On Being a Woman, Not "a Female"

by Shaker Maud

When I first encountered at Shakesville the idea that using "female" as a noun was insulting and depersonalizing I was kind of puzzled. I thought of it as a perhaps inelegant but serviceable usage which was in the process of developing into an alternate meaning. I thought people used the words "woman" and "female" interchangeably without thinking about it and that, while it does technically remove the designation of "human being" from the description, that that was not what was meant. There are a lot of shorthands in daily language use where some important element is not actually stated, but is taken for granted as included, rather than excluded. And I do think that unthinking interchangeability of these two words has become somewhat common.

But language is a force which shapes us all, whether we're thinking about it or not, so I've found that when people are thinking about some usage you never saw the need to give thought to, it's a good idea to start doing so.

Thinking about it caused me to remember an incident which happened more than 25 years ago, which stuck with me despite my not fully understanding the import of what I was hearing at the time. In response to a comment from me about a newspaper story, my mother told me that "two large females" (said in a tone of contempt, which was striking enough for me to still remember it, but which was common enough from her for me to take it for granted at the time) had brought into the newspaper office where she worked a press release about the theatre company they had moved into the area.

As it happened, I ended up going to work with and becoming friends with them. One of them became my best friend at the time, and I sometimes brought her to my mother's house. As I was grown by then, and my mother was fully capable of controlling her behavior when it was in her best interest to do so, she never said anything negative about this woman or behaved in any way rudely to her (which she would not likely have done to a guest in her house in any case). But I could always tell that Mother didn't like her, which was interesting because my friend was quite a charming woman whom most people took to very quickly. (My friend knew this about herself, and used to kid about how she was charming my mother. She wasn't.)

I hadn't worked out then my mother's unspoken relationship with fatness.

I subsequently realized that when my mother made the grand announcement to my sister and me that, thenceforth, I would be permitted to drink only skim milk, which she would have to buy specially for me and which I was always to choose at school for lunch because I was (ugh) fat, while she and my sister continued to drink the Whole Milk of the Virtuous, that I was not actually fat—yet.

It was only later in adulthood, when I saw photos of myself at that age that I realized that I had only begun growing fat after that. Of course, since I was seven then, and the only food I ate was given me either by her or by the school at lunch, the whole "Maud is condemned to drink skim milk ever after, as punishment for her immoral, disgusting fatness" was perhaps not an adequate plan to correct whatever gluttonous, self-indulgent behavior had made it necessary if, you know, that was actually the goal.

I did, as it happens, subsequently develop disordered eating and become quite fat. (I know, you totes didn't see that coming, did you?) What I realized, as an adult, after working out the timeline on all this, was that Mother's condemnation of my disgusting fatness at a time when, though I had chubby cheeks and a slightly round belly like a lot of 7-year-olds, I hadn't actually started getting fat yet, also came at the time when she, in her mid-forties, had begun to gain weight. I was the designated family sin-eater (uh-huh), so…

I don't recall hearing my mother overtly fat-shame anyone but me, even privately; I think she would have considered that vulgar. And she did have a couple of social friends (not close) who were obese. So it sort of didn't dawn on me that she extended that particular form of contempt to others.

To me, it was just part of the totality of what was wrong with me, specifically.

So I had to unpack the connection with her feelings about her own aging and weight gain, plus the still later realization that she probably suspected these two women of being lezzzzbeans, based on the known fact that lezzzbeans are women too fat or otherwise unattractive to get a man and why else would they be living and working together, before I finally realized what-all I'd heard in those words "two large females" and the tone in which they had been uttered.

I also realized that one of the reasons it had stuck in my head was that using the word "females" to refer to women was absolutely not something my mother would normally have done. It was a deliberate choice; and yes, it was intended to dehumanize, and specifically to "dewomanize". In my mother's view, these two people did not deserve the appellation "woman" . They failed to qualify for it by being "large", i.e. fat and disgusting.

All of which just brings home to me again that the stuff which is hardest to see is the stuff that gets carefully packed into your own self-image from the outset.

I was probably well into my forties before I first referred to myself, specifically and personally, as a woman. I always felt that I didn't qualify, somehow, because a woman is someone who has physical attributes which I didn't have. This wasn't just about being fat; I felt that way even when I wasn't fat. My breasts, for instance, did not qualify, because we all know what a woman's breasts are supposed to look like, right? And mine utterly failed to meet the standard.

