Pet Shop Boys: "Paninaro '95"
A Challenge to the Farrelly Brothers
[Trigger warning for jokes about sexual violence.]
[Video Paraphrase: Trailer for the upcoming Farrelly Brothers film Hall Pass, starring Owen Wilson, Jason Sudeikis, Jenna Fischer, Christina Applegate, Alyssa Milano, Stephen Merchant, J.B. Smoove, and Larry Joe Campbell. Fischer and Wilson play a married couple, and Applegate and Sudeikis play a married couple. The dudes are obsessed with sex; their wives catch them checking out other women. Joy Behar (?!) tells the women that "Married men believe, if not for you, they could actually be with these other women." So the wives give their husbands, a "hall pass," which is defined in onscreen text as, "A week off from marriage to do whatever you want without consequences." The guys and their three buddies (Merchant, Smoove, and Campbell) are inept at scoring babes. One of the examples of their ineptitude is Sudeikis walking up to a woman in a bar holding cocktail napkins; he sniffs them then holds them out in her face. "Excuse me," he says, "do you think these bar napkins smell like chloroform? I'm kidding! Fred Searing, can I buy you a drink?" Scenes of the dudes spinning out of control—police chase, mug shots. But they guys are determined to score because "If we can't show that something positive can come from having a hall pass, the whole concept is dead for all mankind."]
That the Farrelly Brothers think sexual harassment and assault is hilarious is not news. The entire premise of There's Something About Mary was a woman being stalked by multiple men who were deceiving her to try to sleep with her. (Ironically, Brett Favre played the one guy who wasn't stalking her. Whoooooops!) Kingpin featured a predatory landlady who coerced Woody Harrelson's character into exchanging sex for rent. Me, Myself & Irene had a scene in which Jim Carrey's character grabbed a baby off hir nursing mother's breast and started suckling, to the woman's horror. One of the many problematic aspects of the premise of Shallow Hal is that the main character, who believes his fat girlfriend to be thin, has sex with her while effectively unable to consent to the actual person with whom he's having sex. Et cetera.
There are things I've liked about the Farrelly Brothers' films. They cast real people with disabilities who are allowed to be funny, not just objects of ridicule. Their main female characters are often imbued with more dimension and agency than most female characters in comedy films. Though the premise of Dumb & Dumber was about a guy stalking a woman, and he and his friend eventually competing for that woman's affections, neither of them come even close to winning her over (a refreshing result which is unfortunately undermined by the guys nonetheless being afforded the consolation prize of an entire bus full of bikini models).
They sorta strike me, maybe wrongly, as the kind of guys who would be willing to reconsider the value of rape jokes, which is why I'm even bothering to write this post. I don't imagine them, guys who have repeatedly expressed an interest in being sensitive toward disability, to want to be the sort of people who don't give a fuck about survivors with PTSD, who don't give a fuck about triggering people, who don't give a fuck about being the guys who made a movie with a rape joke, and then put that rape joke right in the trailer, so a survivor of rape can be blind-sided by a joke trivializing what happened to hir while she's just trying to relax in front of the telly for the evening.
I think more of them than that. And, even if I'm wrong, I expect more.
And I challenge the Farrelly Brothers to make films that don't rely on humor which diminishes the gravity of sexual harassment, stalking, and sexual violence. I challenge them to become my ally.
Feel the Trans*-momentum: Canadian Parliament Passes Transgender Rights Bill
Canadian MP Bill Siksay1 recently made his third attempt to add protection for trans* people to the Canadian Charter of Rights Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code4, and yesterday it passed the House of Commons on third reading2.
For most bills, this would then lead to a fairly pro forma stamp of approval from our dozey Upper House3.
In this case, though, it is entirely likely that our horridly Tory-stuffed basket of stuffed shirts will actually drag their privileged asses out of their smoky private clubs long enough to vote it down, because Maude forbid we allow trans* folk the same protections given to other marginalized groups in this country.
So yay to the Honourable Mr. Siksay, and to his colleagues who voted for the measure, but boo to the career-long hypocrite we currently suffer as PM, the Harpertron 5000 (Tory motto: Working The Uncanny Valley for Twenty Years!), and his use of a stuffed ballot box to deny basic human rights to trans* people.
