My brother reads and occasionally participates in a drag racing forum that is populated with a number of right-wingers. One participant summed it up John McCain's speech last night (copied verbatim):
Was it just me, or did mccain just kick bush and most of the republican platform to the curb? He went on and on about change, but the change is a change from his party, which has been in control of the whitehouse the last 8 years, the house for something like 5 or 6, the senate for the same, and the supreme court for all 8 years. So if he's changing away from bush and his party, what's he changing to? Is he gonna be a democrat?
Last of the red hot convention analysis: My review of John McCain's Big Speech for The Guardian's Comment is free America, "John McCain's fight club," is now up.
Almost immediately [after McCain begins speaking], a protestor unfurls a "McCain Votes Against Vets" sign. He shouts. The audience chants "USA!" to drown him out.
McCain tells us that, even though they disagree, he respects Obama, because they "are fellow Americans, an association that means more to me than any other." Given that I'm married to an immigrant who is not a citizen (but who signed a paper agreeing to be first drafted to fight for this country for the privilege of living here), making half my family non-Americans, I'm rather unimpressed with that. Sometimes there are things more important than which country issues your goddamned passport, buddy. In a nation of immigrants, I can't be the only person annoyed by that line.
A Code Pink protester begins to yell and is shouted down by chants of "USA!", then escorted out. So much for that meaningful association with Americans he disagrees with.
I polled two people I know on Palin today. Both watched her speech. Both are Democratic females age 70+ who really liked Hillary Clinton and who said that while they wouldn't vote for McCain, they couldn't vote for Obama.
They are not classic PUMAs -- I doubt they even know what that term means -- but they are super voters who said they'd likely bag the election this year.
Watching your convention, I've noticed that you seem a little embarrassed about your party brand these days. Not much mention of actually being Republicans, and not a whole lot of talk about your man in the White House. And, hey, I totally get why, yo.
Anyway, I was thinking that you could use a makeover, and so I designed you a new logo:
I haven't watched the Daily Show in a long time, and from what I hear, the folks over there have not been covering themselves in glory where sexism is concerned. But this video? Is why they're awesome. (No, I don't love the comments about Karl Rove's head, but wait until after that.)
ETA: I don't have a transcript, but the video shows various right wing fucknecks talking about how the sexist attacks on Sarah Palin are abhorrent, followed by older clips of them making virtually the same sexist attacks on other women. (E.g., Bill O'Reilly saying Bristol Palin's pregnancy is a private matter and we shouldn't judge, followed by him announcing Jamie Lynn Spears's pregnancy and saying the "pinhead" parents are to blame.) There's also lots of "Hillary needs to quit playing the gender card" followed by "The sexist attacks on Palin are outrageous" stuff.
Yes, Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin has a lot on her plate: a pregnant teen daughter, a son on his way to Iraq, an infant with Down syndrome and a looming national election.
But must her hair suffer? With her long, straight, often pinned-up locks, Palin looks one humid day away from fronting a Kiss cover band.
Oh, for fuck's sake.
"It's about 20 years out of date," said Boston stylist Mario Russo of the Alaska governor's 'do. "Which goes to show how off she might be on current events."
Nice. Her shabby looks are an obvious reflection of her limited intellect. WTF? Seriously, do we really need to do this?
We know the former Miss Alaska runner-up’s stance on on stem cells and teaching creationism in schools, but what's her position on scrunchies vs. banana clips?
Yes, what is her position on scrunchies? There's a question for the ages. I'm sure the Pulitzer committee is already eyeing this piece.
Someone wake me when the election is over.
[H/T to Shaker Monica.]
[Sarah Palin Sexism Watch: Parts One, Two., Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven. We defend Sarah Palin against misogynist smears not because we endorse her or her politics, but because that's how feminism works.]
