I know pointing out the bozoid mush-thoughts of Ann Althouse has become more or less cliché in the blogosphere, but this... is really amazing. Apparently, Ms. Althouse isn't content with snerking over Sonia Sotomayor's "empathy" or questioning her intelligence. I know this is going to shock you all, but she has once again decided to obsess over her "feminine features" in a photograph. (I'm not going to link directly to her, you can get there via Instaputz.
For the record, here's the photo causing Althouse's vapors:
She huffs:An emailer calls this to my attention saying: "I don't think you should post about this, but why would they put in this photo where you can see all the way up her skirt??"
Okay, fine, whatever. I'm really not shocked that Althouse would rather she appear in her photo in a featureless potato sack, or hiding anything that might slightly indicate that she's a woman; Ann has always been uncomfortable with women looking like, well, women. But then she reads through her comment thread, and finds this one that she feels is worthy of featuring in her post. (Bolds mine.)
Well, I am posting about this, and I wouldn't say "you can see all the way up her skirt." You can see that Sonia Sotomayor wears a skirt and crosses her legs in a relaxed and casual way that lets you see some leg. The photo also has her smiling prettily, with her hair in relaxed ringlets, one of which falls gently into her eye. Her left hand is devoid of any relationship-manifesting rings, but she's wearing long dangling earrings, and the hand is unclenched and draping gracefully.
Get the message? She's a woman. A womanly woman, fully embodying womanhood — even as she is not married, she's wearing a professional suit, and she's at home with the law books.IN THE COMMENTS: Palladian, who has expertise in art, writes:
I repeat, what the fuck is wrong with these people?
Her knee looks like a giant grey Idaho potato hovering in the foreground. The arm of the chair repeats the shape on the right of the frame, making it look like her other knee, which in turn makes it look like her hand is dead center in her enormous crotch, pawing at her cooch. You avoid those things in portraiture. Also not good to crop her right arm off. It implies that she's an amputee.
He is right, of course, but that isn't the answer to my question why the photograph was selected.
Wow. No, Really. Wow.
Pro-Choice, Writ Large
by Shaker Caitiecat, who was born intersexed, designated male, and was the most surprised little boy in the class when she got her period. She's not saying what her surgical situation is, because frankly, it's none of your business, but she's had 17 years as an immigrant to women's country, and has grown happier with each day since her enlistment in that Monstrous Regiment. Take that, gatekeeping fucknecks.
Inspired by Ali_K's excellent post earlier, it has occurred to me that some women I know (and many more I don't) will have a concept that can analogize how intensely frustrating the gatekeepers and gatekeeping around sex reassignment surgery (SRS) can be to some trans people.* I know for me it was a click moment that got me to a much better understanding of how some women feel about being pushed around on this topic. I didn't want to derail that thread, though, so I asked Liss if I could add a post of my own to cover the topic.
A number of you have borne no children, and intend not to bear any, so help you Maude, until you die. And I'm completely and utterly in favour of your right to decide that, whatever your age, and to have your body behave in the way you want it to, and to not be moralized at and patronized over your decisions. And I also know that many of you've found that doctors won't irreversibly sterilize a woman who wants it unless she's over a certain age, citing "large rate of regret later," as Ali_K beautifully debunked.
That. That right there is kinda what those trans people who choose to have (and are able to afford!) some surgery are feeling, when our doctors tell us that we're not committed enough in some way they've arbitrarily determined is important, and that we can't have our bodies be as we want them to be. That we're self-fetishizing freaks who only want surgery so we can get off to the image of our transformed selves.**
Those who don't and probably won't "pass" well, and have been refused.
Those who choose to eschew the whole "passing" construct, and are refused.
Those who are black, or Asian, or Latin@, or people of First Nations, and are refused.
Those who are fat, and are refused.
Those who are men once mislabeled as women, and are seen as social climbers, and are refused.
Those who are women once mislabeled as men, and are seen as gender traitors, and are refused.
Those who don't have a gender, or prefer a neuter designation, and are refused.
Those who are young, or old, and refused.
Those who aren't gender-stereotypical enough in their new role, and are refused.
Those who don't fit society's definitions of "successful," largely having to do with making a certain amount of money in a prestigious-enough way, and are refused.
Those who are homosexual/bisexual/asexual, in their proper gender role, and are refused.
Those who are polyamourous, and are refused.
Those who are kinky, and are refused.
Those who have partners in the trans spectrum, and are refused.
Those who aren't highly educated, or educated "enough," and are refused.
Those with mental distress: depression, bipolar, borderline, pretty much anything they can label us with, and are refused.
Those with existing relationships, often, who refuse to be divorced, and are refused.
Those from the "wrong" class, or level of physical or mental ability / ($TiredExcuseTrottedOut to keep us freaks from owning our bodies)—the intersectionalities here can be tremendous—and are refused.
And I think it's part of why so many trans people are feminist—because at its root, feminism is about the idea that all people should have the right to own their own bodies, lives, and choices: What is being transgender except to publicly declare ownership over our own bodies, lives, and choices? This resonates with many trans people,* on a very deep level. Feminism hasn't always had room for us in the past, but today, in a lot of places, it does. Not all, of course; some fauxgressives still feel we're fair game to be used as an insult, because, y'know, one of their best friends is trans, and they don't mind.
But I'm daily grateful for places like Shakesville, where that shit just ain't airworthy, and where I can find ways to understand other people's oppressions better.
------------------------------
* Please note that it is not correct to say "trans people" or "all trans people" here; not all trans people feel the need to alter their bodies—some may do one aspect, and not others. This does not make them "not trans"; they get to construct their gender and make their body choices as anyone else does. We are not our surgeries.
** If you think I'm kidding, I direct you to google.com, where you can search the term "autogynophilia." It'd be funny, if it weren't costing trans people our happiness, our sanity, our lives.
If It's Wednesday, It Must Be Time to Investigate Torture
As promised last week, I will be posting my weekly letters to my Congressfolk, President Obama, and the United Nations. Here are this week's letters (feel free to copy and paste in your own missives, and strap yourselves in -- I will be posting every week until something gives).
To my Senators and House Reps (you can find all your congressfolk's information HERE):
====================
Sent to Patty Murray, Maria Cantwell, and Norm Dicks.Dear [name]:
My letters to Obama and the UN are available at home my blog if you want some starter for your own letters. I invite you to join me in prodding Congress and the President, even if you live in a Red State (or outside the US -- non US nationals -- write to the UN!) -- if they get tons of letters, they can't tell the lie that "The American People" don't want investigations.
