I have previously noted that while Minnesota has horrible winters (though better of late, thanks to global warming) and too many mosquitos (though worse of late, for the same reason), the most odious and annoying thing about this state is the continued, inexplicable employment at the Star Tribune of Katherine Kersten.
Kersten can always be counted upon to go after Muslims or women, or Muslim women, if she can work it out. She also can be counted upon to defend people who hang nooses in college newspaper offices. And she can be counted upon to attack The Handmaid's Tale by saying, "For many female college students, the challenge is going to be, not resisting male tyranny, but finding an equally well-educated man to marry," thus destroying irony for this and all future generations.
In today's column, Kersten is in fine form, as she gets to not only defend the Catholic Church -- one of her favorite institutions going -- but attack homosexuals, to boot. It's a Kerstengasm of epic proportions. Epic fail proportions, that is.Last week, controversy erupted when Archbishop John Nienstedt informed St. Joan of Arc Catholic Church in Minneapolis that it could not hold a gay pride prayer service in its sanctuary. The service -- held for several years in conjunction with the annual Twin Cities Gay Pride festival -- celebrates the gay identity.
So, church holds event in conjunction with Pride every year until the new Archbishop says not to. This is interpereted as bigoted and wrong by pretty much everyone. This is why Kersten will defend it utterly.In response, organizers moved the celebration outside the church. One gay activist attended in what must have struck him as a clown's outfit, given the occasion -- the robes of an archbishop, miter and all. David McCaffrey of the Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities (CPCSM) condemned what he called Nienstedt's "reign of homophobic hatred." In an e-mail to the group's members, he characterized the archbishop's decision as "yet another volley of dehumanizing spiritual violence directed at GLBT persons and their families."
Well...yeah, pretty much. It's hard to see it any other way. Unless you're Katherine Kersten, and you hate gay people, that is.Clearly, there is hatred here. But it is not coming from the Catholic Church.
Of course not, sillys!Rather, it's a tool of those who are trying to compel the church to conform to their personal demands with caricatures and public mockery.
Okay, on the one hand, you have a huge and powerful organization with two thousand years' history and 1.1 billion members that is preaching directly and overtly that GLBT individuals are second-class citizens and sinners. On the other hand, you have a loosely-knit organization of activists saying they aren't evil, and that it would be nice if the church would stop saying they're evil. Yep, I can see why Kersten is outraged -- the Catholic Church is in for it now!Opponents charge that the church does not welcome gays. They point to the fact that the archdiocese won't sponsor a gay pride prayer service as evidence.
Of course, when Kersten says they "welcome" homosexuals, she doesn't mean "into the church." That would be crazy talk! No, the homosexuals and transpeople and bisexuals and icky folks like that should stay the heck out of the churches. That will prove how welcoming they are.
But the truth is different: The church welcomes everyone. Far from rejecting gays as sinners, Christianity teaches that all human beings are sinners. In fact, it maintains, it is precisely because we are sinners that we need the Christian message. So Michael Bayly of CPCSM got it wrong when he told the Star Tribune that "the archdiocese is now dictating to people who they can and cannot pray for." The church advocates prayer for all, straight and gay alike, because it regards all as sinners.
Of course, the prayers are different, as are the sins. I don't recall ever having anyone pray that God would turn my spirit so I would be attracted to boys, for example.But "gay pride" is a different matter.
Wha--?Why? To answer, we must consider why we are called to go to church in the first place. We go to acknowledge our sins, to ask forgiveness and to seek redemption and a new life in conformance with God's will for us.
And being gay is a sin that can only be forgiven by being not gay, ipso facto there can be no pride in that. Score one for specious logic!
Already, we've reached epic levels of insanity. And yet Kersten is not done.As a result, pride has no place in church. Indeed, Christianity views pride as a sin.
Which is why the Catholic Church refuses to allow celebrations in its churches on St. Patrick's Day or Columbus Day. Celebrating Irish or Italian pride is right out.
