6.02x10^23. AKA Avogadro's Number, which Shaker RedSonja just turned into a verb in comments, in a display of superb nerdery that's worth at least 1,000 points.
(I would also like to take this opportunity to note that I have met RedSonja in person and spent several very enjoyable evenings with her, and she is precisely as awesome as one would expect, given such a fine addition to the Shaxicon.)
Number of the Day
Assvertising
Fish [singing]: Give me back that Filet o' Fish! Give me that fish! Give me back that Filet o' Fish! Give me that fish! What if it were you hanging up on this wall? If it were you in that sandwich, you wouldn't be laughing at all!In our market, the whole second part of the fish's song ("What if it were you hanging up on this wall? If it were you in that sandwich, you wouldn't be laughing at all!") isn't even in the commercial; it's just the dumbass thing going "Give me back that Filet o' Fish! Give me that fish!" over and over.
Voiceover: Right now, you can enjoy two tasty Filet o' Fish sandwiches for just three-thirty-three. Two Filet o' Fish for three-thirty-three. Only at McDonald's.
Fish [singing]: Ahhh!
The only time I see it is during Lost. It sends KennyBlogginz and I into fits of laughter as we try to parse it. Why does a fish want a fish sandwich?! And give it back? What—did the mounted, plastic fish run out and buy the sandwich for the guy?! Or are we supposed to think that McDonald's gets the fish for their fish sandwiches from mounted, plastic fish?! Absurd.
If It's Tuesday, It's Boehlert!
Jeff Zucker and the CNBC straw man:
...Zucker tried to deflect the criticism of CNBC by repeatedly making references to the "business media" -- suggesting CNBC's public thrashing was part of a larger, misguided campaign to vilify the press. "I thought it was incredibly unfair to CNBC and to the business media in general," Zucker stressed. "I don't think you can blame what's happened here on the business media. ... [T]o suggest that the business media or CNBC was responsible for what is going on now is absurd."Read the whole thing here.
Laying out his public defense at an annual media forum co-sponsored by BusinessWeek, CNBC's corporate boss seemed to be trying to rally the troops in hopes of forming a business media pity party: They're attacking us unfairly!
Save it, Zucker.
I doubt editors and writers at Forbes or Fortune or BusinessWeek want anything to do with the type of on-air nonsense CNBC often packages under the guise of financial journalism.
Quote of The Day
"The day of figuring out this black-white shit is coming. Hate, however, is eternal."—Ta-Nehisi Coates, referring to professional asshole Tammy Bruce's gobsmacking contention that "We've got trash in the White House."
Daily Kitteh
Entrant #1: Matilda
Entrant #2: Olivia
Entrant #3: Sophie
Result: A three-way tie.
On the Compliment Guys, Street Harassment, and Arguable Compliments
by Shaker Nina
The "compliment guys" are a pair of young men at Purdue University who have been hanging out in a prominent place on campus with a sign saying "free compliments," shouting compliments at everyone who walks by. They've been in the news here in West Lafayette a couple times, but they recently made it to the national stage. Most of the compliments seem to be fairly innocuous – a sampling reported in the local paper included "Love your jacket!", "Nice coat!", and "Have a great day!"– and there is no indication that any group of people is getting more compliments than any other. So what's the problem?
I think Kate Harding (and the friend she quotes) nailed it pretty well in her column on Salon from March 13th:
There's something very appealing about making compliments a straightforward, non-manipulative thing -- so many people (especially women, of course) are trained to deflect or deny compliments that I think it could be a good thing to get a straight-up compliment every day in a situation where you are sort of forced to accept it…OTOH, my humorless feminist side has to wonder if this plays out differently for the women on campus than it does for men. Do these dudes have any idea how closely this resembles routine street harassment of women?While I can't speak for the men on campus, I can relate one example of how it played out for a woman on campus: I had an early run-in with the "compliment guys" when they were first getting started. It was months ago, so my memory of the event is a bit hazy (I don't remember seeing a sign, for example, though they may have added that later), but I do remember feeling conflicted about the whole thing.