I have voted for you in every election since I moved to Washington State in 2000.
I am writing to ask you – to plead with you – to do everything you can to push for investigation of the torture of human beings authorized by, and implemented under, the Bush/Cheney administration.
I am 52 years old. I’ve lived through assassinations and wars, Watergate and Iran Contra, recessions and bubbles burst, and if you had told me there would come a day when my federal government would authorize torture in violation of its own laws and international treaty, and then neglect to investigate it, I would not have believed you.
I find it incredibly disheartening that this letter even needs to be written, but write it, I shall.
I have heard the rhetoric about wanting to move forward rather than look back, but it rings hollow to me – the mandate that the people of these United States sent in electing President Obama and a Democratic Party majority in the Congress was a clear cry for change. Even Republican officials have distanced themselves from the disastrous policies implemented by the Bush/Cheney administration – policies that have left our nation physically, financially, and morally bankrupt.
When you’ve been through a horrible battle and it’s clear that one of the principal players in your contingent has been dreadfully wounded, you do not just march on. You stop, examine their wounds, and tend to them.
In my opinion, the other wounds to our Constitution (wire-tapping, undeclared wars instigated on the basis of faulty intelligence, etc.) -- themselves no small injuries -- pale in comparison to the authorization of State-sponsored torture.
If we can stand by while people are tortured by our government, if we can know that such a thing occurred, and refuse to even investigate it, I believe that we are not a nation which has established Justice, or secured the Blessings of Liberty -- and with every report released about how the actions of the previous administration has served as a recruitment tool for those who wish to commit violence against the US and its citizens, it becomes clearer and clearer that, far from insuring domestic Tranquility and providing for the common defence, the use of torture has put both our physical safety and international standing at risk.
I will not stand by silently as my government violates law, treaty, the principles of its own Constitution, and basic human rights.
I will be writing to your office every week until investigations into torture are initiated by our federal government – even if this takes years or decades. I will speak to others and encourage them to do the same. I will blog about it and email about it. I will send letters to the United Nations asking them to enforce the Convention Against Torture, to which my country is a signatory, and in which, we have agreed to investigate these matters.
I believe that you know, deep in your heart, that we must investigate these matters, if we are to be who we say we are – a nation committed to justice, democracy, and freedom. I will speak to you, again and again, as an echo of that knowing, and I will support you, and call for others to support you, when you take action on that knowing.
I implore you, as a constituent and a fellow US citizen, to do everything you can to initiate immediate investigations of torture perpetrated by the United States government during the Bush/Cheney administration.
Sincerely,
[PortlyDyke]
[cross-posted]
Coming Soon To A Theater Near You
Part 1: Bustin' No Longer Makes Me Feel Good
Dan Aykroyd confirms Ghostbusters 3 is in the works. If you recall, the first movie was pretty fuckin' awesome, and the second one teabagged goats. If we follow the law of diminishing returns, it's fair to say part three is going to shittiest sequel this side of Speed 2: Cruise Control. And if you think there is a chance this might not suck, consider this: The script is being penned by the same douchenozzles who wrote the dudebro costume drama Year One.
Aykroyd said he's hoping for a five-member "new generation" team with several female members. "I'd like it to be a passing-of-the-torch movie. Let's revisit the old characters briefly and happily and have them there as family but let's pass it on to a new generation."Why am I imagining some hetero male über-wank fantasy featuring hot chicks in jumpsuits doing kung-fu à la Kill Bill, except with Slimer instead of David Carradine? For fuck's sake, please don't do this.
Who does Aykroyd think would be good in the jumpsuits? Aykroyd mentioned two names, Alyssa Milano (who is a voice in the upcoming Ghostbusters video game) and Eliza Dushku. "I think they're amazing," he said.
Besides, the world does not need a dumbassed half-ironic cover of the theme song as performed by Fall Out Boy.
Part 2: The Death of the Reboot
Director Fran Rubel Kuzui has decided to relaunch the Buffy the Vampire Slayer film franchise with a sequel that "would have no connection to the TV series, nor would it use popular supporting characters like Angel, Willow, Xander or Spike." I am sure the fans will just love this idea.
Taking hold of the "In every generation there is a Chosen One" clause in the TV series' opening narration, Kuzui will steer the series in a new direction, one that involves zero input from creator Joss Whedon. I am sure the fans will just love this idea too.
Good luck with that!
Penny for Your Thoughtfulness
In a Wall Street Journal editorial headlined "The 'Empathy' Nominee: Is Sonia Sotomayor judically [sic] superior to 'a white male'?" one finds the following passage (background):
In the President's now-famous word, judging should be shaped by "empathy" as much or more than by reason.Here, then, is the conservative view laid bare: Empathy and reason are mutually exclusive concepts. It is thus never reasonable to be empathetic.
And, truly, if one's worldview is structured principally of self-interest, empathy isn't reasonable, but is, in fact, a catastrophic risk to the privileged beneficiaries of an ideology built upon their informed lack of compassion and their rank-and-file's ignorant lack of compassion.
Empathy is what happens when racist white parents discover their child's best friend at school is black, and they begin to revisit their prejudices. Empathy is what happens when a homophobic woman finds out that male coworker she really likes is gay, and she begins to reconsider all those biases she's held for so long. Empathy is what happens when real life, real people, prove obviously, demonstrably wrong all those conservative bedtime stories about gays and immigrants and castrating feminazis that go bump in the night.
Empathy is what happens when good conservatives, who have long mistaken patronizing pity for compassion, suddenly realize that being white, or male, or straight, or cisgender, or Christian, or rich, or thin, or able-bodied, or American, or educated, or in any other way not Other, doesn't make them better people; it merely makes them privileged people.
Empathy is what turns people into progressives.
Lest one imagine I am positing that progressives are somehow selfless martyrs with nary a shred of self-interest, I assure you I am not. To care passionately and wholly about others does not require an abdication of ambition nor a subjugation of agency; it requires, rather, a determination to achieve and succeed and have and be without exploiting or marginalizing others in the process. That is no small thing, but it is not the stuff of saints, either.
Progressives merely recognize that we're all in this together—even the people who won't get our backs, the bullies who attack us just to feel less put upon themselves, the self-loathing enablers who harbor foolish dreams of being invited to the table of privilege one day, the barrel-chested barons of a new Gilded Age who stand astride the bodies of those condemned to less fortunate fates, singing the praises of social Darwinism, bellowing about the superfluity of a social safety net, and declaring "The government never gave me anything!" as they deposit seven-figure bonuses made possible by a taxpayer-funded bailout.
