In case you can't view the video, here are some stills:
Awwwwwwwwww, Livs!
Daily Kitteh
In case you can't view the video, here are some stills:
Awwwwwwwwww, Livs!
Boys' Club
Guess how many women are on Entertainment Weekly's list of the 25 Greatest Active Film Directors?
If you said zero, give yourself 1,000 points.
Here are my Top 10 female directors, with seven honorable mentions, in case anyone's under the mistaken impression there were simply none to include on the list.
Btw, Guillermo del Toro and Ang Lee are the only men of color on the list.
Here's another reason this list is problematic, in case you needed one. I just went and looked up the most recent films released by every director on the list; see if you can spot anything they have in common—or, more accurately, lack in common:
Steven Spielberg—Indiana Jones IV
Peter Jackson—King Kong
Martin Scorsese—The Departed
Christopher Nolan—The Dark Knight
Steven Soderbergh—Che
Ridley Scott—Body of Lies
Quentin Tarantino—Grindhouse/Death Proof/Planet Terror
Michael Mann—Miami Vice
James Cameron—Titanic
Joel and Ethan Coen—Burn After Reading
Guillermo del Toro—Hellboy II
David Fincher—The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Tim Burton—Sweeney Todd
Judd Apatow—Knocked Up
Sam Raimi—Spider-Man III
Zack Snyder—300
Darren Aronofsky—The Wrestler
Danny Boyle—Slumdog Millionaire
Clint Eastwood—Gran Torino
Ron Howard—Frost/Nixon
Ang Lee—Brokeback Mountain
Paul Thomas Anderson—There Will Be Blood
Paul Greengrass—The Bourne Ultimatum
Pedro Almodóvar—Volver
Jon Favreau—Iron Man
Pedro Almodóvar's Volver is the only film on that list with a clear female protagonist who doesn't have to play second fiddle to a male lead (or a CGI ape) or get sexually assaulted.*
Anyone else think that's a problem?
* UPDATE: Shaker Chevalier points out in comments that "Cruz's character, the protagonist [in Volver] does get sexually assaulted in the film." So, in fact, not a single one of the most recent films made by "the 25 Greatest Active Film Directors" has a female protagonist who doesn't play second fiddle to a male lead or get sexually assaulted in the course of the film.
How about that?
Language Matters
by Shaker SarahMC of The Pursuit of Harpyness
[Trigger warning.]
I really love this comic from Principia Comica:
[Click to view bigger.]
Why do people use the word "rape" to describe annoyances or hardships that don't come close to being like rape? I bet much of the appeal, for such people, is the shock value of using a word for sexual assault to describe something that has nothing to do with sexual assault.
Implying that failing a test or getting killed in a video game is as traumatizing and horrible as rape trivializes rape. I have never been raped, but I have a strong reaction to the misuse of the word (usually by men). Maybe it's because rape is a crime committed primarily against women. "Killed" and "murdered" don't rub me the wrong way; I think it's because both men and women are killed on a regular basis, by people of both sexes. Our culture does not apologize for murder, deny that it occurs, and immediately blame the victims for what happened to them. And murder goes unpunished far less often than rape.
Maybe it's because of the unapologetic, brash tone people tend to take when they misuse it. When people throw the word around casually, I feel as though they are dismissing rape and failing to put themselves in others' shoes. As the comic illustrates, people who'd use the word "rape" in that context have a massive blind spot when it comes to a threat women live with their whole lives.
People can be so clueless; but they also show a real disregard for others' feelings and comfort (that, or they delight in it). Does anyone have good strategies for confronting people who use triggering or otherwise offensive language in their presence?
[Cross-posted.]
Friday Blogaround
This blogaround has not been tested on animals.
Recommended Reading:
In case you haven't seen it yet, go read Shark-fu's "Well, allow me to retort…" right fookin' now.
Boehlert: Look Who Passes as a "Populist" to the Media Elite
Pam: Wisconsin: Gov. Proposes Legal Protections for Same-Sex Couples
Kate: Sex + Texting = Sexting
The Animal Group That Shall Not Be Named is at it again, with a clusterfucktastrophe of lesbian-exploitative misogyny, and again, with some transphobic fuckery. They are so gross.
Cara: Reminder: Yes Means Yes LiveChats Today at Feministe
Leave your links in comments...
In Things That Don't Belong on the Internetz
Police photos of a domestic violence victim, even if she's famous. (The photo is not available at the link.)
Brandy's got more on how the photo proliferated across the tubes so quickly. I'm pretty sure this had something to do with it, too:
[Click to embiggen. Thumbnails of image have been blacked out.]
UPDATE: Also see Ginmar.
