Totally Other People's Problem

[Trigger warning for transphobia]

Cara's got an excellent post up about a proposal to provide employees of Berkeley, California, insurance coverage for "sex reassignment surgery", and the subsequent backlash. She hits it out of the park (I recommend you read the whole thing), but here are a few highlights:

"I’m so sick of debating whether all people deserve access to health care, or just the ones who meet some arbitrary standard of social approval. Until we view health care as a fundamental human right, there’s always going to be someone who is undeserving of it — whether it be because they’re poor, or sex workers, or disabled, or trans, or in need of care related to their reproductive organ that offends somebody’s sensibilities. Until health care is a fundamental human right, there will always be someone whose life is not worth as much as 'our' tax dollars.

At the same time, it’s important to remember that even framing health care as a fundamental human right still wouldn’t fully solve the problem. 'Human rights' rarely end up applying to those who society still sees as less than human, and even 'universal health care' rarely works out well for trans people. So health care as right or not, until trans folks are properly understood to be just as human and deserving as cis folks, the equation of 'our' (super special cis-only) tax dollars being worth more than trans lives is unlikely to change."

I think I can offer some additional perspective here.

By an amazing coincidence, I happened to make my annual trip to the endocrinologist this morning. We spent time chatting about how things were going with transition. I brought up "surgery", and quickly dismissed it out of hand (money, etc.,). I didn't even need to bring the subject up, because she knew. That's how it is for pretty much all trans folk.

Here's the fun part: I have insurance that ostensibly covers "the surgery."*

I'm not clear on whether Berkeley is setting up a vaginafund** or whether it's planning to purchase better insurance, but here's the thing about insurance:

Even with good insurance, gender transition is incredibly expensive. If you're a trans woman, it's pretty likely that you'll be paying for electrolysis and facial hair removal-- typically anywhere from US $3k to US $10K. I'm not aware of any insurance that covers cost, including the health care systems in godless socialist countries.

Many insurance companies don't cover psychotherapy, which is a huge gate-keeping hurdle and is also many times useful because OMFG transphobia. This lack of coverage isn't always necessary exclusive because of transphobia, but also because psychotherapy is generally not covered, as society tends to code mental health needs as feminine.

There are surgeries that aren't "the surgery."* Trans men often need mastectomies. Trans women often need facial reconstruction and breast augmentation surgeries. And no, we're not going to debate this. Because society views non-genital surgery as cosmetic, health insurers often don't cover these surgeries either-- and this isn't just a problem in the US.

Then there's reproductive health care. If you're a trans woman, anti-androgens should (hopefully) make you sterile. Given that adoption while trans is, um, difficult, this tends to leave artificial insemination of a cissexual loved one or surrogate the only option. Even if you're fortunate to have insurance coverage for fertility services, you're likely on your own for collection and storage of, uh, "specimens", presumably you can find a clinic you can work with.

And then there's "the surgery."* I theoretically have insurance coverage for "the surgery."* I've verified that Blue Cross will pick up my hospital bills. An unnamed provider may well reimburse me for a portion of the surgeon's fees, but I need to pay surgeon fees (maybe around $10k) upfront. It gets complicated. For the record, I'm actually with the surgeons' on this one. To hell with my unnamed insurance provider.

Oh, and since I don't live in a town where they do "the surgery"*, I'm responsible for travel, and lodging for loved ones.

In other words, even with insurance, gender transition is extraordinarily expense. More to the point, even with insurance, most trans people can't get the health care they need. I have no reason to believe the situation in Berkeley would be any different were this proposal be passed. It's a good start, but as Cara says, we need to do far more. The idea that Berkeley will be paying for "sex changes" is a canard. Berkeley is thinking about giving modest assistance to help their trans employees with their massive health care bills. Good on them.
--

I'd be remiss if I didn't address Businessweek's OMFGAwexome!!!11! analysis of the situation:

"Berkeley, California, facing $252.8 million in deficits for pensions, disability and worker’s compensation, may set aside $20,000 a year to reimburse municipal employees for sex-reassignment surgery."

LOLOLOgoLOLOtoLOLOLOhellLsob.