Progressives know we are all in the same leaky, creaky, unreliable boat. And knowing that means understanding even the most voracious self-interest is best served by egalitarianism: A fortune is worth nothing at the bottom of the ocean, less than a single penny carried safely to shore.
Empathy is what happens when people turn away from the gossamer promise of a treasure that never materializes, and turn to their neighbors and say, "I don't care about our differences; I'll help you carry the penny."
It's a totally rational decision to make—really, the only rational decision for most people. And once they come upon it, a space in which empathy and reason are regarded as an either-or proposition is no space in which they can comfortably exist. One mustn't be a raging altruist to appreciate both the decency and pragmatism of empathy in a diverse culture.
But one must be a conservative to fail to see either.
Sean Hannity, Wanker of the Day the Decade
1. In April, Sean Hannity, eager to lick Cheney's boots and desperate to excuse Bush Torture Tactics, insists that waterboarding isn't torture. Blowhard that he is, he volunteers to be waterboarded "for charity."
2. Keith Olbermann is all over it like a bad suit, and offers a charitable contribution of $1000 for every second Hannity withstands waterboarding (since it's not torture, after all).
3. Hannity mysteriously shuts the fuck up about waterboarding for a month. Who knew? Even Jesse Ventura makes Hannity look like an ass.
4. "Conservative Libertarian" (snort) and professional douche Erich "Mancow" Muller undergoes waterboarding to "prove it isn't torture." He lasts 6 to 7 seconds before cracking, states waterboarding is "absolutely torture."
5. I grudgingly give "Mancow" respect for putting his money where his mouth is, and for admitting he was wrong. I really don't like the guy, but good on him.
6. Olbermann rescinds his offer to Hannity (since we all know that chickenshit blowhard wouldn't actually volunteer to be waterboarded even if his hair was on fire), and instead offers his contribution to "Mancow."Last night on Countdown, Olbermann announced that he was rescinding the offer to Hannity, and instead giving $10,000 to charity following radio host Erich “Mancow” Muller’s waterboarding attempt. Olbermann promised to donate to the charity Veterans of Valor, founded by Sgt. Klay South, who administered the waterboarding to Muller. Olbermann revealed that Mancow’s publicist had contacted Olbermann’s show yesterday to see whether Olbermann would make a similar offer to Mancow as he did for Hannity
7. "Mancow" goes on Olbermann's show to describe the ordeal. He states that he's been suffering the aftereffects for two days.Yesterday, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann interviewed Mancow about his experience under the bucket. “I would have said anything to make it stop,” Mancow said, further confirming that torture does not produce reliable intelligence. “I don’t think drowning is harsh enough. … This is worse. This isn’t gulping for air. This is your brain is shut off.”
And here's the kicker:
8. Hannity calls "Mancow," the man who actually went through the waterboarding, and is still suffering and insists it isn't torture.
Did you get that?
Fucking Sean Hannity was too cowardly to go through something he insists isn't a torture tactic, and has the chutzpah to tell someone that did that they weren't tortured.
And "Mancow" still calls him "a friend."
What the fuck is wrong with these people?
Why, No—I'm Not an Idiot, But Thanks for Assuming
by Shaker Ali_K
When I was much younger, I didn't know that childless (by choice) women existed. I believed that every good girl had to get married and have children when she grew up. But even in the patriarchy-induced stupor, my girlish fantasies involved loopholes. I didn't daydream of mini-Ali's, but about convents or adoption.
I didn't want biological children then, and I don't want children at all now. Hey, I like kids; I just have no desire to have children of my own. And, well, being an atheist kind of knocked that whole nunnery thing right out of the picture. I don't want children, but—surprise, surprise—I do like sex (sorry, Catholic Republican parents!), so I decided to opt for a birth control that was a bit more permanent and didn't come with the negative reactions I've experienced with other temporary options. I thought about it, did the research, thought about it some more, did even more research, then decided on a permanent, nonreversible option that worked best for me and my concerns.
Unfortunately my OB didn't care about any of that. She didn't care how long I had thought about it or how much research I had done. She didn't even care about the serious reactions I was having to my current birth control method. She didn't care about any of that because she never heard it. All she heard was 25 and childless and her only response was along the lines of, "No, you might regret it. Lots of other women have."
After lots of tears and screaming into the phone (oh, I was classy, let me tell you), I decided to do some research on that one little thing that I kept being told: "Lots of women have regretted it." Something about it just didn't sit right, starting with never being told how many women "lots" is, and also not being told, despite asking numerous times, what this magical age was when I'd finally be able to determine my own reproductive future. I decided to find out for myself.
1. The most recent (2002) study I found said that only 7% off all women who were voluntarily sterilized experienced regret up to 5 years after their sterilization, comparable to the rate of women regretting their husband's vasectomy.* And the greatest risk factor for regret (according to the abstract) was when the women reported conflict with their partners at the time of sterilization. Even so, the reversal rate (not just regret) for women topped out at 2.2%.
2. In a Journal of Reproductive Medicine study that broke down the results among age groups, women under 27 years had only a 2% higher rate of regret than older women. And, the part that made me particularly happy, "single women were more certain than mothers of their decision to be sterilized."
3. A CDC study also found the same 2% difference between older and younger women, with the former having a regret rate of 2.4% and the latter having a regret rate of 4.3%.
4. The longest-running study I found (14 years versus 5 years) had the highest regret rates—20.3% for women under 30.
This last one is most likely the number (1 in 5! 1 in 5!!!! BOOGABOOGA!) that doctors will cite to young women like me, but even just looking at the abstract, 20% is not the end of the story:For women aged 30 or younger at sterilization, the cumulative probability of regret decreased as time since the birth of the youngest child increased … and was lowest among women who had no previous births (6.3%).
Women who don't want children tend to continue to not want children. Who knew?
And what is this dreaded regret anyway? First off, regret does not necessarily mean desire for a reversal. I regret not applying to MIT for college. I wouldn't have gone there regardless, but it would be kind of neat to see if I would have been accepted. Regret can simply mean you didn't think out all the details as well you would have liked. And yes, young age is a stronger indicator of possible regret, but so is a change in marital status, having experienced marital problems at the time of the procedure, and being sterilized immediately after giving birth. And what is the best way to ensure satisfaction instead of regret? Presterilization counseling. Something I was never offered.