As I recall, all they said to me was something like "That must be a great book!" as I sped by with my nose in a book. Not really that bad as shouted compliments from strangers go – and shockingly, not a comment on my clothes, hair, body, etc. as I would expect from men shouting at me in public. On the other hand, the reason I was speeding by with a book in my face (besides that it was a good book and I was in a hurry) was that I had heard them shouting at other passers-by and it made me uncomfortable. I sort of hoped to avoid notice, I guess, by looking far too busy to be harassed.
When they actually called out to me, it took me a few minutes to parse what they had said and realize that it wasn't uncomplimentary, it wasn't about my body, sexuality, or style, and it wasn't lewd. At the time, I actually smiled and felt better when I realized what they had said, but in retrospect, that's problematic too. I was not necessarily primarily feeling complimented – I was primarily feeling relieved not to have been sexually harassed, not to have to worry what they would say if I ignored them, not to have to worry that if I wasn't careful they might follow me (it was broad daylight, but a quiet time on campus, so there weren't many people around), etc.
In her article on Salon, Kate invited thoughts from readers, but a glance over the first page was all I needed to know that I don’t have the sanity points to spend wading through the rest of them. Just from that small smattering of comments, however, it was clear that most people were very dismissive of the idea that a compliment might not be complimentary when shouted at a woman by strangers in a public place. I think most people can be educated on the concept that street harassment – which is often lewd and followed up by insults if a positive reaction is not received – is not complimentary. But focusing on exactly what was said – was it really complimentary? – misses the point that being shouted at in public, regardless of content or intention, is a scary and triggering experience for many, dare I say most, women (and, I'm sure, some men).
Like Kate, I'm sure the "compliment guys" really are just trying to be nice. I believe them when they say that they are only trying to do something nice, brighten up people's days, etc. But the whole incident provides a neat lesson in privilege. I'm sure these men have not considered the similarity between their free compliments and street harassment, because they don't have to. As two apparently able-bodied, young, white men, they've probably never been harassed on the street, nor have they had to worry about it. Even if they have friends who have suffered street harassment, they may not recognize the parallels. This illustrates, I think, one of the most pernicious aspects of privilege: invisibility.
The parallels between their free compliments and street harassment – plenty obvious to most of the women and some men on the receiving end of their compliments – are almost certainly invisible to them because they are shielded from street harassment by male privilege (as well as other privileges – white, able-bodied, thin, etc.). They are not only less likely to think about it in the first place, but they are able to selectively ignore it, even if someone else makes an effort to make it visible to them.
Like Kate, I am interested in other people's perspectives on the issue – compliments or street harassment? can it be both? – so I will close with the same invitation she offered: Shakers, what do you think?
Happy Ada Lovelace Day
Shaker Scott Madin emails:
For a bit of pleasant news today, I thought you might like to know that today is Ada Lovelace Day, "an international day of blogging to draw attention to women excelling in technology." The official site is here, MAKE magazine's post on Lovelace Day is here, and Limor Fried, an MIT graduate who runs the open-source engineering site LadyAda.net and its associated hobbyist store, where she sells lots of clever kits she's developed, also wrote about it.As did Shaker Electrasteph, who flattered me hugely by mentioning me as a woman who is extraordinary in her field. Thank you, 'Steph!
To take part in Ada Lovelace Day, "All you need to do is sign the pledge, pick your tech heroine and then publish your blog post any time on Tuesday 24th March 2009. ... It's up to you how you interpret the phrase 'in technology'. We're not just interested in hardcore ninja programmers, but any woman who creates, invents, or uses any technology in an innovative way. Feel free to interpret it as widely as you like."
On any given day, my tech heroines could be any of a thousand different amazing women, but on this day I'm going to mention my remarkable, brilliant, and indubitable female co-bloggers: Misty, PortlyDyke, Shark Fu, SKM, Elle, and Erica. I love you, grrls!
