Time is currently featuring a story about the rise of LGBTQI-owned large-scale luxury hotels catering to LGBTQI customers. It's a decent enough story, with less-than-average fail ("ghettoize"? seriously? still?); pretty boring for anyone with a passing familiarity with pink/lavender travel, but a good enough piece to introduce the concept to a general audience.
Except the headline is: Not Just Gay-Friendly: Here Come the Ultra-Gay Hotels.
So much wrong with so few words.
Yes, these hotels are billed as "hetero-friendly" (hee), because they cater specifically to a gay clientele. By my calculations, that just makes them gay hotels.
But by Time's reckoning, by the reckoning of a culture steeped in heterocentrism, heteronormativity, and straight privilege, that makes them ULTRA-GAY!
Which, apart from conjuring the image of a beautifully-designed hotel dressed in pink superhero tights and matching cape, implicitly suggests that even LGBTQI-owned and -serving hotels must primarily cater to straight people, or else they'll enter some sort of realm of the supergay.
Sort of like how a gay man who is "straight-acting" (i.e. has a gender presentation that hews closely to the stereotypes of traditional masculinity) is just plain old gay, but a gay man who is "gay-acting" (i.e. has a gender presentation that includes discernible aspects of the feminine) is said to be really gay.
And the problem with all this gay-ranking (especially done from outside the queer community looking in) is that it necessarily continues to center heterosexuality as the norm and the desirable objective—and not just any heterosexuality, but a version steeped in retrofuck gender roles. (Which further marginalizes the "really gay.")
Which is basically a long way of saying: Time's headline is total garbage which effectively reframes a thing merely catering primarily (and not even exclusively) to a gay clientele from gay to ultra-gay, effectively suggesting that a gay-centered space is extreme.
I can't wait for their article on gay-only establishments: "Here Come the Super Duper Mega Max Über Xxxtreme Gay Hotels!"
Or perhaps just: "AHHHH! The Gays Are Coming!"
Meanwhile, CNN (of course) helpfully linked the article right on their front page, reiterating the obnoxious headline:
That's your liberal media—treating perfectly legitimate and business-savvy gay-centric spaces with all the finesse and subtlety of an Ed Wood script.
Ultra Classy
Question of the Day
[We've done this one before, but it's one of my favorites, so I'm doing it again…]
Who will play you in Shakesville: The Movie?
Looks-wise, the obvious choice is Dawn French, to whom I am nearly identical in height and weight, and probably not dissimilar in temperament. She's 17 years older than I, but I won't complain if she won't.
Disqus Issues in IE
I've gotten a couple of emails over the past few days that people using IE6 and IE7 are having trouble leaving comments.
The IE7 issue now seems to have resolved, but IE6 users are still having problems.
If you're having issues with comments in browsers other than IE6, please fire me an email to let me know, or leave a comment if the problem you're having allows you to at least leave them.
This is so the worst thing you're going to read all day.
New Dating Book Says Feminism Ruins Relationships, Women Can Stop Men From Cheating.
Here's a particularly fun part:
"While modern women have been conditioned to 'act like men' in the office in order to climb the corporate ranks and to get ahead, unfortunately women have taken this same masculine attitude with them into their love life," author Donna Sozio told Pop Tarts. "Then there's the case of feminism teaching women that they are equal to men, but when it comes to love, romance, attraction and chemistry – men don't fall in love with a woman because she is an equal. Men fall in love with women who are their compliment [sic]: feminine, sexually available, loving and appreciative."I would say I can't believe this garbage fart of a book got published, but this is a blog at which is being blogged a novel by Glenn Beck, so.
[H/T to Shaker Whooie.]
Daily Dose o' Cute
Video Description: A video I made in association with a pro bono project on which I'm working for local greyhound rescue, which documents the change adoption makes in dogs' lives. Footage and a still image of Dudley when he first came to us, followed by footage and still images of Dudley over the time he's been part of our family. Set to Angelo Badalamenti's "Love Theme" from the score for Cousins.
"Pbbbbbbt."
Yawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwn.
"Are you looking at ME?"
