by Shaker Esme, a sociologist with legal ambitions who spends her days selling comics and her nights fighting crime with her saucy wit and amazing super powers. She is also a huge nerd. In her spare time, she yells at the television for perpetuating the patriarchy.
Some days, I really hate being a feminist.
For a start, it's hard on my social life. My loved ones, my most trusted confidants, people whose opinions I care about don't always make being a feminist easy for me, in ways that will seem familiar to many people reading this. I have been accused of being too critical and too sensitive and too negative. I have been told to lighten up. I have felt like Captain No Fun Pants Feminist more times than I can count. I have had my opinions, criticisms, experiences, and perspective blamed, by people I trust, on everything from my weight to my mental condition to not getting enough sex.
When I've not spoken to friends for weeks on end because they said something and, it seemed like I was the only person in the world who could recognize what they said as profoundly idiotic, or when I've cut people off entirely because I got worn out with feeling like The Bad Guy for pointing out when they were being offensive, it's always viewed as my fault.
Another problem is that it can get so overwhelming. It's the same way you can't think about where each and every one of your toes is at every moment without standing still forever. If I stopped to think about how every item I buy from a Western company larger than 10 people feeds into Wallerstein's theory of peripheral nations and exploitation but still needing to buy some damned underwear, while at the same time thinking about agribusiness and the death of the American farm but needing something quick and easy for dinner, while at the same time thinking about my class privilege in even being able to choose where I work instead of working at McDonald's but needing a job to pay student loans and chip in on rent and buy groceries, while wanting to go see a movie but at the same time not because it's yet another fucking movie about how two white skinny middle-class heterosexual cisgendered American non-disabled people fall in looooove, my head would explode.
Part of the problem is that Knowledge, understanding of concepts and the world around you, is dangerous and addictive. You start with a Sociological Images post and before you know it you're snorting lines of Audre Lorde off Emile Durkheim's sweet, supple suicide statistics. Next thing you know you're yelling at the pixels that make up Keith Olbermann's face on your laptop screen while feeling guilty inside knowing women are casualties of war in the battle for land to mine the shit that makes your laptop connect to the internet.
So sometimes I hate being a feminist. I do. I hate being a sociologist too. I hate fat acceptance and I hate Junkfood Science. I hate The Beauty Myth and Karl Marx and my Gender Studies classes. I hate trans theory and having met Kate Bornstein. There are times, countless times, where I want to shut my brain off, want to beat myself senseless, so I can make the tiny screaming feminist sociologist in my head who can't let it go SHUT THE FUCK UP so I can enjoy this movie/tv show/video game/comic book/song, so I can interact with my family without wanting to scream "NO YOU ARE WRONG STOP BEING SO WRONG AND FOR THE LOVE OF CHRIST TURN OFF FOX NEWS." I yell at the TV because it has the decency not to yell back when I'm not in the mood for an argument, just for the assholes to go away.
But as hard as all that it, it's harder not to be a feminist.
For all the times I wish I could shut down the constant whine in my ears that I need to stop and think and consider and discuss and speak up, there's more times that I've welcomed the scream. I've spoken up in classes and earned professors' respect, better grades, letters of recommendation, and some really great conversations. I spoke up in meetings and got funding for a Jewish Student Organization and a great anecdote to put in essays. I spoke up to my father and earned his undying hatred. And I couldn't be more proud.
I read my diaries, from back when I was in junior high school, read my livejournal circa 2002, or listen to my mother talk politics and remember when I used to nod my head in agreement, and I wish so hard that I could time travel back to my birth and hand my infant self a link to a Feminism 101 blog. I wish I could take back what a misguided human being I was for so long.
When I was in 8th grade, I asked for information about tryouts for the water polo team, and the cantankerous male coach told me that he "discourage(s) girls from playing water polo, since they're delicate and might get hurt." If the Esme of now heard that, you can bet she'd have made him give her the information, then she'd file a complaint with the administration, and then she'd be out asking all her friends if they wanted to try out too.
In high school, my lack of exposure to queer culture meant that I couldn't cope with the fact that I was only attracted to girls. I thought I was a lesbian until somewhere around age 16, but I had no support system for that, so I dated boys and tried to be just like every other straight girl. The Esme of now would have been running the Gay-Straight Alliance and making out with that hot, geeky girl who didn't confess her crush on me until almost 4 years had passed.
