Oh, Sweet Maude, why does this crack me up so?
[Via Shayera.]
Top Chef Open Thread
Chef Tom Colicchio will drink. your. milkshake!!!
He will also eat your delectable-looking Quickfire amuse-bouche made from the contents of a Happy Meal and tell you that it is far too salty, lacks color, and could have a better texture.
Question of the Day
Nicked from Chris: What was the most important class you took in high school?
Probably my journalism classes, because we laid out the school newspaper on Macs, so that was where I first learned to use a computer for more than word processing.
Feminism 101: Feminism and Humanism
Why feminism (where "feminism" means sex equality) cannot be subsumed by humanism (where "humanism" means equality for all humans): Because the majority of humans still don't understand why calling Hillary Clinton a cunt and a whore is sexist.
That's the short version. But since I am never succinct when verbosity will do...
From Rebecca Traister's Hey, Obama boys: Back off already! (emphasis and bracketed edit mine):
One of my closest girlfriends, an Obama voter, told me of a drink she'd had with a politically [faux]gressive man who made a series of legitimate complaints about Clinton's policies before adding that when he hears the senator's voice, he's overcome by an urge to punch her in the face.That's a visceral and violent reaction to something that is specifically feminine.* And as long as there are men, who would ostensibly be part of the "humanist" movement, yet retain a visceral and violent reaction to the feminine, there is no foundation for a sexless, "humanist" movement.
Generally, those arguing in favor of a "humanist" movement won't say they're arguing for men's inclusion, instead citing what they perceive as the limitations of feminism/womanism—"But what about gay people or people of color or the disabled or the poor or…?" they ask, as if there is something intrinsic to feminism that precludes also fighting other biases. The truth is, if one is genuinely concerned with the betterment of women, one is necessarily concerned with fighting biases against any marginalized group, because, half (give or take) of all such groups are women.
When I advocate for women, I advocate for all women: Black women, brown women, white women, tall women, short women, fat women, thin women, disabled women, abled women, old women, young women, women with children, childless women, healthy women, ill women, dwarf women, poor women, rich women, middle class women, employed women, unemployed women, immigrant women, women in other countries, English-speaking women, non-English-speaking women, progressive women, conservative women, women in unions, women in comas, straight women, lesbian women, bisexual women, trans women, powerful women, weak women, vegan woman, vegetarian women, meat-eating women, religious women, atheist women, agnostic women, educated women, uneducated women, women who have survived rape, women who want my advocacy, women who don't, and every other conceivable expression, intersectionality, and experience of womanhood that exists on the planet.
Arguing for a "humanist" movement, because feminism/womanism is too limited, is necessarily predicated on viewing "women" as a group separate from "people of color" as a group separate from "LGBTQ" as a group separate from "disabled" as a group separate from "poor" as a group separate from "fat" as a group separate from… It's a failure to respect both intersectionality and the breadth of experience among women, no less among all humans.
And what kind of success can a "humanist" movement have, when it doesn't even recognize something so fundamental about humankind?
----------------
* Spare me the imbecilic protestations that it's only about Hillary and not women generally; I've been called a cunt too many times by commenters just passing through on a link to know it's never just about any one woman.
Common Knowledge
It's ironic that the people who have been taking Barack Obama to task for his "bitter" comment and who label him as "elitist" first go to great pains to prove that they are not elitists themselves.
It's especially funny to see someone like George F. Will, who radiates upper-crustacean elitism with his Brooks Brothers bow ties and prep-school English teacher demeanor, go after Mr. Obama for getting, as he puts it, on his high horse. Well, at least he didn't call him "uppity." And given Mr. Will's vast experience with life in a small town and his long resume of having worked in plants that are now closed because the company moved to someplace else, not to mention his many nights spent playing air hockey at the VFW, he is perfectly suited to take the pulse of middle class America. Yeah, right. Oh, wait... he likes baseball. Well, that makes him Archie Bunker.
Oh, and get a load of Maureen Dowd. She proudly touts her middle class creds, right down to the bowling trophy, in order to get huffy with Mr. Obama, accusing him of being him not just an elitist, but a wimpy one at that. In her mind at least Hillary Clinton can throw down a shot of whiskey, even if it's Crown Royal instead of Old Crow.
