Robert Cribb for the Toronto Star: "It's time for men to man up and take charge."
I'm hard-pressed to pinpoint my favorite part of this masterpiece, but I'm going to give first prize to Cribb's trenchant-as-hell and totes cutting edge pop culture allusions.
When American Beauty (1999) is your edgiest reference, you know you're hot shit.
[H/T to Shaker Dominique.]
This is so the worst thing you're going to read all day.
Discussion Thread: Wonder Woman
So, even though every male superhero from The Green Lantern to Ghost Rider can get his own movie, the latest round to bring Wonder Woman to the big screen stalled once again, and now David E. Kelley (aka Mr. Michelle Pfeiffer, he of Doogie Howser, Ally McBeal, Boston Legal, et. al.) has "secured a deal with Warner Bros. to bring the princess to the small screen."
Given that I'm a 36-year-old USian feminist woman, I don't guess I need to say that I loved the old Wonder Woman series with Lynda Carter when I was a kid, and, as much as I'd like to see Princess Diana of Themyscira on the big screen, I'm happy to have a whole new generation of burgeoning feminists able to invite her into their home every week, too.
So, the questions are: Are you excited about a new Wonder Woman television project? If you're familiar with Kelley's previous work, do you think he'll do a good job with the franchise? Who would you cast as Wonder Woman?
[Commenting Guidelines: I don't want a contentious debate about "canon" in response to casting suggestions featuring women of color. There are plenty of spaces for those sorts of debates; this isn't one of them. Defending "tradition" is for conservatives, and this is a progressive space.]
Today in Great Ideas
New York Times: More States Allowing Guns in Bars.
[Tennessee's 300,000 handgun permit holders] have recently seen their rights greatly expanded by a new law — one of the nation's first — that allows them to carry loaded firearms into bars and restaurants that serve alcohol.I'm sure nothing bad can come from "expanding the realm of guns in everyday life." That sounds perfectly safe.
...Tennessee is one of four states, along with Arizona, Georgia and Virginia, that recently enacted laws explicitly allowing loaded guns in bars. (Eighteen other states allow weapons in restaurants that serve alcohol.) The new measures in Tennessee and the three other states come after two landmark Supreme Court rulings that citizens have an individual right — not just in connection with a well-regulated militia — to keep a loaded handgun for home defense.
Experts say these laws represent the latest wave in the country's gun debate, as the gun lobby seeks, state by state, to expand the realm of guns in everyday life.
An anonymous waiter challenged the law, on the (quite reasonable) claim that "allowing guns into a tavern creates an unsafe work environment for servers." The Tennessee Division of Occupational Safety and Health denied his complaint.
Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, says that this erosion of restrictions is emboldening gun rights advocates: "The attitude from the gun lobby is that they should be able to take their guns wherever they want. In the last year, they're starting to move toward needing no permit at all."
Swell.
You know, I've never been afraid of being shot by a criminal, but I am scared as hell of being shot accidentally by some pants-shitting nincompoop who's been given the right to carry a concealed loaded weapon, and starts firing at the first sign of "danger." Yeesh.
Autumn
This morning, while Dudley and I were out for our walk, we passed a churchyard in which had landed a flock of migrating geese. They waddled around, almost sleepily, in the rising mist created by the early morning sunshine burning off the overnight frost. We stood, quietly, watching them drag the tips of outstretched wings across the dewy grass. Dudley lifted one paw, as if he were a pointer, but did not dare put it back down, lest it fall upon a brittle leaf and scare the geese away before we were ready to see them go.
I love autumn.
Open Thread
Hosted by The Muppet Show.
This week's open threads have been brought to you by Vincent Price.
The Virtual Pub Is Open
[Explanations: lol your fat. pathetic anger bread. hey your gay.]
All In.
TFIF, Shakers!
Belly up to the bar,
and name your poison!
Crazy Does Not Equal of Poor Character or Weak-Willed
by Shaker DesertRose
[Trigger warning for brief mentions of sexual violence and more detailed mentions of self-injury.]
(Part Four of the series "Crazy Does Not Equal..." Part One, "Crazy Does Not Equal Violent," is here. Part Two, "Crazy Does Not Equal Stupid," is here. Part Three, "Crazy Does Not Equal a Joke," is here.)
