In the comments to my post yesterday about Ann Coulter's eliminationist rhetoric at the Reclaiming America for Christ Conference, Quaker Dave made a request that deserves a response—and my response got really long, so I decided to make it a post.
QD asked: "Would you folks please stop putting the word 'Christian' in front of the name 'Ann Coulter' as an adjective? Those of us who actually do practice our religion would appreciate it."
And my answer, I'm afraid, is no. I won't stop—and it's not because I'm trying to be a belligerent shit; it's because Ann Coulter describes herself as a Christian. She's invited to speak at Christian conferences. She appears on the same stages as elected GOP members of Congress who are running for president and have made their Christianity a central part of their campaign. She is part of a specific Christian community.
I understand it's not the same, not remotely the same, as Quaker Dave's Christian community, or my parents', or lots of other people's, but that doesn't mean that I'm wrong to describe her as a Christian—or that I intend it as an insult against those Christians who don't use their religion to hatemonger. Believe me, I'd prefer she didn't call herself a Christian, too. I'd also prefer it if Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Fred Phelps, and our president didn't call themselves Christians. I'd prefer it if the only Christians in this country at all were the ones who endeavor to live a life according to their own beliefs without ever trying to stop anyone else from doing the same. But, that's not the reality in which we live.
And it's not incidental that she calls herself a Christian. No more so than it is incidental that Al-Qaeda call themselves Muslims. Those are facts that matter. It matters that Ann Coulter can speak flippantly about killing abortion doctors and call John Edwards a faggot (again) at a Christian conference. It matters that there are people who provide her cover for those comments—and for her hostility toward pro-choice people, the LGBT community, and liberals—specifically because she calls herself a Christian and so do they.
And let's say I stop calling Ann Coulter a Christian. Then who else do I stop calling a Christian—Falwell? Robertson? They're ordained. Falwell runs a Christian university; Robertson a Christian empire. They don't behave any more or less Christian (by one definition) than Coulter does, but it would beggar belief to argue that they shouldn't be called Christians.
It's not me who's denigrating Christianity by calling them Christians; it's them, by using Christianity to cloak their bigotry and hatred. And I'll stop calling these idiots Christians they day they stop calling themselves Christians.
For what it's worth, how I talk about religion and religious people on this blog is something I think about. It's something I have to think about, because I struggle, sometimes mightily, with my own feelings of hurt and anxiety and anger with regard to Christianity, which, in one incarnation or another, has been the raison d'être underlying some very ugly experiences in my life. I was raised in a church that told me in all sorts of overt and covert ways that women are not equal to men. I was told by a minister when I was 13 years old that I was "worthless" and "evil" and would probably be "dead or pregnant by time [I was] 16" because I refused to watch an anti-choice propaganda film he insisted on showing during confirmation class. I was targeted by a man calling himself a Christian, wantonly smeared nationally by people calling themselves Christians, sent rape and death threats by people calling themselves Christians, leaving me with no job and no income. I regularly have to watch people who call themselves Christians argue that my body should not be my own, that my marriage isn't "real" because it wasn't formed in a church, that my LGBT loved ones are not deserving of equality, that I and my fellow progressives are traitors to our nation, that I couldn't possibly be moral because I am an atheist, that my liberal Christian friends aren't real Christians, and on and on and on.
That kind of stuff is tough to ignore after awhile. It's easy to say "they're not real Christians," but that refrain quickly loses its strength as a consolation to someone constantly barraged by hatred from people calling themselves Christians. Even the liberal Christians I know had a hard time choking out that line after watching Donohue et. al. exact their "not real" Christian vengeance upon me in droves, because it sounds so hollow when you're telling someone with an inbox full of prayers they'll burn in hell.
That the majority of my experiences with Christians have been good ones is what keeps me thinking about how I talk about religion and religious people on this blog, because I don't want to make liberal Christian Shakers feel unwelcome; I truly don't. The good experiences don't erase the bad ones, though, and I can't pretend that they weren't done by Christians. I can't pretend that only the good things done in the name of Christianity matter to me.
