[Trigger warning.]
"So Hitler himself was an active homosexual. And some people wonder, didn't the Germans, didn't the Nazis, persecute homosexuals? And it is true they did; they persecuted effeminate homosexuals. But Hitler recruited around him homosexuals to make up his Stormtroopers, they were his enforcers, they were his thugs. And Hitler discovered that he could not get straight soldiers to be savage and brutal and vicious enough to carry out his orders, but that homosexual solders basically had no limits and the savagery and brutality they were willing to inflict on whomever Hitler sent them after. So he surrounded himself, virtually all of the Stormtroopers, the Brownshirts, were male homosexuals."—American Family Association Director of Public Policy Bryan Fischer. I believe he is also a Professor of History at Genius University.
This blogaround brought to you by Shaxco, makers of Deeky's Giant Oven Mitts.
Recommended Reading:
[TW] Fannie: Pulling Away the Mask: Is Extermination the End Goal of Anti-Gay Activism?
[TW] Cara: Boys Aged 10 and 11 Convicted of Attempted Rape as Apologists Deny Assault Was Possible
Renee: Dan Savage Does Not Have the Solution
Andy: Report: Senator Ben Nelson to Make Key 'Yes' Vote on 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Repeal Amendment
Melissa: The Consequences of Speaking Out
Rana: Cool Robot!
Jorge: Thanks 4 Watching
Leave your links in comments...
Shaker EastSideKate emails (which I am publishing with her permission) an update to her post here about the American Psychiatric Association's proposed revisions to the Gender Identity Disorder entry in the upcoming fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V):
Helen's got a couple of posts up at Questioning Transphobia about WPATH's (the professional group that comes up with recommendations for trans-related hoops) response to the whole DSM-V thing. Last night's post had me pretty excited: It sounded like WPATH was going to argue that being trans wasn't a mental illness. This morning's update *with the actual text* of the critique is along the lines of the tepid mess I'd expect.
Not that I'm surprised that a group of allies would try to play things both ways. Particularly a group with WPATH's logo (seriously, folks?).
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is on a state trip to Asia right now, and, as I was looking through the news photographs of her visit, I was struck once again by the images of her with women, in the kind of photo we don't usually (ever) see of our secretaries of state, but have seen everywhere Clinton travels:
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (2nd R) says goodbye to a group of Chinese women activists after discussing progress and ongoing challenges in Beijing on May 26, 2010. [Getty Images.]And I was struck once again by the images of her with men, sticking out amongst the darkly colored suits with her brightly-colored blazer (I see you hiding back there, too, Lady in White Blazer behind Dude in Periwinkle Tie!):
China's Vice Premier Wang Qishan (front row 5th from L), U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (dark green), U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke (front row 1st from L), U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner (front row 3rd from L), U.S. Federal reserve Chairman Benjamin Bernanke (second row 4th from L) and other delegates pose for a group photo ahead of the opening ceremony of the China-U.S. Strategic and Economic Dialogue May 24, 2010 in Beijing, China. [Getty Images.]And I was struck once again by how comfortable she looks at events with children (and their educators), where our "statesmen" usually look so stiff and awkward and uncomfortable, undermining (if unintentionally) whatever pledges they've made to prioritize children's welfare and education:
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, center in 2nd row, poses for photos alongside Chinese State Councilor Liu Yandong, 3rd right in 2nd row, and American and Chinese students after watching a performance at the National Center for the Performing Arts in Beijing Tuesday, May 25, 2010. [AP Photo.]And I was interested to see this image of Clinton, again with Chinese State Councilor Liu Yandong at the Performing Arts Center:
The proposed repeal of DADT continues to be a clusterfuck, as misogynist wankstain and former Reaganite Democratic Senator Jim Webb says he sees "no reason for the political process to pre-empt" the Pentagon's readiness for the repeal.
Meanwhile, Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine says she will back a repeal of DADT. Good for her.
Always nice to see the Democrats snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Feel the Homomentum!
Americans' Acceptance of Gay Relations Crosses 50% Threshold: "Americans' support for the moral acceptability of gay and lesbian relations crossed the symbolic 50% threshold in 2010. ... Gallup's annual Values and Beliefs survey, conducted each May, documents a gradual increase in public acceptance of gay relations since about 2006. However, the change is seen almost exclusively among men, and particularly men younger than 50."
All right. Way to go, dudez!
It's difficult for me to believe that "acceptance of gay relations" is only just now passing the positive threshold, because, geez, get it together, America. Damn. But my persistent, impatient mystification with endemic bigotry notwithstanding, this is an important milestone. Even among self-identified conservatives, there has been a 5-point increase in support of gay relationships since 2006.