Facing a $252.80 million dollar deficit, Berkeley is thinking about setting aside $0.02 million dollars to somewhat offset the medical needs of trans employees. Alternatively: $252,800,000 deficit, Berkeley is thinking about setting aside $20,000 dollars to somewhat offset the medical needs of trans employees. Incidentally, this would increase Berkeley's deficit to $252,820,000, which rounds to $252.8 million. Assholes.

As a public employee and trans person, this is business as usual (times two!). We'll give you kibble, but only a bit, and only when things are going really well for us. When the economy is going to hell and/or we don't feel like collecting taxes, you're on you own.

Has anyone insinuated that employers' insurance should hold off on paying for boner pills due to the economy? I thought not.

--
* So, I like to refer to all surgeries as "the surgery," although in this case I am specifically referring to genital surgery. This is one of my reclamation projects, though.
** Yeah, you probably shouldn't repeat this. I just get the giggles when saying vaginafund, even though trans health doesn't necessarily involve vaginas. Lots of things don't involve vaginas.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

I'm So Glad We Elected a Democrat, Part One Billion and Two

Kerry Eleveld in the Washington Post: "Less than a month after President Obama repealed 'don't ask, don't tell,' his Justice Department filed its latest brief defending the so-called Defense of Marriage Act—the law that makes gay Americans second-class citizens by outlawing federal recognition of their legal marriages."

Ugh, Obama. Just ugh.

But kudos to Eleveld for writing a piece that challenges Obama to Do Better. I also love (LOVE!) the way she casually destroys the insufferable mendacity that is Obama's "evolving position" on marriage equality:

Given that openly gay men and women would soon be fighting and, in some cases, dying for their country, I wondered whether the president thought it was time that those women and men be entitled to full marriage rights.

"Like a lot of people, I'm wrestling with this. My attitudes are evolving on this," Obama responded. "What I know is that, at minimum, a baseline is that there has to be a strong, robust civil union available to all gay and lesbian couples."

His current position on gay marriage - that this is an issue he struggles with as he watches his gay and lesbian friends marry and create loving households - goes beyond his 2008 campaign stance, which was simply to support civil unions. (Earlier in his political career, as a candidate for the Illinois state Senate, Obama supported full marriage rights for same-sex couples.)

Why, hello there, devastating parenthetical! So nice to see you!

It's one thing for a politician who never went on record in support of marriage equality to use the old "my position is evolving" chestnut, which is still absurd and craven and a barf-inducingly transparent way of confessing, "I don't want to lead on marriage equality, but I'm perfectly happy to follow," but it's quite another kettle of bullshit fish for a politician who once supported marriage equality to use the same line.

Unless we're to believe that Obama's attitudes are actually evolving backwards.

Anyway, Kerry Eleveld also wrote the recent Advocate profile of Secretary Clinton, about which we got into an interesting discussion regarding how much attention was paid to Clinton's position on marriage equality, during which I said: "In instances where a writer knows a public figure's personal opinion is where they'd like it to be, I imagine that can make them less inclined to attack their public position." With that in mind, comparing Eleveld's pieces on Clinton and Obama is, um, interesting.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

I'm So Glad We Elected a Democrat, Part One Billion and One

When (one half of) the economy is in free-fall, definitely the best thing to do is keep pandering to the half that's doing awesome, because trickle-down economics totally works and has not been comprehensibly discredited by 30 years of demonstrable evidence of its utter failure. Also: You should totally hire someone who's in touch with the plight of the hoi polloi to run your Economic Advisory Panel, like an executive from GE:

President Barack Obama will name Jeffrey Immelt, General Electric Co.'s chief executive officer, to head his outside panel of economic advisers, replacing former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker.

Immelt wrote in an op-ed today in the Washington Post that Obama asked him to take the helm of the newly renamed President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. The group will reach out to labor and business leaders to serve "as a catalyst for action," he wrote.

Immelt is "a self-described Republican" who "counts former President Ronald Reagan as a personal hero" and thinks that Obama's decision to extend the Bush tax cuts was one of the "real positives" of Obama's presidency.

Cool! He sounds SO COOL.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

On Kermit Gosnell

[Trigger warning for descriptions of violence, medical malpractice.]

