The Subtleties of Privilege

I was reading through my LJ list this morning, and came across a post by a friend of mine, a man whose name reflects his South Asian heritage, and not one which is often encountered here in Canada.

I don't normally think about having to deal with telling strangers my name as being a big hassle, but I was just thinking about the fact that I'm apt to give out another name of someone in the party to avoid it or just make up a name. Still, it was surprising to me how much of a difference it made calling up an Indian restaurant to make reservations today and realizing that I could just give them my name and then having them just accept it without asking me to repeat myself or spell it or anything. It was downright soothing, like letting out a tensely-held breath.
And it occurred to me that this, here, is a teeny, tiny little piece of the unearned privilege many, many white people - me definitely included - receive on a daily basis.

As you might all guess (see? that's it at work again!), my name (Caitie, or Cait) is short for the Gaelic version of Kathleen: Caitlin. It's a good name for me, though few people ever call me the full version, and none of us pronounce it properly if it were being used among Gaelic-speakers (where it'd be closer to "Kathleen" in pronunciation). But it suits me. It's a name people tend to assume belongs to a white woman, which is good, cause that's who I am.

What's the privilege? Well, having a name that comes from a background which is shared with that of Whiteness on this continent, I never have to spell it for people. Oh, I might have to let them know that I spell it with a "C" and two "I", rather than with a "K" and/or some "Y" in place of the I. But no one looks at me oddly, or makes me repeat it a few times, or requires me to spell it all out.

How is it a privilege? Well, I refer you back to my friend's comment, above, which started me off. It's never occurred to me how many times that difference plays to my advantage, until I read his last line:
It was downright soothing, like letting out a tensely-held breath.
I've never had to feel that way, that tensely-held breath, about my name.

Now, yes, I'm aware, many people with white skin have names which require spelling out to strangers, and many with brown skin bear names that don't require it. But that doesn't take away that those white folk could, if they wanted, take a name which wouldn't seem the least bit odd for their ethnicity/background, and take advantage of that tiny privilege.

I imagine the difficulties members of the Black communities face, when they bear names which don't come from the European heritage we associate with whiteness: of applying for a white-collar job with a name that speaks proudly of its owner's Black culture.*

I consider the difficulties East or South Asian, or African, or Latin@ people face, with their names from a thousand places, by far the majority of them outside the little privileged world of "white-appropriate" names.

I think about politicians who introduce bills requiring people to take "American" names.

I ponder the pressure on people with names outside that core group to take names from within the core group.

Privilege. You may not want it, but you're almost certainly soaking in it, over someone, somewhere. Someone's holding their breath tensely, over something you breeze through like a dancing zephyr.

* This section, and the three after it, have been edited, and I wanted to acknowledge that here. The way I wrote it originally spoke from an assumption that my readership shares the privilege I have, which is an othering practice I'm trying to shake: the four paras all started "Think of the...", which of course makes a clear suggestion that my readers can't come up with those possibilities for themselves, quite possibly because they're their lived experience.

As is my wont, I will edit to remove the offensive assumption, but I don't want to hide my mistake, nor the privilege from which I was speaking; if I'm going to hold myself up as someone whose opinion on this deserves being heard, I think it's important to recognize that I'm a long way from perfect on these issues myself. My thanks to Liss for pointing out the error, and my apologies for it.

Open Wide...

Impossibly Beautiful

The June 2010 issue of Marie Claire features on its cover the lovely Sarah Jessica Parker:


What's most notable about the changes to this image of SJP is the Photoshopping of her hands, which are rather famously wrinkly.


Articles, usually quite nasty ones, are written about the appearance of her hands, which, perhaps because I am the proud bearer of excessively lined hands myself, I happen to find quite beautiful and remarkable.

