[Trigger warning for discussion of rape jokes.]
[Trigger warning for misogyny, body policing, and reproductive coercion.]
Is it 2006 again? It sure as fuck feels like it.
Shaker Hammer Time sends along this article from Elle magazine (!) about MRA muckety-muck Mel Feit's newest posterboy Greg Bruell and his crusade against the terrible, horrible, no good, very bad double-standard that allows women to have autonomy over their own bodies.
Bruell is a particularly loathsome candidate, given that, by my reckoning, he's already committed reproductive coercion twice: First by convincing his (now ex-)wife into having children, and then by convincing his (now ex-)girlfriend to have an abortion.
What he really seems angry about is the fact that a woman finally refused to relinquish control of her reproductive processes to him. And thus enters the (erroneous) narrative that women are manipulative bitchez, despite the fact that Bruell, by his own admission, talked two women into reproductive choices, and his partner's birth control failed because of antibiotic dilution.
I'll just reiterate what I said last time Feit and Some Dude were running the same line and the media were inexplicably biting: The argument is that, after a man and woman create a pregnancy together, if the man doesn't want a child, he should be able to opt out of parenting responsibility, and the woman should assume sole parenting responsibilities. The flipside of this coin is that men's rights activists also believe if a woman doesn't want a child, she should be forced to carry it to term at the man's wishes.
(In the latter case, this is usually referred to as "fathers' rights," although they like to leave any reference to "fatherhood" out of the discussion of the former, for which the term "men's rights" is preferred; the use of language alone is informative as to how these men want it both ways.)
Men's rights activists complain that men aren't getting a "say" in reproductive rights, which is a mendacious argument of epic proportions. Men have plenty of "say" over reproductive decisions—but it all happens before the pregnancy. They have "say" in choosing the women with whom they choose to have sex. They have "say" over whether they choose to discuss in depth with a partner what they would do in the case of an unintended pregnancy—and what their partners would do. They have "say" in determining what kind of sex they have with a partner. They have "say" over whether they put a condom on, if they choose to engage in PIV sex.
Once a woman is pregnant, men's legal "say" ends. They don't have the right to demand abortion, and they don't have the right to demand carrying the fetus to term, because conferring those rights would allow them to exact control over another human's body, which is simply an untenable position.
That's why making wise decisions in the first place is key.
And if men's right activists don't like that, they need to take it up with the Almighty, or the Intelligent Designer, or Mother Nature, or whatever, which in its infinite wisdom decided that only some bodies (generally female bodies, but not always) should have the ability to get pregnant.
The fundamental fuckery of this "men should be allowed to opt-out" argument is underlined by basic math: Men are arguing that they want responsibility only if they want responsibility, that they should have a "consequences" option and a "no consequences" option.
It's an argument that is predicated on treating abortion as the equivalent of a "get out of jail free" card, rather than a consequence of unwanted pregnancy.
That's not to suggest that abortion is a punishment. I regard elective and uncoerced abortion as a wholly morally neutral event. But it is a medical procedure (sometimes surgical) with a cost—an out-of-pocket cost for most women, many of whom have to take time off work and travel increasingly long distances even to secure the legal medical procedure. Which is to say nothing of the potential emotional cost of being required to jump through absurd hoops like 24-hour waiting periods and state-mandated ultrasounds.
The reality is that, in the event of a pregnancy, a woman will always have consequences. She doesn't get an opt-out choice.
In the case that it is an unwanted pregnancy by both parties, she has the sole responsibility of termination. In the case that it is unwanted by her, she has the responsibility of termination, as well as whatever bullshit a coercive partner puts her through to try to get her to see the pregnancy through to term. In the case that it is unwanted by him, she has the responsibility of assuming sole financial responsibility herself, or relinquishing the child for adoption if she can't support a child on her own, or suing for financial support.
And, in the event that her partner successfully coerces her against her will to not terminate an unwanted pregnancy, she's not only charged with a financial and parenting burden she doesn't want (which is the most a man faces, in the reverse), but also the additional burden of a pregnancy and delivery, and all the health risks, costs, and personal inconvenience (to put it lightly) such entails, including the very real possibility of missing work for an extended period or losing her job altogether.
No matter from which angle the argument is made, there's no justifying giving a man control over a woman's reproductive choice in order that he may have a consequence-free option.
And all of this nonsense is based on the faulty premise that women can force men to be parents against their wills, but men can't do the same in return. In fact, men can and do force women to be parents against their wills, by sabotaging birth control and using threats of abandonment or violence, or actual violence, to prevent terminations (thus creating a permanent connection to a woman one wants to control).
The MRA parenting narrative is just another narrative of projection, an argument with no basis in reality, made my men who fear that, given half a chance, women will treat them just as badly as they treat women.
