Shakesville

Wanton Slobberchopsity

Being gay is bad. Worse than being a terrorist. Worse than being Islamic. So says Oklahoma State Rep. Sally Kern, she of the state's Social Services committee, she of the state's Human Services Committee. According to The Advocate:

Kern criticized gay people for indoctrinating children, lamented the growing number of gay politicians, and said gays will "destroy this nation." The gay community, she says, poses a "bigger threat, even more so than terrorists or Islam," to the United States.

(I loved how she managed to insult Islam and Homosexuality in one fell swoop. Extra classy, that.)

Audio of her speech has surfaced here.

Kern defends herself, "What I'm saying, I believe in." No one doubts that. No one doubts you do believe in hateful, destructive, outdated horseshit. But just because you believe in it, doesn't make it any better. Being a bigot isn't somehow okay if you're really earnest about it.

(H/T to Lena, who is not a Muslim.)

Quote of the Day

"Perhaps the most obvious way McCain could upend the normal dynamics of this year's election would be a bold vice presidential choice. … He could persuade the most impressive conservative in American public life, Clarence Thomas, to join the ticket."—Bill Kristol, who appears to have lost his everloving mind. That's why the New York Times decided to pay him the big buxxx, folks. For his awesome idea-making.

H/T to Steve Benen, who wryly notes: "[I]f Clarence Thomas is 'the most impressive conservative in American public life,' the right is in much deeper trouble than I'd realized." No way. Everyone knows what the Oval Office has been missing lo these many years are Coke cans welcomingly decorated with strategically placed pubic hairs.

Oh Dear

In a brief article about Karl Rove getting heckled during a speech at the University of Iowa this weekend, this paragraph just sent me into a fit of laughter:

Police also were forced to remove two people after they tried to perform a citizen's arrest on Rove for what they said were his crimes while a member of the Bush Administration.

Naturally, we all know he's an unethical swine, but, lacking any definitive evidence of criminal wrongdoing, I'd love to know with what they charged him.

"Karl Rove, you are under citizens' arrest for gross douchebaggery!"

Spitzer Involved in Prostitution Ring

Of course he is.

Gov. Eliot Spitzer has informed his most senior administration officials that he had been involved in a prostitution ring, an administration official said this morning.

…He is set to make an announcement about 2:15 this afternoon at his Manhattan office.

Mr. Spitzer, a first-term Democrat who pledged to bring ethics reform and end the often seamy ways of Albany, is married with three children.

More info as it becomes available. [H/T Constant Comment.]

Update 1: Still no info yet on the supposedly forthcoming announcement, although there has been a refusal from his office to comment on the New York Times piece, and naturally a refusal to deny it outright isn't promising.

Update 2: CNN reports that Spitzer says he "acted in way that violates his obligation to his family" and that he apologizes "first and most importantly to my family" as well as "to the public, to whom I promised better." Still no details on how, exactly, he was involved in the prostitution ring.

Update 3: Care of Petulant, here's video of Spitzer's very brief and detail-free presser:

A Day in the Life of Benjamin H. Grumbles

Benjamin H. Grumbles engages in a round of fisticuffs with William Ulysses Stickers.

Benjamin H. Grumbles enjoys a turn in the gyro wheels with the lads.

Benjamin H. Grumbles cranks up the jalopy for a daytrip to the seashore.

Benjamin H. Grumbles and the lads model their swimming costumes on the boardwalk.

Benjamin H. Grumbles wiles away the afternoon with a game of tennis.

Fat Chance

Shark Fu's got a great post up at her place about Fred Armisen playing Senator Obama. The first time I saw the portrayal, I had approximately the same reaction as I've had to all the other many roles played by people not of the same race or gender on Saturday Night Live—or the famous Twin Peaks sketch in which Jan Hooks had to run offstage mid-sketch to put on another costume and re-enter, because they'd run out of women—which was to think: If the cast were more diverse, this wouldn't be a problem.

Thing is, what's interesting about the decision to use Armisen is that, of course, SNL has a black cast member right now—Kenan Thompson, who's a pretty decent impressionist, to boot.

But he's pulling double token duty at the moment, serving simultaneously as Black Guy and Fat Guy. So they couldn't possibly cast him to play Obama, because treating fat as if it doesn't matter would go against three decades of carefully constructed and constantly reinforced fat-hating, live from New York. After years of building gags around the idea that just being fat is hilarious, how to cast a fat guy as Obama without the suggestion his fat isn't part of the joke…?

