I'm taking the afternoon off, and I didn't have time to do the round-up first. Sorry.
The Virtual Bar will be posted, as usual.
Leave your links in comments.
Friday Blogaround
New LaVena petition to Congress and the President
As you'll recall, the original LaVena Johnson petition to the Armed Services Committees of the House and the Senate - asking those bodies to compel the Army to reopen the investigation of LaVena's death in Iraq - closed on May 23. I'm currently arranging with an organization for delivery of the petition to the legislators on those committees.
For the many people who have recently heard of LaVena's story and are looking for ways to help, activist Danielle Vyas has launched a new and separate petition effort on the Care2 network (also noted by Bruce Combs in comments). The Justice for LaVena Johnson petition is addressed to both houses of Congress and President Bush. Danielle's goal is one thousand signatures; after a full day, the count currently stands at 108.
I am very grateful to Danielle for sponsoring this new petition. I'll add my own name to the list today. This effort belongs to no single person; the more voices that can be raised in support of the Johnson family, the better.
Looking Over My Shoulder
by Shaker The Holy Fatman
[This post is about domestic violence, and may be triggering for survivors.—MM]
As a regular, lurking reader of Feministe, I was saddened by the News of Domestic Violence advocate Jana Mackey, who was tragically murdered by her abusive boyfriend. What was worse were the comments. It's clear that people still need to be educated on what happens inside an abusive relationship—because those asking why Jana Mackey got mixed up with the likes of this Adolfo Garcia-Nunez have little understanding on what actually happens, or they wouldn't be asking in the first place.
The first nationwide discussion on the issue of domestic violence (DV) went mainstream in 1994, when Nicole Brown Simpson was murdered. It was that year, while watching the news, that I realized my own relationship was abusive. It would be years until I actually left.
At age 18, I met a guy. After awkward teen years, it was exciting that a guy was interested in me! Woohoo! He called me every day, sometimes twice. I felt admired and soon, loved. I went off to college and he followed. We moved in together. We started playing house. We eventually got married.
When I invited friends over to hang out, I couldn't understand why he would be so angry with me. I didn't know that going to class and not coming home immediately after was wrong. I didn't know that my family was all against us being together and they wanted to destroy us!
I didn't know that when he grabbed me and pushed me that was assault.
He was always so very sorry and promised to never do it again. He would lavish me with attention, take me out to dinner and proclaim I was the light of his life. Other times I was worthless, ugly, stupid, and I was lucky to have him.
It wasn't long until he shaped my personality to his liking. If I veered away from it, I was reprimanded physically. The cops in one small southern town told me it was "not their policy to get involved in domestic disputes" when I called for help. Soon after, he completed his transformation by convincing me to move to a different state. It wasn't until I met other women who had similar experiences that I finally realized what was happening, and I left. I didn't look back; I ran. I returned home to my family with simply the clothes on my back, two cats, and a child. Three years of the nightmare was over and the healing could begin.
The friends I did have didn't know anything. My family, although suspicious, didn't understand. I was constantly asked "Why?" and told "He was a creep and we told you before!" Others would chastise me and say, "If a man hit me, I would knee him in the balls and leave!" None of them could fathom what I had gone through; they could only wonder why I stayed.
While I was bombarded by these attitudes, I was faced with another battle. I was still terrified of my ex and he knew it. He could say certain things, do certain things, and hold it over my head until I complied. After years of this constant abuse, I filed my first restraining order against him. The judge denied it. It wasn't enough that he was simply threatening me; I needed more proof that he was headed towards physical violence. My word just wasn't enough. They never even bothered to look up his past.
Discouraged, I still let him call the shots with visitation and child support. I wasn't going to fight anymore. I was too scared. He still had a hold over me, and, though I had been divorced for nearly six years, no one knew that I was still looking over my shoulder.
Slowly but surely, I gained a backbone. When I did, I confronted by ex with a 6' man with a football player's build standing behind me. I asked my ex about stories I had heard from my daughter, and, when he replied in a nasty manner, my companion ordered him, "This is where you need to sit down and SHUT UP!"
That was the only exchange the two ever had. It turned out that my ex was terrified of my new guy.
I decided the stories my daughter was telling and her physical ailments that happened when she had to visit him were too dangerous. I filed a restraining order on her behalf. It stuck this time and I lawyered up. I fought back, proved abuse against my daughter, and won. He was told to seek counseling for a period of six months and visitation would resume under supervision. Instead of doing that, he simply decided to "go away." That didn't matter, I was still looking over my shoulder.