[Trigger warning for misogyny and gender essentialism.]
For the Boys' Sake, Don't Kill the SAT. Here's just a little taste of this gem:
For whatever reason, during the past 30 years, our society has seen girls outperforming boys at every level of education.Oy. Where to begin. Shaker JMonkey sent me this garbage disaster of a column, which ran in his local paper as an editorial last weekend, with the note (which I am sharing with his permission):
...Something is going on. It may be the significant attention the educational establishment has lavished on girls, the lure of video games, the lack of fathers in so many homes, the fact that boys mature more slowly than girls, or maybe none of those. But we do know that whatever may be inhibiting them from excelling in high school as much as girls, boys do score proportionately better on the SATs.
...Scrapping one of the few remaining avenues for talented boys to show, yes, their aptitude, seems unwise.
Pretty transparent that she wants to keep the SAT to maintain male privilege since she seems to agree with Charles Murray (another red flag) that:Indeed. I've nothing to add which I haven't already said here and here. Charen is right that "something is going on." But what is going on is not video games or absentee fathers or, but the erosion of white male privilege, meaning that young white men are having to rely on something more than a birthright to achieve some measure of proportional individual success.
• "... SATs contributed little to predicting a student's success in college, whereas achievement tests and high school grades were more reliable"
• ... [W]hereas the SAT was originally designed to flag kids who might otherwise have been missed by college admissions committees, it has today become a "corrosive symbol of privilege."
I suspect that, if she had her druthers, Charen would prefer that colleges give men preferential treatment in admissions just because they're men. But she knows that's not acceptable. So, even though (and more likely, because) she knows the SAT actually measures little more than privilege and does not predict college achievement, she supports the test even more strongly.
I've seen few articles more transparently advocate for privilege than this one.
[Trigger warning for sexual violence, rape jokes.]
Last night, Iain and I caught a few minutes of Conan O'Brien's new show. His guest during the segment we saw was Charlie Day (an actor I don't know) from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia (a show I've never seen). They were talking about the show, and how Day and the other writers get Danny DeVito (who's also on the show) to do all sorts of wild things, when O'Brien asked Day: "Has he ever said no to anything?"
I knew right at that moment a rape joke was coming. I would have bet every last thing I own on it.
And wow. It was some fucking rape joke. (Start video at 5:16.)
Contact TBS and politely ask them why they think sexual violence is a laughing matter.O'Brien: Let me ask you very quickly—Danny DeVito's on the show, and he intrigues me; he's a very funny performer; he's very funny on the show, but it almost seems to me, as just an outsider, that you guys are writing ridiculous premises for Danny DeVito to almost see what you can get away with, what you can get him to do. [audience laughter][Rape is Hilarious: Parts One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen, Fourteen, Fifteen, Sixteen, Seventeen, Eighteen, Nineteen, Twenty, Twenty-One, Twenty-Two, Twenty-Three, Twenty-Four, Twenty-Five, Twenty-Six, Twenty-Seven, Twenty-Eight, Twenty-Nine, Thirty, Thirty-One, Thirty-Two, Thirty-Three, Thirty-Four, Thirty-Five, Thirty-Six, Thirty-Seven, Thirty-Eight, Thirty-Nine, Forty, Forty-One, Forty Two, Forty-Three, Forty-Four, Forty-Five, Forty-Six, Forty-Seven, Forty-Eight, Forty-Nine, Fifty, Fifty-One, Fifty-Two, Fifty-Three, Fifty-Four, Fifty-Five.]
Day: Yeah, yeah.
O'Brien: Is that—am I right about that?
Day: That's totally, exactly right. And he'll do pretty much anything. And we've got him—
O'Brien: Has he ever said no to anything? Has he ever said, "I will not do…"
Day: Well…you know what? Yes. We freaked him out one time pretty good—we played an April Fool's joke on him...?
O'Brien: Mm-hmm.
Day: And we took—we were writing a script, and we're like, all right, in the first scene, Danny's character will get arrested and go to jail—
O'Brien: Right.
Day: —and immediately get raped. [audience laughter; Day grins; O'Brien nods appreciatively] And, you know, we wrote very descriptive [laughs; audience laughter]—of, of what Danny was going to be doing. And, uh, you know, he gets raped by the black gang, and then he goes to the wh—and the next time you see him, he goes to the white gang members and he's like, "Hey, you guys gotta help me. These guys are raping me," and they're like, "All right, well, you gotta do this for us," and it cuts to him getting raped by them! [audience laughter' Day grins; O'Brien chuckles] And then later in the episode, ahh, later in the episode, he goes to the guards, and he's like, "Please, everyone here is raping me!" [audience laughter; Day laughs] and then, and then it cuts to all the guards are raping him! [audience laughs uproariously; Day grins; audience applauds; O'Brien is grinning and pretending to look uncomfortable] Which is good stuff!