I ask myself almost every day, how different would I be if I'd been exposed to feminist philosophy and sociology at a younger age. One thing I know is that an understanding of the world in which I find myself makes me a better person than I would be otherwise. I know that accepting the way my father has treated me in life, how so many people have treated me, would be infinitely harder if I didn't understand their behavior the way I do now.
There are a limited number of progressive feminist socially responsible fat accepting pieces of media in the world, because there are also a limited number of progressive feminist sociologically minded fat accepting people in the world—and precisely zero of them are related to me, and none of them are friends of mine living in the same town as me. The reason I am crazy in love with Melissa McEwan and Kate Harding and all the other bloggers that I read constantly is that they let me know that I'm not alone in having my enjoyment of the world around me seriously messed with by assbags who insist on putting all their assyness into the media and assing up my ability to suspend my disbelief and enjoy an ass-free 2 hours of sitting in a dark room eating over-priced fake-buttered popcorn.
They make it easier to accept that I can't unsee now that my eyes are open.
And the one thing I know most of all is that I've always wanted to help, and to make a difference in people's lives, to change the world. And without understanding it through a feminist lens, I wouldn't begin to know where to start teaspooning.
After the Red Pill
Feel the Homomentum!
And the hits keep coming...
An article in the Pentagon's top scholarly journal calls in unambiguous terms for lifting the ban on gays serving openly in the armed forces, arguing that the military is essentially forcing thousands of gay men and women to lead dishonest lives in an organization that emphasizes integrity as a fundamental tenet.Brilliant. That's an awesome lede, right there.
The article, penned by an Air Force colonel "who studied the issue for months while a student at the National Defense University in Washington and who concludes that having openly gay troops in the ranks will not hurt combat readiness," will appear in the upcoming issue of Joint Force Quarterly, which is a periodical published for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and sounds like a gay porn magazine only by coincidence.
"After a careful examination, there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that unit cohesion will be negatively affected if homosexuals serve openly," writes Colonel Om Prakash, who is now working in the office of Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. "Based on this research, it is not time for the administration to reexamine the issue; rather it is time for the administration to examine how to implement the repeal of the ban."Wow.
...[T]he crux of Prakash's argument is that the military is now forcing thousands of soldiers to live a lie, directly undercutting the very fabric of their profession.
"The law also forces unusual personal compromises wholly inconsistent with a core military value - integrity," he writes. "Several homosexuals interviewed were in tears as they described the enormous personal compromise in integrity they had been making, and the pain felt in serving in an organization they wholly believed in, yet that did not accept them."
He continues: "In an attempt to allow homosexual service members to serve quietly, a law was created that forces a compromise in integrity, conflicts with the American creed of 'equality for all,' places commanders in difficult moral dilemmas, and is ultimately more damaging to the unit cohesion its stated purpose is to preserve."
You know, when members of the NFL and the American military are writing stuff that sounds like Shakesville posts, there are only three choices: 1. Blub. 2. Cheer. 3. Both.
[Via Memeorandum.]
How to Apologize: An Example From Life
A friend of mine on LJ went to a play recently, in the Boston area, and mentioned afterwards that she'd been kind of surprised by the casting. The show was Never After, a re-take on the Sleeping Beauty story in which the curse is lesbianism.
The character of Hexasper, a naughty fairy who is responsible for the curse, was played by one of only two POC in the cast (a Hispanic man was in the chorus; Hexasper was played by a newcomer to musical theatre, Sonya Joyner, a Black woman - I use her own identifier there)*.
Now this caught a number of people by surprise, and several of them wrote to director Elizabeth Hunter to express their concern.
Ms. Hunter made a post on Livejournal, explaining how the decisions had been made, and discussing her own thought process as she went from auditions to performance - and calling herself out for not thinking more about how it would look to an audience (Ms. Joyner had specifically auditioned for the particular role, and had solidly rocked her audition). (NB: Ordinarily, I strongly recommend staying out of non-Shakesville comment threads. On this occasion, I recommend the opposite. While there are a few "oh you're just being sensitive"-type remarks, they are quickly challenged, and Ms. Hunter has done very well in responding to them too.)
The part I want to draw your attention to is what a good job of it Ms. Hunter did. Being called out for apparent privilege is no fun for anyone. But it happens to all of us, one time or another, and it's a good idea, if you move through the world with much privilege, to learn how to graciously hear concerns raised by that privilege, and how to recognize when you're acting from it.