Matilda, on holiday from perpetual goofiness, in a rare moment of quiet dignity.
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 More You Know, The More You Throw Up in Your Mouth Just a Little Bit
David Brooks' latest column is literally just a summation of summations of a shitload of academic articles, mostly evo-psych stuff. Oh, happy day!
At least now I know that diabetes is correlated with crime and that male chess players are totes aggressive when playing against hawt ladies.
Brooks' ramblings are nothing if a textbook example of the twisted relationship between science and the media.
Brooks can't summarize every "social studies" paper ever. So he's selective. So is the guy that compiles the summaries for him (who incidentally, has some sort of business credentials and a blog at National Affairs). Would you believe it that a lot of the research Brooks cites confirms various oppressive myths about humanity? Would you?
As far as I know, neither Brooks nor Kevin Lewis has a master's degree (in Science!). They don't feel the need read the actual research, let alone question it. Nope, science is truth (when it confirms the truths "we" want to be true) and the media's job is to report those truths (and :cough: only those truths). Why point out that correlation does not imply causation, when there are cool truths to report about hawt ladies and people who have diabetes, amirite?
And why bother to interpret the findings of scientific research (other than to imply that people with diabetes are killers)? In theory, that's what the discussion section of most journal articles is for.
For example, what conclusions did the researchers who found that people retained more information when it was in a hard-to-read font reach, and how might that jibe with hard-to-read fonts being well, hard (or impossible) to read? Clearly, people who didn't read the fonts didn't retain any information. Maybe the researchers discussed this, maybe not. Anyhoo: Wev, science! :jazzhands:
And what, precisely, is "science"? Do all "social scientists" think that all of these studies were "social science", or can we just take Brooks at his word? There are different answers to the issue of what is and isn't science (and why we might care), but doing the evaluations in question involves reading the actual papers.
Incidentally, even if they can comprehend the articles, a good many people can't even afford or otherwise access the scientific journals that print them. The media is where most people learn about science, and they have a responsibility to help the public understand what scientists do, lest they harbor gross misconceptions.
As Brooks says, "A day without social science is like a day without sunshine." Which I was totes enjoying before I ran across his latest garbage nightmare.
Wednesday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by Shaxco, makers of Dudley Brand Snowshoes for the Discerning Hound.
Recommended Reading:
Sady: How We Describe Women Who Report Sexual Assaults Now [TW for sexual violence]
Dori: Insulting Survivors [TW for sexual violence, rape apologia, and self-harm]
Rho: Bejeweled 3: Now With Weight Loss Mode [TW for appropriations, fat hatred, and body policing]
Marianne: I Scream, You Scream; Illustrating Part of the Problem [TW for fat hatred, disembodiment, self-harm]
Andy: Senate Negotiations Fast and Furious as Endgame for 'DADT' Repeal Looms [TW for homophobia]
Tami: Double standards: What's the difference between Russell Brand and Superhead? [TW for sexual violence and slut-shaming]
Leave your links in comments...
Dear Washington
[Trigger warning for state-sponsored sexual violence.]
While the geniuses in D.C. argue over the best way to dig ourselves out of the current economic climate via some combination of salary freezes, gutting social services, and trickle-down fuckonomics, I've got a suggestion I think is worth some consideration: Let's stop paying subcontractors to arrange for child rape orgies.
I really wish that were an exaggeration.
But it isn't. Per a document made available by WikiLeaks, our tax dollars paid for DynCorp, a private security contractor hired to train Afghan police, to arrange a bacha bazi ("boy-play") party, a pre-Islamic Afghan tradition described by the US State Department as a "widespread, culturally accepted form of male rape," in which young boys are dressed up, forced to dance for men, and then sold to the highest bidder.
I recommend this article for more information with the following caution: The author uses some language (e.g. "sex scandal") and some inappropriate sarcasm that isn't reflective of the sensitivity with which the subject ought really be treated. But it's informative, particularly as regards DynCorp's history with this sort of thing.
And we nonetheless continue to subcontract these mercenary rape facilitators to the tune of nearly $2 billion annually.
