I've been trying to work out a post for this Vanity Fair piece on Bill Clinton all afternoon, and I honestly don't even know where to begin. Maybe one of my esteemed co-bloggers can take a whack at it, because I'm just...blank.
In the meantime, discuss.
Bill
Monday Blogaround
Sock it to me, Shakers!
Recommended Reading:
Brownfemipower: RIP Paula Gunn Allen
Marcella: Carnival Against Sexual Violence 48
Jon Swift: Whither Jon Swift?
And, if you can, help Dr. Violet Socks.
Leave your links in comments!
We Need You
So, an idea I've seen expressed quite a bit lately among progressives is total shock and disgust at the levels of sexism and racism that have been expressed during this primary, and, often, among people who aren't engaging in it themselves, but horrified by it, their shock and disgust is accompanied by a feeling of hopelessness.
Chet's post from yesterday is a good example of this, and I'm not singling it out to pick on him at all, but because I know that Chet is an extremely decent person who's expressing quite genuine surprise and dismay and who's feeling really hopeless.
And I know he's not alone.
He's not alone across this country and others, and he's not even alone at Shakesville.
And here's the thing: I don't want anyone who's feeling shocked and dismayed and overwhelmed and hopeless because of this primary to throw in the towel just because suddenly things seem very grim. We need those teaspoons.
So I want to tell you something, and I'm not going to sugercoat it; in fact, I'm about to kick you right in the ass, so steel yoursevles.
You feel that way because of your privilege.
It may be the privilege of gender, or race, or even inexperience—that particular privilege of simply not having experienced bigotry oneself, or lacking the interpretation skills to recognize it for what it is. Some people never have the privilege of inexperience, like a child of color in an all-white school; some people never outgrow it, like our current president. In any case, if you were caught unawares by what's happened during this primary, that's some kind of privilege speaking.
And, lest there be any confusion, let me reiterate that having privilege doesn't make someone a bad person; almost all of us have some kind of privilege or another. It's the refusal to examine our privilege(s) that makes us assholes.
But I digress.
Active racism and sexism is nothing new. They're not even "coming to the surface," or whatever phase one prefers to describe the unearthing of a supposedly subterreanean social issue. The only thing that's new is YouTube, the internetz, all the means of conveying to people who never have to experience racism and sexism firsthand the racism and sexism that other people experience in their everyday lives.
Obama's not shocked by the racism being used against him. Clinton's not shocked by the sexism being used against her. They were well ready for it—because they've faced it their whole lives. Not because of this primary. Not because their names and faces are widely known. Because they are, respectively, a black man and a woman.
And we would all do well to remember that every black man and every woman (and all other marginalized people) suffer this shit day in and day out, every day of their lives.
Now, quite honestly, I'm a little surprised (and a lot disappointed) by how much racism and sexism is emanating from the Left uncontested, but that racist and sexist language and imagery is ubiquitous in a primary between a black man and a woman doesn't surprise me in the least. I'd be shocked to hell if there weren't any racism and sexism, not the other way around.
And I suspect I'm not the only person who has lived with sexism and/or racism hir entire life who is ever-so-slightly amused and ever-so-slightly bitter that there are people who have the luxury of being surprised by the preponderance of bigotry being levied against Clinton and Obama. Of course there was going to be ugly, pernicious, unapologetic, despicable sexism. Of course there was going to be ugly, pernicious, unapologetic, despicable racism. That shit never went away.
We face it every day. It just doesn't make the news.
I have many email correspondents who want to know how I can still be hopeful, despite Shakesville documenting (so far) 104 incidents of sexism against Clinton and 46 incidents of racism against Obama (and of course there are many more of each we haven't documented), as if this primary is a cataclysm of resurgent bigotry, indicative of a cultural tailspin from which we won't recover.
And the truth is, I'm hopeful because I have to be. I don't have the option of pretending sexism doesn't exist.
I do have the luxury of pretending racism doesn't exist; that's my privilege as a white person, right there. I have that luxury, but I don't have the will. My will is to try to break through my privilege, though it's hard and I fuck up a lot.