What? They don't do that? Oh. Well...uh...look, Prince Caspian!The theologian C.S. Lewis called pride "the great sin" -- the root of almost every other transgression. Pride, he wrote, "has been the chief cause of misery ... since the world began."
I know that when I want to talk about Catholic dogma, the first person I think of is Anglican theologan Clive Staples Lewis. I didn't know that the C of E had patched up its differences with the Catholic Church. When did that happen?So "gay pride" is out of place in church. But so is straight pride, black pride, white pride -- or any kind of pride.
Yep, church is all about misery and self-hatred. Come on down on Sunday, a bad time will be had by all!
Seriously, at this point I'm about to chuck myself out the second-story window here, and I'm only keeping myself from doing it because I don't think the fall would be fatal. Are you frakkin' kidding with this, Kate? "Pride" is a defining strain in American Christianity, as anyone who has been a member of a Christian church knows. Not every Christian is prideful, of course. Many actually seemed to pay attention when they read about Jesus and the loving your neighbor and turning the other cheek and whatnot.
But many other Christians are like Kersten -- smug, sanctimonious, secure in the knowledge that they are God's Chosen People, and you are not. I know, Kersten would never say she was proud of her Christianity, which she wears on her sleeve and trots out every other column. But there can be no better definition of pride than to parade one's own salvation around like a totem.
But Kersten prays like the hypocrite she is, and truly she has already received her reward.The organizers of St. Joan of Arc's gay pride service seem to think that if they complain shrilly enough, they can compel the Catholic Church -- by embarrassing and humiliating it -- to come around and embrace their enlightened views.
Well...yeah. I mean, that is what they're going for. And they're doing a pretty good job of it. I know a lot of people who were raised Catholic, and not nearly as many people who are still Catholic into adulthood. And the Catholic Church's positions on homosexuality, abortion, female ministry, and birth control tend to be major reasons why.
The organizers of the service are doing what they can to try to point out to the church the error of its ways. As is their right. After all, is not the Catholic Church quite fond of pointing out the error of the organizers' ways?This attitude should not surprise us, because it reflects the dominant cultural mood of our age.
Don't even bring up that Kersten has most certainly eaten lobster at some point in her life, because she's not even cognizant of what she just said. It's just a macro.
Today, we want wardrobes, homes and vacations that "fit my lifestyle." We want a God who does the same. Transcendent truth? We prefer to believe there's no such thing. If 52 percent of Americans disagree with the church about something, we conclude it must be the church that's wrong.
Theology, cafeteria-style.
Kersten is deeply, deeply hurt that Americans don't recognize that just because some churches seem to be wholly out of touch with life here in the nineteenth century, that the church is right and they're wrong. And how dare anyone have the nerve to actually suggest such a thing! The church is right -- end of story. Shut up, get back in the closet, and start having babies.But there is a religious vision that dissents from this cafeteria-style theology. In 2008, it often comes into conflict with trendier views on the flashpoint issue of sexuality -- perhaps the greatest preoccupation of our age.
For the fundies? Yes, it is.
For GLBTs? Not so much. I had a friend come out when he was a virgin, and he remained so for a couple years afterward. He didn't come out because he was having nothing but crazed gay sex 24/7; he came out because he realized he was attracted to men, and that if he was able to fall in love with someone, it would be a man.
Being gay is not about sex. Oh, sex is part of it, just as it's a part of heterosexual relationships. But just as my life is not defined by my constant sex-having with women, gays are not defined by their constant sex-having with men, and lesbians with women, and so on, and so forth. Frankly, if the gay sex was as constant and great as the fundies claim, and if sexual identity was as plastic as fundies claim, we'd all have gone gay a long, long time ago.For 2,000 years, Christianity has taught that God had a purpose in creating human beings as male and female. He gave the two sexes complementary bodies and natures so that they could become "one flesh," and in the process generate new life. The faithful, committed sexual love of man and woman holds a special dignity in Christian teaching, which sees it as mirroring God's love for humanity.
