[I'm assuming today's protagonist didn't/doesn't identify as queer, but I think this story is relevant to a lot of us. Plus, all the cool qids are into faux-alliteration these days.]
I first encountered Agnes in early 2007, a time when co-incidentally, I was struggling to find a doctor who would write prescriptions to allow me to have a hormonal balance (and in turn, life) society considered plausible for a person of my gender.
A chapter in Susan Stryker and Stephen Whittle's excellent Transgender Studies Reader reprinted a book chapter by sociologist Dr. Harold Garfinkel on Agnes.
I've since found out that poor Agnes is the stuff of queer studies legend. I certainly haven't gotten through many of the wordy academic texts on this young woman. However, I can relate my initial reaction to her story, as told through the eyes of Dr. Garfinkel.
In October 1958, 19-year old Agnes showed up at UCLA's Department of Psychiatry, having been referred there by a series of physicians. Dr. Garfinkel noted her “convincingly female appearance”, her “peaches-and-cream” complexion and so on. Her demeanor was that of what Dr. Garfinkel and colleagues referred to as a “120 per cent female”; painstakingly and stereotypically female in all regards.
The root of Agnes' difficulties stemmed from her genitals, which Dr. Garfinkel repeatedly assures readers are completely normal and functional, or so they would have been had they appeared on a male. Because of these organs, Agnes was forced to spend the first 17 years of her life attempting to “pass” as a boy. This, despite the fact that at age 12, according to Agnes, her body began to spontaneously feminize, resulting in the “convincing” appearance Dr. Garfinkel noted.
Needless to say, Garfinkel, who specialized in studying the social construction of identity (as well as Dr. Robert Stoller, a psychiatrist who would later be a part of UCLA's gender clinic, and psychologist Dr. Alexander Rosen) found this all very interesting.
The three UCLA professors conducted over 30 hours of interviews, with Dr. Garfinkel presenting certain observations in said book chapter.
To me, Garfinkel's text is one of the more heartbreaking, painful, and yet subtly inspirational things I've ever read. Garfinkel goes on and on (and on) about construction of gender categories by social actors, and about the manifest need that individuals (including Agnes) have for other people to perceive them as “normal” (e.g., cissexual).
Agnes talks of her boyfriend (himself a “120 per cent male”), people who knew her in the first 17 years of her life, and the paramount need to protect herself from her secret. Garfinkel, IMO, appears to understand the stressful (and crucial) importance of all of this, and goes on and on (and on) about practical mechanisms for “passing” within a constructed sociological framework.
The homophobic (and transphobic) side of Agnes certainly makes me cringe. Garfinkel gives her ample opportunity to express her views on folks who aren't “normal”, on homosexuals, transvestites, and “transsexualists,” three groups that Garfinkel doesn't always appear (on my reading) to distinguish between. In all cases, Agnes is careful to proclaim her distaste for and avoidance of those people.
Agnes clearly and repeatedly proclaims herself to be a real woman with a horrible biological condition. Soon, doctors at UCLA agree with this assessment, proclaiming that Agnes suffered from an extraordinarily rare (she is, as far as I know, the only person to be so diagnosed) intersex condition know as testicular feminization syndrome, whereby her testes spontaneously began producing estrogen at puberty. In March 1959 (six months after she first appeared at UCLA), surgeons performed SRS/GRS on the young woman.
Eight years later, long after leaving UCLA, Agnes admitted the truth. Her mother had had a hysterectomy, after which she was prescribed estrogen therapy. Since the age of 12, Agnes had been secretly taking her mother's pills, and filling her prescriptions.
As far as I know, Agnes is still a controversial figure. She lied to doctors, said homophobic and transphobic things, and misappropriated an intersex identity in order to receive adequate health care (which she received, as far as I know for free within a matter of months). There's lots to say there, and a lot of it has been said, usually multiple times.
I'm frustrated by the text, particularly the fact that Dr. Garfinkel seems to be a fairly thoughtful, caring, intelligent person who can't seem to wrap his mind around the fact that transsexual people are who we say we are, and that the people who disregard our identities are, at best, severely misguided. This fundamental idea reduces much of his text to what I might call a masturbatory exercise in social theory that has little to no bearing on understanding or improving the life of his subject. While much has changed since Garfinkel's work first appeared in 1967, it's depressing to consider what hasn't.