Dr. Kermit Gosnell is a doctor in Pennsylvania who, despite having no certification in gynecology or obstetrics, has been offering late-term abortion services. I say "offering abortion services," as opposed to "performing abortions," because, although he did perform abortions, he also did things that are not abortion.

Dr. Gosnell is being arraigned "on eight counts of murder in the deaths of seven babies and one patient," not because he performed abortions, but because he terminated pregnancies well beyond the legal limit of 24 weeks, and, in his unsanitary clinic staffed with people who had no medical training, he would induce labor and then kill viable newborns by severing their spinal cords. (There is more detailed information about the gruesome case here.)

This case is already being used by anti-choice advocates as evidence for why abortion should be criminalized. But, in fact, the opposite is true: It is because of the increasingly limited access to safe, affordable, first-term abortion, as well as safe, affordable, late-term therapeutic abortion, that a heinous anomaly like Gosnell exists. He is an unethical opportunist who made lots of money exploiting desperate women without a better alternative.

Situations like this one will not be prevented by limiting abortion, but by making it more widely accessible. There is a terrible irony in the argument to limit abortion in response to this ugliness, because limiting access will only ensure that clinics run by unprincipled and untrained people will proliferate.

A woman who doesn't want to be pregnant will do anything she can to not be pregnant. Including going to a charlatan in a filthy clinic. That is a reality. The only serious conversation to be had is how we address that reality in a way that preserves the safety of breathing patients.

Anything else is just rubbish. And talk of limiting access to abortion as an effective response to Gosnell-style butchery is truly the stuff of fairy tales.

See also: Amie Newman, Jill Filipovic, Amanda Hess, Daniel Denvir, and Michelle Goldberg.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Minnesota Newz- Science Edition

When people in Upstate New York find out I'm from Minnesota, they usually nod and say: 'So the weather's pretty much the same, then.'

No. No it's not. Upstate, we get a fuckton of snow. In Syracuse, we've already got 1.8 biebers of snow (1.8 bbrz; 117 inches). Today it is snowing. Like it did yesterday. Like it will do tomorrow.

But in Minnesota, it's cold. Pretty much every winter, there's a day where it's just ridiculous. Today is a particularly good example; overnight lows in Southern Minnesota were typically between 15 and 30 below. Obviously, it was even colder up north.

Here's a video of some friends of a friend to illustrate the phenomenon:



Science! :jazzhands:

Transcript below

Off-screen: Rollin'

Narrator: So I've got a cup of boiling water. Hopefully you can see the steam there, and we are going outside in Northfield Minnesota in January where the temperature is approaching thirty below...

[Steps outside, the door creaks like its approaching thirty below out]

Narrator: ..and what I am going to show you is how at thirty below temperatures, boiling water can instantly vaporize into a cloud.

[Throws water into the air, and it instantly vaporizes into a fucking cloud.]

Narrator: And that's what we do for fun in Minnesota.

Off-screen: [Laughter]

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

"Whoa, this must be a fuckin' dream; there's a fuckin' dwarf in it!"

These are the things you need to know about me: I'm a progressive, I will not eat eggs under any circumstances, and I've had a ridiculously ardent crush on Peter Dinklage since I saw Living in Oblivion in 1995.

This, from the aforementioned film, remains one of my favorite movie scenes of all time:

Nick [Steve Buscemi]: Look, Tito, it's not that big of a deal. It's a dream. Strange things happen in a dream. All I want you to do is laugh. Why is that such a problem for you?

Tito [Peter Dinklage]: Why does it have to be a dwarf?

Nick: What?!

Tito: Why does my character have to be a dwarf?

Nick: It doesn't have to be a dwarf.

Tito: [laughs contemptuously] Then why is he? Is that the only way you can make this a dream—put a dwarf in it?!

Nick: No, Tito, I—

Tito: Have you ever had a dream with a dwarf in it? Do you know anyone who's had a dream with a dwarf in it? NOOOOOO! I don't even have dreams with dwarves in them. The only place I've seen dwarves in dreams is in stupid movies like this! "Oh, make it weird; put a dwarf in it!" Everyone will go: "Whoa whoa whoa, this must be a fuckin' dream; there's a fuckin' dwarf in it!" Well, I'm sick of it! You can take this dream sequence and shove it up your ass!