What these two exemplars of Main Street punditry seem to forget is that while Mr. Obama may have, as he said, mangled his words, he got it right; the people in small towns in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Colorado, New Mexico, Florida, and everywhere else do harbor cynicism towards the nebulous promises that politicians make. That's why they rely on the things that have become a part of their lives that are tangible and create a bond with their friends and community: church, the duck blind, the school play, the potluck at the Moose Lodge, bingo night at the VFW, and the annual street fair that brings out the antique automobiles lined up on Main Street. And what a lot of people in those small towns have in common and aspire to is to better themselves and provide a way for their kids to grow up, move out, and move on. It's an unspoken part of the American Dream: to become better than your forbearers; to become, in a way, one of the elite.
(Cross-posted.)
Grumbles Sighting!
Shaker J just sent me the following image accompanied by the below message:
Hey Liss,Made of awesome.
So, I work at the National Press Building, and I go to the gym upstairs at the Press Club (even though I am not technically a member). In the elevator there are announcements for Press Club events like quiz night, dinners, speakers, etc. My eyes happened to light on one as I was on my way back down today, and I noticed that the speaker for Tuesday the 22nd was listed as "Ben Grumbles." In spite of the jaunty nickname, it's obvious from the topic of the talk that this is none other than dear old Benjamin H.
BENJAMIN H. GRUMBLES. IN MY FUCKING BUILDING.
Another Shaker who's a friend of mine said "you should show up with a parasol and a monocle. The first for you, the latter for him." Sadly I will be out of town so I can't, but I was so delighted that I just had to tell you.
[Previous Grumbles: Get on it, Grumbles! (the beginning), Benjamin H. Grumbles (the introduction), A Day in the Life of Benjamin H. Grumbles, What In The Sam Hill Are You Rascals Thinking?, Dash It All, McCain Is Off His Trolley, Damnable Milkshakery!, Friday Cat Blogging.]
Get Well Soon, Arlen Specter
Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), who has the capacity to drive me batshit nutz like just about no one else in Congress, because he so often seems poised to do the right thing and then falls just short, has had a recurrence of Hodgkin's. His oncologist says he "has an excellent chance of again achieving a complete remission." Get well soon, Senator.
Shaker Gourmet: Spinach Dumplings
This recipe comes from Shaker BabyBrie.
Spinach Dumplings
(muffin tin with 6 lg molds)
* 4 Tbsp Butter
* 2 eggs
* 1/2 C flour
* 1/2 C whole milk (half and half works too)
* Fresh spinach, torn into small bits, about 3/4-1 C
* 1/2 C crumbled feta cheese
* 1/3 C toasted pine nuts
* Salt and pepper to taste
--Preheat oven to 425 degrees.
--In muffin tin, place about 2 tsp butter in each mold, place in oven long enough to melt butter and warm up tin. Don't let the butter burn!
--In small bowl mix the flour and milk 'til reasonably smooth, mix in eggs. (I just use a fork.)
--In another bowl mix together the spinach, cheese, nuts and seasoning.
--Divide batter into the 6 molds (about 2 1/2 Tbsp each mold), spooning into the melted butter. Then put in the spinach/cheese mixture, about 2 1/2 Tbsp each.
--Bake for 12-15 minutes. Let cool enough to eat. Then devour.
If you'd like to participate in Shaker Gourmet, email me (and include a link to your blog, if you have one!) at: shakergourmet (at) gmail.com
"Misogyny pays. And Matthews has three Mercedes in his driveway to prove it."
Eric Boehlert, whose book Lapdogs is quite possibly the best modern media critique I've ever read (which is actually saying something; I've got a whole bookshelf filled with the stuff), is one of a very, very few voices in the media-blog intersection who actually gives a damn about the noxious misogyny that has been unleashed during this campaign season. His latest piece at Media Matters, centered around the Times' recent profile of Chris Matthews, is an absolute must-read:
What's so depressing for the journalism profession is that the Times profile barely takes a moment to even ponder what contribution, if any, Matthews is making to journalism. The article certainly doesn't suggest Matthews has a unique talent. Yes, he's ubiquitous on television and appears to have no filter between his brain and his mouth. He's also obnoxious and self-centered, which the article makes perfectly clear. But those are personality flaws, not journalism skills.Most of his examples aren't even included in my 76-part series, which points to how maddeningly ubiquitous this shit really has been—and underscores what an utter, unforgivable scandal the progressive blogosphere's relative silence on it truly is.
…Matthews is hot because he dumps all over Hillary Clinton, saying rude, sexist, and demeaning things about her week after week, and the Beltway media crowd thinks its edgy and insightful and loves to watch.
…Yes, that sort of behavior is problematic and inappropriate for the host of a political news program. (Am I not stating the obvious here?) But what the media conveniently ignore is the hateful, gender-based language Matthews uses to describe prominent (Democratic) women. It's behavior commonly referred to as misogyny.