Full Disclosure: I have schizoaffective disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder. I have suffered from one form or another of mental illness for most of my life, mostly depression in one form or another, anxiety, and various manifestations of PTSD. I am 33 years old, a ciswoman, white and Cherokee, divorced, mother of one completely awesome daughter, owned by two adorable tabby cats, bisexual with polyamorous tendencies, a proud bleeding-heart liberal, an eclectic pagan, and completely out of my tree.
I've always been hesitant to be open with people about my mental condition. Mental illness is still hugely stigmatized, and I don't want to be treated as if I'm somehow less than other people because my brain and mind are funky. But I've come to the realization that mental illness will remain stigmatized unless people with mental illnesses are open about their conditions and show the world that we're not what society would have the world believe.
People with mental illnesses are often stereotyped as violent, or, in contrast, figures of fun, to be mocked for "abnormal" behaviors. And if we're not to be feared or made fun of, we're childish and incapable of making our own decisions. Failing that, we're weak-willed or of poor character, often therefore leading to the conclusion that we're responsible for our conditions and could be "normal" if we'd just decide to be. On top of all that, we're often considered lacking in intelligence, which can be part and parcel of the "childish and incapable of making our own decisions" or "weak-willed" or "of poor character" tropes.
Someone who is genuinely of poor character is deliberately cruel, lacks compassion, harms the weak, engages in other behavior that reflects a lack of empathy and ethics. There are people with mental illnesses who are of poor character, just as there are people who do not have mental illness who are of poor character. But poor character does not go hand in hand with a psychiatric diagnosis. Nor does being weak-willed, which is often conflated with poor character at the intersection of mental illness.
People with depression often hear things like, "Cheer up" or "Look on the bright side" or "Why are you so negative?" or worse yet, "Count your blessings." I don't know about anybody else who's struggled with depression, but all of the above drive me crazier than I already am. If, in a depressive episode, I could cheer up or be more positive, don't you bloody well think I would? Nobody chooses to be depressed. Nobody wants to feel like that. Depression feels like pure hell, and if we could just cheer the fuck up, we would. It's just not that fucking easy.
People with PTSD hear similar things. "Why do you have to dwell on the past so much?" drives me right up a wall. I don't want to have flashbacks of being sexually abused (as a child) and raped (as an adult). I don't want to relive terrible, horrific events in my life when the thoughts come unbidden.
Frequently the implication is that people with mental illness who have the temerity to show evidence of that illness are acting out for attention. But I know how to get attention. It's called talking. I talk to my family. I talk to my friends. I talk to my therapist. They all pay attention to me when I'm talking. I blog. People read my blog (and my guest posts at Shakesville) and make comments. That's attention.
But nonetheless persists the trope that people with mental illnesses (and I've just mentioned the two with which I have the most personal experience) are weak-willed and/or "doing it for attention," neither of which says much for a person's character. Nor does it reflect an understanding of the strength of will it takes to get through life with a mental illness, how hard the day-to-day can be. And believe me, the attention you get when your mental illness symptoms are out of control is not the kind of attention people want. Nobody likes to be watched constantly, or committed to a psychiatric ward, or drugged or restrained, all of which have happened to me. Nobody would do that to themselves on purpose, not even someone who is seriously mentally ill.
To clarify, I have put myself in psychiatric wards before, because I could feel things getting out of control and I knew I needed help to regain control. But being involuntarily committed is a world of suck.
I used to self-injure, which is one of the most likely outward expressions of mental illness to garner the accusation of acting out for attention. It's not. The attention you get when someone finds out you've been cutting or burning or whatever the hell is similarly not the kind of attention anyone wants. I hid my cuts. I tended to make shallow, small, but painful cuts that could be passed off as cat scratches if anyone saw. I picked at them to keep them from healing too soon, but I never let on what I was doing. I did it because the physical pain made the emotional pain easier to bear. It was cathartic. I haven't cut in over a year, and I don't see myself cutting any time in the foreseeable future, but I remember the relief of physical pain and bleeding. It just made the emotions easier to manage.