Being free of him and marrying a loving, wonderful man is awesome. However, he had to deal with the effects of domestic violence at the beginning of our relationship. I would have panic attacks in stores I used to shop with my ex, panicked that I might run into him. I would refuse to go to certain stores, towns, or even listen to certain music because it invoked images of my past with him. I feared that he would come after me sometimes.
As time went on, the fear began to subside—but sometimes I would be contacted by his sister through MySpace, and the fear bubbled to the surface. I knew his rage well. What would happen if he came around the corner with a gun? Could that happen? It could… I was still looking over my shoulder, although less frequently.
It wasn't until I found out beyond a shadow of a doubt that he had moved across the country that I stopped completely.
When I read about what Happened to Jana, I didn't wonder "what was she doing with such a creep." I knew exactly what happened. She ended it and he simply didn't see it that way. He waited until she wasn't looking over her shoulder.
We lose many women who struggle to get away from their abusers this way. The whole "How does a smart women get mixed up with such creeps?" is indicative of ignorance on what DV actually is. The discussion about DV and what it does to victims needs to continue and, in some cases, get louder. We need more laws that extend past marriage and sexual orientation like the new law in New York.
Few survivors speak out and I can understand why. The fear that speaking out will lead to your former abuser to you is very, very real. However, we have wonderful advocates and passionate lawmakers who are keeping the fight alive. The tragedy against Jana will inspire more hard work and hopefully, better protection laws.
We don't want to look over our shoulders any more.
Bush's Legacy
Patrick Smith, who writes the Ask the Pilot column at Salon.com, confronts the lunacy that is the TSA.
You would think, nearly seven years after the terror attacks of Sept. 11, that TSA would have gotten its act together. Not just tactically, but functionally. Take a look at the typical checkpoint. There are people yelling, bags falling, trash bins overflowing with water bottles. There's nowhere to stand, nowhere to move. It's a jury-rigged circus.On a recent trip, I got stopped for a "pat-down" search, probably because I had too much change in my pocket. As I stood there, my arms outstretched like some airport concourse depiction of a crucifixion in jeans and a polo shirt, and as the TSA inspector touched me everywhere -- and I mean everywhere (and no, he was not my type) -- I wanted to ask him if he felt as humiliated as I did. But I didn't, because I was sure that I would be questioned sternly by some supervisor who was certain that by asking that kind of question, I was some kind of subversive daring to challenge their domain. So I stood there quietly, saying nothing, wondering if the inspector, with his latex gloves, noticed that in spite of the fact that it was 6:30 in the morning, I was already sweating from the exertion of schlepping through MIA with a roll-on suitcase and a lap-top carrying case and ten minutes of standing in line between an elderly gentleman on his way to the Bahamas and a family of five, each laden down with the maximum number of carry-ons, bound for somewhere where the passports have green covers (the youngest child kept dropping his). He silently concluded the inspection and waved me on with a terse, "You're free to go." I didn't know whether or not to say anything, so I erred on the side of caution, bit back my smart-ass comment that I was holding in reserve -- "Was it as good for you as it was for me?" -- gathered my scattered belongings, and went to find a place to sit down to put my shoes back on.
But we should hardly be surprised, perhaps, at the Frankenstein monster now before us. Propped up by a culture of fear, TSA has become a bureaucracy with too much power and little accountability. It almost makes you wonder if the Department of Homeland Security made a conscious decision to present bureaucratic incompetence and arrogance as the public face of TSA, hoping that people would then raise enough of a fuss that it could be turned over to the likes of Halliburton. (Funny, how despite this administration's eagerness to outsource anything and everything, it's kept its governmental talons wrapped snugly around TSA.)
Except there is no fuss. Serious protest has been all but nil. The airlines, biggest losers in all of this, remain strangely quiet. More and more people are choosing not to fly, and checkpoint hassles are one of the reasons. Yet the industry appears to have little concern while an out-of-control agency delays and aggravates its customers.
And it's going to get worse, not better. As I'm sure you've heard, TSA is deploying body scanners that can see through clothing. It is also implementing gate-side luggage checks similar to those that were common in the days following Sept. 11. After proceeding through the main screening checkpoint, selected passengers will be enjoying a second one just before boarding.
To scare away complainers, TSA is also deploying signs at airports around the country. "Interfering with security personnel or procedures in any manner," the signs read, "is prohibited."
That "in any manner" bit is an eyebrow raiser. Does that include questioning or challenging TSA's methods? Are guards not answerable to those they're supposedly protecting, and who are paying their salaries? How about a sign that cuts to the chase: "Don't question us, just do as you're told."