Why We Need the Community Choice Act
by Shaker Wheelie Catholic
In a post yesterday, I wrote about the reintroduction today of the Community Choice Act and linked to testimony by people with disabilities who were put in nursing homes. Reading their stories is chilling to anyone who values their freedom and autonomy. The waste of human potential when people are forced into institutions is, as the UCCB wrote in their letter supporting this bill, against our Catholic beliefs.
But the question may remain for some—what does community care do for a person with a disability? I live independently with the help of an aide forty hours a week. Some people think that having an aide is no different than having a maid—or is something that can be replaced by other services. This isn't true and is why people have wound up in nursing homes when they can't get funding for an aide in their home.
The reality is that aides provide help that fills in the cracks so a person with a disability can remain living at home. They don't just prepare food, they also feed you if you need that. They help you dress and shower. Aides empty catheter bags, they help with using a lift, they help with transfers, and they sit patiently and turn pages so you can read your mail. They dial phones, open mail, pay bills, run errands, shop, help you get to the doctor and show up at midnight if you have a flood from a plumbing issue. They fill wheelchair tires with air and cut up food.
And their help not only keeps people in their home, it keeps them working and paying taxes. The cost of in home help is cheaper than institutionalized care. It is more flexible and tailored, through a plan of service, to the needs of the person so that costs are kept down. Other available services are used, when possible, along with the services of the aide. There may be volunteers or programs that deliver meals. In the long run, keeping people with disabilities in the community simply costs much less and promotes the dignity and well being of the person.
It's a win-win.
The Community Choice Act will also help families with children with disabilities and seniors. This is a bill that promotes our belief in the inherent dignity and worth of every person and their value to their families and communities. It can end shutting the door on lives, premature deaths and the heartbreak of exclusionary treatment through forced institutionalization. And, in addition to all of that, it provides alternatives to the expensive institutionalized care now thrust upon people.
The only reason I can work and be productive is because of the community care I've received. I know many people with disabilities who were institutionalized and came back as much different people and some who gave up and died in nursing homes at young ages. I've seen mothers and fathers have to put their child with a disability in a nursing home because they couldn't get aides. The heartbreak of these situations can't be described, but needs to be stopped.
As someone who's been blessed and fortunate to stay in the community, I ask you to take the time to read about this bill in my post and support it. And please take a moment to contact your Senators and Representatives and ask them to support the Community Choice Act.
Related Reading: Nick and Rampracer.
(Cross-posted.)
Random YouTubery: Heebmania!
After I posted On Inclusion at Shakesville, Space Cowboy (aka Heeb One) emailed me: "I don't think you write enough about heebs." So this video is for you, Space Cowboy!
Heebtastic!
Galling
From an article in the Wall Street Journal, which I strongly recommend reading in full (it's not behind the subscriber wall) about how the administration's approach to Wall Street has reportedly changed (emphasis mine):
Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and his colleagues worked the phones to try to line up support on Wall Street for the plan announced Monday. ... Some bankers say they turned the conversations into complaints about the antibonus crusade consuming Capitol Hill. Some have begun "slow-walking" the information previously sought by Treasury for stress-testing financial institutions, three bankers say, and considered seeking capital from hedge funds and private-equity funds so they could return federal bailout money, thereby escaping federal restrictions.Did you get that? The bank execs are so worried about their fucking bonuses that they're holding the entire country hostage.
...Bankers were shell-shocked, especially when Congress moved to heavily tax bonuses. When administration officials began calling them to talk about the next phase of the bailout, the bankers turned the tables. They used the calls to lobby against the antibonus legislation, Wall Street executives say. Several big firms called Treasury and White House officials to urge a more reasonable approach, both sides say. The banks' message: If you want our help to get credit flowing again to consumers and businesses, stop the rush to penalize our bonuses.
They're "slow-walking" information that the government desperately needs, and, worse yet, they're blackmailing the government by threatening to continue withholding credit to consumers and businesses if they don't get their precious bonuses.
And they're tanking the stock market while whining about not getting personal handjobs from the president:
The stock market continued to drop, causing some unease inside the White House. At one morning meeting of the senior staff in the Roosevelt Room, an official turned over in dismay a newspaper with a headline that blared: "Obama Bear Market."Holy Maude.