I don't have the option of throwing my hands up and saying, "It's hopeless!" And I hope, beyond any measure that I know how to convey, that the people who do have the luxury of turning their backs on this fight, don't.
I hope, instead, you will say, "My eyes have been opened to what was always there. Now I see the struggle." I hope, instead, you'll dig in with your teaspoon beside me.
I understand that this primary has ripped off a lot of blinders, and that watching it unfold has been jarring to people who don't personally experience racism and/or sexism on a regular basis. But I'm freaked out that it's resulting in feelings of hopelessness instead of a rededication to fighting bigotry.
Don't let it get the better of you. We need you.
We need you.
Assvertising
Shaker Maurinsky just passed on this advert for Klondike Bars, which was running quite awhile ago, and now they've evidently decided to re-run, because it was so awesome the first time around:
Transcript: [sound of sporting event on TV in background]Oh, my aching sides! How uproariously brilliant! Men are so dumb that they've got to be rewarded for doing what my mother taught me to do when I was five years old! And women, whose expectations are necessarily in the toilet since all men are such idiots, have learned to train men like the dumb animals they are! Put your dirty glass in the dishwasher and get a
VO: Pete Herman brought his glass into the kitchen. And put it in the dishwasher. Give that guy a Klondike Bar.
Jingle: What would you do for a Klondike Bar?
And let me just note, once again, that about the last place on earth you'll find active feminists is in the executive wing of any advertising firm. These disagreeable stereotypes of men brought to you by The PatriarchyTM.
The PatriarchyTM: Bad for everyone but patriarchs*!
* Term not applicable to women, men of color, gay men, bisexual men, trans men, male-identifed intersex men, poor men, most disabled men, men who would like to show a spectrum of emotion, men who consider women equal to them, and/or any other men who by virtue of birth, circumstance, or personal choice have been rendered powerless and/or unwilling to enforce patriarchal standards, and therefore undesirable as fully privileged members of The PatriarchyTM.
[Assvertising Series: Parts One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen, Fourteen, Fifteen, Sixteen, Seventeen, Eighteen, Nineteen, Twenty, Twenty-One, Twenty-Two, Twenty-Three.]
"I would prefer to be killed than sleep in the same bed as a man who was able to do what he did to his own daughter."
Those were the fateful words of Leila Hussein, an Iraqi woman who was killed after telling her family's story to The Observer, after her husband and sons murdered their 17-year-old daughter/sister for striking up a friendship with a British soldier—a murder to which her husband confessed, but for which he has faced no charges and has been congratulated by police.
It was two weeks after Rand's death on 16 March that a grief-stricken Leila, unable to bear living under the same roof as her husband, found the strength to leave him. She had been beaten and had had her arm broken. It was a courageous move. Few women in Iraq would contemplate such a step.She died at the hospital, where Mariam, being treated for a gunshot wound to her arm, overheard "people talking on the corridors and the only thing that they had to say was that Leila was wrong for defending her daughter's mistakes and that her death was God's punishment."
...Leila turned to the only place she could, a small organisation in Basra campaigning for the rights of women and against 'honour' killings. Almost immediately she began receiving threats - notes calling her a 'prostitute' and saying she deserved to die like her daughter.
...[S]he was staying at the house of 'Mariam', one of the women's rights campaigners, whose identity The Observer has agreed not to reveal. On the morning of 17 May, they were joined by another volunteer worker and set off to meet 'a contact' who was to help Leila travel to Amman, where she would be taken in by an Iraqi family.
'Leila was anxious, but she was also happy at having the chance to leave Iraq,' said Mariam. 'Since the death of her daughter, her own life was at serious risk. And this was a great opportunity for her to leave the country and to fight for Iraqi women's rights.'
...Mariam said that when she awoke Leila had already prepared breakfast, cleaned her house and even baked a date cake as a thank-you for the help she had been given. After the arrival of 'Faisal', the volunteer (whose identity is also being protected), the three left the house at 10.30am and started walking to the end of the street to get a taxi. They had walked less than 50 metres when they heard a car drive up fast and then gunshots rang out. The attack, said by witnesses to have been carried out by three men, was over in minutes. Leila was hit by three bullets.
