Like most of our holidays, Valentine's Day has a history that reportedly starts with those horny pagans and another one of their many fertility festivals, makes its way to the Catholic Church, which, in a typical cooption, laid on top its own celebration and gave it a fancy new saint-name, winds its way through the work of a popular British author (no, not that guy for a change, but this guy) who gifted its association with romantic love, and ended up mercilessly corrupted by soulless corporations who want to Sell You Shit Without Which You Can't Possibly Celebrate This Holiday.
Ya know. Kinda like Easter. Or Christmas.
Its origins being murky at best, there are competing legends about the sainted man for whom Valentine's Day is named, each of which has emerged to fill a need in its time, like such things have a wont to do. The account I like best, though, casts St. Valentine as a priest who defied a decree of the Roman Emperor Claudius II forbidding soldiers from getting married on the premise that such emotional attachments weakened soldiers' resolve. Valentine, moved by the injustice of the edict, met young lovers in secret and held clandestine weddings despite the prohibition—an acknowledgement of the (nearly) universal desire to love and be loved and commit to another, for which he was eventually jailed and executed.
I like the idea, even if it's only that and nothing more, that Valentine's Day is not just about love, but about marriage equality.
Love is a concept that is largely absent from our modern debates about marriage equality—because, of course, the people who seek to deny marriage to same-sex couples lose ground when the emotions of the thing impose upon their clinical, passionless talking points about protecting an institution they'd happily return to little more than a property exchange between landowning men, given half a chance.
For a very long time, marriage between a man and a woman didn't have a lot to do with romantic love. (In fact, in some traditions, it still doesn't.) One of the most remarkable things about US culture is that we have the freedom to partner for love, to forge lifelong bonds based not on class or race or religion or the number of goats our dads can spare, but on a feeling so beautiful that poets have spent lifetimes trying to lay it on a page, that artists have passionately sought its capture in one still but enduring moment. Operas and books and films and pop songs, so heartbreakingly lovely that they can steal one's breath, if just for a moment, have been written by people in the thralls of love, or the searing pain of its loss. Monuments have been built, wars have been fought, and some of the greatest happiness ever experienced by humankind has been born because of love.
We are blessed with the luxury of romantic love, and, make no mistake, it is a luxury.
We are also blessed with the luxury of choosing to have nothing to do with romantic love, or the institutions of its association, if that is our wish.
But, even if we wish nothing more than to take part in those institutions, some of us nonetheless continue to be denied equal access, based on whom it is that we love. Marriage remains, in most of the US and much of the rest of the world, a privilege, denied to same-sex couples by people invoking gods of various names (Jesus, Mohammed, Tradition) as thin veneers to lay atop the desperate insecurity about their super-special relationships losing the shimmering, golden glow that only denying equality to same-sex couples conveys upon their gloriously gilded unions.
To throw wide the doors of marriage to same-sex couples (or—gasp!—poly relationships) is to undermine its value, they argue.
But marriage at its best is an expression of love. When it's simply an institution to facilitate the continued existence of a society through the birth of new generations, it is a splendid functional legal contract and nothing more. When it's a sign of commitment forged out of love, it is something ever so much grander. It is evidence of consent, autonomy, respect, dignity. It is evidence of love.
The value of any individual marriage is determined exclusively by the people joined by the union, but the value of marriage as an institution is diminished because we refuse to open access to all loving people. People marry for convenience, for access to healthcare, for immigration purposes, for all manner of practical reasons (as well they should be allowed to do), which one would think might be of more interest to those ostensibly preoccupied by defending the sanctity of marriage. That they are not betrays the lie, the thin façade of their deceitful justification. If there is anything sacred to be found at all in marriage, it is love—which is not bound by simple binaries.
The truth is this: Restricting marriage does not make it worth more. It makes it worth less.
Aristophanes said, in Plato's Symposium, that humankind, "judging by their neglect of it, have never, as I think, at all understood the power of Love. For if they had understood it they would surely have built noble temples and altars, and offered solemn sacrifices in its honor."
We could start, in this country, simply by repealing DOMA. The monuments can come later.
Love is neither the sole province of unions between one man and one woman, nor a luxury we should ever take for granted. It is a luxury so precious that denying of some people any and every expression of its unique and awesome qualities, treating their love as different, as less, is an affront to the tremendous gift we have been given in our capacity to feel love.