I've known quite a fair few self-injurers, and I don't think any of them does/did it for attention. They did it for the same reasons I did—to make the emotional pain easier to take, for the catharsis. People who self-injure are trying to cope with phenomenal loads of pain, often burdens they've borne for their entire lives or close to it. These are not weak people. These are not attention hounds. These are people dealing with huge problems, and they're doing the best they can.
People with mental illnesses are not weak. On a day-to-day basis, they are dealing with the day-to-day bullshit we all deal with, and with a whole lot more.. They may be dealing with what I like to call musical meds (when one's psychiatrists are trying everything under the sun and then some to find a medication cocktail that works). They may be dealing with symptoms that, like some kind of monster out of Greek mythology, try to drag them down every time they pick themselves up. They may be dealing with loads of pain from childhood or adolescence that would break someone who was weak.
Suicide, which has so recently and horribly been in the news, is also not reflective of a lack of strength of character or of will, but of someone overwhelmed and under-supported.
A weak will does not go hand in hand with a psychiatric diagnosis, nor does poor character. It takes strength to live with mental illness. I am a person with mental illness, I am strong, and I am not alone.
Friday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by Shaxco, proud distributors of Deeky Brand Pest Repellent Overton-Away.
Recommended Reading:
Andrew: Shirvell Taking Leave of Absence Over Anti-Gay Blog
Todd: Students, Community Activists Protest Ingham County Prosecutor [A follow-up to this story; trigger warning still applicable.]
Latoya: Political Confessions and Questions
Susie: Pop Quiz
Brad: Eleanor Roosevelt Liveblogs World War II: October 1, 1940
Renee: Star Wars Saga Goes 3-D
Leave your links in comments...
Big Girls Don't Cry
The first time I entered a voting booth I was nine years old. It was 1984, and my parents had brought me with them so that I could pull the lever for the first woman ever to run on a major party ticket for vice president of the United States…Thus begins Rebecca Traister's book Big Girls Don't Cry, her account of the 2008 election and thesis arguing that, ultimately, it was good for feminism, because if you loved or hated Hillary Clinton, or loved or hated Sarah Palin, or loved or hated Michelle Obama, and expressed that love or hatred in any way, or if you were "a young progressive guy who wished the Hillary supporters would shut up, a Hillary supporter who wished the PUMAs would go away or a PUMA who wished that everyone would just choke on it already, then you were talking and thinking about and making women's history in America."
Almost twenty-four years later, on Super Tuesday in February 2008, I walked into a cavernous school gymnasium in Brooklyn to cast my primary vote on Super Tuesday, for the first time in my voting life unsure of which lever to turn. It was the moment that could bring me closest to fulfilling my father's wish: I could put the X next to the name of a woman and bring her closer to the top spot on the Democratic ticket. But I had spent months saying I would never vote for her, that she was not my kind of candidate, not my kind of woman. Even though I was beginning to change my mind, my distaste for her felt entrenched, and perhaps self-defining.
I spent fifteen minutes behind the curtain, shoving levers back and forth. I considered the other name on the ballot, a man who was also not exactly my kind of candidate, but whose potential place at the top of the Democratic ticket would put him close to becoming the first African American president, a possibility just as thrilling as that of electing a woman. I wished that I didn't have to choose between them. I wished that I could vote for them both. I wished that I could vote for someone else altogether. I mostly wished that it was a different woman's name in front of me, one that didn't fill me with ambivalence and vague foreboding.
I would never have imagined, as I stalled and fidgeted in that booth while a line of voters formed behind me, that four months later I would be ducking out of a cordoned-off press section in the National Building Museum in Washington, D.C., pushing my way through throngs of people in search of a place where I could cry in private. Behind a soaring column I gulped out sobs of exhaustion and disappointment at the end of the campaign of the woman for whom I had not been sure I could vote, even seconds before pulling the rubber-covered bar to seal my choice.
What makes the book great is that it not merely a keen portrait of an election season largely defined by female trailblazers and the misogyny flung at them (although it is that), but it's also a memoir, tracing Traister's own journey through a campaign that made her reexamine her own feminism.
It's this part of the book that is particularly meaningful to me.
