...write a detailed post responding to this piece in the Washington Times, but instead I'll just leave it at: LOL.
Have at it in comments.
I Was Going to...
Greatest Thing on American Idol Evah
I didn't see this until the two-hour voting window was almost closed, but I swear to Maude as soon as I saw it I picked up the phone and called and voted for this kid 100 times.
Question of the Day
We've done this one thrice before, the last time almost a year ago already (my, how time flies!), but it's always fun, so I'm recycling it again: If you were asked to describe yourself using only one word, what word would you choose?
I'll stick with irrepressible, which, depending on context, can be either complimentary or critical—and both are certainly applicable when the context is me.
Dose of the Cutez
Shaker RedSonja sends along some serious kyootitude. WARNING: May result in face-cracking grinz.
Monthly Tip-Jar Reminder -- All Hail the QCoFM!
[Update: This post will be bumped to the top for much of the day -- New posts below!]
Howdy Shakers! It's that time of the month again -- time to dig under those sofa cushions, rummage through that purse, and raid the old wallet to give our Blog-Mistress some appreciation (of the type that she can take to the bank, if you know what I mean).
If you've already sent a little bit of fiscal love Melissa's way this month, then I send one thousand and one titty-wrap hugs in your direction. If you can't, give yourself a break, and if you can, but you've forgotten or procrastinated it, take a moment to scoot down to the orange "Make a Donation" button in the right sidebar (right under the "Advertise Liberally" logo).
In any case, be sure to watch my monthly Portly-Plays-Busker treat -- another vintage video from my career in the 90s as a lesbian standup. (One blurry image in the vid may be NSFW. Come on, now you REALLY want to see it!)
(Close-captioning is available for the vid -- but you may have to view it at youtube to see that option.)
I wrote the sketch below in collaboration with the inimitable Howie Baggadonutz of Portland, Oregon. Old-timers PDX queers may recognize a few of the well-known homophobes (and possible closet-cases) of the Oregon State political scene circa 1994. Enjoy!
And hey! Subscribe to my youtube channel!
If It's Tuesday, It's Boehlert!
Our favorite media critic takes on the media's coverage of epic gun violence:
Even more telling was the way the press avoided addressing the issue of gun control in connection with the Alabama rampage. There was a virtual media ban on the topic last week. And that's become the media's trademark pattern when covering the mass murders that stain the country -- they're treated as though they're isolated incidents and as though there is no larger public policy issue that ties them together. The press has pretty much embraced the old NRA mantra: Guns don't kill people. People do.Read the whole thing here.
Indeed, the press now covers shooting sprees the way it covers killer tornadoes: They're one-day stories, they're acts of nature, and all people can do is try to stay out of the way.
...For much of the media, the killing sprees are what they are and nothing more. In fact, as the massacres seem to increase in frequency -- Crandon, Wisconsin; Kirkwood, Missouri; Arvada, Colorado -- the press gives them less attention and sets aside almost no time and space for introspection.
Number of the Day
42. The percentage of respondents to a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll who "said the United States made 'a mistake' in sending military forces to Afghanistan, up from 30% in February."
Daily Kitteh
Tils, looking alert and regal and ready to pounce with grace and ferocity.
In reality, a dunderheaded klutz who probably just sniffed Livsy's butt.
Natasha Richardon Seriously Injured in Ski Accident
Actress Natasha Richardson has been hospitalized after suffering a serious head injury during a ski accident:
Richardson fell on a beginners' trail Monday during a lesson at Station Mont Tremblant, said the statement from the resort, located about 80 miles northwest of Montreal.Reports are now that Richardson is brain-dead and unlikely to survive her injuries, though it is not clear whether those reports are accurate. Blub.
At the time, Richardson was accompanied by a ski instructor, who called the ski patrol, the statement said. "She did not show any visible sign of injury, but the ski patrol followed strict procedures and brought her back to the bottom of the slope and insisted she should see a doctor."
Richardson, accompanied by the instructor, returned to her hotel, but about an hour after the fall was "not feeling good," the statement said. An ambulance was called, and Richardson was taken to a local hospital before she was transferred to Hopital du Sacre-Coeur.