If we really understood love, we would not just build in its honor noble temples and altars, and offer solemn sacrifices, but would believe without reservation that to deny its existence in every human heart is to reject our humanity.
Happy Valentine's Day.
Like a Horse and Carriage
Life Flashes By: A Deeper Look
This past November, I posted about a new PC-based game titled Life Flashes By, developed by Deirdra Kiai (aka Squinky). If you haven't yet played it, I highly recommend you give it a go, especially to check out my mad voice acting skillz.
Recently, Deirdra had an e-mail chat with a friend of hers at the Border House to delve into Deirdra's thought process and how several cultural narratives contributed to the script and character development within the game. Following is an excerpt:
It was always in my head that Charlotte had to be a person who feels real, with a complex personality that includes both positive and negative characteristics. Honestly, it’s such an obvious thing to me that I couldn’t imagine doing it any other way. I mean, I see a lot of well-meaning male creators in various media who aim for what we call Strong Female Characters, and while that’s way better than using women as decorative set pieces or not having any women around at all, I keep feeling like there’s too much idealizing going on at least in comparison to the variety we have in sympathetic male protagonists. It’s been my personal experience that I can relate better to a socially awkward nebbish protagonist like Guybrush Threepwood from the Monkey Island games than I can to, say, April Ryan from The Longest Journey — and I say this knowing that April’s still one of the best Strong Female Characters we’ve got in gaming. Something’s got to give.Do give the whole thread a read, as it really touches upon a lot of items that help give the game an even deeper meaning.
Thoughts on Internet Dating; Or, a Series of Unfortunate Cultural Narratives
by Shaker and Shakesville Moderator Aphra_Behn
(Please note that in this analysis, I only speak to my experiences with male-identified people seeking me out as a female-identified person. It should also be noted that Internet dating sites are bastions of various sorts of privilege: classism, sizeism, ableism, heterocentricism, racism, and more.)
On this Valentine's Day, as the media's message turns to a variety of craptastic narratives about love and romance, I find myself casting my mind back to a dark and stormy night not too long ago. That tempestuous evening, I received a message from a Gentleman Emailer, in response to my posting on Popular Internet Dating Site.
This, my first and only message from said GE, consisted of:
1. SUBJECT: Greeting! Assertion of our inevitable romantic destiny!
2. Revelation of previous disastrous romantic fate online.
3. Wish to be in love with me!
4. Expression of love for my [body part]!
5. Phone number, with conditional instructions to call it.
6. New assertion of our inevitable romantic destiny!
7. Proverbial saying about love.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the Gentleman Emailer expected to inspire romance via this missive. Yet, curiously, "feeling romanced" was not my reaction.
My reaction was more along the lines of: hide! under covers! on the fainting couch! for about the next century.
Reader, I would like to tell you that this was a singular occurrence. It was not.
Overall, my exchanges with Gentleman Emailers have been enjoyable. Our periods of correspondence frequently turn into tea-palace excursions or evenings waltzing at the dance hall. I have made a number of friends, and in general, quite enjoy dating. But if we lay aside those pleasant emails that result in actual conversations, and speak to emails in the "first and only" category, some remarkably similar patterns emerge.
I have come to the conclusion that some men on Popular Internet Dating Site are tragic victims of A Series of Unfortunate Cultural Narratives. Found in romantic comedies, popular music, advertising, and just about every other media of modern life, these Unfortunate Cultural Narratives consistently prove themselves to be remarkably poor guides in real life.
(Note: Among their other garbage, these Unfortunate Cultural Narratives assume that all humans are straight, sexual, and cisgendered. That is rubbish. With said detritus duly noted, let us sally forth.)
Unfortunate Cultural Narrative # 1: Women exist primarily (or solely) as potentially pleasing bodies, and men cannot control their responses to those bodies.
Sample Email Expression: Your [body part] is so [overwhelmingly positive adjective!] I don't think I can stop myself from [action]!
Reaction: This has landed in my inbox so often that I checked to make sure my profile hadn't been haxXx0red by ancient Greek Sirens, whose magically delicious songs were enticing brawny, bronzed sailors to jump into my shimmering Inbox, only to drown in my winsome charms.
Dear Reader, it was not so.
