Shakesville

Oh. I See This Book Wasn't Written for Me.

So I'm reading Malcolm Gladwell's book Outliers (with which I have some problems, that I may write about later), and I come to this passage:

Hard work is a prison sentence only if it does not have meaning. Once it does, it becomes the kind of thing that makes you grab your wife around the waist and dance a jig. (p 150)

Now, Gladwell strikes me as a reasonably smart fella. I believe it's safe to say he knows his readership isn't exclusively limited to straight married men—and married or civil-unionized lesbian or bisexual ladies in several European countries, Canada, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Iowa, and/or California, who were grandparented into legal marriage before Prop 8 reared its disgustingly ugly head and revoked the right.*

But I can understand why he wrote an exclusionary, sexist sentence that totally took me out of the experience of reading by reminding me of my marginalization. It's so hard to write for everyone.

"Once it does, it becomes the kind of thing that makes you grab a loved one around the waist and dance a jig."

That took me at least six seconds of arduous thought. And I managed to make it inclusive of everyone on the planet who has a loved one, loved in any way. Oops—except for physically disabled people who can't dance jigs.

"Once it does, it becomes the kind of thing that makes you grab a loved one and celebrate."

That took me at least three more seconds of brain-straining contemplation. Now it includes everyone on the planet who has a loved one, loved in any way. Oops—except for people who are separated from their loved one(s) for some reason, like, say, being deployed to Iraq for a third tour.

"Once it does, it becomes the kind of thing worth celebrating."

There. I think I've got it.

It did, however, take a full twelve seconds of consideration. What person could reasonably be expected to make that kind of effort?

Quite obviously, I should just learn to read right past every single passing reference to my marginalization to which I am subjected every single day of my life. That's much more fair than expecting someone to take less time than it takes to piss to make sure their prose doesn't exclude more than half the world's population.

Oh, did that sound contemptuous...?

Good.

--------------------

* Seriously, People of Earth: Please universally legalize same-sex marriage so I can stop writing awkward sentences like that. Yeah, that's right—since appeals to reason haven't seemed to work, I'm now appealing to what I believe is an innate human need to read well-written blog posts.

OMFG

Stella McCartney to Make Shoes with Morrissey. Blink. Blink blink. Morrissey. Shoez. Blink.

Morrissey + OMG Shoez = Lissie's head explodes.
[H/T to Shaker Garbo.]

This is a real thing in the world.

A Victoria's Secret commercial directed by Michael Bay:

There's no dialogue to transcribe, so here's the paraphrase: BOOBS! BOOBS! BOOOOOOOBIES! BOOBS! BOOBS! BOOBS! BOOBS! BOOBS! MORE BOOBS! BOOBALEE-BOOBALEE-BOOBS! BOOOOOOOOOOBS! EXPLOSION! BOOBS!!!1!!eleventy!!

Assholery

Hey, know who's an asshole? Sarah Palin.

Know who else is an asshole? Anyone who thinks that throwing tomatoes at her is an acceptable expression of ideological disagreement.

Way to go with the totes missing and hitting a cop in the face instead, asshole.

Principles Are Icky!

Shaker Roramich emails: "[This article] is from the Boston Globe concerning Governor Patrick's decision to NOT speak a the Clover Club dinner last Saturday, because it's a centuries-old men-only club. I just 'LOVE' (where love = seethe with hatred) how Tom Finneran (a privileged asshat if there ever was one) leads off the defense of the club with 'I've never noticed there was a problem!' How convenient for YOU Tommy!!"

1,000 bonus Jackass Points to Finneran for invoking the old "my wife and daughter are cool with it" canard.

I Ain't Lovin' It

Oh, Ronald, Ronald, Ronald.

We had those happy years, we did, we'd hang out at the zoo, or downtown, or while I read some comics maybe. It was good. We should have lunch some time. Erm, my choice of place to eat, though, k?