It's no secret that I was not a fan of Hillary Clinton back in the primordial ooze of the '08 election (circa 2006) when Clinton was presumed to be the inevitable (and unstoppable) nominee, and Barack Obama was just some senator from Illinois who gave good speech. I wrote posts explaining why I didn't want her to be the nominee, and why I didn't think she should be. They are embarrassing, regrettable stuff—reeking of the evidence that I had internalized media narratives about Hillary Clinton. I was uncharacteristically uncritical of information delivered to me about Clinton from the same media whose pernicious narratives I spent my days deconstructing and dismantling.
I was wrong about Hillary Clinton.
And that was not the only grim realization I had during the 2008 election.
Traister interviewed me in the course of writing her book, as Amanda Marcotte's and my lamentable stint with the Edwards campaign was "one of the first campaign scandals of the election cycle [and it] involved young feminists." I spoke with her at length about my experience with the Edwards campaign, about Shakesville's Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and Michelle Obama Sexism Watches, about my own evolving regard for Clinton, and about how my being so wrong about Clinton revealed to me the cracks in my own feminism to which I needed to tend. From page 45 of Big Girls Don't Cry:
Two years after the campaign McEwan recalled how much she had loved Elizabeth (Edwards), before and even after she had called to dismiss her from her job. "I liked Elizabeth even more than John," she said, mentioning the most obvious comparison: "The two of them together—[John] would talk about the economy, and [Elizabeth] would talk about health care—in a weird way, it was Bill and Hillary all over again, wasn't it? It was two for one. God, the irony." She paused, and I assumed that she was referring to what would become John Edwards's own turgid sex scandal. But she was talking about something else: "I suspected that Elizabeth was the brains of the operation, and I'd thought the same thing about Hillary. But when I had the chance to support the brains of the operation, I chose the partnership. I literally went for the team that still had the dude on it."I share that particular excerpt not just to underline why Traister's own journey traced in Big Girls Don't Cry is meaningful to me, but also because Traister captures that moment in our conversation so perfectly—and I cannot more convincingly convey her talent and integrity as a writer than by sharing her accurate rendering with an audience who knows me.
I've not finished the book yet, but it is captivating, infuriating, exhilarating, and brilliant. I cannot say it more plainly: Buy this book.
I'm Surrounded
Sophie is on my monitor. Olivia is sprawled across my desk. Matilda is on my left, rubbing up against my leg and purring so loudly she's rattling the windows. And Dudley is on my right, sleeping hard with legs akimbo.
This has been the Official Shakesville Cute Status Report, for everyone needing heaping doses of cute this week.
Quote of the Day
"We can't let intolerance and ignorance take another kid's life."--Ellen, in a message she recorded yesterday. Video below, transcript below the fold.
I am devastated over the death of eighteen year old Tyler Clementi. If you don't know, Tyler was a bright student at Rutgers University whose life was senselessly cut short. HE was outed as being gay on the internet and he killed himself. Something must be done.
This month alone there have been a shocking number of news stories about teens who have been teased and bullied and committed suicide--like thirteen year old Seth Walsh of Tehachapi,, California, thirteen year old Asher Brown in Cypress, Texas, and fifteen year old Billy Lucas in Greensburg, Indiana. This needs to be a wake-up call to everyone that teenage bullying and teasing is an epidemic in this country and the death rate is climbing.
One life lost in this senseless way is tragedy; four lives lost is a crisis. And these are just the stories we hear about. How many other teens are lost? How many are suffering in silence? Being a teenager is hard enough figuring out who you are without someone attacking you.
My heart is breaking for their families, for their friends, for our society that continues to let this happen. These kids needed us...and we have an obligation to change this. There are messages everywhere that validate this kind of bullying and taunting and we have to make it stop.
We can't let intolerance and ignorance take another kid's life.
And I want anyone out there who feels different and alone out there to know that I know how you feel. And there is help out there and you can find support in your community. If you need someone to talk to or you want to get involved, there are some really great organizations listed on our website. This will get easier, people's minds will change. And you should...you should be alive to see it.
What's Wrong With Our Culture
That's not a question. It's a statement. About this screencap, taken from a prominent site featuring all the BEST paparazzi photos of celebrities doing FUN celebrity things. Like seeking treatment for a terrible addiction.