Ms. Richardson holds a special place in many feminists' hearts, including my own, for her portrayal of Offred in the film adaptation of Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale. She's also part of a family of feisty women; she is the daughter of Vanessa Redgrave, the niece of Lynn Redgrave, and the sister of Joely Richardson.
Richardson is also married to Liam Neeson, with whom she has two sons. My thoughts go out to them all.
Breaking the Silence: On Living Pro-Lifers' Choice for Women
by Shaker Anonymous
Hey, Shakers, Liss has graciously allowed me to yell in her forum. Many thanks, Liss. I have no other outlet for what I'm about to say. I want to tell you first: at least one of you knows me in person. What I'm about to say is something you do not know about me. If it's not you, then one of your friends might be like me.
I'm the birth mother of an adopted child, vehemently pro-choice, non-Christian, very unsuited to motherhood, and after over a decade, have got some things to tell the world about adoption. It's been stewing since I heard about the recent rash of pre-abortion ultrasound legislation. While I am touched that so many men in such various states are so deeply worried about women possibly being all sad from having an abortion, I wish to point out to these compassionately bleeding hearts that the alternatives are not exactly without their own emotional consequences.
Keep in mind, this is from over a decade ago, and maybe things have changed - but I did four quick searches and found one site that says it's for birthmothers, and it turns out, it's to show them how easy it is to find a good family for your baby. It's a placement site; they don't care about anything but babies. I didn't find a single one for birthmothers who have already given up their kids. I'm sure they're out there. Somewhere. No need to go google for a half hour just to find me one site, okay. If you do, you've proved my point.
I have given a baby up for adoption, and I have had an abortion, and while anecdotes are not evidence, I can assert that abortions may or may not cause depression - it certainly did not in me, apart from briefly mourning the path not taken - but adoption? That is an entirely different matter. I don't doubt that there are women who were fine after adoption, and there is emphatically nothing wrong with that or with them; but I want to point out that if we're going to have a seemingly neverending discussion about the sorrow and remorse caused by abortion, then it is about goddamn time that we hear from birth mothers too.
Believe me when I say that of the two choices, it was adoption that nearly destroyed me - and it never ends. The only comparison I have is the death of a loved one. The pain retreats, maybe fades, but it comes right back if I poke at it. Writing this has taken me nearly two weeks. Normally, I can write this amount in about thirty minutes, with bathroom breaks. I started to type, and stopped only to reread, then go wail into my pillow. There is no such thing as "over" with this.
Birth mothers are a demographic seldom heard from, and then generally only in the context of how soon they want to "replace" their lost child. This is a huge WTF to me. I went into a self-destructive tailspin for over a decade, and never once thought that maybe a new doll would do the trick. Yet every support group, every online forum, every possible resource I found, all zeroed in on this one-size-fits-all panacea. I didn't want a new baby. I never wanted any babies in the first place. I also didn't want an abortion, and I don't see how any of my reasons for any of this are anyone's business, either. It was my choice to make, and that is that.
What I didn't realize at the time - because not one person in my whole life had ever seen fit to mention the possibility, including the pre-adoption counselors - was that I'd spend so long hovering on the edge of suicide, desperately trying to find some way to deal with an all-consuming pain I had no idea even existed. I had never needed help so badly, and I doubt I ever will again. I've known a lot of birth mothers, and I consider myself lucky; I'm less broken than many of them, somehow. Maybe it's because I never did get any kind of therapy. I couldn't find any that didn't make me feel inhuman.
I don't know what the post-adoption counseling is like now, but in my day, it was through the adoption agencies or religion. In my case, the adoption agency was Catholic, lots and lots of Catholicism, so no help there; I was also extremely upset that they provided psychiatric, drug-assisted help, but not mention that it was possible you'd have need for it until after it was too late. This is the kind of thing you really need to know before you make the decision, if only to brace yourself. No, until the baby was gone, it was all paperwork and offering to put me into a nice Catholic household where I could go to church with the family, watch wholesome programs on TV. I'm not Catholic. I'm not even Christian. The idea of church revolted me, as much as it would revolt others to have to follow a religious or non-religious lifestyle that they don't share. Also it was mentioned that I'd have to go along with all the Catholicism, because if I didn't, my host family could have me removed. To where? That question was never answered. Also, I don't watch TV, not that anyone asked.