President Bush reportedly admonished his generals that they "must be tougher than hell" in Iraq. And so they must, because we have unleashed hell there.
[W stands for women. H/T to Shaker Amy, via email.]
Teaspoon Vs. Dumptruck
And this would be why women and gay men with a modicum of self-respect, a belief in their equality, and a profound contempt for the notion that straight men are The Norm and women and gay men are The Others, so wildly different as to be practically a different species, want to smash things: Even the AP's entertainment writer can't get through a piece on Sex and the City without overtly Othering women and gay men, all for humorous effect, naturally. (What, don't you have a sense of humor?!)
Shopping bags line the aisles. Heels click on the sticky floors. Gaggles of girls pose for pictures. This was the scene at one New York City theater during the opening weekend for "Sex and the City," which turned multiplexes across the country into a kind of feminine ground zero.Not groups of women, but gaggles of girls. Gaggles. Like gaggles of geese. Because we girls are such exotic creatures, a male writer couldn't possibly use the pedestrian language of humans to describe us.
And I just love "feminine ground zero," as if anyplace disproportionately female is equivalent to the site of a disaster, bomb, or epicenter of an epidemic disease. Cooties, perhaps.
Of course, "Sex and the City" doesn't represent all things feminine, just the cliches: clothes, gossiping about men, Vogue magazine, etc.Oh and those other silly little feminine cliches like emotions, jobs, friendship, parenting, and breast cancer.
[Brace yourselves, Shakers. Here comes the dump truck.]
Whatever you think of the film or the HBO series that spawned it, the jammed cinemas were an intimidating place for any heterosexual male to venture. This reporter was (forcibly) dispatched to a Manhattan theater to determine whether the ultimate "chick flick" could be a welcoming experience for a guy. And with look of determination that said, yes, he was confident enough about himself to make such a trip, this reporter went. Talk about embedded journalism.There's so much hatred of women (and, obliquely, gay men) in that paragraph, it makes my blood absolutely fucking boil. Forget that this journalist says that it's "intimidating" for (praise his studliness!) a heterosexual male to venture into a female-centric space, and forget that this journalist says he had to be forced to enter it, and that entering it required confidence in his manhood; forget all that shit, because it's sadly not the worst thing he did in that shitpile of a paragraph, as he also just compared a heavily female space to a fucking war zone.
"Talk about embedded journalism." Oh, ho ho, what rapier wit! Yes, aren't women—excuse me—girls just like enemy combatants who constantly try to kill you? Hilarious!
You know who I bet finds that extra funny? Female soldiers!
Interviews with three couples suggested that "Sex and the City" has plenty to offer men — or at least isn't worth avoiding like a well-dressed plague.Oh, look! More comparison to deadly disease! Ha ha! Great stuff. In fact, the only thing I enjoy more than my habit of subjecting men to my unrelenting womanness being compared to trying to kill them with IEDs is having my sex compared to a disease. Watch out, boys! Don't wanna catch Teh Deadly Girl!
Following that bit of comedy genius are the interviews, in which two of the men in the straight couples were embarrassed to admit that they wanted to see the movie, one so thoroughly that he insisted on anonymity. The third "was proud to acknowledge that he's a fan of the show," while nonetheless winking at dudez by saying Samantha—i.e. The One Who Gets Naked—is his favorite.
Gee, I wonder why it is that a straight man would be embarrassed to admit that he likes a show about women? Do you think it has anything to do with the fact that women-centered spaces are likened to war zones and plagues?
FUCK.
What's just so infuriating about this shit is that it's not just untrue; it's projection, a deliberate misrepresentation in precise opposite of what men and woman face, which effectively masks the truth of our world. When men enter disproportionately female spaces, they are typically celebrated and rewarded for deigning to tread on female ground. Men who openly declare themselves feminists are lauded for their bravery; fathers who don't refer to watching their own kids as babysitting are cheered for their forward-thinkingness; male dancers are treated as golden calves merely because they are rare.
This is, of course, not what happens to women who enter disproportionately male spaces.