...White House aides returned to some key Wall Street fund-raisers who had helped give credibility to Mr. Obama's presidential campaign. Some had complained about lack of access in the early days of his White House, according to several of them.
If anyone still needs an argument for why we need to nationalize the banks, try this on for size: Because they don't give a shit about America or Americans—which is catastrophically dangerous for America and Americans.
Related Reading (emphases original):
Hilzoy: "I think it's important to be really, really clear about what this article claims. Both the stress tests and the attempts to get credit flowing again are essential parts of our attempt to solve the enormous economic problems we now face, problems that these very firms are largely responsible for. If the banks are 'slow-walking' the stress tests and threatening not to help get credit flowing, that just is threatening not to help get the country out of the economic crisis."
Ezra: "I'm shocked at the depth of my own fury. And here's why: Not to sound naive about this, but the absence of patriotism that galls. The lack of responsibility is sickening. These bankers delivered an almost mortal wound to the American economy. ... And now they're refusing to help defuse the bomb at the center of our economy unless we pay them retention bonuses. Worse, they're threatening to flee the scene of the crime and make money off the carnage. That, it's been argued, is why we need to keep paying meeting their demands: Because we need them working for us rather than against us. It's chutzpah as the Yiddish define it: A child who kills his parents and then begs for lenience because he's a pitiable orphan. It's shameful."
Maha: "Directly or indirectly, we're all indebted to and working for the financial industry. We're turning into sharecroppers, basically, except the 'crop' is money. In a balanced economy, the financial sector should support manufacturing and labor. Instead, the financial sector drains manufacturing and labor. What we're looking at here is capitalism hitting the rocks."
WaPo: U.S. Seeks Expanded Power to Seize Firms—"The Obama administration is considering asking Congress to give the Treasury secretary unprecedented powers to initiate the seizure of non-bank financial companies, such as large insurers, investment firms and hedge funds, whose collapse would damage the broader economy, according to an administration document. The government at present has the authority to seize only banks."
On Inclusion at Shakesville
Not infrequently, I am criticized for not writing enough on a particular group/issue, or not writing about them/their issue in the right way. I don't write enough about disability, or I don't write about women's healthcare issues in the same way I write about sexual assault, or I leave too much of this or that to guest contributors.
So let me just take a moment, again, to explain my philosophy on this stuff.
As I recently said to Renee regarding what issues still need more attention, "the list is endless. There are so many issues of concern to marginalized people which are all but invisible within mainstream culture—so much 'conventional wisdom' about sex, race, sexuality, gender expression, body size and stature, disability, mental illness, addiction, class, religion (and lack thereof), sexual assault, etc. that needs to be challenged. Any lack of parity in any place among any people means that we've still got work to do."
The truth is, I'm not sure I can talk about anything "enough"—which is not a backhanded way of avoiding all critique, but an honest attempt to address a reality that is true for every single marginalization about which I write. There is a lot of goddamned teaspooning to do.
Saying that doesn't mean I believe I'm above criticism on either the quantity or quality of my blogging on any issue. It means only that I engage in good faith concerns about content at Shakesville, or the lack thereof; if you bring to me a complaint regarding this or that getting less attention than it needs, I likely agree and hope you will work with me to do something about it.
Which brings me to guest posts. Let me go back to something else I said in that interview with Renee:I don't find that I have difficulty balancing interests; there's not a finite amount of space at Shakesville, so I don't feel as though anything ever has to be sacrificed in favor of something else, except insomuch as it comes to what I personally have time to cover—although, as regards issues of intersectionality, I'm obviously not the best person to cover every issue, or even most, anyway. I struggle more with trying to find people who are willing to bring their unique perspectives to Shakesville, who can speak to experiences and intersectionalities I simply don't have.
The two relevant ideas there are: I am not always the best person to speak about everything; and: Personal narratives are an extremely powerful bit of teaspooning.
