There’s quite the debate going on at another blog over the use of the term “big girl” to denigrate Senator Pat Roberts as a coward, with the predictable sides being argued—those who are telling offended (mostly) women to get a sense of humor, shut up, and focus on the big picture, and those who are arguing that sexism and sexist language is part of the big picture. I fall into the latter category. (Big surprise, eh?)
What do you think? If you don’t think it’s a big deal, would you object to Roberts being referred to as a big fag? What if he were said to be acting like a [insert a racial slur here]?
Question of the Day
Big Girl
John Aravosis (new link here):
Senator Pat Robert (R-KS) is nothing more than a big girl.I clicked through to comments, expecting to see him being taken to task for it. Sure enough (comment has been deleted):
Well, on behalf of the "girls" who read this blog, I am a little offended.John edited the comment with the following (bold his):
NOTE FROM JOHN: After all, what's really important about what I wrote isn't that we're losing our civil liberties as our democracy disappears, but rather, that you're offended by the use of gay vernacular. Thanks for helping us keep the eye on the ball.Aravosis appears to be asserting that because "big girl" was used in "the gay way," it couldn't be sexist, but its inclusion in the gay vernacular does not change its origins.
Just because someone—or some term—is gay doesn’t mean it can’t possibly be misogynist; sexism isn’t the sole province of straight men. In fact, some of the most virulent misogynists I have ever met have been gay men. I have known gay men who, perhaps having spent a lifetime of being slandered with female-associated slurs (girly, sissy), seem to have internalized the negative associations and find no better way to distance themselves from that name-calling then by denigrating women and incorporating sexist slurs into their vernacular. (Mostly, the gay men I have known have gone the opposite direction and are fantastic feminist allies.)
The irony here is that his use of the term comes in an important post about the encroachment on our civil liberties—but one of the most oft-employed tactics in laying the groundwork for undermining the civil liberties of any group (or resisting extending equality) is to demonize them, and demonizers are ever reliant upon inflammatory language. “Radical homosexual agenda” versus gay rights. “Pro-abortion” versus pro-choice. “Feminazis” versus feminists. “Liberal traitors” or “Terrorist sympathizers” versus defenders of the Constitution. Sexist, racist, homophobic, and other incendiary language and advocacy for the denial of civil rights have always been inextricably linked, making it all the more unfortunate that Aravosis now refuses to acknowledge his error, as an important post is undermined by a paltry excuse for sexist language.
I understand it’s part of the gay vernacular. But that it is doesn’t mean that it should be. It’s a poor assumption that anything “gay” couldn’t possibly be sexist, and makes for a poor excuse indeed. I'd like to assume that Aravosis made the mistake in good faith, not considering that there are parts of the gay vernacular that have the capacity to insult women, but his response thus far hasn't reassured me that he's willing to thoughtfully engage that possibility.
UPDATE: I had an afterthought about invoking "gay vernacular" to defend this particular use of the term seeming suspicious to me which I stuck in comments, but I'm going to add it, long with Fritz's response, which reinforces my thought, here:
I said, "And, as a side note, being the well-versed in Gayese fag hag that I am, I'd also note I've never heard 'big girl' used as an insult, but instead as a cheeky compliment, even when directed at another man, so I'm not certain that defending its employment as a derogatory term by saying it's part of the gay vernacular is actually all that correct. In other words, I've been around gay men who have used the term and was never offended—but that's because they never used it this way. Aravosis, based on my experience, is using it in a fashion that is atypically negative, so I'm not convinced his 'gay vernacular' defense is entirely appropriate."
Fritz said, "When big homos like me use the term 'girl', we're not saying that someone is weak or frightened. Typically, it means just the opposite. It means that we think another gay man is being fiercely girlish—expressing his feminine side in a bold and unapologetic manner. Example: A gay man puts on a pair of lime green hot pants and a Strawberry Shortcake babydoll t-shirt to go out to a club. His friends may say, 'Ooooo, you're a just a BIG GIRL!' That's a compliment. That's using the term in a 'gay way.' Calling a politician a 'big girl' for being what you consider to be weak and cowardly is using the term the same way a schoolyard bully would."