I don't know how many of you Shakers out there are connoisseurs of Truly Bad Cinema, but for me, it's a passion. I've more crap movies in my collection than "good" movies. It's a sickness, I know. But whatever; I could have worse predilections. One of my personal faves is Troll 2. It's a film that is epic in its badness and one that has somehow gained a strong cult following despite being nearly unwatchable.
The acting blows, the writing is dreadful, the make-up maude-awful (the titular monsters amount to little more than children in cheap rubber masks). Seriously, there are only so many synonyms for "bad" that I can come up with to describe this mess. The plot is stupid, and describing it in words makes it sound even stupider. But I'll give it a go anyway:
Our hero, young Joshua, likes to spend time with Grandpa, hearing stories of evil little goblins. Joshua's parents don't like this very much considering Grandpa has been dead for six months. Joshua sees dead people. Hopefully things will get better once the Waits family starts their vacation. They're part of an exchange where they swap their suburban house for a month with a rural home belonging to a family of farmers. I don't know how common this type of arrangement is, but the film's plot sort of hinges on it. Anyway, the whole deal sounds pretty dicey to me. Nonetheless, the Waits hope to put their troubles behind them as they vacation in the quiet village of Nilbog.
Yes, the film is set in Nilbog, which makes the screenwriters nearly as clever as Dan Brown. Maybe more clever, since they thought this up way before Brown crapped out The DaVinci Code.
The film has two (sort of) redeeming moments. First, the goblins of Nilbog try to turn the Waits into plants (yes, I meant vegetation; and no, don't ask me to make sense of it) by tricking them into eating sludgy green pudding for dinner. The Waits are almost taken in by this, but quick thinking Joshua jumps up on the dinner table, unzips his fly, and whizzes all over everything.
This leads to the film's sole piece of memorable dialogue, wherein the father chastises young Joshua with "You can't piss on hospitality. I won't allow it!" That should be on t-shirts. Hell, maybe it is. The scene, like most everything else here is (checks thesaurus) ghastly.
There's also a witch running around, who, I think, is in cahoots with the goblins. Who knows? Who cares? The point being, she gets her power from the Magic Stone of Stonehenge™ (seriously, that's how it is described), a big rock that can be defeated simply by touching it. Major design flaw, if you ask me. Oh yeah, the goblins are vegetarians too, so when Grandpa gives Joshua a magic bologna sandwich, he's able to escape their clutches.
At one point, the witch (named Creedence Leonore Gielgud, and whose major costuming is fake grey spray-on Halloween hair coloring) attempts to seduce one of the teenage boys with an ear of corn. (I told you this was going to sound stupider the more I tried to describe it.) She convinces the boy to suck on the phallic vegetable until it spurts forth a load of hot, buttery popcorn. I am not sure if this was supposed to be erotic, or ironic, or just plain absurd. It's certainly the highlight of the film. It almost made the previous 80 minutes worth it. Almost.
Just see for yourself:
Which brings me to the question of the day: What totally ridiculous moment in an otherwise totally crap film nearly redeemed said film just by the sheer power of its absurdity?
Obama's coffers have been filling since Sarah Palin attacked him repeatedly in St. Paul last night.
An Obama aide confirms Drudge's report that Obama has raised about $8 million from more than 130,000 donors and is on pace to raise $10 million by the time McCain reaches the stage tonight.
Obama spokesman Bill Burton says, "Sarah Palin's attacks have rallied our supporters in ways we never expected. And we fully expect John McCain's attacks tonight to help us make our grass-roots organization even stronger."
For those people who are not inclined or ready or wev to donate to Obama's campaign, but are interested in making some kind of statement, might I suggest as an alternative making a donation in Sarah Palin's name to Planned Parenthood?
The local chapters would be particularly grateful, I imagine.
"Sarah Palin is essentially Ronald Reagan in heels."—Robin Smith of the Tennessee Republican Party.
Terrifying.