[Tito storms out; the crew shifts uncomfortably; Nick looks stricken and perplexed and collapses into his director's chair.]

The first time I saw that was the moment I fell madly in crush with Peter Dinklage, a fancy that is well-known to pretty much everyone who knows me, since I evangelize The Station Agent like it's a holy text. When the casting for Game of Thrones was announced, I got like half a dozen emails, and I can barely wait for its premiere later this year.

Anyway. This was basically just an unnecessarily long introduction to noting there's a really nice interview with Peter Dinklage in Vanity Fair.

And also? If you haven't seen The Station Agent, you totes should.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime

Mason Williams: "Classical Gas"

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Just...sick.

One of the things I particularly enjoy about our library (and wider library system) is that they have all kinds of programming--for little bitty kids up to adults. Book groups, speakers, performances, classes, and even movie showings. Something for everyone.

The library in Enfield, CT, seems to have a similar ideal. This is their mission statement on their website:

It is the mission of The Enfield Public Library to provide multiple resources to meet the educational, cultural, recreational, and technological needs of the community. Through excellent customer service, we offer equitable access to all and create a friendly and safe atmosphere of learning. We are proud to serve the greater Enfield community and look forward to an exciting future fulfilling the diverse needs of our Town.

Nice, eh?

But it seems the library has run into a problem fulfilling that mission at the moment. You see, the library decided to show a film series--for adults, in the middle of the afternoons on Friday-- on "controversial" topics. The next movie scheduled was supposed to be Michael Moore's Sicko. Yes, supposed to be, as it is no longer in the line up. Why? Well, because someone complained about their tax dollars paying for "a Fidel Castro loving" filmmaker's movie being shown at the library and the mayor said "pull it or we pull your funding". Sadly, those really are only slight paraphrases:

ENFIELD — The Enfield Public Library on Wednesday canceled Friday’s screening of filmmaker Michael Moore’s controversial documentary “Sicko” under pressure from most Town Council members and the mayor, who threatened to cut the library’s funding if the film was shown.

In less than 24 hours, what started as a resident’s complaint during Tuesday’s council meeting about the library’s upcoming showing of the film has drawn the attention of state civil liberties and library groups that could lead to legal action against the town.

The screening of “Sicko,” Moore’s 2007 Academy Award-nominated documentary that critiqued the American health care system, was to have been part of the library’s new nonfiction film series.

At Tuesday’s council meeting, resident Kevin Fealy brought the upcoming screening to the council’s attention, urging it to pressure the library to cancel the movie, saying he didn’t want the town “to promote material such as this on my tax dollars.”

After several council members objected to the screening, Mayor Scott R. Kaupin, a Republican, asked Town Manager Matthew W. Coppler to talk to the library’s director, Henry Dutcher, about canceling the film.

“The sentiment by the majority is that it’s a poor choice and that they should definitely reconsider,” Kaupin said. “And if they don’t reconsider, then they’re going to have the repercussions of the council.

“I mean, in the end, when budget time comes and Mr. Dutcher is asking for funding” for the films, Kaupin said, “he’s going to have to answer for it.”

Yes. Yes that did say what you thought it just said.

Dutcher said the Moore film was the second in an occasional series of nonfiction films chosen by his staff featuring subject matter ranging from health care to education and the environment. The first film, A PBS “Frontline” documentary about health care called “Sick Around the World,” was screened on Jan. 7.

Upcoming films in the series include “An Inconvenient Truth,” former Vice President Al Gore’s film about climate change, and “Trouble the Waters,” a documentary about the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Kaupin said the library should steer clear of controversial material like “Sicko.”

“I don’t even know why people make these decisions to go down those paths. It’s stupid. It’s like, it just blows my mind that people try to push the envelope with the public dime,” Kaupin said. “Do nice stuff. Do uncontroversial, or if you want to step in the mode of being controversial, make sure it’s fair on both sides and it becomes a discussion.”

“And it’s not a ‘fun flick,’” he said, referring to the name of the library’s film series. “A fun flick to me would be ‘Finding Nemo.’”