Benjamin H. Grumbles

I set one of my top secret sources to work getting the dirt on Mr. Benjamin H. Grumbles, and, within mere moments, I had in my hands a copy of his official Bush Administration Personal Data Card from the Bureau of Loyalty and Random Factitude.

Sounds like quite the interesting chappy.

I wonder if he knows Bill Stickers.

Done Being Afraid

by Shaker RS

My aunt died last week. (This turned out to be the initial event of the birthday week from hell, which also included a bout of pneumonia. Frankly, it didn't much hit me until this weekend, once I was feeling better and able to string together multiple coherent thoughts that didn't involve cough syrup or Kleenex.)

Aunt Jane was Dad's older sister by 14 years. She passed away at 66 after contracting the flu, which caused her kidneys to fail. While ordinarily the flu wouldn't be fatal to a 66 year old woman, aunt Jane was compromised—she had Huntington's Disease.

Huntingon's Disease is a progressive neurological disease. It affects gait, mood, speech, and mentation. It can cause stumbling, slurring, forgetfulness, mood swings (particularly anger and irritability), depression, and aphasia. It is currently untreatable. It is fatal. And it is hereditary. Huntington's Disease is genetically dominant - a child of an HD positive individual has a 50% chance of inheriting the disease. Symptoms often don't manifest until a person is into their mid30's to late 40s, so often they have already had children and possibly passed along the disease. That's what has happened in my family.

My beloved grandmother, who I thought was just odd when I was younger, was HD positive. Her gait was an odd, shuffling thing. She made jerky movements, often stumbling or dropping things. She fell several times, once breaking her wrist, once breaking her hip. The second time we moved her into an assisted living home, as she was having trouble caring for herself on a regular basis. As time went on, she had trouble recognizing us, communicating, and swallowing. She eventually was bedridden with a feeding tube. She passed away several years ago, and as far as I know was unable to recognize any of us when she did. Before she passed, she was tested for Huntington's Disease. Not because we needed to know for her sake, but my aunt Jane was beginning to show signs. We needed to know if that was a rule out for her. When the positive result came back, we had an answer for Jane. But what about the other siblings? Three other sisters and a brother had to decide whether to be tested.

While this might seem like a no-brainer, is it really? If you are past child-bearing, do you really want to know that you are going to die from an incurable disease, though nobody knows when? This is why testing for HD often involves a visit with a psychiatrist, to evaluate if you are emotionally capable of handling a positive diagnosis. And this is why my father chose not to go through with testing. I certainly don't blame him. Until this past week, I had mostly decided not to be tested, either. If we decided to have children, we would reevaluate. But there is even a center that will test fetuses prior to implantation for HD, and 1)not disclose if they find any positive ones and 2)only implant negative ones. We could (if we could afford it) be certain to have HD free children without me being tested.

My dad is past the age when most people start showing symptoms of HD, and he's doing great. As time goes on, we can say with greater confidence that he doesn't have it. And if he doesn't, I don't. But that's not feeling like enough right now. I want to be able to not be fearful every time I stumble, every time I drop something, every time I stutter. Or to know, for certain, that bad things will begin to happen to be, and to be able to plan for them.

I think about my aunt Jane's life. Her husband, Ron, is probably the classiest man I have ever met. He cared for her for the past 15 years when she really couldn't care for herself. He was selfless and loving and so supportive. Anything that could be done for Jane was, and he never talked to her like anyone less than the woman he loved. He fed her, changed her, pushed her in her wheelchair, took her to the lake to watch the sailing (which she loved!) and made certain that she knew she was loved and cared for. He kept a daily journal of what he did and when; how much she ate, what meds she took, what activities they did. But I will never forget the last page, from the day she died—"and then they took her away."

I want to know that my husband won't be alone if I should deteriorate, that he'll have someone to be there with him if they have to take me away. I'm terrified—scared of a positive answer, both for what it means for myself and my dad, as well as my extended family. But I'm exhausted from living with the what ifs, and sick to death of the fear. I want to know that I have made informed decisions about our future, rather then reactions out of anxiety and uncertainty. And I am holding onto hope. Hope for treatment for my other aunt, recently diagnosed. Hope for a cure for all those diagnosed but asymptomatic. Hope that there will be increased understanding on the behalf of employers, and increased responsibility on the part of insurers. I will not let this disease, that I may not have, rule my life any longer.

