Hosted by the bubble organ.
Question of the Day
What did you not have to think about today?
Context is important.
The writer is John Scalzi, sf writer and editor, current president of the Science Fiction Writers Association, and a pretty decent bloke, by all accounts. In a very nice surprise, when I went by earlier there were over 100 comments, and very, very few of them were unpleasant to encounter.
This is so the worst thing you're going to read all day.
Why A-list men can't say no to a waitress: The stars who 'marry up' then 'cheat down.'
I don't even know what to say. It is an unmitigated clusterfucktastrophe of breathtaking insults lobbed in every conceivable direction.
Just...wow.
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.]
The Solution Is Obviously to Write No More Female Characters at All
by Shaker Socchan, who has had enough of this shit already.
Last Monday, Part One: Overthinking It posts a horrendous chart diminishing a staggering number of prominent female characters - and at least one real, nonfiction woman - to simple stereotypes (possibly as a follow-up or companion to this August 18 post, which suggests that strong female characters are bad for women). Commenters sing the chart's praises.
Last Monday, Part Two: Jezebel re-posts the chart, praising Overthinking It for asshattery ingenuity, I guess. Again, compliments for the chart overflow from the comments section.
Last Tuesday: Sociological Images re-re-posts said chart, with no critical analysis. At least some of the commenters there recognize the chart itself and site commentary on as problematic.
Shakers, I feel ill. We are in a dire place indeed if even when multifaceted female characters are written, they are nonetheless stuffed into the narrow confines of a stereotype, right alongside all the female characters already written within the narrow confines of a stereotype in the first place. Heads you win, tails I lose. No matter what, female characters stink.
There are characters fully or approaching three-dimensional there: What of their other traits? What of the other characteristics that make them who they are, that define them outside of the limited scope Overthinking It has deigned to allow them? Is a female character only worthy of praise if she fits no stereotypes whatsoever?
I don't even know where to begin with those choices. Nyota Uhura as "Useless Girl"? Blanche Devereaux as "Slut"? The fact that Yoko Ono is on there at all? What are the implications of that for other nonfictional women - are we also worthless if we fit even a single category on this chart?
Since we're at it, how about the ablist connotations of defining a well-rounded and thoroughly crafted female character as "strong"? The best way I've been able to read it is by mentally changing the phrase to "strong-willed", but there's surely got to be a better way.
While there is certainly more work to be done in Hollywood and the entertainment industry in general, by ignoring the traits that make these female characters more than stereotypes, this chart is doing the exact opposite of helping.
----------------
There are some great posts and discussions on LiveJournal and Dreamwidth if you're interested in reading more:
* Memlu's untitled post with some of the basics
* bossymarmalade's post about Yoko Ono
* havocthecat's post on the whole thing and then some, including a great roundup of links
* annwyd's post with an updated/corrected version of the chart, placing blame/praise on the creator(s) involved rather than the characters
This is a real thing in the world.
Capable of accommodating a Brobdingnagian, this is the portable chair that elevates your physical stature at any outdoor event. Measuring 5-1/2' tall, the chair is certain to provide stadium seating at any venue, and its 9' sq. seat affords ample room for full-body gesticulations or sharing your prodigious chair with a friend. The lofty seat elevates feet well above the ground, where they're free to dangle and sway instead of merely floundering in dirt or sand. The reinforced powder-coated steel frame and 400-denier rip-stop canvas support up to 400 lbs.Sure. This definitely needs to exist.
The chair has six cup holders and folds to just 8-1/2" wide to allow transport in the included duffel bag. Step stool not included.
[H/T to scatx.]
Quote of the Day
[Trigger warning for sexual violence.]
"We must fight against impunity, so that the perpetrators of violence are punished, to allow women can regain their dignity. Despite what they endure, Congolese women are strong and able to stand up again."—Dr. Nene Rukunghu, a doctor at a hospital in Bukavu, Democratic Republic of Congo, which treats many survivors of rape. Blub.
DR Congo has one of the highest rates of sexual violence in the world. This weekend, Dr. Rukunghu, along with thousands of other Congolese women, marched to demonstrate against sexual violence: "The atmosphere of the march was colourful and peaceful, and many demonstrators carried banners with slogans such as 'No to sexual terrorism'."
[H/T to Echidne. Previously on the DR Congo Rape Epidemic: One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine.]
Today in Transphobia
I thought about titling this "Today In Appropriating Marginalized Bodies For Pseudo-Edgy Pseudo-Humour And Unfortunately Gobs Of Profit", but it's too long for a tag.
Besides, the one I used works well for this one (link goes to Skip the Makeup, a superb trans-issues blog).