I...I don't even know what to say to this. Seriously?!

Alaimo [Dominic], who is also chairman of the Thompsonville Board of Fire Commissioners, said at Tuesday’s meeting that canceling the screening is not censorship because the film is “available anywhere you want.”

“Censorship does not start from the bottom and work up. Censorship starts in like Red China, Russia,” Alaimo said. “Everywhere you go, they stop something right from coming into the country.

“This is not a place for kids to watch this kind of stuff when you have somebody who thinks Fidel Castro is a great guy, he thinks all these other people who are suppressive in other countries — this is what this guy is all about,” Alaimo said of Moore.

See, when the council, the mayor, the city manager lean on the library director and the mayor says things like: "“And if they don’t reconsider, then they’re going to have the repercussions of the council. I mean, in the end, when budget time comes and Mr. Dutcher is asking for funding, he’s going to have to answer for it.”....that is censorship. It doesn't GET much clearer than that. Censorship isn't something that only happens in "Red China", it's something that happens in Enfield and you're supporting it, Mr. Alaimo.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Krissy Bates Update

[Trigger warning for violence.]

Last Thursday, I wrote about Krissy Bates, a trans woman who was murdered last week. Yesterday, a man was arrested for the crime; he was reportedly dating Krissy.

I hope that his relationship with Krissy will preempt the loathsome "trans panic" defense, and yet fear that somehow it won't.

Additionally: OutFront Minnesota has planned a vigil of remembrance in honor of Krissy, which is tonight at the Minneapolis Community and Technical College at 6pm. If any local Shakers would like to attend, there is more information available here.

[Thanks very much to Shaker GoldFishy for the update.]

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Me and My Cat

A feral cat had kittens in a tree outside Ron Venden's house, and then moved all the kittens but one, who made her home in the tree. Now Ron takes care of the cat. And it's basically totally adorable.

Ron Venden, of Green County Wisconsin [a white, middle-aged man, speaking over images of white and tiger-striped cat up in snowy tree in his front yard]: This is a story about my cat here, that's been up in the tree for about seven months. Uh, the mother had babies up there and, uh, she up and left and moved 'em all except this little one.

[edit; Ron walks toward tree] You can see the cat looks pretty healthy. She's been in there since June. I heard a noise; I went up here, got the ladder and went up here, and here's this little kitten. So, I started feeding it and it was real feisty at me, but sooner and later I started petting it, and now it's just as tame as can be, so.

[edit; Ron holds out plastic container of food] Salami and meatloaf!

Female reporter off-screen: And the cat likes it?!

Ron: Oh, she loves it!"

[edit; Ron speaking over images of the cat's straw-lined and covered nest he built in the tree] There was a big hole, like this, and I thought, 'Well, now if she doesn't, if he doesn't come outta that tree, then I better do something to protect her from the weather, so I put a piece of tin over it, and then I put, uh, tar paper on top the tin that's black to make it draw a little bit of heat. And then I cut a small hole in there, so she goes down in the hole and goes down into the tree.

[edit; Ron is standing on the ladder, petting the cat and giggling; the cat rubs its head against his hand]

Reporter: Now how long will you continue to do this? Will you do this for years and years?

Ron: Oh yeah. I'm not gonna stop, no. No, if I'm gone, there'll be someone here to take care of the cat. I'm gonna leave her—I'm gonna see how long it stays here. [laughs; pets cat]

For those who have never had a cat, or never had a peculiar cat, lol, it's not terribly unusual for cats to contain themselves to one small area for long stretches of their lives and then suddenly one day, without seemingly any reason, change their minds and venture into new territory. My parents' cat never went into certain rooms of their house until after their other cat died (and they were friends; it wasn't like he was keeping her out). Sophie would only come into the living room during certain hours until very recently, for no discernible reason. Some cats will avoid a particular piece of furniture or a room or a window like the plague, and then get a bug up their ass and suddenly it's their new favorite.

Cats can be really weird like that, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if one day Tree Cat got it in her head to follow Ron into his house and lived out the rest of her life there.

[H/T to Shaker Melissa.]

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Open Thread

Hosted by R5D4.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Question of the Day

Who is your favorite background, throwaway, cameo or one-off character?