Inevitably, I'm occasionally going to be critical of individual Christians or certain manifestation of Christianity. That said, when I post something critical or snarky about religion, it has to pass the Mama Shakes Rule. If I think Mama Shakes, who reads this blog, would be offended by something, I don't post it. Mama Shakes is a Christian whose life nearly revolves around service to her church, but if there's a picture in the local paper of a cookie people are worshipping because it supposedly looks like the baby Jesus, she's the first person to email it to me with a giggle—because, ya know, that's pretty silly. She's devout, and she's got a sense of humor. She believes God has one, too.
She also hates sharing her religion, even if only in name, with people who say things like God sent a hurricane to kill Teh Gayz. But she does. And that's not really up to me to change, if not using Christian as an adjective would really change anything, anyway.
On Christian as an Adjective
Question of the Day
I'm the kind of guy that always likes the villain more than the hero. They're always so much more interesting and entertaining. Like John Waters with his Wicked Witch of the West obsession, I always enjoyed the nasties. Who cares what the stupid Justice League is doing, anyway? I wanna see what the Legion of Doom is up to in their cool underwater lair in the swamp, man!
I'm obviously not the only one that likes the baddies; Marvel comics put out a collection entitled "Bring on the Bad Guys!," The Joker had his own comic for a while, the popular MMORPG "City of Heroes" spun off "City of Villains" where you could play a bad guy, and even Disney has a special line of merchandise just for the thorns in the collective sides of their heroes.
So, who's your favorite villain? In comics, movies, television, or anything else... who would you like to see win one of these times?
I'm a long time fan of the Joker, but that's a little too easy. It's definitely difficult to narrow down the list, but I'll go with two:
Ursula, the Sea Witch from Disney's The Little Mermaid. Basically because, she's Divine. (And "Poor, Unfortunate Souls" just rules. If I were a drag queen, I'd totally perform that song.)
Second, The Evil Genius from Time Bandits. Deliciously evil and side-splittingly funny. Absolute perfection.
"Oh, I'm sorry master!"
"It'll pass."
And you?
Prettay, Prettay, Prettay Good
If I'm ever accused of a crime I didn't commit, please, fates, let it be Larry David who exonerates me.
And That's Four
Shreveport Paper Becomes 4th This Week to Drop Ann Coulter:NEW YORK The Times of Shreveport, La., today became at least the fourth newspaper this week to drop columnist Ann Coulter.
While I hold no illusions that this is the beginning of the end for Coulter, and I realize that four papers is a drop in the bucket to her, it is nice to see some media outlets displaying some taste and respect.
In a note just posted on the newspaper's site, Times Executive Editor Alan English wrote: "Today we move past the rhetoric and unproductive dialogue offered by Ann Coulter. The Times is dropping her column effective immediately.
"It is her recent 'joke' about John Edwards being considered a 'faggot' that is the back-breaking straw for a decision we've openly discussed for some time."
The Times had previously considered dropping Coulter last year after the author/Universal Press columnist made nasty remarks about 9/11 widows.
Also dropping Coulter this week were the Lancaster (Pa.) New Era, The Oakland Press of Michigan, and The Mountain Press of Sevierville, Tenn.Shreveport's English wrote today that Coulter's "repeated use of hyperbole in the call for the death of some journalists and politicians was beyond the pale. And while we all believe she was 'just kidding,' her 'shock-jock'' writing style is no different from Howard Stern's practical jokes and bathroom humor that aims to draw a school-yard snicker but falls well short of reasonable, thought-provoking journalism. Unlike the work of a Thomas Sowell or a Kathleen Parker, two thoughtful conservatives, does a Coulter column raise the level of discourse? The answer: rarely.
Goldberg? Outstanding conservative commentary? Barf. And as for Malkin, you don't need to concern yourself with homicide when the people you don't like are safely locked away in internment camps.
"No doubt some conservatives will lament the loss of their beloved Coulter, someone who made the joke they are too polite to make. Objections are expected, but please do not miss the continuation of outstanding conservative commentary by Cal Thomas and Jonah Goldberg that continues on our pages. Sure Michelle Malkin sometimes approaches a Coulter-style rant, but we don't recall any homicidal zingers.
Just keep talking, Ann.
Update: Yep, keeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep talking....
More Update: Actually, That's Five. More, with action suggestions here.
I'll be writing more about update #1 above tomorrow; I'm too angry right now. But there's plenty at those links for you to whet your appetite.