Women are typically welcomed into male-centric spaces not as women, but only if they appropriate maleness and shed traces of femininity; women who fight to join a male-only membership of any kind are fought tooth and nail; women who enter into male-dominated fields are discriminated against, harassed, and, in extreme cases, suffer physical and sexual abuse at the hands of their co-workers; women are disproportionately at risk for sexual assault in predominantly male spaces (the military, among members of a male athletic team, a frat house, resident-work in heavily male professions, as on an oil rig or a contractor in Iraq).
For a very long time, women really have entered male-centered spaces at their own risk, and it really has been like entering a war zone for a whole lot of women—women who wanted the right to vote, women who wanted to work in mines, women who want to play sports for which there's no organized women's league, women who want their basic goddamned equality in every space—who were brutalized and subjected to all manner of indignity for their trouble.
Mr. Hilarious AP Writer turns that history on its head to make jokes about how tough it is to be a guy going to see Sex and the City. That, he calls a war zone. The women there, he calls a plague.
That shit verges on eliminationist rhetoric—and it's in an entertainment article. This is what we're dealing with on a daily basis; it's teaspoon versus dumptruck, and for every one of them using massive machinery to move shit one way, there's got to be a hell of a lot more of us working our teaspoons to move it the other way. That's the privilege of privilege.
Work those teaspoons.
Worst. President. Ever.
Oddjob passed along this tidbit from the WaPo, with a H/T to TPM:
Getting lost in the media furor over McClellan's memoir is the new autobiography of retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the onetime commander of U.S. troops in Iraq, who is scathing in his assessment that the Bush administration "led America into a strategic blunder of historic proportions.""This Vietnam stuff, this is not even close." INSERT HERE the joke about the difference between Iraq and Vietnam being that Bush had an exit strategy for the latter.
Among the anecdotes in "Wiser in Battle: A Soldier's Story" is an arresting portrait of Bush after four contractors were killed in Fallujah in 2004, triggering a fierce U.S. response that was reportedly egged on by the president.
During a videoconference with his national security team and generals, Sanchez writes, Bush launched into what he described as a "confused" pep talk:
"Kick ass!" he quotes the president as saying. "If somebody tries to stop the march to democracy, we will seek them out and kill them! We must be tougher than hell! This Vietnam stuff, this is not even close. It is a mind-set. We can't send that message. It's an excuse to prepare us for withdrawal."
"There is a series of moments and this is one of them. Our will is being tested, but we are resolute. We have a better way. Stay strong! Stay the course! Kill them! Be confident! Prevail! We are going to wipe them out! We are not blinking!"I wonder if they were actually on the phone with Bush, or if he was off riding his bike, leaving behind a lackey to pull the string on the back of the slogan-chanting "Bush action figure.
A White House spokesman had no comment.Of course he didn't. What on Maude's green earth would he have said? "Well, as you've surely noticed by now, the President is an idiot. Thank you; no questions."
232 days.
Kennedy to Undergo Brain Surgery Today
Via the Boston Globe: "Senator Edward M. Kennedy is undergoing surgery for his malignant brain tumor at Duke University this morning, his office announced today. ... In the weeks and months after the surgery, Kennedy will begin a regimen of radiation and chemotherapy at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, according to the statement."
Surgery was not originally cited as a possibility after his diagnosis was first announced, but evidently further tests revealed it to be a viable option. The surgery will last six hours.
Sending good and healing thoughts in Senator Kennedy's direction...
Blog Note
Blogger is hosed this morning. It's not just Shakesville; I'm having a hard time loading a bunch of Blogger-based blogs. I've got a bunch of stuff ready to post, so I'll keep 'em coming as I am able!
Rank Hypocrisy
I have to admit that I really admire the sheer gall of William Kristol. Most people couldn't indulge in the hypocrisy, self-parody and irony that he does without cracking up -- in both meanings of the term -- but he just goes right on, elevating the levels to breathtaking heights.
Today he does not disappoint. He takes on Barack Obama's commencement speech at Wesleyan University, where he stood in for the ailing Sen. Ted Kennedy.The speech was skillfully crafted and well delivered, the grace notes were graceful, and the exhortations to public service seemed heartfelt but not cloying.