And taken from a larger quote, the entirety of which Petulant, who's having internet issues today, transcribed from the video: "Through Sarah Palin, the definition that has been painted by the liberal media of what an acceptable female candidate has been shattered. An acceptable female candidate for the Democrat party and the liberal media is an angry, shrill woman who doesn't see a child as a blessing, but as a burden. A woman that puts her career first. Who is on the fringes of a lot of issues. And what we are seeing in Sarah Palin is essentially Ronald Reagan in heels. And a woman who puts her family, her god, and her faith first. A woman who is able to juggle her profession and smile and be kind and compassionate. We are witnessing the revolution of what is going to be acceptable to be a female candidate right now."
Georgia Republican Rep. Lynn Westmoreland used the racially-tinged term "uppity" to describe Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama Thursday.
Westmoreland was discussing vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin's speech with reporters outside the House chamber and was asked to compare her with Michelle Obama.
"Just from what little I’ve seen of her and Mr. Obama, Sen. Obama, they're a member of an elitist-class individual that thinks that they're uppity," Westmoreland said.
Asked to clarify that he used the word “uppity,” Westmoreland said, “Uppity, yeah.”
Last night, while listening to first Giuliani and then Palin sneer at Obama for being a "community organizer," I nearly lost my everloving shit with fury–not just because, on its face, it shows a deep contempt for an engaged citizenry (back to treating activist like a dirty word again), but because, beneath its surface, it was an ugly racist dog whistle.
When Giuliani sneered about community organizers on the "South side" of Chicago, it's pretty clear what he's saying: Barack Obama spent his time rabble-rousing among black people. It's no different then when the RNC called him a "street organizer." It's fairly clear what they're trying to evoke. No reason anyone should help them mask it. A community organizer can be a PTA member or a Christian Coalition lieutenant. But that's really not what Palin and Giuliani are getting at. Obama organized poor black people. That's change you can fear.
Not just change you can fear, but change you should fear, if you're a white American with any sense. Not only are there Arabs trying to kill us, Mexicans trying to invade us, and Chinese trying to take over the world, but now there's a goddamned black community organizer from the South Side of Chicago who wants to run the country; it wasn't enough we were getting it from all sides—now we've got an inside problem, too!
All of which is buried, naturally, in every speech at the Great White Hope Revival Republican National Convention, just below perfunctory acknowledgements that Obama is a patriotic man who loves his country and that should never be questioned but we've been proud of our country our whole lives and hey did you hear he's a *cough cough* community organizer?!
Thanks to Shaker Late to the Party for dropping the link to Ezra's piece in comments.
Ableism, like other systems of oppression, has overt expressions and covert expressions. The media spotlight on Governor Sarah Palin's young son Trig, who has Down syndrome, is bringing both types of ableism out of the woodworks. It's easy to see prejudice at work when people criticize Palin for not aborting a fetus known to have a disability; the idea that anyone has a responsibility to the citizens of the world not to have a disabled child is clearly based on the idea that disability is a monstrosity to be eliminated rather than a morally neutral variation of human experience.
What may be less easy to see is that praise for Palin's decision to "keep" a fetus with a disability is often based on the exact same premise. The anti-choice adulation that Palin's choice has inspired clearly reflects the same eliminationist assumption that people with disabilities are inherently Other, that they are symbols rather than people.
If you haven't noticed this meme yet, that's probably because the Bristol Palin story overshadowed it rather quickly. But here's a quote from the NYT article about McCain's decision to run with Palin:
Ms. Palin is known to conservatives for opting not to have an abortion after learning that the child she was carrying, her youngest, had Down syndrome. "It is almost impossible to exaggerate how important that is to the conservative faith community," Mr. Reed [i.e., Ralph Reed, formerly of the Christian Coalition] said.
Here's an example of the kind of reaction Reed is talking about: a WorldNetDaily article (warning: actual WND link) from May (after Trig was born) is headlined:
GOOD NEWS!