Now, the reason I'm writing here is because I'm really disappointed in a couple of managers (possibly part-time rectal haberdashers - maybe both, even?) of yours, at a location in Florida. See, this young woman, like so many others, thought she'd try for a job at that store. But your managers put on their asshats and made clear that people like her - oh, and like me, as it turns out, but you didn't know that when we were together, did you? - weren't welcome working for you.

They even left her a phone message, after rudely refusing to even interview her after figuring out that she might have been born with a less-common-in-women arrangement of pants-covered-parts, telling her "We do not hire faggots". As an aside, may I point out that this is not only crude and offensive, it's really stupidly inaccurate, too? Since she's a woman, she can't, sorta by definition, be a faggot. What you wanted was "bitches". Trust me on this one, I know which slur goes with which meal course.

I think what confuses me is, what are you teaching in Hamburger University that trains managers that employees should be using their genitals in cooking? Because this seems to me not only manifestly unsanitary, but also quite thoroughly dangerous. I am alarmed that your Health & Safety personnel are not providing better training: I cannot recommend strongly enough that you immediately enact a policy forbidding employees from using their genitalia while cooking.

If you have not instituted this genital-cooking policy, I remain quite thoroughly unsure of why this young woman wouldn't be eminently suited to your establishment's labour pool. I speak from experience when I say that someone who is seventeen and has transitioned six years earlier, is a cool, collected character of the highest order, and would be likely to be a more effective and less embarrassing manager than the bigots you currently employ in that role.

Anyway, Ronald, I just thought I'd drop you a line, and express my disappointment. I find I'm really not lovin' it, and much as I'd hate to end our long friendship, I think I'd pretty much have to, if you didn't find that these persons were manifestly unsuitable for the responsibilities they currently hold.

With a sad goodbye - or will you make it au revoir?

CaitieCat

PS: I gave some of my friends your address, so you may get a few letters about this one. I really hope we can still be friends, but I guess it's up to you now.

Tip of the CaitieCap to Shaker Curmudgeonly for the heads-up.

Update: From Shaker tricia, a link to a site which says McDonald's released a statement saying the individual was no longer working for them. That's a start. I'd like to see what policies they're going to put in place to see that this doesn't keep happening.

Well, I Guess That's Us Told

[Trigger warning.]

Not content with a mere blog post mocking the objection to ad advert that equates chemical residue with sexual assault and harassment, now Ad Age has published an editorial admonishing us to "Quit Looking for Offense in Every Single Commercial." Shaker Joe sent me a pdf of the print version this morning:

[Click to embiggen.]

While the words in this space are usually directed at marketers, we'd like to take an opportunity to talk to all of those out there who often find themselves so offended by ads that they feel a need to launch a crusade. To you we say: "Take a deep breath. Have some perspective."

It goes on from there with the smug confidence typical of concern trolls who believe they're saying something new and important by accusing feminists of looking for something to get mad about. Congratulations, editors of Ad Age, you've just published an editorial that can successfully be refuted by Derailing for Dummies.

Extra points for equating "homophobes" and "men's rights groups" with "gay-rights activists" and "ardent feminists." Because people who want to deny equality are the same as the people fighting for it. I particularly love the construction of "ardent feminists," by the way, with its positively adorable implication that it's fine to be a feminist, but y'know, not one of those ardent ones who complains about stuff. Like the minimization of the gravity of sexual assault.

But here's the best part: "In this case, Method was probably right to just pull the spot. After all, rape and sexism aren't, like gay marriage and sex on TV, issues that can be argued." Leaving aside the inexplicably absurd conflation of same-sex marriage and "sex on TV," I love how this basically boils down to: "Those hysterical nutballs were right this time—but they should still STFU."

The piece ends with this:

Maybe it's not so easy to let such perceived slights go. But perhaps if you're the sort to start letter-writing campaigns and the kind who's quick with a #fail hashtag on Twitter, you could try to stop spotting offense under every rock. They're just commercials, after all. You can always change the channel.

Which couldn't more clearly expose the editors' manifest misunderstanding of the nature of my (and plenty of others') objections to this sort of material. It's not that I can't "let such perceived slights go." The reason I take action, the reason I lift my teaspoon, is because it's part of the way I process and let go of the occasional stuff that does get under my skin. Being a member of a marginalized population means, literally, being out of control. And it feels that way. Taking action in response to the means and methods of one's oppression is a response to being and feeling out of control.