Obama Presser Open Thread
So, President Obama gave a press conference yesterday (video here; transcript here) on the shitastic tax deal, and used the occasion to, once again, respond to progressives' criticism of his incessant capitulation by accusing them of expecting perfection and being too daft to understand how politics works, then upped the ante by implying progressives who expect(ed) more from a Democratic president with a Democratic Congressional majority don't care about USians who are suffering, thus also asserting yet again that progressives and "the American people" are mutually exclusive groups.
When a reporter asked "if the Bush tax cuts deal showed that he has no core principles that he's willing to stand firm on," Obama testily replied (in part):
This notion that somehow we are willing to compromise too much reminds me of the debate that we had during health care. This is the public option debate all over again. I pass a signature piece of legislation where we finally get health care for all Americans, something that Democrats have been fighting for for a hundred years. But because there was a provision in there that they didn't get, that would have affected maybe a couple of million people, even though we got health insurance for 30 million people, and the potential for lower premiums for maybe 100 million people, that somehow that was a sign of weakness, of compromise.Uh, no it doesn't. In fact, the primary reason that progressives are so insistent that Democrats pursue progressive legislation while given the opportunity is because we just spent eight years being made painfully aware that "not everybody agrees with us," and that when our ideological opponents have control of the executive and legislative branches, we are not merely marginalized for that disagreement but cast as traitors to the nation.
If that's the standard by which we are measuring success or core principles, then let's face it: We will never get anything done. People will have the satisfaction of having a purist position, and no victories for the American people. And we will be able to feel good about ourselves and sanctimonious about how pure our intentions are and how tough we are.
And in the meantime the American people are still saying to themselves, [I'm] not able to get health insurance because of pre-existing conditions. Or not being able to pay their bills because their unemployment insurance ran out. That can't be the measure of how we think about public service. That can't be the measure of what it means to be a Democrat. This is a big, diverse country. Not everybody agrees with us. I know that shocks people.
And now here we are listening to a Democratic president talk about us as if we are not part of the oft-invoked "American people," with the same concerns and struggles and needs, but some highly privileged group who stands outside the realities of unemployment, spiraling healthcare costs, foreclosures, bankruptcies.
(That description does, however, sound a hell of a lot like the financial executives to whom this president has kindly catered.)
Look, I'm deeply sympathetic to the frustration and anxiety wrought by the expectations of perfection. And, sure, there are people who expect this president to never fuck up. But that is not remotely the quality of the vast majority of criticism being made. Progressives are not expecting perfection; they're expecting some shred of evidence that this president gives a flying fuck about the concerns of his base.
And if something can't be done because, as the president also said during his press conference, that negotiating with Republicans is like negotiating with hostage-takers who have taken "the American people" hostage, then he needs to direct his ire at them. Exclusively.
In any case, he needs to stop treating his base like stupid ingrates, because it is getting really goddamn old.
Quote of the Day
“Today marks a lot of tragedy. … Tragedy comes in threes... Pearl Harbor, Elizabeth Edwards’s passing and Barack Obama’s announcement of extending the tax cuts, which is good, but also extending the unemployment benefits.”- Christine O'Donnell, speaking at the launching for her new political action committee, "ChristinePAC."
Awesome
Pelosi with Project Runway runner-up and Shaker favie Mondo Guerra.
[Thanks to scatx, who got it from Jessica Valenti's twitter feed, for the heads-up via email. Previously in Everybody Love Mondo: Photo of the Day.]
The Apologists' Trap
[Trigger warning for harassment and violence.]
Over at Geek Feminism Blog, Mary's got a great post about the responses to Valerie's conference anti-harassment policy, specifically the responses that dismiss the policy by some variation on the theme, "Why don't women just hit men who harass them?" Mary lays out many of the reasons why that response is victim-blaming bullshit which charges targets of harassment with its prevention.