It's really rather remarkable that we've crossed this threshold without federally mandated marriage equality. To put it into perspective, interracial marriage was supported by only 28% of Americans when it was legalized by Loving vs. Virgina in 1968, and support did not cross the positive threshold until 1991.
(And there are STILL holdouts.)
Apart from anything else, this number is important because no longer can any politician ever again cloak hir craven refusal to support gay equality behind the excuse that a majority of Americans believe homosexuality is immoral.
They don't.
Suggested by Shaker SugarLeigh as a follow-up to yesterday's QotD: If you were going to write your memoirs, what would the title be?
Obviously, I've got to go with I'm Not Offended—I'm Contemptuous!: The Totally True Stories of a Feisty Fat Feminist.
Obama's afternoon tea with Senate Republicans appears to be the impetus for his splendid new border proposal: You scratch my SCOTUS nominee; I'll scratch your costly and demonstrably ineffective exercise in racism down by the border. Or something.
Obama called on Republicans to … support his Supreme Court pick, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, and join him to advance immigration reform and energy and climate change legislation.And then when Obama promised 1,200 troops, McCain immediately criticized it as insufficient. Because THAT'S WHAT REPUBLICANS DO.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told Obama that he must first secure the border with Mexico before Republicans will support a comprehensive reform package, according to GOP lawmakers in the meeting.
Obama told Republicans that we would be willing to meet them halfway or 75 percent of the way on some of the big issues remaining on his agenda.No comment.
When they pressed him to support specific GOP-favored proposals, he repeatedly said he is constrained because of pressure from his party’s liberal base.
Obama Authorizes Deployment of More National Guard Troops Along Border. Of course he does.
President Obama has authorized the call-up of as many as 1,200 National Guard troops across the U.S. border with Mexico to assist with border protection and enforcement activities there, officials say.Jeralyn points out that $1.3 billion has already been authorized for the war on drugs in Mexico, all of which hasn't even been distributed yet. She adds: "Throwing more money into the failed policies of the past 40 years will do no good. The cartels will become stronger."
The president, who alone cannot formally authorize deployment of the forces, is expected to request $500 million in supplemental funds from Congress to make a state governor's decision to deploy troops financially possible.
The troops, expected to be spread across all four southwestern states, would largely assist border patrol agents and local law enforcement by providing intelligence and intelligence analysis, surveillance and reconnaissance support, and the ability to train additional Customs and Border Protection agents, sources say.
[Trigger warning for sexual assault.]
HeLLo, grrrlAs tempting as it is to meet someone who gets hot and bothered, immediately after reading a comprehensive description of the rape culture, by my mysterious ability to project "something WILD and ROUGH" in a photo, I think I'll take a pass.
i`m a brasilian guy. i red yr article bout rape culchur lol lol lolão
than i saw yr pic at dat site and... wow IT MADE ME HOT UNDER MY COLLAR you know? you are so cute but you seem to hide something WILD and ROUGH at the same time i dont know how to explain that ....
would you meet me when i go to your city????? we could go crazy 2gether it wolud be awesome we could have some ice-cream together i would be so happy.. lol lol lol
Back in January, I posted about how Andrew Wakefield was found by the General Medical Council to be "dishonest, irresponsible, and [to have acted with] callous disregard". To recall:
The verdict, read out by panel chairman Dr Surendra Kumar, criticised Dr Wakefield for the invasive tests, such as spinal taps, that were carried out on children and which were found to be against their best clinical interests.By the GMC's procedures, sanctions are handed down at a later date. Yesterday was the date and Wakefield was struck from the medical register:
The panel said Dr Wakefield, who was working at London's Royal Free Hospital as a gastroenterologist at the time, did not have the ethical approval or relevant qualifications for such tests.
The GMC also took exception with the way he gathered blood samples. Dr Wakefield paid children £5 for the samples at his son's birthday party.
Dr Kumar said he had acted with "callous disregard for the distress and pain the children might suffer".
He also said Dr Wakefield should have disclosed the fact that he had been paid to advise solicitors acting for parents who believed their children had been harmed by the MMR.
In making the verdict on the sanctions, Dr Surendra Kumar, the panel's chairman, said Dr Wakefield had "brought the medical profession into disrepute" and his behaviour constituted "multiple separate instances of serious professional misconduct".Two of his colleagues were also found guilty and one of them also struck from the register.
In total, he was found guilty of more than 30 charges.
Dr Kumar also explained the reasoning for striking Dr Wakefield off.
"The panel concluded that it is the only sanction that is appropriate to protect patients and is in the wider public interest, including the maintenance of public trust and confidence in the profession, and is proportionate to the serious and wide-ranging findings made against him."
Dr Wakefield has consistently claimed the allegations against him were "unfounded and unjust"."Unfounded and unjust"? ORLY? Shall we remember?