For me, the key point in the text, where I feel that Garfinkel captures the real essence of Agnes and her situation is here:[Agnes] wanted to know as well whether [further research] would help “the doctors” to get to the “true facts.” I [Dr. Garfinkel] asked Agnes, “what do you figure the facts are?” She answered, “What do I figure the facts are, or what do I think everyone else thinks the facts are?” emphasis original
Agnes' question, in a nutshell, summarizes the key dilemma that I think LGBTQ people have faced, (that I have faced) for generations. I know very well that I'm a woman, but I have to manage myself very carefully, as other people are prone to think otherwise. I know very well that the woman I often venture out with in public is my wife, my partner, my sweetie, but there are plenty of times when I have to be aware that other people may not think this is the case. Furthermore, there are often seriously good reasons why I may not want them to understand the facts as I do.
We have spent generation after generation “passing”, painstakingly manipulating and carefully disclosing bits and pieces of the way we “really” are. A lot of time, people don't see us, and sometimes, that's because we know it's not safe for us to be seen. This is a particularly troublesome proposition for transsexual people-- to the extent that we're out as such, cissexual society often views us as somehow “not really” the men and women we claim to be.
Dr. Garfinkel appears to have been acutely aware of the strain of passing as it applied to Agnes. Passing is stressful. Passing was (and is) sadly necessary.
My dream, for Pride month and beyond, is for all of us to envision a world where passing isn't necessary. I can't imagine living in a world where simply being one's self is sufficient grounds for full membership in society. That said, I can't imagine a more beautiful goal.
Queer History Qorner
Compare and Contrast - Part 2
I read several articles at the NY Times site Monday which resonated together in my mind for a couple of reasons. I here continue the exploration of those reasons which I began in Part 1.
For those USians enjoying an extended youth, this Times article links their extended financial support by their parents to their extended schooling. It says, "Adults between 18 and 34 received an average of $38,000 in cash and two years' worth of full-time labor from their parents, or about 10 percent of their income". The article notes that about one-quarter of 25-year-old white men lived with their parents in 2007, before the current recession began.
Oh, yes — the recession. The wise heads who confer among themselves as to what national course of action would be most wise agree of late that the U.S. government must cut spending, despite the recession. The chief concern, they insist, is not government services being cut while millions are out of work and/or losing their homes, and state governments are bleeding red ink; the real peril is the threat that the stock market will at some unspecified future point become alarmed by the imaginary prospect of inflation.
To avoid the painful — to them — need to contemplate this non-existent threat, these wise heads insist that the government must inflict real pain on the real economy which the rest of us inhabit, as Nobel-winning economist Paul Krugman has been discussing in his recent column and blog posts.
There is obviously more than a world of difference between the lives of the child soldiers the U.S. is funding in Somalia and U.S. residents looking to begin their adult careers in their late twenties or even early thirties. But there is a relatively small class of people in the U.S. who are making both the decisions which will keep those privileged USians dependent on their parents indefinitely while the jobs all that education was to prepare them for remain elusive, and the decisions which make available to the Somali government funding which allows them to hire and train the children of that country as soldiers.
That funding is available because it comes out of the U.S. military budget — the only area of the non-fixed federal budget which the Obama administration did not propose freezing for the next several years.
This small class of Very Serious Persons think the U.S. economy needs pain — for other people — to create the appearance most pleasing to their Market deity. Another branch of that Academy of Very Serious Persons wants to wage war abroad on many fronts — not in their own dignified persons, of course, but through the persons of USians whose only refuge from that painful economy may be in the armed forces, through the persons of the hundreds of thousands of private military contractors (.pdf) employed by the U.S. government, and through the millions of persons who are at war, or who must try to live their lives in the midst of war, because the U.S. government has chosen to hold a war, or support a war, in their country.
Our small U.S. class of Very Serious Persons is at present fighting a war in Somalia through the persons of about-12-year-old Alwil and the 10-year-old and 13-year-old fellow soldiers Alwil shares a bed with.
These two articles in the Times collided in my mind because of the bitter irony that the very long road to full independence and responsibility for some middle-class U.S. young people results from their having access to the education the Somali child soldiers lack, and then some, and then some more. But these wildly divergent circumstances are connected, too.
Within the oasis of privilege that is U.S. society relative to much of the world, there is a growing disparity between the very wealthy and everyone else. African-Americans are at the bottom of that cavernous gap.