I'll just note one point in addition to her highly recommended piece: The assertion that violence is an appropriate response to harassment is made by people (usually men) who make it explicitly because they are auditing the responses of people who are harassed (usually women) and find them lacking. People who feel entitled to audit others' responses to harassment don't stop auditing even if their recommendations are taken, which means, in practical terms, that a woman who takes their advice and responds to harassment with violence will not be commended, but judged, her actions investigated to see if the (previously recommended) violence was warranted.
Spoiler Alert: It never will be.
This is a trap created by apologists (of rape, violence, and harassment of women). They position themselves as arbiters and then use that position to create rules the adherence to which is inevitably impossible by their reckoning.
"Hit him if he harasses you" is a trap by virtue of the fact that its proponents will always, unfailingly, argue the harassment wasn't really harassment at all, or not so much that it warranted the violence they allegedly endorsed. "Hit him if he harasses you" is designed to turn every woman who follows its recommendation into an over-reactionary hysteric.
Auditors audit. The only way to deny traction to apologists is to never take their recommendations in the first place.
Even if responding to harassment with violence was objectively a good idea (which it isn't), it would still be foolish to adopt a policy that plays right into the hands of people with a vested interest in finding women at fault, so that dangerous men are unencumbered by any responsibility to stop being dangerous.
[Related Reading: Five Reasons Why "Teach Women Self-Defense" Isn't a Comprehensive Solution to Rape.]
Hobbit News
Cate Blanchett is returning as Galadriel in The Hobbit, which Peter Jackson directs in February. Jackson has also set Ken Stott (Charlie Wilson's War) to play Dwarf Lord Balin, Sylvester McCoy (Dr. Who) to play the wizard Radagast the Brown, and Swedish actor Mikael Persbrandt (Day and Night) to play shape-shifter Beorn. Ryan Gage (Outlaw) will play Drogo Baggins and Jed Brophy (who appeared in the original The Lord of the Rings) will play the dwarf Nori, and William Kircher will play the dwarf Bifur.Galadriel did not appear in The Hobbit, but, like they did for the trilogy, Jackson et. al. are borrowing material from the LOTR Appendices to include in the film(s).
On Blanchett's return as the ethereal Lady of Lothlorien, Jackson said: "Cate is one of my favorite actors to work with and I couldn't be more thrilled to have her reprise the role she so beautifully brought to life in the earlier films."
On Elizabeth Edwards
I've got a piece up at The Guardian's Comment is free America about the passing of Elizabeth Edwards:
I cannot say, nor will I pretend, that I knew her well – or, at all, really, except in a professional capacity. What I knew about her, however, was that she was fiercely protective of her image and reputation, and I can only imagine how profoundly irritating it would be to her to have other people defining who she was.Read the whole thing here.
Which, by my estimation, was more complex than any easy narrative of wronged wife, exalted saint or thwarted orchestrator of a political power-grab could hope to convey.
So, I won't tell you who Elizabeth Edwards was, nor will I substitute a list of her accomplishments for a meaningful exploration of her life. Wikipedia's already got that on offer – and, besides, perhaps the most interesting thing about Edwards' list of accomplishments is what isn't on it.
Though John and Elizabeth Edwards were frequently, and quite rightly, spoken about as a political partnership, it was he who had been a United States senator, and a presidential candidate, and it was his name on the ballot when their political partnership secured a vice-presidential nomination in the 2004 election. Elizabeth was largely active behind the scenes, studying policy, shaping the Edwards brand, helping make campaign decisions, calling some – maybe even most – of the shots. And she was at John's side, gracefully navigating the treacherous path of the modern liberal candidate wife, feminist but traditional. She was an invaluable asset. But John was the candidate. John was always the candidate.
Further reading: Think Progress, New York Times, Raleigh News & Observer. If you've read other things you'd like to share, please feel welcome and encouraged to leave them in comments.
Question of the Day
What is your favorite song with a person's name in the title?
I'm tempted to use my same answer from yesterday, just because I can, but that probably wasn't even a good answer yesterday, either, lol. (I thought of "How Soon Is Now?" about five seconds after posting it.)
I'd have to think about this one for awhile, too, to come up with a definitive answer, but "Sheila, Take a Bow" comes immediately to mind as a strong contender.