Do note that the actor herself, Ms. Joyner, comments (anonymously, but she identifies herself at the bottom of her comment) on the post and the production.
I want to also point out that this has got me thinking about how my own local community theatre could do more about encouraging POC to audition for our shows (I'm tangentially involved with the Board of Directors), and to thank Ms. Hunter for sparking that internal dialogue.
Brava Ms. Joyner, for doing so well with the role you wanted, and to Ms. Hunter, for giving us such a fine example of How To Get It Right When Someone Says You Got It Wrong. Break a leg, folks.
* A correction: there were more POC in the cast than I had come to understand. My apologies for the error; a correction is published here.
Feel the Homomentum!
"Looking at the former restrictions on human rights in our country starting with slavery, women not being able to vote, blacks being counted as two thirds of a human, segregation, no gays in the military (to list a few) all have gone by the wayside. But now here in 2009 same sex marriages are prohibited. I think we will look back in 10, 20, 30 years and be amazed that gays and lesbians did not have the same rights as every one else. How did this ever happen in the land of the free and the home of the brave? Are we really free?"—Brendon Ayanbadejo, NFL linebacker for the Baltimore Ravens.
"I hope he's right in his prediction, and I hope even more that it doesn't take that long. People could look at this issue without blinders on...the blinders imposed by their church, their parents, their friends or, in our case, their coaches and locker rooms. I wish they would realize that it's not a religion issue. It's not a government issue. It's not even a gay/straight issue or a question of your manhood. It's a human issue. And until more people see that, we're stuck arguing with people who don't have an argument."—Scott Fujita, defensive captain for the New Orleans Saints.
I don't want to be flip about this, because there is still real opposition out there, standing in the way of progress and fucking up people's lives in material ways, but honestly, when that sort of passionate eloquence in favor of same-sex marriage is coming from the NFL, the debate is over. Our opponents are not even winning battles anymore; they're just delaying the inevitable.
[H/T to Shaker Anitanola.]
Taking Her Side
Aside from Kevin Smith (who tweeted this out yesterday) and Greg Grunberg (who posted this) I've not seen any other celebrities siding with Samantha Gailey, Roman Polanski's victim.
The silence is, as they say, deafening.
If I've missed someone else, please do me a favor and drop a link in comments.
What the Hell?
Shaker mkp-hearts-nyc
Cheer! Cheer for... ummm... whatever you're cheering for.
(If you've a ridiculous and/or embarrassing photo of yourself from your youth, please send it to shakerwhatthehell_at_yahoo_dot_com. I'll post them up as part of our series called What The Hell? so everyone can laugh
[See also: Deeky, Liss, evilsciencechick, katecontinued, ClumsyKisses, Mistress Sparkletoes, Liiiz, Reedme, Mama Shakes, Mustang Bobby, RedSonja, MomTFH, Portly Dyke, SteffaB, Icca, Christina, Orangelion03, Car, Siobhan, InfamousQBert, Maud, Rikibeth, MishaRN, CLD, Cheezwiz, MamaCarrie, Temeraire, somebodyoranother, goldengirl, Liss (again), summerwing, yeomanpip, Susan811, bbl, Deeky (Part II), A Daily Shakesville Fan, Sami_J, liberalandproud Temeraire: Redux, Mama Shakes II, Bonus Deeky, OuyangDan, J.Goff, Iain, Talonas, The Great Indoors, gogo, kiwi_a, em_and_ink, Tik_bev, phdintraining, Deeky Freakhands, busydani, Jenny Anne, rowmyboat, DesertRose, Steve/Pido, Anne Onymous, phredrika, The Last of the Famous International Deekys, Iain, and Another Mustang Bobby.]
Question of the Day
What can't you get enough of these days?
This is my new love. I can't put it down. We're planning a spring wedding.
Take Up Your Teaspoons
by Shaker laguiri
Spanish law is very protective of people's privacy and our personal image. It's a constitutional right, on the same footing as freedom of speech, and it is particularly protected in the case of minors. You cannot make a minor's identity public without their parents' consent, no matter how newsworthy they are, not even if what you want to say about a minor is a good thing. The law is very clear about that, and there aren't any ambiguities.
President Zapatero took his wife and children (girls, aged 13 and 17) to a recent official visit to the USA. The girls' identities are secret. Nobody knows how they look like, or what school they go to. Until two days ago, I didn't even know their names. The president of the government here does not have a "first family" status like the royal family does, or like the President's family in the United States. Since we became a democratic country, the apparitions of presidents' families in the media are rare. Not exceptional, but certainly rare.