Go read the whole thing.
Wednesday Blogaround
What's the frequency, Shakers?
Recommended Reading:
Lambert: 41+/6-
Libby: Joseph's Coat of Many Colors
Andy: Nearly 10 Years After Matthew's Death, Judy Shepard Soldiers On
Aulelia: What Magazines Do/Don't Include
Rachel: Attention Lost Theorists!
A Field Guide to the Orcosphere
Roy Edroso at The Village Voice has put together a handy guide to the right-wing blogosphere, complete with nutshell descriptions and all sorts of fun facts about those wacky folks like Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) and Michelle Malkin.
Sick of political blogs? Too bad! The 2008 campaign is unavoidable; if you know what superdelegates are, or who said “God damn America,” you’re already a victim. Thanks to the curse of modern technology, you’ll be hearing what top Internet buffoons are saying about the candidates—whether you want to or not. So you may as well prepare yourself. Herewith, a rundown of 10 conservative Web scribblers who, by virtue of their high readership or annoyance factor, are likely to invade your casual conversations until the gruesome finale of our Celebration of Democracy drives us all back to our blessed, customary ignorance.
Now if only someone would put together a concise guide to common trolls...
Reuters News is a Freaking Disgrace
Not sure? Here's a clue: It would be the one linking to the story wherein the marriage between an eight-year-old girl and a 30-year-old man is thusly described:
A Yemeni court ordered the marriage of an eight-year-old girl terminated on Tuesday because she had not reached puberty.Hmm, it seems to me there's a word for that. What is it again...? Oh yeah: RAPE.
...The girl's lawyer and human rights activist Shatha Nasser said the minor had filed a suit in April asking for divorce and told the court that her husband had been physically abusing her and forcing her to have "sex with him after hitting her."
That's one hell of a double whammy, Reuters. Congratulations.
Our Mom's a Jerk
She thinks it's, like, totally hilarious to play YouTube videos of other cats talking and yowling and hissing and shit, so we go off growling and mewing and taking swipes at each other while running around with inflated tails looking for the hidden cat. Meanwhile, she sits there giggling like the idiot hairless ape that she is.
Well, we're onto her. And we're not playing monkey to her organ grinder anymore! No siree. We've got dignity, you know. I mean, what does she take us for—
What the hell?! Where are those voices coming from?!
Question of the Day
Suggested by Katecontinued: "I just saw this question and thought of what I wrote yesterday about Eve Ensler's Vagina Monologues and how much she has accomplished with this play. … Do you believe one person can change the world?"
I guess my answer's pretty obvious; if I didn't, this blog wouldn't exist. Which isn't, by the way, a delusion of grandeur—just a recognitition that we all have the capacity to change the world merely by putting out ideas that someone who's in the right place at the right time may implement, or by being kind to a person who will someday change the world when they most needed kindness to carry on, or any one of a million ways each of us can contribute to changing the world for better (or worse) by being engaged actors within it.
Caption This Photo
"Hey, Popesy—ya might wanna borrow one of Laura's slips,
because I can practically Holy See your frank and beans."
President Bush (R) walks with Pope Benedict XVI at Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington, April 15, 2008. (Jason Reed/Reuters)
family value
I have four kids, three boys and a girl (no, she's not the youngest or oldest, as most people assume :-)). The world I want them to live in is a society of equals. Not one the one we have now where women still make less money for the same job, where women are whored in the media as products of consumption, and the very basic right of a women's autonomy is used as a political football. And those are just a small part of what goes on in this country, let's not forget what happens in the rest of the world. Nothing drives that home more than raising a daughter in this society. I also sincerely believe the sentiment that has been said here many times: patriarchy hurts men too. This isn't particularly about "the menz", it's about the insidious influence of the patriarchy and how it starts its unrelenting assault and attempt at assimilation at even the youngest ages. Nothing drives that home more than raising three boys in this society, especially a boy who is socially awkward, sensitive, of gifted intelligence, and non-athletic. It is hurtful.
The answer is feminism. Feminism is integral to parenting if we want a world of equals.
How to do this? Well, there's no handbook of rules but, as with most aspects of parenting, living by example/practice is generally the only way (kids learn more by your actions not your words, you know!).