Being a survivor of sexual assault, which is a crime of control using sex as a weapon, can leave one with an urgent, compelling need to take action, take back control, and campaigning against the narratives, images, language, jokes, and other accoutrements of the rape culture that diminish the seriousness of what is a life-altering event for many of its victims is a valuable course for many survivors. Encouraging them to "let it go" is actively, if obliquely, discouraging them from healing.

It's a particular bit of cruelty, that: Get over it. But if getting over it means anything but silence, we'll call you an overwrought hysteric.

It's a cruelty that also conveniently ignores the reality that imagery of sexual assault can be triggering for survivors. Despite what the editors of Ad Age evidently believe, survivors of sexual assault who are triggered by its imagery used as a joke are not just weak-minded reactionaries. They are survivors of a heinous crime who don't find the "humor" in its being used as a metaphor for soap scum.

Who's really lost perspective here?

And that's why whether this stuff affects/triggers me personally isn't even my main concern; my main concern is that all this stuff contributes to a culture in which sexual assault flourishes and constantly hurts women, and men, and children.

"Turning the channel" doesn't change that.

Actively working to create ever larger spaces in which rape and rape apologia are considered unacceptable, however, does.

The notion that anti-rape advocates look for things about which to get offended is manifest horseshit: The truth is, if I actually spent my days actively paying attention to every example of rape apologia around me, I would be a profoundly unhappy woman. Not bitchy or grumpy or short-tempered, but paralyzingly depressed. Women have to train themselves to avoid consciously reacting to every bit of rape-advocating detritus permeating the culture through which we all move, lest they go quite insane. I write about the things I can't not write about. If I wrote about all the examples of sexual predation I see every day, I'd never sleep.

And the recommendation to "ignore the little stuff," so often intertwined with accusations of looking for things about which to get offended (as here), is not merely condescending, but counter to the objective of stopping rape. The "little stuff" is the fertile soil in which everything else takes root and from whence everything else springs; it's the way that the fundamental idea that sexual assault is acceptable is conveyed over and over and over again.

Which, quite frankly, means that if even we did have to look for it, we'd be right to do so.

[Previously on the Method Shiny Suds Ad: Today in Rape Culture, I Write Letters, I Get Letters, Hysterical Bitchez.]

Bread and Teaspoons Eighteen

Good morning (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*.

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.

Also remember, if you’re running or part of a small business, you’re encouraged to drop links here for that. I’m happy to see Shakers makin’ their own way in whatever manner that is.

This week’s Topic, should you choose to accept it, is Privacy. How do you manage your online presence with respect to your employment? Do you maintain separate e-mail addresses for personal and professional use, blog under a pseudonym, or do you just brave it out with a big shiny teaspoon?

Here's how it works: There should be 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:

- a short summary of the skillset you're seeking work with;

- a short summary of your experience

- where you're looking for work to happen

- your contact e-mail

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. My company website is found here.

You can contact me for business purposes through my business address, cait@cogitantes.net.

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:

- recommendations/references, even for other Shakers - leave those for the contact phase of your negotiation

- rates info - again, leave this for the contact phase of your negotiation; we don't want to encourage bidding wars between Shakers

- illegal employment - whatever we may think of a given law against a certain activity, we don't want to put Shakesville in any awkward spots legally

- links to job search, agency or other sites - this is meant to be Shaker-to-Shaker, here, not a spamming point for other sites; only link to sites which are yours

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.

The last several Bread and Teaspoons: Twelve. Thirteen. Fourteen. Fifteen. Sixteen. Seventeen.

SNL Continues to Be a Disgrace

[Trigger warning for DV.]

This past weekend, SNL aired a sketch about Tiger Woods' family issues, the entire "hilarious" premise of which was that Tiger Woods' wife Elin beats him with a golf club. The Executive Director of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Rita Smith, noted that the sketch "made such a mockery of abuse" and said: "There's nothing funny about this story, particularly if violence was part of the events that took place. ... I hope that SNL refrains from using this kind of skit in the future as it diminishes people's support for victims of domestic violence."