But Zapatero and family got a picture taken with Barack and Michelle Obama. It appeared on the White House website, but it was taken down upon request. We have seen the picture in Spain because the major Conservative newspaper (El Mundo) published it, pixeling a fraction of the girls' faces. I'm not going to show you the picture to respect the family's wishes, but in order to understand what's going on now you have to know that they're fat, they're not standing very gracefully, and they're wearing thick boots and loose black clothes. As a result, they've been called all sorts of insults in conservative media, particularly online.
On Saturday, Antonio Burgos, a popular columnist in another Conservative newspaper, ABC, has published an article saying things like: Everyone in close contact with the Government knew that Zapatero's girls were two horrors, but now, all of Spain knows. They're ugly enough to scare you away. (...) If they came to you on a dark night, asking you, for example, where to take a bus to Alcosa [a very working-class neighbourhood in his town], they'd shock you enough to make you jump to Carmona [30 miles farther away].
Does this upset you? You can do something about it:
It's an offense to gothic art to say that these two monstrosities are "gothic" (...) By the volume of their round bumps..... if Brigitte Bardoat saw them, she's want to protect them.... pinniped animals
…Zapatero didn't want the picture published (...) so that we didn't see his complete family portrait. His Munsters.
1. you can complain to the Defensor of Minors of the Spanish government. Click here and click "Otras solicitudes y sugerencias" in the drop-down menu. It will ask you for personal information but on other page it states clearly that people from any nationality or age can file complaints. Here is a model letter in Spanish (translation at the end):
Ruego a la oficina del Defensor del Menor tome responsabilidad en la defensa del derecho al honor y a la intimidad de las hijas de la familia RodrÃguez Espinosa, menores de edad (16 y 13 respectivamente).
Desde la publicación de su fotografÃa en la Casa Blanca de Washington se ha multiplicado su presencia en medios de comunicación de todo corte, no precisamente informativos, sino de opinión, del mismo modo que otros menores que recientemente han recibido la atención de su oficina.
En concreto, ruego al Defensor del Menor emprender de oficio las acciones pertinentes respecto a la columna del pasado sábado 26 de Antonio Burgos y el medio publicante, diario ABC:
"Que las niñas de Zetaparo eran DOS CALLOS HORROROSOS lo sabÃan los más Ãntimos en La Moncloa, pero ahora se ha enterado España entera. SON DE SALIR CORRIENDO."
"Te encuentras a las 12 de la noche con estas PUÑETERAS NIÑAS en una calle oscura…"
"¡Qué ofensa para el arte gótico, llamar góticos a estos ADEFESIOS!"
"Por el volumen de su BULTO REDONDO, asà achaparrado."
Solicito respetuosamente su intervención.
Atentamente, YOUR NAME.
[I ask the office of the Defender of Minors that it takes the responsibility of defending the right to their honor, privacy and self-image of the daughters of the RodrÃguez Espinosa family, ages 13 and 16. Since the publication of their photograph in the White House in Washington their presence has multiplied in the media, not as a form of information but in opinion outlets, just like other minors whose protection has been requested of this office.
Specifically, I request of the Defender of Minors that he takes appropriate legal measures against the column published on Saturday 26th by Antonio Burgos in ABC: (quotes from the column). I respectfully ask for your intervention. Yours sincerely....]
2. You can complain to ABC, sending an email to opinion@abc.es. This is a model letter in Spanish, asking the newspaper to make an apology (translation at the end):
El pasado dÃa 26 de Septiembre, el columnista Antonio Burgos publicó una columna injuriosa acerca de las hijas del presidente del Gobierno. Los insultos allà vertidos van más allá de la libertad de expresión y vulnerar el derecho al honor de las niñas, que deberÃan permanecer ajenas a las opiniones que Burgos tenga sobre su padre. Consideren que los humoristas de "El Jueves" que atentaron recientemente contra el honor de los PrÃncipes de Asturias fueron condenados a pagar una multa de 6.000 euros. Burgos no ha hecho menos que ellos, contra personas totalmente inocentes que no han hecho daño alguno y no se pueden defender. Antonio Burgos tiene derecho a expresar su opinión sobre otras cuestiones legÃtimas y por ello no les pido que sustituyan su columna, pero les ruego que publiquen una disculpa.