Yes, regret after a permanent procedure like sterilization is a horrible outcome, but looking at the numbers, and knowing how to counteract a lot of potential regret, it is ridiculous that an entire subset of the population is outright denied this procedure. Are there any other common procedures that are denied to huge swaths of people simply because of possible regret afterwards?
Liss made the point: "Millions of women have elective—and irreversible—cosmetic surgery procedures done every year, some of them high-risk, just to adhere more closely to the contemporary beauty standard, and yet doctors don't routinely discourage the practice by ominously quoting rates of regret or reconstructive surgery to 'fix' or make further adjustments to surgically-altered areas. Isn't it funny (where funny equals totally fucking infuriating) that women who want to alter their bodies to conform to patriarchal expectations aren't disabused of their desires, but women who want to alter their bodies in a way perceived (often rightly) as a rejection of those expectations are discouraged at every turn?"
Isn't it just?
This is a huge issue. Doctors (once again) are trying to protect women from themselves, when the evidence clearly shows that we do not. need. protecting. It took me 3 pages of doctors** and half a day of phone calls before I was finally able to find a doctor even willing to see me. What happens when a woman doesn't have the time that I did to make those phone calls? If she lives in a place that doesn't have 3 pages of doctors who do a certain procedure? If she gets discouraged by the constant nos and inability for anyone to listen? If she doesn't have insurance (or good enough insurance) to be able to cover the procedure when she finally does find a doctor, or if any doctor she finds will even be on her insurance plan?
This is just one more aspect of women being "less than" and it's fucking sickening. If you don't want children, you're outta luck. If you do want children, but society doesn't find you "acceptable," you could have your children forcibly taken away from you or you could be sterilized against your will or under false pretenses. You're outta luck. If you want children and you're fortunate enough that society does find you "acceptable," society will still do fuck-all for you the second you need any kind of help in caring for your children. You're outta luck. Even if you do the "right" thing by society, and give up unwanted children as opposed to aborting, you're still outta luck.
We need to fight for all of our reproductive rights, and for the rights of women who can't fight, because the people in charge sure won't do us any favors.
UPDATE: I don't know how I missed this article in all the rampant google research I did on sterilization. It describes just perfectly the frustration young women like myself go through when we are denied sterilization and the paternalism of doctors who refuse to provide us with treatment. There are 2 quotes I'd like to highlight, but definitely go check it out for yourself.Why do we arbitrarily choose thirty? Because of the thirty years of practice in my life. Because of the number of years of experience that we, as physicians, have come to see that twenty-five, twenty-six, twenty-seven year old women have, historically, more often than not, told you they regretted their decision to get their tubes tied.
That was Dr. Daniel Wiener, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at McGill University in Montreal, who obviously did not do the whopping half a day of research that I did.I think there's definitely this idea where a woman's function is to have babies cause your body is made to do it. My body is made to do a lot of things. It's made to run. That doesn't mean I go running every day. Nor should I have to.
And that was Lauren Green (name changed), giving the best. quote. eva.
------------------------------------
* In all my mad googling, the only regret rates I could find for vasectomies studied the wives and not the men themselves. Does anyone know the rate of regret for male sterilization?
** Until I called up that last doctor, only one person even bothered to ask why I wanted permanent sterilization. At one point she asked me what I would do if 10 years from now I changed my mind. Evidently "adoption" is not a legitimate answer.
(Crossposted.)
Quote of the Day
He is a delightful and warm, intelligent person who has great empathy and a wonderful sense of humor. - President George H.W. Bush at the announcement of the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court in July 1991.
I guess empathy ain't what it used to be.
HT to TPMDC.
Inventive New Arguments Against Gay Marriage!
by Shaker Mlle. Bébé Gottbach, Ph.D
I sent this link to Liss yesterday because I thought "Gosh, Liss seems like the kind of lady that likes choking in disgust on a nice cool beverage." She asked me if I'd like to step in and guest blog my thoughts, so here you go. It is not brief, but honestly? I couldn't think of anything else to remove without losing a true encapsulation of my actual thoughts. Deep breath, aaaand off we go to the land of misfit boys.
There is a new consensus on gay marriage: not on whether it should be legalized but about the motives of those of us who oppose it. All agree that any and all opposition to gay marriage is explained either by biblical literalism or anti-homosexual bigotry. This consensus is brilliantly constructed to be so unflattering to those of us who will vote against gay marriage--if we are allowed to do so--that even biblical literalists and bigots are scrambling out of the trenches and throwing down their weapons.OHNOES!!! Morons and bigots are being affected now! By "unflattering" interpretations of their belief that a minority group that is globally abused and globally at risk should continue to live that way! Clearly "Teh Gays" are running the country, people. Yes. You will be forcibly gay married any second now. I'd monitor the seconds on my watch, but I'm afraid the instant I look down they'll get me.
The gist behind this sly-as-a-box-of-rat-droppings logic is that gay marriage really isn't necessary. I'm reasonably sure gays and lesbians and same-sex partnered bisexuals might disagree with Mr. Schulman, but really, who gives a shit what they think, right?
The embrace of homosexuality in Western culture has come about with unbelievable speedAnd also, fists! Why, it used to be illegal for same-sex couples to even have sex! We're so enlightened! Sam goes on to explain that we no longer require gays to skulk around in dark, moldy caves—pale, with giant, sightless eyes, waiting to capture an unsuspecting senator and tantalize him into their spelunkerous lifestyle with "The Big Nasty Gay Mole-Peen." No, no—now they're allowed to have jobs! *GASP* But no, they shouldn't be allowed to marry. Marriage isn't about LOVE you see. The entire point of marriage is...TO CONTROL THE NONNY.
Yes, that's right. Marriage is for capturing that wayward bajinga, telling it to CALM ITS PINK ASS DOWN, and helping it settle into a life of drudging nonny servtitude. And gays clearly don't have bajingas*, so there's no reason for them to get married. See? Totally logical!
The entity known as "gay marriage" only aspires to replicate a very limited, very modern, and very culture-bound version of marriage…All of this negates the FACT that right here and now, we marry for love. We choose who we want to spend our lives with. Perhaps it's time for the laws to catch up. And why CAN'T gay people be allowed into the kinship system? Do you think that a mother and father who LOVE their gay child wouldn't be capable of considering the spouse of that child as a son- or daughter-in-law? But I think that's kind of the crux when one is a homobigot. Perhaps part of what is MISSING in America, what's been DENIED our GLB family members is the ability to HAVE a place in the kinship system. To BE defined as someone's spouse, brother-in-law, cousin by marriage. To be allowed into a traditional family model if they want.