I am done being afraid.

Today in ZOMGWTF?!#$!

I've got a headache, a post-nasal drip, and a raging case of staph; someone get me a glass of water, STAT!

A vast array of pharmaceuticals — including antibiotics, anti-convulsants, mood stabilizers and sex hormones — have been found in the drinking water supplies of at least 41 million Americans, an Associated Press investigation shows.

To be sure, the concentrations of these pharmaceuticals are tiny, measured in quantities of parts per billion or trillion, far below the levels of a medical dose. Also, utilities insist their water is safe.

But the presence of so many prescription drugs — and over-the-counter medicines like acetaminophen and ibuprofen — in so much of our drinking water is heightening worries among scientists of long-term consequences to human health.

Gee, ya think?

And while researchers do not yet understand the exact risks from decades of persistent exposure to random combinations of low levels of pharmaceuticals, recent studies — which have gone virtually unnoticed by the general public — have found alarming effects on human cells and wildlife.

"We recognize it is a growing concern and we're taking it very seriously," said Benjamin H. Grumbles, assistant administrator for water at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Get on it, Grumbles! Of course, because this is the EPA as run by the Bush administration, they're less concerned about independent tests having found antibiotics, anti-convulsants, anti-epileptics, anti-anxiety meds, anti-cholesterol drugs, sex hormones, anabolic steroids, tranquilizers, pain relievers, caffeine, acetaminophen, ibuprofen, a metabolized angina drug, the mood-stabilizing carbamazepine, and other various medicines for pain, infection, asthma, mental illness, and heart problems, and more concerned with—I shit you not—the heart med nitroglycerin because of "its widespread use in making explosives."

To the degree that the EPA is focused on the issue, it appears to be looking at detection. Grumbles acknowledged that just late last year the agency developed three new methods to "detect and quantify pharmaceuticals" in wastewater. "We realize that we have a limited amount of data on the concentrations," he said. "We're going to be able to learn a lot more."

While Grumbles said the EPA had analyzed 287 pharmaceuticals for possible inclusion on a draft list of candidates for regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act, he said only one, nitroglycerin, was on the list. Nitroglycerin can be used as a drug for heart problems, but the key reason it's being considered is its widespread use in making explosives.

I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried. We've gone from the Bush administration being worried terrorists would contaminate our water supply to the Bush administration being worried terrorists will use our contaminated water supply to build bombs from trace amounts of nitro.

Sure, the Safe Drinking Water Act won't make water safe for drinking, but it will damn sure make certain water isn't explosive!

Or something.

Anyway, in more good news: "There's evidence that adding chlorine, a common process in conventional drinking water treatment plants, makes some pharmaceuticals more toxic" and, unlike pesticides, lead, and PCBs, whose presence in drinking water cause a health risk in high doses, "some experts say medications [even at very low concentrations] may pose a unique danger because, unlike most pollutants, they were crafted to act on the human body." Wheeeeee!

I'll leave the final word to Dr. David Carpenter, director of the Institute for Health and the Environment of the State University of New York at Albany: "We know we are being exposed to other people's drugs through our drinking water, and that can't be good."

Unless you're one of the 50 million Americans without healthcare, who can't afford to buy lifesaving meds out-of-pocket. Then it's awesome!

Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime

Beavis and Butt-head: Wood Shop

No Other Word For It

Oklahoma State Rep. Sally Kern, a Republican and member of the Education Committee in the state legislature, shares her thoughts on gay issues. Pam Spaulding shares one of the most amazing videos of a raving anti-gay bigots recorded on tape. Pam pulls out some of the choice pieces:

Studies show, no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted for more than, you know, a few decades...

I honestly think it's the biggest threat our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam.

They want to get them into the government schools so they can indoctrinate them.

...They are going after our young children, as young as two years of age, to try to teach them that the homosexual lifestyle is an acceptable lifestyle.

You know, gays are infiltrating city councils...did you know that the city council of Eureka Springs is now controlled by gays -- they are winning elections.

One of my colleagues said We don't have a gay problem in our community...well you know what, that is so dumb. If you have cancer in your little toe, do you just say that I'm going to forget about it since the rest of you is fine? It spreads! This stuff is deadly and it is spreading. It will destroy our young people and it will destroy this nation.

