Naptime for Dudley and Matilda, BFFs.
Actual Headline
[Trigger warning for fat hatred.]
Actual Headline: Obesity a big barrier for getting a mammogram.
A "big barrier." I see what you did there. Har har.
Actual Opening Paragraphs:
Women are less likely to be screened for breast cancer if they are obese, according to a new study in the Journal of Women's Health. Despite having insurance and receiving reminders to get screened, "...a significant portion of the population is not getting screened," according to the study.Physical pain is what they're talking about here. But is that what fat women are talking about? Or are they really talking about the emotional/psychological pain of being a fat patient in a healthcare system that hates fat people...? These are questions the article never bothers to ask.
The reasons women gave for skipping mammograms are clear-cut, but the solutions are not. Among obese patients, the main reason cited for skipping mammograms was that the test is too painful, yet many women who are not obese also cite pain as a reason for avoiding the test.
"Two Days in the Life of Fatty Fatastrophe" is all else I've got to say on the matter.
[H/Ts to Shaker Hatilda and Eastsidekate.]
Obviously
Of course James Franco is going to teach a class about himself. What—did you think James Franco WASN'T going to teach a class about himself? You're so weird.
#dearjohn: No On 3
To embed the above on your own website/blog, copy and paste this code:
Today's Items:
Sady's got a piece in Salon here.
NARAL's got a very easy form to contact your representatives here.
MoveOn has started a petition against H.R.3, which you can read and sign here.
Deanna Zandt has posted a helpful How To Guide re: the #DearJohn campaign here. There are so many easy ways to get involved, even if it's just retweeting the items you like under the #DearJohn hashtag.
Jonathan Capehart: What is 'forcible rape' exactly?
Evan McMorris-Santoro: Radio Silence On Rape-Redefining Abortion Bill From The Right.
Michelle Goldberg: GOP Abortion Bill Redefines Rape.
Please feel welcome and encouraged to leave other links or suggestions for teaspooning in comments.
Quote of the Day
[Trigger warning for sexual violence.]
"I consider the proposal of this bill a violent act against women. It really is—to suggest that there is some kind of rape that would be okay to force a woman to carry the resulting pregnancy to term, and abandon the principle that has been long held, an exception that has been settled for 30 years, is to me a violent act against women in and of itself."—Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), four-term member of Congress and vice chair of the Democratic National Committee, on H.R.3, the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act."
[Note: Although most people treat "women" and "people who can get pregnant" as synonymous terms, they are not. This is, in fact, a violent act against people who can get pregnant, and, in its redefinition of rape, a violent act against all survivors.]
A Challenge
[Trigger warning for transphobia, transmisogyny, objectification.]
So, this past weekend, Saturday Night Live aired one of their fauxmercials for a fake product called Estro-Maxxx, a "once-daily" estrogen supplement for trans women on the go who don't have time "for five estrogen supplements a day." It was a standard SNL fauxmercial for an imaginary drug—except that the male actors playing the transitioning women sported facial hair, body hair, and men's haircuts. It was your basic dude-in-a-dress shtick, with a gag about airport scans and a side effect warning that "Men taking estrogen may develop an interest in TLC's Say Yes to the Dress." Such an absolute clusterfuck of fail, the entire punchline (such as it is) of which is: Trans ladies are funny! A man wanting to be a lady is weird! Ladies are stupid!
The video is viewable here at GLAAD's site, where there is also a teaspooning opportunity.
That the SNL piece is insensitive, dehumanizing, marginalizing, and contemptible is so self-evident to anyone with a shred of decency or an infinitesimal trace of a social conscience, I won't belabor outlining in this space why it is hateful garbage. What I want to point out is this: It's so blatantly hateful garbage that its creators cannot have been expecting anything less than for trans* people and their allies to react with outrage.
In the age of viral video, it seems deliberately designed to provoke controversy. And that is more shameful than ignorance.