So I handled it myself, which wasn't easy, but at least, I could pee in the middle of the night without someone I barely knew hovering outside the door. I'm not sure what mattered more, privacy or freedom, but they were both necessary.
Then the baby came, and soon I realized that it had fucked me up considerably to give it away. When I did, I went looking for help. The adoption agency I went through was so Catholic that my fillings hurt. So, I looked around. I kept looking for ten years. I never found counseling or therapy or any kind of help whatsoever that wasn't about self-hatred.
Post-adoption counseling turned out to be focused on getting yourself together enough to make yourself a new Christian baby so you could be a good Christian wife and mother. I kept getting the same thing. What if you don't want to have a New Baby (tm), or can't? Or you're not religious? And why the fuck are actual babies so disposable that you're expected to get over it after a suitable period of mourning (i.e., till you get a good Christian husband) in the case of adoption? It's odd how this does not apply in the case of aborting a blastocyst, when you're expected to wall yourself into a tomb away from decent society and gnaw on the bitter bones of your own despicable evil. Bad woman. BAD.
Where did this all-too-common idea that the only normal reaction is "longing for replacement motherhood" come from? I think that it at least partially comes from the roles women are assigned in society. Sometimes it seems like the only acceptable choice we have is when to become a mother, not if. I had my tubes tied without having any more babies, and all of a sudden everyone viewed me as an alien life form. Maybe, just maybe, if we had less "make BABIES!1!" pressure in this world, we'd have fewer stories such as Susan Smith and Andrea Yates. There's nothing wrong with wanting to have kids. There's a hell of a lot wrong with making people feel like monsters if they don't.
I'd also like to point out that every time I mention the adoption in public (including the Net), one of these things invariably happens:
1: metaphorical pat on the head: "you did the right thing", which helped at first, but rapidly came to sound amazingly condescending. Nobody asked me if I was doing okay or anything like that, ever, even though I quite spectacularly wasn't.
2: "what kind of a woman gives up her BABIES?!" - this is always said by exactly the kind of people I don't want to be having a conversation with in the first place.
3: "don't worry, you can have another one" - would people say this to a parent whose child had just died? That's what giving one up feels like.
4: a lecture on the evils of abortion, which seems grotesquely out of place in this context, and inevitably makes me turn extremely vicious in real life. I can pretty much guarantee that talking about the downside of being a birth mother on the Net will bring out at least one, regardless of where on the Net it's posted. I can also safely assume that any such commenter will not have read this far, but just in case, I want that commenter to know one thing: your deep concern for pregnancy (in a thread about adoption) sounds more like the self-righteous squawking of someone so deeply disturbed over their own lack of bone-deep ethics that they're compelled to spend their days lecturing the rest of us. Address your own issues. I suggest volunteer work, but I don't recommend any kind of personal contact; you lack empathy. Many cities, even small ones, have beautification programs involving cleanup and planting trees, which might do for a start. You will be enriching the lives of others, improving your own health, you can proudly point out "your" trees, and you'll feel self-righteous with damn good reason for a change.
Back to my topic, which was:
Adoption fucked up my head far worse than abortion. I've googled over the years about the psychological aftereffects of giving up a baby, and what little I found is astonishing. Depression and suicide rates ridiculously high, comparable to PTSD - and beyond a shadow of a doubt, there is no way you can cook any post-abortion trauma study to come anywhere near post-adoption trauma levels. Strange how peer-reviewed studies on this are damn near non-existent; strange how nobody mentions any of this when it's not just your mind on the line, but also that of your kid or kids (more on that later). Strange how this is never on the radar when these stupid obstructionist anti-abortion rules are proposed by retrofuckwits.
They're always blatting on about how concerned they are for us, apparently because women aren't capable of making decisions without the gently guiding hand of all-knowing patriarchy, lest we irreparably damage our emotions and drown in a whirlpool of remorseful tears. They care ever so deeply about the long-term psychological effects of not having at least 10 months to consider whether or not to terminate a pregnancy, but no mention is ever made about women who actually do give up the baby. Seems to me that anyone who actually does so is lauded far and wide for Doing the Right Thing, but is simultaneously despised for being an unnatural uterus-bearing mechanism which has horribly malfunctioned. Where the fuck did that narrative come from, and why does everyone buy into it at some level?