To be fair, I have always been courteous to the TSA people. I know they have an odious job and they get paid very little compared to what they are tasked to do and the agita they cause by their assigned duties. Only rarely have I seen the intransigent bureaucrats who seem to get off on their power trip of humiliating people just because they can, and when I spot them -- not hard to do by their swagger and their barking orders -- I avoid them for fear of me saying something that will get me on some list so that the next time I go through their Klingon-like rite of ascension, I will be noticed.
And this will forever be the legacy of the administration of George W. Bush; not that we survived the attacks of September 11, 2001 and rightfully defeated and destroyed the evil that caused it, but that we became a nation once again of compliant subjects, giving in without a fight to these assaults on our persons, our property, and our dignity, all in the name of some nebulous vision of "freedom." We have seen this before in our history, and it is a shameful legacy: Salem; the Alien and Sedition Act; the virulent backlash during World War I against pacifism; the internment of the Japanese during World War II; the Hollywood blacklist and the witch-trials yet again in grainy black-and-white by Sen. McCarthy; the paranoid "silent majority" and enemies list of Richard Nixon; and now we have the ignominy of standing in line in airports like Muscovites lining up for bread. All because a cave-dwelling lunatic knows that sending out a grainy VHS tape will get the desired result.
A cynic will say that this kind of cowering compliance by the population is exactly the desired result, not just of the terrorists but of the Bush administration. This is what they have counted on to maintain control: tell the populace that they are the ones who know best; only they know the true depths of the conspirators against us, and if you don't trust them to do the job, there is something suspicious about you, not them and their unerring insight to the mind of the terrorists. And they know it works. The lines snake through the airports without complaint, and the Senate passes a law that retroactively approves of illegal behavior by the administration and their telecom abettors. The willing Wormtongues of the right wing sing the praises of the all-knowing president and demonize the patriotism of anyone who would dare to speak out against them.
That will be the legacy of George W. Bush; that he scared the crap out of us and we became a nation ruled by rent-a-cops and color-coded alerts. He may be proud of it, but it will be our everlasting shame.
(Cross-posted.)
Question of the Day
Bouncing off of the erstwhile Mr. Grumbles' post below, I'd just like to ask you this:
What favorite hobby or activity from childhood have you abandoned or "grown out of?"
I used to really love puppets, which probably stemmed off my obsession with the Muppets. Even though I no longer have any, collect them or make them, if I'm in a store and there's a puppet there, I have to pick it up and play with it for a while.
And I totally want one of these if they ever make it in puppet form! Hell, I just want one.
We Live in a Fucked-up Country
This is not news, I know. But sometimes I read stories that remind me quite bluntly how really fucked-up it is. This is one of those stories:
A disabled foster child whose liver is failing has been removed from a Central Florida hospital's organ-transplant waiting list because hospital administrators fear the state's shaky child-welfare system cannot ensure he has a permanent home in which to recover.I mean, I know I'm Caption Obvious here and all, but denying a developmentally disabled child with advanced liver disease a transplant because he has the unmitigated temerity to be homeless is just a whole new shade of fucked-up on the spectrum.
Shands Hospital in Gainesville removed the boy, 15, from a waiting list for organ recipients after administrators determined the boy's unstable living conditions make him a poor candidate for a transplant, said Nick Cox, the Department of Children & Families regional administrator in the Tampa Bay area, where the boy lives.
[Arthur Caplan, chairman of the medical ethics department at the University of Pennsylvania's medical school] said it is unreasonable to require the state to guarantee the boy will be in a permanent home for at least two years [after the transplant], given that even children who are not in foster care can't make such guarantees. ''That is a bar a little too high,'' Caplan said.Indeed. And let me be clear that I'm not just faulting the hospital, which, as Shaker KathleenB—who gets the hat tip—fairly points out, does have to take into consideration that "recovering from transplant surgery is no walk in the park, though it's easier on the recipient than on a living donor. And he'll need to be on immunosupressants, which have to be taken on a strict schedule, moving from foster home to foster home isn't conducive to that." The problem is, of course, that the state is failing to provide adequate care for its ward.
Transplant teams routinely accept pledges from recovering alcoholics that they will never drink again after accepting a donated liver, or promises that smokers will quit smoking once they receive a new heart, Caplan said. Why should a foster child be required to do more than that? he asked.
''It is absolutely unethical to deny a transplant to a child because you don't have a home setting that is stable or parents who can help with compliance with the treatment,'' Caplan said. "That's why you have child-caring agencies and foster care. That's what child welfare should be doing.''
