Hosted by an eraser.
The Virtual Pub Is Open
[Explanations: lol your fat. pathetic anger bread. hey your gay.]
TFIF, Shakers!
Belly up to the bar,
and name your poison!
Open Thread on Olbermann
So, as you may have heard, Keith Olbermann has been suspended from MSNBC indefinitely without pay because he made three campaign contributions to Democratic candidates.
There is a shit-ton of coverage at Memeoradum, and I've been retweeting a lot of good stuff worth checking out.
Frankly, I don't give a fuck about Keith Olbermann on a personal level, but the principle of this thing is ridiculous. FAIR rightly asks:
A journalist donating money to a political candidate raises obvious conflict of interest questions; at a minimum, such contributions should be disclosed on air. But if supporting politicians with money is a threat to journalistic independence, what are the standards for Olbermann's bosses at NBC, and at NBC's parent company General Electric?Here's the thing: Keith Olbermann doesn't pretend to be objective, nor is he required to be. So who gives a fuck if he makes campaign contributions? No one was busily thinking Keith Olbermann wasn't liberal. He isn't an anchor on the evening news. I don't give a fuck if Glenn Beck is making contributions to SarahPAC, either.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, GE made over $2 million in political contributions in the 2010 election cycle (most coming from the company's political action committee). The top recipient was Republican Senate candidate Rob Portman from Ohio. The company has also spent $32 million on lobbying this year, and contributed over $1 million to the successful "No on 24" campaign against a California ballot initiative aimed at eliminating tax loopholes for major corporations (New York Times, 11/1/10).
Meanwhile, Boehlert amusingly notes: "Note there are no [asinine] cries that Olbermann has been 'censored.' (Cuz one side is smarter than the other.)" Heh.
Daily Dose o' Cute
"Ahhhhhhhhh, yesssssssssss, that's the spot!"
"Why did you stop, Two-Legs? MUSH!"
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.]
Pro-Choice
Here are some reasons that a straight, married feminist/womanist woman might have taken her husband's name:
1. Because she was not a womanist/feminist when she got married.
2. Because it was a huge point of contention with her in-laws, or maybe even her own parents, and she was picking her battles.
3. Because a name change makes it more difficult to be found by a violent ex, a stalker/rapist, or anyone else by whom a woman might not want to be found—and a marriage-related name change is easy and doesn't create a public court record.
4. Because she or her husband immigrated for the express purpose of their marriage, and proving that they are a "real" couple to a government still steeped in patriarchal traditions is made significantly easier if she takes his last name.
5. Because she works in a field or at an employer or in a location where not changing her name risks revealing an ideological leaning that could affect her career or target herself/her family for ostracization.
6. Because her maiden name was her father's name and keeping it did not feel like any more a rejection of the patriarchy than taking her husband's name did, and she liked her husband's name better.
7. Because her maiden name was her father's name, and she likes her husband a lot more than her father.
8. Because her family was abusive and her husband's family is wonderful to her, and she wants actively to become a part of it and feels taking their name is a symbol of that joyful joining.
9. Because she and her husband want the same last name, but the law makes it infinitely easier for her to change her name to his than for him to change his name to hers, or for both of them to choose a new name they share altogether.
10. Because despite knowing it comes from a weird, fucked-up patriarchal tradition, there's still some weird, fucked-up place inside her that likes the idea of taking her husband's name—and no feminist/womanist lives a life free of compliance, consciously or not, with weird, fucked-up patriarchal narratives and expectations. But unlike privately calling another woman a bitch or playing the role of Exceptional Feminist with a group of male coworkers or secretly doing all the housework in her own home, the name thing is there for everyone to see and question, every day of her life.
This is hardly a definitive list. Not everyone who reads this selection will consider each (or any) item a legitimate reason for a woman to opt to take her husband's name. Still, few of us would feel inclined to directly tell a womanist/feminist woman who's survived and escaped a profoundly abusive family of origin and found a wonderful partner whose family she adores, and who adore her right back, that her desire to take their name is a betrayal of The Sisterhood.