Nobody ever seems to address this stuff.
Nor do the pro-lifers (or the media, or anyone outside of pro-choice circles) ever address the stats on adopted kids having lifelong issues with having been given away. I freely admit that I don't know what adoptees go through, so I'm going to let others do the talking on that topic (I really hope you do; I only know my side, and I fret and worry and freak out about my child). Again, though, you never see pro-lifers worrying about anything besides forcing a birth. I never see pro-lifers doing anything constructive about adoptees of any age.
Emotional fallout only matters to them as a political talking point, in a conversation that includes space only for what is convenient to their preexisting narratives. There's no space to talk about, for example, how, to give a baby up for adoption, you've got to get the father's signature on the papers, or else face legal hell (now, or later). I was raped, by a so-called friend; I had to go through legal hell to get a signature anyway. It was pretty damn adversarial.
Men are generally left out of the conversation altogether, and when men talk about losing a child, it is most frequently on various men's rights forums getting worked up about having their kids taken away in divorce, as if that's comparable. I am looking forward to a man wisely explaining to me how this is not at all the same thing as what he's been through, because his is worse, because it's his money, for 18 years, and he didn't want the kid in the first place, and she was a bitch anyway, and men have no rights and it is so unfair. And when MRAs aren't busily whining about losing their children in a custody battle, they're whining about how they should have some say in whether a woman is allowed to get an abortion, even when they don't want the child and want it put up for adoption. I can't even imagine the psychological ramifications of being forced into adoption, when it's indescribably hard after a decision made of one's free will.
To wind this down: one size fits all doesn't apply to adoption, any more than it does to abortion. If there's going to be discussion about mental issues arising from abortion, then there had damn well better start being just as much - if not more - discussion about mental issues arising from adoption. I cannot say that I'd be surprised to find out that any concern on the part of pro-lifers about birth mothers ended the second she signed the papers; I will scream "Hypocrisy!" as loud as I can if they try to pass off their latest brainfarts as such. You've seen this already: they also argue about the sanctity of a fetus' life, but I see no legislation addressing the quality of life of adoptees.
None of which matters to the kind of people who picket clinics. Not me, not the kid, nothing. All they care about is whether or not they win.
-------------------------
UPDATE March 19: I've been following this online, and I've seen several themes in comments and blogs which I wish to address.
First, and the most important: I never wanted to make adoptive parents, or their children, feel awful. Never blame yourselves for what someone else has done. Parents, this birthmother thanks you for doing what she could not. Children, you were not given away because of something wrong with you. Please, honor us by trying to love yourselves and each other. There is so much pain in this world; we all have an obligation to try to lessen it, whether or not our efforts ever benefit us personally.
Second: People are speculating wildly on various scenarios that they think might explain my story, maybe trying to find mitigating factors that they can fix, perhaps trying to relate this to something they've seen and can fit into their personal framework of references. I quite purposefully didn't include many personal details, because I wanted this to be as universal as possible. Nobody makes a choice in a vacuum; no two situations are alike. If I had given details, someone would've found a way to use them for their own purposes. My purpose was simple: I want everyone to know that giving up a child can hurt (and hurts me) like nothing else. My details don't matter, because they'll be different from everyone else's.
Third: I've spotted some pro-lifers out there picking this up. To those of you who said, "wow, never thought of that" - thank you. You got it. I wasn't trying to say that abortion is better, I was saying that the adoption thing has some problems. You people give me hope that someday we can make the world a better place. However, there were those who judged me based on your own ideas of my situation (and where on earth did you get some of them, anyway?!). Look, all I asked was that you hear me. Some of you clearly didn't read the whole post; you ran into something that offended you, and that was the end of the discussion as far as you were concerned. Hilariously, some decided to get huffy about abortion, and thereby proved my point about not reading the whole piece - which I addressed in the part about the four things that people say when I mention I've given up a child to adoption. I'm much obliged to you for providing such a textbook example of what I meant. Please, go plant some trees.