DCF tried to arrange for him to live in a medical foster home in Gainesville so he could be near the hospital during the lengthy recovery process, but child-welfare workers were unable to find a specially trained home that would accept him.Obviously, his situation makes him hard to place with a permanent family, too—but, given that this is all taking place in the state of Florida, I'm wondering how it is that none of the numpties who held vigil over Terri Schiavo, screaming about her right to life, have seen fit to step forward and offer this boy a home.
No room at the inn?
I guess a developmentally disabled teenage boy with liver disease and behavioral problems, who was "removed from his mother at infancy because she could not kick a crack cocaine habit," isn't the compelling story that a braindead woman who never would have been their problem was.
I can't even tell you how much I hope this gets resolved, and quickly, in this boy's favor.
[H/T to Shaker Kathleen(B).]
Obama to Women: Trust Me
by Shaker DerelictDaugher11
Via AP: "Obama targets women's issues with Clinton at hand."
Ugh. This article made me roll my eyes so much, I got a headache. Here are some highlights:
"I will never back down in defending a woman's right to choose," the likely Democratic nominee said, drawing a sharp contrast with his GOP rival.Of course he won't. Except that he said this at a "Women for Obama" breakfast, so it loses a bit of authenticity for me, given what he says when he's talking to a Christian magazine. Add to that, the fact that he's only willing to defend "a woman's right to choose" as he defines it. As Zuzu pointed out recently, he only mentions Roe v. Wade—not Doe v. Bolton. He seems to want to pick and choose which of my freedoms he is willing to protect, and that's just not okay with me.
The article seems to frame Obama's "support" of "women's issues" as a (somehow novel) campaign platform. It also acknowledges that Obama is looking for an edge against McCain, and that abortion seems to be it.
Seeking an edge, the Democrat also raised the issue of abortion rights, which is shaping up to be a major point of difference between the candidates.This is just more of the same favorite Democratic Party tactic throwing of Roe in women's faces, assuming we'll "come home" in November. They need to come up with something else; this game has gotten old and I don't wanna play anymore. NEXT!
Obama supports keeping the landmark decision that legalized abortion, Roe v. Wade, intact, while McCain opposes abortion rights and wants to appoint Supreme Court justices akin to Chief Justice John Roberts and Samuel Alito.The fact that this "major point of difference" appears to be about who will seek to protect Roe v. Wade through their hypothetical appointments to the Supreme Court means practically nothing to me in this context. Remember, this article is talking about the fact that Obama knows he needs women to vote for him. He's trying to convince them that he is the right guy because he won't appoint anyone who would overturn a landmark decision that protects a critical freedom to choose, which is being eroded through legislation anyway.
That is not to belittle the fact that McCain would appoint justices akin to Alito and Roberts, while Obama would probably not. Nor does it negate the truth that Obama needs to take an active approach to convincing women that he is their better choice, instead of taking their vote for granted. But some recognition that Roe and the courts aren't the end-all be-all of reproductive rights would be useful at some point.
We then, however, skip backward over to "ZOMG, Clinton is ruining the party!!11!"
Obama packed his day with female-focused events in New York and Virginia, a reminder of his need to win over women who include some still smarting from Clinton's loss. She had tried to become the first woman to win the White House, and women were her base voters. They took her defeat hard, so much so that even a few are promising to vote for McCain.Yep, former female Clinton-supporters are going to vote for McCain because they're pissed off she didn't get the nomination. ::eyeroll:: This fallacy has been covered extensively here at Shakesville, so I won't get into it again now. Liss's recent post on Open Left explored some of the real reasons many women may be less than pleased with Obama's candidacy. (Obama and his people obviously haven't read it yet, though I think they should.)
Finally, there was this gem from Senator Clinton, reminding us about real and important differences between men and women:
She noted that Obama had mentioned that she looked rested after being off the rigorous campaign trail, said she's trying to exercise now and compared her habits with Obama's during the primary season. "Barack would get up faithfully every morning and go to the gym. I would get up and have my hair done," she quipped.I don't have any good ideas on WTP that was even doing in the article, but it really ended the whole thing on a high note for me! Blargh.
I'd love to feel as if Obama could and would genuinely serve my interests as President through honest discourse about freedom and choice, among other things, but I'm afraid that he is a long way off from participating in that conversation. I am so glad, though, that it's going strong here.
Hosiery is No Laughing Matter
Dear Friends, I was recently outraged and flabbergasted when my airship's yeoman, Bruce, alerted me to a recent electronic-newsey that he had seen on the visual-teletype. The good William K. Wolfrum, Defender of Country, had sounded the alarm that a certain M. Thomas Eisenstadt has accused Mr. Wolfrum, you "Shakers," and much to my outrage, myself of being "Sockpuppeteers." Imagine! My moustaches bristle with fury that this rapscallion would dare accuse me of such tomfoolery and flim-flammery! I therefore shall put an end to this ridiculous chin-wagging, lest some careless reader be taken in by this poppycock.