These Gentleman Emailers are conflating activities they would like to undertake with actions they must take. Such repeated, enthusiastic expressions give me the impression that the Gentleman Emailer doesn't much care about my personality, interests, boundaries, or any of the other points in my (time-consumingly written) profile. And so: I touch that button known as "Delete," and *plonk* goes the epistle.
Unfortunate Cultural Narrative #2: Women will be flattered when informed that they are not like other women.
Email Example: I can tell you are not like [description of All the Women Who Done Him Wrong].
Reaction: I have sometimes wondered if these particular Gentleman Emailers would open a job interview at General Motors by saying "ALL CAR MANUFACTURERS ARE LIKE MUCUS. GATHERED FROM ROTTING SNAILS. IN THE SARLAAC'S PIT OUTSIDE JABBA'S PALACE. (pause) Except for you guys. You're awesome!"
I think not.
Many of us humans on Popular Internet Dating Site have had our hearts broken. But making immediate assertions about those other people in your life signals to me that you are blaming problems in said past relationships on woman-ness, rather trying to figure out what went wrong and each case and taking responsibility for your own actions. It does not inspire confidence that you see me as an individual. I'm not the Woman to Do You Right; I'm just the Woman Who Hasn't Done You Wrong...Yet.
*Plonk* we go.
Unfortunate Cultural Narrative #3: Women wish to be swept off their feet! Immediately! With Bold! Romantic! Gestures!
Email Example: Oh my god you are just [extreme superlative]. I already know I love you. Call me so we can [offline activity].
Reaction: I confess, dear reader, that when I had just begun this Internet dating thing, I accepted one of these invitations from a first email, against my better judgment. (Ah, better judgment! How I have learned to love you.)
The date went something like this:
Me: [Query about current event]
Gentleman Emailer: [Sneering Republican Sentiment]
Me: [Mildly Liberal Position, with Obama-esque Statement of Common Ground]
GE: [Guffaw, with accompanying Fox News Quote]
Me: [Something Canadian]
GE: [Repeat of Sneering Republican Sentiment, with Added Canadian Insult]
Me: [Somewhat Frosty, Muted Reply]
GE: [Further Canadian Slur]
Me: [Increasingly Frosty WASP Reply]
GE: [Yet more slurs! Assurance of Joking State.]
Me: [*is basically Queen Elizabeth now*]
In every way, his behavior on the date confirmed that he had no interest in my personality, interests, or boundaries. The pressure to go out wasn't romantic. It was bullying.
Reader, I *plonked* him.
Unfortunate Cultural Narrative #4: All women want a man to rescue her from her drab existence.
Email Example: Hey, [highly familiar endearment] are you ready to be spoiled? Because I want to [remove you from your current condition].
Reaction: I have a fantasy, dear Reader. In my fantasy, Captain Jack Harkness swoops by one eve to whisk me away for a life of well-dressed swashbuckling weirdness, punctuated by lots and lots of seriously sweaty snugglebunnies with said Captain Jack. Occasionally, Captain Mal joins in the sweaty snugglebunnies, whilst Captain Picard reads erotic passages of the Kama Sutra to us in his plummy, yummy, voice.
Reader, that is a fantasy.
In reality, if a dude swoops down from the sky—or Internet—to announce that he wants to take me to Tahiti and spend his fortune keeping me in Fabergè eggs and unicorn farts, it does not make me want to accompany him to the corner gas station, let alone any destination requiring a passport.
It makes me wonder what he expects in exchange for this cozy arrangement. It makes me wonder what he saw in my profile that suggests I am unhappy with my current life. It makes me reach quickly for my trusty friend, Delete.
Sweet, sweet *plonk* of life.
Unfortunate Cultural Narrative #5: Women do not know what they want, and are therefore charmed when men tell them what it is they actually want.
Email Example: oh, I know you stated your [boundaries] were [range], but I am [significant outlier] and I know we are PERFECT!
Reaction: Some of my Gentleman Emailers seem convinced that all women are imported to the planet Earth from another dimension, where communication is conducted solely though bee-like dances and antennae-waving. Therefore, they may rightfully ignore any so-called "words" that I "type."