Few of us would directly tell a rape survivor, whose attacker the justice (ha) system declined to prosecute thus allowing him to continue to stalk and harass her, that she's a traitor to feminist kind if she opts for a quick and quiet name change upon getting married.
Few of us would directly encourage a woman whose immigration status (or whose husband's immigration status) could be imperiled or delayed or made any more difficult than an already-labyrinthine process to prioritize her name over her entire future.
Et cetera.
Yet that is most assuredly what we're doing every time we publicly castigate or question women who have taken their husbands' last names—because there are reasons, not always evident and none of our fucking business, for that choice which can and sometimes do trump political statements on a personal, individual level.
This is not to argue that taking one's husband's name is inherently a feminist choice (although I'm not sure it's inherently not a feminist choice, either, depending on the circumstances). It is merely to say that we cannot (and should not) axiomatically assume anything about a woman who has taken her partner's name, rendering this yet another subject on which the casual passing of judgment is a pernicious affair indeed.
Quite evidently, we each have a responsibility to think critically about our individual decisions, and not pretend they happen in a void even when we make choices for no one's pleasure or security but our own. just because one is doing something for herself doesn't magically turn it into a choice without cultural implications.
But it's eminently possible to critique the culture in which individual choices are made, and the cultural narratives that may affect our decision-making processes, without condemning those individual choices. Or the womanists/feminists making them.
Not every feminist/womanist will make the same choice, nor should they be thus obliged in order to prove feminism's value. Feminism has sufficiently demonstrated its own worth by providing that spectrum of choice in the first place.
And even though not every one of those conceivable choices is implicitly feminist, having a choice is evidence of feminism's reach.
Today in !!Free Markets!!
In light of all the new Congresspeople devoted to keeping government from getting between patients and their doctors/wallets/freedom!!!!!, I thought today was as good a time as any to issue a friendly reminder.
1) In the absence of government intervention, the free market is rapidly changing the healthcare many folks in the US experience. Or don't. Whichever. (The freedom! Why won't somebody think of the freedom?!?)
2) Despite what you may have heard, free markets are, at best amoral. I'd go farther than that, but my therapist says I really need to work on making friends.
The big Catholic hospital here in Syracuse just bought the area's largest private practice. [I wish I had enough money to buy doctors :sigh:] Earlier this year one of the other 3 hospitals in town (which also has a working arrangement with the area's state-owned hospital) bought up another large medical group.
Economies of scale, efficiency, all that crap.
Permit me to lay out two scenarios:
1) The US becomes a double un-secret Muslim socialist dystopia, in which an all-knowing government controls every aspect of healthcare.
2) Some guys (Catholic Health LLC, perhaps?) control every aspect of healthcare.
Furthermore, permit me to make an argument in favor of scenario 1 (the dystopian one). In theory, the people run the government. No, really, I learned about this in school (but see this). Interestingly enough, this seems to be a point that the Tea Partiers really like making. Well, they usually phrase it in terms of 'black/lady people are running the country, and we should put Americans in charge', but you get the idea.
The people, especially the black/lady people do not generally run HealthCo Ltd. That's up to boards of directors, shareholders, all-knowing Messiahs, whichever. Okay, that last one's a bit of a joke, but it's less funny when you think about the possibility reality of healthcare providers refusing to provide healthcare due to self-imposed religious mandates.
There are those of us who choose our doctors and emergency rooms very carefully, on account of how badly we were treated (or :ahem: not) those times we really needed medical care, what with the gender non-conformance/ladybusiness/virulent non-Christianness/fatness/queeritude/lack of privilege.
There are also those of you who don't get to chose your doctors at all, because:
1) You live in a place where the market will support only one (or less!) healthcare provider.
2) Economies of scale, efficiency, all that crap*.
In both of the scenarios I laid out above, there's a lack of choice. In only one of the scenarios above, do people theoretically have any control over the quality (and quantity) of medical care.
In scenario 1, an unsatisfied (non)-patient has the option to write a letter to a Congressperson, and theoretically, to vote to elect leaders who will improve the healthcare system. In scenario 2, you're either likely to get Ernestine or a confused 'have you even read The Bible?'
I choose dystopia.