O'Brien: Now this, this was, uh—obviously you had no intention of airing this episode.
Day: No.
O'Brien: What did he do? He saw the script and—?
Day: He called his lawyer! [O'Brien bursts into laughter; Day laughs; audience laughs] He called his lawyer, and he was like, "Listen, I love these guys, I'll do anything, but I think this is too far."
O'Brien: Yeah.
Day: And in the last line of the script, we wrote, "April Fool's!" So.
O'Brien: Oh, good, okay.
Day: He figured it out eventually.
O'Brien: He had to read—he didn't read the whole thing.
Day: No! By the third scene, he was on the phone with the lawyer. [Day grins; O'Brien laughs; audience laughter.]
Think Progress—Obama Agrees to Extend All Bush Tax Cuts and Cut Estate Tax in Deal with Republicans:
The White House just announced that it has settled on the details of the deal it has been cooking up with Congressional Republicans over the coming expiration of the Bush tax cuts. In return for a two-year extension of all the Bush tax cuts — including those for the richest two percent of Americans and those on capital gains and dividends — currently expired unemployment benefits will be extended for 13 months, there will be a two percent reduction in payroll taxes for one year, and both the expanded Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit enacted in the 2009 Recovery Act will be retained.Washington Post—Obama, GOP reach deal to extend tax breaks: "The package would add more than $700 billion to the rising national debt, said congressional sources who were briefed on the deal. But with the unemployment rate at 9.8 percent, the White House was focused on winning a compromise that could boost the fragile recovery while preventing the economic damage that could result from letting the expiring tax breaks affect paychecks next month."
The deal also includes reinstating the currently expired estate tax in a way proposed by Sens. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ) — 35 percent with a $5 million exemption (which means that $5 million can be passed on tax free).
...Now, many are arguing that this is a way for the Obama administration to bring in new stimulus spending through the back door, boosting the economy in the short-term. While this is true, conceding on the Bush tax cuts and the estate tax is a big price to pay in terms of perpetuating irresponsible and unaffordable Republican tax policy.
Obama repeatedly said that he opposes extending the high-end tax cuts, but he said it is "abundantly clear to everyone in this town that Republicans" would block an extension for only the middle-class cuts.Washington Post—Obama's tax cut extension part of strategy to show bipartisanship: "Although his liberal supporters are furious about the decision, President Obama's willingness to extend all of the George W. Bush-era tax cuts is part of what White House officials say is a deliberate strategy: to demonstrate his ability to compromise with Republicans and portray the president as the last reasonable man in a sharply partisan Washington. The move is based on a political calculation, drawn from his party's midterm defeat, that places a premium on winning back independent voters."
Obama said there is "no reason to believe that this stalemate won't continue well into next year," which he said would have a "chilling effect" on the economic recovery.
"I am not willing to let that happen," Obama said.
The president acknowledged the anger of many Democrats who think Obama caved in to Republican demands, saying he is "sympathetic to those who prefer a fight over a compromise."
But Obama said a protracted battle would mean letting the tax cuts expire for all Americans, an outcome that he said would cost $3,000 per year for typical families and could cost more than 1 million jobs.
"The American people did not send us here to wage symbolic battles or win symbolic victories," Obama said.
What's your favorite song whose title is a question?
(Here's a list to help you get started, if you need it.)
I'm extremely fond of REM's track "What's the Frequency, Kenneth?" despite [TW for violence] the incident whence comes the title.
Saturday night. The living room. Dinnertime. Present are: Liss, Iain, Misty, Kenny Blogginz, Red Sonja, and Karate Monkey. We are having a conversation about the Sheen family.
Liss: Hey, remember when Emilio Estevez was married to Paula Abdul? Good times!
Everyone Else: No. What? When the fuck was that? Fucking lint trap! [And other variations on this theme. Everyone is laughing, and rightfully so.]
Iain: Emilio Estevez and Paula Abdul don't even remember that.
KBlogz: No one remembers that!
Liss: I do! I celebrate their anniversary every year. [Makes this face.]
Everyone Else: LOL!
[Trigger warning for discussion of sexual assault charges.]
United States Attorney General Eric Holder said earlier today that the US Justice Dept. will pursue "significant" legal action against Julian Assange, WikiLeaks' editor-in-chief.
"National security of the United States has been put at risk," Holder said. "The lives of people who work for the American people have been put at risk. The American people themselves have been put at risk by these actions that I believe are arrogant, misguided and ultimately not helpful in any way. We are doing everything that we can."Meanwhile, as regards the sexual assault charge Assange faces in Sweden, I'll direct you over to Jill, who's got a good post on the matter.