For those with more optimism than I have, Shaker MarissaAO has posted a link to the Senators' list, which tells which Senators are nominally for which province, if you're inclined to write to them.
1 Member of Parliament, and official critic on GLBTT issues for the New Democratic Party (or NDP), Canada's semi-mainstream progressivist party (there are other progressivist entities on the scene, but none which have formed a government anywhere in the country, as the NDP has often done).
2 And may I say a rousing RESPECT! to the trans* warriors and allies who led the tough fight to get this through the House, to the Tory members who voted their conscience against their party and government, and a big bucket of slimy jeers to the "liberal" members of the "Liberal" party who voted against it, or abstained like puny moral cowards.
3 Unelected, appointed for life by a Prime Minister, this House was the target of Conservative ire back in the 80s and 90s (during a succession of Liberal governments, the Libs being our centre-left party). The neo-con movement got itself initially elected on a basis of "let's make government smaller", and promised they'd never do things like take up the extensive benefits package given to MPs, and that they'd change the Senate to an "Equal, Elected and Effective" part of the government.
Oddly enough, once they actually took power, they immediately began taking up all the perqs and privileges accorded to MPs, and the whole "elected Senate" thing didn't happen when they realized that if they simply selected young-enough right-wingers, they could control the Senate for decades.
4 As Shaker Marianne Pelton points out in comments, I had the scope of the bill slightly incorrect in my initial posting. Thanks for the correction! :)
Top Chef Open Thread
[Image from season whatever: The Foo Fighters get a free meal.]
Hey, remember when the Foo Fighters were on a couple years back? Good(ish) times!
Republican House Member Resigns Over Sexual Impropriety, Er, Making Republicans Look Bad
Representative Christopher Lee has resigned from Isengard Congress after a shirtless photo of him was posted on Gawker "along with e-mail exchanges that reportedly took place between him and a 34-year-old woman from Maryland who had placed a personal notice in the 'women seeking men' section of Craigslist."
Lee, who is married, is a Republican, so even if he and his wife are poly or have an open relationship or have an understanding or whatever, getting caught wasn't going to fly with the "Moral Values" party.
At least not when they're in the majority and don't want anything to distract from their agenda of ruining the country. If Lee wanted to fuck around, he should have done it last year.
[Transcript below.]
DANA BASH, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: This evening, the congressman, now former congressman did make it official releasing a statement saying that he has -- he deeply and sincerely apologizes to people. He made profound mistakes and he says he promised as hard as he can to work to seek forgiveness and he said the challenges though so hard in this country that he is going to resign effective immediately and shortly thereafter this was read on the floor of the House -- John.
JOHN KING, HOST: Oh, it was read. I'm sorry. I thought I was going to hear the sound of them reading that in the floor of the House. And so Dana, he's in his second term. He's from upstate Western New York near the Buffalo area, somebody who was just a rank and file back bencher or an important member of the Republican majority?
BASH: To be honest with you, a rank and file back bencher. You said it right. He is really relatively new. He had just started -- it was in the first month effectively of his second term. But he is certainly a House Republican and for the House Republican majority this is something even the possibility of a scandal like this they did not want. Now we do know, John, that the now former Congressman Lee did inform the speaker's office that he was going to resign his seat.
The speaker's office and other leaders are not saying what kind of conversations, if any, happened in private but I did bump into one senior Republican congressman in the hallway after we reported this who said, look, this is the kind of thing that if it is true and if as in his statement he says mistakes, plural, mistakes plural were made by him with regard to his personal life, that this was a no-brainer. That this is something that he felt that he had to do.
But, look, this is something that in terms of the allegations that are on the Gawker Web site still he has not been specific in confirming any of it and none of his staff as far as I know and people who are close to him really do know if any of the specifics are actually accurate, but it is clear that something -- he did something that he felt that he had to resign for.
KING: And he certainly did. Dana Bash for us on Capitol Hill, we should note for our viewers that is his picture on Gawker. Dana is right -- his staff has not confirmed any details of this nor the now former congressman. But that is his picture on Gawker and a bit more from Congressman Chris Lee's statement tonight announcing his resignation.
"I regret the harm my actions have caused my family, my staff and my constituents. I deeply and sincerely apologize to them all. I have made profound mistakes and I promise to work as hard as I can to seek their forgiveness."