If I had to wager a guess, I would imagine that SJP is rather fond of her own hands, as well. Anyone who's watched Sex & the City (which she executive produces) has seen endless close-ups of her hands at her face, brushing aside her hair, or holding a drink. She clutches her hands to her chest excitedly and nervously, a habit that is hers, not just her character's, on display in interviews and in the recent episode of Who Do You Think You Are? in which she traced her ancestry back through American history.


I daresay it was not SJP who wanted her hands Photoshopped to the point of total unrecognizability. I suspect she did not request her hands to be made to look like babydoll hands stuck on the ends of the arms of a confident 45-year-old woman.

My estimation is that Sarah Jessica Parker—smart, talented, personally and professionally successful, legendarily stylish, and uniquely beautiful—still wasn't beautiful enough to grace the cover of Marie Claire with her own body intact.

The editors of Marie Claire may be telling me I should be ashamed of my hands, but I will not be.

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

By way of reminder: Comments that try to suss out what changes, exactly, were made, and even comments noting that, for example, the removal of laugh lines because they are ZOMG wrinkles actually robs a face of its character or humanity, are welcome. Discussions of how "he looks handsomer/hotter/better in the candid picture" and associated commentary (which would certainly make me feel like shit if I were the person being discussed) are not. So please comment in keeping with the series' intent, implicit in which is the question: If no one can ever be beautiful enough, then to what end is the pursuit of an elusive perfection?

[Impossibly Beautiful: Parts One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen, Fourteen, Fifteen, Sixteen, Seventeen, Eighteen, Nineteen, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39.]

Open Wide...

This is a real thing in the world.



Team Jacob New Moon Werewolf Barbie Doll in Jorts and Tattoo!

Open Wide...

NQDTR Discussion Thread - R100506

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.

Open Wide...

The Not Quite Daily Teaspoon Report - R100506

Time for another Teaspoon Report, brought to you by TOTTENHAM HOTSPUR FOOTBALL CLUB AND THEIR SEASON OF RENOWN!*

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

* Sorry, big night last night, the football (soccer) team I support won a really crucial game, and will be practicing their McGuffin-in-the-score-hole routine across Europe next year, so Caitie's all excited. :)

Open Wide...

UK Election Open Thread

by Shaker Cim

Voters have been going to the polls today for the United Kingdom general election. The polls close at 10pm local time, and it looks certain that whatever the result is, the political direction of the UK will be significantly altered. Which way it gets altered, though, is still up in the air. Here's a quick(ish) introduction to the election for people outside the UK.

The parties

Labour are the current majority party, and are approximately centre-left. They have been in power for 13 years, and the accumulated unpopularity of their decisions - and they've made some really bad decisions in that time - means that they are doing very badly in the polls and are likely to lose at least 100 seats and probably significantly more in this election. Most of their support comes from the inner cities and northern industrial towns.

Their main challengers are the Conservative party (aka the Tories), a right-wing party that has been either the majority party or the major opposition party for the last few hundred years. They look to be the best placed to capitalise on Labour's unpopularity, but are struggling somewhat in the polls themselves, probably because a lot of people remember the last time they were in power, which was great for well-off white heteronormative families, and very bad for everyone else. Their support mainly comes from rural constituencies and wealthy suburban areas in the south of England.

The next biggest party is the Liberal Democrats (often abbreviated Lib Dems). They are also centre-left, but in a very different way to Labour, reflecting their liberal roots rather than Labour's socialist roots. Their support is scattered across the country, though they do have a few regional strongholds in the South West and in Scotland, and also do well in some university towns where the mix of vaguely left middle class students and locals benefits them. They look very likely to get significantly bigger this election, though still a definite third.

In Scotland and Wales, the Scottish National Party (SNP) and Plaid Cymru (PC) respectively are local parties for those countries. They have a lot of power within the regional government but not much outside it. There are several regional parties in Northern Ireland, most of which are loosely allied with one of the big three British parties (which do not stand candidates in Northern Ireland). The influence of these parties in the UK government is generally very limited.

There are several other smaller parties and hundreds of independent candidates, but except in a few rare cases mentioned below, they don't stand a chance in most constituencies.