So, as always, there is a hierarchy of sacrifice here — but it's sacrifices all the way down from that circle of Very Serious Persons at the top. They will sacrifice their fellow USians' economic well-being because they wish to appear tough to the god of the Market. They will sacrifice the brown-skinned children of many countries because they wish to appear tough to terrorists, as well as to anyone who comes between the corporate priesthood of the Market god and the wealth it feeds on.
It's the End of the World as We Know It (or At Least It Should Be)
[Trigger warning for sexual exploitation.]
My first thought upon reading that there are reportedly Betty White sex pictures is that the internet had jumped the shark, Betty White and sex pictures being two of the internet's favorite things. But, upon reflection, I believe our entire popular culture has jumped the shark.
We really just need to erase everything, shake the entire culture like a big Etch-a-Sketch until everything that was there has vanished, and start over again.
-------------------------------------
For the record, I am not horrified by "Betty White" and "sex pictures" being together in the same sentence because she is old. I am horrified because, unless it is Ms. White herself who obliquely makes these photos available, I believe their release to be a sexual assault.
So, the President Gave a Speech Last Night
Last night, President Obama gave an Oval Office address on the BP oil spill. To call it a missed opportunity is to grievously insult missed opportunities.
This should have been the moment in which Obama laid out a Kennedyesque we're-going-to-the-moon vision for a green transition away from our foolish, short-sighted, national security compromising, environmentally destructive, and unsustainable dependency on oil. Instead, he gave us mushy and uninspired promises totally disconnected from even the most nebulous outlines of actual policy, no less anything resembling a timeline:
The tragedy unfolding on our coast is the most painful and powerful reminder yet that the time to embrace a clean energy future is now. Now is the moment for this generation to embark on a national mission to unleash America's innovation and seize control of our own destiny.Oh yay. Bipartisanship. Goody.
…Now, there are costs associated with this transition. And there are some who believe that we can't afford those costs right now. I say we can't afford not to change how we produce and use energy – because the long-term costs to our economy, our national security, and our environment are far greater.
So I'm happy to look at other ideas and approaches from either party – as long they seriously tackle our addiction to fossil fuels.
This is weak sauce from the leader of a nation that will crumble sooner rather than later under the weight of its obdurate unwillingness to stop guzzling oil as if it's not going out of style. His big plan is, apparently, "We've got to do something!" Yikes. Drum says, and rightfully so, "This gives pablum a bad name." Ouch.
It gets worse.
Because what would a hopey-changey-barfy-farty speech from Obama be without six fucking paragraphs about faith and prayer?
It's a faith in the future that sustains us as a people. It is that same faith that sustains our neighbors in the Gulf right now.Were I a praying person, I'd be praying for a president who had a better goddamn plan than praying for shit to get better!
Each year, at the beginning of shrimping season, the region's fishermen take part in a tradition that was brought to America long ago by fishing immigrants from Europe. It's called "The Blessing of the Fleet," and today it's a celebration where clergy from different religions gather to say a prayer for the safety and success of the men and women who will soon head out to sea – some for weeks at a time.
The ceremony goes on in good times and in bad. It took place after Katrina, and it took place a few weeks ago – at the beginning of the most difficult season these fishermen have ever faced.
And still, they came and they prayed. For as a priest and former fisherman once said of the tradition, "The blessing is not that God has promised to remove all obstacles and dangers. The blessing is that He is with us always," a blessing that's granted "even in the midst of the storm."
The oil spill is not the last crisis America will face. This nation has known hard times before and we will surely know them again. What sees us through – what has always seen us through – is our strength, our resilience, and our unyielding faith that something better awaits us if we summon the courage to reach for it.
Tonight, we pray for that courage. We pray for the people of the Gulf. And we pray that a hand may guide us through the storm towards a brighter day. Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.
I just don't even know what to say anymore. What we have here is a failure to lead. And after eight years of an administration whose guiding principle of leadership on every major domestic issue was "Kick the Can Down the Road for the Next Guy," we needed a president who was going to steer us out of this fucking mess we're in, who had the vision and the backbone to do it.
That is not the leader we have, unfortunately.
I'd be thrilled if Obama would prove me wrong in that assessment.