Courting the outrage of marginalized people is a swell publicity strategy, but it leaves marginalized people in an untenable position. We are admonished to "get a sense of humor," or "get over it," or "don't let it bother you," or some variation on Not Reacting, but this shit doesn't happen in a void; the dehumanization of trans* people for shits and giggles has real-world consequences for actual trans* people. Urging silence in the sunlight of that knowledge is to urge trans* people to participate in their own marginalization.
On the flipside, to react with the anger that was calculatingly piqued means trans* people and their allies are reactionary and oversensitive, just a bunch of humorless hysterics whose concerns can be dismissed on the basis that we are YAWN boring in our predictability.
Heads they win; tails we lose.
If no one complains, it's proof of concept. If people get mad, hell, that's fucking hilarious, too! HAR HAR hypersensitive weirdos!
Heads they win; tails we lose.
I can signal tacit approval of SNL's transphobia by being silent, or I can get angry about SNL's transphobia and play right into the hands of the deliberate provocateurs, who would like nothing more than a story in a major media outlet pitting the comedians against the hysterics.
Heads they win; tails we lose.
I can marginalize my own voice, or I can raise it and be marginalized with the usual silencing tropes.
Heads they win; tails we lose.
This is an issue beyond the transphobia inherent in the video. It's not just that SNL is being irresponsible and cruel; it's that SNL is actively obliging trans* people and their allies to participate in the marginalization of trans* people, which is flatly unconscionable.
And it renders indefensible the typical argument that no one gets hurt by a comedy sketch.
The actors and writers at SNL (and actors and writers everywhere who do transphobic and transmisogynistic material) are depending on the existence of transphobia to inoculate them against consequences. Transphobia, including all the silencing tropes (humorless, hysterical, oversensitive) used against people who advocate for social justice, ensures that we will always lose this game, as long as it's played by their rules.
So I'm changing the rules. I'm not going to be silent, and I'm not going to detail my valid (and useful) anger.
I'm calling out the unethical and reprehensible use of transphobia as comedy fodder, as a way to court controversy, and as a shield against consequences, and I'm challenging the people who use transphobia in that way to stop.
I challenge you to do better, SNL.
Because I expect more.
Too Bad Facts Don't Deter Anti-Choicers
Because here's yet another piece of information dispatched from Reality that ought to make them question their determination to deny women abortion, but won't:
An authoritative new study from researchers in Denmark, noteworthy for its exceptionally strong methodology, confirms what the best scientific evidence has long shown—that there is no causal link between abortion and mental health problems. The new study, "Induced First-Trimester Abortion and Risk of Mental Disorder," by Trine Munk-Olsen and colleagues, was published in the January 27, 2011, issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.The piece notes that this study "succeeds in addressing several critical limitations that have afflicted some other studies that purport to show causation between abortion and subsequent mental health problems" and is "unusually rigorous for this type of research," having used a very large sample size (84,620 women) over 12 years, integrated complete patient medical registries with self-reporting, and had "strong controls for women’s mental health prior to abortion, a critical factor that many other studies do not control for sufficiently, if at all."
These distinctions are critical, because many of the studies (for example) cited as evidence of a causal link between abortion and mental illness are deeply methodologically flawed.
Not all studies on the mental health impact of abortion are created equal. In fact, according to the American Psychological Association, methodological flaws are "pervasive in the literature on abortion and mental health." Antiabortion activists often attempt to capitalize on the fact that the public and many policymakers cannot distinguish between studies that allow legitimate conclusions to be drawn about the effects of abortion and those that show only associations between abortion and mental health outcomes.Snicker. *fist-bumps the Guttmacher Institute*
Antiabortion activists have relied on questionable science in their efforts to push inclusion of the concept of "postabortion syndrome" in both clinical practice and law. This latest study strongly confirms the existing body of methodologically sound evidence in clearly refuting the idea that abortion causes harm to women's mental health. The body of evidence is now so robust that researchers should consider shifting their focus to related issues that might be more valuable to explore, such as the factors that cause women to experience mental health problems in the first place.