Off the the top of my head, it's in "the bigger things": we participate in a larger community that actively believes in and supports feminism and other progressive values; we don't just talk about social justice (rather, injustice), we (as a family and as individuals) give our time and money to organizations that promote equality--and better welfare--for those who are marginalized, esp. women's organizations; we discuss the Why? of it all. It's in "the little things": we buy books that feature both girl and boy heroes; we avoid soppy movies that portray girls as living-solely-for-a-man singing dimwits; we encourage our kids in activities that play to their strengths and interests regardless of what they are; we don't listen to music that denigrates women; domestic related activities are for both sexes; when we tell our daughter that she shouldn't listen to anyone tell her she can't do something "just because she's a girl", our boys listen and it becomes not just a remote idea but something personal that they can carry forward.
One night at dinner not long ago, a male family friend told a sexist joke. My then-seven year old son looked him in the eye and said: "That is not funny." The guest was shocked and tried to explain that it was, indeed, funny (though no one had laughed). My son shook his head and said, "No, it was mean. It was not funny.".
Feminism is a family value.
Scream It from the Highest Mountain: "DO SOMETHING!"
In case the MSM anyone missed it the other day, Bush followed up Cheney's "So" moment with a spit in the face and a wedgie by openly admitting that he approved the use of torture by our government. He fearlessly admitted this because he knew what would happen.
He knew that no one would do one damn thing about it. In fact, with all the hubbub over the election cycle, he knew that no one would even pay attention to it; not the media and not the slack-jawed easily distracted population at large. And so we sit here with this amazing bit of information while we watch our elected doofuses sit around and reflect with the same level of excitement as watching an accident on TV and saying, "Bummer."
Our government is not supposed to work like this.
In response, John Amato started an action item to join the ACLU in demanding that Congress actually wake up and get an investigation going. The fact that we have to yell and scream for Congress to do something about an issue that's a little worse than a blowjob (and, yes, even LYING about a blowjob) is yet another example of how our government is broken.
In a subsequent post on C&L, Howie Klein pointed to responses by some Blue America candidates so we could see what their stances are on this recent revelation. Funny how they seem to be the only ones saying that Bushco needs to be held accountable for their actions. And even so, they still stop short on stating what that accountability should be. And I'm supposed to show financial support to them because they made a nice speech on the concept of accountability?
These folks are already getting enough financial support from me when they're in office for doing sweet F A. When I call my reps to find out what they intend to do, the staffer has no idea what the plan is; no surprise there. The reps don't even know what the plan is, aside from waiting around for the next inauguration.
Our government is not supposed to work like this.
This is why it's up to us to keep the issue front and center. Enough of this bullshit and enough of keeping the eye off the prize. Worrying about the election is shit at the moment; it will happen regardless, and even if a Democrat wins, we're going to have to worry about restoring credibility in government. This utter bullshit about democracy and freedom in the middle east has got to fucking stop until we address the sheer blasphemy that was done in the name of our supposedly moral country.
Keep screaming it until their damn ears bleed: Bush and his cabinet approved torture.
And Here I Thought It Was a No-Brainer
This, at 81 words, continues to be one of the most controversial and widely discussed posts I have ever written.
Lots of people seem to have a problem with the idea that feminism* is an integral part of progressivism.
Huh.
Lots of people mask their real problem with that idea behind the erroneous claim that I argued feminism is the defining, or most important, component of progressvism.
I did not.
Lots of people making that erroneous claim seem quite certain I would not consider "civil rights supporter" or "LGBTQ rights advocate," as but two examples, interchangeable with "feminist" in that post.
I would. The post gives no hint that I wouldn't. But they are certain I am redefining progressivism with feminism at its center, to the exclusion of everything else.
Why do they read it that way, do you think?
I have my suspicions, but I'll leave it to you to discuss in comments.
(Thanks to Res for a particularly good post.)
------------------
*By which I mean the idea that the sexes are equal, and which should not be read as limited to any particular practice of feminism/womanism, but encompassing of them all.
I Voted for Clinton. These Were Not My Reasons Why.
Inspired by Ampersand's post that Jeff blogged about earlier--and my own recent call for people to think more critically about the candidates they support--here are ten bad reasons to vote for Hillary Clinton.
Good reasons will come tomorrow (though I shudder to think what that comment thread's gonna look like), along with Amp's good reasons to vote for Obama.
1) Obama has been playing on liberal white guilt, thus getting advantages because he's black, and it's not fair. It's reverse racism or something!
Okay, first, apparently this still needs to be said: There is no such thing as reverse fucking racism. There are some people of color who are prejudiced against white people, but that's not racism; that's individual prejudice. Racism is a system of oppression; jerks are just jerks. Race-based bullshit is quite emphatically not "just as bad" when it happens to white people, because it's not supported by our institutions and culture. Period.