I think the scene with Philip Baker Hall's "Mr. Bookman," the library cop on Seinfeld could be one of the funniest performances in television history. Bookman steals that entire episode in one three minute scene. And I love that he's a one-episode character (that I know of); if they used him any more or tried to make him a regular character, they would have ruined him. (Embedding was disabled on the clip that I found, but you can see it here.

My favorite "one joke" character would have to be Hedonismbot.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Quote of the Day

"We pretty strongly told them we do need your help to get this done. And when we walked away from the meeting the feeling was we got that."—An anonymous Republican aide, on the closed-door session between "top staff members for key House and Senate Republicans" and "energy industry interests" who were meeting "to work on strategy to handcuff the Obama administration's climate change agenda."

With the backing of GOP caucus leaders, aides for House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Senate Environment and Public Works Committee ranking member Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) are seeking unwavering support from a host of industries for an all-out push to block federal and state climate rules.

Fair enough. I mean, who knows more about the environment than the energy industry, right? The Invisible Hand will fix everything! Yay!

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

The Pink Petulance and Nana

The Pink Petulance and her nana, who was being made to wear a book on her head, circa 1976.

I loved my nana (who's made the briefest of cameos here, here, here, and here) to itty bitty pieces. She lived in the same house in Queens from the time she was 5 years old until a few months before she died in her 70s; she smoked like a chimney (which eventually killed her), always drank the same whiskey (Dewar's), and was intensely witty.

Once, she was visiting us in Indiana for the holidays (when I was about 13), and we saw a promo for an upcoming episode of Geraldo—back when he was a daytime talk show scandalmonger, before he became the highly reputable journalist for Fox News that he is today. It was one of those adverts that announced the topic and requested guests: "Prostitute Grannies! If you want your grandma to stop selling her body on the street, call 1-800…"

I told my nana (who was, by the way, a secretary) that I was going to call, because I was tired of her wild whoring.

She took a long drag, exhaled with a raised eyebrow, pointed at me with her cigarette, and said without missing a beat: "Don't mess with my livelihood."

I collapsed into a fit giggles. And possibly put a book on her head.

[Photo by Mama Shakes.]

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Business as Usual

[Trigger warning for rape, transphobia, and police abuse]

Um, wow. A friend on Facebook just posted one of the more horrific things I've [TW!] read lately. Basically, San Antonio police officer Craig Nash detained a trans woman, and proceeded to rape her. The woman is, of course, currently serving time for prostitution. In a men's correctional facility. Of course.

But why trust the story of some random queer trans lady? :cough: Well, there's also:

"DNA taken from a rape kit [that] later linked Nash to the complainant, according to court records. The woman picked Nash out in a police lineup and GPS tracking of his patrol unit was consistent with what she said, documents state."

Trust women.

And you'll be totally unsurprised to hear that:

"Two days after the officer's arrest, a second person came forward to say he had also been raped by the officer in 2008. As part of the plea agreement, prosecutors won't pursue the second allegation, according to court documents."

Because that's how it works. Actually:

"'Nash had been a good officer and good father to six children and [that] probation seemed appropriate' [according to Nash's attorney Alan] Brown.

'He had been officer of the month a couple times,' Brown said, adding that Nash had been recognized for saving a woman from a fire, among other commendations. 'He had a lot of heroic acts.'”

OMG you guys, he's a rapist that's actually a good guy! I've never heard such a story before!

Yet he's still be sentenced to a year in prison on a misdemeanor "Official Oppression" charge. [If anyone can tell me why this wasn't a felony as per Sec 39.04(b) and 39.05, I'd love to hear it.] As much as I love the term "official oppression", it fair to say that the charges weren't "sexual assault by a police officer", which was exactly what happened to at least one person.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Daily Dose of Cute

Video Description: Pixie, a teensy Yorkie, and her brother (whose name I don't recall), tease Dudz from the other side of the fence at the dog park while they're in the "little dog" area and he's in the "big dog" area.

Pixie especially loves to run along the fence and wind him up. They've also been in the "big dog" area together and it's hilarious to watch her try to outrun Dudley. Scamper, scamper, roll. Scamper, scamper, roll. LOL.