Fourth: To every single person who's commented here, linked to my post, or in any other way has said something nice: I can't begin to thank you enough. I was terrified when I sent this in, certain I'd get either a comment thread veering off into the hinterlands, or worse, the usual nasty treatment. Instead, I got unwavering love, nonjudgemental support - gifts beyond price and measure. All of you, everywhere, have made this worth the effort. I keep re-reading the comments, and I'm simultaneously so proud and so overwhelmed and so thoroughly startled that I don't know what to say. I've been crying a lot since my post went up, but it's relief, not pain. I can't thank you enough. The links are fantastic, the support is fantastic, I'm not alone any more. You changed my life. Thank you.
Finally, there have been people asking to quote. If it's a paraphrase of an idea, go ahead. If it's a direct quote and you link back to the original post, then quote away - just not the whole thing (nobody has, as of this writing). If someone wishes to use this in a national publication, likewise, you have my permission to do so - IF, and only IF, you speak to Melissa about payment. I wish to donate any possible monetary benefits from quoting my piece to her, because she made this possible.
Quote of The Day
"Like any family we agree on some things and disagree on others."—Senator John McCain, refusing to say he sides with his daughter Meghan, concerning her ongoing feud with rightwing radio host Laura Ingraham, "who has mocked his daughter's voice, weight, and just yesterday, called Meghan a 'useful idiot'."
Shaker Gourmet: Bastable Cake
Serendipitously, the recipe in queue for this week is Shaker Wisewebwoman's heirloom Irish recipe passed down to her from her grandmother and who noted:
"And here's the recipe as I can find no reference on the web, not a Wiki nor a dictionary entry. The name of the cake is taken from the bastable oven, a cast iron covered pot, used in Co. Cork where I was born and raised."
If you'd like to participate in Shaker Gourmet, email me at: shakergourmet (at) gmail.comBastable Cake
2 cups cake flour
1 teaspoon baking powder
4 ounces butter
½ cup sugar (generous measure)
1 egg, beaten
¼ to ½ cup milk raw or sour.
2 – 3 cooking apples, peeled, cored and chopped
Raisins and nuts and/or dried fruit
1 teaspoon cinnamon or cloves(optional)
1 egg beaten with a pinch of salt, to glaze
Preheat the oven to 350 degrees F.
Sieve the flour and baking powder into a bowl. Rub in the butter with your hands. Add about 1/3 cup of the sugar, the egg and enough milk to form a soft dough. Divide the dough into two pieces. Put one piece onto a greased ovenproof plate or pan (or use greased 8 inch cake tin), and pat out with floured fingers to cover the plate or pan.
Arrange the chopped sweetmeats and cinnamon on top of the dough and sprinkle with the rest of the sugar. Add more sugar if the apples are very tart. Roll out the remaining dough and cover the top. (This is easier said than done, as the dough is like a scone dough and is very soft). Press the sides together, cut a slit through the lid, and brush with the egg wash. Bake for about 40 minutes until golden brown.
Remove from the oven. If using a cake tin, carefully slip the cake out. Cool on a wire rack for 5 – 10 minutes. Dredge with more sugar and serve with soft brown sugar and good heavy cream.
The Oppression Olympics
As played by: the Special Olympics!
In case you can't view the image (which can be clicked to view a larger version in a new window), the ad reads: "N-gg-r. Sp-c. F-g. Retard. And therein lies the problem. Most people who would never knowingly use disparaging terms don't see a problem with saying 'retard.' This must change. It's just as hateful as any other slur. And for millions of people with Intellectual Disabilities, their families and friends, it hurts just as much. Please, don't use the R-word."
Great message ("Don't use 'retard' as a slur"), with atrocious framing. As Shaker Esme, who gets the hat tip, said in an email, "these ads are based on the assumption that people AREN'T using racial and sexual epithets, that those have already been removed and retard is the 'last acceptable prejudice' as is often claimed by groups engaged in oppression olympics."
