I (still) have no opinion on Sandra Bullock's and Jesse James's marriage, or its collapse, or its survival, or any of the incidents that have led to a rumored divorce—and I will continue to have no opinion on these subjects.
However, I am interested in the way it's being covered.
Today comes the news that Jesse James reportedly had a predilection for the flagrant use of homophobic slurs, after someone released an email with text that included use of the word f****t and references to cocksucking to insult two men who (it seems) had been in his employ.
[Note to Jesse James: Using f****t and references to cocksucking to demean other men is not acceptable, it is not morally neutral, it is not funny or edgy, and it is not justifiable because you were angry. It's juvenile, hateful, and thoroughly contemptible. Just FYI.]
The thing that strikes me about all this BREAKING! news about James is that the people who are only leaking this shit now aren't exactly covering themselves in glory, given that they were evidently willing to conceal James' abject bigotry until his infidelity gave them the opportunity to sell the evidence to the highest bidder.
That goes double to the bidders, who may well have turned away some of this stuff previously because it seems no one wants to break the news that a famous guy—a real Man's Man, with a reputation for being such a good guy, dude!—is a raging bigot, but everyone's happy to join the pile-on once he gets caught with his pants down.
Either we care about holding people to account for demonstrable hatred, or we don't. Our concern (leaving aside the feigned concern masking gleeful vengeance) shouldn't be contingent on whether they've fucked around on America's Sweetheart.
(Who, by the way, has maintained radio silence throughout all of this, with a single exception: To deny rumors of the existence of a sex tape. I note the exception not to suggest that Bullock is obliged to comment on anything, but because "the reputation of America's Sweetheart can survive having shared a bed with a white supremacist and a homophobe, but not being a SLUT!" [not that I think making a sex tape with one's partner makes one a slut, but large swaths of the population disagree with me] is an interesting—and I'm not sure entirely incorrect—calculation. And that says something pretty fucked-up about our culture, too.)
There were lots (and lots) of people, certainly, who worked with James on one or both of his two television series, or his guest spot on The Celebrity Apprentice, and were aware of his bigotry, given his eminent willingness to photograph it and broadcast it in emails. But if the age of the viral celebrity scandal has taught us anything, it's that there are plenty of people willing to protect celebrities from the "embarrassment" of being held accountable for bigotry, until it's time to knock over the latest pedestal.
And if there's anything else we've learned, the same people smashing James' pedestal into dust at the moment are already writing the stories of his comeback. Because although we hate bigotry (BOO!), we like comebacks even better (YAY!). And second chances don't have to be earned, when there's advertising space to be sold.
[Commenting Guidelines: This post is about media coverage and how it reflects our cultural priorities and shapes the nature of celebrity. It's not about picking apart the private lives of Jesse James and Sandra Bullock, nor about their marriage. Comments that seek to imagine whether "Sandra knew" or wonder "what she was doing with him" or variations thereof will be considered off-topic.]
We Live in a Fucked-Up Culture, Part Wev in an Infinite Series
More Weak Sauce from the "Weird News" Section
by Shaker Vanshar
You can almost hear the frustration: The divorce of a prominent couple proceeding in a civil manner, even with a fantastic amount of money involved? Shucks. What's a yellow journalist to write about?
I'm referring to the divorce of Steve Wynn, a prominent Las Vegas casino owner and developer, and his wife and business partner Elaine Wynn, treated with delightful (for some value of "delightful") weird-newsyness here. Aside from the author's minor incredulousness that a divorce can proceed civilly, what I find really irritating is the immediate reinforcement of a sad trope in the popular media: That divorce is all about a woman stealing a man's hard-earned money.
As far as I can tell, we have here a very successful married couple who also happen to be business partners, who got a divorce and split up their combined shares in a company in which they are both very highly ranked (Steve is the Chairman of Wynn Resorts Ltd; Elaine was and remains a director of the company). It's PAINFULLY obvious that in this case they both worked hard to gain those assets, and are amicably splitting them up, as, I dunno, grownups might be expected to do.
But the whole thing is framed as a loss for HIM. HE'S paying her off, rather than receiving his share while she receives hers. If this article hadn't mentioned that Elaine Wynn was a director of Wynn Resorts and had been involved in its growth, her value to the company outlined and praised by her ex-husband, you'd have no idea from reading the surrounding text that she had anything to do with the business.