A Book Rec
February is a birthday month here in our house, what with three birthdays occurring in the last three weeks of it. The first to happen was our oldest kiddo's and he just turned nine. Nine! I can't believe it. Soon enough the moody, broody creature Teenager will be sulking our hallways--and that means big changes are a-comin' shortly.
Being of the "more information, the better"/"forewarned is forearmed" sort, I recently went on a book buying hunt for books for our oldest son (and also the younger boys, when they're older). I was looking for a general book on body changes for the family library and also a couple books specifically for boys*. Not just any books for boys, either--I wanted ones that would give good, factual information and also support the teachings/values we put forth (like this). After a bit of searching and checking out recommendations from other parents, I bought three: It's Perfectly Normal: A Book about Changing Bodies, Growing Up, Sex, and Sexual Health by Robie Harris (this is a companion to the It's So Amazing... book we already have and for the family library); American Medical Association Boy's Guide to Becoming a Teen (this is aimed for the 'tween' age group and before/right-at-the-start-of puberty); and The Guy Book: An Owner's Manual: Maintenance, Safety, and Operating Instructions for Boys (for older boys, 13-14+). The last one is the subject of the post.
Now, I don't usually post random book recs but I was impressed by the book and I know there are parents out there searching for similar books, so I wanted to highlight it. I think it's a great resource for all boys and one progressive parents will definitely find worthwhile. As always, I advocate talking with children as a first point of education. Books, though, can be invaluable tools to help start, expand, or follow-up on conversations that should be happening continuously.
Anyway, onto it...
The Guy Book: An Owner's Manual: Maintenance, Safety, and Operating Instructions for Boys by Mavis Jukes is one of dozens of books written for boys/young men. It has a kitschy theme of looking like an actual owner's manual and uses pun after pun in chapter/section titles. It also has some "retro" style photos relating to the pun and topic-at-hand. Personally, I thought they were goofy but that is probably the point--to bring some levity to topics that boys (particularly the younger teens) might find daunting. They may help some nervous or shy parents ease into conversations. The pictures and theme, though, don't make it a stand-out, it's the content and context that makes this one the one to pick from the dozens.
The book covers the basics right off from the start--the first sentence is (emphasis theirs): "Human reproductive systems include primary reproductive organs, called gonads."(pg. 3). "Exterior Maintenance: Basic Care" is chapter three and that chapter contains something that I think all books for boys (or men!) should cover: how to do a testicular self-exam. The book discusses all sort of things: from how to tie a tie to STDs, drugs/alcohol, how to be a good friend, how to work up the nerve to ask out a date/accept rejection, how to responsibly and respectfully call off a relationship (actually, a whole host of tips when it comes to dating and how not to be a jackass), abuse/molestation and how to tell & get help, to how to develop your own groove/style. On almost every page is a blurb of text that is extra and marked by a bold blue font. I found these to be some of the most valuable parts of the book--don't skip them!
Some parts that particularly stood out to me:
In the chapter on healthy habits/lifestyle, there is a section that says:GO EASY ON YOURSELF
And:
Achieving the "look" of a model is not a practical or meaningful goal for boys or girls. Accepting ourselves and each other, including our different body types, is.
People are genetically programmed to be a different variety of sizes and shapes. Clothing ads, especially those featured in teen or fashion magazines, are famous for portraying unrealistic images of both men and women. (pg. 39)
[...]Consumer Alert
The media have invented an idealized male image that can cause some guys to feel as though they just don't "measure up". Preteen and teen boys are particularly vulnerable to these feelings. If you learn how to "read the media", you will recognize that many commercials are designed to make us feel like we're just, somehow, not good enough the way we are--that we need to buy something (which they're promoting) to be popular, successful, and powerful.(pg. 40)
The book deals quite a bit with emotions, not just with physical changes. One such excerpt: Face it: Boys are often discouraged from expressing (and feeling) certain emotions, such as sadness, fear, and anxiety. But we need to get real with each other. Everybody experiences feelings of sadness, vulnerability, lonliness, fear, anxiety, shame, and confusion at one time or another.
And:
The chapter discusses how ridiculous the term "mama's boy" is and how to examine your feelings and how to seek help if you need it. It provides the numbers and info for the National Hope Line and the Girls and Boys Town National Hot Line and several others and encourages boys to call them if they need help. It also discusses bullying, both what to do if you're bullied and how to deal when you feel pressure to be the bully:
[...]Our culture signals to girls that they're supposed to dependent and in many ways weak, to be "feminine". At the same time, we encourage girls to be strong, assertive, competitive and independent. And why not? Why should powerful traits be associated exclusively with males?
Both boys and girls (and men and women) feel all ways: strong and weak, powerful and vulnerable, confident and insecure, courageous and afraid.
These are human feelings. They're not attached to a particular gender. (pg. 42)Get over it.