This blogaround brought to you by Shaxco, publishers of the upcoming Misty O'Misty memoir Fuck, It's Cold!
Recommended Reading:
Today is the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women in Canada. See Veronica, Renee, and GimliGirl.
Andy: There's Now a Snowball's Chance in Hell 'DADT' Will be Repealed
Shark-Fu: You've got to be fucking kidding me...
[TW for violence, transphobia] Jonathan: Trans Woman Assaulted at Kohl's
[TW for racism] Resistance: What "Anti-Racist" Means
Leave your links in comments...
[Trigger warning for fat hatred, sexual violence, medical malfeasance.]
Have I ever mentioned that I hate Dr. Drew Pinsky…? Maybe once or twice. Anyway…
A new season of the truly loathsome Celebrity Rehab just started, and it was literally an instantaneous clusterfuck. In the first episode, Janice Dickinson was sexually harassed/groped by another patient, Jason Davis, and, as is typical of Celebrity Rehab, the perpetrator was not asked to leave.
And then there was world class fat-hater Dr. Drew, during Davis' intake session, effectively saying that it's better to be a heroin addict than to be fat (start at 1:04):
Pinsky: Jason, sir. How you feeling?There isn't enough NOPE in the world for this asshole.
Davis: Good.
Pinsky: Good, okay. So, Jason—you're diabetic, is that right?
Davis: Type 2.
Pinsky: Type 2. Have you lost some weight?
Davis: Hundred and fifty pounds.
Pinsky: You've lost a hundred and fifty pounds?! Good for you! How'd you lose the weight?
Davis: Heroin.
Pinsky: Heroin. [with a wry grin] I'm not so sure I'd recommend it, but I'm glad you lost the weight. [chuckles]
After Francisco "Quico" Canseco beat Rep. Ciro Rodriguez (D-Tex.) as part of the Republican wave on Nov. 2, the tea party favorite declared: "It's going to be a new day in Washington."But, hey, IOKIYITTP (It's OK if You're in the Tea Party).
Two weeks later, Canseco was in the heart of Washington for a $1,000-a-head fundraiser at the Capitol Hill Club. The event--hosted by Reps. Pete Sessions (R-Tex.) and Jeb Hensarling (R-Tex.)--was aimed at paying off more than $1.1 million in campaign debts racked up by Canseco, much of it from his own pocket.
After winning election with an anti-Washington battle cry, Canseco and other incoming Republican freshmen have rapidly embraced the capital's culture of big-money fundraisers, according to new campaign-finance reports and other records.
Andrew Theodore, an Alexandria, Va., consultant who raises money for Benishek and nine other GOP freshmen, said the need to pay off debt is particularly acute this year. "This is the biggest freshman class we've had in a while, and as a result you just see more debt out there," he said.Same as it ever was.
Theodore also scoffed at the idea that accepting money from corporate PACs and lobbyists is at odds with the anti-Washington message of the 2010 class.
"These guys ran against Washington, but they ran against the bad parts of Washington--the bloated bureaucracy and Nancy Pelosi's agenda," he said. "That's not a contradiction to take money from a trade group or corporation that represents free-enterprise principles."
The latest leaked document to garner outrage at WikiLeaks is a "long list of key facilities around the world that the US describes as vital to its national security."
BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus says this is probably the most controversial document yet from the Wikileaks organisation."An unhelpful development" is a really good way of describing it, IMO. The release of this list doesn't strike me as quite warranting profound alarm, if only because most of the sites on the list would be evident targets for disruption even if they hadn't been officially sanctioned by this document as important to US interests. And terrorists aren't stupid. "World Trade Center" didn't need to be on a list to be a target.
...The geographical range of the document on installations is extraordinary, our correspondent says.
If the US sees itself as waging a "global war on terror" then this represents a global directory of the key installations and facilities - many of them medical or industrial - that are seen as being of vital importance to Washington.
...The critical question is whether this really is a listing of potential targets that might be of use to a terrorist, our correspondent says.
The cable contains a simple listing. In many cases towns are noted as the location but not actual street addresses, although this is unlikely to stop anyone with access to the internet from locating them.
There are also no details of security measures at any of the listed sites.
What the list might do is to prompt potential attackers to look at a broader range of targets, especially given that the US authorities classify them as being so important.
It is not perhaps a major security breach, but many governments may see it as an unhelpful development, our correspondent says.
In the red corner, Newt Gingrich: Let the nation's foxes decide what to do with the henhouse.
In the blue corner, Paul Krugman: Let's NOT Make a Deal.
Ding!