My physical flaws were specifically sexual, in my mind, so clearly I did not qualify as a woman. But this way of viewing my body certainly began with growing up fat. I would never have applied that standard to any other woman, and I'd been calling myself a feminist for several decades before I finally began, rather timidly, to claim the personal identity of woman.

It's probably not coincidental that I was by then at the age at which women's sexuality is strongly devalued in general.

I felt entitled to self-define as a feminist, a designation which is held in low esteem, if not contempt, by those who don't so identify. But 'woman' was a designation that my feminist self did not feel entitled to claim, as an individual, as opposed to as a member of a larger group, because I understood that I failed to meet the "approved" version of what a woman was.

Politically I was a woman, as I was treated as one for political, employment, health care, etc. purposes, but sexually I was not a woman, as I would not be considered by much of the surrounding culture as adequate to that role, although unfortunately that did not disqualify me as a target of sexual harassment (the but-I'd-still-hit-that syndrome, the operative words being 'hit' and 'that'). I also recognized this way of seeing myself as "unfeminist" (Bad woman! Bad feminist! Can't you do anything right?).

But this wasn't a way of thinking, it was a way of feeling, and I knew that changing that wasn't a matter of some internal process of aligning how I thought with how I felt, but of changing the way I saw myself in relation to other people, both men and women, which I could only do by how I chose to live in the world. And I think I was doing a pretty good job of that, until other difficulties made it less and less possible to live actively among others.

The process I embarked on, as a young woman, was one of merging these two disparate versions of what a woman was—woman as female human being, which includes political being, which I felt entitled to define for myself, and woman as sexual being—the larger culture's, and my mother's (unspoken, but clearly communicated), definition of which I was still struggling to emerge from into self-definition.

I realize now that I had a very limited understanding of how broad a political issue this is. Though I identified as feminist, my only exposure to feminist thought was itself quite limited, mostly via Ms. magazine. I was a high-school dropout and, while I read a lot, my reading was limited to what I happened to discover. I knew no one else who identified as feminist. I had certainly never encountered the word "heteronormative." I had a number of gay relatives and some gay friends, a few of whom were even out. I had friends who identified themselves (privately) as bi, one of whom did so at least in part out of fear of the dread woman-failure of lezzzbean-inism. I took for granted that I'd never known a trans man or woman, a person who I assumed only came into being post-surgically and was extremely rare.

So the difficulty in reconciling these two ideas of myself, politically as a woman, sexually as merely female, lay both in unpacking and learning to live outside of my early programming, both at home and in the larger culture, and in a lack of a great deal of information about gender and the spectrum of sexual possibilities which are part of one's self-definition.

One thing my days in theatre taught me, though, is that there's no such thing as "just a word." Speech and writing are actions one takes in the world. They are meant to have impact, and they do, whether we've thought through that impact before taking action or not.

And the language which distinguishes holders of privilege from the less privileged is always rooted in who gets to define the identity of the less privileged. Referring to women as "females" defines them solely in terms of gender, denying them any other attributes of personhood, and specifically denies them womanhood, marking that as a condition which is the speaker's to confer or withhold based on their list of qualifications, whether those be physical attributes at the moment, physical attributes at birth, or whether the female human being is behaving in a manner approved of for women.

So now I get it. I am not a female. Nobody is "a female." I am a woman. Thanks for making that clear.

Open Wide...

Open Thread

Photobucket
Hosted by William Shatner and friend.

Open Wide...

Question of the Day

What epithet or stereotype used against a demographic group of which you're a member most sets your teeth to grinding?

Intersectional slurs or caricatures are also welcome (for lack of a better word). For instance, I frequently find "fat cunt" in my inbox, which is a succinct (if totally ineffective, unless causing me to laugh was the intent) double-jab.

...And to answer the question myself, pretty much any gender-determinative stereotype that treats as self-evident women's inherent inferiority to men drives me right up one wall and down the other.

"Women aren't funny." "Women are weak." "Women aren't rational." "Women are hypersensitive." All it takes is three words to send me from zero to SMASH.

Open Wide...

Over the Edge

[Trigger warning.]

Anyone who's been reading Shakesville for more than about five seconds is well aware of my disdain for cruel humor under the guise of "edginess" or "irony."

My teeth are grinding so hard after reading this [TW] I feel like I may spontaneously generate a new universe between my molars.

The trigger warning on the external link is for graphic images of violence, and although I will note that sparkymonster is not using the images in an exploitative way, the images are nonetheless profoundly upsetting.