Charming
Maybe I was too quick with that early Quote of the Day, because check out this one:
"Those few abortionists were shot, or, depending on your point of view, had a procedure with a rifle performed on them. I’m not justifying it, but I do understand how it happened....The number of deaths attributed to Roe v. Wade about 40 million aborted babies and seven abortion clinic workers; 40 million to seven is also a pretty good measure of how the political debate is going." — Ann Coulter
What's most notable about this quote, however, isn't its eliminationist content, which is old hat for Coulter, but the scene of its utterance. Good Christian Coulter shared this thought last weekend at the Reclaiming America for Christ Conference.
Scandal Twofer
Walter Reed
Congressional Quarterly reports that "Senior Republicans," including Representatives C.W. Bill Young (R-FL), the former chairman of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, and Thomas M. Davis III (R-VA), the former chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, "knew about problems at Walter Reed Army Medical Center while their party controlled Congress insist they did all they could to prod the Pentagon to fix them." Young claims that he "stopped short of going public with the hospital's problems to avoid embarrassing the Army while it was fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Young "described repeatedly confronting the hospital's then commander, Gen. Kevin C. Kiley" and getting in his face "on a regular basis," but, as Think Progress noted last week, Young was still praising Kiley as "committed to providing our war heroes with the very, very best medical care that is possible" as recently as January 19th of this year.
I just love it. Young claims he "did not go public with these concerns, because we did not want to undermine the confidence of the patients and their families and give the Army a black eye while fighting a war," which is longhand for "Support the Troops," the old canard that's been the GOP's sword and shield for years, but in this case, his silence and inaction created a quite literal failure to support actual troops. And yet he still wants to use a variation on Support the Troops as his defense. It's truly mind-boggling.
AttorneygateU.S. News & World Report's Michael Barone A very clever hacker at Barone's blog doesn't pull any punches: "The emerging scandal surrounding the dismissals of eight former U.S. attorneys should signify to American voters the depth, breadth, and permeation of corruption in the Bush administration. When a U.S. senator (to wit, Pete Domenici, a New Mexico Republican) feels free to call a prosecutor at home and hang up on him for resisting political pressure in the course of executing his prosecutorial duties, the line between politics and law enforcement has been so thoroughly violated that it no longer exists. … Domenici would not have made that call had either a Democrat or a law-abiding Republican been in the White House. He would not have had the temerity to throw his weight around to such an outrageous extent. What's going on in Washington is not sufficiently removed from the routine doings of a tawdry Third World dictatorship to give any American comfort."
Ouch.
Meanwhile, in this article in the Las Vegas Review-Journal (via), Senator John Ensign (R-NV) claims he was lied to about "why the Nevada chief federal prosecutor, Daniel Bogden, was removed from office." And, the Senate Majority Leader, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) says "he understood the department planned to take advantage of a loophole and fill its new vacancy in Nevada without submitting its choice for customary Senate review and confirmation." That's the whole Patriot Act loophole I was talking about the other day.
Zuh?
By now, you're probably familiar with the story that Al Sharpton's ancestor was owned by Strom Thurmond's.
Last night,embarrassment to humanity teevee host Glenn Beck had Sharpton on to discuss the story, and this was said:
BECK: But it wouldn't have -- I couldn't imagine knowing that guy was the guy whose family owned me.
SHARPTON: Well, of course, that adds --
BECK: It would have been just --
SHARPTON: -- that adds salt to the wound. But you know what amazes me, is the press says that he moderated his segregationist views in his older age. Well, when did he denounce it? He's -- I've never seen Strom Thurmond say, "I was wrong. I'm going to do what I can to correct it." I mean, the media, you guys, sanitize anything. It's ridiculous.
BECK: I have to tell you, because you know I love you, but I disagree with almost everything you say. There's part of me -- a sick part of me -- that would just love to see you two related in DNA.
Juh? What does that even mean? He'd love to see a little more humiliation?
Oh, I see. He's been reading the Onion.
Sharpton should have smacked him for the "I love you, but I disagree with almost everything you say" condescending crap. Instead, he went for the wither:
SHARPTON: Well, at least you said it was a sick part of you, and I understand that -- may you be healed one day, Glenn.There's a cure for dribblemouthed jackass? Color me shocked.