--
*Which includes the fact that it's just not profitable to give you healthcare.
Friday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by Shaxco, makers of Lissie's Knit Hats for Autumn. Perfect for keeping heads warm and hiding fuckhair.
Recommended Reading:
Shark-fu: The New Reality
Echidne: The Trouble With Compromises
Lisa: Truthout About Kyriarchy: An Open Letter To "Feminist" Writers, Bloggers, and Journalists
Fannie: "Human" and "Female" as Mutually Exclusive Categories [TW for sexual violence]
BTD: The Lost Decade Will Continue
Renee: Angelina Jolie, Appropriation, and Dangerous Rape Narratives [TW for sexual violence]
Andy: Queer Kiss Flashmob to Greet Pope Benedict in Spain
Leave your links in comments...
Shakers Are So Dreamy
Shaker TheDeviantE emails (which I am sharing with permission):
I had a dream a few weeks back that we were gchatting. I was also a vampire being pursued by corrupt vampire hunters (though that may be besides the point). I believe in the dream you were trying to make me feel better about being pursued/chased (quite nice of you, thanks ;-).Hee!
I asked E if I could publish his email as a jumping-off point for another thread about how frequently I and the other contributors and other Shakers appear in each other's dreams. Shakes-related dreams come up in comments fairly regularly, and one of the most common subjects among reader emails is telling me that they dreamed about me and/or another contributor. (And, no, the vast majority of these are not the least bit creepy.)
So: Fess up. Have I appeared in your dream as your first-grade teacher? Has a fellow Shaker met you for drinks on the moon in your sleep? Has Deeky come to you in the night as a gummi-worm wielding organ grinder? Did I just invent the quadruple entendre with that last sentence...?
Tell the tales of your Shakesville Dreams here.
The First Step Is Admitting the Problem
Let us fervently hope this is not merely giving lipservice to an idea he thinks a disillusioned and alienated base wants to hear, but an authentic self-reflection that will result in fundamental stylistic changes over the next two years:
President Obama tells "60 Minutes" correspondent Steve Kroft that one of the reasons the electorate has become disenchanted with him was his failure to properly explain his policies and persuade people to agree with them.Yes, that's right: Leadership really isn't just legislation. It is about laying narrative groundwork for legislation, about branding legislation simply and boldly, about selling it and standing behind it. All of those are things the administration needs to do better.
..."You know, I think that over the course of two years we were so busy and so focused on getting a bunch of stuff done that we stopped paying attention to the fact that leadership isn't just legislation. That it's a matter of persuading people. And giving them confidence and bringing them together. And setting a tone. And making an argument that people can understand. And I think that we haven't always been successful at that," Obama replied.
"And I take personal responsibility for that. And it's something that I've got to examine carefully as I go forward. You know, now I will say that when it comes to some of my supporters, some of my Democratic supporters who express some frustration," the president added.
But there's a piece here that Obama is still missing: Leadership is also listening.
Not just "persuading people" and "making an argument that people can understand." But listening to what they have to say, so that you pursue the legislation they want in the first place, and so you don't fall into the trap (over and over and fucking over) of assuming that a lack of support is axiomatically down to people being too goddamned stupid to understand your sophisticated and awesome legislation.
Sometimes people fail to support you because they do understand the legislation and don't like it.
And there's still no evidence that reality is penetrating the rampart of arrogance that has been built around this White House.
Because they still aren't listening.
Great leaders listen. Hard.
Obama's a great talker, but he's a terrible listener. And he still doesn't even seem to realize that's a problem. He'll never be a great leader until he does.
Good News!
In August, Shaker Andy wrote a guest post about the campaign "directed at Stonewall, the UK's, and indeed Europe's, largest LGB lobbying organisation" to advocate for marriage equality.
Andy just emailed to let me know the campaign succeeded: Stonewall says it will campaign for gay marriage.
Gay lobbying charity Stonewall says it will campaign for lesbian and gay couples to have civil marriages in the UK.Huzzah! As Andy says, "Now we can get on with the real work of, you know, actually campaigning for same-sex marriage." Which, naturally, will be easier with the UK's biggest gay rights organization on board.