As the GMC announced its sanctions, Dr Wakefield said: "Efforts to discredit and silence me through the GMC process have provided a screen to shield the government from exposure on the MMR vaccine scandal."
[T]wo years before his study was published, Wakefield had been approached by a lawyer representing several families with autistic children. The lawyer specifically hired Wakefield to do research to find justification for a class action suit against MMR manufacturers. The children of the lawyer’s clients were referred to Wakefield for the study, and 11 of his 12 subjects were eventually litigants. Wakefield failed to disclose this conflict of interest. He also failed to disclose how the subjects were recruited for his study.The ruling sounds about right, all the way around. Hopefully it will affect his ability to practice medicine here in the US (where I believe he has an autism clinic).
Wakefield was paid a total of nearly half a million pounds plus expenses by the lawyer. The payments were billed through a company of Wakefield’s wife. He never declared his source of funding until it was revealed by Brian Deer. Originally he had denied being paid at all. Even after he admitted it, he lied about the amount he was paid. Before the study was published, Wakefield had filed patents for his own separate measles vaccine, as well as other autism-related products. He failed to disclose this significant conflict of interest. Human research must be approved by the hospital’s ethics committee. Wakefield’s study was not approved. When confronted, Wakefield first claimed that it was approved, then claimed he didn’t need approval. Wakefield bought blood samples for his research from children (as young as 4) attending his son’s birthday party. He callously joked in public about them crying, fainting and vomiting. He paid the kids £5 each.
The General Medical Council accused him of ordering invasive and potentially harmful studies (colonoscopies and spinal taps) without proper approval and contrary to the children’s clinical interests, when these diagnostic tests were not indicated by the children’s symptoms or medical history. One child suffered multiple bowel perforations during the colonoscopy. Several had problems with the anesthetic. Children were subjected to sedation for other non-indicated tests like MRIs. Brian Deer was able to access the medical records of Wakefield’s subjects. He found that several of them had evidence of autistic symptoms documented in their medical records before they got the MMR vaccine. The intestinal biopsies were originally reported as normal by hospital pathologists. They were reviewed, re-interpreted, and reported as abnormal in Wakefield’s paper. [...]
[Trigger warning.]
"I am mortified by my mistake, and can only hope the purity of my motive, to find a way to connect with the graduates and encourage them to a life of service, will allow you to forgive me." — Journalist, but not fact-checker, Ann Curry, who while delivering the commencement address at Wheaton College in Massachusetts, erroneously cited as alumni graduates of Wheaton College in Illinois the Rev. Billy Graham, Tyrannosaurus of Turpitude Dennis Hastert, and Wes Craven.
Yeah, because movies about rapists and pedophiles is what service is all about.
It's that time of year where all the networks begin to start marketing what will be their new fall series, in order to try to get advertisers' attention and start building an audience. As part of their 2010 fall preview, CBS has unveiled a new sitcom called "Mike and Molly," which they describe thus: "From the creator of The Big Bang Theory and Two and a Half Men comes a new comedy about finding romance in the most unusual places. Get ready for a whole lotta love—This Fall on CBS!"
Have you guessed the twist yet…? You need to "get ready for a whole lotta love" because THEY'RE FAT!
[Image of a clapboard with show details being closed.]
Director James Burrows, thin white man: And…action!
Text Onscreen: MIKE & MOLLY. Behind the scenes. [The words "Behind the Scenes" are seen on a scale, where the weight would normally be.]
Producer Chuck Lorre, thin white man: The series is about the difficulties of developing a relationship.
Melissa McCarthy, "Molly," fat white woman: Mike and Molly, they're trying to find themselves; they really find each other.
Unidentified Man in voiceover: They meet at an Overeaters Anonymous meeting.
Video clip of Mike at OA meeting: I had a pretty fair week. I lost three pounds. [other attendees applaud] Then I took off my shirt and I found it [he squeezes the fat on his upper arm] right about here. [studio audience laughs]
Billy Gardell, "Mike," fat white man: It's a pretty classic love story.
Burrows: This show's a romance, but it is really funny.
[Begin video clip of Mike, who is a police officer, and his partner Carl, who is played by Reno Wilson, a thin black man, eating at a diner.]
Carl: New diet?
Mike: Yeah, I read about it in a magazine at the dentist's office.
Carl: Men's Fitness?
Mike: No.
Carl: Sports Illustrated?
Mike: Modern Bride, okay?! [studio audience laughs]
Carl [putting up hands]: That's none of my business. But you better get married quick [points at Mike's belly] because you're starting to show. [studio audience laughs]
[End video clip.]
Wilson: The writing is— [kisses fingertips] It's top of the line.