From bullying it segues into violence and how to deal with anger:
Accept people's differences. Let it go at that. The world isn't entirely made up of kids who look, think, and act the same.
What's cool about bullying? Nothing. Be part of the solution, not part of the problem. Don't reinforce the behavior of bullies by laughing with them or otherwise backing them up. Rewarding bulling perpetuates the problem.
[...] (page 47)Blowing a Gasket/Boiling Over
Rages are NOT uncontrollable. Help is available for anger management.
Your pediatrician or counselor an point you in the right direction for finding help with controlling your anger--before it starts to control you (and your future). Violence is a choice. You CAN make choices that do NOT involve violence. [...] (pg. 49)
There is the chapter on girls (called "Sharing the Road") which discusses the female body, changes during puberty, and all that general info. It has a section called "Ogling"--about, generally, not doing so--which includes:Objectification
And one of those blue-bolded blurbs with:
Separating someone's body from who she or he is as a person has a name: objectification. Who wants to be scrutinized as an object? Nobody.Breast Etiquette for Guys
Commenting--complimenting a girl on her breasts--is offensive. Example: "Nice rack."
Criticizing breasts is also unacceptable. Example: "How flat is she!"
Even if a guy is being complimentary or just kidding around, remarks that relate to sexual characteristics (including breasts and breast development) are embarrassing, unwelcome, and just plain inappropriate. They're also considered a kind of sexual harassment (see page 123). (pg. 63)
It talks about sex, of course. It doesn't promote abstinence--it is heavy on the "know what is right for you and don't rush into things and don't pressure yourself or let yourself be pressured" line. The chapter that covers birth control gives the 800 number for Planned Parenthood and details on all types of birth control--it also gives tips on how to buy condoms. Another chapter on sex discusses the idea that "a lot of sex = a real man":[...]There's a societal myth that a guy has to have sex with a lot of girls (or even just one!) to prove that he's a man. Many boys exaggerate or just plan make up stories about sexual escapades to impress other guys, and that just adds to the confusion.
It talks about sexual orientation, touching on the three basic labels and also the idea that sexuality is a spectrum. Under the heading of "Don't fix what ain't broke.", it says that being gay is normal, natural, and does NOT need to be "treated, modified, medicated, changed, or fixed." (pg. 80). It also touches on what homophobia is, the violence caused by it, and wryly notes that: "It can also lead to unhealthy attitudes toward one's own sexual orientation" (pg. 81).
Having sex doesn't make a boy a man--it just makes him a boy who's had sex. And if just does it to get a feather in his cap--to impress his friends or prove something to himself--where does the girl fit into the picture? (pg. 79)
One particularly valuable chapter in the book is the one on consent:"No" Never Means "Yes"
It also discusses the concept of "mixed messages" and that "yes + no = NO". That "any form of a no means a no and stays no regardless of when and how it's given" (pg. 123). Like most of the chapters in the book, it's not very long but it's very matter-of-fact and clear. The important topic of consent is not skimmed, it is not glossed over.
Once given, consent may be withheld or withdrawn at by either party at any time. As soon as one person says no, the other person has to stop. That's the rule, and that's the law.
Back off.
When one person says or otherwise indicates no, it means one thing: No. This is true for all couples: pre-teens, teens, and adults. It's even true for married couples.[...] (pg. 122)
There's a negative that I have about the book and that it is very hetero-centric. Yes, it talks--and talks positively, which is wonderful!--about homosexuality (or bisexuality) but the chapters about, say, dating, really only focus on girls. Sure, some of the advice can be the same but it doesn't really delve into offering support or topics for gay teens--such as talking to your parents and friends or giving contacts for groups to help you do such a thing. PFLAG contact info is given but that's it and I don't think that's near enough since there are other resources out there for teens to contact. This book is otherwise so thorough--and progressive--that this is a glaring omission and a shame that that it wasn't more comprehensively included.
There are a couple "nit picky" bits that I'm not thrilled with, such as during the chapter on women and periods, it shares a story from a friend of the author that details how she (the friend) unexpectedly started her period in a class one day and didn't realize it until she stood up. A young man approached her, noting he had five sisters and would she like to borrow his sweatshirt to tie around her waist? Nice story, right? Be considerate and don't be grossed out by periods. However, it goes on to say that he walked her to her dorm, they talked, and eventually started dating. Then it says: "Moral of this story: be a cool guy--you never know what may happen as a result." (pg. 69). One one hand, it's not bad advice because being a nice, considerate guy can lead you to a relationship with someone. Maybe it's the phrasing but it bugged me in that it also came off a bit like "be a nice considerate guy because it might get you something", not "be a nice considerate guy because it's just the right thing to do". I realize this may very well just be me and is, like I called it, "nit picky".