Atentamente, YOUR NAME.
[Last Saturday the 26th, the columnist Antonio Burgos published an article insulting the president's daughters. The insults he used go beyond freedom of speech and damage the right to the honor of the children, who should remain apart from the opinions that Burgos has about their father. Remember that the cartoonist from "El Jueves" who damaged the honor of the Prince and Princess of Asturias were recently sentenced to pay a fine of 6,000 euros. Burgos has not done any less than they did, and he attacked innocent people who haven't hurt anybody and cannot defend themselves. Antonio Burgos has a right to express his opinions on legitimate matters, and that is why I am not asking you to retire his space, but I'm asking you that you publish an apology. Yours sincerely, YOUR NAME.]
And Your Point Would Be...?
Former Reagan official Frank Gaffney told a panel at Phyllis Schafly's "How To Take Back America" clambake that Barack Obama is our first Muslim president.
If Bill Clinton, on the basis of special interest pandering and identity politics, was properly called the first Black American President, on that same basis, Barack Obama should be called the first Muslim American President.Another panelist, Bill Federer, chimed in:
In Islam, if your father is a Muslim, you’re automatically a Muslim. Since Barack’s father, stepfather, and grandfather were all Muslim, the Muslim world views him as Muslim.To quote Colin Powell, so what if he was? What difference would it make? Why shouldn't America elect a Muslim as president? Why can't a kid growing up in Toledo or Miami or Phoenix or Denver or Seattle who happens to be Muslim aspire to follow in the footsteps of the forty-three men who have been elected president?
It's very simple: because bigots like Gaffney and Federer are what pass for reasonable and respectable members of the Republican party, that's why.
Crossposted.
Open Thread
Hosted by MetaSophs.
Sorry I forgot to do a General Open Thread this morning. Let's all just pretend that I meant to save it for the afternoon to mix it up! LOL.
Daily Kitteh
When I grabbed the camera, Sophs was sitting on my desk, curled in a beautiful downward loop to clean herself (you can see the wee ruffle in her fur where she stopped)—then, just as I took the picture, she quickly sat upright. This was the result, which I weirdly love.
Open Thread on Healthcare
CNN: Senate Democrats plan to force vote on public option—"Two members of the Senate Finance Committee plan to put their Democratic colleagues on the spot on Tuesday by offering amendments on whether to give uninsured Americans the opportunity to join a government insurance program. While health care reform legislation in the House and an alternate plan in the Senate have included a so-called 'public option,' the Finance Committee's version, which Republicans haven't rejected completely, has not included a government-sponsored provision. Sens. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia and Chuck Schumer of New York planned to offer the amendments last week before the action was delayed."
The Hill: Harkin says he has the votes to pass public option bill in the Senate—"Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, said that the Senate 'comfortably' has a majority of votes to pass the public plan, and that he believes Democrats can muster 60 votes to break a filibuster."
New York Times: Abortion Fight Complicates Debate on Health Care—"Abortion opponents in both the House and the Senate are seeking to block the millions of middle- and lower-income people who might receive federal insurance subsidies to help them buy health coverage from using the money on plans that cover abortion. And the abortion opponents are getting enough support from moderate Democrats that both sides say the outcome is too close to call. Opponents of abortion cite as precedent a 30-year-old ban on the use of taxpayer money to pay for elective abortions."
Media Matters: More Americans Believe in UFOs Than Oppose a Public Option—"More Americans believe in UFOs (34%) than oppose a public option (26%). The debate is over."
Also see: Steve and Digby on the latest bit of fuckery from Senator Ben Nelson (D-Dipshittia).
Discuss.
Her Reasons Are Not Yours
Things you might have heard about the woman Roman Polanski raped when she was a 13-year-old girl:
• She's forgiven him.
• She doesn't want the case pursued.
• Her mother was a fame-seeker who put her in the situation.
These are all things that aren't relevant to any discussion of why or why not Polanski should be extradited to the US to face the charges he skipped out on thirty years ago—but the real stickler of the bunch seems to be that "she doesn't want the case pursued" one, with the argument going something like: If even the girl he raped wants to let it go, why shouldn't we?