At the risk of being completely, glaringly, and possibly even droolingly obvious, for William Kristol, the leading voice of the chickenhawks who whooped us into the Iraq war and who gets positively horny at the prospect of sending American soldiers off to foreign lands to fight and die for his political agenda, to criticize Barack Obama for not being his recruiting officer for his neocon dreams is beyond the pale. In fact, it verges on the amazing.
The speech was a success. It’s also revealing — about Obama’s view of himself and of public service.
[...]
More striking is Obama’s sin of omission. In the rest of the speech, he goes on to detail — at some length — the “so many ways to serve” that are available “at this defining moment in our history.” There’s the Peace Corps, there’s renewable energy, there’s education, there’s poverty — there are all kinds of causes you can take up “should you take the path of service.”
But there’s one obvious path of service Obama doesn’t recommend — or even mention: military service. He does mention war twice: “At a time of war, we need you to work for peace.” And, we face “big challenges like war and recession.” But there’s nothing about serving your country in uniform.
It can’t be that the possibility of military service as an admirable form of public service didn’t occur to Obama. Only the day before, Obama had been squabbling with John McCain about veterans’ benefits. He said then, “Obviously I revere our soldiers and want to make sure they are being treated with honor and respect.”
And the day after the Wesleyan commencement, Obama was in New Mexico, where he read an eloquent and appropriate Memorial Day tribute to our fallen soldiers.
But at an elite Northeastern college campus, Obama obviously felt no need to disturb the placid atmosphere of easy self-congratulation. He felt no need to remind students of a different kind of public service — one that entails more risks than community organizing. He felt no need to tell the graduating seniors in the lovely groves of Middletown that they should be grateful to their peers who were far away facing dangers on behalf of their country.
Nor did Obama choose to mention all those college graduates who are now entering the military, either for a tour of duty or as a career, in order to serve their country. He certainly felt no impulse to wonder whether the nation wouldn’t be better off if R.O.T.C. were more widely and easily available on elite college campuses.
Obama failed to challenge — even gently — what he must have assumed would be the prejudices of much of his audience and indulged in a soft patriotism of low expectations.
Was this a public service?
Mr. Kristol may be right in noting that Sen. Obama did not mention military service as an option for graduates, but for him to take Mr. Obama to task for not including it is way over the top when Mr. Kristol did not avail himself of that option when he had the chance to do public service himself. In fact, since he was born in 1952, Mr. Kristol would have been of draft age at the height of the Vietnam war. Instead, he went to Harvard; to paraphrase his own words, he felt no need to join the seniors who were drafted from Cambridge. Instead, he's made his career by finding more places and more reasons for them to go to die. If that is not the textbook definition of a right-wing chickenhawk, along with Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrinch, Trent Lott, and all the rest who managed to stay out of uniform, then what is? (It also makes you wonder if he doesn't have some kind of fetish for the military look, but that's a little creepy to contemplate.)
There's been a lot of calls for the publishers of the New York Times to cancel Mr. Kristol's contract as an op-ed columnist owing to his propensity for errors and just plain right-wing silliness, but in a way I think he's providing a valuable public service. He gives us an insight into the mindset of the True Believers; those who are still clinging, however desperately, to the wild-eyed visions of reshaping the world into a Christian wonderland of McMansions, SUV's, and Dunkin' Donuts -- without the Yasir Arafat accessories. If nothing else, Mr. Kristol reminds us that when it comes to rank hypocrisy, not to mention being a blood-sucking leech, he has no peer.
(Cross-posted.)
Black & Green Wednesday: LaVena Johnson
Good Sunday to you, Shakers! This post is particularly directed to readers in the St. Louis area:
The Gateway Greens Alliance and the Universal African Peoples Organization are sponsoring a panel discussion on the matter of PFC LaVena Johnson. The event, free and open to the public, will take place on Wednesday, June 4, at 7 pm at Legacy Books & Cafe, 5249 Delmar (near Union) in St. Louis.
The panelists include:
- Lionel Nixon, African Newsworld newspaper [moderator]
- Dr. John Johnson, father of LaVena Johnson
- Redditt Hudson, American Civil Liberties Union
- Michael McPhearson, Veterans For Peace
I'm going to try to make it, but may not be able to due to a another engagement. There is more information available at the Gateway Greens Alliance website. Thanks!