There are a couple subtopics that have the potential to be controversial, even among more progressive parents, so I felt I should mention them as well. Both are fairly short blurbs and both are under the topic of masturbation. One talks about, well, the circle jerk. It's all of two sentences and basically says: some guys masturbate with others, some would never. If you feel it's wrong, then it is (for you). The other--and perhaps more eyebrow-raising for some--is regarding fantasies. It states that's it's pretty normal for teens to fantasize about a sexual encounter with a sister or other relative. It goes on to say that this is different from actual incest (which has its own section in the abuse chapter) and that acting on fantasies is a whole 'nother ball of wax. (pages 16 - 17) But, really, that's it.
On the whole, this really is a nice book that gives boys/young men a good reference on puberty, relationships, sex, emotions & emotional health, and general life tips from a perspective that a boy/man is a human with emotions and that's good and normal, women should be respected, and to just be yourself (and be happy with who that is, not who others want you to be). I don't think it's perfect but I think it's a very worthwhile purchase (or borrow from the library) for any teenage boy.
----
* Specifically for boys because there are concerns and questions about puberty & growing up that are specific to boys (like if erections are happening frequently and how to deal when it happens in public) which may only be superficially covered in a general puberty-type book. We will have books specifically for girls when our daughter is old enough to need them, as the boy books (which she may read, of course) don't cover all the topics that girls may find valuable.
** I don't have any contact with Crown Publishers/Random House (and I don't know the author). If they did send me the book in hopes I'd read it and recommend it, I'd be upfront about it. Just in case anyone was wondering.
Today in CNN Headline Nooz
Robbing banks no longer just for guys, FBI statistics show: "Nationwide, 6.2 percent of all bank heists today are committed by women. That's up from 4.9 percent in 2002—a 25 percent increase, according to the most recent FBI crime statistics."
The uptick in bank robbery committed by women correlates with the economic downtown, the head of the Nassau County police department's robbery squad says that women are primarily motivated by a need to "pay bills, get a little extra cash... They need diapers for the baby that kind of thing," and yet the framing story is all about a thrill-seeking thief and the accompanying article photos are of the "Barbie Bandits"—blonde, teenage strippers who robbed a bank to go on a shopping spree. (And who, by the way, conspired with two men, one of whom was a bank employee, to orchestrate the heist.)
There's a real story to be told about desperate women who have no resources and no opportunities, but it's buried beneath yet another "hot chicks doing boy things" story.
The new backlash is the bikinification of all news about and media featuring women: It's got to be young, it's got to be sexy, and it's got to be stuffed in a bikini going "Wooooo!"
Not desperate mothers in poverty at the end of their ropes, but young thrill-seekers who want money for clothes and make-up; not an in-depth sit-down interview with a mature and talented actress who's "past her sell-by date" because she's over 40, but a manically-edited True Life Docuvideo of an ingénue going to all the hottest clubs though she's not old enough to legally drink; not grande dames, but randy damsels; not the National Organization for Woman, but Girls Gone Wild; not ever anything about any woman who has the temerity to be old or fat or poor or in need or independent, when there is a seemingly endless supply of young and thin and privileged and on-the-prowl girls in bikinis waving their hands in the air shouting "Wooooo!" who have no conception that life will ever be anything else.
That sort of youthful self-centered ignorance, fueled by equal parts feelings of insecurity and infallibility, is (mostly) forgivable.
Its calculated exploitation by people with a profoundly misogynist agenda is not.
[Previously in Teh Nooz: One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven.]
Good News!
US back on the side of the big gay angels:
In late December the United Nations General Assembly held a symbolic vote on a statement calling for the universal decriminalization of homosexuality. France spearheaded the resolution, which was a 13 point declaration "to ensure that sexual orientation or gender identity may under no circumstances be the basis for criminal penalties, in particular executions, arrests or detention." The statement received 60 votes in support, mostly from Europe and South America. Opposing the resolution, were the United States, the Holy See, and members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. At the time, the Bush administration couched its objection to the measure in legal technicalities.Woot!
Well, that was then. This is now: At the so-called "Durban Review Conference" on racism and xenophonia underway in Geneva, Europe again put forward language condemning "all forms of discrimination and all other human rights violations based on sexual orientation." According to UN Watch, "The Czech Republic on behalf of the E.U., with the support of New Zealand, the United States, Colombia, Chili on behalf of the South American states, the Netherlands, Argentina and a few others, took the floor in support." [Emphasis original.]
The efforts to include language on discrimination based on sexual orientation ended up failing for lack of support from non-western countries. Still, it's relieving to see that the United States is now back on the side of the enlightened on this issue of basic human rights.
I would like to think this is only the beginning of a trend in which President Obama allows our new Secretary of State to fulfill her promise to make global gay rights an active "part of American foreign policy" and "do everything we can, including using our leverage on matters such as aid, to change the behavior so we can try to prevent" human rights abuses on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
[H/T to Memeorandum and Shaker Rider on the Storm.]