What's Worse than Ann Coulter's F-Bomb?
Newt Gingrich's attack on the people of New Orleans.
Like SilentPatriot, I heard about this over the weekend, but actually hearing these words come out of Gringrich's mouth makes it that much more striking.
"How can you have the mess we have in New Orleans, and not have had deep investigations of the federal government, the state government, the city government, and the failure of citizenship in the Ninth Ward, where 22,000 people were so uneducated and so unprepared, they literally couldn't get out of the way of a hurricane."Video at the link.
I don't care if you like to point the blame for Katrina at Bush, Nagin, or anyone else. But to blame the victims of this disaster for what happened to them, and on top of that, to call them bad citizens and stupid is just reprehensible.
Like after Coulter's "joke," the applause speaks volumes.
Statistic of the Day
50% of American high school seniors think Sodom and Gomorrah were married.
That's disgusting! Somebody teach these little perverts that Sodom married Eve in the Gomorrah of Adam, and Jebus presided over the ceremony himself!
Happy International Women's Day
Click on image for more info.
Today is also Blog Against Sexism Day, which I like to think of as Sad Irony Day—because basically the only people who participate in Blog Against Sexism Day are the people who blog against sexism every day, anyway. Wah wah wah.
One of the things I was thinking earlier, as I was writing The V Word, is how frustrating it is that so many people believe that sexism is, like, so over. There are far too many men who—because women are legally allowed to do the same things men can, and because most people will at least begrudgingly acknowledge the sexes to be equal—seem to think that women shouldn't have any further complaints, and yet use epithets for their wives' genitals to casually denigrate other men. And there are far too many women who regard feminism as some unnecessary artifact being kept on life support by boring intellectual types who can't appreciate the "girl power" of The Pussycat Dolls and Girls Gone Wild, yet get skeeved out by their pervy, grabass bosses who pay them 76¢ on the dollar.
That we've (mostly) achieved equality under the law and some semblance of sexual liberation doesn't mean sexism is, like, so over. It means that those were the easiest things to accomplish.
The rest is a fuckload harder.
Compared to, for example, eradicating all use of feminine terms to convey weakness, fear, vapidity, or other negative qualities, changing the law so that women can't be fired just for being women was like waving a magic fucking wand—and that's the reality of battling sexism that too many people fail to see. The really endemic, intrinsic sexism expressed in a million "little" ways is what perpetuates inequality—the kind of inequality that makes some guy at the hardware store talk to me like a three-year-old imbecile, but talk to Mr. Shakes like an equal.
There's still a lot left to do, and the first place we can all start is having a serious think about whether we regard sexism with the seriousness it still (unfortunately) deserves, or whether we are perhaps a bit too cavalier, a bit more flippant and ready to roll our eyes and sigh, than we should be, if we're genuinely interested in equality.
UPDATE: By coincidence, I just read this post (via Aspazia), which outlines a liberal man's awakening to the necessity of feminism in the modern world. It touches on many of the same issues I raised, but from a man's perspective, and I highly recommend it. Here's just a snippet:
I’ve always been a liberal guy, yet until recently I was quite strongly anti-feminist. … I certainly don’t think that I was, or that most men are, misogynistic, at least not intentionally so. If you had asked me, I would have told you that both sexes ought to be treated equally. However, I would also have told you that the problem of unequal treatment had been largely solved.Really, go read the whole thing.
Furthermore, my ideas of feminists were of women who thought that they were better than men, or who wanted things both ways: to be considered equal, yet given preferential treatment.
Although shockingly wrong on both counts, I believe this view to be considerably widespread.
…Why is it so easy to accept the conclusion that there is no sexism any more? I believe it is because sexism is now much less obvious than it once was. If women were denied the vote, or were openly paid less than men, we would easily see that something was badly wrong. But today women are legally protected from both these injustices.
…Social prejudices are even more subtle… I took it for granted that I could walk where I liked, when I liked and be safe. I feel able do so without taking any precautions. Most importantly I would be simply livid if this ceased to be the case.
Private wars
Yesterday, I spoke extensively by phone with John Johnson, father of Pfc. LaVena Johnson whose suspicious death in Iraq demands reinvestigation by the Army. The Johnson family has waged a private battle for nearly two years to have Army officials reexamine its ruling that LeVena died by her own hand, citing evidence that points to death by foul play.