C-O-N-G-R-A-T-U-L-A-T-I-O-N-S, Sameer!
I always love when I have the opportunity to celebrate a fellow Hoosier! Indiana boy wins national spelling bee:
After watching his sister try three times to win the Scripps Nationals Spelling Bee, Sameer Mishra put himself on a mission. "I told my mom I was going to do the bee," Sameer said. "And if I was going to do it, I was going to win it one day. And I guess it happened."Awesome. Way to go, Mishra clan!
Did it ever. With the sister coaching him, Sameer augmented his spelling talent with a sense of humor that often kept the Grand Hyatt Ballroom audience laughing. The 13-year-old from West Lafayette, Ind., was finally all business when he aced "guerdon" — a word that appropriately means "something that one has earned or gained" — to win the 81st version of the bee Friday night.
"I'm not used to people laughing at my jokes — except for my sister," Sameer said.
...Sameer was a crowd favorite throughout the tournament. When told one of his words in the semifinals was a dessert, he deadpanned: "That sounds good right now." He rolled his eyes and muttered "wonderful" when told that one of his words had five different language roots. He once asked "Are you sure there are no alternate pronunciations?" and later uttered "That's a relief" after initially mishearing the word "numnah" (a type of sheepskin pad).
And what did he have to say while hoisting the heavy trophy? "I'm really, really weak."
Sameer, who won more than $40,000 in cash and prizes, likes playing the violin and the video game "Guitar Hero" and hopes one day to be a neurosurgeon. He tried to watch the movie "Ratatouille" during the long wait before the finals but found he "couldn't really relax that much." His sister, Shruti, cried after her brother's victory on a day in which she received her own big news: She was accepted to Princeton.
"A big day for the family," said Sameer's father, Krishna Mishra, who moved to the United States from central India and teaches microbiology.
The Virtual Pub Is Open
I don't know about you, Shakers,
but I needs me a fooking DRINK.
Thank fook it's Friday.
Belly up to the bar
and name your poison!
No and More No
Normally, I'd be excited as hell to see an article in the Boston Globe headlined "Healing the wounds of Democrats' sexism." But I don't guess I need to explain why Geraldine Ferraro is so not the person to write that article.
And there is potentially a legitimate point to be made that the Obama campaign was actually casting Hillary Clinton as a racist before any of the incidents of racism attributed to her during this primary. But I don't guess I need to explain why Geraldine Ferraro is so not the person to make it.
No and more no. That is all.
P.S. Who the fuck uses "reverse racism" anymore? I was under the impression that most thinking people acknowledged quite some time ago that racism is racism, irrespective of whence it emanates, and that "reverse racism" was typically a phrase employed by the sort of ignorant doofuses who don't get why it's okay to say George Bush looks like a chimp but not okay to say the same of Barack Obama. Did I miss a memo?
Oooh, interesting.
Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, wants the McClellaton 3000 to testify before Congress:
Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Florida, said McClellan, who served as the president's press secretary before leaving the White House in 2006, would be able to provide valuable insight into a number of issues that the House Judiciary Committee is investigating.Oooh, game on! And what are they investigating? The firing of the eight attorneys, the (mis)use of intelligence for the war, and the leaking of Valerie Plame's identity.
[...]
"The administration has always called for different kinds of privileges to avoid their officials testifying, but because Mr. McClellan has put all this information in a book, these privileges, I do not believe, would be available to the administration, so we would have a free flow of information," Wexler said.
The White House came out huffing and hissing:
Bush spokeswoman Dana Perino, however, said Friday that the White House says it could invoke executive privilege and prevent McClellan from testifying before the committee, but it has not decided whether to do so.Oh please, when have you waited for any formal anything? Anyway, Wexler farts in their general direction:
"The law would allow for that," Perino said, "but by saying that I am not suggesting that's what would happen or not.
"We don't have a formal request yet," she said. "It's not a decision we would make prior to getting a formal request."
But Wexler said that any White House claims of executive privilege would be invalid because McClellan had put much of the information in the public domain with book and multiple television appearances.Oooh, snap! I hope it works, Wexler. I really do.
[...]