So if you are reluctant to click through, given the nature of the post, here are the basics, care of sparkymonster:

Amanda Palmer of the "Dresden Dolls" and "Evelyn/Evelyn" fame decided to talk about her dislike of Lady Gaga last night on twitter. Among other things, Gaga is a sell out, is just like Justin Bieber, and Palmer really dislikes the product placement in "Telephone".

Then Amanda Palmer shared this:
ironic product placement is only ok if you take no money & beyond that give all the income to something ironic. like the Klan.
Let me just repeat. Something ironic. like the Klan.

...For an example of irony in racism that is not rage inducing, remember that the Southern Poverty Law Center successfully sued the crap out of the KKK and basically bankrupted them. So now the Southern Poverty Law Center does their anti-racist work with the KKK's money.
That pretty much says it all, right there.

[H/T to Tigtog. Related Reading: Annaham and Sady and Lauredhel.]

Open Wide...

Quote of the Day

"It is reckless to use these incidents as media vehicles for political gain."—Republican Representative Eric Cantor, champion dipshit, admonishing the Democrats not to speak publicly about threats and violence directed at members of Congress, because talking about them "can very easily fan the flames."

Good point. That's why the Republicans have been totes hush-hush about 9/11.

Suffice it to say, I disagree strongly that silence about terrorism and/or hate crimes is the best way to ensure such acts don't happen anymore. And I also disagree strongly that any mention of such acts, irrespective of context or purpose, is de facto opportunistic.

But I'm not surprised to find that a Republican can't make such distinctions.

Open Wide...

Anthrax Scares: Also Not Terrorism

Never really was, as I recall.

In today's news:

Authorities are investigating a package with white powder and an angry letter that referenced the health care legislation that was sent to Congressman ]Anthony] Weiner's ... office today.

The letter said the Congressman should "drop dead" and complained about the historic health care legislation passed by Congress this week.
And:
At least four Democratic offices in New York, Arizona and Kansas were struck and at least 10 members of Congress have reported some sort of threats, including obscenity-laced phone messages, congressional leaders have said. No arrests have been reported.
And:
The House's No. 3 Republican, Eric Cantor of Virginia, said at a brief news conference Thursday that someone fired a bullet through a window of his campaign office in Richmond this week and he has received threatening e-mails.
I fear someone will be hurt or killed before this is all over.

Open Wide...

Daily Kitteh



Matilda

Open Wide...

Shaker Help Request

by Shaker The White Lady

Hello, Shakers! I'm here to ask for your help.

Ever since I was a little girl, I've been going to the same dentist. The premises are on the first floor of a tenement row…and the only way up to them is down a narrow hall, and up an equally narrow spiral staircase. Even if there were a lift up to the dentist, or maybe one of those electric chair lifts that go up the stairs, the hall would be too narrow to allow a person using a wheelchair to navigate it.

I even remember a time when they were redoing the reception of the surgery, and so to get in and out of the building, patients had to make use of a fire escape which was even more narrow and twisty than the usual stair. (I should probably point out that all this is from my own perspective as someone who has extreme difficulty in navigating spiral staircases – other patients may have experienced things differently.)

The surgery is an accessibility nightmare on so many levels, from the ones I just mentioned (no access for wheelchair users/crutch users/people who are too unsteady on their feet to attempt a spiral staircase), to the complete lack of Braille information, to the fact that, once a patient manages to reach the reception area, there are more steps (steep ones, I might add) leading to different facilities within the surgery. The staff realise this, and are vocal in their complaints about it, which is why I am asking for your help now.

After about five years (or more, don't quote me on that), the surgery has finally managed to purchase the property immediately below it. Patients are being encouraged to hand in their views on what they want, whether it be new treatments rooms, more space for cosmetic/dental surgery, etc. When I saw the news about the new premises, it occurred to me that this could be a brilliant opportunity to lift my teaspoon, and at least try to get some (of the unfortunately many) accessibility issues solved.

I know that the surgery is planning to have a new, bigger reception area downstairs, and I am under the impression that they plan to install a lift, but other than that, I have no information. So I'm turning the floor over to you, Shakers. Tell me what you would like to see in this new, hopefully improved dentist surgery.

Here you will find information about the basic access required under the UK's Disability Discrimination Act, but it is only basic access. In the comments, please leave everything you can think of, from wheelchair ramps to flashing fire alarms that suit both people who are deaf, and people who have epilepsy.

Thank you in advance! I'll let you know how it goes.

Open Wide...

Shakesfilk of a Foreshadow-color! Well, Really, of Announceyness!