I am immensely grateful to the women and men of color, LGBTQIs, parents, women and men who are differently- or disabled, chronically ill, atypically partnered, non-American, recovering addicts, formerly homeless, abuse survivors, etc. who tell pieces of their stories and share their perspectives at Shakesville. Because marginalized people's stories often aren't told in the mainstream (or told with some fucked-up agenda), it's incumbent upon us to tell our own stories on our own terms wherever we can, to fill that void, to be unrepentant and loquacious raconteurs every chance we get, to talk about our bodies, our struggles, our triumphs, our needs, our lives in every aspect. It's our obligation to create a cacophony with our personal narratives, until there is a constant din that translates into equality, into balance. Making the personal public and political is so important—and I want to use Shakesville toward that objective as best I can.
Part of the reason I can write with a particular passion about feminist issues is because I am a woman, and fat issues because I am fat, and queer issues because I have been in a queer relationship, and sexual assault issues because I am a survivor of multiple sexual assaults. One of the earliest widely-linked posts at Shakesville was my post The Sound of My Voice, in which I came out as a survivor of sexual assault. And one of the most recent widely-linked posts at Shakesville was Shaker Anonymous' post Breaking the Silence: On Living Pro-Lifers' Choice for Women. Both of those are personal narratives that no one else could have written—and it is impossible to underestimate the difference between someone writing a generic post about rape or adoption and someone talking about her rape or giving up her child for adoption.
I cannot write a post like that about disability, or chronic disease, or being trans, or being gay, or being a woman of color, or being a man who feels the bootheel of the patriarchy on his neck, or being a dwarf, or any one of a million things, which means if I don't open up this space to people who can, those posts won't exist at Shakesville.
I opened this space and made it a group blog with guest contributors because I am one person with one person's experiences and intersectionalities. And I opened it up because I am flawed. I fuck up. I fail. I commit sins of omission. I can't and don't do enough on a variety of issues. I will never be as strong an advocate for your needs as you are. And no one else can tell your story.
That's not an abdication of responsibility as a feminist or as a progressive. It's just the best I've got to balance my finite output against infinite needs, to facilitate inclusion, to avoid appropriation, and to make available whatever little platform I've got to my allies.
So, please: If you don't see here what you'd like to see, pick up your teaspoon.
O'Reilly is a Shameless Stain
Warning: You may not be able to get through this clip of O'Reilly blasting Amanda and calling her a villain without fury-induced heart palpitations.
[If you can find a full transcript, please drop a link in comments.]
Here's the bit to which I want to respond:
A bunch of far-left loons picked up some propaganda from the hate group Media Matters that said I am unsympathetic to the plight of crime victims—a preposterous lie.Really? REALLY?! Do tell, Bill, what was sympathetic about the time you suggested that a 15-year-old boy who'd been kidnapped and held captive for four years was probably staying with his kidnapper because he was having "a lot more fun then when he had under his own parents. He didn't have to go to school; he could run around and do what he wanted. ... I think when it all comes down, what's going to happen is, there was an element here that this kid liked about his circumstances." And what was sympathetic about your refusal to apologize "when it all came down" and it turned out the child had been repeatedly raped and tortured?
And do tell, Bill, what was sympathetic to the potential victims when you endorsed violent acts against liberals, like taking care of liberal bloggers with a hand grenade or suggesting Al Qaeda blow up San Francisco? And how much time did you spend being sympathetic to the victims of the Knoxville Church Shooter who read your books and took your suggestion that the best way to deal with liberals is with violence?
And I guess I don't need to point out that it's not particularly sympathetic to the "villainous" Amanda Terkel that you sent your minion to stalk and ambush her in a borderline criminal stunt which she summarizes thus: "I write a blog post highlighting comments O'Reilly made during his radio show. He sends his henchmen to harass me. I can't immediately recall a three-year old O'Reilly interview when accosted on the street. He refuses to explain or apologize for implying that a dead rape victim should have been expecting the crime. And I'm the villain."
Bill, I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Preposterous indeed.
Go, Vermont!