Swoozie Kurtz, "Joyce," aka Molly's mother, thin white woman: The jokes come out of the characters.
Katy Mixon, "Victoria," aka Molly's sister, thin white woman: It is about regular people. [shrugs] Just regular people.
[Begin video clip of Molly on an elliptical machine in her (?) living room, while her mother eats a piece of chocolate cake on the sofa right beside her.]
Molly: Mom! Do you have to eat that in front of me?
Joyce: Ohhhhh, I'm sorry, baby. You want a bite? [she holds out a piece of cake on a fork; the studio audience laughs]
Molly: What do you think I'm doing on this machine here—making butter?! [studio audience laughs]
[End video clip.]
McCarthy: Her family comes from a good place, but there's a lot of just saying the wrong things.
[Continue video clip; Molly's sister has now joined Joyce on the couch.]
Joyce [to Victoria]: Instead of milk, I use pudding. [Molly looks at them exasperatedly; studio audience laughs]
Victoria: That must be why it's so smooth and creamy!
Molly: For god's sakes! Why are you doing this to me?!
Victoria and Joyce [with mouthfuls of cake]: What? What are we doing? [studio audience laughs]
[End video clip.]
McCarthy: You can watch it and kind of think, "Oh my god." It's just funnier when it's real.
Gardell: We've all tried to look cool and ended up looking foolish. And when you hit that chord, nothing better.
[Begin video clip of Mike talking to Molly at some event next to a table with snacks on it.]
Mike: I was wondering if you weren't doing anything, if we could— [he leans on table and it falls over; he goes with it and ends up on the floor] Ahhh! [studio audience laughs]
Molly: Oh my god!
Mike: Owww!
Molly: Are you okay?
Mike [getting up]: I'm good—but I don't think that table's up to code. [studio audience laughs]
Molly [averting her eyes but pointing at Mike]: Ohhhh, is your finger supposed to be pointed in that direction?
Mike [lifting his hand to reveal obviously broken pinky]: No, it's not! [studio audience laughs]
[End video clip.]
McCarthy: Everything that's kind of happening with us shooting the show is pretty amazing.
Gardell: Chuck Lorre, Mark Roberts, and Jim Burrows—to be working with these guys is like playing for the Yankees.
Kurtz: You feel like you're in such good hands.
Wilson: In my opinion, you just have to say their words.
[Begin video clip of Mike and Carl hugging.]
Carl: Sweet Jesus, it's like hugging a futon. [studio audience laughs]
[End video clip.]
Mixon: They want to bring the best out of you possible.
[Begin video clip of Victoria coming down the stairs into the living room, which has been disheveled by an apparent robbery.]
Victoria: They stole my pot. [she notices Carl at the front door; studio audience laughs] And my pan and my spatula and other cooking supplies! [studio audience laughs]
[End video clip.]
Gardell: I think we got a good one, man.
McCarthy: It just feels right and easy and we laugh all day, so, that can't be bad.
[Begin video clip of Mike, also at the house for the robbery, talking to Molly.]
Mike: Would you like to have dinner with me sometime?
Molly: I would love to.
Carl [standing across the room with Joyce and Victoria]: She better be good to him! [Joyce and Victoria give him a look; studio audience laughs]
Text Onscreen: MIKE & MOLLY. Coming this fall. [The words "Coming this fall" are again seen on the scale, where the weight would normally be.]
[Trigger warning for mention of suicide.]
Ugh: "Really, Man? The The 10 Biggest Myths About Guys" by Brendan Tapley, which includes such helpful insights as:
Next time you see your mate's desire for sex as chauvinistic, remember that he may be asking for proof that you and he are the team he fantasizes about.And:
Women, the usual victims of these limitations, most likely buy into the idea because it elevates them. The thing is, men are not limited; and if women decide to sacrifice a little superiority, they will gain better treatment by men.And:
While men may appear to prize freedom and independence, in their heart of hearts they truly value loyalty. In standing by her man, a woman can fill a primal absence.Just ugh and more ugh. And the sad part is, this was one of the better male-authored articles marginally classifiable in the "Patriarchy Hurts Men, Too" genre. At least it gets the problem right. But WOMENZ NEED TO BE MOAR NURTURING!!!eleventy! is really, really not the solution.
According to the National Institute of Mental Health, men commit suicide four times as often as women, and suicide currently ranks as the seventh leading cause of death for men. Watching for when a guy might be repressing reactions for the sake of masculine pride, and asking him to forgo that habit, is one way women can literally save a man's life.It's like, yes, good partners, irrespective of gender, should always encourage healthy expression of negative feelings, to avoid stress and anxiety and depression and rage and the other issues that a back-up of repressed emotions can cause. But, no, that does not translate into "women need to urge men to change their behavior so they don't kill themselves."