Wexler said McClellan should testify because the public has a right to know what went on behind closed doors.
"The American people deserve to know under oath what is true and what isn't [and] what this administration engaged in in terms of a conspiracy to obstruct justice."
The McClellaton 3000 said he is willing to testify.
Friday Blogaround
Time for some sexy link lovin'!
Recommended Reading:
Echidne: "A" Is For Ambition
Elle: "the penalty for being poor and a child and hungry in africa is to be raped"
Kathy G: Michelle Obama and the Silence of the Feminists
Dave: Obama calls out Dobbs and Limbaugh
Melissa: Where are the Women of Color in Film?
Andy: Macy's Celebrates Same-Sex Marriage, Wants your Registry
Leave your links in comments.
Quote of the Day
"When guys are persistent, it's romantic, they make movies about that. If it's a woman, then they cast Glenn Close." - Ally McBeal
Misogyny/Rape/Murder Are Hee-larious!
[Trigger warning.]
Shaker Jeremy forwarded me the below video, currently ranked in the top 10 at Vimeo, and I really debated posting about it, because I wasn't sure I wanted to give it more attention. But, in the end, that concern was outweighed by the consideration that if I didn't post about it, there might be no direct counter-balance to it. So, teaspoons.
In the video, a group of male co-workers bored at work begin to chant Boys v. Girls as a challenge. Thing is, there's only one female in the group, so it's essentially all the boys ganging up on one girl to torment her...brutalize her...violate her...and eventually kill her. Then they're seen dragging her body into a storage area for the dead bodies of all the other female co-workers with whom they've evidently played this fun game.
If it were ironic, it would be a pretty devastating commentary on misogyny, the rape culture, male privilege, and female tokenism. But it's not ironic—or, if it is, that objective has been lost on most viewers, as the 126 comments and counting reveal; it's just "hilarious." Which shows, at best, why this sort of "comedy" is a dangerous game to play.
I don't even know what I can say anymore, that I haven't said at least 21 times or so already.
[Rape is Hilarious: Parts One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen, Fourteen, Fifteen, Sixteen, Seventeen, Eighteen, Nineteen, Twenty, Twenty-One.]
When States Attack
by Shaker Sarah in Chicago
In all the joyous celebration happening in California regarding the brief appearance of reality, a certain degree of privilege was being evidenced to me.
Don't get me wrong ... when the news popped up on my phone as friend and I were shopping our way for summer clothes down State Street here in Chicago, and we both whooped and high-fived, grinning broadly and laughing. There's not much on earth that feels as wonderful as having your basic rights be granted to you. Kinda sad to have to write that, but it's still true.
The images that we've seen come out of California since have been incredible ... just the basic and overwhelming joy and beauty of people so used to being denigrated and dehumanised, being told that they are recognised in their own country as worthy of what everyone-else takes for granted.
And therein lies the privilege. Because despite our celebrations that embarrassed us in that store on State Street, there is one fundamental difference between my friend and I; she's an American citizen. I'm not.
But back to California.
Not long after the decision came down to rapturous acclaim, Ellen Degeneris announced that she was marrying her long-time girlfriend, Portia de Rossi (otherwise known as Hotty McHot). Ellen teared and choked up making the announcement, and her girlfriend was moved to, with I think tears down her cheeks. It was an amazing and perfect cap to such a wonderful decision.
And then Republican presidential candidate John McCain came onto her show some days later, and Ellen (to my surprise given her history of avoiding LGBT politics in general, but to her credit) brought up the CA decision, and her own pending marriage to Portia (McHot). McCain, being the mealy-mouthed piece of shit he is, managed to basically say that he thought Ellen and Portia were less than he was, AND that he expected to be respected for his bigotry. All with a smile on his face.
'Straight Talk' indeed.
McCain has always said that he opposes same-sex marriage, but that he also opposes the federal anti-gay "marriage" amendment (which, of course, has nothing to do with marriage, and everything to do with ensuring that us uppity queers don't think we deserve to not be stoned to death or anything crazy like that), in saying we should "leave it up to the states" (which, ironically enough, is what California is doing, but we all know the aversion wingnuts have to things like logic and consistency). This, admittedly, is a better position than that of the current occupier of the big swivelly chair in the Oval Office ... but that's like saying fresh shit is better than week-old shit because it hasn't decomposed quite as much.