Limbaugh Compares Democrats to Murderers and Rapists
This is the new figurehead of the GOP, rambling on about how the motivations of Democrats and/or liberals are as inexplicable as those of murderers and rapists, including "this Muslim guy [who] offed his wife's head." (Note his further claim that feminists are defending that murder on the basis that it's an honor killing, which is patently false.) And of course the implication is that Democratic/liberal policies are akin to murdering and raping the country. All of this while he gravely intones, "They must be stopped."
[Full transcript below.]
I'm not sure I can put into words how resoundingly, colossally objectionable it is to me to be compared to a murderer and a rapist—no less in the throes of inciting his listeners to stop people like me at any cost.
(With a tiny wee de-emphasized caveat about doing it within the "political arena of ideas.")
What a truly despicable shitsack he is.
Premiere Radio Networks, Inc.: 818.377.5300 or 800.533.8686
The Rush Limbaugh Show: 800.282.2882. Email.
Limbaugh: To answer your question, why do so many liberal Democrats want to basically tear apart and rebuild the country, it's 'cause they don't control enough of it to satisfy them. They want to—
Caller: They live here, too! I don't understand, like, they're not—
Limbaugh: Yes, but, well, they are gonna establish separate rules for themselves by which they live, such as they'll be able to not pay their taxes and work in government at high levels. Uh, they're not gonna be subject to whatever greenhouse gas laws there are. They're not gonna be subject to any of this sort of— They have— 'Cause they're too important, you see. Uh, and they all think they're part of the elite. Some of 'em are gonna get canned, some of them are gonna get the shaft here; they just don't know it.
Uh, but it's, it's, they— Forget Democrat. These people are liberal socialists now. They bear no resemblance to the Democrat Party of John Kennedy, for example.
Caller: No, you're right, you're right, I agree. I agree.
[crosstalk]
Limbaugh: It's about power. It's about control. These people genuinely look out over this country from their lofty perch; they don't like what they see! Otherwise—
Caller: Well then they can go somewhere else! Like, I don't understand, why do they have to stay here? Like, leave us alone!
Limbaugh: I don't— At this point, at this point, Gretchen, I don't care about the why. They're not gonna leave; they're trying to control it. At this point, the only thing is: They. Must. Be. Stopped.
Caller: I agree.
[crosstalk]
Limbaugh: Within, within the confines of our Constitution, and the political arena of ideas, they must be stopped. I don't care why they see this country the way they see it. I don't care why a murderer does it. I don't care why a rapist does it. I don't care why this Muslim guy offed his wife's head. The NOW gang's out there saying, "That's not domestic violence. That's just, uh, that's just, uh—" What'd they call it? Cultural honor killing! This woman was going to divorce him and that's against the law and that's his diversity. I don't care! I don't care why anymore. If I figure it out, I'll be glad to tell you because it's interesting to know, but it doesn't matter in terms of defeating them.
New York Post Apologizes for Racist Cartoon...Sort Of
After the Post ran a heinous editorial cartoon depicting the author of the stimulus bill as a rampaging chimpanzee, and after Post Editor-in-Chief Col Allan insisted that there was nothing for which to apologize and called Al Sharpton an "opportunist" for criticizing the cartoon, and after hundreds of people, including Sharpton, demonstrated outside the Post's offices, the Post has finally issued an apology of sorts. To call it half-assed is to insult half-assery. This is the belligerent statement, titled "That Cartoon," in its entirety:
Wednesday's Page Six cartoon - caricaturing Monday's police shooting of a chimpanzee in Connecticut - has created considerable controversy.So, if you've ever had a problem with the Post in the past (which, if you're not a rightwing nutball, you probably have), they are not apologizing to you (especially YOU, Al Sharpton!) because you're only angling for payback—and couldn't possibly have an authentic interest in decrying what, by any reasonable measure, can be construed to imply the president is a fucking chimp.
It shows two police officers standing over the chimp's body: "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill," one officer says.
It was meant to mock an ineptly written federal stimulus bill.
Period.
But it has been taken as something else - as a depiction of President Obama, as a thinly veiled expression of racism.
This most certainly was not its intent; to those who were offended by the image, we apologize.
However, there are some in the media and in public life who have had differences with The Post in the past - and they see the incident as an opportunity for payback.
To them, no apology is due.
Sometimes a cartoon is just a cartoon - even as the opportunists seek to make it something else.
If you're just someone who was offended, without any further agenda, then they apologize—except not really, since "sometimes a cartoon is just a cartoon" and the "intent" wasn't racist.
Someone needs to talk to the Post about owning the context.