…The fact is that marriage is part of a much larger institution, which defines the particular shape and character of marriage: the kinship system.
Mr. Douche-tastic goes on to explain the 4 most profound effects of marriage within the kinship system. Boiled down, they are:
1. Control those vaginas! I mean!—protect the 'baby-makin' & rape-ee' gender. That's why for centuries women were essentially enslaved by being bought, sold, and traded via the institution of "marriage" as the legally binding contract of their transfer. Gays CAN'T marry, because marriage is meant to reinforce that women are property. And gays aren't women!
2. Racial purity! Dude. You let the gays marry?—and pretty soon it's INCEST ALL THE TIME!! Which ignores that INCEST has a history of legal recognition already (hello Egypt, I'm talking to you. Fantastic wig, by the way, bb, who does your do?) Plus! It's confusing!!
3. (I personally love this one) If we let the gays marry, we can't call the town slut's kid a bastard anymore. OMG. We couldn't even brand her a slut! I... can't see....everything's gone all white...! Because somehow allowing gays to marry will remove the whole concept of "illicit sex" from...um...illicit sex. **
So anyway, yeah. If we remove the taboo from sex, those poor stupid men will stop marrying altogether, because y'know. Why bother?
4. This is a good one y'all. Really, I had to read it 6 times. Basically, marriage is a rite of passage into adulthood. Dudeman goes on a long flowery rant about other countries (which has nothing to do with the issue of the US allowing gays to marry). Allowing gays to marry will cause everyone to have SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE!! And then women can't sell their used cars...(wait, I meant vaginas) to the highest bidder. FOR THE LOVE OF JEBUS, THERE'S NO WOMEN TO EXPLOIT IN A GAY MARRIAGE!!! *swoon*
In fact, gay couples who marry enter into a relationship that married people might envy. Gay marriage may reside outside the kinship system, but it has all the wedding-planning, nest-building fun of marriage but none of its rules or obligations (except the duties that all lovers have toward one another). Gay spouses have none of our guilt about sex-before-marriage. They have no tedious obligations towards in-laws, need never worry about Oedipus or Electra, won't have to face a menacing set of brothers or aunts should they betray their spouse. But without these obligations--why marry? Gay marriage is as good as no marriage at all.I guess you all didn't realize that gays don't come from families. They're actually incubated and hatched at "The Teh Gays Faktory." They don't HAVE aunts and uncles, moms and dads, entire friendgroups that will pick sides and help them to work out their relationship woes. They don't invest in loving someone enough to go through the hell that is a bad breakup .
Sooner rather than later, the substantial differences between marriage and gay marriage will cause gay marriage, as a meaningful and popular institution, to fail on its own terms. Since gay relationships exist perfectly well outside the kinship system, to assume the burdens of marriage--the legal formalities, the duty of fidelity (which is no easier for gays than it is for straights), the slavishly imitative wedding ritual--will come to seem a nuisance. People in gay marriages will discover that mimicking the cozy bits of romantic heterosexual marriage does not make relationships stronger; romantic partners more loving, faithful, or sexy; domestic life more serene or exciting. They will discover that it is not the wedding vow that maintains marriages, but the force of the kinship system. Kinship imposes duties, penalties, and retribution that champagne toasts, self-designed wedding rings, and thousands of dollars worth of flowers are powerless to effect
Few men would ever bother to enter into a romantic heterosexual marriage--much less three, as I have done--were it not for the iron grip of necessity that falls upon us when we are unwise enough to fall in love with a woman other than our mom.Whew. Thank god. For a minute there I was so wrapped up in Teh Gays that I forgot "bitchez ain't nuthin' but trix and hoes." Thanks Mr. Doucheman!
Ultimately, it's straight marriage that will suffer, you see. Because don't you forget it, kids, GAYS ARE EVIL. When gay marriage fails, they'll take it out on straight marriage! And please, someone, explain this logic to me:
The irrelevance of marriage to gay people will create a series of perfectly reasonable, perfectly unanswerable questions: If gays can aim at marriage, yet do without it equally well, who are we to demand it of one another? Who are women to demand it of men? Who are parents to demand it of their children's lovers--or to prohibit their children from taking lovers until parents decide arbitrarily they are "mature" or "ready"? By what right can government demand that citizens obey arbitrary and culturally specific kinship rules--rules about incest and the age of consent, rules that limit marriage to twosomes? Mediocre lawyers can create a fiction called gay marriage, but their idealism can't compel gay lovers to find it useful. But talented lawyers will be very efficient at challenging the complicated, incoherent, culturally relative survival from our most primitive social organization we call kinship. The whole set of fundamental, irrational assumptions that make marriage such a burden and such a civilizing force can easily be undone.*headsplosion*
So basically...allowing gays to marry...will...uh...cause civilization as we know it to end?
There is no doubt that women and children have suffered throughout human history from being over-protected and controlled. The consequences of under-protection and indifference will be immeasurably worse. In a world without kinship, women will lose their hard-earned status as sexual beings with personal autonomy and physical security. Children will lose their status as nonsexual beings.Hey dude? They never really had it. Because nobody ever bothered to take away the entitlement on the other end of that sad equation.
Can gay men and women be as generous as we straight men are?This is a stunning question, considering his previous statements. I'm inventing a new word kids, right here and now. Ready?
Will you consider us as men who love, just as you do, and not merely as homophobes or Baptists?
Douché. Your point oozes so much Douchetastic Douchetitude that I am temporarily stunned into silence like a deer in the headlights of a logic-bus.
I'll leave you with this...this gorgeous cherry of fantastico-squee-joy.
Every day thousands of ordinary heterosexual men surrender the dream of gratifying our immediate erotic desires. Instead, heroically, resignedly, we march up the aisle with our new brides, starting out upon what that cad poet Shelley called the longest journey, attired in the chains of the kinship system--a system from which you have been spared. Imitate our self-surrender. If gay men and women could see the price that humanity--particularly the women and children among us--will pay, simply in order that a gay person can say of someone she already loves with perfect competence, "Hey, meet the missus!"--no doubt they will think again. If not, we're about to see how well humanity will do without something as basic to our existence as gravityOh Teh Gays. Don't eat that equality bread. Because it's actually BITTER equality bread, y'see? And if you eat it? You'll be MISERABLE with your stupid equality! Just like us straight men are made MISERABLE by women, you'll be made miserable by...um... Well golly, I don't even know what to call that.
So please, Teh Gays. Don't eat the equality bread. It's horrible. Really. And also, it's as basic to our existence as gravity. But not yours. Trust us, Teh Gays. You SO don't want this bread.