The thing is, the "leave it up to the states" thing is also effectively the position of both Obama and Clinton as well. Sure, they support civil unions and/or partnership recognition of some sort for us pinkos, but they've shied away from federal recognition like it's a bloody third rail. Which, I suppose it is, politically at least.
I've noticed that when a lot of straight people talk about same-sex marriage in places like California and Massachusetts, or Civil Unions in New Jersey and Vermont, they just assume that such things are exactly the same as their own unions in such states. But the thing is, they're not. One can have all the equality that is humanly possible within a state when it comes to marriage, one can hold a big huge state-equality party, we can throw state-equality around like it's bloody confetti, but it doesn't matter one iota when it comes to federal recognition. Thanks to the federal DOMA (Defence Of Marriage Act) a state can stamp its feet all it wants, but Washington is a closed door to us queers, and it reads "Breeders Only" (and you can be damn skippy it's not a nice colour-coordinated door either).
And a lot of people have said "Okay, well, we'll get a critical mass of states together, and then, eventually, we'll get it on the national stage." And this seems like a perfectly rational and reasonable long-term strategy. Doesn't it? Slow and steady, after all. Don't want to piss off the straights; they get all pissy and nervous when you aggravate them, and while our riots may be fabulous (I mean, drag queens throwing stilettos? Hello?) straights seem to have downright NASTY riots.
But there's one problem with this strategy (well, there's more than one, but I'll focus on one at the moment ... hey, I have a syllabus and a dissertation proposal to write here!) and that gets back to my friend and I dancing around an Urban Outfitters (hey, SHE wanted to be in there, NOT me!). While she marrying her girlfriend (and they are VERY cute together I have to say, and I should know, I used to date my friend ... yeah, yeah, I know, I'm sooooo a lesbian) would actually mean something substantial to them, if I were to find some American woman insane enough to not only date me but want to marry me, said substance would very quickly drain down the hole that is immigration recognition.
No matter how much I may love said hypothetical insane woman, and she hypothetically me, for all extents and purposes, our wonderfully equal state marriage would be so much packing-paper in me not being able to stay in the country to be with her. The fundamental privilege of the "leave it to the states" approach is that it is one that only citizens can access; it leaves non-citizens out in the cold.
Not that straight federal partnership recognition is a box of cookies. Ask 'Liss and Mr Shakes about the hoops of varying colour, size, shape, etc that they've had to jump through. There's even a section on the form to specify the detailed type of arse-kissing you're particularly proficient in.
But that's still a country mile ahead of where us queers are (do country people travel slower or something? Are there bumpkin-measures? Never got that particular idiom).
I personally don't know if once I've finished my seemingly endless doctoral studies that I'll stay in the US or not, and given that I now actually can reasonably see the end, it is something I am thinking about. But there's one thing I am definitely certain of; if I do, it won't be because of the woman I may have hypothetically fallen in love with. Because to the US federal government, that love might as well not exist; WE don't exist. She's just her, and I'm just me, the alien; there is no we.
So, as wonderful, incredible and groundbreaking as the California decision was, and is, it's always going to also be a tad bittersweet. There exists, at the federal level, legislation called the 'Uniting American Families Act', which is in both houses of Congress, which would provide immigration rights to same-sex couples regardless of federal recognition of marriage. But none of the three presidential candidates have co-sponsored the bill in their senatorial capacities, and it's been largely ignored by both the (straight) immigrant-rights and gay rights communities.
Bi-national same-sex couples may celebrate alongside everyone else at the California recognition of our inherent humanity, but it's a hollow celebration, as it does nothing for us in reality.
I know we talk a lot about privilege recognition on this blog, and a lot of you here may react "oh dammit, not ANOTHER privilege?!" but the thing is, citizenship IS a privilege, as any immigrant will tell you, gay or straight. The thing is, being a gay foreigner in this country you realise that even in this, you're still on the border, knocking on the fence.
They just don't need to patrol this one.
[Here's some more info on partnership immigration.]
(Cross-posted.)