Question of the Day
With regard to my earlier post about Cageflix, "the internet's leading Nicolas-Cage-centric, batch queue management tool" which adds all available Nic Cage Cage movies to one's Netflix queue, for what actress/actor (or director, or screenwriter, etc.) would you like to have a ________flix?
(Naturally, you don't have to actually subscribe to Netflix to answer the question.)
Bonus points if you can work some of their film titles into your answer in the silliest way possible!
For example: I am in some "Hot Pursuit" of a Cusackflix, so that I can spend the entirety of "One Crazy Summer" watching "1408," or possibly even "2012," John Cusack films with my good friends "Max" and "Bob Roberts," who are a real coupla "Tapeheads." (Con Air.)
Save Your Emails
The Star is reporting that Al Gore was having an affair with environmentalist (and former spouse of Larry "Curb Your Enthusiasm" David) Laurie David.
Don't know if it's true. And it's none of my business if it is, particularly since Gore is no longer in public office and can't even be called a hypocrite since he publicly supports marriage equality.
Wevs.
ETA. Laurie David says it's not true.
Daily Dose o' Cute
[Also at Daily Motion here.]
Footage of Dudley racing all over the dog park the last two weekends, set to Queen's "Don't Stop Me Now."
Dudz + Freddie Mercury = WIN!
Quote of the Day
"What [Miley Cyrus] wears has been put under the spotlight recently. Some thought the video for Can't Be Tamed was too provocative, and others have criticized her for revealing too much skin in her outfits." — Hilary Fox, writer for the Associated Press.
Well, so long as that's what some say, who are we to argue?
You're Humorless, Stupid, Oversensitive, and Ugly
[This was originally posted in Dec. 2006. I am reposting it with minor edits (chiefly, the inclusion of womanism), after a conversation with a friend who was (coincidentally) cast as the hysterical harpy this morning by coworkers for not enjoying True Blood.]
Jessica (with her original emphasis):
I can't tell you how many times after telling a guy I'm a feminist, he'll jokingly throw his hands up in defense as if I'm gearing up to attack him. Now of course, this is tremendously stupid and annoying on a number of levels: first, it plays on the idea that feminists are scary and man-hating, but more importantly it's meant to be mocking. (Haha, don't hit me, little cute feminist girl!) I even had someone, after telling him that I run a feminist blog, lift up my arm and peer into my armpit jokingly—looking for hair. Yeah, hysterical.Feminists/Womanists Can't Win 101: When identifying oneself as a feminist/womanist (FW) to a non-FW, the non-FW is likely to make a gesture or comment that is trite and uninspired. When the FW reacts to the "joke" with the resounding dearth of laughter it deserves, the non-FW's presumption that FWs are humorless is thusly reinforced.
If your comedy instincts include whipping out a comment about granola or leghair upon hearing the word "feminism," feminists' sense of humor isn't really the problem, k?
What truly kills me about the "oh so scary feminist" stereotype is that it's generally a big joke to the people who perpetuate it. The implication is that while we're unattractive and annoying (bitches and ballbusters, all of us), we're not really a threat at all—just bothersome. It's a sweet little way to make feminism seem uncool and unimportant all the same time.Very true. Or so I've heard, anyway; being perceived as nasty and/or scary has never been a particular concern of mine, ahem.
I think what's most important to remember about this stereotype—and most hackneyed bullshit involving feminism, really—is that is serves a specific, strategic purpose. Not many people want to be considered nasty and scary—especially young women.
In all seriousness, the fear of—or, perhaps more accurately, the frustration with—being seen as irrational (unintelligent) and hypersensitive (uncool) are as equally important factors for FW women, which is why I firmly believe that every women's studies program at every university should include an introductory course called You're Humorless, Stupid, Oversensitive, and Ugly, the objective of which is to explore the practical realities of being an active FW in the world. I've seen women with a belly full of fire and a head full of steam about overt sexism at work absolutely crumple like a flan in a cupboard with one comment about how they are humorless, over-reactionary, dowdy, fat, or, simply, not fun—not because they are weak, but because they are unprepared.