Yeah. The more I think about this, the less willing I am to give it a pass.
O’Reilly: Biggest Tool Ever
The only explanation I have is that he is now doing a parody of Stephen Colbert doing a parody of him.
He’s threatened a boycott of Mexico.After hearing President Bush order 6,000 National Guard troops to the southern border earlier this week, Mexico's foreign secretary, Luis Ernesto Derbez, went on a radio program in Mexico City and said, quote, "If there is a real wave of rights abuses, if we see the National Guard starting to directly participate in detaining people, we would immediately start filing lawsuits through our consulates."
Yes, I’m sure he’ll be happy to make it perfectly clear that the bloviating buttfor’s boycott on France had absolutely no discernible effect whatsoever.
OK, then, Mr. Secretary, here's a no-spin message right back to you: If the Mexican government files one lawsuit in the U.S.A., one, pertaining to the National Guard, I will call for a total boycott of Mexican goods and no travel to your country. … [A]ny action by the Mexican government that impacts border security and the U.S.A. will be met with a boycott call. And if you don't believe me or you think it doesn't matter, Mr. Secretary, why don't you give the French ambassador a call? He'll fill you in.From March 2003 through June 2003 -- the first four months after O'Reilly's call for a boycott -- total U.S. imports from France outpaced the same four months in 2002 by $55 million; by the end of 2003, U.S. imports for March through December totaled $24.6 billion compared with $23.8 billion for the same months in 2002.
Ooh, I bet you’re shaking in your boots now, aren’t ya, Mexico?!
Ironically, O’Reilly’s really only hurting himself.
Rrrrrrrrraw
I've got a new article up at Raw Story. If you require blood pressure medication, take it before reading.
An Open Letter to the FBI
Dear FBI,
DON’T YOU HAVE ANYTHING BETTER TO DO, YOU DINGDONGS?!
Love,
Shakespeare’s Sister
teens, sex, and strap-ons to save the day
ABC's Primetime aired an episode last night called "Teen Girls Discuss Their Sex Lives". They got 14 teenagers together for a sleepover and let the girls talk. Their parents were able to watch and react. The results were completely unsurprising."Primetime," along with Seventeen magazine, recruited a group of girls to participate in a sleepover to talk about what sex means in their lives. Their parents also participated, by joining the group later to see what their daughters had said.
The parents said that, for the most part, they had an open relationship with their children and talked about sex.
According to an ABC News poll, about 90 percent of parents nationwide say they've spoken to their teens about sex. Only half of their teens agree. So whatever parents think is "the sex talk," it doesn't seem to register with their kids.
This doesn't surprise me in the least. Parents shouldn't have The Sex Talk. They should have multiple talks starting when kids are young because by the time kids are at an age where sex is something they're considering, one big talk (or two) is not going to make much difference. For many girls, kissing — still known as "first base" — begins at 11 or 12. While several studies say that actual intercourse among teens is on the decline, there is an increase in other types of sexual activity — including oral sex. By 16, nearly a quarter of teenage girls have engaged in oral sex.
This seems about right to me. Do these things really change with time? Don't we see these exact stories (with slight variation) come out every few years?Most of the girls seemed to agree that if you had oral sex with a boy, you could still be a virgin.
I tend to agree with this. Fellatio and cunnalingus are not intercourse, thus a person is still technically a virgin. But is the person virginal? Not really. What do you think?The ABC News poll showed an astonishing 70 percent of teens said their first time had been unplanned, such as Tiffany, who was 14 when she lost her virginity.
I don't know about "astonishing", I mean c'mon now--teenagers. Giant walking hormones. Succombing to a moment of (new, exciting!) lust and passion isn't exactly surprising. Anyhow, this is another reason that one or two big sex talks just won't cut it. Preparing kids for finding themselves in these situations takes so much more than that and those "abstinence only" folks are doing their kids a mighty disservice. I'd like to think that shows like this (particularly the statistic of 70% above) would wake the abstinence people up. More than likely though, they'll just say it's because of eeeeevil society and bury themselves further in the sand.