CC: When I wake up yeah I know I'm gonna be
I'm gonna be the one who's driving westerly
SKM: When I go out yeah I know I'm gonna be
I'm gonna be the one goan more northwest than she

CC: When I get there yes I know I'm gonna be
I'll be stayin’ with some friends in Illinois*
SKM: And when I get there yeah I know I'm gonna be
I'm gonna be the one who’s makin’ all the noise*

CC: Well I will drive 500 miles
SKM: And I will drive 500 more
Both: And we’ll be the twain who drove 1000 miles
To come through that pub door


As it turns out, both our beloved mod and contributor SKM and Your Humble Narrator will be making it to Chicago for this weekend's meetup after all. I'll be attending with my dear friend the_pixie_mouse, and staying with a Shaker not far from the fabled pub. I'm not sure of SKM's particular plans in that area, but I know she's coming in from her city, which is about the same distance from Chicago as mine - just short of 500 miles.

And if you're thinking you're going to hear us sing a duet, you need to cut back on your hallucinogen intake. :)

* Shh, it's okay. *shows poetic licence*

Open Wide...

Today's Edition of "Conniving and Sinister"

[Background.]



Blank

See Deeky's archive of all previous Conniving & Sinister strips here.

[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.]

Open Wide...

NQDTR Discussion Thread – R100325

Hiya, Shakers, time for another Discussion Thread for the Not Quite Daily Teaspoon Report!

This is the thread in which you may offer congratulations or admiration for a teaspoon or teaspooner. If you're posting with just congrats or admiration, though, do take a moment and check the thread to see whether other people have said so a number of times already – if not, then go for it! If you look at it from the right angle, praising someone's teaspoon can be one in itself.

Remember that no one is required to read here just because they posted over there, so there's no guarantee you'll get a response to a given comment.

Open Wide...

The Not Quite Daily Teaspoon Report – R100325

Time for another Teaspoon Report, brought to you by Shaxco, sponsors of Shakesville Meetups in Chicago!

Leave comments here that describe an act of teaspooning you encountered or committed. They don't have to be big, world-shaking acts. By definition, a teaspoon is a small thing, but enough of them together can empty the ocean. Don’t feel you have to minimize your accomplishments here. You can and should feel pride in every single act you undertake to improve the human condition, even those you don’t tell us about. Doing good things can be an enjoyable end in itself.

If you would like to discuss the teaspoons here reported, or even offer congratulations or your admiration to a fellow Shaker, we ask that you do so over here in the Discussion Thread for today's NQDTR.

Shaker bgk has been kind enough to get a Twitter-pated version out there for you young twittersnappers (and by the way, get off my lawn, you meddling kids! *shakes cane*). You can find the details about the Tweetspoons project right here. That runs all the time, as far as I'm aware (*grumblenewtechnologygrumble*), and we encourage you to let other people know that there's at least one tweetstream talking about just going out and doing good things for the human species.

Teaspoons up, let's hear 'em, Shakers!

ô,ôP

Open Wide...

He's An Artiste!

Shakers, let us now have a conversation about James Franco's TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE short story in Esquire: "Just Before the Black."

In 3,000 words, he manages to cram in racism, misogyny, homophobia, disablism, rape references, and some serious fat hatred. He literally uses the word fat nine times (nine times!) in 3,000 words, as well as "large," "blubbery," "lardass," "slug," and several charming metaphors like "his weight spreads from his belly across the seat, like it was a plastic sack full of liquid, rolling in layers upon itself."

And yet, somehow, I'm still most horrified by the fact that he included this line:

"The building is beige, but the shadows make it shadow-color."

Which I have literally been LOLLING about for like ten straight minutes.

Open Wide...

Save Me from Myself, Skinny Jesus Chef!

Thank Maude for the British—because, without Kim and Aggie teaching us how to clean our homes, and Jo Frost teaching us how to raise our kids, and Victoria Stilwell teaching us how to control our dogs, and Trinny and Susannah teaching us how to dress ourselves, and Simon Cowell teaching us how to sing, and Nigel Lithgoe teaching us how to dance, Americans would be naked, cultureless beasts who lived in garbage heaps with feral children and wild dogs.

This is all true.

The latest Brit in the British How-To Invasion is "Naked Chef" Jamie Oliver, whose new show I Hate Fat People Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution features Oliver traveling to Huntington, West Virginia—the Obesitiest Place in the Multiverse!—where he was determined to use his "magic" to help Huntington's Fatties get less fat. I mean, healthier!