It's a shock to the system to collide head-on with such an entirely inappropriate non sequitur about one's appearance or personality, to have a meritorious argument dismissed with schoolyard mockery dressed up as adult discourse. It can be highly embarrassing, too, particularly if it happens in front of other people, and all the theory in the world can't protect against that sort of paralyzing surprise. FWs for whom the thick skin is not innate could probably benefit from a little assistance in the form of being taught what to expect. (Especially since any veteran FW could teach the damn course; we've all experienced the same tired shit. Nothing ever seems to be new in anti-feminism…)
That shouldn't be misconstrued as an exhortation to develop a resistance to listening, learning, or legitimate criticism, but merely to find a way to avoid internalizing predictable unfair attacks—some of which will come disguised as accusations of not listening, not learning, or refusing to acknowledge as legitimate criticism some rubbish like "I don't object to what you're saying; I object to how you're saying it" (the utterers of which are, to the contrary, almost invariably masking theoretical, not semantic, objections) or "Feminism is exclusionary" (a complaint, you'll note, strangely never made by men who have included themselves).
Standing one's ground in the face of repeated accusations of being unreasonably strident and unyielding is tough when the indictment has a façade vaguely resembling fairness. It's imperative that young (and/or recently converted) FWs find a way to see through and deal with the bullshit that inevitably surrounds this deeply personal issue; otherwise life will seem a whole lot longer than one might like.
And then the trick is to find, as much as anyone is able, a balance between using humor whenever possible, and kicking it into hardcore high gear when necessary, without apology. Being a successful FW in a world so largely resistant to your ideals takes, rather unfairly I'm afraid, a certain panache and charisma dependent on not caring whether anyone thinks you have panache or charisma.
That's a real kick in the pants, as they say, but The Patriarchy never told us life was fair.
Quite the opposite, actually. It's no wonder we feel grumpy sometimes; there's no need to exacerbate it by feeling guilty about that, too. Tears in a bucket; motherfuckit, bitchez. When we laugh, we laugh—and when we don't, well, maybe it's because there just ain't shit to laugh about that day. I'm all right with that.
Bi-Monthly Reminder & Thank You
This is, for those who have requested it, your bi-monthly reminder* to donate to Shakesville.
Asking for donations** is difficult for me, partly because I've got an innate aversion to asking for anything, and partly because these threads are frequently critical and stressful. But it's also one of the most feminist acts I do here.
So. Here's the reminder.
You can donate once by clicking the button in the righthand sidebar, or set up a monthly subscription here. We first made the Subscribe to Shakesville page available last March, which means most of the subscriptions are running out and have to be renewed if you want to keep your subscription active.
Let me reiterate, once again, that I don't want anyone to feel obliged to contribute financially, especially if money is tight. Aside from valuing feminist work, the other goal of fundraising is so Iain and I don't have to struggle on behalf of the blog, and I don't want anyone else to struggle themselves in exchange. There is a big enough readership that neither should have to happen.
I also want say thank you, so very much, to each of you who donates or has donated, whether monthly or as a one-off. I am profoundly grateful—and I don't take a single cent for granted. I've not the words to express the depth of my appreciation, besides these: This community couldn't exist without that support, truly. Thank you.
---------------------
* I know there are people who resent these reminders, but there are also people who appreciate them, so I've now taken to doing them every other month, in the hopes that will make a good compromise.
** Why I ask for donations is explained here.
This is a real thing in the world.
Cageflix is, according to their FAQ, "the internet's leading Nicolas-Cage-centric, batch queue management tool for Netflix. It adds all availalable [sic] DVDs of Nicolas Cage movies to your Netflix queue."
Perfect. Now I can get "Wild at Heart" with this "National Treasure" and be laughing my "Face/Off" at "Moonstruck" in less time than a "Rumble Fish" can "Kick-Ass." (What?) This "The Rock"s!!!
Now can I have one for Gary Busey?
[H/T to Shaker tehkenny, who got it via Buzzfeed.]
More on Abby Sunderland
If you've been following the Abby Sunderland story, you may have heard reports that there will be an upcoming reality show (something that's in doubt, BTW), and that Ms. Sunderland has contemplated writing a book. Also, there are people (also WTF, this is soooo not like “Lost”) who don't like any of this.
1) Even if this whole solo voyage around the world thing was a publicity stunt, it doesn't take away from the incredible courage and skill of Abby Sunderland.
2) You have got to be kidding me if you actually think this was a publicity stunt.