I assure you, my friends, Benjamin H. Grumbles is no sockpuppeteer. The very idea that I, the Head of the Agency for Environmental Fortitude would waste time with this nonsense is the very pinnacle of hogwash! I have been entrusted with the mighty duty of Detection of Potions, Elixiers and Poisons for the US Government and Its Occupied territories. Does this bunko artist actually think I have such an abundance of leisure time that I may waste it with stockings covering my hands? Rubbish! Puppetry is the entertainment of children and the occupation of perverts. I ask you, what kind of man crouches behind a curtain, speaking through a kazoo, while forcing hand-carved roustabout Punch and Judys to engage in fisticuffs for the entertainment of hooligans? A squeaky-voiced deviant, and certainly not Benjamin H. Grumbles!
Listen to me now, good people. Stockings have one place, and that is on your feet. My jaw clenches to think that our nation's hosiery, so vital now during a time of war, are being scuttled by scallywags, all in the name of entertainment for wastrels. I value every pair of stockings I own, and love them like my own children. Indeed, let me tell you, my friends, these are the finest stockings one could hope for. Like all lovers of our Country, we are the proud owners of a silkworm farm. It takes the lovely Mrs. Grumbles a good month to harvest enough silk in order to make a single stocking to cover one of my rustic feet; it is simply boggling to think I would waste one of these valuable articles of footwear on a simple toy when it should be on my foot, planted firmly in the Kaiser's backside! (Mother Grumbles was not hampered by such time constraints. She knitted strong, warm woolens that she sent to me in the front lines during Great War, and those stockings served me well in the frigid, damp trenches. Had she not made this loving effort, the boys would still be calling me "Trenchfoot McGee.")
Hear me now, Eisenstadt; continue this skullduggery and I will thrash you soundly. As the talking-picture character Pop-eye often cries, "I have had all I can stans, and I can't stans no more!" I suggest you spend more time concerning yourself with fighting our enemies and their coal-fueled mechano-death machines than with this ridiculous slobberchopsery, and get out there and make yourself useful! Get some air into your lungs! And dash it all, keep your stockings on your feet!
More Pants-Droppin' Drama!
Shaker Kristy forwarded this article in the Detroit Free Press all about how the Flint police are cracking down (ho ho) on saggy pants:
Flint residents now have to watch their butts because Police Chief David Dicks is on the lookout.Dicks is on the lookout for butts. Boy, if I haven't heard that story a thousand times! Anyway…
Dicks, who took over the department last month on an interim basis, announced that his officers would start arresting people wearing saggy pants that expose skivvies, boxer shorts or bare bottoms.See helpful Flash animation for further detail.
"Some people call it a fad," Dicks told the Free Press this week while patrolling the streets of Flint. "But I believe it's a national nuisance. It is indecent and thus it is indecent exposure, which has been on the books for years."
On June 27, the chief issued a departmental memorandum telling officers: "This immoral self expression goes beyond freedom of expression."
The crime, he says, is disorderly conduct or indecent exposure, both misdemeanors punishable by 93 days to a year in jail and/or fines up to $500.
Dicks, 41, broke down his interpretation of the laws as such: Pants pulled completely below the buttocks with underwear showing is disorderly conduct; saggy pants with skin of the buttocks showing is indecent exposure, and saggy pants, not completely below the buttocks, with underwear exposed results in a warning.
Though Dicks also claims "the style also gives police probable cause to search those wearing no-rise jeans," he asserts that the new regulations are not unfairly targeting black men and teens.
"This is not a black issue. This is an issue that's all walks of life," said Dicks, who is black. "Many people from different ethnic backgrounds and races are doing this fad."So, see there, you civil libertarian crybabies? People who disgrace themselves by merely aping black fashion will be targeted, too! Happy?
The ACLU is keeping an eye on the situation to monitor whether the "policy disproportionately affects African Americans."
Related: Privilege: In One Story (with Pictures!)
SYTYCD: Bollywood, baby!
Ok, so the whole show wasn't Bollywood (group routine needed!) but one of my favorite couples got it and got it gooooood:
Is there anything that they can't do? Well, yes there is, according to the judges:
It was too bouncy and not flowing enough for the judges. I don't give a shit about bouncy--I thought it was lovely! The Viennese Waltz is one of my favorites though.