An ad agency in New York, known for its "edgy"1 campaigns, moved office recently2, and used this card, as well as a video clip (available at Skip the Makeup; I thought the card made the point well enough for our purposes) to get publicity for their move. 
So how much would you pay for the ability to have transphobia and binary-gender performance policing advertise your business? But wait! That's not all! Because you also get a sweet little piece3 of xenophobia, absolutely free!
NOW how much would you pay?
So COME ON DOWN to our ad agency, and find out how we can use people who aren't white/cis/hetero/Christian/upper-class enough to help you grow your "edgy" business! We can put an offensive stereotype to work for you!
1 FSV of "edgy" to equal "pointless shots at marginalized people to make ourselves feel like big manly men who don't have to kowtow to political correctness, or even to 'not being a huge tank farm of douche drippings'".
2 I'm not linking to them directly; they can get their "buzz" elsewhere. Gina's got a link.
3 See what I did thar? French women are all sluts, amirite, bros? Damn, I am SO EDGY I SHOULD HAVE A "SHARPS" LABEL tattooed on me.
Tip of the CaitieCap to eastsidekate.
Monday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by Shaxco, makers of Deeky's Giant Shower Gloves, for thorough exfoliating!
Recommended Reading:
Catherine: [Trigger Warning] Sexual Assault and Abuse Rampant in America's Immigration Detention Centers
Peter: Over-confidence is a central factor in the Democratic train wreck.
Paradox: Her Father's House
Andy: Alaska Tea Party Candidate Joe Miller's Guards Handcuff Reporter
Stephanie: Disembodied Women and Movie Posters
Arturo: Blood & Guts: The Racialicious Review of Luther 1.1
Phil: National Feral Cat Day
Leave your links in comments...
Perfect
For a week or so, there have been rumors that The Hangover 2, sequel to the blockbuster dudebro comedy that helped rehabilitate Mike Tyson's career with a HIGHLARIOUS cameo, was going to be featuring another HIGHLIARIOUS cameo that would be SHOCKING and TOTALLY HIGHLARIOUS.
Who would it be? Given that the audience for The Hangover was meant to find this person HIGHLARIOUS, I was guessing Brett Favre, who, of course, already had the opportunity to show off his fine acting chops in There's Something About Mary and additionally has the highly-desirable quality of treating women like garbage.
I was close!
Today, the New York Post reports that the mystery cameo-man is Mel Gibson.
A source told Page Six, "It's a done deal. Mel will make a cameo as a tattoo artist. Filming is taking place on the Warner Bros. lot, where a Bangkok set has been built, and Mel is expected to film his role in two weeks. Then the production moves to Thailand at the end of October."Of course. Why wouldn't it be Mel Gibson?
I just hope they can persuade Roman Polanski to direct the inevitable third entry in this estimable franchise.
Seen
On a church sign this weekend:
This, in a state with 10% unemployment, 14% of its population living below the poverty line, one of the highest rates of personal bankruptcy in the nation, and the fifth highest foreclosure rate in the nation—more than 15% of homeowners in Indiana who have a mortgage are in arrears or in foreclosure.
Having been raised in a Christian tradition, I know the sign, which had no other content or context, was about the "wealth" of god's love and how it doesn't matter if you lose your house in this life because you'll have a mansion in the clouds someday after you die—but not everyone is a god-believer, and not every god-believer is a Christian, and not every Christian subscribes to that particular flavor of Christianity, which leaves a whole lot of people for whom a sign declaring "You're Wealthy!" won't exactly resonate as a celebratory exclamation.
I'm not saying that congregation doesn't have the right to believe they're wealthy, or to put that shit on their sign out front. I'm just saying it strikes me as a rather spectacularly unkind thing to do, given the fact that a hell of a lot of people who pass it will not read it as a declaration of eternal triumph as much as a hostile, taunting reminder of their dire financial circumstances in the here and now.
Ur So Gay
I was playing around in the app store on my phone this weekend when a great idea came to me. Why don't I see what gay-themed apps might be available? Whoops!
I discovered no less than six apps under the gaydar monicker. (Gaydar 3000, Gaydar 2.0!, GAYdar+, to name a few.) And what do these products do? They're all the same, more or less.
To wit, the description from Gaydar Pro:
Are you Gay? Are your friends Gay? With Gaydar Pro you can easily find out! Tilt your phone towards the target and the meter will go full on Gay Crazy! Scan their Thumb print to detect their level of gayness. Use Homo-Recognition to take a picture of the gay target and watch the rainbows take over! Send picture to friends!
OMFG, that is soooooooooo hee-larious! HA ha ha! Ur a total gaywad! Because there is nothing funnier than calling someone a fag! Oh, my aching sides!