So what do the boys have to say? "And if the girl gets with all these guys. … If she had sex with everyone, [she's] like a bike that gets a ride," said one boy Johnny, with a laugh.
"No one wants to get with a girl like that," said another boy.
The old double-standard of guys who sleep around are "players" and girls are whores.
More about the sleepover, including sex parties and the parents' reactions here.
Meanwhile, a writer for Mens News Daily has come up with a solution for the problem of teen sex, STDs, pregnancy (and abortions): dildos!Adolescent girls get pregnant. They have abortions and babies. They receive contraceptives. Depending on the law of the state, they may be able to terminate pregnancies or get birth control without a parent’s knowledge or permission. Both teenage boys and girls can buy condoms over the counter.
However, adolescent girls and boys cannot legally go into an adult bookstore to purchase sex toys. A parent or guardian who supplies such items could be prosecuted for enticement or contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
This is outrageous. Sex toys can be an aid to chastity by making it possible for people to gratify their often strong, even overpowering, physical needs without a partner. Such products should be at least as available to minors as contraceptives.
This is a whole new view that I've never considered. I mean, I certianly have nothing against masturbation being promoted (encouraged?) as a healthy sexual activity to aid in physical pleasure that avoids all the issues about sex. I've just never thought of sex toys as part of a contraception peer group, if you will.
Not just any ol' dildo will do either, it must be a "strap-on with clitoral stimulator" and be given to the teen when he/she starts dating. You see, it's not just masturbation though, that the author is talking about. She believes that encouraging young women/men to tell their partners that instead of regular ol' sex, let's do it this way and avoid any STDs or babies:While it is best for adolescents to avoid any type of partnered sexual activity, the penetration of a male by a female wearing a strap-on dildo is far safer than the more usual sex acts. Transmitting sexually transmitted diseases generally requires skin-to-skin contact.
[...]
A teen girl who possesses a strap-on may suggest to boys that they perform a sex act that is kinkier but far safer than the ones boys usually suggest to girls. Boys can be expected to differ greatly in their reactions to such suggestions. Some are certain to Just Say No. Others will enthusiastically answer, “Yes!” Many, perhaps most, will balk as the girl coaxes (sound familiar?). However, none will get pregnant. [...]
Of course, a strap-on dildo could be inserted into a girl by a boy or into a girl by another girl or into a boy by a boy.While no sex toy should ever go from an anus to a vagina, these uses would also cause fewer problems than the more common sex acts among youths.[...]
The author goes on to say that this is "not a part of the 'war on boys'", infact, it is "man loving". (When were dildos man hating?):By reducing the numbers of young men who father children they are unable to support, we will help them avert jail when they come of age. Financial destitution is not necessarily a legal defense for the failure to pay child support so fathers with low incomes often end up behind bars. They can be raped in jail. A sexual assault while incarcerated may leave a man psychologically traumatized and infected with an STD, including life-threatening HIV.
Use a strap-on! Save a young man from prison rape! Ok, it's not a funny subject but, really, the set-up is just so dramatic.
And, of course, there are other benefits to giving your teen daughter a strap-on: patience! She will learn the patience needed to perfect sexual technique and be ready for marriage and motherhood. No, seriously--marriage and motherhood: If she should in fact use it with a boy who is a “backdoor virgin,” she must practice patience if she is to make the experience a good one for her partner as well as herself. Practice is a positive virtue in people of either sex and especially necessary for (eventual) motherhood (should she chose that role). Both sexes get to see, and feel, “how the other half lives” which could increase their empathy for the other gender and be a valuable preparation for heterosexual matrimony.
I did not know that strap-ons posessed so much educational value (and they save young men's lives). Who knew!