I can't not mention Will and Jessica's Tyce Diorio routine. When I saw the practice video, I mentioned to John that they'd have no problem doing "the connection between a man and a woman" part, as they do chemistry quite well:
I thought this was stunning. Absolutely stunning--there's no other way to describe it. Let's just ignore the quick-step routine, mmmkay? LOL
I really like that the show has some of the previous contestants come back to be choreographers as well and this week Pasha and Anya rejoined the show to choreograph the cha-cha:
I really like this dance with them too. I thought it was a great routine!
Mark and Chelsie's salsa and broadway routines were pretty good. I thought Twitch and Kherington did ok last night but didn't "WOW!" me as they have in the past (tango and krump). Even if I wasn't feeling the "buck", I'm quite sure they're safe. Comfort and Thayne...not so much. I didn't think either routine (contemporary, hip hop) were that great. I think Thayne is a better dancer overall but he just may go along with Comfort this week. What do you think?
Uh, Guys? We're Still On
Never, ever, ever, ever say what you're really thinking when a camera's pointed at you. Even if you think it's off. Even if you know it's off. Especially especially if you're on Fox news.
Big Bill can barely contain the smug. This must be like a dream come true for him. Actually, I'm amazed that the media isn't screaming that Jackson called for the mutilation of a Presidential candidate.
(Jesse Jackson has apologized.)
(If you can't see the video; I'll try to put together a transcript. Basically, Jesse Jackson, assuming he's off camera, is whispering that Barack Obama is "talking down to black people" over his faith-based social services, and says "I wanna cut his nuts off." Well, that's all you need to know, really.)
(Energy Dome tip to Dlisted.)
Presenting as Male with a Fat, Curvy Body -- Suggestions?
Yesterday, I posted a call for help from a reader over at Shapely Prose, which led to a really interesting discussion of (among many other things) the connection between body shame and feeling "unfeminine." And that led to another reader, Andy, asking for advice:
So. I have a weird problem and I was wondering if anyone could help/sympathize.Andy's comment was certainly within the scope of the discussion over there theoretically, but it didn't get much of a response, either because it was buried in a really long comment thread or because not enough Shapely Prose readers have the relevant experience to offer advice. (Or both.) So I thought I'd throw it out over here. Shakers, do you have words of wisdom for Andy?
I finally figured out that I’m genderqueer a few months ago. When I’m “feeling female,” I’m okay with the way I look most of the time, after a long struggle to get here (though trying to get into being more active again). When I’m “feeling male” though… I’m a bit more of a wreck. I want to wear straight legged pants and wicked jackets and basically be one of those slender dudes that all wickedly cool dude clothes were made for. But I’m fat and carry most of my weight about my hips. Oh yeah, and that whole breasts thing.
Maybe this is outside of the scope of the original post (I apologize if it is), but people to talk to about this have been hard to find.
Here's what I've got. As someone who's never struggled with my gender identity, I can only imagine how frustrating it must be to feel male while stuck in a body that screams "female." But as someone who's struggled with body image for most of my life, I can definitely relate to Andy's desire to wear certain clothes and have a certain look, despite a body that won't cooperate with that vision. (Most women's clothes, let alone men's, aren't designed for someone short, fat, and curvy.) A huge part of becoming the real, grown-up me (to the extent that I have, anyway) was admitting to myself that no matter what I want to do or be, it's going to have to happen in this body.
I had to acknowledge that the things I desperately wanted but wasn't sure I'd ever find when I was younger -- a book deal, a great boyfriend, loads of good friends -- wouldn't magically make me 5'10" and willowy, to complete the ideal vision in my head. But because that was part of the vision, I obsessed about making myself thinner (conveniently ignoring that dieting wouldn't make me taller or eliminate curves that would wreck the lines of most of the clothes I coveted anyway). At 22, lonely and stuck in that phase Ira Glass brilliantly describes, where my taste was good enough for me to know my writing wasn't yet, my body seemed by far the easiest thing to change. In fact, it was the easiest thing to change -- temporarily. But I didn't really start working toward those other goals (which, unlike dieting, involved a hell of a lot of making myself vulnerable; don't suppose that had anything to do with it, nosiree) until after I accepted that whatever I accomplish in this life, whatever love I find, it's all going to happen in this stumpy, fat, perfectly fine, reasonably cute, currently able body. Once I got over the desire -- the need, it felt like -- to work on attaining a smaller body, there was nothing left to do but start putting myself out there and going after the other things I wanted. (And let me tell you, it turns out a book deal and a great boyfriend and loads of good friends are a hell of a lot more satisfying than wearing size 4 clothes that still weren't cut for my fucking body.) Feeling like I could never really be who I wanted to be in the body I had was holding me back from trying to be who I wanted to be, in far more important ways.