Indeed. And it's informative that their list of allegedly "unacceptable" slurs doesn't include a misogynist slur. Do you think that's because it's so patently obvious that a word like "bitch," which isn't even bleeped out in primetime television, is far too ubiquitous to claim that it's culturally unacceptable? Perhaps that should have been the first clue to the ad designers that maybe "retard" isn't the only remaining acceptable epithet—and that maybe there's a way to educate people about the hurtfulness of its use without conjuring an imaginary world in which no one publicly and shamelessly uses racial and homophobic slurs anymore.
The bitterly hilarious thing about that fantasy is that, meanwhile, in reality, "-tard" is getting tacked onto every other flavor of slur imaginable, making plain the foolishness of declaring any prejudice dead. At Urban Dictionary, there are one or more entries for all of the following: nigtard, fagtard, gaytard, bitchtard, sluttard, whoretard, pussytard, dwarftard, deaftard, lametard, gimptard.
And I'm sure there are plenty I missed. If that list doesn't make unambiguously apparent how stupid it is to pit one form of discrimination against others, I can't imagine what would.
We are natural allies. Maybe we could try behaving that way.
Miss March
Last month, I wrote about a film called Miss March, the premise of which is a road trip taken by two guys, one of whom has just awakened from a four-year coma, to hook up with the Playboy centerfold to whom the coma kid was going to lose his virginity back when she was his high school girlfriend, before he got knocked on the head and comafied.
Well, the film opened on Friday and the reviews are in: It has tied Meet the Spartans' hilariously abysmal Metacritic score of 8 (that's out of 100), and Shaker InfamousQBert forwarded me the link to MaryAnn Johanson's review, which you must read in full, but here is a delicious excerpt:
As an example of Hollywood's utter disdain for women, particularly in movies aimed at young men, Miss March hits a new low, punishing women with any apparent sexual knowledge and experience with insults, injury, and even death... and the more they make themselves available to men, the more harshly they are punished. One woman who merely indicates that she would like to spend some time with one male character then is forced by the film to unwittingly drink a glass of dog urine (and she enjoys it, of course, because that's the kind of thing stinkin' filthy whores do). But she gets off relatively easy: another woman gets stabbed in the face with a fork by the man she is fellating, and another -- perhaps the most sexually aggressive woman the film offers -- is sucked out a bus window, presumably to her death, while she in the process of offering herself to a man.Now let's all get back to busily pretending that churning out a constant stream of woman-hating crap under the pretense of harmless entertainment for consumption by young men and women doesn't matter, and stuff like famous young men smashing the fuck out of their famous young girlfriends' faces happens in a void, and it's so gosh-darn golly inexplicable that millions of young men and women everywhere would take a long look at that madness and all gravely intone variations on she deserved it.
…So, in the world of Miss March -- and presumably in the worlds of many of the young men at whom this movie is aimed -- women are worthless, interchangeable, and literally disposable. The men aren't much better, of course, but at least the world caters to their worthlessness.
Today in Dumbassery
Usually this series involves people trying to force their beliefs on others, in one way or another. Today, however, we have something a bit different that has none the less devolved through the levels of ridiculous and asshattery to reach the bottom that is dumbassery:
The Sci-Fi Channel is changing its name to "SyFy".
I can hear you thinking, well, ok...and?
It's not just that the name is visually goofy, it's the reasoning behind why they're trying to "mainstream" the network:
“The name Sci Fi has been associated with geeks and dysfunctional, antisocial boys in their basements with video games and stuff like that, as opposed to the general public and the female audience in particular,” said TV historian Tim Brooks, who helped launch Sci Fi Channel when he worked at USA Network.And they think "SyFy" is going to draw in women viewers? Why would that be? Because suddenly "SyFy" has some cutesy appeal? Because that's what draws women? WTF is the thinking here? And, hey, thanks for ignoring all the fantastic women viewers already watching. Also, what exactly, pray tell, is wrong with geeks? Way to be blatantly offensive and alienating.
The crowning glory of inanity really seems to be the best evidence they're waving about for this change: "techno-savvy" 18 - 34 year olds might like to text it (and that makes them feel "much cooler, much more cutting-edge, much more hip" per David Howe [president Sci Fi Channel]). Now, I'm fairly "techno-savvy" and I'll tell you what, I'm not likely to text that. Of course, you've already brushed me off when you outright said you're trying to move away from being associated with geeks and ignored me as a woman viewer then questioned my intelligence by assuming I'd tune in to a network because it's called "SyFy", so I'm fairly sure you don't care what will or will not text even if I do fit in that "techno-savvy" age demographic.