Once again, let us revisit a statement about intent:
Let me quickly stipulate and clarify that one can unintentionally express racism. That innocent intent, or ignorance of the history of how people of color have been marginalized, does not, however, in any way change the quality of what was being expressed. Something can still be expressed racism even if the speaker's intent was not to oppress people of color. And particularly if it does fit neatly into a historical pattern, it necessarily conjures that pattern of racism, intentionally or not.In that way, the editorial cartoon, by invoking intentionally or not the well-established conflation of African-American men with apes, has transmitted the slur. Whether it was deliberate or ignorant or whatthefuckev doesn't actually matter in terms of whether that pernicious means of dehumanization was perpetuated.
So: Toss out the idea that intent determines racism. And the idea that any of us, or any of the things we say or do, can exist in a void.
What we're then left with is the idea that if something fits into a historical pattern of racism, unavoidably invokes such a pattern, and/or can be overtly quantified as marginalizing people of color, it is an expression of racism.
What the Post needs to do at this point is acknowledge it was problematic for that reason, irrespective of intent, and apologize for it without all the defensive caveats. And then they need to be vigilant about not making the same mistake again, especially if they want us to believe it was a mistake in the first place.
But I'm not going to hold my breath.
Geraldine
For Spudsy, a dedicated social worker and real-life hero.
When your sparkle evades your soul
I'll be at your side to console
When you're standing on the window ledge
I'll talk you back, back from the edge
I will turn, I will turn your tide
Be your shepherd, as well be your guide
When you're lost in your deep and darkest place around
May my words walk you home safe and sound
When you say that I'm no good and you feel like walking
I need to make sure you know it's just the prescription talking
When your feet decide to walk you on the wayward side
Climbing up upon the stairs and down the downward slide
I will turn, I will turn your tide
Do all that I can to heal you inside
I will be the angel on your shoulder
My name is Geraldine; I'm your social worker
I see you need me
I know you do
I see you need me
I know you do
I know you do
I will turn, I will turn your tide
Do all that I can to heal you inside
I will be the angel on your shoulder
My name is Geraldine; I'm your social worker
A Litter of Monsters
On Monday, Iain wrote about the dehumanization of Nadya Suleman via the use of fantastical monikers like "Octomom," which "sounds like a Marvel supervillain, or a monster." In comments, Shaker Jewel made what I thought was a really great associated observation:
"Octomom" dehumanizes not just the mother, but the babies as well. She didn't give birth to humans, but to eight little monster/animal/objects. It's disgusting. The mother's reproductive choices are her own and do not warrant or deserve media scrutiny; even less do the children, who had no say in the matter, deserve to be called animals and treated as entertainment material.Indeed so. Thus, it was only a matter of time before the offspring of the Octomom became:
The Octobabies
Congratulations, America. Our reckless and unjustifiable demonization of eight children who did not ask to be brought into this world at all, no less all at once, is complete. How awesome are we.
Sob.
Isn't It Bromantic
This doesn't sound like a trainwreck at all:
SNL wunderkind Andy Samberg takes the March 2009 cover of Out Magazine and chats up his new movie, I Love You, Man.Funny ha-ha, or funny queer? [/sling blade]
The 30-year-old funnyman describes the comedy as "a dude-on-dude romantic story that straight guys can feel comfortable watching." The flick stars Paul Rudd as a guy on the verge of marriage who ends up on an accidental date with Andy, who plays a gay character who only sleeps with straight guys. A het hunter, if you will.
Andy says, "No one is going to look at my character in I Love You, Man, and say, 'It's funny because you're a straight guy playing a gay guy.' It's funny because the character is funny."
This has the potential to be Deathbed Confession Cinema (Gays Are Funny…But They're People, Too!), or to be legitimately subversive. Samberg loves fucking with "Dude Culture," and there was, once upon a time, a Paul Rudd who would have been perfectly suited for a subversive film like this—but now seeing his name attached just makes me cringe. I fear I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry: Now With More Cute!
Btw, I know plenty of straight guys who feel comfortable watching a "dude-on-dude romantic story." Even ones where they're not given permission to laugh at the zaniness of it all (gayz!!!11! haha! dudez kissing!omg! haha! wieners!) at regular intervals. Imagine that.
I am not jizzing! in! my pants!
He's Really Lucky They Didn't Taser Him
And that's not a joke.
[Trigger warning, NSFW language]
In this video, we see a Chicago police officer not following procedure (to say the least), and assaulting a passenger on a CTA bus that allegedly did not pay his fare. The officer slams the man's head against the window of the bus at least twice, punches the man, and (in my opinion, anyway) attempts to goad the man into fighting back. The other passengers are terrified. The officer gets very threatening when the cameraman asks for his badge number.