So. I don't know how much that applies to Andy's situation, since I'm most comfortable with a gender presentation that falls right in line with what the culture expects of me. Andy has challenges specific to genderqueerness that I've simply never had to face, which is why I'm asking for Shakers' help on this one. But I do know that, especially when you're young -- as I think Andy is, though I could be wrong -- and especially when you've been raised as a girl in this culture, it's terribly common to believe you must have a different (usually thinner) body in order to present yourself to the world in a way that matches your vision of who you really are. It's far more complicated, of course, when your vision of who you really are is sometimes male, and you've got hips and boobs for days. But if you replace "dudes" with "chicks" in this --
"I want to wear straight legged pants and wicked jackets and basically be one of those slender dudes that all wickedly cool dude clothes were made for. But I’m fat and carry most of my weight about my hips. Oh yeah, and that whole breasts thing."-- you've pretty much got the story of my life when I was younger. There's a ton to unpack here regarding gender identity, fatness, self-image, and the gulf between who we are and who we want to be. Shakers, what have you got?
McCain Rulezzz
This guy is just a fucking genius. How could anyone not vote for him?!
REPORTER: …insurance companies cover Viagra but not birth control, and—McCain 08: He don't know shit about shit, America!
MCCAIN: I certainly don't want to discuss that issue.
REPORTER: …it was unfair that health insurance companies cover Viagra but not birth control. Do you have an opinion on that?
[awkward 8 second pause]
MCCAIN: I don't know enough about it to give you an informed answer.
[H/T to Shaker Katie.]
Suck It Up, Whiners
There's no real recession; it's all in your head, so stop whining. That's according to Phil Gramm, John McCain's economic adviser.
"You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession," he said, noting that growth has held up at about 1 percent despite all the publicity over losing jobs to India, China, illegal immigration, housing and credit problems and record oil prices. "We may have a recession; we haven't had one yet."So snap out of it, America.
"We have sort of become a nation of whiners," he said. "You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline" despite a major export boom that is the primary reason that growth continues in the economy, he said.
Gee, thanks a lot, Phil. I feel so much better; that $4.19 a gallon I'm paying for gas is all in my head, and the people being laid off from their jobs and losing their homes to foreclosure can muddle through if they just, y'know, think positive!
And if I click my heels together three times, I can go home...
HT to TPM Election Central.
Thinking & Drinking
by Shaker SarahMC
[Hello! I want to thank Liss for inviting me to guest blog. I love Shakesville and am honored to be featured.]
As a loyal Jezebel reader, commenter, and member of the Jezebel "community," I was excited when I heard that Moe Tkacik and Tracie "Slut Machine" Egan, two Jezebel bloggers, would appear on Lizz Winstead’s show, Thinking and Drinking, last week. (Winstead, with Madeleine Smithberg, created The Daily Show.) T&D is Lizz Winstead's weekly interview show, and part of Shoot the Messenger, a comedy troupe and live sketch show in New York City. According to the announcement on Jezebel, the women expected to discuss feminism, sex, politics and blogging.
The women engaged in way more drinking than thinking, and although parts of the interview were funny and light-hearted, the two said a lot of things that reflect poorly on themselves and their employer, and that embarrassed me and a lot other "Jezzies." Unfortunately, we still live in a world where one woman's behavior is viewed as representative of all women's behavior, and Moe and Tracie, who were at minimum representing the Jezebel community, did a disservice to young women, "third wavers," and Jezebels in particular, with their appearance at T&D.These Jezebels recommended birth control methods:
They came off as careless, thoughtless, and at some points, just plain stupid. They may try to pass off their offensive remarks as jokes, or drunken blathering, but alcohol doesn't make people say things they're not thinking whilst sober. It just lowers inhibitions. And it's disturbing to realize that two prominent bloggers for a women's website actually harbor such ignorant, negative attitudes towards women and ignorant attitudes about rape.Moe: Pulling out always works for me.
The Jezebels on sex with total strangers:
Tracie: And I know it's an irresponsible thing to day, but it's [pulling out] The Most Fun Way Not To Get Pregnant.Tracie: People are always saying it's not safe to go home with strange men, blah, blah blah, like Mr. Goodbar whatever.
The Jezebels define the "rapists of our generation."
Moe: What's gonna happen?
Lizz You could get raped.
Moe: That's happening too, but you live through that.
Lizz: Sometimes you don't.
Moe: That's true if they have weapons."Tracie: I live in Williamsburg, there aren't very assertive men there.