Okay, I know. It's just a joke. I should lighten up. No one ever got hurt by being called a homo, right? Right?
(p.s. This is a good gaydar app, at least from the description.)
Clusterbuck
Yesterday, Republican US Senate candidate for Colorado Ken Buck—who opposes abortion even in cases of rape/incest and has engaged in professional rape apology—appeared on Meet the Press this weekend, where he endeavored to make it clear that he's not just a rank misogynist with intractable hostility toward the notions of autonomy and consent, but is also a gross homophobe who believes being gay is a choice, even though "birth has an influence over it, like alcoholism and some other things."
David Gregory: In a debate last month, you expressed your support for Don't Ask, Don't Tell [and] you alluded to 'lifestyle choices.' Do you believe that being gay is a choice?You know, the funny thing is that I would not be axiomatically in disagreement with an argument that went something like: "I believe that sexuality exists on a spectrum, is fluid for many people, and, through some combination of genetic predisposition and cultural influence—nature and nurture, if you prefer—we all come to arrive at an individual sexuality along that spectrum, a journey which is less choice for some than others, but we should all be free to choose whatever we like for ourselves, including those with whom we consensually partner, and no one choice should be privileged above another."
Ken Buck: I do.
Gregory: Based on what?
Buck: Based on what?
Gregory: Yeah. Why do you believe that?
Buck: Well, I guess you can choose who your partner is.
Gregory: You don't think it's something that's determined at birth?
Buck: I think that birth has an influence over it, like alcoholism and some other things, but I think that basically you have a choice.
Gregory: That put him outside the mainstream of views on this?
Michael Bennet: I absolutely believe he's outside the mainstream of views on this.
Which it almost sounds like Buck could be saying—until he gets to that whole "ya know, like alcoholism" thing, which implicitly construes homosexuality as a disease. If pressed, I imagine Buck might come out with some evangelical mumbo-jumbo about how homosexuality, like alcoholism, is a test from god, a temptation that moral people are meant to avoid. I grew up hearing stuff like that: We're challenged not to steal when the collection plate passes by, and gay people are challenged not to succumb to their naughty, naughty same-sex urges. Because those are totally the same thing. (And "we" and "gay people" are always mutually exclusive groups.)
It's too bad that the language of choice surrounding sexuality exists almost exclusively in arguments about how queer people could choose to not be queer, if they really wanted to—because when the best argument against Buck's nonsense is, "Nuh-uh! Queer people can't help who they are!" that doesn't feel very much like a win to me.
In a better world, Gregory wouldn't be pointing out that Buck's views are outside the mainstream because he believes being gay could be a choice, but because he believes that, if it is, people should necessarily choose otherwise.
So, about Haley Barbour and Clemency...
[TW: Violence]
Last week I (following the lead of Bob Herbert and others) posted about the Scott sisters, who, without clemency from Gov. Haley Barbour, will die in prison for the heinous crime of supposedly asking some guys to steal $11. This weekend, Herbert wrote a column in which he explored Barbour's record on clemency. As the kids say, it's very, uh, interesting. In that he pardoned nice guys who happened to kill women. Really.
But before I go any farther, I have a confession to make. In addition to being a political junkie, I've also got a fair number of personal ties to the Magnolia State. So I know who Haley Barbour is. To be blunt, I don't much care for the guy.
Despite this, I really do hope he'd listen to me when it comes to the Scott sisters. Even though I'm a queer as fuck socialist, I do know a thing or two about politics.
Here's the thing: Regardless of what he does, Governor Barbour isn't going to score any points among the left, or in social justice circles, because he's Haley Barbour. But he's also not going to lose any points by, say, listening to the DA who feels that two life sentences is a bit harsh for supposedly having some kids rob some guy of $11. If we're going to reduce ourselves to "counting points", I don't see a real downside to not letting a couple of women die in prison for no particular reason. And Maude, I hope we're not deciding this on a point basis. Of course, technically, we're not deciding anything-- what I meant to say is that I hope Gov. Barbour is using some less cynical system to decide whether to let two women die in prison.
Barbour could let Jamie and Gladys Scott die in prison (and as I previously mentioned, Jamie has developed end stage renal failure, so time is of the essence here). Alternatively, he could do the thing (where potential adjectives Barbour may choose might include Christian, gentlemanly, or moral) and release the Scott Sisters after serving over 15 years in prison for a crime they may well have not even committed.
Who, precisely, is the constituency being served by this injustice? (Now is the point in the story where I mention that Jamie and Gladys Scott are black). Allowing this injustice to stand doesn't merely lose one followers, it's flat out scary; it's 'I'm going to think twice about visiting friends in Mississippi lest I run across the guy that for some reason is in charge of Mississippi State government' scary. What, precisely, is the counterbalancing upside?