By talking about "the most expensive divorce ever," the implication is that she's a gold-digger—and you see this narrative all the time when divorce is discussed in the media. ANY woman getting her share of the marital assets in a divorce is somehow "taking" something from her husband, regardless of what she contributed in terms of time, support, or even direct earnings. Not only is there the implication that she has somehow not earned it, but there's the implication that she didn't really share ownership in the first place; a married couple's assets are really the husband's, apparently, and only by leaving him and taking from him does she have any ownership herself.
The splitting of assets in a hetero divorce, even in cases when one spouse earns substantially more than the other, is rooted in the idea that a marriage is a (legally recognized) partnership, and that both spouses, regardless of monetary earning potential, share the risks and rewards. And yet we are consistently told that only the man's contributions count, even unto completely disappearing the literal, financial contributions of a woman to her partnership's wealth, painting her as a parasite.
And if it is so easy to dismiss the contributions of a woman who is otherwise quite privileged (white, cisgender, straight, and wealthy) to a marriage that is ending on amicable terms, is it any wonder that the marginalized find precious little voice?
Chip, Chip, Chip
That's how I'd describe what the state legislature is doing to abortion access in Nebraska:
Nebraska lawmakers on Monday gave final approval to a first-of-its-kind measure requiring women to be screened for possible mental and physical problems before having abortions.I read that article just before reading this one about Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty's decision to again declare April "Abortion Recovery Month":
[snip]
The bill requires a doctor or other health professional to screen women to determine whether they were pressured into having abortions. The screenings also would assess whether women have risk factors that could lead to mental or physical problems after an abortion.
The proclamation... “encourages and promotes healing opportunities and raises awareness of the aftermath of abortion experienced by individuals and families,” according to the document signed by the Republican governor and Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie.Despite claims to the contrary, the bill and the proclamation are not about caring for women and their mental and physical health. They are about politics.
I am convinced of that, especially in the aftermath of recent studies which found
There is no credible evidence that a single elective abortion of an unwanted pregnancy in and of itself causes mental health problems for adult womenand
Recent studies that have been used to assert a causal connection between abortion and subsequent mental disorders are marked by methodological problems [example here] that include, but not limited to: poor sample and comparison group selection; inadequate conceptualization and control of relevant variables; poor quality and lack of clinical significance of outcome measures; inappropriateness of statistical analyses; and errors of interpretation, including misattribution of causal effects. By way of contrast, we review some recent major studies that avoid these methodological errors. The most consistent predictor of mental disorders after abortion remains preexisting disordersMy point is not that no woman ever experiences depression or guilt after having an abortion, but that evidence points to co-occuring factors, not abortion, as causal. For example, in my case, any guilt I felt was about not feeling guilty as everyone had told me women who have abortions should. About the abortion itself, I felt relief, and I thought, "Wow, does that mean something is wrong with me?"
My case exemplifies what potential laws and proclamations like this do--they foster the notion that abortion has to be traumatic and guilt-inducing, even when studies and women themselves counter that idea.
I say these actions are about politics, too, for at least two other reasons. First, the goal is to scare women into not having abortions. Having one's doctor say, "You can have this procedure, but you are at risk for serious difficulties if you do," is frightening and, as I'm sure anti-choice folk are hoping, quite the deterrent.
Second, I don't see as much concern for screening women who decide not to terminate their pregnancies. We know that women can have physical and mental health issues after spontaneous miscarriage and childbirth--why no push for intensive screening and "warning" or recovery proclamations for those cases?
The other major question circulating in my mind is, what do laws like the potential Nebraska one mean, with regards to the way we frame choice, for women who are determined by their doctors to have mental or physical health "risks?"
Today In Baby News!
Everyone knows I love babies, right? That's why I am bringing you the latest and greatest in baby, toddler, and infant-related news stories. Check this out! Know what's a hot new name for kids now?
Atreyu!
That's right:
Also hot this year: Sookie (*shrug*), Dashiell, and Piper. Just FYI, I'm going to name at least two of my babies Dashielle. More names here.
p.s. bonus Atreyu action:
[Cross-posted, with a tip of the bonnet to IQB.]
That Still Leaves One Step Backwards.
[Trigger warning for clergy abuse and virulent homophobia.]
One Step Forward: "In an attempt to prove that the Vatican is heeding criticism of its handling of paedophile priests, the Holy See today issued detailed instructions to its bishops on how to report abuse to the police. ... Francis X Rocca, Vatican correspondent for Religion News Service, said: 'This is a new and notable public emphasis on the need to follow local laws'." Um, good job? Yeesh.