Question of the Day
In honor of Snowmageddon, what's your favorite thing to do when you're snowed in?
(For those who don't live in snowy areas, your favorite thing to do when you're in for some other reason, whether it's inclement weather or unbearable heat/dryness or allergies or a bad cold is fine, of course. And for anyone who doesn't go out at all for whatever reason, your favorite activity will do!)
They Hate Us for Our Freedom or Whatever
Long ago, in a blogosphere far, far away, bloggers toiled away in their soiled pajamas in dusty basements, writing posts about things called national security letters and pointing out how breaches of the federal government into citizens' privacy were constantly dismissed as "accidents."
These bloggers were accused of a brain fever caused by a terrible disease identified as Bush Derangement Syndrome by graduates of the renowned Michelle Malkin Medical Institute.
But, in a SURPRISING TWIST, it turns out these bloggers were right to be concerned:
The FBI disclosed to a presidential board that it was involved in nearly 800 violations of laws, regulations or policies governing national security investigations from 2001 to 2008, but the government won't provide details or say whether anyone was disciplined, according to a report by a privacy watchdog group.Whooooooooooooooops!
The San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation sued under the Freedom of Information Act to obtain about 2,500 documents that the FBI submitted to the President's Intelligence Oversight Board.
...In 2007, the Justice Department's inspector general told Congress that the FBI may have violated the law or government policy as many as 3,000 times since 2003 in the course of secretly collecting telephone, bank and credit card records without warrants, instead using so-called national security letters. As many as 600 of the violations could be "cases of serious misconduct," Inspector General Glenn A. Fine said, based on his audits. Those figures were far higher than the FBI acknowledged or reported to the oversight board.
The violations were largely unintentional, Fine said, but were the result of "mistakes, carelessness, confusion, sloppiness, lack of training, lack of adequate guidance and lack of adequate oversight."
The records obtained by the foundation go beyond national security letters. About a third of the reports of violations involved rules governing internal oversight of intelligence investigations, and about a fifth involved potential violations of the Constitution, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or other laws governing criminal investigations or intelligence-gathering activities, the report says.
Well, good thing we've finally got a new administration, and all of that shady nonsense is well and truly behind us.
Though the report focuses on conduct during the George W. Bush administration, it faults the Obama administration for refusing to say whether anyone is currently serving on the intelligence board, a failure that "continues to call into question the legitimacy of current intelligence oversight efforts."Oh.
[Previously in Nobody's Paying Attention So Bush Totes Gets Away With It Again: Warrantless Wiretapping Program Ruled Illegal, No Charges in Destruction of Torture Tapes, Bush Admits Being a War Criminal, Bush Administration Broke Elections Law.]
Federal Judge Rules Key Provisions of Healthcare Unconstitutional
You can read Judge Roger Vinson entire opinion here, but the long and the short of it is that, because he found key provisions unconstitutional, he had ruled the entire law void.
Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications. At a time when there is virtually unanimous agreement that health care reform is needed in this country, it is hard to invalidate and strike down a statute titled "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act."The central issue is requiring people to purchase insurance, which is the result of substituting a huge corporate giveaway to the insurance industry for state-sponsored universal healthcare.
That's not intended as a criticism of Obama/the Democrats (even if it functionally serves as one); it's just a factual statement about the context of this decision. Irrespective of discussions of whether universal healthcare is achievable in this nation, there is much less ground (i.e. none) on which to question the constitutionality of using taxpayer dollars to fund socialized healthcare, than there is on which to question requiring people to use their own money to purchase insurance from a private entity.
So that's where we are.
Swell
Incoming! The thing I definitely most wanted to hear today is how we're going to get two more feet of snow:
The National Weather Service has issued a blizzard watch for the Chicago area, warning that a storm swooping in from the South could dump more than 18 inches of snow and pack winds up to 40 mph.Sounds great. Can't wait.