When somebody says that something is their dream, I tend to believe them. As a parent, I can't imagine not being terrified at the prospect of my child being out of arms' reach in a dangerous situation for months at a time (my daughter's two, but I strongly suspect I'll feel similarly in the future). I know that Ms. Sunderland is both young, and a woman, but the insuation that Abby Sunderland's parents threw her into the face of danger in order to make a buck offends me on many levels, not the least of which is the way such accusations erase Ms. Sunderland's accomplishments.
I remember being aboard my grandparents' tiny houseboat when I was a young girl. And also, I remember puking into Tampa Bay (or maybe just hiding below deck planning to do so... I dunno, it was a long day). Perhaps some folks are underestimating the difficulty involved in sailing around the world by one's self. Plus, Abby Sunderland, despite her age, showed signs of being at least as prepared as other adventurers over the years. Ponies, Mr. Shackleton?
Attacking celebrities would appear to be one of the main uses of the internet these days. I don't care that some folks are wary of more reality TV (OMG, me too). This brave young woman was just rescued and has not yet been reunited with her family and friends. Could we please give it a rest? Thanks.
In Abby Sunderland's own words:“Within a few minutes of being on board the fishing boat, I was already getting calls from the press. I don't know how they got the number but it seems everybody is eager to pounce on my story now that something bad has happened.
There are plenty of things people can think of to blame for my situation; my age, the time of year and many more. The truth is, I was in a storm and you don't sail through the Indian Ocean without getting in at least one storm. It wasn't the time of year it was just a Southern Ocean storm. Storms are part of the deal when you set out to sail around the world.
As for age, since when does age create gigantic waves and storms?”
What she said.
On True Blood
[Trigger warning for discussions and imagery of sexual violence.]
I know there are a lot of readers here who enjoy True Blood. Please note, as you read this post, I am discussing my reaction to the show, and I am not implicitly making any commentary on your reaction, your taste, your aesthetic, your principles, or anything about you at all.
I originally tuned into True Blood expecting to like it. I like Alan Ball, and I love Anna Paquin. And I frequently like vampire stuff.
The first episode left me squirming. But I gave it a few more chances, watched a few more episodes. And then I turned it off. And I have never returned.
One of my problems with the show is that it was originally presented (though I'm told the second season is less heavy-handed) as an allegorical tale about prejudice, with a strong emphasis on gay rights. Which was problematic for a few reasons, not least of which was that the tension of the show was largely drawn from the conflict between the "good" (assimilating) vampires and the "bad" (self-ostracizing) vampires, the latter of whom are predatory, thus tacitly reinforcing the gay predator trope.
And then there was the issue of exploiting women's bodies (the first few episodes were all about the boobies!), rendering the show ostensibly an allegory about one kind of prejudice (homophobia) that relies heavily on another (misogyny)—a rather remarkably self-defeating endeavor, in my estimation, as homophobia is so inextricably enmeshed with misogyny that any show purporting to be gay-positive while simultaneously engaging in misogyny cannot actually be gay-positive at all.
But my biggest problem with the show is that I ultimately found it to be rape porn thinly veiled behind the gossamer veneer of a vampire story.
True Blood is, of course, hardly the first vehicle to use vampirism as a metaphor for sex and/or rape. And I've been told, with varying degrees of eye-rolling exasperation, that I am meant to understand that True Blood is satire, the implication (as ever) being that I am too daft, humorless, unsophisticated, uncool to appreciate the satirical genius of using nonconsensual puncture by fang as a metaphor for nonconsensual penetration of orifice in order to make an ironic commentary on intolerance.
It's a point that might hold more sway with me if I hadn't also viewed a scene of a non-vampire man (Sookie's brother, IIRC) try to rape his own girlfriend and then getting pissed because she was enjoying being raped having not realized it was he doing the raping. I'll admit quite readily I have no idea what that scene was meant to satirize, ahem.
(I haven't watched enough of the show to comment on the problematic racial aspects of the show, but I direct you to Renee of Womanist Musings and Tami of What Tami Said, who both discuss those issues, among others. They are both fans, but fans with a critical eye. They're also going to start co-hosting a podcast about the show.)
Since I turned off True Blood in the first season, I've caught a scene or two when I've flipped on the telly after the channel was left on HBO when it was last turned off. Suffice it say, when I've given it a few minutes to try to dissuade me of my original opinion, I have only regretted lingering. The sexual imagery is plentiful, and although some of it is rather splendid, there are enough scenes featuring a blurriness around (or overt disregard for) consent, combined with violence, that I am as likely (or more likely) to be triggered than turned on by the sexual imagery in True Blood.