Sam Schulman, a writer in Virginia, was publishing director of the American and publisher of Wigwag.And ginormous DOUCHE.
--------------------------
* Lesbians don't count. Everyone knows you can't have REAL sex without a penis, so please, lesbians...shoot more video.
** By the same token, we should also ban Vodka. Just sayin'.
A Kind of Magic
Word on the street is Queen is looking to recruit A.I. runner-up Adam Lambert to front the band. If true*, I say woo hoo! Good for Lambert, good for Queen.
Brian May, of Queen, stated that he and drummer Roger Taylor are "definitely hoping to have a meaningful conversation with him (Lambert) at one point." May went on to state, "I’d certainly like to work with Adam. That is one amazing instrument he has there."Lambert responded tactfully:
"How do you say no to being in Queen? I mean, that's unbelievable. But at the same time, I do have my own thing to do right now, and that's my goal. So if I could, I would try to do both. That's the honest question. I would try to do both. I would love to perform with them anytime they wanted me to but I also have my record to do. So, we'll see."While watching the finale, after Lambert rocked the house with "We Are the Champions" I said to myself "You know what would be cool? If Brain May leaned over and whispered in Adam's ear 'You're hired.'"
--------------------------
* I've had a wee bit of trouble verifying this. Most stories didn't name a source. I did find a site citing Entertainment Weekly. Entertainment Weekly's website cited Rolling Stone. A search of RS's website turned up nothing definitive. Maybe it's in the print edition.
Oh, Conservatives. You're so adorable.
Well, all that "to the victor goes the spoils" bullshit that conservatives were warbling about when liberals had the unmitigated temerity to oppose President Mondo Fucko's nominees to the Court has predictably flown out the window, and now they're throwing ten tons of shit against the wall to see what will stick in a grand attempt to undermine Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court.
Our old friend Mike Huckabee was one of the first out of the gate, noting that "Maria Sotomayor" is a terrible choice for various stupid reasons. Sonia, Maria, whatever. Darn you, Latinas, for having different names and shit.
Glenn Beck is being, as per usual, a huge honking butthole.
Rush Limbaugh hopes she fails and reiterates his wish that Obama will fail, too.
Think Progress has more.
All I got is: lolsob.
How to Lose a Sale
So, we don't need a new car at the moment, but our current car has some things we really don't like; namely, the visibility out the back window is for shit, and while it's not a huge safety issue, it's enough that I worry disproportionately that one of us is going to back over a kid Big-Wheeling in the driveway or one of the area strays just because we can't see them. (I don't know how both of us missed that flaw when we test-drive it, but Deeky will undoubtedly tell you it's because we're assholes, and he's almost certainly right.) We could also probably get better financing now than we did a year ago, which could lower our monthly costs.
As it's nearing the end of the model year and dealerships are offering pretty good financing rates in our area, it's a good time to look at least—especially because it's not imperative to get a new (by which I mean new to us, even if pre-owned) car, which is a refreshing situation for us in which to find ourselves. When we bought our Behemoth POS, it was after our first car was totaled in an accident and we were driving a rental for which the insurance company would only pay for a week. When we bought the Fusion, we were racing against the clock before the Behemoth POS fell to absolute pieces. So we've got all the time in the world to make a (hopefully) smart decision, and we plan on using it.
All of which I share to make the point that we're as disinterested in getting the hard sell and having smoke blown up our asses as it's possible to be.
Enter Mr. Asshole Salesman, who we're going to call Johnny Tooterpants.
The Acme Auto Co. dealership was just about to close early yesterday when we arrived, and we said, "No problem—we hadn't even realized you were open; we were just intending to drive around the lot, anyway," which was true, and all the other salesmen (deliberate usage; they were all men) left us to our evidently disinterested devices. Except Johnny Tooterpants, who wasn't even dissuaded when we told him Iain had already spoken by email to one of his colleagues, anyway (also true).
So Johnny Tooterpants is taking down our contact info on a form that provides a space to enter in which cars we're interested, and he says, "You're interested in new, not certified used…" and noted that down, and I said, "Hang on—we're interested in certified used. We'll look at new, but we're not certain what we can afford, if anything, so we want to look at both."
And he says: "Well, you don't want to look at too many options, or you'll just get confused."
Oh HELL no.
I said, rather tersely: "We're not easily confused."
To which Johnny Tooterpants replied: "I don't care how smart you think you are or how many degrees you have or anything else. Everyone gets confused if I show them too many options, so let's just stick to new."
Shakers, by this point, I was fuming. Not only is he treating us like we've never bought a car before, but he's actually arguing with me that he knows me better than I know myself. I effectively said: "We're smart and we hate bullshit," and he effectively responded with: "No, you're dumb and you LOVE bullshit!"
It was all I could do not to scream: "FUCK YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!" at him.
In fact, quite possibly the only thing that stopped me was my brain-seizing astonishment upon noticing he was misspelling the name of one of the two Acme car models in which we were interested on the contact sheet. When we left, Iain asked if I'd noticed he'd spelled it wrong, and I said, "Yeah. And who wants to buy a car from someone who doesn't even know how to spell its name correctly? Sure—I'll trust him to give me good info on its specs."
For his encore, Johnny Tooterpants then did that thing where I asked a question and he gave the answer to Iain, because, ya know, girlz is teh stoopid. Which drives me 'round the bend and makes Iain want to shout: "My wife has a functional brain!"
Oh, Shakers. I wish it ended there. But it does not.
This morning, the phone rings and I see that it's the dealership, so I answer out of sheer morbid curiosity. It was Johnny Tooterpants, calling to inquire whether Iain and I had decided whether we liked the Acme A or Acme B better. I said, "Since we haven't had a chance to test drive or even sit inside either of them, no, we haven't made any decisions about which we prefer." He then tells me he's got plenty of each on the lot, ensuring that I know I can walk all over him during any future negotiation. I said, "Yes, I know, thanks."
Then he asks if we were coming back in tonight before the dealership closes. I said, "That will depend on what train Iain catches and whether he gets home in time," which is the same thing we already told him yesterday. To which he responded by telling me that THE INTERSTATE IS FASTER. So, basically, Iain is a big dummy for taking the train to work, even though Johnny Tooterpants acquiesced, "it is a nice ride."
Then he tells me he wants to leave work at 6:00 tonight, but will stay if we're coming in, and asks, "Could I get a call if you're going to come in?" Now, Shakers—I have no interest in inconveniencing anyone if I can possibly avoid it. And I understand that no one wants to hang around work for a couple extra hours for no reason. But this is a guy who's trying to steal our commission from one of his colleagues, and he wants us to help him do it while making it as convenient for him as possible.