The major issues

The UK is slowly coming out of a recession brought on by the global financial crisis. Labour have taken a lot of blame for getting us into that mess, but also get some credit for getting us out again. The Conservatives want to make huge cuts to public services to balance the government books, whereas Labour and the Lib Dems are both looking more towards tax rises. (Though whoever is in charge, public services will be cut, and taxes will rise).

A lot of MPs were caught cheating on their expenses, and a lot more putting in claims that were technically within the rules but not really within the spirit of them. Many MPs are standing down at this election as a result of this, and a few are being investigated for fraud. As a result there's a general anti-politics sentiment in the country that's a lot stronger than normal, and all parties are proposing ways to restore trust and improve democracy.

None of the main parties have a great record on helping people who fall outside the social default of white heterosexual non-disabled upper-middle-class cis men (or indeed, on selecting candidates who aren't - the Centre for Women and Democracy have an analyis of the numbers of women standing this time). Labour and the Lib Dems generally at least pretend to care but get things very wrong at times and both have a problem with thinking about people generally, rather than in compartmentalised "women's rights" or "disability" issues. The Conservatives are even worse. Here's a quick summary of the votes on LGB rights by the big three parties, here's one on the last big vote on abortion rights (aye is the anti-choice side) - I can't find convenient summaries for voting related to other forms of oppression, but here's some research by the Fawcett Society on "What about Women", and Operation Black Vote have lots of material on the parties and (anti-)racism, for hints about what might happen next.

Immigration has come up as a big issue during the election campaign. All three major parties (and indeed most of the minor parties) promise to take extra steps against undocumented immigrants, and increase the level of control over documented immigrants. The Lib Dems policies are marginally less bad, in that they promise to stop detaining asylum seekers in abusive situations (search for "Yarl's Wood abuse", but *trigger warning* for most of the links you'll find) and propose a one-off amnesty for undocumented immigrants - policies for which they've been heavily criticised by Labour, the Conservatives and the media. Really, though, if you want a party that might actually consider immigrants (documented or not) to be as equally human as citizens, and makes policy accordingly, you're looking for one of the minor left parties. Everyone else is too busy trying to "look tough" to avoid losing votes to the BNP to actually stand up and say "wait, immigrants aren't actually destroying the country".

The BBC have a pretty good list of the parties major policies, and there are a few quizzes to suggest the best parties for you given your opinion on various policies, which might help you get a better impression of where they stand. Here's one.

The election system

The UK is divided by an impartial Boundaries Commission into 650 constituencies or seats, each of which has around 70,000 voters. The results of the latest redrawing are being used for the first time in this election, which means that for a majority of constituencies, "notional results" are being used, where the "last time" vote is estimated from local Council elections.

In each constituency, each of the three main parties puts up a candidate (except for Northern Ireland, which has different parties, and the constitutional oddity of the Speaker's seat). In most constituencies, some of the other parties will also put up a candidate.

Voters then vote for one candidate, and the one with the most votes wins. This is a terrible system for everyone but Labour and the Conservatives, who mostly benefit from it and aren't doing anything to change it. The Lib Dems, naturally, would really prefer it if it was fixed, and polling suggests that most voters would like that too.

Usually after all the votes are counted, one of the big two parties will have a majority of the MPs, become the government, and spend the next few years doing things varying degrees of wrong.

Election night

At 10pm, all the polling stations close (an advantage of having a country small enough to fit in a single time zone) and the votes are taken to be counted. From this point on, exit polls can be released, and TV channels will compete to see who can put together the silliest animation about the election.

The first constituency (usually an urban safe seat where the votes can be collected quickly and where being off by ten or twenty on the final count won't matter) will usually announce the results an hour or so later, with results coming in through the night and into the next morning. Generally the urban constituencies will declare first, with the geographically large rural constituencies declaring later. (A quick description of the counting process).