Just for a little test, sub in the word "blacks" or "Jews" wherever she says "gays" and see how that sounds.

So, if that's not hate, then what is it?

Update: Ellen DeGeneres speaks out about the recent killing of a gay teenager in California.

(Cross-posted.)

Groundswell in District 14

by Shaker Constant Comment

I didn't hear it. I didn't see it. Chances are, it didn’t even register as a slight tremor on the Richter scale. But make no mistake about it, my fellow progressives: the earth moved Saturday night in Illinois' 14th District. The true meaning of Bill Foster's win over Jim Oberweis is more than just the Republican loss of the former speaker's seat. It's more than a respected scientist and businessman emerging victorious over a wealthy dairy owner known for his vitriolic attack ads (I mean, come on, even the stalwart, conservative Chicago Tribune specifically cited Oberweis' nastiness in its surprising, if not ground-breaking, endorsement of Foster). And, it's even more than the fact that the National Republican Congressional Committee had to fork over more than they could afford for a race that heretofore had always ended up in the "R" column. This, for me—and believe me, it is personal—is about this safely red district turning beautifully blue on a cold, snowy Saturday.

It's personal because I have waited 35 years for this sweet-but-hopefully-not-fleeting revenge. You see, I'm a survivor and veteran of the joke that used to be called the DuPage County Democratic Party. A little background: in 1967, my family moved to the county seat of Wheaton, where I spent the end of my junior year and senior year in high school. (Yes, this would be the home of the evangelical Wheaton College, alma mater of Billy Graham. Not content with requiring its students to sign pledges not to drink, smoke, dance, play cards or see movies, the school also launched unsuccessful attempts during my senior year to close down the town's movie theater and youth center. Good times.) I graduated in 1968—remembered not quite so fondly as the year of the King and Kennedy assassinations, race riots, the Tet offensive in Vietnam and the Democratic Convention in Chicago. And, oh yes, major fights at the dinner table with my right-wing dad over all of the above.

My interest in politics continued through college, where, in between participating in anti-war marches and protests both at school and in D.C., I managed to receive an education as a journalism major with a double minor in history and poli sci. When I graduated from college in 1972, I returned to the Wheaton/Glen Ellyn area and immediately went to work for George McGovern. Okay, granted that was a lost cause, regardless of where you lived, but I continued to cut my political teeth in DuPage County, working on subsequent gubernatorial and presidential races and in feminist politics for almost a decade. Eventually, though, I think I just grew weary of being angry all the time (see: Bush Administration, seven years of) and decided to move to the north side of Chicago where people were more, how you say, progressive. In the spirit of the "teaspoon-by-teaspoon" logo of this blog, my years as a DuPage County Democratic activist were constant uphill battles with rare, if any, victories for our side.

So, you can see how—even with the distance of time and miles—I especially savor this win in a district that includes the county that I gave up on a few decades ago. What's most interesting to me about Foster's victory is that it was in a special election. Granted, Barack Obama cut an ad for Foster and John McCain was brought in by a desperate Republican party for a fundraiser, but it was a nail-biter until the last week. After election organizers had whined about the "experiment" of having a special election held on a Saturday, turnout was higher than expected. Foster is scheduled to meet up again with Oberweis during the general election in November, unless the wingnut candidate, who has also lost races in previous senatorial and gubernatorial bids, is replaced by someone else. I'm thinkin' Illinois Republicans may want to try again with Alan Keyes.

During this primary season, I have often thought that coverage was way too scant on the REAL story—the huge, unprecedented Democratic turnout all over the country. Granted, some of those numbers may be attributable to Independents or Republican "strategery," but I have to credit Obama's organizational groundwork and appeal to wider demographics, as well as Howard Dean's 50-state plan. In recognizing these amazing, historical voter trends, perhaps one could even be persuaded to think that, despite Democrats' best attempts to screw up a sure thing, we just may pull it off anyway. Audacity of hope, indeed.

Whacking Off

L. Brent Bozell, the doyen of the far right wing, says that the conservative are not mollified by John McCain's nomination.

The conservative talk-show community? Don't mind them -- they're irrelevant.

This message from John McCain surrogates and other members of the political class is filling the airwaves and op-ed pages. In the Wall Street Journal, Weekly Standard Executive Editor Fred Barnes recently wrote that McCain needn't worry that conservatives are uncomfortable with his candidacy, because "while they love to grumble and grouse, conservatives tend to be loyal Republicans who wind up voting for their party's candidate."