Again, there is the congressman on the left, the picture on Gawker on the right of the shirtless now former Congressman Chris Lee of upstate New York resigning abruptly tonight after this gossip Web site posted this link and some e-mails in which the married congressman posed to be single and was trying to line up a date.
Giffords Update
Blub:
U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, recovering from a gunshot wound to the head suffered January 8, is regaining part of her ability to speak and recently asked for toast while having breakfast, staffers said Wednesday.
Spokesman C.J. Karamargin would not divulge what else Giffords has said, other than that she has spoken other words "within the last few days."
"It's very good news," he said.
Giffords Chief of Staff Pia Carusone told CNN affiliate KMSB in Tucson, Arizona, that the congresswoman made the toast request while eating yogurt and oatmeal Monday. "I said 'absolutely.'"
Open Thread
Hosted by Mrs. Peacock.
"Well, someone's got to break the ice, and it might as well be me. I mean, I'm used to being a hostess, it's part of my husband's work, and it's always difficult when a group of new friends meet together for the first time, to get acquainted, so I'm perfectly prepared to start the ball rolling, I mean, I have absolutely no idea what we're doing here, or what I'm doing here, or what this place is about, but I am determined to enjoy myself, and I'm very intrigued, and, oh my, this soup's delicious, isn't it?"
Question of the Day
While I have fairly eclectic taste in music and a large music collection, I often end up listening to the same thing over and over if I really like it (such as this lately)--and the rest of my music collection goes ignored. The other day I decided to put my iphone on shuffle while I was out driving and I ended up rediscovering a group I adore:
What music have you rediscovered lately?
Photos of the Day
A family walks with fellow anti-government protesters during a candlelight vigil for those killed during the uprising in Tahrir Square on February 9, 2011 in Cairo, Egypt. More than two weeks into Egypt's uprising, demonstrators continue to occupy the square, demanding the resignation of President Hosni Mubarak. [Getty Images]
An anti-government protester weeps during a candlelight vigil for those killed during the uprising. [Getty Images]
Feminism 101: Helpful Hints for Dudes, Part I
Sometimes, and rather frequently in recent weeks, privileged men (here, generally meaning straight cis men) email me asking advice on how to interact with the women in their lives. I get questions on everything from how to be a feminist husband to how to navigate intimacy with a survivor of sexual assault, and so I'm starting a new series that offers Helpful Hints to privileged men who genuinely want advice about how to be a more feminist-friendly dude.
I'm starting with the most basic—and often the most problematic—interaction between men and women: The Conversation. Lots of guys want to learn more about deconstructing their privilege, but are pretty awful about obtaining that information without upsetting the women with whom they're conversing.
This, then, is a very rudimentary, but also very straightforward, primer for dudes who want to communicate more effectively with female partners, friends, relatives, and colleagues during good faith conversations about feminist issues:
1. Every woman is an expert on her own life and experiences.
2. No woman speaks for all women.
3. No woman speaks for all feminists.
4. Because of the way cultural dominance/privilege works, marginalized people are, by necessity and unavoidability, more knowledgeable about the lives of privileged people than the other way around. Immersion in a culture where male is treated as the Norm (and female a deviation of that Norm), and where masculinity is treated as aspirational (and femininity as undesirable), and where men's stories are considered the Stories Worth Telling, and where manhood and mankind are so easily used as synonymous with personhood and humankind, and where everything down to the human forms on street signs reinforce the idea of maleness as default humanness, inevitably makes women de facto more conversant in male privilege than men are in female marginalization. That's the practical reality of any kind of privilege—the dominant group can exist without knowing anything about marginalized group, but the marginalized group cannot safely or effectively exist without knowing something about the privileged group and its norms and values.
5. Which is not to say that men can't become fluent, with effort. But it is important to remember that it does take effort. Even though men's and women's lives can look so similar at first glance, it is shocking how very different they can actually be. (For example.)
6. A woman with intersectional marginalizations cannot wrench herself into parts. Asking a woman to set aside her race, or disability, or sexuality, or body size, or stature, or whatever, in order to discuss a "woman's issue," is to fail to understand that one's womanhood is inextricably linked to the other aspects of one's identity.
7. It is similarly unfair to ask a woman to leave aside her personal experience and discuss feminist issues in the abstract. You are discussing the stuff of her life. Asking her to "not make it personal" is to ask her to wrench her womanhood from her personhood.