The reality series based on this generous thin martyr giving up his time to help stupid fat people premieres tomorrow night. But! By the magic of the internetz, you can watch it here right now!


If you can't view the video, here's a quick summary: Headless fatties? Check. Enormous food stock footage? Check. OHNOES Obesity CrisisTM? Check. Being fat is ugly? Check. Fat people are lazy? Check. Fat people are stupid? Check. Fat people are sick? Check. DEATHFAT? Check. Mother-blaming for fat kids? Check. Fat as a moral failure? Check. Religious shaming of fat? Check. Fat people don't have "the tools" to not be fat? Check. Fat people need a skinny savior? Checkity-check-check!

I want to note that there is, buried somewhere beneath the 10 metric fucktons of fat-shaming (and not an incidental dose of misogyny, for good measure), information about healthful eating (e.g. not eating any fresh veg, ever, isn't good for anyone), but this is information that could be delivered without a scene in which a mother of four whose husband is gone three weeks a month is told that she's killing her children while she's weeping at her kitchen table.

The premiere episode has absolutely zero structural critique, not even a passing comment about the reason that millions of mothers feed their kids processed foods is because it's cheap and fast, which is a pretty good solution for people who are short on money and time.

Oliver places the responsibility for unhealthful eating exclusively at the feet of the individual, seemingly without concern for the cultural dynamics that inform individual choices. The extent of the explanation provided for why someone might choose to stock their freezer with frozen pizzas is that they're lazy and/or don't know any better.

And then he wonders why he isn't greeted by the citizens of Huntington with open arms.

At the end of the episode, a newspaper article comes out in which Oliver's evident contempt for the community has been reported. Oliver claims his words were taken out of context; the people with whom he's been working to revamp elementary school meals don't believe him—and understandably so, given that he's been a patronizing ass to them.

In the final scene, Oliver speaks directly to the camera, and he is crying, wiping tears from his eyes as he throws himself a little pity party:
It's quite hard to cut through negativity, always. And defensiveness. You know, I'm giving up massive time that is really compromising my family—because I care! You know, um, the tough thing for me [exhales deeply] is they don't understand me, 'cuz they don't know why I'm here. [sniffs] They don't even know what I've done, the things I've done in the last ten years! And I'm just doing it 'cuz it feels right [sniffs], and when I do things that feels right, magic happens! [sniffs; shakes his head disbelievingly] I've done some amazing things, you know? And that's when I follow my heart. And when I never follow my heart, I always get it wrong.

Look, I'm gonna be really honest: You do live in an amazing country. You put people on the moon! You live in an amazing country. And so do I, you know? And, right now in time, is a moment where we're all confused about how brilliant we are and how technically advanced we are, and that is fighting with what once made our countries great, which is family, community, being together, and something honestly as simple as putting a few ingredients together and sitting your family or your friends or your girlfriend or your mother-in-law around that table and breaking bread. And if you think that's not important, then shame on you!
Wow.

In an interview to promote the show, Oliver says, "You can't really blame the parents when the whole culture and the whole horizon of food is all the same." Which is an interesting comment from someone who chose a scene where he's telling a mother she's killing her kids for the premiere episode of his show.

That underlines a key problem with Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution: He doesn't want to be seen as the guy who blames parents for killing their kids and shaming fat people for being fat—but there he is in his show, blaming parents for killing their kids and shaming fat people for being fat. Oops.

And, on top of it, he ends the premiere episode by crying because those goddamn fat ingrates don't appreciate him.

Reportedly, Huntington eventually warmed up to Oliver, but I don't think I'll be sticking around to watch that happy ending unfold.

And, for the record, Mr. Oliver, the "whole horizon of food" is actually not all the same in the US: In some places, things are much, much worse.

Open Wide...

It All Depends on What You Mean by "Safer"

[Trigger warning.]

A security guard at Heathrow Airport was issued a harassment warning after he "ogled" a female colleague who walked through a body scanner. The body scanners:

were introduced at Heathrow and Manchester airports to check for concealed weapons and explosives following the failed Christmas Day bomb plot by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to blow up a jet over Detroit in the United States.
They're supposed to be a security/safety measure designed to reassure passengers.

But, this incident and learning what, exactly, the machines reveal, make the scanners seem decidedly unsafe. Another article described them in this way:
The full-body scanners take "naked" images, revealing everything under someone's clothes - including a clear outline of genitals.
They violate a very basic sense of privacy and they allow that violation to be repeated over and over everyday.