The weather service said the storm, expected to arrive Tuesday afternoon over much of northern Illinois and Northwest Indiana, could be "dangerous, multifaceted and potentially life-threatening."
I'm most enthusiastic about the part where I live in the lake effect snow zone, thus guaranteeing the worst possible dumpage imaginable.
Conditions are expected to deteriorate from north to south across the region Tuesday afternoon with travel becoming "virtually impossible" at times Tuesday night into early Wednesday morning, according to the weather service. Plows will be unable to keep up with the downfall."Hello, 911? Um, yeah, can you please come arrest this fucking snow in my driveway?"
In anticipation of the storm hitting northwest Indiana, Indiana State Police late this morning canceled all days off Tuesday and Wednesday and scheduled all troopers for 12-hour shifts.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to adopt a St. Bernard. Just in case.
-------------------
In all seriousness, if you live in this area and have cash to spare, this would be a very good time to donate to your local homeless shelter. They are about to be overwhelmed.
Monday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by Shaxco, whose headquarters are soon to be buried under 87,000 metric biebers of snow.
Recommended Reading:
Tami: Where is the Kenyan Crocodile Hunter?
Resistance: The Cost of Racism
Arturo: Chromatic Campaign: The Case for Rashida Jones to Play Lois Lane
Andy: Illinois Governor Pat Quinn to Sign Civil Union Bill This Afternoon
The Chemist: Tumult in Egypt
Andrea: We're being careful. But what's everyone else doing? [TW for discussion of sexual assault, victim-blaming]
Leave your links in comments...
Chip, chip, chip....
There are a couple other appalling bills to be aware of and write your congresspeople about, along with writing them about voting NO on 3.
First is a bill that got a small mention in a recent NYT opinion piece (decrying HR3):
A separate Republican bill would deny federal funds for family planning services to any organization that provides abortions. It is aimed primarily at Planned Parenthood’s hundreds of health centers, which also provide many other valuable services. No federal money is used for the abortions. This is a reckless effort to cripple an irreplaceable organization out of pure politics.That bill is: H.R.217 - Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act. It was introduced by Mike Pence (R-Epressive) and has 154 co-sponsors. The bill states:
Amends the Public Health Service Act to prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human Service (HHS) from providing any federal family planning assistance to an entity unless the entity certifies that, during the period of such assistance, the entity will not perform, and will not provide any funds to any other entity that performs, an abortion. Excludes an abortion where:Of course with HR3, that first clause doesn't mean much now, does it?
(1) the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or an act of incest against a minor; or
(2) a physician certifies that the woman suffered from a physical disorder, injury, or illness that would place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy. Excludes hospitals from such requirement so long as the hospital does not provide funds to any non-hospital entity that performs an abortion. Requires the Secretary to annually provide Congress:
(1) information on grantees who performed abortions under the exceptions; and
(2) a list of entities to which grant funds are made available.
Health care centers like Planned Parenthood already DO NOT USE Title X money for abortions. And health care centers like Planned Parenthood are HEALTH CARE CENTERS. They serve women and men, most who are of lower income or simply do not have health insurance for whatever reason. Eliminating federal family planning funds from health care organizations like Planned Parenthood, who just happen to also offer the legal, health care service of abortion, is vile, immoral, and not a small amount of class warfare.
The other bill to watch is the: H.R.212 - Sanctity of Human Life Act". It was introduced by Paul Broun (R-Idiculous) and has 62 co-sponsors. This one says:
(1) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human and is the person's paramount and most fundamental right;Life begins at fertilization, that zygote has all legal rights, so abortion is murrrrrrder! Which reminds me, I have some questions for you, supporters of this sort of bill.
(2) each human life begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, at which time every human has all legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and
(3) Congress, each state, the District of Columbia, and all U.S. territories have the authority to protect all human lives.