The simple answer for that is because justice doesn't operate on the principle of what's best for the victim; it operates on the principle of what's best for the community. (That's why prosecutors represent "the people.") Particularly in a case of sexual assault of a minor, there is additional pressure to prosecute, even if the victim(s) don't support the prosecution, because interviews of convicted/admitted child rapists in prisons suggest that the rapist who only rapes once and never again has about as much supporting evidence for his existence as does the unicorn. (To wit: Roman Polanski's ensuing relationship with then-15-year-old Nastassja Kinski.) Some of those who understand this principle nonetheless argue that Polanski is now an "old man," as if old men don't rape. Unfortunately, they can and they do.
The more complicated answer to If even the girl he raped wants to let it go, why shouldn't we? begins with this statement of fact: Her reasons are not yours.
Samantha Gailey's primary reason for not wanting the case pursued, according to the public statements I've read, have to do with her not wanting to subject herself and her family to the public scrutiny and media circus that will inevitably surround Polanski's return to the US and any subsequent court proceedings.
She's not motivated by sympathy—in fact, she has explicitly said she harbors no "hard feelings" but also feels "no sympathy" for Polanski, and in recent years publicly stated she wished he's come back just so she could put the whole thing behind her, irrespective of the outcome.
What Gailey quite evidently wants is this shit to end. She wants closure—something Polanski has been cruelly denying her for three decades while living as a fugitive.
When justice is denied, or interminably deferred, often one finds a way of closing the chapter, just to get on with life—to be able to live unencumbered by an ever-present sensation of imbalance. One longs desperately to evade the niggling feeling that you're betraying yourself, or upending some karmic sense of justice, merely by getting on with your life as though there had been a satisfactory and fair resolution, when there hasn't been.
When there is no justice to free you, no closure, it can feel as though not living as a victim tacitly condones what was done, retroactively making it not matter. Survivors of sexual assault whom the law has failed often feel they must serve a sentence of suffering themselves, beyond what they might otherwise naturally bear, in order to not join in the ubiquitous chorus trumpeting that what happened to them was No Big Deal.
That self-imposed sentence can be a hard place to leave. But once you grant yourself parole, it's an even harder place to which to return.
Given the opportunity now for the legal justice I was denied, I daresay I'd sound an awful lot like Gailey. It's not that my feelings toward my rapist have changed; it's that what closure I have was hard-won—and I fiercely protect it. The wanton appropriation of Gailey's words doesn't reflect an understanding of what it is to be a survivor robbed of justice; in fact, it reveals a profound indifference toward exploiting someone who has already survived a terrible exploitation.
The truth not being spoken is that the people incorporating Samantha Gailey's wishes as part of their arguments aren't doing so because they want to protect Samantha Gailey. They're doing it because they want to protect Roman Polanski.
[Note: Samantha Gailey is her birth name, not her name at present.]
Canadian Charter of Rights Challenge Over Blood Donation Rules
I'd like to use this post to give a virtual high-five and my public support to Kyle Freeman, who's making a Charter challenge on the Canadian blood donation laws.
Edit to add, because reading is fundamental: I'd like to make clear, I'm not calling for a boycott. I'm calling for public pressure to be put on the agency to change their rules to something more effective, and I'm personally choosing not to donate. I'm not even encouraging you not to donate; just asking you to consider speaking up about the discrimination here.
In short, the Canadian blood donation system, which has been rocked with repeated scandals in the last couple of decades, doesn't want any of that dirty dirty gay blood. They reject a man outright if he admits to having had sex with another man ever, while failing to reject women for exactly the same thing (unprotected sex with men). Only gay and bi men get the boot from the list of respectable allowable donors.
This is why, in protest, I've not been donating blood to the Canadian services for a number of years in solidarity with my gay and bi brothers, instead sending a letter once a year to urge them to change their discriminatory policy, if they want my sweet sweet queerbait AB- to start flowing into their little baggies again.
See, if blood from gay and bi folk is too suspect to use, then you don't want mine, cause I'm queer as fuck and proud of it. And I've had sex with men, ever.
This outdated ban, of dubious medical value, needs to end, and the highlight put on people who engage in HIV-high-risk activities: anyone having unprotected sex with men, those who engage in needle-sharing, and so on, not on entire classes of people because some of them may do things which are high risk. In Canada, we call that "discrimination", and it's against the Charter of Rights.
Canadians can contact the Canadian Blood Services by the following means:
* toll-free telephone: 1 888 2 DONATE
* e-mail: feedback@blood.ca, or
* mail: Canadian Blood Services, 1800 Alta Vista Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, K1G 4J5.