So, there you go. Maybe if that 70% just had a strap-on (with clit stimulator!) they wouldn't have done it. Or something.
(hey baby, why don't we use this cross-post instead...)
A Tale of Two Headlines
U.N. Panel Backs Closing Prison at Guantánamo—“A United Nations panel on torture called on the United States today to close the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba and expressed concern over reports of secret detention centers and of a practice of sending terror suspects to countries with poor human rights records.
The panel, the Committee on Torture, said that the United States should clearly ban interrogation techniques like "water boarding," in which an inmate is held under water to create the fear of drowning; sexual humiliation, and the use of dogs to induce fear. It said that detainees had died during interrogation involving improper techniques.”
Guantanamo Prison Guards, Inmates Clash—“Prisoners wielding improvised weapons clashed with guards trying to stop a detainee from committing suicide at the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the military said Friday.
The fight occurred Thursday in a medium-security section of the camp as guards were responding to the fourth attempted suicide that day at the detention center…
Detainees used fans, light fixtures and other improvised weapons to attack the guards as they entered a communal living area to stop a prisoner trying to hang himself… Earlier in the day, three detainees in another part of the prison attempted suicide by swallowing prescription medicine they had been hoarding.”
Quote of the Day
Maybe the century.
"Even Baby Jesus accepted gifts, and I don’t believe it corrupted him.” — North Carolina State Rep. Drew Saunders (D), arguing that a $200 gift-reporting requirement for legislators from non-family members was too low.
Hahahahahahahahaha! How much does a bucket o' myrrh go for these days, anyway?
Yeah, in the midst of wanton Congressional corruption and a slew of investigations for cronyism, the best possible thing a Dem can do is argue to increase the maximum allowance for unreported gifts. What a douchebag.
Investigations of cronyism hit Air Force
Forget the Titanic. Forget the Hindenburg. Forget train wrecks and red-white-and-blue crosses and lame ducks. The most enduring symbol of the Bush administration will undoubtedly be a big, bacchanal circle jerk:
The U.S. Air Force's highest-ranking officer and his predecessor are the subjects of an FBI investigation into the handling of a $49.9 million dollar contract for the Thunderbirds, an air demonstration squadron, ABC News reported on Thursday.Grab your fainting couches for this next bit, Shakers.
The network quoted law enforcement officials as saying the Federal Bureau of Investigation was investigating allegations that Gen. Michael Moseley and Gen. John Jumper helped to steer a Thunderbird contract to a friend, retired Air Force Gen. Hal Hornburg.
"Unfortunately, because of the ongoing litigation and investigation it is inappropriate to address specifics concerning the issue," an Air Force statement said.Mint julip—stat!
I Stand Corrected
Back in April, I declared a Men’s News Daily column by David “Fart Button” Usher the Best Column Ever.
I was wrong.
This column, Stamping Out Feminism, is even better. I shan’t anoint it the Best Column Ever, though, because, clearly, Men’s News Daily has the ability to just keep giving and giving.
The money quote:
By removing the power of men the government has done the equivalent of removing the sun from the solar system. Without a sun there will not be any energy for nurturing to take place, the planets will fall out of orbit, chaos will ensue, and the solar system will collapse.And here I thought that the only thing that semen and rays of sunshine had in common was Vitamin E, but it turns out they both emanate from the center of the universe.
Respect the cock! Tame the cunt!
(Hat tip to Vanessa.)
I Don't Know TBogg Personally...
I've never met the guy in person. Hell, we've never even exchanged an email or comments on his blog.
But after reading this post, I now know that I love him and I want to have his babies.
George Bush: Man of Action
I’m so proud to see our president jump into action mere weeks after illegal immigration started…
…as a campaign issue:
President Bush peered across this hot, dusty and very busy illegal crossing point on Thursday, hoping to offer conservatives balking at a broad immigration bill firsthand evidence that he's serious about tightening the nation's 2,000-mile border with Mexico.Let me stop right there for a moment. I guess now that the president’s approval ratings have rebounded to a spectacular 35%, the media is sighing with relief at the opportunity to turn him into an action hero every time he gives the merest appearance of doing something at a staged photo op.