In the same pages, novelist Mark Helprin, a former adviser to Robert J. Dole's presidential campaign, savaged conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin for daring to speak out against McCain. "Rather than playing recklessly with electoral politics by sabotaging their own party," he wrote, "each of these compulsive talkers might be a tad less self-righteous, look to the long run, discipline himself, suck it up, and be a man."

I know the conservative movement. I've been in the trenches fighting for an alphabet soup of conservative causes for 30 years. I've raised hundreds of millions of dollars for it. And I earnestly hope that McCain isn't listening to the advice he's getting from these folks. Their thinking betrays a fundamental misreading of the conservative pulse in America today.

Conservative leaders, particularly those in talk radio, cannot and will not be silent. They will not betray their principles and their audiences. Tens of millions of activists turn to them for guidance. These activists could be, and need to be, McCain's ground troops, but unless and until conservatives believe him -- and believe in him -- they will not work for his election. McCain may have the Beltway crowd in his corner, but grass-roots conservatives aren't sold.

Yet through his surrogates, McCain is attacking these leaders. This is beyond folly. It is political suicide.

For 20 years, the moderate establishment of the Republican Party has told conservatives to sit down, shut up and do as we're told. History shows that sometimes we bite the bullet. But not always. I absolutely guarantee that this year we cannot be taken for granted. This is a movement fed up with betrayals, and they've come one after the other.

[...]

This is what conservatives call on him to do:

McCain must present a strategy to defeat the threat of radical Islam. He needs to call on the United States to rebuild its military infrastructure, so devastated by the Clinton administration. He should secure our borders by a date certain. In every great struggle, the citizenry -- everyone, not just the country's military -- has been challenged to participate. McCain could make this the clarion call for volunteerism, for national service.

If McCain believes in freedom, he should promise to take the yoke off the American taxpayer. He has embraced making the Bush tax cuts permanent. Good. Now he should pledge to end the estate tax and lower the corporate tax rate to 25 percent. In fact, he should call for an overhaul of the tax system. The flat tax or the fair tax -- either is preferable to the monstrosity that is the Internal Revenue Service.

The federal government is out of control. Conservatives don't want to hear talk about "reining in the growth of government." Those are empty words. McCain needs to call for the elimination of entire sectors of the federal leviathan. He should pledge to turn back to the states that which is their responsibility and which comes under their authority. We want to see how he will deregulate the private sector and how he will once again unleash the economic might of the United States. He should champion private retirement accounts and health savings accounts.

McCain should place the left on notice -- now -- that if elected, he will not tolerate congressional obstructionism of his nominations to the federal judiciary.

Our culture is decaying from within, and most Republicans have been shamefully AWOL on this issue. McCain could begin a national conversation about parents, not the state, taking responsibility for their children and their communities. He should call on the entertainment industry to stop polluting America's youth with its videos and its music and on the Internet. We wait to hear him call for the United States to honor the sanctity of life, the sanctity of marriage and family, and to return God to the public square.

If McCain offers this kind of vision, Washington elitists will scoff. But he should remember that they also scoffed and dismissed Ronald Reagan, all the way to his election. And his reelection.

Let's see, the conservatives had Fred Thompson, Tom Tancredo, Sam Brownback, and Duncan Hunter run in the Republican primaries. All of them have impeccable conservative credentials, and all of their campaigns cratered before Groundhog Day. It's obvious that none of them or their platforms are acceptable to the majority of Republicans, let alone the rest of the country, so for Brent Bozell to start dictating terms to John McCain is an amusing exercise in chutzpah, if not overblown ego on his own behalf. Fanatics always think they have a large army behind them when they're backed into a corner.

(Cross-posted.)

Stop the Dancing in the Streets

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) lays out the reasons why we should elect John McCain over Barack Obama: it's to keep al-Qaida from dancing in the streets.

An Iowa Republican congressman said Friday that terrorists would be "dancing in the streets" if Democratic candidate Barack Obama were to win the presidency.

Rep. Steve King based his prediction on Obama's pledge to pull troops out of Iraq, his Kenyan heritage and his middle name, Hussein.

"The radical Islamists, the al-Qaida ... would be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on Sept. 11 because they would declare victory in this war on terror," King said in an interview with the Daily Reporter in Spencer.