Now, do I think Obama's campaign has been playing on liberal white guilt? Sure. But I also think that's good political strategy--and pretty benign strategy at that--not anything morally suspect. (If enough American men actually felt guilty about sexism, Clinton would no doubt be using that to her advantage.) The fact is, there are still plenty of white people in this country who will not vote for a person of color. In light of that, the fact that some white people want to distance themselves from those blatant racists can hardly be seen as an unfair advantage for a person of color. I mean, come on. Seriously.
2) The obverse of Amp's second point: Clinton's been attacked by sexists throughout this whole campaign, and Obama totally hasn't gotten as much racist shit heaped on him, and/or none of the shit he has gotten has come from the Clinton camp!
Let me be clear, because when Jeff posted about Amp's post, the basic point wasn't clear to everyone. Deploring sexism is a perfectly good reason to vote for Clinton. (It's on my list.) Believing that white women win the Oppression Olympics, however, is a really bad reason. And believing the Clinton camp hasn't taken advantage of racism is delusional.
3) Because she's more progressive than Obama.
On some issues, this is true. On others, it's not. As far as I can tell, neither one is a true progressive--or at least, neither one is able to act as a true progressive in the current political climate (and that won't change when one of them is president). Clinton's better on some things; Obama's better on others. They're both ultimately centrists and will likely be forced to govern from the center, regardless.
4) Because you liked Bill Clinton and really wouldn't mind a return to the '90s, at least when it comes to the economy.
Look, it doesn't matter if it's someone pro-Hillary or anti-Hillary saying it: conflating Hillary with Bill is sexist bullshit. It implies either that a wife automatically holds all the same opinions as her husband or that you think she's only pretend-running in order to give him a third term. Either way, you can fuck right off with that.
5) Because Obama's an elitist who's out of touch with the average American.
Please. This is pure right-wing framing, and it ignores the fact that everyone running for president has infinitely more money, education, power, and privilege than the average American. (That's how they get to run for president.) Whether Obama's recent remarks pose a long-term electability issue is a different question, mind you. But the idea that we will ever see a president who's directly tapped into the experience and concerns of the average working stiff is a fucking pipe dream. The best we can hope for is a president who actually gives a damn about Americans who aren't rich enough to do him or her favors, a president who will actually listen. Both candidates pass that test--unlike the politicians the GOP keeps selling as the ones who are in touch with average Americans.
6) Because any female candidate would be better for women than a man.
Two words: Condoleezza Rice.
I happen to think we've got an excellent female candidate, and that she is somewhat better than the man she's running against for the nomination. And because of that, I absolutely factored her gender into my vote; I really want to see a woman president, and I think she'd do a fine job. There's nothing wrong with that. But not every woman has women's best interests at heart, and not every man wants to keep us down. (Note: I happen to think most of the "feminists" who actually believe any woman is better than any man are of the straw persuasion, but this comes up a lot, so there you go.)
7) Because Obama can't do anything but make good speeches.
You know, I have my concerns about Obama's experience--and about his ability to speak extemporaneously, for that matter--but for Christ's sake, he's not some kind of idiot savant. He's an extremely smart and accomplished man who would be surrounded by extremely smart and accomplished people as president.
It is the job of people running campaigns to distill complex concepts into ear-wormable soundbytes. It's our job as citizens to take those soundbytes with a grain of fucking salt. Simply repeating this one as if it means a President Obama would surely be incompetent is horseshit. Not to mention, the ability to inspire cynical and jaded people actually does come in handy.
8) Because Obama's too young.
If you didn't or wouldn't have voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 because of his youth, you have my blessing to use this argument; being mindful of point 4, I certainly don't want to assume anything. But if you did or would have, and yet you're still walking around saying Obama's too young now? STFU, hypocrite.
9) Because Obama's pastor is racist and anti-American!
Sexist, yes. Racist and anti-American, no. And what does it have to do with anything anyway, considering I can't even tell you the name of Clinton's pastor, because I have no reason to think that affects her candidacy? As with point 5 above, I believe Wright is going to be a challenge to Obama's electability in the general. But that's because the GOP machine is going to make hay out of those videos, not because the shit they'll be saying is true or relevant. Also, see point 1 about "reverse racism."
10) Because you want to see all the bloggers and pundits who've been screaming, "Why won't the stupid bitch quit?!?" forced to eat shit when she takes her boobs and moves into the White House.
Okay, I'm not sure that actually qualifies as a bad reason. But you have to admit it's kind of petty.