As long as you're producing children, ladies. And that goes for you too, fellas. "Ev'ry sperm is sacred," and all that.In recent years, however, a different vision of sexuality has grown fashionable. In this view, sex of all kinds -- whether straight, gay or otherwise -- is best understood as a vehicle for pleasure and self-expression.
Actually, masturbation is a vehicle for pleasure and self-expression. Sex usually involves at least two people. I can understand your confusion, Katherine, as you seem to approach sex as an anthropologist might approach some disgusting and horrifying ritual from an alien species, but if you're trying to do sex as a means of self-expression, you're probably doing it wrong.Today, this vision of sex dominates our entertainment industry, is taught in our schools and inspires events such as gay pride celebrations.
Ceiling Fucking Cat.The controversy at St. Joan of Arc is part of a larger picture. When the gay rights movement emerged several decades ago, its leaders asked only for tolerance -- a live-and-let-live attitude on the part of the larger society.
Well, that was a step forward from the "kill the f---" mentality that had been the previous norm.Today, the movement increasingly demands both approval of and conformity to its creed.
Obey, minions! Become gay/lesbian/bi/trans! You have no choice! Conform!
Seriously, Katherine, it takes chutzpah for a straight woman to tell the GLBT community that they're trying to make us conform. Last I checked, you weren't hiding that you're straight for fear of what the neighbors might think. Indeed, you've flaunted your heterosexuality often, telling us all about your "husband" and "children" and all the other parts of the heterosexual lifestyle. TMI, Katherine, TMI.More and more, it labels all dissent -- even that based on religious conviction -- as "hateful."
And that's wrong. It's not hateful for the church to say that you're damned to eternal torment and torture if you act on the sexual impulses God gave you. But it is hateful to say that it's not good for the church to say that. Orwell must be so proud.Secular institutions have largely acquiesced.
This is news to the partners of GLBT Minnesota state employees, who continue to be denied health insurance. Or to the millions of gays and lesbians who don't live in Massachusetts or California. Or anyone with a functioning brain.The church alone perseveres in the conviction that human sexuality has a larger purpose. That is why it is now a central battlefront in this crusade.
And this crusade is the crusade to stuff the genie back in the lamp, to stuff the GLBT community back into the closet, and to deny the most obvious truth in the history of history: that sex can be kind of fun. I can understand why Kersten is touchy, though. One group says that sex is not fun, it's work, the work of God to make babies and more babies. The other says no, sex is fun, and more fun when it involves people you actually are attracted to. One of those messages runs counter to all human experience ever. It isn't the crazy, nutty, coo-coo libertine one.
Kersten doesn't want the church's position questioned for the most obvious of reasons: it's a losing position. The position that GLBT individuals should have to deny their humanity, deny their sexuality, and live as ascetics their entire life is a cruel and hateful one, and everyone knows it. The position that everyone, no matter their orientation, should channel their sexuality into narrowly defined, strictly enforced, gender-prescribed norms is a cruel and hateful one, and everyone knows that, too. I doubt strongly that the church is right in those teachings; in my soul, I know it's wrong. But no matter the rectitude of the argument, its persuasive ability is nil. No wonder Kersten wants everyone to shut up.
Pride Goeth Before the Fall
"Thank you from the depths of my soul."
I just read thaat Washington passed a law banning hand-held phones while driving, and it reminded me of this funny bit from a Brian Regan show that always makes me laugh:
Although it's the bit about Antiques Roadshow from that show which totally slays me:
"So I thought maybe it's from Babylon."
Gay Pride Day
Today is designated as Gay Pride Day, marking the date of the Stonewall riots in 1969 and culminating a month of gay pride parades, events, and remembrances for the LGBT community. In the past I've attended my share of parades and festivities and I've had a good time at them, enjoying seeing the crowds of people -- gay, straight and whatever -- participating and just having a good time with friends and family.
And that's the whole point. Just having the simple pleasure of being with people we like and love and not being afraid to be who we are, to share our lives with the person of our choice, and not feel as if I have to have the permission of other people to be treated as a citizen of this country with all the rights and responsibilities that come with it. Nothing more, but nothing less.