"I think it helps to have the president out here, seeing the part of the area of the country that one time was overrun by people coming in here, that's beginning to get settled down because of a strategy that's being employed," Bush said later in a packed room at the Border Patrol's Yuma Sector headquarters about 30 miles away.Indeed. It’s always helpful to have the president go look at something. As opposed to actually doing something wise and judicious.
Bush also defended those who oppose his immigration proposal against criticism that there is an element of racism to their stance.Okay, see, here’s why people think there’s “an element” of racism at play here. Because their ire is specifically directed at, as you note, “this border,” i.e. the Mexican one, i.e. that one that’s wide open between the US and a country of brown people. The wide open border areas between US and Canada don’t get nearly the same amount of attention, even though there genuinely have been terrorists who sought to cross that border. It’s not rocket science, sir, and we’re not fools.
"I think it would be too harsh a judgment to say that somebody who doesn't support a comprehensive immigration plan is a racist," the president told CNN. "I don't believe that. I do believe citizens have got legitimate concerns, realizing that parts of this border have been open for anybody who wants to come across."
Friday Blogrollin'
The Malcontent
Some Guys Are Normal
An Etherealgirl’s Adventures in Cyberland
Nameless Rantings
Macaroni Duck
Tennessee Guerrilla Women
(I'm using Blogrolling for the first time, and I have no idea how long it takes for the blogroll to update, but they've been added, so they'll show up at some point!)
Giuliani v. McCain
It looks like it’s going to be a knockdown, drag-out fight to the end between these two desperate contenders, to see who can secure the coveted conservative title of Wingnut Crown Price in the great Panderathon of 2006.
In one corner: John McCain, who spent Saturday giving the graduation address at Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University. Here we see the maverick McCain gazing lovingly at the man he once called “an agent of intolerance” who exerts an “evil influence” over the GOP.
He’s really coming out swinging! That is one big right hook, folks.
But…can it be? Is Giuiliani’s right hook even tougher?
In the other corner, Rudy Giuliani, who has turned his back on a history of supporting gay rights to declare heterosexual marriage "inviolate" in order to campaign on behalf of erstwhile Christian Coalition leader and Abramoff-tarred mofo Ralph Reed, currently running for governor of Georgia. (Hat tip Holly.) Here we see “America’s mayor” and 9/11 hero Giuliani bound together not only by a handshake and a shared grin, but on an official campaign piece. (Thanks to Blogenfreude.)
Wow. This is shaping up to be quite a fight. Two desperate and soulless contenders with nothing to lose, everything to gain, and not a shred of dignity or integrity between them. They’re gonna leave it all in the ring. Hot damn.
I’m going to start speaking Obenglobish in protest.
Senate Votes English as 'National Language'—“After an emotional debate fraught with symbolism, the Senate yesterday voted to make English the ‘national language’ of the United States, declaring that no one has a right to federal communications or services in a language other than English except for those already guaranteed by law.
The measure, approved 63 to 34, directs the government to ‘preserve and enhance’ the role of English, without altering current laws that require some government documents and services be provided in other languages. Opponents, however, said it could negate executive orders, regulations, civil service guidances and other multilingual ordinances not officially sanctioned by acts of Congress.”
Updated Blog Note
With many, many thanks to Julie at No Fancy Name, specifically this post, the “Read More” tags now appear only on posts where there is, actually, more to read. Thank you, Julie. And thanks, Shakers, for bearing with me as I futz around with all this stuff.
Question of the Day
What's your favorite quote?
(Mine after the jump.)
I think we may have done this one before, a long time ago, but Blogenfreude just suggested it, and I like it, so if we've done it before, we're doing it again.
There are lots of quotes that mean a lot to me, for various reasons, usually in specific circumstances. But I'm generally quite fond of this one:
The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed.—Albert Einstein