Mom rejects abortion after Down syndrome diagnosis
Praise for governor: 'May God give America more women like her'
Check out that phrasing: It's not "Governor gives birth to child who happens to have Down syndrome," it's "Mom rejects abortion." To me this reveals two things about this reaction: 1) people who give this kind of praise don't give a shit about the actual kid that gets born, only about the avoided imaginary abortion, and 2) that even anti-choice hardliners expect that fetuses with known disabilities will be aborted.
The truth is, the headline "Mom rejects abortion" could run after every single birth announcement of every woman in America. It's only news when the child that is born is known to have a disability. The narrative that paints Palin's choice as a kind of "pro-life" martyrdom depends on the idea that Trig is only significant because of his disability, which in itself is only significant as a tragedy that shows how saintly "pro-life" Palin is. Palin is SO "pro-life" that she would EVEN keep a baby with Down syndrome is the thinking here. She's extra "pro-life"!
This is a kind of parental version of what in disability studies is known as the trope of the Supercrip—the person with a disability who heroically "overcomes" his or her disability to teach all able-bodied people about the triumph of the human spirit. When parents of people with disabilities are treated as heroes or saints, they are implicitly told that their disabled children are a terrible burden that must be overcome or endured, an instant ticket to martyrdom.
Like Shark-fu, I have an older brother with cognitive disabilities. He lives in a group home now, and it takes a staff of aides, nurses, cooks, and drivers to provide the basic care that my mom and stepdad provided until he was in his mid-20s.
I don't know what my mom's life would have been like if she never had a disabled child. Maybe my parents wouldn't have gotten divorced; maybe my mom would have gone back to work instead of staying home. I don't know. But I do know that she would have had more free time, fewer hospital visits, and a lot less prejudiced nonsense directed against her every parental decision. (When my brother was born in 1974, my parents were told, by doctors, that he would be a "vegetable.")
You have no idea how pernicious the tropes of disability prejudice are until you hear them from your own loving grandparents. I vividly remember my grandfather once telling me my brother was an "angel"—another familiar way to other people with cognitive disabilities—and my grandmother rebutting him by saying, more or less, that my brother had ruined my mother's life. Each of them then appealed to me to affirm their respective ableist paradigms: Was my brother a magical angel sent to teach us all a lesson about sweetness, or was he a terrible burden whose life severely tested those of his loved ones? My grandparents loved us to death, y'all. I'm telling this story to illustrate how fundamentally ableism shapes our way of talking about parenting and disability.
So when CNN anchors say that the "unfortunate" birth of Trig Palin will endear his mom to right-wing voters, or when anti-choice commentatorsdisingenuosly praise the difficult choice that Sarah Palin made to carry her fetus to term, I see the same old bullshit. Choices are not made in a vacuum. We don't know the reasons Sarah Palin made the choice that she did; we don't know that it's because she's any more or less susceptible to the systemic ableism of our culture. Despite the media attempts to claim her as a "pro-life" poster girl and Trig Palin as the aversion of one fake tragedy (abortion) and the embodiment of another (disability), we should recognize the situation for what it is. Sarah Palin is not a hero for having a child with a disability; she's a woman who exercised her reproductive choice.
There was some discussion last night in the open convention thread about a conventioneer wearing a hat which appeared to be an alligator gripping an effigy of Barack Obama in its jaws. Pet provided a picture; this morning, Shaker InfamousQBert sent me a better image:
It's pretty clearly Obama in the alligator's mouth; it may even be the official Barack Obama Action Figure. And, aside from the general eliminationist messaging there, this display should be viewed within a historical cultural narrative that frames African-Americans as alligator bait. At the link, you will find an:
Aanalysis of a large collection of artifacts with racist African American imagery reveal[ing] several common themes. One is the portrayal of Black people, especially (often naked) children, as food for alligators. Imagery of Blacks as "alligator bait" can be found on prints, postcards, and even in product advertising. Some modern-day items still connect Black people to hungry alligators.
"Alligator bait" is even, sickeningly, a recognized ethnic slur, used typically to refer to black children.