As Liss said in her recent post detailing another appalling police assault, I don't hate cops. However, looking at this, and Liss' post, and the recent shooting of Oscar Grant, and Digby's many posts on tasering, I have to wonder, as has been discussed here in the past, how much the Bush Administration's casual use of torture, the Right's casual dismissal of, or outright cheering on torture, and the lack of any accountability fuels stuff like this. I know there have always been bad cops, but what happens when bad cops start thinking they can get away with anything? Is this what happens when people worship "24's" Jack Bauer as if he was a real fucking person?
Update: I had in my head, but forgot to add, that as long as the CTA keeps increasing fares (I'm hearing rumors about another fare increase), and our shit economy forces more people out of work and sucks more out of their pockets; when it's really fucking cold in Chicago and people are desperate to get where they're going, we're going to see a lot more of this.
I Write Letters
Dear Liss:
I know you're having one of those days where everything you work on falls to shit, but get it the hell together, woman.
Love,
Liss
P.S. Your hair dried stupid and looks like crap.
Not So Fast
Despite polls showing Americans giving a great deal of approval to the stimulus package, Republicans have been insisting that Americans are against the stimulus package, which makes sense, I suppose, as they all live on Bizarro World. Out of blind, pigheaded, uncaring, vicious greed and partisanship, they all agreed (or arm-twisted) to not cast a single vote for the stimulus, suffering Americans be damned. Congressman Joseph “Anh” Cao, a Republican, who defeated William “Bill” Jefferson is facing a recall petition because of his vote on the Barack Obama stimulus package. The recall has been initiated by a group of ministers. […] One elected official, State Representative Juan A. LaFonta, Democrat of District 96 told Bayoubuzz that he does not know about the existence of the petition but that he would sign it. … “People are starving and Cao needs to represent the people of the district”, LaFonta said.
Well, some people aren't taking that sitting down.Earlier this month, New Orleans’s new congressman Joseph Cao (R) stated that he would vote for the economic recovery package. “I believe that more likely than not, I will vote for it because the 2nd Congressional District needs a stimulus package,” he said. Even on the day of the vote, Cao was telling reporters that he was “leaning yes.” In the end, however, Cao succumbed to GOP arm-twisting and voted against the package. The Republican party’s chief deputy whip stood near the freshman lawmaker during the entire vote, and Cao admitted that the leaders had applied some “pressure” on him to vote no, so that they could boast 100 percent opposition from their party. BayouBuzz.com reports that many of Cao’s constituents are now angry and may launch a recall petition:
It's about time that people started holding these Republicans responsible for their actions when they put party before the lives of their constituents. It's all a goddamn game to them; fucking political theatre so they can brag about "100% opposition" while jobs vanish at a ridiculously frightening rate, people are losing their homes and going hungry, not to mention dying. Maybe if some more of these heartless ghouls were yanked out of their cozy little positions and had to sweat a little over where their next paycheck was going to come from, they'd start voting thinking of the people they serve, rather than their own goddamn wallets.
By the way, you gotta love the Republican whip standing over Cao as he voted, huh? What was he going to do, pull out a bat and break his kneecaps if Cao voted in favor? Was he cracking his knuckles, chewing on a toothpick and flipping a quarter in his hand while he did it? What a bunch of goddamned thugs.
Daily Kitteh
I think Sophie's stoned, man. I'm pretty sure
I just heard her ask me to pass the Cheetos.
And I don't even have any Cheetos.
Just Call Me "Tennessee Brood Mare"
by Aunt B. of Tiny Cat Pants
Rachel has, for your perusal, SB1065/HB0890, which we might call the "The State's Bodies, Our Selves" bill. This bill would make mandatory drug testing for women who don't act right during pregnancy. If you don't get pre-natal care, the State wants the right to drug test you. If you don't come in for prenatal care promptly once the fetus is viable, they want the right to drug test you. If you don't get the right kind of prenatal care, they want the right to drug test you. In other words, if you act in any way "abnormal," the going assumption is going to be that you must be on drugs.
But here's the best part. If your pregnancy just isn't going right—the placenta comes open or the fetus dies or you go into labor early for no discernible reason, or the fetus isn't growing fast enough, or the fetus has congenital anomalies—and let me remind you these are all things that just happen during pregnancies; things go wrong, for no reason, all the time—the State wants to drug test you.
And let's say that they do. Let's say that you start to miscarry. You have spotting and cramping and it's pretty obvious and inevitable what's going on. Maybe you have a bottle of wine to help you through. You've just gone into labor early for no discernible reason and your fetus is dead for no discernible reason and when they drug test you, they're going to find that you've been drinking.
What do you think is going to come of that?
This is what I mean when I say that the reproductive rights fight is going to be had on the bodies of women who miscarry. And these legislators, Hackworth and Marrero are Democrats. These are the folks who are supposed to be on the side of women and they want to give the State the right to start sniffing around if your pregnancy doesn't go right?