Two Steps Back: "Gay rights groups have expressed outrage over comments made by a senior Vatican official linking homosexuality to child abuse. Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, who also serves as the Vatican's Secretary of State, made the comment during a news conference while on an official visit to Chile. 'Many psychologists, many psychiatrists have demonstrated that there is no relationship between celibacy and pedophilia but many others have demonstrated, I was told recently, that there is a relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia,' he said."
Maybe you should stop having conversations with know-nothing bigoted dipshits then, Cardinal.
[The hat tip for the second story goes to Shaker koach, who quite rightly notes that CNN frames the story "as if gay folks are the only ones angry when the Catholic Church blames pedophilia on homosexuality!" Get it together, CNN.]
NQDTR Discussion Thread – W100414
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. 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.
The Not Quite Daily Teaspoon Report – W100414
Time for another Teaspoon Report!
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.
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
Lost Open Thread
Last night's episode will be discussed in infinitesimal detail, so if you haven't seen it, and don't want any spoilers, move along...
Wednesday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by Shaxco, watching CNN so you don't have to.
Recommended Reading:
Amanda: "Men's Studies" Too Feminist For You? Meet "Male Studies"
Resistance: Another First
Sady: Time to Check In With Tina Fey's Feminism!
Chally: Figuratively
Tami: There Are No Black People There
Andy: Openly Gay Candidate Craig Lowe Wins Gainesville Mayoral Election by 35 Votes, Triggering Automatic Recount
Leave your links in comments...
Feel The Homomentum
Via Steve Rothaus in the Miami Herald:
Partners of gay and lesbian patients are now assured by Jackson Health System to have the same visiting rights as heterosexuals, according to a new Jackson policy that redefines the terms "family'' and "family member."Good for them. It's too bad that it took death and a lawsuit to make it happen.
Recognized family members now may include people who are not legally related to the patient, including "spouses, domestic partners and both different-sex and same-sex significant others," announced SAVE Dade, one of several gay rights groups that worked for a year with Jackson to redefine the policy.
Gay and lesbian nonbiological parents are also assured of visits when minor children are hospitalized.
Jackson developed the policy after Janice Langbehn accused a Jackson Memorial Hospital worker of not letting her visit her dying partner, Lisa Pond, in 2007.
Crossposted.
Fat Hatin' in Photoshop Disasters
by Shaker Neintales, a Progressive Texan whose bright coloring doesn't denote toxicity so much as an inability to paint neatly.
So just before the weekend I encountered on Twitter a link to ye olde Photoshop Disasters site, a place I honestly hadn't been regularly, but whenever I have been sent there by a link it generally showed me the latest in Making-Real-Women-Look-Like-Bobbleheaded-Aliens Technology. And the captions for what I had seen were snarky about the job quality and along the lines of "Why do this anyhow?! Realistic women are way more awesome!"
Alas, I may have missed a lot of previous juvenile captioning, judging by some of the comments I saw the other day—and it was the captioning that had actually made my friend on Twitter link angrily asking "What the Poop?"
Because, you see, apparently for some who post* on Photoshop Disasters, while it may continue to be a disaster in workmanship, it's only a disaster against women if the woman being 'shopped is being made to look thinner and is, in fact, herself a known thin woman.
I'm not going to give them a link; it's easy enough to find the post in question, if you are so inclined. I'm going to just post and describe the image and provide the caption that is so completely witty and edgy that my poor deathfat infected brain just didn't get anything funny about it, and in fact found viler than a vile thing made of absolute vileness to help cut down on their page views and any advertising revenue they may get from them.
The image is that of an advert for plus-sized fashions. Unlike most popular changes to nature, the model's head is not made larger—instead, either they shrunk it down, or used a model from a different shoot to go with the larger body, or they actually warped and fish-eyed the body to make it larger. I honestly am not sure which, or if it isn't even a case of all of the above, and the odd angle at which she's posed, as she stands looking at us with her shoulders a bit twisted to the back, compounds the confusion. And the biting caption given to this image at Photshop Disasters doesn't shed light from a perspective of a person who knows what techniques were used or how to do it, but instead reads (vileness ahead):When this image first presented itself in my inbox, I said to myself, well, I'm not going to touch that with a barge pole. Not the lady in the picture - I'm sure she's a lovely lady with a wonderful personality. I'm talking about the political issue of the
So, here is Cosmo7 of PD happily being 'cutting edge' and helping me fill out my fat hatred bingo. Because of course there was NO way xe could have written a caption for a photo that's meant to be a plus size model without a famous name and NOT turned it into a fat joke! That's unpossible and would lead to the world falling off its axis and throwing everyone into space!chubbies sizeable big-boned unboneable people of size. They can be very sensitive. It's important - perhaps expedient is the correct word - to just avoid the whole thing. On the other hand, I've now received this from about five hundred people and it's actually gotten to the point where it's impairing my ability to navigate my mail. So here it is, and if you are a person of heft, please try to understand that, like a moth to a flame, I just tend to follow the path of least resistance.