At this point, I'd really had it.
I tell him, "Listen, Iain spoke to Tommy Doodlebutt originally, and I have no idea if they've had further communication today." And he interrupted me to say, "Yeah, I just spoke to Tommy—" And I just kept talking: "So I'm going to leave that to him, if he would prefer to work with Tommy."
And he's all, "Okay, sure, but I just spoke to him, and, uh, if you can just call me if you're coming in tonight...um, so how was the rest of your Memorial Day?" Then proceeded to tell me about how his family was already grilling when he got home, like now we're obliged to buy a car from him just because he was 5 minutes late to his fucking cookout, despite the fact that we never wanted to talk to him in the first place.
What. a. wanker.
I finally extricated myself from the Most Annoying Phone Call So Far Today, and emailed Iain.
A few moments later, I was copied on an email from Iain addressed to Tommy Doodlebutt that included the note: "We spoke to Johnny Tooterpants for a few minutes yesterday, but if possible we would prefer to work with you."
Wah wah wah wahhhhhhhhhhh.
Monday Tuesday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by Shaxco, makers of Spudsy's Soggy Biscuits. "Eat one today™."
One Good Thing: America's Cookbook. If by "America," You Mean "Hell."
I Can Haz Cheezburger: I Is Not Cat...
Archie McPhee: Failed Product Sample: Shamrock Skull
AFOTD: X-Wing Fighter
Your Dress Would Look Better On Me: Naughty Victorian Handbook: Farmer's Fold
Disapproving Rabbits: Shadow
Joe My God: Poll: Marriage Support Drops In NY
All About the Buttplug Lifestyle: 47 days and 24 hours
Leave your links in comments...
We Lulus Prefer "Coo-Coo Nuttyballs," Thanks
Shaker Juliette emails (which I am publishing with her permission):
Sunday, I read in the "Single File" (boredom at work, I swear!) in the Long Island edition of Newsday a response from the columnist that really got my blood boiling. So much so, I had half a mind to write the paper. I was told by a friend that Shakesville might be interested, and though I was initially wary of wasting your time with something so small, your "More" section gave me some hope. … I have not been able to find it on the website, but I will transcribe the question and answer word-for-word. The letter:I guess I'm not as smart as "Susan," because I don't even know what "talk[ing] about sex on a casual basis" even means, although if it's saying something like, "I totes want to have crazy, passionate, last-night-on-earth sex with Naveen Andrews," then I have to say I'm all in favor of talking about sex on a casual basis, right down to the very depths of my (evidently) empty soul. But then, I've always been kind of a "lulu."DEAR SUSAN: My girlfriend and I differ on sexual values. She thinks that it's OK to talk about having sex on a casual basis and that it's equally OK to do it. I disagree. Because of this, I have trouble trusting her. This is always in the back of my mind, even if I have no clear other reason to feel anxious. How can I handle this?The response:
-- Harry H. Long IslandDEAR HARRY: By bidding her a (not so) fond farewell. This woman's a lulu, and unless you want to spend your time away from her wondering where she's prone -- and with whom -- best to end this fiasco. This female may be a girl but certainly is no friend to you or anyone else in her live. Particularly to herself.Which has to be the craziest thing I've ever read. Recently.
What has you off-center is much more than her sexual values -- it's her entire character. She's telling her in her own sort of code that her body, her feelings, her very soul are empty. And your anxiety is telegraphing the message to all parts of Harryland, a very healthy reaction. This soon-to-be former "girlfriend" is on her way out of your life because your moral code can't live with her values. Stop agonizing, and start organizing your farewell scenario. Where there's no trust, there can be no love.
In other things that make me a lulu: I don't assume that any woman who refuses to judge people for having casual sex is a soulless slut. Also: I deeply suspect that any man who treats such a refusal as justification to withhold his trust and/or suspect cheating is an asshole.
No need to wonder why there's a happiness gap, when the answers are in front of us at all times: We are disposable if are sexual, and we are useless if we are not.
Daily Kitteh
Matilda sends her Glowing Stink-Eye Glare of Despair
in the California Supreme Court's general direction.
Mini-Brooks Minds The Happiness Gap
There’s a good post and thread over at Language Log today about Ross Douthat’s latest New York Times column, “Liberated and Unhappy”. In this column, Douthat takes Stevenson and Wolfers’s "happiness gap" working paper (“The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness”) at face value and concludes that what we need in this country is some good old "sexual stigma".
Mark Liberman points out that Douthat
seems to have decided to follow David Brooks' example in crafting columns that turn small statistical differences into generic statements about groups, accompanied by meditations on the cultural and political implications.I couldn’t agree more. Why the NYT wants two David Brookses is a mystery of the especially annoying sort.
The point of Liberman’s post is mostly to question the validity of the data that Douthat accepts uncritically. So please, go read the whole thing. It's short and the discussion is good.
What I want to do here is take a closer look at Douthat's language and the assumptions behind it. Douthat begins by accepting the premise that women's happiness is falling worldwide. He then moves on to speculate about why that might be. First, he whips out the old high school debate tactic of bringing up the explanation he does not believe in order to shoot it down:
Again, maybe the happiness numbers are being tipped downward by a mounting female workload — the famous “second shift,” in which women continue to do the lion’s share of household chores even as they’re handed more and more workplace responsibility. It’s certainly possible — but as Wolfers and Stevenson point out, recent surveys actually show similar workload patterns for men and women over all.I have not paid $5 to download the working paper, so I do not know if Wolfers and Stevenson do in fact claim that workloads are equal for men and women, or if their data are convincing. But notice that Douthat breezily dismisses the very concept of a second shift, without feeling the need to argue his point.
Douthat then evokes stereotypes — "female"s are anxious and afraid of risk; the EU is a nurturing cluster of nanny-states— in a phony attempt at presenting a balanced consideration of the evidence:
Or perhaps the problem is political — maybe women prefer egalitarian, low-risk societies, and the cowboy capitalism of the Reagan era had an anxiety-inducing effect on the American female. But even in the warm, nurturing, egalitarian European Union, female happiness has fallen relative to men’s across the last three decades.Please note that the "ambiguity" to which Douthat refers is that surrounding the explanation for the happiness gap, not to the the ambiguity of the data for the happiness gap's existence. I will return to this point later.
All this ambiguity lends itself to broad-brush readings.
