Hosted by Fabio.
Open Thread
Hosted by the Love Boat game.
This week's open threads have been brought to you by retro TV merchandising.
The Virtual Pub Is Open
[Explanations: lol your fat. pathetic anger bread. hey your gay.]
TFIF, Shakers!
Belly up to the bar,
and name your poison!
11 Things That are Wrong With Jezebel's "Defense of Gay White Men"
Here are 11 things that are wrong with Thursday's Jezebel post about why everyone in the gay community is mean to white, gay, cisgendered (obviously one gender), American, middle-class men:
1) The title, "In Defense of the Gay White Man." (Sorry, has someone in the progressive community denied your right to exist?)
2) This sentence: "Race, gender, and gender expression conspire to strip a person of their freedom just as much as any outside prejudice or hateful legislation." Is. Just. Wrong. The fact that black people want you to actually listen to their experience is equivalent to Jim Crow? The fact that you don't feel heard at conferences for gay minority women is the same as transgender folks wanting inclusion in the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell? No. False. Wrong.
3) As a white man (who is, incidentally, paraphrasing someone else's words---presumably in the least flattering way possible), you don't get to get mad when other people talk about their personal experiences being oppressed by white male privilege. Or you do---you just don't get to turn around and call yourself an ally.
4) The claim that people of color and other minorities are constantly trying to force him to "make frequent and loud apologies for the crimes of his ilk." No. No one has accused you, personally, of "crimes," or even asked you to make an apology. What they have asked is that you listen to their experiences without making it about you. Which brings us to...
5) Guess what? IT ISN'T ALL ABOUT YOU. Believe it or not, people with less privilege than me isn't about me, any more than a "very butch Latino [sic] lesbian" is about him. As a white American relatively middle-class cisgendered straight woman, I have a hell of a lot of privilege. That doesn't negate the lack of privilege I experience being a woman in a sexist society, but it's something I'm obligated to recognize if I want to consider myself an ally of people who don't enjoy my privilege.
6) This: "I don't think it's fair for another person to label me an oppressor without the barest knowledge of what I have done in my life or what kind of person I actually am." And this: "I end up having to do what no one of any identity should have to do: Apologize for what I am."
7) "In any community people should be proud of who they are." This reminds me of so-called "men's rights" advocates who claim they're just trying to reclaim their masculine identities from their evil female oppressors. Hey, they don't hate women---they just think "male pride" (and the ensuing crusade against women's equality) is something to embrace.
8) "If men are deemed too privileged to fit in with the lesbian community, how can there actually be a dialogue?" I think, here, what he means by "deemed too privileged" (love that passive voice. See also, two paragraphs down, his "fear of immediate chastisement." By whom, he doesn't say) is something more like "asked to listen instead of talking." If I don't understand someone's experience, the best way to get to understand it isn't a "dialogue," it's to listen before you speak. The writer seems to want people who've had experiences he never will to thoughtfully listen to how he thinks they should feel.
9) Back to the conference and the imaginary people asking to apologize for being white and male. "Do I fight back, respond with bile that white men have feelings too and that we don't like being denigrated in public?" No. Amazingly, perhaps, other people's systematic oppression (or, conversely, the massive advantages, material and otherwise, you enjoy for being a white male in America) isn't about your "feelings." That's like saying black Americans don't deserve an apology and reparations for slavery because some individual white people were and are really, really nice to their black friends.
10) The author acknowledges he's "privileged," but never says what rewards he thinks that privilege gets him. Given his self-centeredness in other matters ("why won't my black/trans/lesbian friends let me make their struggles about meeeeee?"), I'm guessing his gesture to "privilege" doesn't have much basis in self-reflection.
11) Finally, Mr. Gay White Guy wants to know why, oh why, his trans friends won't just spend the time to tell them all about their experience being trans. Instead, they suggest he do some research himself. He thinks this is unfair and "it makes me uncomfortable." Maybe they're telling him what they actually think he should do, instead of telling him what he wants to hear. Maybe being subjected to invasive questions about their identity makes them uncomfortable.
Friday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by Shaxco, publishers of Deeky W. Gashlycrumb's Guide to the Movies: Let Me Tell You How Much I Love Bruce Willis Movies.
Recommended Reading:
Quinnae: Raiders of the Lost Etiology [TW for transphobia, gender essentialism]
Michelle: Fat/Counterfat [TW for discussion of diet/exercise]
DeeLeigh: Paul Campos et al on Whether the "Obesity Crisis" Is a Public Health Crisis or a Moral Panic [TW for fat hatred and discussion of diet/exercise]
Ezra: Too Young Not to Work; Too Old to Get a Job [TW for ageism]
Andy: Fight Erupts at Ugandan LGBT Activist David Kato's Burial as Pastor Decries Homosexuality, Villagers Refuse to Bury Body [TW for homophobia, violence]
kirbybits: Here is a thought: Why I'm Not Speaking at PAX East 2011 [TW for rape culture]
Leave your links in comments...