Thanks to everyone who sent this in!
Let's see, I bet xe was originally intending something like: This is a really badly done image, the woman's head is made to look far too small, and something about the angle and proportions of her body also seem unnatural, as if there was more 'Shopping done to make her body and breasts look larger than it really is.
Perhaps xe also would have added something about "Why again are women supposed to look like strange creatures from another planet or vintage Loony Tune?"
Oh my, how insensitive such a caption would have been, I would have found it incredibly offensive and politically incorrect—no, okay, I cannot keep up that level of sarcasm. That would have been a way, in fact, to have posted the complaint about this Photoshop job without hurting the feelings of anyone except possibly the industry executives and editors that make images like the one given happen.
So I'm rather suspecting that Cosmo7 never had any 'second thoughts' about touching it; I'd put forward a theory that xe was going to run with it the moment it first appeared in xir inbox, and that this poster at PD was absolutely THRILLED that xir chance to step up, break out the strawwomen, and be a comedian running on stale jokes against marginalized women had come, and so the stale tropes (not even jokes) were dusted off.
However, my actual anger didn't fully pop from that contemptible caption job, but instead whence, in the comments (which were for the most part by people in agreement with me about the absolute lack of anything resembling humor in it), I came across this gem in response to a "Gee I'm just a humorless fat woman but that wasn't funny" predecessor that went:...if you're trying to combat the "fat people are touchy and humorless" stereotype you're... uh... failing at it.
Really? I mean, REALLY?
"Marginalized group F is humorless and touchy! This is a sad fact/stereotype and they should be ashamed of this. As proof of how F is humorless and touchy, watch members of this group react in anger and bitterness, maybe with sarcasm, to this 'joke' that was designed in a laboratory to be incredibly hateful and offensive!"
Response to stimulus that was MEANT to be painful isn't proof of how a marginalized group or person needs to change and lighten up; the only thing it is ever proof of is how comfortably privileged and secure the person or persons creating the stimuli situations are—and that things meant to be hurtful are hurtful.
And my wonderful personality is tired of not-so-wonderful personalities excusing their hate and prejudices under the blanket of victim blaming, for which "You are being a stereotype" is one ugly piece of patchwork.
------------------------------
Post-Script: Oh, I made the mistake of looking further into the comments after I wrote the rest of the post. Apparently we didn't GET the hipster-fat-joke's REAL point which was that we shouldn't be sensitive and also should be, I suppose, psychic in order to know that there is OBVIOUSLY a different meaning entirely, which is that: If we're really cool people we'd know there was nothing personal and the poster was making fun of people who make fun of fat folks. These helpful psychic people however are willing to correct us in our not understanding the parody/satire/paradox/irony.
AUGH MY BRAIN.
------------------------------
*I know absolutely nothing of how Photoshop Disasters is run, whether it's a one-person show or has multiple contributors. And I really couldn't be arsed to waste more page views or time at that site.
Just Heard on CNN
"Men lagging behind in graduation rates and jobs. Is feminism to blame? Men are now fighting back. The rise of Man Power. That's next."
Return of The Wall
Roger Waters has announced his 2010 tour of performing The Wall in its entirety. Following is an excerpt of his explaining why he's bringing it back:
This new production of The Wall is an attempt to draw some comparisons, to illuminate our current predicament, and is dedicated to all the innocent lost in the intervening years.As part of the tour, Roger has set up a request called "Fallen Loved Ones." He's asking for people to submit photos and bios of loved ones that have been lost to war, which he will include in the actual performance as an act of honor and remembrance. I keep getting chills every time I think of that.
In some quarters, among the chattering classes, there exists a cynical view that human beings as a collective are incapable of developing more ‘humane’ ie, kinder, more generous, more cooperative, more empathetic relationships with one another.
I disagree.
In my view it is too early in our story to leap to such a conclusion, we are after all a very young species.