Anyhow... Bob Herbert's update which is now also my update: Governor Barbour has pardoned or suspended the sentence of some guys before. Five guys, to be precise. As Herbert notes, all five guys were very guilty of very violent crimes. But, and here's the thing, they were all nice guys. No, really, I'll let you ponder that with your jaw on the ground as you sift through the archives of nice guydom:"Radley Balko, in an article for Slate*, noted that none of the five men were given relief because of concerns that they had been unfairly treated by the criminal justice system. There were no questions about their guilt or the fairness of the proceedings against them. But they did have one thing in common. All, as Mr. Balko pointed out, had been enrolled in a special prison program “that had them doing odd jobs around the Mississippi governor’s mansion.”
The idea that those men could be freed from prison and allowed to pursue whatever kind of lives they might wish while the Scott sisters are kept locked up, presumably for the rest of their lives, is beyond disturbing."
Maud, who tipped me off to this update, also noticed an, uh, interesting trend amongst the newly freed men: four of the five killed one-time wives or girlfriends. But they were such nice guys. Wow.
One would like to think clemency also applies to people who were denied justice.
Gov. Barbour's office can be reached at 1-877-405-0733, or by mail at: P.O. Box 139, Jackson, Mississippi 39205. The email is: governor@governor.state.ms.us.
Free The Scott Sisters, a blog maintained in part by the Scott sisters' mother, Evelyn Rasco, has more information.
Mrs. Rasco asks that her daughters' many allies contact the parole board:
Shannon Warnock - Chairman
Bobbie Thomas - Board Member
Clarence Brown - Board Member
Betty Lou Jones - Board Member
Danny Guice - Board Member
State of Mississippi Parole Board
660 North Street
Suite 100A
Jackson, MS 39202
Fax: (601) 576-3528
H/t: Maud
---
*Although it would be unwise to overlook (and Herbert didn't) the work of the Jackson Free Press on this story. They've been researching Barbour's pardon records since day one:"At the Jackson Free Press, we believe it is vital for media, and especially women, inside the state to get these stories out there about violence against women and why it's not taken seriously enough. Barbour's unilateral pardoning of these murderers is one major reason. It is also disturbing when the women doing this difficult, and often thankless, enterprise reporting to reveal these truth about violence against women are not given the credit for their reporting, and it goes to men outside the state."
Today in Rape Culture/Assvertising
[Trigger warning for stalking]
Video description and transcript below the fold.
I have a football game on right now, and this Bud Light ad just aired. It's no secret that beer ads tend to promote regressive gender stereotypes. This particular ad (entitled "Persistence"), however, puts in extra effort. First off, as an ad, it's just stupid. Big walking beer bottles and sheaves of wheat? Really? Then come the gender stereotypes: "he" goes out to clubs every night; "she" likes chatting with her girlfriends and quiet walks on the beach. Worst of all is the presentation of stalking as romantic, which is a central narrative of rape culture. The idea is that at least a "little" stalking is absolutely necessary to a romantic relationship. There is a "fine line between romance and stalking", the ad tells us, and he "walked it like a pro". A pro. A professional stalker, that is.
But hey, giant walking bottles of beer will be giant walking bottles of beer, amirite?
Extra sneaky-jackass points for putting the words of praise for stalking into the mouths of women.
I'll add that the use of a ridiculous anthropomorphic beer bottle to stalk a big bunch of anthropomorphic wheat makes it that much easier for people to say, "it's just a silly ad--nobody would think this was real! Sheesh, where's your sense of humor?!" Which is beyond disingenuous, of course, because there would be no "humor" in the ad if real men did not stalk real women.
Video description:
A big walking Bud light bottle and huge walking stalks of golden wheat appear spending time together, walking on the beach, etc. Golden Wheat has lunch with her friends and chats with them. The Bud Light bottle is seen out alone at a club, with a woman grinding against him on a dance floor. The Bud light bottle stands beneath Golden Wheat's window, playing music, then climbs up to her window on a ladder. The three female friends of "Golden Wheat" talk about how they didn't think the relationship would work at first, but now they see that Bud Light and Golden Wheat are good together.
Transcript:
At first, we were against it.
He's so not your type.
He goes out like every night.
You know, eventually, he took to what she liked and he learned about her and he really made an effort.
But there really is a fine line between romance and stalking.
Yeah, but he walked it. Like a pro.
Introducing Bud Light Golden Wheat. Light Beer. Huge Flavor. They hooked up, and you're gonna fall in love.
Open Thread
Hosted by Kermit the Frog.
This week's open threads have been hosted by the color green.
And Kermit knows, it ain't easy being green.