Constituencies that will be interesting to watch for more than their contribution to the final result (or if you happen to live there) are:

  • Bethnal Green and Bow. Currently held by the Respect coalition, a loose and uneasy (they've split in half once already) coalition of socialists, Islamists, and George Galloway, this used to be a safe Labour seat and may be their only hope for winning a new seat tonight.

  • Brighton Pavilion. The leader of the Green party is standing here, and with a bit of luck might become that party's first MP. This is probably the only constituency where the top four candidates are all women.

  • Barking. Another potential first MP for a party, but hopefully not this time. The far-right and proudly racist British National Party is standing here.

  • Buckingham. The Speaker of the House of Commons is standing here. For complicated historical reasons, the Speaker is an MP, but is politically neutral, but used to be an MP for a party (in his case, the Conservatives). It's messy and complicated. Recently invented convention states that none of the big parties stand against the speaker. The United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) are not big and are trying for their own first seat here. Again, hopefully they won't get it, because they're barely an improvement on the BNP.

  • Bedfordshire Mid. This seat is held by Nadine Dorries, one of the least moderate Conservatives, and there's a strong campaign to defeat her. It probably won't work.

  • By UK tradition, no interesting election events are allowed to happen in constituencies that do not begin with 'B'.

  • Well, okay. Morley and Outwood has been heavily targeted by the Conservatives. It'd usually be pretty safe, but they want to get Ed Balls, one of Labour's ministers, out of government, as pay-back for the defeat of Michael Portillo in Labour's overwhelming victory in 1997.

  • In Wyre Forest, one of the UK's few independent MPs is trying to retain their seat.

  • York Outer is not particularly interesting for its candidates (though if you happened to live there, it's close between the Conservatives and Lib Dems), but for its shape. It's the only doughnut-shaped constituency in the country.


  • Once all the results are in, things get really tricky. Assuming the current polls are accurate, there are basically two likely results. As you can guess from the headings, I'm not optimistic about this election.

    Simple but bad

    The Conservatives might get a majority of the MPs. It's looking unlikely on the current polling, unless they do very well in the crucial constituencies, but if it happens then they get to be the government and we can look forwards to at least four or five years of right-wing policies. David Cameron is relatively moderate for a Conservative personally, though that's not saying a lot, but his party and core supporters are quite a bit less so, and if they win convincingly there'll be a lot of pressure from them to push through an agenda that generally benefits the rich at everyone else's expense.

    More complicated, and still probably bad

    Looking more likely at the moment is that the Conservatives will be the largest party, but without enough MPs for a majority (in theory they need half - 325 - in practice they could get away, barely, with around 320, because the Speaker doesn't vote, and the Sinn Fein MPs refuse to take an oath of allegiance to the Queen, and so don't take up their seats. This could go several ways:

    Firstly, the Conservatives could try to rule as a minority government, as in Canada, and hope the other parties aren't willing to vote them down, especially if they're only a few MPs away from a majority. Secondly, they could go into a coalition government with some of the other parties. Thirdly, if Labour don't lose too many seats, Labour and the Lib Dems could form a coalition to outvote the Conservatives. Finally, the parties might be entirely unable to agree on anything, and we might have a new election very soon (please, no...).

    There are a lot of complicated political calculations here, and none of the three main parties is willing to say what it would do in public, so whatever happens, this will get messy - but probably not as bad as a Conservative majority, and a Labour-Lib Dem coalition could in principle be very progressive (or not, depending on which bits of each party's policies get agreed on).

    Open Wide...

    How To Put A Smile On Your Face

    Read this.

    Go ahead, I'll wait.

    See? You're smiling, aren't you? Toldja.

    (Shaker SamanthaExplosion provides a link to a Facebook page with all kinds of related material)

    Tip of the CaitieCap to Emily W.

    Open Wide...

    Net Neutrality Update

    Good news-ish?

    In a move that will stoke a battle over the future of the Internet, the federal government plans to propose regulating broadband lines under decades-old rules designed for traditional phone networks.