I believe we have at least a chance to aspire to something better than the dog eat dog ritual slaughter that is our current response to our institutionalized fear of each other.
I feel it is my responsibility as an artist to express my, albeit guarded, optimism, and encourage others to do the same. To quote the great man, "You may say that I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one."
I don't know about all of you, but you can damn well believe that I will be attending more than one of these shows.
Question of the Day
Suggested by Shaker Miss_Led: What saying or motto do you live by?
My Rights End Where Yours Begin is probably the closest thing I have to a comprehensive personal credo. This is a pretty good post explaining the concept as I practice it, for anyone who's interested.
I Write Letters
Dear Britney Spears,
I admire your perseverance. I admire the fuck out of it.
I don't know how it is that you've managed to grow up in the way that you have, trying to navigate your way to adulthood as a woman—a difficult and confusing journey even when one isn't hyper-sexualized at a formative age, tasked with the responsibility of accounting for a professional image one doesn't even have the life experience to contexualize.
I honestly can't even begin to imagine what your life has been like, with paparazzi in your face 24 hours a day and every one of the millions of photos taken of you scrutinized for evidence of the smallest imperfections. Even contemplating trying to achieve body acceptance under those circumstances makes me weep for the pain I can only imagine your life has been at times.
The scrutiny, the ridicule, the unreasonable expectations, the impossible standards, the misogyny (oh, Maude, the misogyny!), the ubiquitous holding out of your failed marriages in particular as the Ultimate Evidence that the sanctity of marriage is a joke, as if you're the only straight divorcee on the planet, the cruel jokes about your anguished cry when you shaved your head, the mockery of the hair extensions you put in afterwards, the classist jokes about your background, the jokes about your family, your parenting skills, your addiction, your music, your talent… Jesus, girl, you've weathered a lot.
All on top of a job in which professional criticism is an integral part.
All before your 30th birthday.
And not only are you still going, but you've got the unbelievable fortitude and courage to release before-and-after-retouching images from your latest photo shoot for Candie. (Which, by the by, handily and cleverly turns the industry expectation that you continue to be a sex symbol to retain your career, on its head.)
[Click images to embiggen.]Britney Spears has allowed the pre-airbrushed images from a shoot she took part in for fashion firm Candie's to be used ALONGSIDE the digitally-altered ones, so people can see the difference.
As well you should be, sister.
The 29-year-old singer made the extraordinary move in order to highlight the pressure exerted on women to look perfect.
…A source told the Daily Mirror newspaper: 'Britney is proud of her body - imperfections and all.'
And you should be proud like whoa of the inconceivable reserves of gumption and grit it takes to be publicly "imperfect"—which is a brave and transgressive act for any woman, no less one who's had to swim through the rivers of shit you have.
That you are still more likely to garner mention in the public sphere as a dismissive punchline than as an example of demonstrable strength and resilience is as grim a travesty as it is marked evidence of how truly fucked up this culture is.
We keep trying to break you, and you just keep being unbreakable.
Wow.
With love and admiration,
Liss
P.S. Related Reading: Quote of the Day; The Rebellyon Continues…
"Lawman" Hit With Civil Lawsuit
[Trigger warning.]
A few people have emailed me about "Lawman" Steven Seagal being accused in a civil lawsuit of "sexual harassment in violation of federal labor laws; illegal sex trafficking; retaliation; wrongful termination; and false representations about employment."
I won't recount the details; they are at the link if you are so inclined, and I direct you with a trigger warning, though MSNBC's coverage is less graphic than other coverage I've read, some of which repeats the specifics of the sexual assaults alleged in the suit.
I don't want to say a lot about this case, because, to be perfectly frank, I think Seagal is a racist dirtbag, and my visceral dislike of him makes me uninclined to be fair.
But I will note that MSNBC reports: "It was not clear why Kayden Nguyen chose to file a civil lawsuit instead of a criminal complaint. Messages left with her lawyers were not immediately returned Monday." As if it's some kind of mystery.
As the alleged assaults took place in New Orleans, where Seagal is shooting "Lawman," the A&E series which follows his stint as part of the New Orleans police force, and Nguyen made a criminal complaint, the same force of which Seagal's a member would have jurisdiction over the case. Aside from the inherent conflict of interest, literally having to report a cop to his coworkers is daunting.
It sounds to me like Nguyen got the hell out of there, flew home (she's from Los Angeles), and then contacted an attorney. Which is the same thing I'd do in the reported circumstances.