How DARE You
Former President Mondo Fucko has said and done a lot of terrible things in his day, but perhaps none quite so terrible as this:
Former President George W. Bush is landing a stinging jab at his former longtime aide and press secretary, Scott McClellan, saying the man who served as the public face of his administration for three years was irrelevant.*gasp*
In an interview with CSPAN scheduled to air this weekend, Bush says he deliberately didn't include McClellan – who held the high profile post longer than anyone else during the administration – in his memoir, "Decision Points."
"He was not a part of a major decision. This is a book about decisions," Bush told CSPAN. "This isn't a book about, you know, personalities or gossip or settling scores."
"I didn't think he was relevant," added Bush.
I'm sure this new attitude of haughty indifference for the man who valiantly stonewalled the damnable questioneers with class and integrity for nearly three years has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he wrote a book calling Bush a liar and then said the same thing while testifying before Congress.
I still love you, Scottie.
An Open Letter to NPR
[Trigger warning for transphobia]
Dear NPR news,
Thank you for Richard Gonzales' coverage of the Berkeley city council's proposal to fund health care for transgender municipal employees during this Thursday's All Things Considered.
Because it's so routine and careless for media organizations to bungle coverage of issues pertaining to trans and gender non-conforming people, I tend to respond to inaccurate or transphobic reporting with some combination of silence and weary sarcasm. However, NPR News has a well-earned reputation as a responsible journalistic organization, so I actually trust that you'll take my remarks into consideration.
Transsexual is an adjective, not a noun (e.g., transsexual person, transsexual woman, transsexual man).
"Sex Change" is an inflammatory term. There are a jumble of terms referring to trans-related surgeries that would be more appropriate for your coverage, including sexual reassignment surgery, gender reassignment surgery, and sexual/gender confirmation/affirmation surgery. The easiest (and likely least controversial) thing to do would have been to listed the actual medical terms for some of the surgeries in question (mastectomies, vaginoplasties etc.,)
It is inappropriate to refer to a trans woman as having been "born a boy." This serves to undercut Lynn Riordin's point that "When [she] was 5, [she] realized [she] was a girl [and that she] never thought [she] was a boy."
Lastly, as I writer, I appreciate your effort to frame this story within a larger context. However, I wasn't impressed that you chose to portray the funding of health care as merely the pet project of leftist residents of a "liberal bastion."
Kindest Regards,
Kate
Chipping Away at Roe...and the Definition of Rape
[Trigger warning for sexual violence, rape apologia, victim auditing.]
The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape:
Rape is only really rape if it involves force. So says the new House Republican majority as it now moves to change abortion law.Read the whole thing here.
For years, federal laws restricting the use of government funds to pay for abortions have included exemptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. (Another exemption covers pregnancies that could endanger the life of the woman.) But the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," a bill with 173 mostly Republican co-sponsors that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has dubbed a top priority in the new Congress, contains a provision that would rewrite the rules to limit drastically the definition of rape and incest in these cases.
With this legislation, which was introduced last week by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), Republicans propose that the rape exemption be limited to "forcible rape." This would rule out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases, including instances of statutory rape, many of which are non-forcible. For example: If a 13-year-old girl is impregnated by a 24-year-old adult, she would no longer qualify to have Medicaid pay for an abortion. (Smith's spokesman did not respond to a call and an email requesting comment.)
Given that the bill also would forbid the use of tax benefits to pay for abortions, that 13-year-old's parents wouldn't be allowed to use money from a tax-exempt health savings account (HSA) to pay for the procedure. They also wouldn't be able to deduct the cost of the abortion or the cost of any insurance that paid for it as a medical expense.
...The bill hasn't been carefully constructed, [Laurie Levenson, a former assistant US attorney and expert on criminal law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles] notes. The term "forcible rape" is not defined in the federal criminal code, and the bill's authors don't offer their own definition. In some states, there is no legal definition of "forcible rape," making it unclear whether any abortions would be covered by the rape exemption in those jurisdictions.