    The decision, by Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski, is likely to trigger a vigorous lobbying battle, arraying big phone and cable companies and their allies on Capitol Hill against Silicon Valley giants and consumer advocates.

    Breaking a deadlock within his agency, Mr. Genachowski is expected Thursday to outline his plan for regulating broadband lines. He wants to adopt "net neutrality" rules that require Internet providers like Comcast Corp. and AT&T Inc. to treat all traffic equally, and not to slow or block access to websites.
    Yay! ...But wait, what's this?
    The decision has been eagerly awaited since a federal appeals court ruling last month cast doubt on the FCC's authority over broadband lines, throwing into question Mr. Genachowski's proposal to set new rules for how Internet traffic is managed. The court ruled the FCC had overstepped when it cited Comcast in 2008 for slowing some customers' Internet traffic.

    In a nod to such concerns, the FCC said in a statement that Mr. Genachowski wouldn't apply the full brunt of existing phone regulations to Internet lines and that he would set "meaningful boundaries to guard against regulatory overreach."
    Hold the phone internet: Is Genachowski, "a Harvard Law School buddy of the president," trying to bipartisan this shit? Because it's either net neutrality or it isn't. Either Cromcrast can't slam me for internet use, or they can slam me within "meaningful boundaries." Let's go to the experts to figure out what's going on.
    "On the surface it looks like a win for Internet companies," said Rebecca Arbogast, an analyst with Stifel Nicolaus. "A lot will depend on the details of how this gets implemented."

    ..."The question is how heavy a hand will the regulatory touch be," [Mike McCurry, former press secretary for President Bill Clinton and co-chair of the Arts + Labs Coalition, an industry group representing technology companies, telecom companies and content providers] said. "We don't know yet, so the devil is in the details."
    Well. That clears it up. Obviously the FCC will pander to corporations as much as it feels it can get away with and still assert to be championing "net neutrality." Awesome.

    And the firesale of America to soulless, for-profit corporations continues unabated.

    Bad news-ish, then. Sigh.

    Open Wide...

    Bread and Teaspoons Thirty

    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 (theoretically**) weekly post providing a spot for Shakers to network a little with one another, see if we can help each other out some.

    NB: I have added a bit to the guidelines for what’s on-topic here, to allow the posting of useful job resources for progressives.

    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.
    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, if I were to comment - rather than taking advantage of my position by posting it up here in the OP! - I'd leave one saying:

    I'm a professional translator of French, German and Russian, with 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.

    We also welcome appropriate job resource sites for progressives, e.g. Canada’s Charity Village, which specializes in jobs with non-profits and NGOs.

    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. :)

    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
    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.

    ** "Theoretically", because sometimes my life or my depression interfere. :)

    The last several Bread and Teaspoons: Twenty-Four. Twenty-Five.
    Twenty-Six. Twenty-Seven. Twenty-Eight.
    Twenty-Nine.

    Open Wide...

    Happy Birthday, Spudsy!!!



    Happy Birthday to you!
    Happy Birthday to you!
    You like to sit in the dark eating braunschweiger
    while watching bad mooooooovieeeeees…
    And OMG Shoez I do, too!


    I loves ya, Spudsy.

    Thank you for being a friend.

    xoxox

    Open Wide...

    Open Thread

    Photobucket

    Hosted by a milk bottle building.

    Open Wide...

    Question of the Day

    What book have you (re)read with the most frequency?

    (If you haven't ever given any book multiple readings, feel free to name the book you're most likely to read again. Parents and other carers of small children, please feel free to exclude favorite books you've read a zillion times at bedtime. This is more a question about books you've read singularly for your own pleasure.)

    I have an acquaintance who re-reads The Lord of the Rings trilogy once every year. That's dedication!

    I don't read anything that often, but I have re-read many books, despite my endless list of books I still want to read, which I will never conquer unless I live to be a hundred million years old. (Super senior discount!)