Dudley is such a quiet dog; he almost never barks, even at the dog park. But he and Pixie love to bark excitedly at each other while running along the fence. Silly pups.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Feminism 101: Coded Misogyny and Institutional Prejudice

First, some definitions:

Coded Misogyny refers to the hatred or marginalization of something on the basis that it is construed to be feminine, though not explicitly so. If we think of "Women are too emotional" as overt misogyny used to demean both individual and all women, coded misogyny builds on that sort of basic bias to demean and undervalue people, pursuits, fashions, habits, vocations, institutions, etc. that are coded as feminine, e.g. teaching, nursing, paid childcare and eldercare are fields disproportionately staffed by women and are thus endemically underpaid or undervalued careers.

Institutional Prejudice refers to the debasement of an entire career, organization, pastime, or some other collective on the basis that it is coded as feminine.

So: What this is about is the insidiousness of coded misogyny and how some of the most familiar institutional prejudice is attributable to coded misogyny.

Sometimes, coded misogyny is not merely about someone/something being "too feminine," but about someone/something being "not feminine enough." Much of the institutional prejudice regarding gender and sexuality that deviates from the Patriarchy-approved binary is coded misogyny: Gay and trans* men are too feminine; lesbian and trans* women are not feminine enough.

And frequently, coded misogyny intersects with other coded oppressions: Women's corporate attire, for example, is a kyriarchal carousel of intersectional prejudice. A women's business suit is not defined by the fact that a woman is wearing it, but by its tailoring, designed to emphasize a particular ideal female form that is meant to be underneath. A woman wearing a suit tailored for a man would be considered transgressive and thus unacceptable in most corporate environments, even if her body were more flattered by a men's suit.

Black women, and other women of color with kinky hair, also face strong disincentives against wearing their hair naturally, which is coded to be indicative of radical womanhood. A white woman who wears her hair long and grey and unstyled is more likely to be coded as a women's studies professor than a corporate executive.

All of which happens inside an environment which is coded masculine to begin with—which is why corporate work is considered serious and important, while the arts, which are coded feminine, are considered unserious and superfluous.

Which, in turn, is why the National Endowment for the Arts (feminine) is constantly in threat of being defunded, but solemn discussion about reducing the budget for the Defense Department (masculine) is considered a hilarious suggestion, particularly by the Republicans, who are the "Daddy Party," strong and inflexible and warlike, as opposed to the "Mommy Party" Democrats, who are ostensibly soft (on defense) and empathetic and diplomatic.

"Softness," of any description, is coded feminine, and thus is anything deemed soft likely to be the victim of institutional prejudice. This can be something metaphorically soft, like a foreign policy that favors negotiation over aggression, or something that is literally soft, like a fat body.

There are a lot of reasons for fat prejudice, but one of them, especially in a misogynistic culture, is that fat tends to exaggerate female characteristics in (especially cis) female bodies. Bigger boobs, bigger hips, bigger ass. Some fat women look like they might be pregnant. Fat can exaggerate the female form and female sexuality. It also tends give female-coded characteristics to (especially cis) male bodies, evidenced even in the way fat men are mocked—they have "man boobs" and their beer bellies are construed as pregnancies for jokes like, "When are you due, Frank?"

And then there is the stereotype of fat people as lazy, as couch potatoes; it is not incidental that "active" is coded masculine and "passive" is coded feminine in a culture that disdains fat people and axiomatically views them as not active. Fat people are softer, their bodies considered more feminine, their habits coded feminine. Fat hatred is thus, like many other oppressions, an institutional prejudice with roots in coded misogyny.

The active/passive binary is hardly the only one we code as masculine/feminine. Rational/empathetic (or irrational) are also coded masculine/feminine, which is one of the most pernicious binaries in institutional prejudice. See aforementioned divide between how conservatives (rational) and progressives (empathetic) are viewed.

Science is coded rational/masculine; spirituality is coded irrational/feminine. I'm an atheist, but one of my many problems with the nascent "atheist movement" is the enormous amount of coded misogyny one finds in the dismissal of spiritualism. It isn't impossible to discuss one's problems with religion without coded misogyny, but it is contingent on rejecting the language of a deeply entrenched binary embedded with coded misogyny.