I realize the Sci Fi Channel hasn't exactly been a paragon of all things sci-fi (wrestling, anyone?). But still. Principle.
The McGangBang (I Wish I Were Kidding)
by Shaker emily_wk
Courtesy of Kottke, I give you: The McGangBang.
The McGangBang ranks up there in the holy pantheon of WTF. It's a sandwich made from a double cheeseburger and a McChicken sandwich — where you put an entire McChicken sandwich inside a double cheeseburger. It's a creative manipulation of existing menu items, and an exercise in frugality: taking two items off of the Dollar Menu and creating an entirely new sandwich for a total of $2.16. Truly, it's a sandwich that's more than the sum of its parts.See, it's a gang bang because you put CHICKEN with BEEF! That's totally exactly like when a group of men all have sex with a woman!
The post also contains such quoted gems as:
"It's kind of like having a threesome with two ugly chicks. While it's happening you're stoked, because hey threesome!!! But once you're finished it kinda sinks in about what you've done."KLASSY. Yeah, there's nothing worse than having sex with an ugly chick. Unless it's two ugly chicks.
You'll also be thrilled to find a bunch of YouTube videos on the site so we can all relive the intense douchery associated with harassing a bunch of minimum wage employees.
And toward the end of the page, there's THIS brilliance:
Bonus: the Unprotected McGangBangYeah, thanks for that.
There's also an "Unprotected McGangBang" — Urban Dictionary calls it "different than McGangBang because there is a spicy mcchicken instead of a mcchicken."
McDonald's is quoted, by the way. They were contacted by the guys who wrote this all up, and their official response doesn't say anything about it being a totally inappropriate name or anything to discourage its use at a drive-thru:
McDonald’s loves to hear from our valued guests, especially when they customize and create meal combinations to fit their personal taste preferences – no matter how unique!We're glad to serve our customers! Never mind how the woman who is taking your order might feel! She only makes minimum wage, so she's clearly not even human.
Whether it's requesting an Egg McMuffin without cheese or a Big Mac with extra secret sauce, McDonald's is proud to satisfy our customers' requests and provide them with a variety of great-tasting meals every time they visit our restaurants.
Danya Proud, Spokesperson
McDonald's USA
You can contact McDonald's using this form.
AIG Open Thread
There is so much shit going on re: the AIG bonuses business that I don't even know where to begin, so here's a few links of recommended reading that paint the picture of how wildly out of control this situation is spinning in multiple ways, and then I'll just open it up for discussion:
WaPo: Anger Over Firm Depletes Obama's Political Capital—"President Obama's apparent inability to block executive bonuses at insurance giant AIG has dealt a sharp blow to his young administration and is threatening to derail both public and congressional support for his ambitious political agenda."
Tomasky: When Obama's Cool Isn't Cool—"Obama yesterday morning announced he was instructing Geithner to find a way for the government to stop the bonus payments. But why did it take a firestorm that couldn't have been very difficult to predict for Obama to take this step? Here's the downside of Obama's famous cool. Most of the time, it's good to have a president who isn't a captive of his emotional temperature and doesn't say rash things. Americans got pretty tired of that over the last eight years. But sometimes, geez, you just want the guy to let it out. Yesterday's press conference was about as close as he came to anger, but it wasn't close enough."
WaPo: Rage at AIG Swells As Bonuses Go Out—"A tidal wave of public outrage over bonus payments swamped American International Group yesterday. Hired guards stood watch outside the suburban Connecticut offices of AIG Financial Products, the division whose exotic derivatives brought the insurance giant to the brink of collapse last year. Inside, death threats and angry letters flooded e-mail inboxes. Irate callers lit up the phone lines. Senior managers submitted their resignations. Some employees didn't show up at all."
AP: Cuomo to Probe AIG Bonuses for Possible Fraud—"New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said Monday he has issued subpoenas for the names of American International Group employees given millions of dollars in bonuses despite their possible roles in the insurance giant's near-collapse. Cuomo said his office will investigate whether the $165 million in payments are fraudulent under state law because they were promised when the company knew it wouldn't have the money to cover them."