There are so many things wrong with this proposed legislation, I hardly know where to begin: The implicit redefinition of what constitutes rape, the ramifications of that redefinition for all survivors of sexual violence (not just the pregnant ones), the revictimization of survivors, the policing of women's bodies and choices, the auditing and ranking of survivors of rape, the auditing and ranking of various acts of rape itself, the condescending and infantilizing paternalism that Other People know what's best for a pregnant woman and survivor of rape, the virtual impossibility of being able to "prove," presumably in a court of law, that one was raped (forcibly or otherwise) in time to secure an abortion... There are so many rape culture tropes being served here, I could frankly spend the entire day documenting the innumerable manifestations of misogynistic fuckery at work here.
But instead I'm going to focus on but one truly shocking aspect of this proposed legislation which probably won't get a whole lot of attention: The proposed law effectively, if not by design, gives veto control over terminating pregnancies resulting from rape to the rapist.
At least in cases where the victim/pregnant woman is dependent on government assistance for abortion, i.e. poor women. (Which underscores the obvious classism of this legislation, too.)
These are facts: Most rapes are committed by someone known to the victim. There are men who use violence, including sexual violence, to control their partners. There are men who use reproductive coercion to control their partners. There are men who rape their partners with the explicit objective of forcibly impregnating them to control them and create a lifelong connection with them.
This law communicates to those men that as long as they drug their partners before raping them, the government will deny funding for an abortion, should a pregnancy result.
Because, you see, raping an unconscious women isn't "forcible rape."
Other types of rapes that would no longer be covered by the exemption include rapes in which the woman was drugged or given excessive amounts of alcohol, rapes of women with limited mental capacity, and many date rapes.This legislation exists because of a pernicious straw-narrative about the legions of women who will supposedly create stories about having been raped to get the government to pay for their abortions. There is no evidence that these legions of women exist.
There is, however, evidence of the existence of men who use violence and contraceptive sabotage to try to control intimate partners: "About a third of women reporting partner violence experienced reproductive coercion, as did 15 percent of women who had never reported violence." And this legislation pretends those men don't exist, despite the fact that young women and poor women are disproportionately victimized by both reproductive coercion and rape, and disproportionately in need of federal funding to secure abortions.
It's not likely that there will be huge numbers of men who would be aware of and take advantage of such a loophole in the law (though more than 15% of women experiencing reproductive coercion isn't a small number, either), but how many do there actually have to be for this law to be total garbage?
Even in theory alone, giving potential rapists a road map on how to limit their victims' rights and access to abortion is fucked up in the extreme.
Daily Dose of Cute
So, the other day, my Beloved calls out from upstairs: "Portly! Come up here right now!"
I run up the stairs, urged on by the urgent urgency in her tone. She points toward the sliding door to the second-story balcony -- "Do you see the Snowy Owl in our tree?"
I look. I see:
[image: Something white high in a tree]
I shake my head in confusion. While it is not utterly impossible that we might have a Snowy Owl appear in this region, it's highly unlikely that I'm going to see one in the day.I look again. Then I realize that I'm seeing this:
[image: White Cat butt]
Which is also this:
[image: Floofy goofy white cat on stairs playing with Beloved's head]
I live with two scamps.
[image: Beloved and White Cat in tree together]
Open Thread: Unrest in Egypt
I don't have any incisive commentary at the moment; right now, I'm just watching it all unfold. Here's some recommended reading:
The Guardian—Protests in Egypt: Live Updates. This is an excellent resource.
AP—Egypt imposes night curfew after day of riots: "President Hosni Mubarak imposed a night curfew and signaled he was about to send the military out in the streets for the first time to quell an unprecedented challenge to his regime by tens of thousands of protesters who rioted on Friday. One demonstrator was killed and even a Nobel Peace laureate was placed under house arrest after joining the protests."
The Guardian—Egypt cuts off internet access: "Egypt appears to have cut off almost all access to the internet from inside and outside the country from late on Thursday night, in a move that has concerned observers of the protests that have been building in strength through the week."
Al Jazeera—Fresh protests erupt in Egypt:
Before Egypt shut down internet access on Thursday night, activists were posting and exchanging messages using social networking services such as Facebook and Twitter, listing more than 30 mosques and churches where protesters were to organise on Friday.The Atlantic—Egyptian Activists' Action Plan: Translated.
"Egypt's Muslims and Christians will go out to fight against corruption, unemployment and oppression and absence of freedom," a page with more than 70,000 signatories said.
The Associated Press news agency reported that an elite special counterterrorism force had been deployed at strategic points around Cairo, and Egypt's interior ministry warned of "decisive measures".
The Guardian—Egyptian government on last legs, says ElBaradei: "The Egyptian dissident Mohamed ElBaradei warned President Hosni Mubarak today that his regime is on its last legs, as tens of thousands of people prepared to take to the streets for a fourth day of anti-government protests."