8. You are not objective on women's issues because you're not a woman. Your perception is just as subjective as hers is, but for a different reason. Either we stand to be marginalized by privilege or stand to benefit from it. That's the reality of institutional bias; it compromises us all.
9. Don't play Devil's advocate. Seriously. Just don't.
10. Listen.
Daily Dose of Cute
[Please note that Dudley's incisors are visible while he bites a toy in this video, so if that sort of thing bothers you, skip this video.]
Video Description: Dudley is still learning how to play with toys; here, he's playing with Pinkie, a squeaky toy which his Nana Shakes bought him. There's a high-pitched squeaker in the head he likes, and a lower-pitched squeaker in the body which still kind of freaks him out, lol. When he accidentally steps on the lower one, he runs away, then comes back for more playtime, before he takes Pinkie into his crate and leaves him, for safekeeping.
Just watching him figuring out how to play with this thing has been hilarious. He was totally afraid of it at first, but now he carries it around with him and leaves it in his Special Places—the office, where he must go to eat high-value treats, and the loft, where he hoards my hats and shoes.
He's still not much into balls, and he couldn't care less about frisbees, but he likes playing tug-of-war with the yellow blanket and he's starting to dig Pinkie.
He also regularly play-bows at the cats, trying to get them interested in playing. Matilda just looks at him blankly—"I don't speak that language"—and Olivia either ignores him or bats him on the nose, which evokes the most pitiful look of dejected rebuffment ever from Dudley.
Sophie, meanwhile, totally wants to play, and responds to his play-bows by rolling onto her back with her paws in the air, curling herself into a semi-circle. Neither one of them can figure out what the other one's trying to say, and eventually they give up. It's like watching a cat-dog version of "Who's on first?"
Wednesday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by Shaxco, whose FY2011 budget will add +$250 biebillions for Giving a Shit About Marginalized People.
Recommended Reading:
Tami: My Black History: Thomas and Jane Got Married
Andrea: I Used to Be a Pro-Life Republican [TW for slut-shaming]
Fannie: On Threats [TW for threats, harassment, apologism, sexual violence]
kirbybits: Here is a project: Troll! Data! Analysis! [TW for sexual violence and threats]
Andy: Senator Jim Webb to Retire After One Term
An oldie but a goodie, passed on by Shaker RedSonja, mocking the ubiquitous headless fatty: Study: Obesity Linked to Headlessness. [TW for fat hatred and dehumanization]
Leave your links in comments...
GOP Cuts
Just after writing my previous post, I found this comprehensive list of the GOP's proposed budget cuts care of Barbara Morrill. I've highlighted some of my personal favorites:
· Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies -$30MDiscuss.
· Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy -$899M
· Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability -$49M
· Nuclear Energy -$169M
· Fossil Energy Research -$31M
· Clean Coal Technology -$18M
· Strategic Petroleum Reserve -$15M
· Energy Information Administration -$34M
· Office of Science under the Energy and water spending bill -$1.1B
· Power Marketing Administrations -$52M
· Department of Treasury -$675M
· Internal Revenue Service -$593M
· Treasury Forfeiture Fund -$338M
· GSA Federal Buildings Fund -$1.7B
· ONDCP -$69M
· International Trade Administration -$93M
· Economic Development Assistance -$16M
· Minority Business Development Agency -$2M
· National Institute of Standards and Technology -$186M
· NOAA -$336M
· National Drug Intelligence Center -$11M
· Law Enforcement Wireless Communications -$52M
· US Marshals Service -$10M
· FBI -$74M
· State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance -$256M
· Juvenile Justice -$2.3M
· COPS -$600M
· NASA -$379M
· NSF -$139M
· Legal Services Corporation -$75M
· EPA -$1.6B
· Food Safety and Inspection Services -$53M (FY10)
· Farm Service Agency -$90M
· Agriculture University Research -$246M
· Natural Resource Conservation Service -$60M
· Rural Development Programs -$227M
· WIC -$758M
· International Food Aid grants -$544M
· FDA -$220M
· Land and Water Conservation Fund -$348M
· National Archives and Record Service -$20M
· DOE Loan Guarantee Authority -$1.4B
· EPA ENERGY STAR -$7.4M
· EPA GHG Reporting Registry -$9M
· USGS -$27M
· EPA Cap and Trade Technical Assistance -$5M
· EPA State and Local Air Quality Management -$25M
· Fish and Wildlife Service -$72M
· Smithsonian -$7.3M
· National Park Service -$51M
· Clean Water State Revolving Fund -$700M
· Drinking Water State Revolving Fund -$250M
· EPA Brownfields -$48M
· Forest Service -$38M
· National Endowment for the Arts -$6M
· National Endowment for the Humanities -$6M
· Job Training Programs -$2B
· Community Health Centers -$1.3B
· Maternal and Child Health Block Grants -$210M
· Family Planning -$327M
· Poison Control Centers -$27M
· CDC -$755M
· NIH -$1B
· Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services -$96M
· LIHEAP Contingency fund -$400M
· Community Services Block Grant -$405M
· High Speed Rail -$1B
· FAA Next Gen -$234M
· Amtrak -$224M
· HUD Community Development Fund -$530M
Action Item
[Trigger warning for sexual assault and domestic violence.]