AP: Grassley Suggests AIG Execs Should Kill Themselves—"[Republican Senator Sen. Charles Grassley]'s harsh comments came during an interview with Cedar Rapids, Iowa, radio station WMT on Monday. They echo remarks he has made in the past about corporate executives and public apologies, but went further in suggesting suicide. 'I suggest, you know, obviously, maybe they ought to be removed,' Grassley said. 'But I would suggest the first thing that would make me feel a little bit better toward them if they'd follow the Japanese example and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say, I'm sorry, and then either do one of two things: resign or go commit suicide. And in the case of the Japanese, they usually commit suicide before they make any apology.'"
CNN: Dodd Suggests Tax to Recoup AIG Bonuses—"Sen. Christopher Dodd on Monday suggested a tax provision to recoup the bonuses for executives of ailing insurance giant AIG. Dodd, D-Connecticut, said the notion is in the 'earliest of thinking' and has not been settled on as a way to resolve the issue, which has set off outrage in Washington and across the country."
USA Today: Critics Blast AIG as Flap Escalates Over Bonuses—"President Obama latched on to the latest round of populist anger over corporate greed Monday, ordering his Treasury secretary to 'pursue every legal avenue' to stop insurance giant AIG from giving $165 million in bonuses to some of the executives who drove the company into financial ruin before it was rescued by a government bailout."
Please feel welcome to leave in comments links to stuff you're reading on this subject.
The Fembots Are Here!
by Shaker Lynne, aka Volcanista
So today I saw this TOTALLY awesome article in Newsweek. You can tell from the title that this is going to be an awesome bit of writing: "A walking, talking female robot to debut on a Japanese catwalk: not ready to help with chores." HA that is SO funny.
I have a problem with no less than three (3) parties on account of this article: 1) Yuri Kageyama, Business Writer, 2) the robot-makers, and 3) the fashion industry representatives quoted. It is a fabulous trifecta of misogyny, made only more glorious because it is about ROBOTS. Who doesn't love robots!!
I'm going to address those out of order. So first, makers of robots. 
Now, this is stealing a little of my thunder from later in this post, but Kageyama does not address the body types of a few of her other robot examples, and for all I know they are male or non-gendered. One is non-humanoid. But her writing sure suggests that many of them are meant to be or seem female (well, isn't that what everyone wants?), and they are certainly being designed for traditional female roles - receptionist, runway model, in-home care or nursing assistant, etc. More importantly is this particular robot, which has a female body even though apparently it's much more difficult to make a functional (in this case, walking) robot with an "average" female shape. But having a female robot body was too important to let that stop them! They devoted all their robot-making resources to making it this way - I mean, who would want a male receptionist robot? HA! Don't be silly! This way we can use them for fashion!
Next up is the fashion industry, of which Hirohisa Hirukawa, "one of the robot's developers," says, "Even as a fashion model, people in the industry told us she was short and had a rather ordinary figure." I mean, I guess at least they're being honest - they don't WANT an ORDINARY figure, because that might... show what clothes would look like on an everyday kind of person. OOPS I MEAN it might look hideous!! So boring and ordinary, these robots that look like ordinary people! Besides, what's the point of a female robot if it's not cartoonishly sexified? Don't these people play video games?
Finally, on to Kageyama. I love how she manages to slip one or two completely gratuitous and sexist - I mean HILARIOUS - jokes into the article. Take the first sentence: "A new walking, talking robot from Japan has a female face that can smile and has trimmed down to 43 kilograms (95 pounds) to make a debut at a fashion show." Oh HAHAHA get it? She lost weight! What a sexy robot! If only all women weighed 95 pounds. If only she wasn't so short and ordinary! And maybe there are some male humanoid robots out there that Kageyama just didn't think were terribly relevant to this article, even though, you know, they WOULD be. So, too, would be a discussion about how a male robot might be equally useful (it could shoot things!). But hey, it's not really an article about robots and new technology or anything - it's an article about fembots! It's about fashion and robot receptionists! How funny!
I wonder what "fun moves" people will program for her! What fun. Gah.
(Cross-posted.)