So, too, discussions of Western/non-Western medicine. Western medicine is coded rational/masculine; alternative medicine is coded irrational/feminine. And here again is an example of intersectional prejudice, as many alternative practices (yoga, acupuncture, acupressure, massage, herbal remedies) are imported from the East. (And practiced disproportionately by people marginalized in the West: Women/people of color/queers.) The wholesale dismissal of alternative practitioners and practices as quacks and opportunists (despite there being plenty of quacks and opportunists to be found in Western medicine, too) is an institutional prejudice frequently loaded with both coded misogyny and coded racism. Which is a particular misfortune for people with marginalized bodies, because, as I've had occasion to mention before, there's A LOT that Western medicine gets wrong, especially when it comes to treating people who aren't straight white thin generally able-bodied cis men.

Also no coincidence: That much of the alleged "witchcraft" that was used to justify literal witch-hunts, in which extraordinary numbers of women have died, was alternative medicine and/or practices with exclusive relevance for (typically cis) female bodies. Midwifery was considered witchcraft once upon a time for this very reason.

The examples are endless: Monotheistic religions with a male god (and institutional misogyny, ahem) are similarly privileged over female-centric religions. Believers in bootstraps are privileged over believers in a social safety net, because authoritarianism and individualism are coded as masculine while socialism and collectivism are coded as feminine. Meat-eating (manly!) is privileged over vegetarianism and veganism (salads are for girls!). Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

What you'll note about how people in the marginalized groups are dismissed, irrespective of their individual gender—wacky, woo-woo, unserious, irrational, emotional, empathetic, weak—are the same way women themselves are often dismissed.

That, also, is no coincidence.

When we hear people dismissing whole slices of culture, without caveat or exception, using the same sorts of language that misogynists use to dismiss women—or when we catch ourselves using that language, thus more deeply entrenching the ubiquitous trope that anything coded feminine is inherently less than—we should question why that is.

Just as we question why specific classes of people are privileged over another, we must question why specific institutions are privileged over others, and how that privileging might actually exist in service to a patriarchy.

It's not difficult, upon close examination, to understand how uncritically privileging Catholicism, which is male-centric and authoritarian, over a female-centered paganism serves the narratives of the Patriarchy. It is not difficult, upon close examination, to understand how reflexively privileging Western medicine, which is best at serving the needs of financially privileged straight white thin generally able-bodied cis men, serves the narratives of the Patriarchy. The point isn't that this stuff isn't evident upon reflection, but that we aren't predisposed to think about how coded misogyny works on an institutional scale.

Nor how that then serves to reinforce the oppression and marginalization of individual women.

Because as long as the narrative that "anything coded feminine is inherently less than" is allowed to flourish on any scale, women cannot be truly equal.

This is not, of course, an argument for regarding a demonstrable snake-oil salesman the same way we regard an ethical and principled scientist. It is, as are most feminist arguments, an argument for nuanced thinking, for not looking at the world in black and white binaries, for not letting assumptions about institutions stand in substitute for facts about the individuals who populate them, and, most importantly, for avoiding gender essentialist binaries when discussing those institutions, a habit which starts by being aware of those binaries and how they work in the first place.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

lolsob

[A screenshot of CNN.com's list of latest news, including "House plans health care substitute." Indeed.]

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime

Vangelis: "Chariots of Fire"

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Terrorist to run against Obama in Democratic primaries

[Trigger warning for terrorism, misogyny, reproductive coercion and homophobia, applies to all links]

Activist Terrorist Randall Terry, founder of the anti-abortion hate group Operation Rescue, has chosen today to announce that he'll run against President Obama for the 2012 Democratic presidential nomination. He was set to make the announcement (a few minutes after this writing) at the Holocaust museum, because that's what Randall Terry does.

On a related note, Terry is hoping to run an anti-abortion ad during the Super Bowl. It just so happens that it's theoretically harder for networks to reject advertisements from political candidates than it is from gay people.

The real story here is clearly whether he'll show up to a debate in his alligator boots, because as the Washington Post recently reminded us, he's a terrorist an interesting guy.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!