I'm not a huge flag waver. I don't have a rainbow flag on my car, and I don't wear symbols of my gayness on my lapel or my sleeve. I don't have a problem with people who do, but it's just not me. If people are going to take me for what I am, then they can do it without a semiotic clue or a preconceived idea. It's probably my Quaker philosophy coming through, but I believe in leading in silence and letting my life be the symbol of what I am.
Also, I'm not sure if "pride" is the right word to describe how I feel about being gay. It's a part of who I am -- and always have been -- and yet it doesn't define me any more than the rest of what makes me who I am, so I find it hard to label it. The word "pride" also carries with it a certain amount of exclusion, as if being gay was something that places me on a different plane than other people. I suppose that's true in some respects, but it also feeds the mindset that being gay is somehow different than any of the other things that make each of us unique, and therefore something to be feared. I'm not proud to be gay, but I'm not ashamed of it, either. I just am.
And maybe that's what it's really all about. We have Gay Pride Day to encourage us -- all of us -- to get to the point where it doesn't matter if you're gay or straight or whatever. To those who are out there in the parades and celebrations today, have a great time and take lots of pictures. I'm with you in spirit, firm in the belief that all that really matters is that we get the chance to live a life of peace, simplicity, and the plain ordinariness that we are all promised as citizens of this country. Is that too much or too prideful to ask for?
(Cross-posted.)
Salon Broadsheet post on LaVena
Writer Kate Harding - founder of Shapely Prose, contributor to Fatshionista and the very blog you're reading now - posted today on Salon’s Broadsheet on the tragedy surrounding the death in Iraq of PFC LaVena Johnson.
Salon has published quite a bit about how American women in the military sometimes face more danger from their fellow soldiers than from their enemies, but the stories never seem to stop. And all too often, they go largely ignored by the media, as with the case of Pfc. LaVena Johnson.
In July 2005, 19-year-old Johnson became the first female soldier from Missouri to die in Iraq. She was found with a broken nose, black eye and loose teeth, acid burns on her genitals, presumably to eliminate DNA evidence of rape, a trail of blood leading away from her tent and a bullet hole in her head. Unbelievably, that’s not the most horrifying part of the story. Here’s what is: Army investigators ruled her death a suicide.
Harding draws parallels between LaVena’s little-heard story and the widely-known similar tragedy of Cpl. Pat Tillman’s death in Afghanistan. The post also draws upon Tracey Barnett’s story on LaVena which appeared this week in the New Zealand Herald.
I can’t thank Kate enough for bringing news of LaVena Johnson to the readership of Salon. Every article, every blog post, every mention of the Johnson family’s effort to prompt a new investigation of their daughter’s death brings us that much closer to some kind of justice.
Family Values
The Federal Marriage Amendment is back, and sponsored by all the right people. Via Steve Benen:
Just this week, a group of Republican senators re-introduced the Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution, which, as we know, would ban gay marriage.Just my way of giving you something to make you laugh out loud as you head into the Virtual Pub and order a double.
[...]
But the funny part is looking over the list of the 10 original sponsors. Most of the names are predictable — Brownback and Inhofe, for example — but there are two others whose names stand out: Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Larry Craig (R-Idaho).
Yes, two of the principal sponsors of a constitutional amendment to “protect” marriage include one far-right Republican who hired prostitutes and another far-right Republican who was arrested for soliciting gay sex an airport men’s room.
Dear Mr. Maupin
In a recent piece for The Advocate you referred to Clinton and Obama as "pussies." Apparently you were none too thrilled with their statements on civil unions and the California Supreme Court's decision on same-sex marriage. Fine, be angry with them, that's all well and good. But do you need to resort to misogynist language when writing about it? You seem to think so, since you said "there's no other way to put this" when using the word. I disagree. Maybe next time, instead of calling someone a "pussy" try one of these less offensive choices:
cowards
chickens
wimps
pushovers
scaredy-cats
Or, if you want to be especially clever, you could go with:
Ichabods
Shaggys
Mr. Furleys
Bert Lahrs
Then there are these, just off the top of my head right now, that mean not exactly the same thing, but get the point across just the same:
douches
miscreants
fools
schmucks
assholes
trolls
goblins
turds
shitheads
wankers
jerks
And if you're feeling maybe betrayed at all, there is (again, just off the top of my head):
traitors
Quislings
Judases
I bet if I sat here for a little while I could come up with a couple dozen more. I bet you could too.