If you can't view the image, it's a headline reading: "X17 EXCLUSIVE - First photos of Lindsay Lohan in Rehab at Betty Ford Center" followed by the first in a series of images taken of Lohan walking across the grounds at, presumably, the Betty Ford Center.
I really hate the world this week.
Parts of Canadian Prostitution Laws Declared Charter Violations
In an Ontario court on Tuesday, Justice Susan Hamel issued a decision in a case where a group of sex workers had argued that restrictions against "keeping a common bawdy house" (i.e., brothels) were making their lives unnecessarily more dangerous, by forcing them to work on the streets.
Justice Hamel agreed with their argument that such restrictions violated the "security of person" and "freedom of expression", both guaranteed rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (aussi disponible en français ici).
The consequences of the decision are far-reaching - though it's suspended for 30 days to allow the various levels of government to respond (and the Feds, at least, indicate they may well appeal, because of course a Tory government couldn't possibly allow women bodily autonomy or agency, or sex workers to have safety or security) - including the possibility of forming unions or associations, paying income tax on proceeds of prostitution, reporting dangerous clients to police, hiring security workers, and setting healthcare policies in place.
The repellent right-wing group REAL Women had some pointless things to add, but nothing anyone here would be surprised at nor interested to hear.
Tip of the CaitieCap to Shaker PerfectlySkewed (sorry about the delay - I'm actually on a short vacation in Baltimore this week)
Mike Tyson is no Betty White
[TW: Discussion of people who rape and abuse women]
So Mike Tyson and Bobby Brown are in this new video. Some guy thinks it's the greatest thing ever, and he's even got a job at CNN. Good for him. And for some reason this involves Wayne Brady, too. I mean, Wayne Brady's funny, but he sure as hell ain't "often negative history" funny.
Anyhow, after I saw the story, I sent out a quick e-mail and took a shower, during which I proceeded to think about Betty White. (See, that's supposed to be funny, because it sounds vaguely sexual and Betty White is old! and a woman! and does this hilarious thing where she displays sexual agency!)
Betty White is increasingly visible, and it's likely because there's kitsch value in having an actress who's been out of the spotlight for a while hanging out and being old n' shit.
The same goes for Mike Tyson. Except Betty White was out of the spotlight because Hollywood and TV don't know what do to with funny women, let alone women over the age of 25-ish. Oh, and she's one of the funniest people on the planet, and is amazingly good at her job, irrespective of whether folks are laughing with her or laughing at her.
Tyson was out of the spotlight (to an extent), because he raped someone. And Bobby Brown abused a famous woman. And Maude knows what else-- I haven't really followed their rap sheets. Tyson never was funny-- he was a boxer. Like Betty White, he's had [TW] a resurgence in his career of late. But his resurgence is based in part on being a rapist. Ha ha ha remember that guy who raped that lady and bit that guy's ear back in the day? Now he's back and it's not the least bit disturbing. How retro n' shit.
So basically the only means for Betty White to revitalize her career (retro-hip-kitschy-viral-nougat) is something that's available to any guy who was the least bit famous, provided he raped someone. Neat.
We're Sorry All Right
[Trigger warning for dehumanization, exploitation, indifference to consent, medical malfeasance, classism, disablism, and racism.]
Today, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius apologized for experiments undertaken by US government medical researchers in Guatemala 60 years ago, and sanctioned by the Guatemalan government, in which hundreds of male prisoners and female patients in the National Mental Health Hospital were intentionally infected with gonorrhea and syphilis, without their consent or knowledge.
"The sexually transmitted disease inoculation study conducted from 1946-1948 in Guatemala was clearly unethical," [says] the joint statement from Clinton and Sebelius. "Although these events occurred more than 64 years ago, we are outraged that such reprehensible research could have occurred under the guise of public health. We deeply regret that it happened, and we apologize to all the individuals who were affected by such abhorrent research practices."The Guatemala experiment was begun in 1946, fourteen years after the Tuskegee experiment began, but ended after only two years. It "never provided any useful information and the records were hidden," but were unearthed by Wellesley women's studies professor Susan Reverby, who "notes that it is unclear whether [the subjects of the study] were later cured or given proper treatment."
The apology was directed to Guatemala and to Hispanic residents of the United States, according to officials.