Let's skip to Douthat's conclusion:
[Conservatives and Liberals] should also be able to agree that the steady advance of single motherhood threatens the interests and happiness of women. Here the public-policy options are limited; some kind of social stigma is a necessity. But a new-model stigma shouldn’t (and couldn’t) look like the old sexism. There’s no necessary reason why feminists and cultural conservatives can’t join forces — in the same way that they made common cause during the pornography wars of the 1980s — behind a social revolution that ostracizes serial baby-daddies and trophy-wife collectors as thoroughly as the “fallen women” of a more patriarchal age.Here is a quick summary of the top 10 unsubstantiated assumptions just in Douthat's final three paragraphs:
No reason, of course, save the fact that contemporary America doesn’t seem willing to accept sexual stigma, period. We simply don’t have the stomach for permanently ostracizing the sexually irresponsible — be they a pregnant starlet, a thrice-divorced tycoon, or even a prostitute-hiring politician.
In this sense, ours is a kinder, gentler, more forgiving country than it was 40 years ago. But for half the public, it’s an unhappier country as well. (emphasis by SKM)
1. Social control by stigma is necessary
2. The "old sexism" is over and done with, to the degree that today's social stigmas "couldn't" even resemble it.
3. Parenthood is motherhood/parenting is women's work and will always be so
4. Mothers without husbands are necessarily less happy than married mothers
5. The pornography question is all settled
6. Various class and race assumptions surrounding use of the phrases "serial baby daddies" and "trophy-wife collectors"
7. The narrative of the "fallen woman" has vanished, now that the patriarchy is mostly over!
8. There is no sexual stigma in America
9. America is kinder and gentler due to this lack of sexual stigma
10. To reiterate the foregone conclusion: women are less happy than men
What is my point? Let's return to the Language Log thread for a second. I agree with Language Log commenter Tlönista, who writes,
Say Douthat really wanted to make a go of it, rather than grabbing at the nearest study to justify his pre-existing beliefs. It's probably better to examine our progress on particular things women's rights activists are pushing for, like gay marriage, parental leave, better health care, equal pay, and more humane policies for immigrants and sex workers. But that would be a terrible lot of work, more than you could demand of a humble NYT op-ed columnist who doesn't even know that feminism is still a going concern.
Commenter Dan Lufkin then responds, in part to Tlönista,
I just finished reading Douthat's piece for myself and I think that he carries the argument much better than LL has given him credit for. He notes that the data's not overwhelming and that the ambiguity lends itself to a broad-brush treatment, which he then proceeds to dish up. He outlines the arguments for both the traditionalist and the feminist views, erects and knocks down a few straw men on both sides, and points to one aspect — balance of work and family — where both sides have a common interest.I disagree.
I find it hard to tease out any of Douthat's pre-existing personal beliefs here. He's produced a workmanlike essay that brings an interesting observation to our attention, given it some context and invited us to think about it. I don't see any evidence that he doesn't know that feminism is still a going concern. He specifically says that American society doesn't make enough accommodation to the specific challenges of motherhood. The poor guy has just a few column-inches to make his case and I think he's done a good job of it.
First, Douthat's "ambiguity" refers not to "the data" for the happiness gap but to the social explanations for those data. Douthat certainly lines up feminist and social-conservative straw men, but I don't see where he knocks any down. Rather, he waves his hands about how "There’s evidence to fit each of these narratives. But there’s also room for both."
My numbered list above makes it clear why I don't "find it hard to tease out any of Douthat's pre-existing personal beliefs" and why I do see "evidence that [Douthat] doesn't know that feminism is still a going concern" (see especially numbers 2,3,5,7, and 8).
In pondering the annoying mystery of why Douthat has a job at the NYT, it occurs to me that Dan Lufkin’s comment presents a possible explanation. I think Lufkin's well-written and apparently thoughtful response is the majority view. In other words, most people just aren't reading Douthat all that closely, probably due to Douthat's deployment of commonly accepted stereotypes and his superficial attempts to present both sides of the issue in a sympathetic yet dispassionate tone (he's sort of a master concern troll).
Perhaps Douthat has the capacity to think beyond stereotypes, but he has no motivation to do so, and so he does not.
A note about comments: it is not my purpose to hold Language Log commenter Lufkin up for ridicule, so please follow my lead on that. I think Lufkin’s point of view is likely the majority one, so I was using his clearly-expressed comment as a call to my response.
Finally, let’s have some compassion for poor Mr. Douthat. Life is tough when your surname is a portmanteau of “douchebag” and “asshat”.
Oh, Hillary. swoon
Clinton to Extend Benefits to Gay Partners:
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will soon announce that the partners of gay U.S. diplomats are eligible for many benefits currently denied them and allowed to spouses of heterosexual diplomats, according to lawmakers and others advocating the change.In what will now be known as the Bad Old Days, same-sex partners of US diplomats were not only denied the usual array of benefits (healthcare, pension, etc.), but also, when their partners were relocated overseas, had to pay out-of-pocket to ship their household effects and to travel themselves to the new post. (Yes, that's right—the US government would not even pay for the airfare of an unmarried partner, even if the government itself prevented them from being married.) Even worse, unmarried partners—which, of course, typically includes women in straight couples—were not evacuated by the US government in case of a security or medical emergency.
…Those benefits will be extended to all unmarried domestic partners -- both same-sex and heterosexual -- under the policy shift to be announced by Clinton in the coming days, according to a draft memo prepared for Clinton's signature. The draft was provided to The Washington Post by an official with the organization Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies.
J. Michelle Schohn, president of the organization, said she had read media reports on the draft memo and was hopeful the changes would be implemented soon. "It would make great changes in the lives" of gay Foreign Service officers and be "a giant step for equality," she said.
Now, all that will change. And that's change I can believe in!
Tuesday Dog Blogging
No cats in this post! LOL
Anyway, this was an absolutely gorgeous weekend here and we spent every day outside. On Sunday we drove down and hiked around this:
This was Miss Rosie's second real hiking trip (the first being on Saturday, lol) and she absolutely loved it.
These first two really capture their personalities:
Today In Things That Amuse Me
I was just adding a few DVDs to my Netflix queueueueueueue ("The Sarah Jane Adventures, Season 1," if you must know), and I checked to see which movie would soon be winging my way. Joy! Next in line was the craptacularly fantastic Mega Shark Vs. Giant Octopus.
Then I noticed the "expected availability" status has gone from "now" to "very long wait."
Come on, Shakers. Send your movies back. Other people want to watch them too, you know!