Garbage. All of it. Please write your congresspeople asking them to fight for the autonomy of women.
Taking a Brave Stance Against Survivors of Rape
[Trigger warning for sexual violence.]
Background: So the Two Brave Men who write the comic strip Penny Arcade did this comic that many survivors of sexual violence (and their allies) thought was inappropriate, contemptible, triggering, whatever. The Two Brave Men then responded to that criticism with mendacious pithiness. Lots of their supporters then proved my point that this shit doesn't happen in a void. The Two Brave Men then created a t-shirt about the strip to show they weren't going to cave to the Radical Survivor Agenda.
Time passed. Once there was no chance that anyone would accuse these brave men of being sensitive to survivors of sexual trauma, they stopped selling the t-shirt. You know, after people had bought it and they'd made money off of it. A lady said she wasn't interested in attending a conference where people who bought those shirts might be wearing them. One of the Two Brave Men, after noting he will "never remove the strip or even apologize for the joke," explained that they wouldn't be selling the shirt at the conference:
When I heard from a few people that the shirt would make them uncomfortable at PAX, that gave me pause. Now whether I think that's a fair or warranted reaction doesn't really matter. These were not rants on blogs but personal mails to me from people being very reasonable. It's how they feel and according to them at least, removing the shirt would make them feel better about attending the show. For me that's an easy fix to the problem. I really don't want to have this fight and if not having it is as simple as not selling a shirt then I'll do it. Contrary to what they might think I'm not a complete asshole.Sure, no one could think someone who dismisses triggered rape survivors as oversensitive hysterics and agrees not to make money off a t-shirt specifically designed to say "fuck you" to them only to avoid a fight is an asshole.
And, if we all agree—and I'm sure we do—that this Brave Man is not an asshole (because what reasonable person COULD read such an outrageous rant and respond in any other way than by linking jokes he's made about pedophilia and bestiality?), then I'm sure we can also agree that this is the epitome of his courageous stand against triggered survivors of sexual violence (aka the REAL assholes):
Bravo, sir. *slow clap*
[H/T to everyone in the multiverse. Previously: Rape Is Hilarious, Survivors Are So Sensitive, Quote of the Day, Troll Math and Teaspoons, T-Shirts and Teaspoons and Mythical Creatures.]
#dearjohn: No On 3
[Trigger warning for sexual violence, rape apologia, victim auditing.]
On Friday, I wrote about the GOP's latest effort to simultaneously chip away at Roe and, in the process, redefine what constitutes rape. The potential effects of this legislation, H.R.3, are far-reaching. One of the most devastating consequences would be effectively codifying the Hyde Amendment into law. Right now, Congress votes every year to renew the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for abortion, with exceptions for rape and incest, which means that getting rid of it is as simple as Congress not renewing it. Passing legislation to make it permanent and expanding it, as H.R.3 would do, would be much more difficult to unwind.
Speaker John Boehner has indicated he will make passing this legislation a top priority of the new Congressional session.
So, it's time for teaspoons.
Write your representative and voice your objection to H.R.3. Get involved in the Twitter campaign and make some noise: #DearJohn. Tweet Speaker Boehner directly: @johnboehner. Make noise on your blog, Tumblr, Facebook, etc.Let's get busy.
----------------------------
To embed the above on your own website/blog, copy and paste this code:
To embed the above on your own website/blog, copy and paste this code:
Happy Birthday, SKM!!!
Happy Birthday to youuuuuuuuuuuuuu!
Happy Birthday to youuuuuuuuuuuuuu!
You look like a purveyor of the radical feminazi agendaaaaaaa!
And you smell like one, too!
(Mmm, sage!)
Happy Birthday to one of the most brilliant and hilarious women I have ever had the pleasure and good fortune of knowing. And that ain't no jibber jabber!
I adore you, lady. I hope you have a wonderful day and a spectacular year.
[Previously in Manly Birthday Wishes for SKM: Tom Selleck; Chuck Norris.]