Woot! Same-sex marriage measure sails through Vermont Senate:
The Vermont Senate on Monday evening overwhelmingly passed a bill legalizing gay marriage, making the state the first in the nation to take legislative rather than judicial steps toward granting marriage rights to same-sex couples.Vermont's Republican Governor, Jim Douglas, has not said whether he will sign or veto the measure, provided it lands on his desk as expected. It may, however, not matter, as there might be "enough votes in the Democrat-controlled House to override a gubernatorial veto."
The state Senate voted 26-4 in favor of the measure introduced by Democratic state Sen. John Campbell. The bill now goes to the state House, where Speaker Shap Smith, also a Democrat, predicted a majority would vote in favor of the "marriage equality" act. The House Judiciary Committee is expected to begin debating the bill Tuesday. A second vote in the state Senate also is expected Tuesday.
...Vermont became the first state in the nation to enact civil unions for gay couples nearly 10 years ago, but advocates say the following decade has demonstrated that civil unions and marriage, as separate institutions, are unequal and relegate same-sex couples to second-class status.
Stay tuned...
My New Mustang
I can live up to my nickname once again.
It's been almost a year since my 1995 Mustang GT was totaled, and a one-year mourning period is enough.
It’s a 2007, with the 4.0 L V-6 and a five-speed automatic. It has the requisite exhaust growl and it handles like it’s on rails. I got it at Maroone Ford in Fort Lauderdale after going on the internet and doing a search for what I wanted and what I could afford. Then I sent it out to all the Ford dealers in the Miami area saying that I wanted a new or used (back as far as 2007) Mustang V-6 convertible with automatic, any color except black or white, and the first one back to me at or below $17K would get the sale. Maroone came through after a bit of haggling, and that’s what I got. The Kelly Blue Book suggested retail price on this model is $17,240, and I paid about that—including taxes, title, tag, prep, and a limited warranty. It’s also “certified pre-owned,” which means they actually inspected the car and fixed it up, like put new tires on it and so forth. By the way, Maroone (pronounced Mah-rooney) is located in Wilton Manors, the gay neighborhood in Fort Lauderdale, and they support a lot of the Pride events. I didn't know that when I went there, but I'm glad to hear that I'm supporting a gay-friendly business.
Standard equipment on the 2007 is power everything except seats (they adjust ten different ways manually), A/C, cruise, AM/FM/CD player with MP-3 capability, keyless entry, etc., etc. I don’t need anything more than that.
I really like the color, too. Although I had thought of getting another red one, this is a nice shade, and it’s not like I haven’t had a blue car before.
My 1988 Pontiac 6000 LE Safari can now go back into it's genteel retirement after being called back into action a year ago. I will drive it to the store and keep it out of the elements until it's time to go to the restoration shop...after I've paid off the new car.
I can imagine the conversation going on in the garage now...
PONTIAC: So, you're the new kid, eh?
MUSTANG: Yep. Nice place you've got here.
PONTIAC: Yeah, it's not bad. And I've been in some tough places before: Colorado, Michigan, New Mexico, now here. Twenty years, most of 'em spent parked outside. But I'm Canadian, so I can take it.
MUSTANG: Gee, twenty years! How many miles on you?
PONTIAC: Oh, Two-fifty, give or take a hundred.
MUSTANG: Wow! Two hundred and fifty thousand miles! You've been everywhere!
PONTIAC (modestly): Well, not everywhere... But I get around. Got a few dents and dings, I'm on my second A/C, third water pump, third alternator, and I've lost track of the tires...
MUSTANG: Well, I hope I do as well. (Pause) So tell me... the owner... what's he really like?
PONTIAC: He's okay. He takes care of me. He'll take care of you, too. He took care of your predecessor pretty well.
MUSTANG: My predecessor?
PONTIAC (with a tinge of sadness): Yeah. Pretty little thing, '95 Mustang GT. Red with white leather interior...
MUSTANG: What happened?
PONTIAC: Near as I can figure, about a year ago at the intersection of Biltmore Way and Segovia in Coral Gables, this Infiniti was testing the theory that two molecules could occupy the same space at the same time, and using that '95 Mustang as a test subject. Didn't work out.