For example, a Gentleman Emailer who currently serves in the clergy of [Deity redacted—let's say Cthulhu] sent me an introductory message telling me that he just knew I would make a wonderful partner in [Cthulhu] and that he had begged [Cthulhu] to send him a [multi-tentacled Handmaiden of the Great Old Ones] and he just knew it was me! He would show me the glory of [Cthulhu]! Oh, how he wanted to meet and talk about [Cthulhu]! And, babies.
This, in response to a profile that describes religion as a private matter and specifically forbids conversion attempts.
(Reader, I fear you know his fate. It begins with "p" and ends with "k", and a shoggoth lies in between.)
As I ponder these Unfortunate Cultural Narratives, and these emails, I contrast them with the Positive Principles of Productive Emails. The ones that make me actually want to meet said Gentleman Emailer for canasta and croquet, or to further discuss my extensive collection of Mad Max-themed tea cozies.
What's the different between "productive" and *plonk*?
Individuality, Boundaries, and Respect.
Positive Principle 1: Individuality!
All the above-referenced narratives assume that "women" are a certain way. But women are individual humans. Some humans like video games, some like needlepoint, some like books, some like golf. Some like Fabio, some like Brucio, some like Juicy-O. Some humans like men. Some like women. Some both, neither, or a totally differently-defined subset of human. Some people might LOVE any or all of the approaches described above. I did not, and a fairly simple read of my profile should have communicated this. If you're looking for that special someone, that implies paying attention to who the person says zie actually is. Emails that mention my interests and self-descriptions tend to be received positively.
Positive Principle 2: Boundaries!
Everyone has boundaries about what they want to do when and how. Boundaries about who they wish to date. Boundaries about how they wish to date. Boundaries about a whooooole lot of things. In my profile, some boundaries are right there in the open. Not everyone communicates boundaries easily, so the best thing is to ask if in doubt. But when zie has clearly stated boundaries, you don't get to decide that some are optional. Emails from those who observe the boundaries I've stated are usually productive.
Positive Principle 3: Respect!
Respect is the verb that makes Individuality and Boundaries complete. Respecting a fellow human means treating that person as inherently valuable and real. The Lady Emailer at the other end is a breathing, thinking being, not a two-dimensional fantasy or disembodied voice. It's not assuming anything beyond the information one has; it's about demonstrating that, whether or not the Lady Emailer turns out to be your True Love, zie is still human with the right to self-determination. Emails from GE who follow this principle...well, I think you are getting the idea.
And so, dear Reader, I leave you with my (highly subjective) experiences, and wish you the best always in any Romantic Adventures you may pursue. May your heart be full of Positive Principles, and your email free of pesky *plonks*.
Dan Savage: Please Stop
by Shaker Fannie, author of Fannie's Room, who, when not hanging out at her blog, can probably be found planning the homosexual agenda, twirling her mustache, plotting a leftist feminist takeover of the universe, and coordinating the recruitment effort of the lesbian branch of the Gay Mafia. Her days are busy.
[Trigger warning for fat hatred, fat shaming, dehumanization, bullying, suicide, and child abuse.]
In September 2010, Dan Savage founded the It Gets Better Project in response to the recent suicides of gay youth who had been bullied. About founding this project, Savage wrote:
"I wish I could have talked to this kid for five minutes. I wish I could have told Billy that it gets better. I wish I could have told him that, however bad things were, however isolated and alone he was, it gets better."It's a great idea, to have adults who have lived as children in a homophobic society telling kids that life might not always be as difficult.
But does Dan Savage think the bullying of gay kids is the only type of bullying that counts?
I don't write this as anti-gay activist who, like those Peter LaBarbera types, claims that anti-bullying campaigns are secret Homosexual Indoctrination Programs.
I write this as a progressive who doesn't think that the oppression of gay youth is the only axis of oppression that warrants the public's deep concern and sympathy. I write this as a lesbian who finds it's profoundly hypocritical for the founder of a prominent anti-bullying campaign to perpetuate bullying against another class of kids (and adults) who are widely bullied, ridiculed, and mocked: fat people. (Note: Gay and fat are not mutually exclusive groups. Indeed, many fat gay, bisexual, lesbian, and transgender people are widely shamed within the gay community).