We learned of this case because the security guard made "lewd" comments to his co-worker after she was scanned and she reported it. What about all the guards who might "ogle" in silence? And I, at least, feel quite insecure, knowing that my body could be on display, to someone I don't know, in a manner I didn't choose. That is the price I must pay to travel? I think it's a bit steep.

Last fall, I re-read a piece by Angela Davis (or maybe I heard her say it), in which she noted how we have increasingly problematic definitions of what will "keep us safe." Her focus was our (U.S.) fascination with locking people up to make us "safer." I've also heard Alexis Pauline Gumbs speak to our reliance on defense and force to make us feel safe rather than things like education, eradication of poverty, community building, and being good global citizens. I think we increasingly face the questions of how to define safety and how much (and who) are we willing to trade in the name of being safe?"

H/T to Shaker TheBaldSoprano

Open Wide...

Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime



Mikel Erentxun: "Esta Luz Nunca Se Apagará"

Open Wide...

Catholic Church Fails To Protect Children (Again)

[Trigger-warning.]

This is real fucked up:

Top Vatican officials — including the future Pope Benedict XVI — did not defrock a priest who molested as many as 200 deaf boys, even though several American bishops repeatedly warned them that failure to act on the matter could embarrass the church

The internal correspondence from bishops in Wisconsin directly to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future pope, shows that while church officials tussled over whether the priest should be dismissed, their highest priority was protecting the church from scandal.

The Wisconsin case involved an American priest, the Rev. Lawrence C. Murphy, who worked at a renowned school for deaf children from 1950 to 1974.

In 1993, with complaints about Father Murphy landing on his desk, [Wisconsin] Archbishop Weakland hired a social worker specializing in treating sexual offenders to evaluate him. After four days of interviews, the social worker said that Father Murphy had admitted his acts, had probably molested about 200 boys and felt no remorse.

Father Murphy not only was never tried or disciplined by the church’s own justice system, but also got a pass from the police and prosecutors who ignored reports from his victims, according to the documents and interviews with victims. Three successive archbishops in Wisconsin were told that Father Murphy was sexually abusing children, the documents show, but never reported it to criminal or civil authorities.

[Emphasis mine.]
I really wish I could say something insightful or compelling here, but the above just about covers it. Of course, my favourite part is this little nugget:

[T]he effort to dismiss Father Murphy came to a sudden halt after the priest appealed to Cardinal Ratzinger for leniency.
That's right. The Vatican, under the direction of a future Pope, stopped it's own internal investigation and failed to involve local authorities to protect an admitted child molester. Jebus fucking Christ...

Open Wide...

Feel the Hopey Changeyness!

Pentagon prepares to relax enforcement of Don't Ask Don't Tell. Ooh, relax enforcement. How sexy! How progressive! How totally not good enough.

The Pentagon is scheduled to announce Thursday that it will relax enforcement of the "don't ask, don't tell" rules that prevent gay men and lesbians from serving openly in the military, a decision that officials described as a temporary measure until Congress can take permanent action.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates is expected to announce that the military will no longer investigate the sexual orientation of service members based on anonymous complaints, will restrict testimony from third parties and will require high-ranking officers to review all cases, sources familiar with the changes said.
Good on the Pentagon for doing what they can. But, it's like, how fucking hard is it to get this shit done already? Infuriatingly, this is yet another example of where Obama won't be a fucking leader. If the Democratic president told Democratically-led Congress to get it done now, they'd get it done now. But he's all, "Um whut? Well, hey, it's up to Congress! Don't look at me!"

And the thing that's really irksome is that this is the perfect time to do it, when everyone's paying attention to healthcare. Instead, let's drag it out and then claim we can't do it six months from now because it's TOO CLOSE TO ELECTIONS! And everyone knows that getting reelected is way more important than PRINCIPLES!

[Cue someone patronizingly explaining to me How Politics Works, without a trace of irony that Obama was elected on the explicit promise to change How Politics Works. It would be hilarious, if it weren't so goddamn tragic.]

Open Wide...

Important Announcement

Joe Biden is the only adult in America who uses "the f word." SCANDALOUS! He's a horrible human being! Worse even than the last vice president, who outed a CIA agent and condoned torture! We should talk about Joe Biden's potty mouth FOREVER!!!

FOREVER!!111!!!!!!1!!eleventy!!!1!

Open Wide...

Open Thread

Photobucket
Hosted by a cookbook. A cookbooooook!

Open Wide...