MUSTANG: Gosh.... It's been a year?
PONTIAC: Yep. But you're in good hands now. Just remind him every so often to change the oil and check the battery. He's got me on the battery life support, but that's just because I won't be going to work every day any more. I get to spend the days quietly remembering all those trips to Colorado, and Michigan, and Santa Fe, and Taos, and.... (Slowly drifts off.)
MUSTANG (softly): Sleep well, old pal. I got it now.
Natural Allies: See Women's and Gay Men's Realities Vanish!
Part Wev in an ongoing series...
So there's a good column in the Chicago Tribune by a columnist I quite like, Dawn Turner Trice, about how women holding bachelorette parties in gay bars is increasingly being seen by gay patrons as insensitive to the marriage equality issue, prompting some bar owners to refuse entry to the parties. Trice is also good about noting that many women prefer gay bars because it allows them to have fun out of the hands of groping assholes, without using that fact to justify the bachelorettes' insensitivity or tacitly reproach gay bar owners who turn the parties away.
But there are two big problems with the piece. After describing women tucking bucks, as the parlance goes, in the G-strings of go-go boys at Circuit during its "Las Vegas-style male revue called SinZation," Trice reports:
I found it ironic that, as the women got liquored up, they were the ones doing the pawing and clawing until soon they resembled the straight guys they were trying to avoid.Insert screeching record sound here. I actually can't believe that a writer who is sophisticated and sensitive enough to write this column in the first place can make such an astonishing and careless mistake. Conflating women tipping professional male strippers with their explicit consent to men sexually harassing fellow bar patrons without their consent is not just evidently incorrect but dangerously cavalier.
An extraordinary number of rapes committed by dates or acquaintances (the most prevalent kind of rape) have their genesis at a bar or a party, which is what the bachelorettes in question are trying to avoid. It is appallingly irresponsible then to draw an equivalence between physical harassment in a place with known potential of nonconsensual assault and expected physical contact in a place where said contact is unambiguously condoned.
Unless Trice witnessed women actually harassing or trying to sexually assault fellow bar patrons, which she does not claim to have witnessed, her contention that the women "resembled the straight guys they were trying to avoid" is ludicrous.
And then there is this:
The women come to celebrate without having to worry about straight men pawing them. The gay men are there because, well, they don't want to be around a lot of women.Um, what?
You know, there are always a couple of guys in any gay bar who talk trash about women (which still makes every gay bar less misogynistic than any straight bar into which I've ever had the misfortune of walking), but the vast majority of gay men in any gay bar are totally woman-friendly. To say that gay men "don't want to be around a lot of women" is bullshit, and the thing I hate most about the comment is that it totally obscures the real reasons gay bars exist, which is not because gay men hate women, but because gay men have been historically marginalized and disallowed from courting each other openly in the same way straight couples can.
Rewriting history to imply gay bars emerged because gay men were misogynistic separatists instead of a persecuted class relegated to segregated spaces is about as hostile to gay men's reality as I can imagine.
And as a woman who is fortunate enough to include several gay men who love me more than I rightly deserve, it's like a sock to the gut to have them cast as woman-haters, for a pithy line that's more easily digestible than, "The gay men are there because of institutionalized homophobia that proscribes regarding them as first-class citizens."
NY Sen. Chuck Schumer...
...comes out in favor of marriage equality: "It's time. Equality is something that has always been a hallmark of America and no group should be deprived of it. New York, which has always been at the forefront on issues of equality, is appropriately poised to take a lead on this issue."
Massachusetts might take issue with that last bit, ahem.
Good stuff.
Quote of The Day
"I'm a foreign correspondent on enemy lines and I try to let everyone back here in Minnesota know exactly the nefarious activities that are taking place in Washington."—Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachman, explaining her role as Congressional representative and how she makes use of the tools "available at her U.S. House website which enable her to communicate what is happening in D.C. to the public, such as her Bachmann Bulletin, Bachmann Blog, and links to her Facebook, Twitter, and Myspace pages."