The NCADV's complaint is being widely discussed, typically dismissed as an overreaction and under headlines like "SNL battered over spoof of Tiger Woods spat" and "NBC beat up over SNL spoof." (Actual headlines, to which I'm not linking.)

Something I've not seen mentioned in the discussions I've read, however, is that Rihanna was the musical guest on the show. SNL not only decided it was appropriate to air a "comedy sketch" about domestic violence, but wrote it, rehearsed it, and performed it in front of a survivor of domestic violence who was another guest on the show.

I don't know which I find worse: The possibility she was never consulted about the inclusion of the sketch, or the possibility that she was put in the position of having to give her okay to it, knowing she risks the appearance of being seen as "oversensitive" or "weak" if she says she's uncomfortable with it. All the reassurances in the world to the contrary don't mean much when your approval is being sought to make fun of your own victimization. How can you say "no" without knowing you'll forever be branded with the scarlet H of the chronically humorless?

It's utterly appalling that a survivor would be put in that position. As if the sketch weren't bad enough on its own.

Contact NBC and politely let them know that airing comedy sketches about (unproven allegations of) domestic violence, and making domestic violence survivors tacitly or overtly sign off on mockery of their victimization as a requirement of participation in their shows, is wholly contemptible.

Open Thread

Hosted by Stratego: Civil War Edition.

Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime

Benji

Question of the Day

Suggested by Shaker nia_74656: What activity never fails to cheer you up?

(Activity should be interpreted in the most general sense; it doesn't necessarily mean something that involves an active body, of course.)

This is one of the silliest things in the world, but something that Iain and I both love to do is wander aimlessly around dollar stores. One of our favorites is Big Lots (it used to be "Odd Lots" on the East Coast, and may be still). I come by it naturally: My grandfather loved cruising around dollar stores (or five-and-dimes, then), and his daughter, my mother, loves it, and so do I.

Iain and I can kill hours wandering around Big Lots, looking at junk, making jokes about the random crap we find, getting all excited about finding the rare gems (two weekends ago, I bought two $2 organizers that turned my bathroom counter into the picture of organization; not bad for four wacky bucks!), and expressing surprise at finding all the things we didn't even know we needed but TOTES DO! Iain found a $5 "weather center" there once, jizzed in his pants, and has provided me with constant weather updates ever since.

Most of the time, we don't even buy anything. We just love moseying around idly, chatting away and laughing. It's a no-fail cheer-up.

Whenever one of us is restless and grumpy and being a pain in the ass, or when both of us are bored and driving each other trucknutz for lack of anything more productive to do, a suggestion that we "go to Big Lots" is never long in coming.

Not Quite Daily Teaspoon Report - M091207

Hello Shakers, and welcome to the latest edition of the Not Quite Daily Teaspoon Report. I know it's been several days, you have my apologies for that, I'd meant to get one up on Friday or Saturday, and depression bit me hard, and it didn't get done.

For those new at this, the idea here is for you to leave comments in which you describe acts of teaspooning, which can be by you or just ones you observed happening somewhere.

We like to keep a tight focus in this thread, so that those who have only a little time can get maximal utility from it, so please save any comments which are anything but teaspoons for this thread, wherein we explicitly invite comments discussing the teaspoons herein, or even comments just admiring someone's acts. If you would specifically like comments on your teaspoon over in the Discussion Thread, it's alright to say so here, something like "I'd love to hear suggestions on how I could have done this better!" would be the kind of thing I mean.

The Discussion Thread today will also ask whether there's someone who's interested in volunteering to help me out with a possible extension to Twitter of the NQDTR.

NQDTR Discussion Thread - M091207

Hello, Shakers, and welcome to the NQDTR Discussion Thread for Monday, December 7, 2009.