Mr. Johnson said that up to this point, their struggle had been a solitary one. "We felt totally alone out there," he said. Knowledge that LaVena's story is becoming known to more people every day is heartening to the family. Everyone who has taken action on the Johnsons' behalf - whether by signing the petition to the two Armed Services Committees, writing emails to individual legislators or media about LaVena, or simply sharing the story with friends or family - should know that the family is aware of their efforts, and is grateful.
In the telephone conversation, Mr. Johnson described in some detail those aspects of documents and photographs received from the Army which lead the family to believe that a sexual assault lies at the heart of LaVena's death. It is a grim conclusion that doesn't bear thinking about - and it is a fact of theater service in Iraq for women soldiers in Iraq, according to Helen Benedict, author of yesterday's Salon article, "The Private War of Women Soldiers." Viewing the article requires watching a brief advertisement (click "Enter Salon" near the top of the page), but the piece is necessary reading:
I have talked to more than 20 female veterans of the Iraq war in the past few months, interviewing them for up to 10 hours each for a book I am writing on the topic, and every one of them said the danger of rape by other soldiers is so widely recognized in Iraq that their officers routinely told them not to go to the latrines or showers without another woman for protection.The female soldiers who were at Camp Arifjan in Kuwait, for example, where U.S. troops go to demobilize, told me they were warned not to go out at night alone.
"They call Camp Arifjan 'generator city' because it's so loud with generators that even if a woman screams she can't be heard," said Abbie Pickett, 24, a specialist with the 229th Combat Support Engineering Company who spent 15 months in Iraq from 2004-05. Yet, she points out, this is a base, where soldiers are supposed to be safe.
Spc. Mickiela Montoya, 21, who was in Iraq with the National Guard in 2005, took to carrying a knife with her at all times. "The knife wasn't for the Iraqis," she told me. "It was for the guys on my own side."
Only an official reinvestigation of the death of Pfc. Johnson can reveal the facts behond her death, but the testimony of women soldiers in the Benedict article demonstrates that the possibility of a sexual assault in LaVena's case cannot and must not be dismissed.
A reminder: I will speak about the LaVena Johnson matter tomorrow (March 9) at 6:10 p.m. Central (was originally 6:15) on The Sloan Ranger Show with host Lloyd Sloan. The show can be heard via the Internet (or in the St. Louis area on WGNU), and call-ins are welcome.
(Thanks to StevenD at Booman Tribune for the Salon article tip. Cross-posted.)
religious notes
One from either side of the country--
NJ school district sued over graduation ceremony in church (emphasis mine):
RENTON, N.J. -- A high school graduation ceremony held last year in a Baptist church has sparked a religious freedom lawsuit against the largest public school district in the state.Unacceptable. The principal should lose his job for bribing students and their families with giving them more tickets to the public school graduation they if they attend a particular religious ceremony first. That's simply unacceptable behavior for a public school principal. Also, Trenton isn't exactly a small town, no? Surely there are large, non-religious buildings that could work for a graduation ceremony. Surely someone at the school would have looked into it since they had already said they would not be holding the ceremonies in religious places again? Right? Uh-huh.
The New Jersey chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union said Wednesday that it had filed a lawsuit against Newark public schools for violating the rights of a Muslim high school senior whose religious beliefs restricted him from attending his own graduation.
Bilal Shareef had to forgo a graduation ceremony from West Side High School in Newark because his own religion forbade him from entering a building with religious images, the civil liberties group said.
[...]
The ACLU-NJ said it first complained about a West Side High School graduation at New Hope Baptist Church in 2005, but agreed not to sue when the district's legal director made assurances that the school district would avoid holding a graduation at a religious location again.
But in 2006, graduation was again held at New Hope. And the principal at the time even told graduating students that they would get two additional tickets for family and friends to go to the graduation, provided they also attended a separate religious baccalaureate ceremony at the Roman Catholic Basilica of the Sacred according to the civil liberties group.