David Dayen—United States appears perplexed with how to address this issue: "While President Obama said in a YouTube interview yesterday that activists should 'have mechanisms in order to express legitimate grievances,' and that Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak, while an ally, should move forward on economic and political reform, Vice President Biden said that Mubarak was not a dictator and highlighted the strategic relationship between Egypt and the US. Meanwhile, the New York Times dug into its cache of Wikileaks cables and revealed how the Obama Administration took a non-confrontational approach to Egypt during the early days of the Presidency."
Abdulrahman El-Sayed—President Obama, the Egyptian people must hear your voice: "If you meant [that you will support human rights everywhere], and and if you believe in the cause of 'political reform' in Egypt which you spoke of on Thursday, there are 80 million people who need to hear you say them loud and clear. As an American, I ask you to support these freedom fighters because not only is it in our American self-interest to promote democracy in the Middle East, but this is the only avenue our ideals will allow us. As an Egyptian, I ask you to support them because I know, firsthand, the injustice that the Mubarak regime has inflicted, and because I dream that some day my 80 million Egyptian brothers and sisters will enjoy the same dignity and freedom that my 300 million American brothers and sisters do."
Also: Waves of Unrest Spread to Yemen, Shaking a Region.
Cable "News" Network
This morning, CNN has a story up about segregation. Well, not segregation-- actually, "segregation."
What, you ask, is CNN referring to when it talks about "segregation", once in the title of the story, and again in the text?
Well:
A Pennsylvania high school says some students are separated by race, gender and language for a few minutes each day in an effort to boost academic scores.
In other words, segregation.
Look, if administrators at this high school (or anyone else) want to defend segregation as a tool for increasing academic success, I suppose they're welcome to discuss their idea, even if they're really not entitled to do so as public school administrators.
But they don't get to pretend that this policy isn't real segregation. I know the term segregation in reference to schools brings to mind things like Brown vs. Board, Little Rock Central, and Governor Wallace. But, uh, that's because those are also things that involved actual, yes literal segregation.
Responsible news media wouldn't enable folks' claims that polished versions of the same old shit are fundamentally different from past policies that many people (including :ahem: these guys) acknowledge to have been horribly wrong.
Let's be clear here, racial (and economic) segregation is still a problem in the United States, and public schools are no exception. We are not in a post-racial, post-feminist, post-civil rights era, and no amount of scare quotes changes that fact.
Whoops I Barfed on Your Time Magazine
The cover story, "The Role Model: What Obama Sees in Reagan," will open in a tab on your computer labeled "Obama's Reagan Bromance." Seriously.
Oh, Time. What are we going to do with you?
Question of the Day
What or who would you like to see hosting an open thread(s)?
There have been a couple of weeks recently where I forgot to set up the Open Thread on Sunday night for Monday morning, and Melissa has kindly filled in. She likes to challenge me to build a theme around weird stuff, which is great, because after doing this for a while I've been running out of ideas. So what would you like to see?
Without a Trace of Irony Dept.
In an altogether too familiar story, a Harps Supermarket in Mountain View, AR received "several" complaints from customers regarding the cover of a US Weekly magazine. They therefore placed a "family shield" over the magazine, to shield young, impressionable eyes.
Here's the cover:
So, let's recap, shall we? Harps used a "family shield" to "protect young Harps shoppers" from the sight of... a family. A family with a child.
Of course, they're not the right kind of family, and children must be protected from those.
The shields have since been removed, thanks to a lot of squeaky
Daily Dose of Cute
Video Description: Sophie lies in the crook of my arm, grooming herself and purring away.
This video is two years old now, but Sophie still loves to leave her perch on the monitor to come snuggle in the crook of my arm at least once a day. It makes writing difficult, but I think that's sort of the point. "Take a break, Two-Legs!"
Important Announcement
I like Helena Bonham Carter and I like her mismatched shoes.
I rented Lady Jane on VHS from Blockbuster Video when I was 13 because I liked the picture on the cover. And it was this revelation, a movie about a girl not so much older than I was who became the Queen, and she was smart and progressive and wouldn't compromise her religious or cultural beliefs and holy shit they killed her for it.
That's a simplification of the film, and the film itself is an embellishment of a largely undocumented nine days.
But I didn't get all that when I was 13. I got that being smart and uncompromising and progressive, especially while also being a woman, was controversial and sometimes dangerous, but that it's worth doing anyway.
Which is all an aside to my main point, which is that I fell in love with Helena Bonham Carter while she was playing Lady Jane Grey, who I imagine would have thought wearing two different colored shoes was kinda cool.