So, okay, I don't watch it. I know how to change a channel.
But as True Blood returns for its third season, marketing for the popular show seems to be everywhere, and some of the imagery is graphically violent. I was rather shocked to see Entertainment Weekly's cover featuring Anna Paquin, two bloody holes in her throat, flanked by Stephen Moyer and Alexander Skarsgard, two of the men who play vampires, bearing their fangs, Moyer's responsibility betrayed by the blood smeared across his face.
What I'm struggling with is the fact that this representation violence somehow "doesn't count," because it's about vampires.
The metaphorical rape scenes don't count because it's about vampires. The actual rape scenes don't count because it's about vampires. The sexually-charged violence doesn't count because it's about vampires.
Kind of like how the endorsement of an unrealistically puritanical abstinence, abusive love triangles, stalking, retrofuck chivalry, female self-sacrifice for love, ,and other disturbingly anti-feminist messages served up to young girls don't matter when the story is about vampires.
If I were a more cynical person (the author raises her eyebrow and purses her lips), I would suggest that the great thing about the current vampire trend is how you can get away with all sorts of inappropriate content you couldn't otherwise, any criticism of which can be summarily dismissed with: "It's about vampires. Vampires aren't even real. What are you—stupid or something? Christ, what a hysteric."
I've heard that about me.
Compare and Contrast - Part 1
I read several articles at the NY Times site Monday which resonated together in my mind for a couple of reasons. I explore those connections in this post and two to follow.
This article in last Friday's Times describes, "A new period of life (which) is emerging in which young people are no longer adolescents but not yet adults”. That would be here in the U.S., where more middle-class twenty-somethings are continuing their education, putting off marriage and child-rearing (if they intend to do either), and being supported, at least in part, by their parents while doing so.
There's another article in Sunday's Times about the path from childhood to adult responsibilities. This route is considerably shorter. It is, however, also being sponsored in part by the same USian baby boomers who are helping to support their own progeny's extended, and very different, journey. Children as young as nine have been enlisted in the military forces of Somalia's Transitional Federal Government, a government which the United States has chosen to support as part of its — oh, we're not calling it a War on Terror, anymore, are we? That was so unsophisticated, so Bush league.
Nevertheless, the Obama administration, not limiting itself to pursuing terrorists through Intelligence and Criminal Justice channels, continues to vigorously pursue the policing of the world, deciding who should govern various nations, as part of its counter-terrorism strategy. Somalia, which has been in a state of chaos and armed struggle since the dictatorship of Mohamed Siad Barre was overthrown in 1991, is considered by the U.S. government a potential breeding ground for terrorists.
Naturally, then, it falls to us to keep these terrorists from being bred, which we evidently intend to accomplish by propping up a weak government which actually governs very little, and providing military support, including some training and payment of Somali government soldiers. This is a strategy we've pursued here, there, and pretty much everywhere we see an opening.
Alwil is one of those soldiers. His U.S. subsidized salary is $1.50 a day some days; other days — nothing. Alwil is about 12 years old; neither he nor anyone else is sure. "He should be in school," says his commanding officer. "But there is no school." Says Alwil, asked what he enjoys, "I enjoy the gun."
But then, it's all Alwil has known since he was seven, when he joined a militia to survive, having been abandoned when his family fled the country. So it seems that the way you avoid breeding terrorists is to enter, with your great wealth, an ungoverned, violence-riven society where children are learning nothing but how to fight, and make sure they do their fighting on your (meager and somewhat unreliable) payroll. Strategery — we're still doin' it.
Article 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child begins:1. In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.
It would be difficult to argue that this statement is being adhered to by either the U.S. or Somalia, with regard to these child soldiers.
Conveniently, the only two countries which have failed to ratify that Convention are the United States and Somalia. Said then-presidential-candidate Barack Obama of that fact:It is embarrassing to find ourselves in the company of Somalia, a lawless land.
But it seems the demands of running the U.S. and, it apparently follows as does the night the day, as much of the rest of the world as we believe we're entitled to, require us to do more than keep company with Somalia. Now we have their children on our military payroll, by proxy. This is presumably a bit more embarrassing.