Next comes a story close to me.Anyway, several students were suspended for refusing to be reasonable about praying at school:
A dust-up over group prayers in the Heritage High School commons before the start of school triggered the suspension of a dozen students on Friday.Sounds like the administration was doing right here and not disallowing the group but trying to accomodate everyone in the building--giving the group a place to gather and pray and giving everyone else a non-blocked busy area. It's also not like this was a surprise to the students, as the had already been talked to about this by the school administration.
It also quickly threatened to fan up into a broader skirmish in the culture war.
By day’s end, “pagans,” “Satanists” and religious freedom were words in play, and a Florida-based group affiliated with Jerry Falwell had announced it would defend the students.
A top Evergreen Public Schools administrator downplayed the incident but confirmed that 12 pupils were disciplined after they ignored a faculty order to stop meeting for prayer in the commons area at the 2,200-student high school near Orchards, one of Clark County’s largest schools.
A praying student ordered to detention on Friday said two group co-leaders received 10-day suspensions, while eight others were given three-day suspensions. They had been warned on Thursday not to meet again in the commons, she said.
Bill Bentley, an Evergreen assistant superintendent who oversees Heritage, said pupils were warned days ago that their informal morning prayer sessions were blocking traffic in the crowded commons. Other students complained to school faculty about the prayers, he said.
Heritage administrators offered use of a classroom to the group, per written district policy that allows religious or other student clubs to use school facilities during non-school hours, with limited supervision.
Bentley said it was the physical “disruption” of the prayer group inside the busy campus corridor and open defiance of faculty orders that earned the suspensions, not the prayers themselves.
“No one gets suspended because they pray. This is a story of some kids who chose to defy a legitimate request by administrators to not disrupt other students,” Bentley said.
Besides the purpose is for prayer and fellowship, right? It's not for showboating, right? So it shouldn't matter where they pray, right?
The prayer circle’s purpose is visibility, to give other shy students the strength to express their faith, Gaultier [Megan] said. “If we’re in a secluded room, they can’t just join in” as she had [...]So it is all about showboating. The article notes that these kids DON'T want to form a club or group to let others know about it. The whole point is put on a public show. The "shy kid" is probably more likely to join a group that isn't putting itself on display and blocking a busy common area, but let's not let logic get in the way here.
And, of course, some people are bitching about how this is yet another example of "bigotry" against Christians in this country (check out the comments attached to the article). To that I say: what-fucking-ever, try thinking for once, and get some therapy for your persecution fetish.
The V Word
Mike sent me this article about the three high school girls who were suspended for using the word "vagina" during a reading of The Vagina Monologues after they'd been warned not to use "the v-word." I told him via email that I'd seen it, but couldn't even muster the energy to comment on something so pathetic. Except, as tends to happen, Mike and I started talking about the article anyway, and it turns out I do have something to say.
Mike said that when he saw the headline, he "figured the brouhaha would be over one of the girls saying 'pussy' or 'cunt.' But, indeed, the filthy, dirty, obscene word is…vagina. Amazing."
It really is amazing. What's even more amazing is that any of us women manage to reach adulthood with a shred of self-esteem, that so few of us truly succumb to the anger inside us all. Even those of us who supposedly don't "care" or "pay attention," those who allegedly think feminism is a crock, don't escape the unavoidable messages just like this one that tell us over and over and over that our bodies are filthy and shameful and less than.
I remember the first time I read Freud's theory of penis envy, and the hypothetical he laid out about two children playing "doctor." The little girl first sees the boy's penis, then looks at her own body and discovers "the horror of nothing to see." That description haunts me—the sense of women's bodies as missing something, as incomplete, as less than.
Women have but three options to manage a lifetime of being told they are less than: They can accept the pernicious myth, which usually entails hiding their resignation behind some conservative ideology that deviously attempts to make submission sound valorous, usually by disguising it at a way to honor men, children, and/or a god of some description. (Note: I'm not talking about all conservative/religious women or all stay-at-home moms or all women who prefer a division of marital labor along traditional gender lines; I'm talking about women who genuinely believe women are to submit to men and profess to be okay with that.) I can, strangely enough, understand why this option appeals to some women. If you can convince yourself that you were put on the earth to get married, have lots of babies, and serve your family, to cook, clean, wash dishes, and scrub floors, and nothing else, if you can be happy being a second-class servant, then all the messages telling you you're less than won't bother you a whit, but instead confirm your identity. No struggles with the cognitive dissonance of being overtly told you're equal by society, while your equality and sense of self and personal autonomy and self-esteem are being constantly undermined by a steady drumbeat of negative messaging. No frustration at the lack of progress. None of the pain and humiliation of subjugation. Celebrate your oppression, and the world celebrates with you.