Your pal,
Deeky
(H/T to Shaker Juliemania)
Pictures From Unity
Obama and Clinton campaign together in Unity, New Hampshire: He says, "She rocks!" She says, "We are one party; we are one America."
Remember these pictures, of two colleagues with common cause (and ZOMG matching outfits!), next time someone uses a picture like this (via Sully) to say something about either one of them, or how they feel about each other.
Because they will use those pictures to help tell their lies. Oh how they will.
I Am a Scary Douche; Why Do You Not Love Me?
Shaker Women: This is why you don't give some random dude who approaches you on the street your actual business card as a brush-off.
In the below video, you will hear two messages from Dimitri, a very interesting fellow who just wants to date an elegant lady; is that so wrong? Jezebel has the transcripts.
This guy actually gives Lord Douchly Douchehill a run for his money.
Stay Classy, Grover
From the Los Angeles Times blog Top of the Ticket:
John McCain has been trying hard of late to link Barack Obama with Jimmy Carter in the public consciousness, hoping that the "ineffectual" label that many voters affix to the former president will prove transferable.Hey, at least he didn't say anything about Obama liking watermelon and having rhythm.
But Grover Norquist -- the conservative activist who specializes in promoting an anti-tax agenda and, more generally, revels in the role of agent provocateur -- is offering a different comparison. Norquist dropped by The Times' Washington bureau today and, as part of his negative critique of Obama's liberal stances on economic issues and other matters, he termed the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee "John Kerry with a tan."
Cyndi
This week, Dorothy Snarker's Weekend Crush is on Cyndi Lauper. It's a beautiful post, and I'm not even going to quote it—just go read it.
Also, speaking of Cyndi: Did anyone else watch My Life on the D-List last night? By now, my love for Kathy Griffin has probably been well established and then some, as has my enormo Margaret Cho love, so when Kathy and Margaret hooked up in Sydney for their pride festival, I was bouncing in my seat with happiness. Then they walk into a store to find Cyndi Lauper ZOMG!
I turned to Iain and said, "If I had been in that room, with Kathy Griffin, Margaret Cho, and Cyndi Lauper, I would have exploded with joy on the spot!"
"I knoo," Iain said. "I was joost finking the same fing."
Friday Blogaround
Round round get around, I blogaround, yeah; round round get around, you blogaround, oooh…
Sean: War Crimes
Mannion: A letter from the President of the United States
Nicole: Fourth Amendment? What's That? Feingold Chastises Senate Over Airport Seizures
Andy: Michelle Obama and Michelle Paterson Speak at Gay DNC Benefit
Melissa: Is the Academy Sexist?
Steve: Darren Manzella Gets Discharged from the Army
Leave your links in comments.
McCain's Such a Jokester
Like I needed another reason to loathe McCain:
[Why didn't you choose Gov. Jim Gibbons to chair your Nevada campaign?]Ho ho ho.
I appreciate his support. As you know, the lieutenant governor is our chairman.
Why snub the governor?
I didn't mean to snub him,. I've known the lieutenant governor for 15 years and we've been good friends….I didn't intend to snub him. There are other states where the governor is not the chairman.
Maybe it's the governor's approval rating and you are running from him like you are from the president?
(Chuckling) And I stopped beating my wife just a couple of weeks ago….
In fairness, McCain is riffing on the classic Beltway example of a question to which there's no good answer ("When did you stop beating your wife?"), but, ya know, that's not actually funny in the first place.
MYOB
Shaker Elle just dropped into comments the link to this article, noting, "I think this might be worse than even the baby bump spotting." And, yeah, I think it might be, too.