Moe on [date rape/sexual] regret:
Moe: The thing about the rapists of our generation, is that they all use drugs, they all have some sort of drug they use on you, so it's good to feel, and I don't know if this has happed to me or if I just drink too much...
Moe: It's really hard to prosecute them [rapists], so you should try to avoid them at all costs.
Tracie: I once paid someone to rape me once.
Tracie: Well, I didn't pay for it, I had a magazine pay for it.
Tracie: I moved here when I was 18 and you think you would encounter more rapists in a big city like this, but, I don't know, I just haven't.Moe: I guess, I like, regret being date raped."
Tracie on why she has not been raped:
Moe: It seems like in terms of bad sexual experiences, that you have, the worst ones are in, always seem to be in countries where sex is not accepted. That is the good thing about New York, I've never has any problems with anyone here.
Moe: I guess third guy, I ever had sex with, date raped me, and I got very mad at him, but I wasn't gonna fucking like turn him in to the police and fucking go through shit.
Lizz interrupts: Why not, you see that's the problem, why not, I am just curious?
Moe: Because it was a load of trouble and I had better things to do, like drinking more.Tracie: I think it has to do with the fact that I am like, smart.
Moe on how she felt about her rapist:
Tracie: I don't hang around with frat guys.Moe: I always felt very like, safe around this guy even after he date raped me.
Moe on what women can take home from reading their blogs:Moe: If any of you guys use the pullout method, but you read you know, anything I wrote about Ben Bernanke, or you know, what ever, at least y'll go to the grave with your syphilis, slightly informed, that's all I care about.
Moe and Tracie are portrayed as feminists. That is partly Lizz Winstead's fault, of course, as she basically marketed the interview as a conversation with two young feminists. I don't consider Jezebel a "feminist blog," per se. It's a blog that caters to women, and most of the bloggers on the site consider themselves feminists. I feel free at Jezebel to be my feminist self, among a sea of hundreds of other awesome feminists (and non-feminist folks) who regularly comment.
However, Moe has made it clear on numerous occasions that she doesn't consider herself a feminist. I find her style unintelligible now and then, but she does seem to have a pro-woman worldview (most of the time). Other times, I get the feeling she thinks of herself as being "above it all"—"it all" being Other Women.
For reference, see: here.
At T&D, Moe said she doesn't call herself a feminist because she doesn't want to turn guys off. As I said in the comments section of Jezebel's T&D post, I'm a loud and proud feminist and my boyfriend still wants to have sex with me! I guess it all depends on whether you're looking for quality or quantity.
Tracie calls herself a feminist, but it's hard to figure out what feminism means to her. It seems like she uses the word "feminism" when it suits her and her agenda. She wants to be able to have no-strings-attached sex with multiple partners; feminism allows her that freedom, so she calls herself a feminist. And there is nothing wrong with wanting that freedom, or taking advantage of it! But feminism is about more than that.
Tracie is a talented, engaging writer, but she often displays disregard for other people. I was disgusted, but not that surprised by her comments on rape in the interview, as they are in line with those expressed in a couple of her posts on Jezebel.
In one, she said Roman Polanski's 13-year-old rape victim may not have been so innocent, because she was familiar with drugs. Most readers were understandably outraged. In a follow-up post, Tracie remarked that those who were upset by the post are just unhip and not third-wave like she is. She even called Gloria Steinem a "dinosaur" at one point during the Winstead interview.
Feminists (including many Jezebel readers) work to make society take issues like rape and sexual exploitation seriously. Moe and Tracie's behavior undermines that.
They are celebrated and admired by many of their readers, particularly young (often underage) women. I know that many commenters at Jezebel, myself included, value the opportunity Jezebel gives us to open up about our lives and experiences in a very intimate way. We feel safe discussing eating disorders, the deaths of parents, sexual assault, body image, and so many other things we're not often permitted to discuss honestly in our real lives. It hurts to realize that two of the site's own editors don't respect us the way we respect each other, and may even think we're stupid.
Open Thread: Disqus and Firefox 3
I just got word from Liss that there are several Shakers out there who have upgraded to Firefox 3 and have been experiencing problems with the comment system. For what it's worth, I've upgraded on my home and office machines to FF3 and can access, as well as post, comments just fine.
For those who are having issues, I would appreciate if you could wear your protective gear and temporarily use IE to let me know exactly what issues are present when using FF3. It might be helpful if you could also list the add-ons you currently have installed, as any of those could be the source of the problem.
Once I have more details, I'll communicate with the Disqus team to see what can be done. I haven't found any issues raised on their board as of yet.
Thanks.
