Georgia GOP:

Georgia is set to eliminate all state money for domestic violence programs, replacing it with federal funds that some advocates say will limit the services shelters for battered women can provide.
Yes, you read that right. In order to solve the state's budget woes, the House and the Senate both voted to eliminate all state money for DV programs.

And if you think that Deal and his fellow Republicans just don't care about domestic violence, well, hold on there, partner! They are just going to use federal money instead: TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) will make up the difference.

Except, not so much.
In memos and e-mails from February and March, HHS officials asked the state to explain its use of TANF dollars but said they would not know for sure whether they were permissible until they conducted an audit.
To sum:

1. Led by GOP Governor Nathan Deal, both the Georgia GOP-led House and the GOP-led Senate have voted in a budget that eliminates funding for DV shelters. They say federal money will make up the difference.

2. The Feds say that's a questionable use of funds.

3. The Georgia GOP keeps it in the budget anyway. Because they don't actually give a shit.

You can dress this up any way you like—I especially love the Georgia Budget and Policy Institute guy who calls this "creative"—but it signals a fundamental disdain for the rights of women. As Liss says, this shit doesn't happen in a void. If you think that it's a coincidence that this same legislature has seen bills introduced that classify abortions as "prenatal murder" and rape survivors as "accusers"...well, then you have a very broad definition of "coincidence."

Anyway, we shouldn't worry, because Nathan Deal (of the barftastic track record on DV) assures us that the money will be there somehow!
"We do feel this is a permissible use of TANF funds," Robinson said. "But no matter what happens the money will be there for these shelters."
Well, I feel better, don't you? I guess that it will come from the Super Secret Leprechaun Gold Emergency Fund, or maybe just from Nathan Deal's ass. Because it certainly isn't in the budget.

And that says it all, really. If DV were a priority, then funding for shelters wouldn't be an expendable political football. Full stop.

But then, for DV to be a priority, the GOP would have to admit that its vision of gender, family, and sexuality isn't the idyllic Fifties-as-seen-on-tv. Rather, defunding DV shelters emphasizes the fact that, like the GOP's "pro-life" ideology, their "pro-family" position is inherently violent, propping up the authority of abusers, no matter the cost to children and partners.

Conservative? Sure. Compassionate? Please.

If you live in Georgia and would like to contact your representatives and/or the governor's office, contact information can be found through Congress.org.

Open Wide...