This bill opens the door to the State blaming women who miscarry for those miscarriages. Shoot, it doesn't just open the door. It opens the door and escorts the State right in.
They cannot make it illegal, still, thank god, for you to be pregnant in your own way. They cannot legally require you to go to the doctor. They cannot hold you legally responsible for the death of your fetus.
But they want to. And so this is an end run around that. If you won't do what they want you to do, they will drug test you and force you into treatment if they don't like what they've found. In other words, you will be punished for, in the case of imbibing alcohol, something that is perfectly legal. Something most doctors will tell you is fine on occasion when you are pregnant.
In other words, the precedent they're setting is that, once you are pregnant, your body is not your own. You no longer know what's best for you. Your doctor no longer knows what's best for you. You are not allowed to not realize you're pregnant. You're not allowed to be afraid. You're not allowed to be too poor to go to the doctor. You have to do what the State tells you to do while you're pregnant, because, while you're pregnant, your body is not your own.
And here's the other thing. Can we just not beat around the bush about the subtext here? It's no coincidence that Memphis has an infant mortality rate so depressingly high that it might as well be a hundred years ago over there and that Marrero is bringing the bill. You cannot be a human being with a soul and look at what's going on in Memphis, or shoot, in neighborhoods here in Nashville, and not have your heart come right out sobbing into your hands.
But treating women like, once they're pregnant, the State needs to control them is vile. It just is. There's no way around it and wanting to protect babies doesn't make it okay to assume that the problem lies solely with the mothers.
If Marrero makes a medical decision I don't like, should I have the right to force her to take a drug test, make sure she hasn't been drinking too much?
The sad truth is that pregnancies end for all kinds of reasons. Some women can go their whole pregnancies not even knowing they're pregnant, drinking and drugging it up, and their kids come out with no ill-effects. Many, many women in this State try their hardest to do the right thing every step of the way—doctor visits, vitamins, no alcohol use, etc.—and they still lose their pregnancies. They still have babies who are too sick to make it through the year. It's not anyone's fault. It just happens. And I know my fair share of women in that situation and they all blame themselves at some level. Adding to their suffering by having the state step in and act like they're to blame is cruel.
And I have to wonder if any doctors were consulted on this, because I have to believe that, even if you're addicted to crystal meth and crack cocaine at the same time and you're so desperate for your next heroin fix that you're licking it off of floors in bathrooms, your OB wants you to come in for prenatal care. If the option is "drug addicted mother/no care" and "drug addicted mother/care," the doctor is going to advocate for a patient seeking care, even if and especially if the patient is not in great health.
Threatening to drug test drug addicts if their pregnancies don't go well is not going to encourage drug addicts to get clean, it's going to discourage drug addicts from going to the doctor.
And I cannot believe that that's the outcome Marrero and Hackworth are hoping for.
[Cross-posted.]
Shaker Gourmet: Beef Pirogies
The recipe this week comes from Shaker KathleenB who says: "This is actually an adaptation (redaction) of a medieval Scandinavian recipe done by a friend for an SCA feast. These are amazing and all parts (the dough, the filling, filled but uncooked pirogi and cooked ones as well) freeze beautifully."
Kathleen added: "Make sure you cut the dough into large enough circles or squares - too small and you lose the ideal crust-to-filling ratio. When I made these, the only yellow onion I could find was labeled sweet - next time I make these, I'll probably use a savory onion. These are good hot, cold and in between and make great snacks. I also used only the egg white and didn't chop anything nearly as fine as Ernmas did, but the turned out really well."Beef Pirogies by Ernmas
Dough
4c all purpose flour
1tsp salt
1/4tsp baking powder
2tsp vegetable oil
1c warm water
1 egg, beaten
--In a large bowl, combine flour, salt and baking powder. Make a well in the center.
--In a separate bowl, mix vegetable oil, water and beaten egg. Pour into well and mix. Knead 10 minutes.
--Cover dough and let rest 2 hours. Roll to about 1/8 inch thick and cut into 5 inch circles.
Filling
1 medium yellow onion, chopped fine
1 lb ground beef
1/2tsp salt
1/2tsp pepper
1/2tsp dill
1tsp garlic
2 eggs, hard boiled and chopped
Pirogi dough or pre-made pie crust (you'll probably need at least four boxes of the refrigerated kind of dough, depending on how you cut it)
--Heat oven to 400°.
--Cook onion until soft over medium heat. Add ground beef, breaking up all lumps. Cook beef until brown and drain well. Add remaining ingredients.
--Spoon filling onto half of the dough, fold over and seal edges. Bake for 15 minutes or until crust is brown.
If you'd like to participate in Shaker Gourmet, email me (include a blog link, if you have one!) at: shakergourmet (at) gmail.com