That's not really a viable choice for most women, however, which leads us to our other two choices. Try to ignore it all; try not to think about it; shove it down in your gut and pretend it doesn't matter. Or be an active feminist.
Active feminism can, in many ways, seem more upsetting, because you do have days of sheer despair. But ultimately it's healthier to have a method by which to process the stuff of sexism, because even though carrying it with you, addressed and understood and contextualized, is bloody hard, internalizing it is worse. That which tells us we are less than is corrosive, corruptive, toxic—and a lifetime of it left alone to fester can destroy a woman from the inside out, as she is slowly robbed of her self-esteem, her self-respect, her self-confidence, her sense of, trust in, and love for herself.
There are women who say they don't think about these things, and they may not, in the sense that an active feminist does, drawing connections between "the little things" and the big picture. But internalizing a lifetime of negative perceptions about your sex, your body, and inevitably yourself doesn't come without a cost. Women who don't think about these things nonetheless feel them. It's a mistake to believe that the "post-feminist" fun-loving gals at work or the local bar or populating the sorority house across the street, who claim ignorance at what all the feminist fuss is about or express hostility at the mere mention of the no-fun stridency of women's equality advocates, don't feel the mordant pang in their guts when they are smacked in the face with the reality of less than. They do. And pity them truly that the fear of being seen as humorless trumps their desire to find a way to experience themselves as whole.
Feminists, one must realize, come to feminism because they feel these things and simply choose not to ignore them; it's not that that they experience something other women do not. Feminists find feminism as they search for a way to cope, to process, to deal. Feminism is, more than anything, a valve that lets escape the pressure of less than, lest we implode from the crush of its weight. That valve is more important to me than I can say, because one good v-word deserves—and needs, yet—another.
Quote of the Day
I know it's tres early, but I'm fairly certain nothing's going to trump this doozy…
"[Scooter Libby] looked like a really nice guy. You know, Judith Miller told this story about him in Wyoming in his cowboy hat, and I've lived out West; I could picture it so perfectly—Scooter at the rodeo. … I would like him to get [a presidential pardon]. … I don't want him to go to jail." — Ann Redington, formerly known as Libby trial juror No. 10. (Video link.)
Oy.
Question of the Day
The natural follow-up to yesterday's QotD: What movie scenes always makes you laugh?
There are so many, I could list them endlessly, but I'll just share the first one that popped into my head. It's the scene from Something's Gotta Give where Diane Keaton is trying to work, but keeps interrupting herself to cry, and not just cry, but CRY, in that insane sort of way you do where you might just as easily burst into laughter, given half a chance. OMG—that slays me.
Of course, Diane Keaton has the capacity to make me fall apart with bone-rattling laughter like few other people can. When she goes manic with her conspiracy theories in Manhattan Murder Mystery and tells Woody to "Keep ringing!"—oh, cripes, I'm laughing just thinking about it.
Mama's Got the Ash Hand Again
Quite frequently, I get this weird twitchiness in my right hand—it gets all rigid and then bends in all the wrong directions and then pretty much settles down except for jumpy nerves that conspire to drive me batshit crazy for the next couple of hours. It's doing it now. I call it my Ash Hand.
Genius at Work: Bruce Campbell as Ash, in Evil Dead II.
Lawyer Up!
Domenici lawyers up; hires Duke Cunningham's lawyer. I heard they're building a new circle of Hell right now for lawyers who make their money defending Republicans against ethics complaints.
Halliburton got the contract, despite God having levied sanctions on Hell nearly 6,000 years ago. Apparently, Cheney personally hired Thor to lobby God and convince him that subsidiaries of Halliburton aren't subject to the rules of the underworld, or something.
That bitch Thor is tres shady.
Fuckheads
Hi, I’m Jill, and scummy law school sleazebags have gone after me, too.
You know, if someone else is paying the cost of your speech, it ain't free anymore.
