Katie Goldman's universe extends from her home to her first-grade classroom. She is a big sister to Annie Rose and Cleo, a piano player, a Spanish student, a wearer of glasses. She loathes the patch she has to wear for one lazy eye. She loves magic and princesses and "Star Wars," an obsession she picked up from her dad.
The 7-year-old carried a "Star Wars" water bottle to school in Evanston, Illinois, every day, at least until a few weeks ago, when Katie suddenly asked to take an old pink one instead. The request surprised Katie's mom, Carrie Goldman. It didn't make any sense. Why would her little sci-fi fan make such a quick turn?
Goldman kept pressing for an answer. She wasn't expecting Katie's tears. Kids at school insisted that "Star Wars" was only for boys, her daughter wailed.
..."Is this how it starts?" Goldman wrote in her blog, Portrait of an Adoption. "Do kids find someone who does something differently and start to beat it out of her, first with words and sneers? Must my daughter conform to be accepted?"
Oof, the pangs. I was a Katie. (Let's be honest: I am a Katie.) I got my first pair of glasses at age 8. I had my own Darth Vader helmet carrying case for all my Star Wars action figures. I was the only girl who played Ewoks on the playground during recess. I begged my mom to pull my long hair into Princess Leia buns.
It wasn't always easy being That Kid. I was fortunate enough to grow up in a home with a mother who fixed things and a dad who did laundry; when someone would tell me something I did was "only for boys," my first thought, from a very young age, was, "Obviously not." But that still didn't make it easy. Just easier than it might otherwise have been.
Some people who read about Katie's story decided to make it easier than it might otherwise be for her.
Back in Evanston, Carrie Goldman was feeling good. Since she had written about the water bottle incident, other parents at Katie's school had talked to their kids. School leaders were supportive, and working on an anti-bullying program.
Something else was happening, too: Traffic on Goldman's blog was exploding.
Some 1,200 people had left messages there for Katie. Readers were coming from Yates' blog, where more than 3,000 more comments stacked up. There were links from "Star Wars" message boards, parenting blogs, tech sites. A Twitter hashtag, #maytheforcebewithkatie, streaked across social media.
Guys and gals of all ages wrote about how they'd been bullied, and how life had gotten so much better since then. They shared that they loved "Star Wars," that they wore glasses, that they were adopted -- just like Luke, just like Leia, just like Katie.
ThinkGeek, a nerdy online retailer, sent Katie a lightsaber. Artist Scott Zirkel sent a cartoon of Katie as a Jedi, glasses and all. A first-grade class in California sent letters to Katie as a show of support.
Taber and the rest of the cast of "Star Wars: The Clone Wars," sent "Star Wars" merch. Ashley Eckstein, who voices the female Jedi Ahsoka Tano, sent Her Universe clothes tailored for girls. Tom Kane, who voices Yoda, escorted the Goldmans to a screening near their home.
The thousands of comments left online will be bound into a book for Katie to read whenever she needs it.
Blub.
Sometimes it's not so much that the world gets better; it's just that your own world gets bigger, and you find out you're not as alone as you once thought.
Defying President Obama, House Democrats voted Thursday not to bring up the tax package that he negotiated with Republicans in its current form.
"This message today is very simple: That in the form that it was negotiated, it is not acceptable to the House Democratic caucus. It's as simple as that," said Democratic Congressman Chris Van Hollen.
"We will continue to try and work with the White House and our Republican colleagues to try and make sure we do something right for the economy and right for jobs, and a balanced package as we go forward," he said.
...Rep. Peter DeFazio of Oregon said: "They said take it or leave it. We left it."
Dayum!
The caucus resolution is non-binding, but it's unlikely that Speaker Pelosi will ignore the wishes of her caucus. In fact, The Hill is reporting that Pelosi is promising to secure changes to the bill to make it palatable to her caucus.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) issued a brief statement after the vote indicating that lower-chamber Democrats will fight to alter the bill.
"We will continue discussions with the President and our Democratic and Republican colleagues in the days ahead to improve the proposal before it comes to the House floor for a vote," Pelosi said.