...In a statement posted on its website, the group said: "Stonewall is pleased to be widening its campaigning objectives to include extending the legal form of marriage to gay people. We seek to secure marriage for gay people as a civil vehicle on the same basis as heterosexual marriage, available in a registry office but without a mandate on religious organisations to celebrate it."
Halloween Parade
Description: Video I shot with my camera phone of the annual Halloween Lantern Parade at Patterson Park in Baltimore last Saturday. The theme of the festivities this year was "Grow!", hence the giant, glowing gourd leading the parade. Note the giant DÃa de los Muertos skeletons at around the three-an-a-half minute mark!
Senator Patty Murray Wins Reelection
Thank Maude.
Senator Murray is a progressive ally on many issues, and, most importantly, is a strong women's advocate in the Senate where there are vanishingly few vocal advocates for women. (Check out her pro-choice ratings.) It would have been a terrible loss for women if she'd been defeated, and her reelection is a huge relief.
Greys
[Trigger warning for animal cruelty.]
Just a harmless sport: "A greyhound trainer is facing a charge of animal cruelty and may face additional charges as the investigation into the deaths of at least 20 dogs at Ebro Greyhound Park continues. ... It is not immediately known exactly how many dogs died or when and how it happened. Officials have said they are waiting on necropsy results, but the complaint that triggered the investigation was spawned by underweight dogs being turned over to Greyhound Pets of America."
If there's anyone in the NWI/Chicagoland area who's interested in fostering or adopting a greyhound, email me. Our rescue currently has over three dozen retired greyhounds in foster care or in the "2nd Chance at Life" prison program, all of which are awaiting adoption, and the more that are adopted, and the more homes opened up to foster, the more dogs that can be rescued.
If you're in another location, go here to find out about rescues in your area.
There are a lot of tracks closing right now, because of the economy, which means a lot of dogs are being retired. But that's only a good thing if they've got somewhere to go.
Please consider adopting a retired racer today.
Bill Moyers: "Plutocracy and democracy don’t mix. Plutocracy too long tolerated leaves democracy on the auction block, subject to the highest bidder."
If you thought this post was hyperbole, watch this Bill Moyers speech, delivered at Boston University on October 29, 2010, as a part of the Howard Zinn Lecture Series. A complete transcript of his speech is here. The Harper's article he recommends is here.
[If the video embed doesn't work for you, you can watch it here.]
I really cannot encourage you to watch/read this speech strongly enough. This is what's happening in the US. This is what you need to know and understand about our system, and what it means for our future.
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.]
Fat Ladies UK
So, Iain and I have been watching Law & Order: UK on BBC America, because, for evident reasons, US-UK mash-ups are rather popular at Shakes Manor.
It's actually quite a good show, and it's fun to see how some of the early episodes of the original Law & Order have been Britishized for a UK (and anglophile) audience.
One of the interesting things I've noticed about the show is its fat people.
Notably, it has them.
Particularly fat women. You can always find a fat guy or two in the US version—"Casting call for portly Italian to play butcher on national crime drama"—but fat women are few and far between, and, when they do show up, they are fat not because Fat People Exist, but because fat is routinely used as a lazy shorthand to convey negative attributes to American audiences.
"You can tell she's a bad mother instantly because she's FAT and wearing unstylish clothes!"—The writers of Law & Order. Etc.
But on Law & Order: UK, fat women are just another part of the population. Across four episodes, I've seen a fat female cop, a fat female witness, a fat female attorney, and a fat female forensics analyst (and possibly some I'm forgetting), all of whom were fat for no other reason than because Fat People Exist.
And not inbetweenie fat—not "Bridget Jones" fat. But actually fat. Like me kinda fat.
It was remarkable to see these women on my television. Which is terribly sad, really. That shouldn't be remarkable, since the existence of fat women (and men), even in New York, is not remarkable.
(Shh, don't tell Karl Lagerfeld!)
I felt good seeing women who look like me in a show I was watching.
And then I felt bad, thinking about all the reasons I have so few opportunities to see women who look like me, and so many women I adore, in US-made entertainment, except as cautionary tales and punchlines.