Is it possible that an older member from a southern delegation is unaware of that narrative? Yes. Is it likely? No.
And it doesn't really matter, anyway—ignorance may be a reason for bigotry, but it's no excuse.
The RNC should issue an immediately apology to Obama for allowing this sort of shit to go on at their convention. But I won't hold my breath.
If you're looking for other liberals to hang and chat with IRL, try checking out a local Drinking Liberally chapter. With the election coming, there's sure to be plenty to talk about! I found DL to be a great way to get out and do something & meet people when we first moved here.
BTW, if you live in the Portland (Oregon) area, our local DL chapter meets on the first and third Thursday evenings (so there is one tonight!), starting around 7 pm, at Madison's Grill (at SE 11th and Madison). If you're going tonight, I shall see you there!
[Though this post isn't explicitly about overt sexism being used against Sarah Palin, there is, in my estimation, a strong undercurrent of "shitty mother with the pregnant daughter" running through this "joke," so I'm filing it in this series nonetheless.—MM.]
A friend sent me a link to this picture earlier*—a manip of the Juno movie poster with the faces of Bristol Palin and her significant other Photoshopped on, along with Gov. Sarah Palin's comment, "Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support." Cue up another post for the We're Not Rush Limbaugh Palin Watch.
[Click to embiggen.]
Yes, Gov. Palin's abstinence-only sex "education" position is reprehensible. Yes, it keeps minors uninformed and results in higher rates of STIs and teen pregnancies. Yes, it actively foments ignorance. However, these are all reasons to criticize Sarah Palin's positions and question whether or not McCain-Palin is the duo you want to see in the White House. These are not reasons to drag two minors into the fray as a means of slamming Bristol Palin and her mother. What's the difference between this manip and Rush Limbaugh's harassment of Chelsea Clinton? Slut-shaming Bristol Palin and hurling classist insults at her family doesn't actually attack the candidates on the issues; it just attacks the people.
The fauxgressives engaging in these tactics are falling into the trap of a Pyrrhic victory. They think they've caught out the hypocrisies and failings of the abstinence-only position and so there's a nice dose of self-righteousness in their taunting. They get to enjoy tearing Bristol Palin apart and justify it as being liberal and defending comprehensive sex ed. Sexism, moral superiority, and ostensibly standing up for liberal policies—they get to have their cake and eat it, too! (How many of these fauxgressives-turned-pro-choice-champions were recently wielding the BUT ROE! stick, I wonder?) But at what personal cost?
I understand the allure of engaging in these attacks; there's a sick glee in being able to cast off one's principles and indulge in the sexist and classist slurs that should be verboten. It doesn't hurt that the attack dogs on the Right wouldn't refrain from just these kinds of manips if the situation were reversed. However, as Misty says, "[P]rinciples aren't reserved just for people we like, agree with, and would 'do for us' in kind." Being anti-sexist and pro-choice means being anti-sexist and pro-choice for all people, whether or not we like them, whether or not it's convenient, whether or not they'd return the favor. There are better, more pertinent ways to criticize the McCain-Palin ticket.
And y'know? Framing Ms. Palin's pregnancy as a "comedy" and "bumps along [the campaign's] way" is just wrong.
--------------------
*It was a tinypic URL, so I'm not sure where the manip was originally posted. I'm not sure that it matters, though, since half the manip's utility is viral spread, as people forward the links and revel in the, "Hah! Got those hypocritical Republicans! Muaha!" without questioning that they're jumping up and down on the bodies of minors.
[Sarah Palin Sexism Watch: Parts One, Two., Three, Four, Five, Six. We defend Sarah Palin against misogynist smears not because we endorse her or her politics, but because that's how feminism works.]