This thread is for discussion and comments inspired by comments left in today's NQDTR, namely this one. If you're intending to report a teaspooning act, you want to do so in that thread. If you want to talk about an act you saw someone post about, do so over here. Please remember that no one on the NQDTR thread is required to come here, so your message may not be read by its intended recipient.

We are allowing congratulatory comments, but do take a moment to read the thread first, and if the person has already had several comments of that sort, perhaps it isn't necessary to pile on. We want to avoid the chance of it becoming a sort of popularity contest, which can be triggering of serious social anxiety for a lot of people.

Additionally today, I'd like to know if there's anyone who'd like to help me by taking on a NQDTR Twitter account. I don't use Twitter myself, and really don't want to add any more social networking sites, because honestly I've got too many already (I have five separate LJ blogs, as well as two communities, and a Facebook account, plus contributing here - it's enough!). My idea (after Liss explained a bit about how Twitter works) is that maybe someone could maintain an NQDTR Twitter account, and tweet a few of the teaspoons each time there's a report. Or whatever way you want to use it to accomplish much the same sort of goal - if you want to invite people to tweet things to you which you will re-tweet, that's fine. Like I said, I don't use it, so I'm not sure how to use it well for this, but I'd bet one of you does know, and I'd love the assist if anyone can step up.

Here's Something I Could Do Without

One fucking more reality show the premise of which is approximately a dozen women desperately competing for the affections of some misogynist pseudo-celebrity whose talent is inversely proportional to his smug self-centeredness, and whose entire contribution to the show consists of giving the women revolting nicknames like Cherrytits or Smooth Operator and passive-aggressively judging "challenges" ostensibly conceived to test compatibility but in reality designed for the maximum humiliation of the female participants.

I'm looking at you, VH1. Knock it off.

What really pisses me off is that I don't even watch this shit, and yet somehow I'm aware of and tremendously annoyed by these shows' collective existence.

Also annoying: That these shows are defended on the basis that people are willing to do them, and people are willing to watch them, so what's the big deal? There are people who would sign up to be physically tortured to within an inch of their very lives on television, too, given the offer of a big paycheck—and people who would watch. Just because there's a market for something doesn't make it right.

Daily Kitteh

'Zup?

o.O

Michael Brown To Teach Class On Patriot Act.

Job Requirements

Stan Millage of Sioux City began waiting in line at 4:30 a.m. to get his book signed by Sarah Palin:

She's a down to earth person who will fight against the government. I can see her out there fishing with the guys. Plus, she's hot.

Exactly the criteria on which the leader of the free world should be chosen.

HT to Andrew Sullivan.

Paging Mr. Hitchcock

All morning, the nearly-bare vines outside my office window have been a hotbed of activity among a big group of starlings:

They come and nibble and go, come and preen and go, come and dance and chatter and go. Sophie, atop the monitor as usual, watches them with great interest, of course.

The starlings are big and sleek and shiny, and they have this frenetic energy, this air of curious judgment as they pass through.

Normally, the vines are inhabited by sparrows—smaller, less flashy, less investigative. They move amongst the leaves, or along and bare and dry vines, with a confidence that would suggest even to the casual viewer that this space is their home.

[Northwest Indiana, 2009.]

Nelson Has Filed His Stupakian Amendment to the Senate Bill

It's nice to know there's always bipartisan support for fucking over women:

Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson and Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch today filed their amendment to tighten restrictions on federal funding for abortion. The amendment is likely to be debated on the floor tomorrow. Most observers expect it to fail, which could put the future of reform in doubt as Nelson has threatened to filibuster a bill that doesn't include the provision.

The amendment prohibits federal funds from paying for abortion. It prohibits the public option from covering abortion and blocks consumers from using subsidies to purchase a health insurance policy that covers abortion.

The text of the bill is at the link.

The only other Democratic sponsor of the bill? Senator Bob Casey, the anti-choicer who stole Rick Santorum's Senate seat, the fight over whose support from party leadership in '05 saw progressive feminists cast as hysterics because we predicted that demoting women's fundamental right to bodily autonomy to a negotiable platform plank would inevitably lead to an expectation of the Dems to concede ground on choice on the federal level.

And here we are.