King said his comments were not meant to demean Obama but to warn how an Obama presidency would look to the world.

"His middle name does matter," King said. "It matters because they read a meaning into that."

On the up side, though, Mr. King did not say that the Obama White House would only serve fried chicken and watermelon at state dinners.

Mr. King will undoubtedly say he was quoted out of context. Josh Marshall has the original interview from the Spencer (Iowa) Daily Reporter. It doesn't help.

King thinks radical Islamists will say the United States has capitulated because the Obama administration would be pulling troops out of any conflict associated with al-Qaida.

"Additionally, his middle name (Hussein) does matter," King said. "It matters because they read a meaning into that in the rest of the world. That has a special meaning to them. They will be dancing in the streets because of his middle name. They will be dancing in the streets because of who his father was and because of his posture that says: Pull out of the Middle East and pull out of this conflict."

Let's see how fast John McCain denounces and repudiates this guy.

[crickets]

Update: Here's a video of Rep. King via Crooks and Liars below the fold.

Tucker Carlson Speaks the Truth

Tucker Carlson, MSNBC's cross between George F. Will and Pee Wee Herman, revealed the truth about American journalism.

In an interview with Gerri Peev, the reporter who broke the Samantha Powers "Hillary's a monster" story, he said,

CARLSON: What -- she wanted it off the record. Typically, the arrangement is if someone you're interviewing wants a quote off the record, you give it to them off the record. Why didn't you do that?

PEEV: Are you really that acquiescent in the United States? In the United Kingdom, journalists believe that on or off the record is a principle that's decided ahead of the interview. If a figure in public life.

[...]

CARLSON: Right. But I mean, since journalistic standards in Great Britain are so much dramatically lower than they are here, it's a little much being lectured on journalistic ethics by a reporter from the "Scotsman," but I wonder if you could just explain what you think the effect is on the relationship between the press and the powerful. People don't talk to you when you go out of your way to hurt them as you did in this piece.

Don't you think that hurts the rest of us in our effort to get to the truth from the principals in these campaigns?

In other words, how can we get the rich and powerful to toss us crumbs if we don't lick their boots? (Feel free to imagine a more graphic and prurient analogy.)

Glenn Greenwald at Salon notes,

Credit to Tucker Carlson for being so (unintentionally) candid about the lowly, subservient role of the American press with regard to "the relationship between the press and the powerful." A journalist should never do anything that "hurts" the powerful, otherwise the powerful won't give access to the press any longer. Presumably, the press should only do things that please the powerful so that the powerful keep talking to the press, so that the press in turn can keep pleasing the powerful, in an endless, symbiotic, mutually beneficial cycle. Rarely does someone who plays the role of a "journalist" on TV so candidly describe their real function.

The only caveat I would add to his observation is that this applies only to Republicans; if it's the Democrats who are under the microscope, then all bets are off.

(Cross-posted.)

Robbing the Hearts of Men

It's long been my view that sexism and misogyny do every bit as much damage to men as to women.

Before you go all Outraged-Feminist on my ass -- read on, please.

I believe that the very things that men complain about -- needing to be "the strong one", "the provider", the "bread-winner" -- are a direct result of sexism and misogyny which attempts to cast human beings in rigid gender-based roles from which they believe they cannot escape.

I believe that the very things that men complain about -- feeling under- or un-appreciated, misunderstood, or unseen -- are compounded by the fact that the gender-based role of the guy is to be "strong and silent" -- to "suck it up and be a man" -- because, if he's doing that, how the fuck are we supposed to know what's going on inside him?

Yes, I believe that men have "privilege" over women -- no matter what their stratum on the great pyramid of oppression -- poor men generally still possess privilege more than poor women, black men generally still possess privilege more than black women, etc. (and yes, I know there are exceptions, but I am consciously choosing to speak in cultural generalities -- So sue me!).

However, I think that, at the level of basic existence as a human being, any privilege obtained by being male in this culture is probably cold comfort when you consider the real toll that sexism and misogyny take on those who identify as, or are considered Man/Male/Men/Males.

Here's one of the ways that I believe this toll is taken:

In our society (at least), the following traits are considered primarily "female/womanly":
Tender, Emotional, Vulnerable, Receptive, Passive, Compassionate.

(OK -- you can argue with me about this if you want, but I challenge you to ask 10 people who you know to listen to these words read aloud -- without prepping them beforehand about the context of your query -- and ask them to assign the words as either Male or Female. I'm not saying that this is "what is so" about men and women, I'm saying that this is the overwhelmingly common cultural perception/expectation.)