Jessica Alba has been spotted these past few days looking rather gloomy and sad, fueling speculation that perhaps she's suffering from post-partum depression.First paragraph, and I already want to punch things.
Although she's been named one of the sexiest ladies in the world and even called by a scientific research as the girl with the 'perfect proportions', it may seem that the star of 'Fantastic Four' and 'Sin City' is dealing with a very common symptom among new moms.The whatthefuckery quotient in that paragraph almost defies comprehension. What in the fuckity-fuck does being regarded as sexy or having 'perfect proportions' have to do with postpartum depression?! As if "Gee, Jessica, you're so pretty—what could you possibly feel bad about?" isn't stupid enough, were she were suffering basic depression, this is the equivalent of saying, "Gee, Jessica, you're so pretty—why would your body possibly suffer a dramatic drop in estrogen and progesterone post-pregnant, possibly accompanied by a drop in blood volume, blood pressure, immune system, and/or metabolism? And you're so sexy—why would being a first-time mother to a newborn baby cause sleep deprivation or feelings of being overwhelmed and anxious? And you're so successful—it's hard to imagine that immediately after giving childbirth you might feel fatigued or emotional. I always thought postpartum depression was for ugly chicks!"
According to several sites, Jessica has been acting distant with her close friends and relatives, as well as avoiding any contact with the media.Whose presence? Her husband's—or the cameraman sticking a camera in her face demanding to know, "So how's motherhood treating you?" Yeesh.
TMZ has a video of Alba and husband Cash Warren leaving a restaurant and Jessica's trying too hard to avoid the camera. (Or perhaps she was just fed up by his presence).
Now, the funny thing about that clip at the dreadful TMZ is that it's introduced with, "She no longer has a fetus growing inside her belly—but Jessica Alba is still as miserable as ever." As miserable as ever, referencing her existing repute on the gossip blogs as the Grumpiest Little Starlet in the Whole Wide World, a reputation that long preceded her pregnancy and is attributable to her eminently reasonable hostility to the paparazzi. (Never mind that she is nothing short of effervescent when interviewed at a scheduled event.)
The point is, what was just called grumpiness before is now being presented as evidence of her alleged postpartum depression. Amazing how that works.
Other theory is that she's just upset that her most recent film, 'The Love Guru', with Mike Myers, didn't actually feel the love at the box office during its opening weekend. With the horror remake 'The Eye', it marks her second straight bomb in U.S. cinemas this year.Or maybe she just wants a moment's fucking privacy. Or maybe she's tired because she gave birth twenty days ago. Or maybe she saw her inclusion in one of the nastiest bits of woman-hating dreck on the internetz advertised right on the same fucking page as this asinine story.
Or maybe she does have postpartum depression, and it's none of our goddamned business.
I always hear people justify this horseshit with comments like, "Well, that's what she signed up for" or "That's the price she pays for fame" or some other nonsense that essentially asserts that someone who wants a high-profile job in the public sphere has no right to privacy anymore. And that's just bloody wrong. If Jessica Alba wants to be an actress, and she signs on to be in films, to do the promotion for those films, and nothing more, then that's it. That's all we get. And it should be enough.
But instead, she gives us thismuch of herself, and we say, "Not good enough. We want it all." We want pictures of you walking and shopping and eating and dancing and kissing and fucking and sitting on the toilet and not wearing makeup, so then we can make fun of you.
Then we'll rationalize it by saying you asked for it.
And we'll say it without a modicum of compunction, or any awareness that we sound exactly like the rapist who says the same of the girl who was wearing the short skirt.
Because we, like he does, feel we have a right to take from you whatever we want.
Maybe, if Jessica looks miserable, it's because of that.
Question of the Day
What habit have you tried repeatedly to break, with no success?
I'm a pretty good habit-breaker, when I set my mind to it. I quit smoking a year and a half ago now, after being a hardcore chain smoker who never even dreamed of quitting for 14 years, and, about a month ago, I cut caffeine out of my diet—although I will allow myself the occasional soda or tea or bit of chocolate. I'm not nuts about it; I just didn't want it to be a daily thing anymore.