Item: Less than four months after he founded a campaign to address the bullying of gay youth, Dan Savage posted a Tim Minchin video entitled "Do Not Feed Donuts To Your Obese Children." Underneath the video he joked: "Yes, it's harsh, brutal even, very nearly bullying. But... um... you gotta admit that there's a
Sample lyric: "Boombalata kiddie-stuffer / Your kid's a fat, have you noticed that? / And you oughta be ashamed / For you have only got yourself to blame / Your 5-year-old princess in her size 14 tutu / Only eats pizza like that because you do." The lyrics also explicitly mock women with polycystic ovarian syndrome and exhort parents to abuse their children in an effort to make them thin: "Tell them they have to jog / Until their jogging shorts fit 'em / If they hesitate, ask firmly / If they still resist, hit 'em."
The best that Savage, our apparent arbiter of all that does and doesn't count as bullying, can do is call it "very nearly bullying"? Gee, ya think?
Now, discussing the ways that such a song perpetuates the false notion that fat people's lives basically consist of sitting on their beds all day long stuffing their faces with whole entire chocolate cakes or, say, Cinnabuns, is beyond the scope of this post. Others point out these false narratives better and more regularly than I do, but the Cliffs Notes version is that fat does not automatically equal lazy, unhealthy, and immoral and thin does not automatically equal hardworking, healthy, and moral.
Item: Back in October, I criticized a Box Turtle Bulletin (BTB) writer's use of an "edgy" rhetorical device that invisibilized the bullying of fat people in order to make a More Important Point about gay rights. In response to the criticism, the BTB writer said that he tries "not to worry about offending people" because he "hate[s]" the "increasingly popular notion that to offend someone is to do them harm."
The message there was clear. In fact, the message is clear in many spaces of the white, gay, male-dominated "LGBT" movement. To offend LGBT people, or a subset of the community anyway, is to do harm; to offend Others by playing the Oppression Olympics, not so much. (The Advocate's provocative "Gay Is The New Black" issue also comes to mind).
Take Dan Savage, employing a similar rhetorical device, one that I like to call, Performing "Social Justice" Satire While Standing on the Shoulders of Other Oppressed Groups. He jests, in a post entitled "Ban Fat Marriage":
"Iowa should ban fat marriage. There are, according to the state of Iowa, more than 1.4 million obese people living in Iowa. That's nearly 30% of the state's population, and those numbers just keep rising. The social costs of Iowa's obesity epidemic are pretty staggering—and those costs include including premature death and lower average life expectancies for Iowans.I get it. He's not seriously in favor of banning fat people from marrying (um, right? *looks around at others to see uncertain, hesitant nods*). His totally edgy point is, Well, why single out gay people when other groups also live unhealthy lifestyles?" Yet, a big problem with the device—one of many problems—is that, much how anti-gays present homosexuality as a lifestyle choice that people make that they should not make, he takes it as a given that being fat is a lifestyle choice that people make that they should not make. When...it's more complicated than that. (See eg, above links.) Savage's former fatness may have been attributable to "lifestyle" (i.e. disordered eating), but he's extrapolating his individual experience to an entire population, and generally being hostile to the concept of autonomous choice, which is a key element of any equality movement.
Since we know that obesity is "contagious"—someone with an obese spouse is 37% more likely to be or become obese—then we shouldn't permit the obese to marry. If an outright ban on fat marriage seems too draconian, then we shouldn't permit the obese to marry the non-obese. The odds that the skinny spouse will be ultimately be seduced into the risky obese lifestyle are simply too great and the potential health consequences too severe."
Now, I can already predict some reactions to this piece. I'm being the PC police. I just "don't get" satire. I'm too sensitive. I'm a femi-nazi. I'm probably a fatty fat fat man-hating lesbian who hates white dudes. Yes, yes, I know. I've heard it all before, even in "LGBT" spaces like BTB, where it's abhorrent that these battles even have to be fought.
For such folks, I'd like to emphasize. My overall point is that Savage is showing some big-time hypocrisy by perpetuating the bullying of fat people while decrying the bullying of gay kids. It is a hypocrisy that is perhaps grounded in a privileged worldview where (a) most gay people are primarily concerned with gay oppression; (b) there are no fat queer people; and (c) gay oppression is the Most Important Oppression Ever (or, as The Advocate called it, "The Last Great Civil Rights Struggle").