It isn't as though the U.S. government approves of the use of child soldiers. On Oct. 3, 2008 then-President Bush signed into law the Child Soldiers Accountability Act. This law imposes a fine and/or prison term "for knowingly recruiting, enlisting, or conscripting a person under 15 years of age into an armed force or group . . . or attempting or conspiring to do so, knowing such person is under 15 years of age" and promulgates various rules covering prosecution of both U.S. nationals and aliens who violate the act. The legislation was authored by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and acquired 7 bipartisan co-sponsors in the Senate, including Sen. Durbin's then-fellow Illinois Senator, Barack Obama.
But Presidentin' is hard; priorities must be set. U.S. officials are "concerned" about the use of child soldiers, according to the Times article. They say they are trying to get the Somali government to be more careful about the age of their recruits. There are many factions fighting for control of Somalia, and the Transitional Federal Government is desperate for soldiers. Said a Somali official, "We were trying to find anyone who could carry a gun.”
Today's Edition of "Conniving and Sinister"
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 (Liss) and a biracial queerbait (Deeky) telling it like it actually is from their perspectives. Hilarity ensues.]
Oh. Oh my. Oh my.
[Trigger warning.]
Guess what? Glenn Beck has a new book out, in a self-created genre he describes as "faction," or "fiction based on fact." I like to call it "wiggle room."
More guess what: It's worse than you think. We're talking Battlefield Earth bad.
The book (Which Beck "wrote" with a team of three writers; yes, like Hollywood's best, more writers can only mean better writing!) is more or less a ridiculously transparent ploy to vacuum even more money out of the wallets of the Tea Party:First, a quick summation of the plot, such as it is. The protagonist, Noah Gardner, works for an impossibly powerful public relations firm in Manhattan that has been the driving force behind pretty much every political and cultural movement of the 20th century. Their latest and grandest scheme is the culmination of a lengthy plot to change the United States into some sort of ill-defined progressive plutocracy, and the catalyst for this change is a nuclear explosion that will occur outside the home-state office of "the current U.S. Senate majority leader," which happens to be at the same address as Harry Reid's Las Vegas offices. The nuclear attack is to be blamed on the Founders Keepers, a Tea Party-like group -- led by Noah's love interest, Molly Ross -- that is working to foil the plot.
Expect lots of blar-de-har trashing of this "book" (Hey, just like this post!) all over the progressive blogosphere, and tons of money being dumped into Beck's coffers. Same as it ever was.
I just have one question. Seriously, where do wingnut writers come up with their names? Noah Gardner? Really? Molly Ross? Beck and his team are giving Jerry Jenkins and Tim LaHaye a run for their money.
Even more guess what: Women get the amount of depth and respect that you'd expect.Noah and Molly find themselves in bed together early in the book after a harrowing experience at a Founders' Keepers rally. They agree to sleep in bed together because Molly is too scared to sleep at home, but Molly insists that nothing sexual will take place. Noah agrees, on the condition that she "not do anything sexy." She presses her cold feet against his legs, and Noah responds:
Yeah."Suit yourself, lady. I'm telling you right now, you made the rules, but you're playing with fire here. I've got some rules, too, and rule number one is, don't tease the panther."
Jesus has left the stadium
I'm sure you all recall Touchdown Jesus:
I used to drive by this all the time when I lived in Cincinnati. I remember when it was built. I was always amused by the fact that right across the highway is the Hustler Hollywood store.
Touchdown Jesus, however, has left the stadium. His game is over:
MONROE, Ohio - The famous King of Kings statue at the Solid Rock Church in Monroe has been destroyed by a fire.You can view video of the fire here. According to the article, the church says Jesus will be resurrected, er, rebuilt. It cost them $250,000 last time. They also said they didn't build it the first time to impress but to give hope to people because Christ, was, you know a booster. Maybe this time they'll build it to...pop:
The 62-foot tall statue of Jesus constructed out of styrofoam, wood and fiberglass resin caught on fire after the right hand of the statue was struck by lightning during the severe thunderstorms around 11:15 p.m. Monday evening.
The only thing left of the 16,000 pound statue is the metal frame.
Monroe Fire Chief Mark Neu said the statue was fully involved in fire when crews arrived.
Crews were able to use water from the pond in front of the statue, however, the fire burned very quickly, according to police.
The statue was grounded, but for some reason it did not absorb the lightning strike.
The Hustler Hollywood store, however, remains untouched and is perfectly fine.