(I always have a Code Red when we have dinner at Parental Manor, for example, which is not a commentary on the company; it's just a tradition.)
I bit my nails for my whole childhood and straight through university, and I managed to quit that, too—but the one habit which I cannot break is chewing my cuticles. They used to be a constant bloody mess, and now, looking at my hands, only the two pinkies have signs of minimal destruction, lol. But it's a habit of which I cannot seem to rid myself completely.
I picked up this habit from Mama Shakes, btw, who also used to be much more tenacious in her cuticle annihilation, but now not so much.
Noozman
So, Ben Affleck—another do-gooding do-gooder who likes to do good things, like his friends the Jolie-Pitts—was on "Good Morning America" to talk about the Congo and promote the segment he did for "Nightline" about it after making three "learning trips" to educate himself about what's going on in the region, where more than 4 million people have died in the last decade, either directly or indirectly as a result of the ongoing conflict and where rape is epidemic almost beyond description.
And the idiot interviewing Affleck begins the interview with this question: "Three times in eight months—a dangerous place for anyone, especially a father and a husband; why do you go there?"
To his credit, Affleck says the point is not that it's dangerous for him; the point is that it's dangerous for the people who live there.
But what I want to know is: Who the fuck is this moron interviewing him? I know it shouldn't surprise me at this point, but I honestly cannot believe that a person employed by a news program can be so patently ignorant about a rape crisis so horrific that it has been called the worst in the world and prompted the UN's top humanitarian official to describe the prevalence and intensity of sexual violence against women in Congo as "almost unimaginable," that he can say, without a trace of irony, "a dangerous place for anyone, especially a father and a husband."
No, actually. Not especially for him, particularly when he is surrounded by security at all times with a camera on him, possibly creating the first totally safe moment the women and children in the background of his video shoot have had in years—maybe their whole lives.
Of course, the only women Mr. Noozman is worried about are Affleck's wife and daughter, which is why he notes it's dangerous for Affleck as "a father and a husband." Why risk your life for those strangers in Africa when you've got a wife and daughter who need you? is the unspoken question, as if Jennifer Garner and their daughter might wind up on the streets if Affleck died for his silly humanitarian cause.
Meanwhile, if Mr. Noozman had been interviewing Affleck about risking his life doing his own stunts on his latest film, it would have been a journalistic handjob to honor his bravery.
[Video via INO.]
Happiness
I just saw this picture of Peter Sarsgaard with his daughter Ramona, and found it irresistibly beautiful, and so infectiously happy that I had to post it. I can't look at her cute wee face without grinning.
Ramona's mother and Peter's partner is one of my favorite actresses, Maggie Gyllenhaal.
You may remember when mother and daughter were embroiled in an enormo scandal!!!11! because Maggie had the unmitigated temerity to breastfeed in public.
Because They're From Venus
Shaker Abra just sent me the link to a post at the New York Times' Freakonomics blog, in which Justin Wolfers proposes his theories as to why the vast majority of his hate mail comes from men. (Or, why women don't write hate mail. Duh. Because they're from Venus, and on Venus we use telepathy.)
The comments explaining why men write hate mail are particularly hilarious. Personally I really liked "Evolutionary drive to utilize the 1 billion extra brain cells we have when compared to women" and "Since we no longer are required to leave our campsite, hunt down, kill and drag dead carcusses [sic] back home, arguing via long distances must be the next best thing."
Suffice it to say, I don't think there's a pat answer to this question, but, being an uppity woman with an internet presence, I get my fair share of hate mail (99.9% of it from men, who are quite keen to let me know they are men), and the tenor of their collective emails is wanting me to shut up, close up shop, go away, die. It's not enough that they don't have to read what I write; my mere existence is so abhorrent to them that they can't bear to not write.
The common thread is the attempt to intimidate me into shuttering Shakesville. It's not just aggression, but a particular kind of aggression—a bullying, threatening, eliminationist kind of aggression.