I wonder what secret horrors going on now President Malia Obama and Vice President William Jefferson Mezvinsky will be apologizing for in fifty years.
Prosecutors Investigating Bias in Clementi Case
[Trigger warning for sexual assault, homophobia, and suicide.]
Prosecutors are investigating "whether additional charges, including bias, may be brought against two Rutgers University students accused of invading the privacy of fellow student Tyler Clementi," the young man who took his own life after his roommate filmed and broadcast a private sexual encounter without his consent.
"The initial focus of this investigation has been to determine who was responsible for remotely activating the camera in the dormitory room of the student and then transmitting the encounter on the Internet," Middlesex County Prosecutor Bruce J. Kaplan said.Intent is difficult to prove, and, while I think Dharun Ravi's tweet about his electronic spying—"I saw him making out with a dude. Yay."—is pretty obviously homophobic, I'm not sure it's going to meet the threshold for a bias charge. Still, it's reassuring to know that the possibility is being considered and thoroughly investigated.
"Now that two individuals have been charged with invasion of privacy, we will be making every effort to assess whether bias played a role in the incident, and, if so, we will bring appropriate charges," Kaplan said in a statement.
Under New Jersey law, a person is guilty of bias intimidation if he or she commits a crime with the purpose of intimidating someone because of race, color, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin or ethnicity; or if the victim or victim's property was selected as a target because of the same factors.
In less good news, there's still a lot of "but they're so nice" stuff, in reference the two people charged with invading Clementi's privacy, being inserted into news articles.
But Raj Ardeshna, 17, a senior at West Windsor-Plainsboro High School North in Plainsboro, N.J., and a former classmate of both defendants, told CNN that the two were "terrific people."Super.
"To know that two intelligent kids could get caught up in something like this is shocking to me," Ardeshna said. "The only rationale I've been able to come up with is that they thought they were being funny -- but I really couldn't tell you.
"Without a doubt they must both be filled with regret and are distraught over what happened to Tyler, and as cliched as it sounds -- they are both good people," Ardeshna said. "And they just turned 18 and they just went to college, and everyone slips up without understanding the consequences."
Kirbi Marquez, a Rutgers student and a classmate of Ravi and Wei in high school, told CNN "had they known the consequences of their actions, they would not have considered doing this."
"I'm sure they're bearing the guilt, they're both sympathetic people and good kids and they didn't mean for any of this to happen," said Marquez.
Why it's considered newsworthy that friends of people who did something terrible think they're "good people" is beyond me.
Meanwhile, I continue to *rage*seethe*boil* at the lack of discussion in major media about how Clementi's suicide would have been entirely preventable if we didn't live in a fucked-up culture in which it's considered a "fun prank" to film someone else's sexual activity without hir consent.
Where larger context is being discussed, the scenario is frequently being misrepresented as "cyberbullying," but this case does not appear to be about two people who set out to hurt another person with malicious intent; it appears to be about internalized biases making them regard evidence of homosexuality as "funny" and socialized indifference to consent making them regard broadcasting that evidence as acceptable.
Institutional homophobia meets the rape culture.
Too many people will read that line and feel inclined to argue that they see proof of neither homophobia nor the rape culture in this case, which underlines exactly why both are important to publicly explore. Just as the rape culture does not exclusively manifest as demonstrable sexual violence, homophobia does not exclusively manifest as physical violence against queer people, or even expressed hostility toward queer people.
It's eminently possible that Ravi and/or Wei even expressed support for LGBTQI peers, and, in the abstract, meant it. But when faced with the knowledge that he was going to be living with a gay man, Ravi reportedly tweeted: "Found out my roommate is gay?" and then secretly filmed Clementi and broadcast it, making note that he "saw him making out with a dude." Ravi may well have been not homophobic in theory, but in actual practice, he appears to have had issues with his gay roommate.
That's not the kind of thing for which we should be trying to find excuses, despite what nearly every comment thread in the world on this story suggests to the contrary. That's the kind of thing we need to call out for what it is, and not hide behind quotes from friends about what "good kids" Ravi and Wei are.
Good kids can do terrible things.
Frankly, given how comprehensively our culture is steeped in virulent homophobia (and other biases) and antipathy to consent, it's shameful that we act surprised when they do.