Because the House Republicans aren't satisfied at merely attacking the right to choose and revictimizing survivors of sexual violence, they are also fixing to defund violence prevention, too.
Shaker Steph304 has alerted me to this action item for USians at the Family Violence Prevention Fund:
The House of Representatives is expected to make drastic cuts to domestic programs for Fiscal Year 2011. These proposed cuts would mean:Yes, you read that right. The GOP is actually seeking to defund programs that prevent sexual assault and domestic violence, by which children, women, and marginalized men are disproportionately victimized.
* Violence Against Women Health Initiative under HHS Office of Women's Health (which funds ongoing work to improve health care providers' response to domestic and sexual violence) would be eliminated;
* Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA), which funds domestic violence shelters and the National Hotline, would be cut by $7 million, and the new initiative for children would be eliminated;
* Engaging Men and Youth in Prevention Program, which funds the Family Violence Prevention Fund's prevention work to tap into the critical role men can play in helping youth develop respectful attitudes and behaviors toward women and girls, would be cut.
FVPF asks: "Please contact your Member of Congress and ask them to continue funding programs that protect women and children from violence and abuse." There are tips on what to say when you call or email here.
Find contact information for your representative here.
Dueling Quotes of the Day
"We're not going to stand by and watch while reproductive rights are threatened and women's health is jeopardized again in this country. We are not going back in history."—Democratic Senator Patty Murray of Washington, on the House Republicans' legislative attacks on choice.
"This legislation is really about whether the role of America's government is to continue to fund a practice that takes the lives of over one million little Americans every year."—Republican Representative Trent Franks of Arizona, who also chairs the Judiciary Subcommittee overseeing the legislation.
This? Right here? Is why our president needs to stop talking nonsense about "finding common ground" on abortion.
[Both quotes taken from this NPR report.]
Take Your Legislation Off Me
Speaking of the Republican assault on woman and marginalized men, the New York Times has a good piece, bluntly titled "Under Banner of Fiscal Restraint, Republicans Plan New Abortion Bills," highlighting the mendacity of the GOP's argument that their rash of anti-choice legislation is part of their "[focus] on creating a better environment for economic growth and job creation."
Relatedly, I saw this video of Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg (New Jersey) speaking out against the legislation:
[Transcript below.]
While I am so profoundly grateful for his voiced opposition, and sincerely thrilled by his emphasis on choice, the chivalrous paternalism makes my teeth grind.
Our women. Tell your daughters. Tell your wife. Don't go near my daughters!
It's a stark reminder that the public abortion debate (such as it is) happens almost exclusively between cis men.
Even though abortion legislation directly affects only people with uteri—primarily cis women and trans men—our Congress is only 17% female and appears to have no trans men in the other 83%, and thus is the discourse dominated by people who don't even include trans men in the discussion and who, in large measure, feel they have ownership over women's bodies.
On the one side are the men who use that assumption of ownership to try to control women, and on the other side are the men who use that assumption of ownership to try to protect them.
And in the midst of these men shouting back and forth about which is the right way to exert their ownership of women's bodies, there are vanishingly few women's voices being heard speaking on their own behalf, drowned out by the din of men who totally know what's best for women.
Starting with their silence, natch.
"We got this, ladies!"