And, given that the vast majority of my male correspondents, even those who disagree with me, don't display that kind of aggression, I don't feel remotely inclined to suggest that particular kind of aggression is intrinsic to men. It may, however, be significantly more common among men because they are infinitely more likely to be socialized to use brute force and harassment to get what they want than are women.
I don't know what Wolfers' hate-mailers want from him, but I suspect it isn't all that different from what my hate-mailers want from me—a reaction, a show of fear, some sort of communication that we have been suitably intimidated, and, in the best case scenario, our slinking off into the ether for fear that our hate-mailers will make their dark fantasies our reality.
Wev.
There's another possible component to this, related to the internet generally. Women's participation in general-audience internet communities tends to be very different from women's participation in women-centered spaces, largely attributable to commenting policies and community rules that, even when there are guidelines re: hate speech, tend to turn a blind eye toward misogynistic slurs and female-specific harassment and silencing techniques.
The ubiquity of forums that disregard how alienating such casual acceptance of misogyny is, has certainly discouraged many women from participating in internet communities the same way men do, operating as silent observers rather than vocal contributors. (And even women who participate using androgynous or an overtly male name, to avoid harassment, often can't honestly and fully participate without compromising the key part of their identities they have secreted away.)
It would be foolish, in my opinion, to discount what affect that has on which sex is more likely to give feedback. We are both, after all, whether from Venus or Mars, creatures of habit.
What's Your Fat Experience?
by Shapeling and Shaker Fillyjonk
Founder Stacy Bias emailed us yesterday to alert us to the launch of her new website, The Fat Experience Project, which The Rotund has already rhapsodically reviewed. From Stacy's email:
The goal of the Fat Experience Project is to map the global experience of fat in a way that is human, has a face, a heart, a mind, a body and a voice. The Fat Experience Project is an oral, visual and written history project which seeks to be a humanizing force in body image activism. By collecting and sharing the many and varied stories of individuals of size, the Fat Experience Project seeks to engage with, educate, empower and enrich the lives of people of size, our allies and the world at large.Take a look at the site—it's gorgeous, and I think really exciting things are going to happen here. There's not a ton of content yet, but the existing pieces are thought-provoking. What I like best is that there's no simplification, no attempt to smooth over complexities. Around Shapely Prose, for instance, we acknowledge the supreme difficulty of being fat-positive, eating intuitively, and so forth, and we admit that we don't always manage it, but we do try to keep a positive face on things. We don't want to give shame equal space; we acknowledge it in order to talk about moving beyond it. At the Fat Experience Project, if someone's feelings are negative, that's just their fat experience, a valid part of the larger Fat Experience. People are going to talk openly about their shame and fear, and people will also talk about approaching and gaining love and acceptance. It's all part of the same goal: breaking the dehumanized, othered Fat Monolith into thousands of individual voices. I think both approaches have a lot of genuine value, and I’m excited to see this one handled so beautifully.
As the project grows, it will be filled with first-person, non-fiction narratives (in text, video or mp3 format) that speak to the many and varied aspects of the life lived large. Some of the content will come from interviews already gathered on an extensive 2-month road trip (with the lovely Val Garrison) in both audio and video format. Some content will come from trips on the horizon. Most content will be submitted via the website by readers such as yourself.
It is my hope that the project will be a community tool to combat prejudice / stereotype / discrimination as well as to help externalize shame so it can discussed and dissipated. The things we keep silent about are the things that do us the most harm. Shared burden is lighter. I am hoping, as well, that the project may eventually be used as a humanizing resource for fat studies and social anthropology courses.
Please check out the project and send in your stories—I want to see Shakers who engage with the fat threads here represented at the Fat Experience Project. I think you guys are the perfect subjects for this project; you are strong-minded and rational, but you deeply understand the shame and fear that comes with having a non-standard body. And I hope you and Stacy will all work to make this project representative—that means getting the voices of fat people of color, fat people with disabilities, fat men, etc. I'm excited to see where this goes.
(Cross-posted.)