Rounding out the trifecta of Things We're Talking About Tonight is the always-fun Vagina Voting. Will Palin appeal to disaffected Hillary Clinton voters? As if on cue, the preposterousness of this possibility is underlined by former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina materializing onstage. She knows John McCain. I know this because she says "I know John McCain" about eight thousand times in her boring-ass speech. I'd like to hear less about how she knows John McCain and more about how women are supposed to become CEOs of Fortune 500 corporations if they don't have control over their reproduction.
Meanwhile, on the convention floor, the Republicans are dancing to the Footloose theme. I was just thinking that what this convention needed was more Kenny Loggins!
…When I awaken, Rudy Giuliani is taking the stage, and instantly dashes my hopes for a "Rudy Giuliani Revue!" by not wearing his fishnets and failing to enter flanked by two erstwhile Rockettes to be introduced as the "9/11 Dancers." There's no such thing as showmanship anymore. Instead, it's just a bunch of snore-inducing codswallop about lefty media and Hollywood liberals and other Americans who should be sent to Gitmo, followed by a careening stagger from random subject to random subject, eliciting cheers and boos and chants of USA! in the vaguely appropriate spots. Hey, here's a hot bit of news for us, care of Giuly: McCain was a POW. Really? Tell me more. (I know you will!) He is, as always, a brutally bad speaker – they couldn't have done better finding someone who will inevitably make Palin look good. After this, she could come out and play a funeral dirge on a broken kazoo and look like a dynamo.
And while you're over there, check out Richard Adams' "Welcome to the Palindome," which is a great piece about how "the Republicans have assembled a formidable team aimed at winning the election – the election of 2000."
As I poke around teh interwebs, looking for my handy packets of information, I'm continually amazed at the sheer volume of information out there on any given topic. What gobsmacks me almost every day is how, with this enormous wealth of info, there's still such a clear narrative going on. Whatever the topic is, a solid 90% of the stories will tell it the same way, using the same images.
Take, if you will, the dangers of drinking. No matter how progressive we think ourselves, the media will continually remind us that boys will be boys and girls will be drunken sluts. In looking (not too hard, mind you) for examples, I ran across lots of articles that were written without a particularly gendered slant, but almost all of them used a single image of women and girls for their fear factor. Even the articles that were about teens/young adults making responsible decisions (i.e. not drinking, because alcohol is teh evil) pictured girls making these decisions.
It's not impossible to find pictures of men/boys making asses of themselves while drinking. But the majority of what I found were in funny stories on blogs or articles about "what to expect if you get drunk with your funny friends." When it comes to the stories about the dangers of drinking and all that it can lead to, we are almost inevitably given the image of the fallen woman. She's awfully pretty when the party gets started, but a few drinks later and she's acting like a fool or falling down in an alley, to cry her woes away, knowing that she's no longer a "good girl."
From a discussion on the Amethyst Initiative brought by a coalition of college/university presidents.
Another on the Amethyst Initiative. Look at the crazy drunk girl!!
On binge drinking in the UK.
Australia's worried about mixed drinks vs bottled. I'm worried about the sexy bartender trying to lure me into the depths of drinking hell.
Much like rape, it's up to the girls to control themselves while the boys have all the fun.
Found this pic in a couple of places, but this quote from one of the stories is astounding. Damn those sluts for just wanting to have fun:
"They're not focused on protecting themselves, they're focused on having fun, hooking up, enjoying themselves."
Back to the UK. A study there focuses on rise in female violence along with the rise in binge drinking, rather than violence as a whole. Statistics at the end show that overall violence has increased as well—not by as much, but enough to warrant a more comprehensive approach.
Don't worry girls—even the older generation doesn't get out of it. If you're a baby boomer, you're much more likely to binge drink than other adults. But if you're lucky enough to be a man, probably no one will notice.
Welcome to Shakesville, a progressive feminist blog about politics, culture, social justice, cute things, and all that is in between. Please note that the commenting policy and the Feminism 101 section, conveniently linked at the top of the page, are required reading before commenting.
If you're looking for other liberals to hang and chat with IRL, try checking out 