"Democratic priorities remain clear: to provide a tax cut for working families, to create jobs and economic growth, to assist millions of our fellow Americans who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, and to do this in a fiscally sound way."
From an email I received after a mod banned (for comments in this thread) yet another Super Special Dude Who Figures the Commenting Policy (Which Explicitly Prohibits Rape Apologia) Doesn't Apply to Him:
I think it's unfortunate that someone who points out the evils inherent in one person forcibly removing power from another person who deserves equal rites [sic] so quickly violates the basic truths they believe everyone should operate under. I believe that the points I made are valid and worth defending, however by disabling my comments, you have taken away my power to defend myself from the attacks of others. It's ironic, almost, that in the context of a [sic] DeVito's character being sexually assaulted by groups of men at a time, you've created a situation in which my comments, the embodiment of my ideas and beliefs, are forcefully made vulnerable to the simultaneous assault of numerous people.
Those who's [sic] opinions differ from the most popular one deserve to be heard and deserve to actively defend their positions. As a feminist, I would think that you could have at least avoided perpetrating such an act of hypocrisy.
I can't decide which part I like better: The implication that his inability to continue to comment here is akin to being gang-raped, or his assertion that rape apologists are an oppressed minority.
My correspondent's "valid and worth defending" comment (which remains in the thread for all to admire) ends thus: "People like you are so afraid of a person being offended or hurt that they take all the fun out of life. There are plenty of issues out there that deserve your attention, plenty of evil people who actually do things that hurt others. Get of your high-horse about what is and isn't politically correct or offensive and get upset about something that actually matters. Christ."
This, in response to my saying that I don't find rape jokes funny.
It is my obligation, you see, to stop being so sensitive and STFU so that people who like rape jokes can enjoy them without their amusement being dampened by knowing there exist people on planet who don't share their good humor, or something.
Yeah, I've heard that before. And I am struck, once again, by this thought: Even if complaining that survivors and their allies weren't "tough" enough were a legitimate argument, one would think that the champions of fairness and justice making it (such as my correspondent) would direct their ire in the right direction—at the fucking rapists who create survivors (and their triggers) in the first place.
You want to laugh at rape jokes without having to hear survivors complain about them...? Take it up with RAPISTS.
Oh, but that's the flaw in my position, isn't it? Rape jokes are only funny because rape exists.
Cheat Fair playing field Unfair advantage Distinct advantages against women in sports
Forced to have gender testing The concept makes precious little sense
DNA Height Strength 5-foot-11 200-pound Muscle mass Testosterone Male muscling Bone structure Intrinsic biology Strength of men Skeletal structure Masculine physiognomy Having both male and female sex chromosomes
Superior It’s believed
One-time man
She’s 57 57-year-old 57-year-old A transsexual Masters for aging duffers
Transgendered individuals
Postoperative Reassignment surgery Gender-reassignment surgery Switching anatomy if not human atoms Some among us recreate their very identity
Entitlement privileges Conundrum of applying broad civil rights Privileges that she feels she is now entitled to
Even Dr. Renee Richards Male-to-female tennis player Mixed transgendered doubles at Wimbledon
Not created equal The measure of a man Remains that of a man The measure of a woman Female but transgendered to male The two can’t be conjoined into one
Born and raised a female Though never officially confirmed A female, too, both legally and in her own mind
Core reality has been blurred
-- These are but a few of the words in today's Toronto Star.
[Image from last night's episode: A cheftestant welds two cookies together as part of the Dinosaurs Are Awesome challenge, or whatever it was. Liss: "What is this -- TOP MAD SCIENTIST?!"]
Last night's episode will be precisely batonneted, so if you haven't seen it, and don't want any spoilers, pack your knives and go...
Aston Kutcher + Waxing Philosophical on Romance in the Digital Age + Gender Essentialism + Ashton Kutcher's Apparent Forgetfulness That He Routinely Tweets Pictures of His Wife's Ass = Barf.
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.
[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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.]
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.
[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.
Welcome to Shakesville, a progressive feminist blog about politics, culture, social justice, cute things, and all that is in between. Please note that the commenting policy and the Feminism 101 section, conveniently linked at the top of the page, are required reading before commenting.