I guess that makes this a wartime romance.
Assvertising
This is one of a series of advertisements for Old Navy with sentient mannequins known as "The Supermodelquins." In this installment, one of the female mannequins has her dress ripped off by a female customer, and her "husband" covers the other male mannequin's eyes, but he can still see her (hilariously censored) nudity because the "husband" mannequin's fingers don't close.
See, it's funny because they're mannequins.
And the defrocked mannequin is amusingly defiant about her predicament—"Oh, what? Like you've never seen plastic before!"—unlike real human women, who get all testy when their dresses are ripped off and their naked bodies exposed to the world without their consent. Humorless bitchez.
The closer one looks, the more one sees what an amazing clusterfucktastrophe this advert really is. It hits all the high points: Objectifying the female form, playing on the concept of women's bodies as public property, treating sexual assault as a joke, making light of the reality of sexual assault (its victims are rarely so comically nonchalant; it is almost never perpetrated by women), engaging narratives about female body envy, and giving us an uproarious "disembodied things" image.
And naturally, anyone who objects is just a hysteric who can't tell the difference between real women and mannequins and certainly not someone correctly calling out Old Navy for using mannequins specifically so they can get away with serving up misogyny for laughs in a way they couldn't using flesh and blood women.
[Assvertising: Parts One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen, Fourteen, Fifteen, Sixteen, Seventeen, Eighteen, Nineteen, Twenty, Twenty-One, Twenty-Two, Twenty-Three, Twenty-Four, Twenty-Five, Twenty-Six, Twenty-Seven, Twenty-Eight, Twenty-Nine, Thirty, Thirty-One, Thirty-Two, Thirty-Three, Thirty-Four, Thirty-Five, Thirty-Six, Thirty-Seven, Thirty-Eight, Thirty-Nine, Forty, Forty-One, Forty-Two, Forty-Three, Forty-Four, Forty-Five.]
O'Reilly Goes Stalking
This past weekend, ThinkProgress' Amanda Terkel was the target of O'Reilly's little lapdog, Jesse Watters, after Amanda drew Bill's ire by calling him out on the ironic fact that while being known for despicable, unconscionable victim-blaming, he was actually scheduled to speak at a fundraiser for the Alexa Foundation, a group that assists rape survivors.
Rather than deal with the legitimate questions about the Alexa Foundation's curious decision and his apparent blatant hypocrisy—given that, as Amanda's post pointed out, he'd called an 18-year-old victim of rape and murder "moronic" because she was "5-foot-2, 105 pounds, wearing a miniskirt and a halter top with a bare midriff" when she was sexually assaulted and killed—O'Reilly resorted to his tried and true method of ambushing people to force them into cowering in front of a camera and microphone, hopefully resulting in an on-air segment he can later gloat about. (After all, we all know how familiar Bill is with the concept of stalking and harassing someone, right?)
The Fox crew, at O'Reilly's behest, literally stalked Amanda and ambushed her on her vacation in an attempt to get her to apologize to the Alexa Foundation for her comments. Amanda handled the encounter very professionally, presumably not giving little lapdog Watters any material that they could reasonably air (which doesn't mean they won't air it, anyway). Since the whole crew there is a huge shitpile of cowardice, I can't imagine we'd get any response to Amanda's main point:
The main issue remains: O'Reilly should offer an apology/explanation of why, when a woman is raped and murdered, it's relevant what she was wearing or how much she was drinking. O'Reilly never asked me for a statement nor invited me on his show before sending Watters to harass me. Since I'm a 5 ft, 100 pound woman with an opinion that he doesn't like, perhaps O'Reilly believes I deserve to be treated this way.Amanda has more supporters than O'Reilly might think, and I'm one of them. Her contributions to the blogosphere and keeping everyone (including shit stains like O'Reilly and his little lapdog Jesse) on their toes are what makes Amanda one of the most valuable resources we have in reporting today.
Contact Fox News to let them know you strongly disapprove of O'Reilly's borderline criminal tactics.