    I'm pretty sure the book I've read the greatest number of times is Beautiful Joe, a children's novel narrated by an abused dog who finds a home with a caring family. It's no exaggeration to say that Beautiful Joe was a significant influence on my life; I owe a great deal of my capacity for empathy and my ability to survive to Joe's tale.

    It was based on a true story and written by Marshall Saunders—actually Margaret Marshall Saunders, who entered (and won) a literary contest sponsored by the American Humane and Educational Society under her middle name because female authors weren't getting published—and was first published in 1893. My tattered copy of the book was passed down to me through three generations.

    My first memory of really loving a book is loving Beautiful Joe.

    You can read it here, if you are so inclined.

    Open Wide...

    Big Brother Is Weight Watchering You

    So, Congress has decided to "tackle obesity." (Obesity's all: "Ow! Get off me!") I'm sure nothing bad will happen:

    On May 5, U.S. Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.) and several Congressional co-sponsors introduced the "Healthy Choices Act," a bill proposing a comprehensive national approach to addressing the country's obesity crisis.

    The bill's many provisions include ones that would align federal food programs with existing governmental nutritional guidelines; make healthy foods affordable and accessible to children and adults most at risk, including rural and low-income urban areas; coordinate the federal response to addressing the obesity crisis (including realigning transportation policy to encourage healthier lifestyles); and provide children and adults with opportunities for physical activity, nutritional information and assessment tools.
    Well, that all sounds pretty good. Sounds like the ingredients to a national healthfulness* initiative, which would be better framing than an anti-obesity crusade. Especially if Congress isn't on an anti-obesity crusade, with a specific intent of targeting fat people for elimination.
    Doctors would be provided with tools to diagnose and treat obesity, and funding would be provided to help researchers develop more effective prevention and
    treatment methods.
    Oh. Well. So it sort of is about eliminating fat people, not just making sure people are healthy. Um—
    One provision falling under the assessment area could raise some privacy concerns: It would require pediatricians to measure the body mass index, or BMI, of school-age children and note this in children's vaccination records.
    Aaaaaaaand you've lost me.

    Now comes the part where I laugh with bitter contempt, yes?
    Rick Wolford, chairman of the Grocery Manufacturers Association's board of directors and chairman, president and CEO of Del Monte Foods, issued a follow-up statement praising the bill's sponsors for creating "sensible, science-based legislation" with a framework that is "both simple and attainable."

    The American Beverage Association (ABA) also issued a statement confirming its support of the bill.
    Yes.

    Obesity Crisis!!!eleventy! legislation ghost-authored by lobbyists for the food and beverage industry. Perfect.

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

    * Here, I use "healthfulness" not in juxtaposition to disability, but to the "fat axiomatically equals unhealthy" narrative. I recognize there is a potential, if unintended, marginalization of people with disabilities whenever health-related terminology is used and/or when health is centered as an ideal.

    As someone who is both fat and disabled, I am keenly aware of this complicated intersection. I do think it's extremely important to counteract the "fat=unhealthy" narrative; I also think it's extremely important not to imply that healthfulness is superior to disability.

    It's not easy to reconcile the two, but what I want to try to do in this space is recognize that the "health at every size" paradigm as it relates to weight isn't seeking to marginalize people with disabilities, but is seeking to counter a very dangerous narrative that reflexively equates fat with an inherent lack of health. At the same time, I want to recognize that it nonetheless has the potential to marginalize, and, to that end, will continue to address that issue, so that "health" (posited in juxtaposition to "fat/unhealthy") is never discussed here without an awareness of the implications for people with disabilities.

    Open Wide...

    Today's Edition of "Conniving and Sinister"



    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...

    Huh.

    Chief Targets of Student Incivility Are Female and Young Professors:

    When it comes to being rude, disrespectful, or abusive to their professors, students appear most likely to take aim at women, the young, and the inexperienced, a new study has found.
    Huh.