If I find any place to be able to donate to help Mr. Freeman in his challenge, I'll pass that link along.
Teaspoons up, my fellow maple-flavoured Shakers! o.oP
Today's Edition of "Conniving and Sinister"
Strips One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38. In which Liss reimagines the long-running comic "Frank & Ernest," about two old straight white guys "telling it like it is," as a fat feminist white woman and a biracial queerbait telling it like it actually is from their perspectives. Hilarity ensues.
Bread and Teaspoons Eight
Good afternoon (unless it isn't where you are, in which case I wish you Good $TIME_PERIOD), and welcome to this week's installment of Shakesville's networking post, Bread and Teaspoons*.
Time to make a couple of small changes. See below the jump for details.
This is a weekly post, usually Tuesdays, providing a spot for Shakers to network a little with one another, see if we can help each other out some. I've shifted to Tuesdays because I'm finding my Mondays tend to be a little busier.
Here's how it works: There should be three four sorts of comments here.
1) You comment here with any details of work you're seeking: where, what, that sort of thing. You give an e-mail address at which you can be reached - feel free to set up a special e-mail for it, if you don't want to post your regular one for the world to spam - and if another Shaker has a lead, they can contact you directly to pass it along.
A work-seeking comment should include:
Please do NOT include information such as your full name or telephone number, as this is and will remain a public post, and once posted, there's no taking it back (because it'll be spidered by a search engine, not because we don't want you to).
It is explicitly alright to comment to this each week with similar info.
For example, I might post a comment saying:
I'm a professional translator of French, German and Russian, with nearly 17 years of experience. I'm looking for basically any translation job, academic, commercial, personal, genealogical, you name it, with one exception: I do not currently have certification, so if you need a certified translator (usually for legal docs: birth certificates, divorce decrees, wills), you need someone else.
I am also available as a writer or editor, for academic, journalistic, creative, marketing-oriented or any other type of written communication. Basically, if you'll pay me, I'll write or edit it.
You can contact me for business purposes through my business address, translatey.caitie@translateycaitie.com.**
2) The second type of comment would be task offering: if you've got a job you think might suit someone here, consider posting it as a comment. Use the same guidelines as above: give general information here, and specific information when you exchange e-mails. An offered task might look something like this:
I have a doctoral thesis which needs proofing and editing by Thursday, is anyone available? You can reach me at ABDShaker@shakesville.miskatonic.edu.
3) The third kind of comment I'd love to see is success stories! We’d love to know when this works out, and people actually find some employment through our efforts. If you feel like sharing, tell us how it worked out for you. :)
**NEW CATEGORY ADDED**
4) If you’re a progressive working for or running a small business and would like to include a pointer to your business, you may do so. If you’ve never otherwise posted before here (i.e., you’re a lurker), I may check in with you to be certain you’re a Shaker and not a spammer. If it turns into a spamfest, or we start getting businesses that are of dubious progressive credentials, we may need to revisit this one, but let’s give it a try.
So, that's what we'd like to see.
What we do NOT want to see:
So there. Have at it, Shakers, for Bread and Teaspoons!
Important disclaimers: Shakesville makes no endorsement or claim as to the capabilities of anyone commenting to this post, and anyone considering hiring someone should be prepared to treat it like any other business situation: DO YOUR DUE DILIGENCE. We're not doing any screening of this, so you'll want to make sure you check references, use safe-payment procedures (e.g., ask for a deposit), all the things you'd do when working with any stranger on the Internet. While this is intended for Shakers in general, remember that there is no real obstacle to being able to comment here, and do the things you need to do to keep yourself safe.
* As might be evident, this is an intentional reference to Bread and Roses, a longtime slogan of the left. In this case, though, my hope is that if we achieve steady bread, we will use it to power our teaspoon use.
** Now, don't go writing to that one yet, because that's not my actual domain name (which I've not got running yet, but should soon), and I'm only using it as an example (though it happens to be true). The e-mail listed for me under Contributors works just fine for now, if you've got something for me.
The last several Bread and Teaspoons: Three. Four. Five.Six.Seven.
Hollywood "Liberals" Sign Free Polanski Petition
Wow. The whole text of the petition is here, as are all the names of the co-signers (and names are still being added).
Some huge disappointments for me, I've got to be honest.
Tilda Swinton—crushing. Darren Aronofsky. Terry Gilliam. Neil Jordan. Sam Mendes. Steven Soderbergh.
It just goes on and on.