This is where the toll is paid:

If you are living in a misogynist, sexist society where privilege is awarded automatically by virtue of manliness/maleness or perceived manliness/maleness, and therefore, being womanly/female is an undesirable (if not despicable) position, then you are going to work hard to avoid the culturally-acceptable traits of womanliness.

This, I believe, is one of the tragedies of sexism for men in our culture -- the abrogation of their right to "have a heart" -- a full-range emotional body.

Men feel -- because they're human. They experience moments of tenderness, and vulnerability, and emotion (yes, emotions other than rage) -- as well as moments of compassion, and receptivity, and passivity.

The problem is: They can't express that without looking like a woman. Which, in a sexist, misogynist society, would be a bad thing. A thing that loses you jobs, and gets you called "pussy", and "mangina", and subjects you to suggestions that you "sit to pee" -- which would all be BAD, because being anything like a woman/female human is BAD.

Bad and wrong.

Eve-In-The-Garden-Bad-Apple Wrong.

Condemning-The-Entire-Human-Race-To-An-Awful-Existence Wrong.

This is one of the tolls of sexism and misogyny for men -- they are robbed of their hearts.

Which to me, is tragic.

My father is 81 now, and 17 years ago, just after his retirement, I went with him and my mom to see the movie "The Doctor". The theater was crowded, so I sat in a seat in the row directly in front of my mom and dad, and during the film, I heard this distinct sniffling behind me, and assumed it was my mom. As we left the theater, I noticed my dad's eyes were all swollen and puffy.

I said: "Were you the one who was crying?"

He replied: "Yeah. I don't know what it is. Ever since I retired, I just cry at almost anything . . . . . . . . It's kind of a relief."

I was curious about this. I understood that there was probably a very basic shift from needing to wear the "mask" (required of both men and women) in the work environment (being "businesslike" or "professional"=not showing emotion) -- but I suspected that there was something more.

Since one of the prime stereotypes of what it is to "be a man" in this society is that you are valued for the profession that you have, and the work you produce, it seems to me that my father's retirement from his profession was also, in some way, a resignation from some need to adhere to an entire range of stringent cultural expectations of maleness.

His softening has continued through the last 17 years, and he and I had a particularly sweet moment where we were both blubbing away together at a Little House on the Prairie re-run during a visit. Friends have reported similar "softening" in their elderly fathers.

Think about this the next time you hear someone say the words: "Be a man!"

Actually look at the situation in which this comes up, and think about what is being demanded. In my experience, it usually means: Shut up about your feelings. Grit your teeth and bear your pain and don't let anyone know you're feeling it. Don't show it on your face, don't talk about it, square your shoulders and your jaw and carry on like everything's OK -- hide it however you can.

That, to me, is unbearably sad.

Little boys who cry are "sissies" (aka -- "girl-like").

This wouldn't, and couldn't, be a problem if being a woman, or being like a woman, wasn't a very bad thing -- and training a human being to devalue someone else on a basis that truly, logically makes no sense at all (women by virtue of their physical anatomy, people of color by virtue of their skin color, queer people by virtue of their choice of who to have sex with) requires deep and continuous programming.

Boys cry. They cry from the moment they are born. If they didn't cry as infants, you'd worry about this.

The indoctrination required to train a human being out of one of the deepest human responses (emotionality) is a staggering task when you really think about it -- yet it is done, systematically and thoroughly -- male children are taught to control and suppress any emotion which falls outside the acceptable stereotypical range for "real men" from very early on -- and I believe that it is these stifled emotions in men which so often erupt in the only emotion that is consider "gender-appropriate" -- anger.

After all -- if you'd been denied the right to express the rest of the human emotional range (sad, bad, scared, etc.), don't you think you'd be a bit pissed off, too?

My male friends have reported, in moments of vulnerability, how intense the pressure to "be a man" can be -- how difficult it is for them to cry in front of other men (or in front of anyone) -- how much they fear being perceived as "weak" or passive. A straight, male friend went out last Halloween in drag, and reported that he felt unsafe the entire time he was in public -- because he was a virtual woman for the night.