    Naturally, it was only a matter of time before "Well, women are known to be oversensitive hysterics!" raised its ugly head.
    Given the universal nature of some of the student behaviors examined, such as dozing off in class, it may be fair to ask whether some faculty members were just more inclined than others to have let student incivility roll off of them and not recall it or see it as worth reporting.
    Sigh.

    I'm curious about what role race played in these findings, or if that wasn't examined (and if not, why not).

    [H/T to Shaker Phyllis.]

    Open Wide...

    How Low Can Leno Go?

    Pretty goddamn low: Last night, during his typically abysmal monologue (start at about 3:15), Jay Leno included a segment that purported to examine attempted Times Square car bomber Faisal Shahzad's Facebook page, because terrorism is hilarious comedy fodder.

    Different parts of the page were zoomed in as he "joked" about them, and, although it was left unremarked-upon, clearly visible on Shahzad's imaginary profile under group memberships was "Team Coco," a reference to supporters of Conon O'Brien.


    What a petty, spiteful shit.

    Yeah, you just haven't won enough, Jay Leno. It wasn't enough that you got The Tonight Show back after fucking with the serial drama lead-in formula that kept you on top for all those years. What you really needed to do to prove how AWESOME you are was take a swipe at a guy who's clearly had the wind knocked out of him (and has signed a non-disparagement agreement, so he couldn't retaliate in kind even if he wanted to).

    Class act, all the way.

    And, you know, I don't even really care about Conan O'Brien. I thought his shtick—which I once enjoyed, for its giddy absurdity—got mean and small and unfunny when he took over The Tonight Show. And I can't muster too much sympathy for a super-privileged dude who landed with a $30 million parachute after losing a job, when people all over this country get laid off all the time with jack shit.

    But some things are just wrong on principle—and this is one of them. You are the worst, Jay Leno.

    The WORST.

    Contact NBC Universal.

    [H/T to Paul the Spud, who got it from The Daily What.]

    Open Wide...

    Daily Dose o' Cute



    Dudz has legs, and he knows how to use 'em. To be CUTE!

    Open Wide...

    No One Cares What Michael Brown Thinks

    Except Neil Cavuto.

    Open Wide...

    Quote of the Day

    "I think [Arizona's new immigration law] is very misguided. I think it's, unfortunately, to the detriment of our society and our civil liberties. I think it's very important for us to stand up for things we believe in. As a team and as an organization, we have a lot of love and support for all of our fans. The league is very multicultural. We have players from all over the world, and our Latino community here is very strong and important to us."—Phoenix Suns guard Steve Nash, who, along with his teammates, will wear "Los Suns" jerseys for tonight's game against the San Antonio Spurs "to honor [the] Latino community and the diversity of our league, the state of Arizona, and our nation."

    (The Spurs reported tried to arrange for "Los Spurs" jerseys, but had too little time.)

    Suns General Manager Steve Kerr explains that the team wants to "make sure that people understand that we know what's going on and we don't agree with the law itself."

    As noted in the linked post, it's quite unusual for a professional team to take such a bold political position.

    [H/T to Shaker Euterpe813. Commenting Note: Though I haven't addressed the connotations of a show of solidarity that consists of tacking on "Los" to an English team name, please consider that on-topic for the thread.]

    Open Wide...

    Wednesday Blogaround

    This blogaround brought to you by Shaxco, makers of Deeky Brand Robotic Megagloves.

    Recommended Reading:

    Marcella: Carnival Against Sexual Violence 93

    Frankie PhD: The 24th Edition of the Down Under Feminists Carnival

    Ouyang Dan: The One Damned Sock…

    Lori; 10 Myths About Sex and Virginity—Debunked

    Renee: "Shoot The Illegal Immigrants"

    Andy: Lutheran Pastor Brad Schmeling and His Partner to Be Reinstated

    shweta_narayan: As we're looking through our prison bars do I see mud when you see stars?

    Leave your links in comments...

    Open Wide...