Uh, you so don't.
I don't intend to pick on Senator Lautenberg, whose alliance I want and need, as if the Republicans aren't infinitely worse. They are. The thing is, I imagine that Senator Lautenberg might actually take my point; I imagine that he actually does genuinely care about women and thus might listen to what I have to say on this matter. Which is not something I imagine about his Republican colleagues.
Maybe next time, if they're willing, his daughters can join the Senator at the podium.
[My thanks also to Democratic Senators Patty Murray of Washington, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, and Al Franken of Minnesota, who appeared at the press conference with Senator Lautenberg.]
Narrator, offscreen: When expressing opposition to the GOP-proposed "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg said politicians should not interfere with his family's health and well-being.
Lautenberg, at podium: I'm experienced. I'm the proud father of three daughters, two more that my wife brought to our marriage, six granddaughters. My wife brought two more to the marriage. So we got a full house of healthy and well-being young women. I'm not even talking about the boys—they're terrific, but they don't get mentioned here now. [laughter] And I don't want politicians making decisions for them when it comes to their health and well-being.
We are deeply committed—as parents, as family, as Americans—to doing everything possible to guard the safety, the health, and the well-being of our sisters, our daughters, our women, and all of our friends.
I call on my colleagues in the House: Do as you wish with your family. Tell your daughters, tell your wife, you do that. That's the wonderful part about America. It's choice. It's choice. And there should be no force used here, but don't interfere with my family's well-being.
I won't attempt to voice my views on your family and let my family alone! Don't go near my daughters! If they want to make a choice, that's up to them—and it's with the advice of a doctor and loving parents and a loving family. And so we've got to strike down this outrageous assault on women's rights.
Narrator, offscreen: Lautenberg also says that efforts by House Republicans to limit access to abortion services remind him of a third-world country.
Lautenberg: If they had their way, the reproductive rights of American women would be tossed away and it sounds to me like a Third World country that's requiring women to wear head shawls to cover their faces even if they don't want to do it. This is America. It's not one of the third world countries that we see these tragic decisions foisted upon the women.
Narrator, offscreen: Nicholas Ballasy, CNS News dot com, Washington.
And What Do We Call People Attacked by Republicans?
[Trigger warning for discussion of harassment and sex crimes.]
Rep. Bobby Franklin, a Republican state legislator in Georgia, has introduced a bill that would "eliminate the word 'victim' from statutes dealing with stalking, rape, obscene telephone contact with a child and family violence and replace it with 'accuser'."
It wasn't clear why Franklin's legislation includes only those specific laws.Hmm, let me see if I can have a guess at that.
Could it be because those are the only crimes around which we have narratives about multitudinous false accusations, despite the fact that false reports of sexual violence are lower than false reports of auto theft, and despite the fact that there is a higher threshold for convincing law enforcement to take action on reports of sexual violence and harassment than any other crime, and despite the vanishingly low percentage of reports that go to trial and the miniscule conviction rates?
Could it be because implying that people who report sex crimes and/or harassment are liars is an integral tool and prevalent narrative of the rape culture, which exists to protect rapists—a pretty significant constituency of any politician, since around 12% of men (pdf) have, by their own admission, committed sexual assault or rape, which is certainly much higher than the percentage of the population who commits auto theft, or bank robbery, or fraud?
Could it be that women and marginalized men (trans men, gay men, incarcerated men) are more likely to be victimized by sexual violence, harassment, and/or domestic abuse—and the Republican Party has made attacking women and marginalized men a central part of their national platform for a generation?
Franklin had no comment.
It's not that I have a problem with the concept of using neutral language in court cases—but limiting the use of neutral language to only these crimes is inappropriate, and, more importantly, "accuser" is not neutral language.
At least not in the context of legally mandated language limited specifically to crimes laden with narratives of false accusations.
Carol Tracy, director of the Women's Law Center, is quoted in the article noting that in her state of residence, Pennsylvania, the word used is "complainant." For evident reasons, that is a much more appropriate word, but only if it's also required in all cases, irrespective of the nature of the crime.
Which are of course, the same reasons that Mr. Franklin did not propose its use.
[H/T to Shakers BlueRidge and Danielle.]
Question of the Day
What is your favorite album released in the 1970s?
(Yes, re-releases and best-of collections totally count.)