Personally, I think that in a misogynist culture, one of the only things you can do that is worse than actually being a woman is to be/become a woman, or be/become like a woman. I believe that this is the reason that "sissies" are so often brutally targeted on the playground, and effeminate gay men and drag queens and jail-house punks are traditionally beaten severely and killed in hideous ways -- they have betrayed the privilege of maleness by daring to exhibit behaviors that make them like women.

(Similar punishment is doled out for women who dare to aspire to "manliness" -- think "Boys Don't Cry" -- but that's a different post entirely.)

Of all the ways that sexism and misogyny harm men, I honestly believe that this is the worst -- that men are expected by society to give up these crucial parts of their humanity -- their ability to connect with other human beings emotionally, to express their vulnerability and tenderness without being mocked, and to associate fully with their authentic selves.

This post was inspired by an email exchange that I had with a friend, in which we discussed recent flare-ups of what we both see as sexism and misogyny among men who we consider to be allies, and whether it was really possible for a man in our culture to fully embrace feminism. I found myself typing this:

"I believe that it is possible, but that it's difficult in the way that really deeply ingrained shit is difficult -- like healing from trauma.

In fact, I do think that men in our society are traumatized by sexism and misogyny -- they just haven't felt the wound yet, like someone who is dissociated -- and they're terrified of feeling it."

As much as I want my sisters to be able to walk the world in safety, with their full range of self honored and recognized, and their horizons broad and unhindered by misogyny, so, too, I want my brothers to be be able to walk the world in safety, with their full range of self honored and recognized, and their hearts wide open to the world, unhindered by misogyny.

[cross-posted at Teh Portly Dyke]

The Virtual Pub Is Open

TFIF, Shakers.

I don't know about you,
but I need a fuckin' drink.

Blog Note

Okay, so we've done some more tweaking: Space Cowboy darkened the text and widened the page; if you've got your screen resolution set to 800 wide, you may have to horizontal scroll to get to the sidebar, but all of the post content will still be inscreen for you. I also increased the height of the blogroll, news links, and recent comments scrolls. Loading should also be a bit speedier.

As before, let us know if you have any problems, especially functionality-wise.

Thanks for your patience, Shakers!

Take Him at His Word

Robert Dreyfuss has a piece in The Nation on John McCain's plans for foreign policy if he becomes president. If you thought the last eight years of sock-stuffing strutting bravado was bad, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

"He's the true neocon," says the Brookings Institution's Ivo Daalder, a liberal interventionist who conceived the idea of a League of Democracies with Robert Kagan. "He does believe, in a way that George W. Bush never really did, in the use of power, military power above all, to change the world in America's image. If you thought George Bush was bad when it comes to the use of military force, wait till you see John McCain.... He believes this. His advisers believe this. He's surrounded himself with people who believe it. And I'll take him at his word."

So will I.

(Cross-posted.)

Temper, temper

Supporters of John McCain have wondered how he will manage to stay in the public eye now that he has the Republican presidential race all sewn up and the Democrats are engaged in a lively, attention-grabbing contest. Not to worry! McCain has a plan - he'll just explode at regular intervals. Today's hapless victim: Elisabeth Bumiller of the New York Times.

What began as a typical chat session with traveling reporters on the plane from Atlanta to New Orleans quickly became a testy exchange with McCain. The senator was questioned on the details of a conversation with former presidential nominee John Kerry in 2004 about being his potential running mate.
The topic came up earlier this morning during a town hall at the headquarters of Chic-Fil-A, where an employee asked if McCain would consider John Kerry as a running mate for this election cycle. [...]
Pressed further aboard the plane by a reporter as to whether he did in fact have a conversation with Kerry, McCain showed his infamous temper.

Hard to resist copying the entire exchange. But here's a nice segment:

Bumiller: “Well can I ask you when the conversation was?”

McCain: “No. Nope, because the issue is closed as far as I’m concerned. Everybody knows it. Everybody knows it in America.”

Bumiller: “Can you describe the conversation?”

McCain: “No, of course not. I don’t describe private conversations.”

Bumiller: “Okay. Can I ask you…”

McCain: “Why should I? Then there’s no such thing as a private conversation. Is there (inaudible) if you have a private conversation with someone, and then they come and tell you. I don’t know that that’s a private conversation. I think that’s a public conversation.”

Bumiller: “Okay. Can I ask you about your (pause) Why you’re so angry?”

McCain: “Pardon me?”

Bumiller: “Nevermind, nevermind.”

We've missed you, John! Welcome back.