Back in January, a white gay man wrote a "Defense of the Gay White Male" at Jezebel that mostly displayed ignorance of the concept of white male privilege by addressing "arguments" supposedly made by those radical non-white-gay-male types of LGBT people. He asked, "Can a nontrans, white gay man ever truly leave the comforts of his own identity without having to make frequent and loud apologies for the crimes of his ilk?"
Like this man, Dan Savage is a thin, white, cis, not-poor, gay male, and to my knowledge able-bodied (I have not seen them write about being disabled, but that does not exclude the possibility). Accordingly, he has the relative privilege of his sexual orientation being his only major axis of oppression. If we understand this, we see that calling out the privilege of such people isn't about asking them to make "frequent and loud apologies" for anything. What we are asking is for them to understand that other members of our community—and of the general public—are oppressed based on other aspects of identity and that this oppression is just as real and legitimate as oppression based upon sexual orientation and gender identity.
I want equality as a woman and a lesbian. But do we have to obtain equality by Making Things Worse for other marginalized people?
[Related Reading: Hello, I Am Fat.]
Return of the Monolithic Ladyvote
Actual Headline: Would Women Support Newt Gingrich for President?
At least the author, Jill Lawrence, specifies she's talking about "moderate and independent women," thus acknowledging that women are at least TWO separate groups—progressive women who would never vote for Gingrich in a million zillion biebillion years because of his politics, and "moderate and independent women" who might vote for him, if they don't object to his being a serial philanderer who cheated on his first wife then dumped her while she was in the hospital recovering from surgery for uterine cancer, who cheated on his second wife then dumped her over the phone on Mothers' Day after she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, immediately marrying the Congressional aide with whom he was having an affair, who is now his current wife.
I'm going to go out on a lady-limb and suggest that there are some people who will vote for Newt Gingrich if he is the Republican nominee, and some of those people will be women.
Some of them will be women who don't care about his personal life because they genuinely believe it's none of their business and/or doesn't reflect on his ability to be president; some of them will be women who don't care only because there's not a D behind his name on the ballot—and they want to make quick with the federal marriage amendment to protect the sanctity of straight marriage. Ahem.
Either way, of course some women will support him.
It's not like Lawrence doesn't know this. Nor any of the other hundreds of journos who wrote similar pieces about the Monolithic Ladyvote during the last election. It's just that "will women do X?" is a lazyass way of creating a justifying frame for a piece on Gingrich's personal life. Or to implicitly condemn female candidacies by pointing out, as if it's a scandal, that NOT ALL WOMEN will vote for any single female candidate. Or whatever.
There's a legitimate story to be written about the relationship, if any, between a politician's private ethics and public ethics. "Is the personal political for Newt Gingrich?" examining how privilege inoculates straight white male politicians from that reality. (Are you reading, Newsweek?) It doesn't have to be buried beneath yet another reinforcement of the pernicious idea that women are a hivemind.
The silly season has begun.
Open Thread
Hosted by Wadsworth.
"I'm the butler. I butle."
This week's open threads have been hosted by characters from the movie Clue.
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!
Discussion Thread: I Thought the Darnedest Things, Part 2
On Tuesday, I opened a discussion thread about the things we misunderstood as kids. One of the themes I noticed was about thinking things to be gendered that aren't, or in a way they aren't, e.g. thinking only women had the ability to cook because you never saw any men cooking, or thinking all cats are female and all dogs are male.
Trying to fit things into a sex/gender binary is something humans do from a very early age, so it leads to a lot of misunderstandings about what is innately female or innately male, when kids see only women or only men doing something.
(Aside: Contrary to the insistence of homobigots that single and same-sex parenting damages kids, children raised by single or same-sex parents tend to have less rigid ideas about gender than kids raised by opposite-sex parents. Of course, I suppose if you are a homobigot, less rigid ideas of gender is evidence of damage. Suffice it to say, I disagree!)
I remember lots of surprises when I would see a man doing something I'd only seen my mother do, or vice versa. I also used to think if my parents did the same task different ways, it necessarily meant that all women had one way of doing it and all men had one way of doing it.
One of the silliest examples of this is that my parents folded toilet paper differently (and probably still do; I don't know since they haven't had to wipe my ass in about 35 years, lol). When I saw my paternal grandmother fold toilet paper, she did it just like my dad! I told her, "You fold toilet paper like a man." And I still remember, as clear as day, her saying to me, "No, your daddy folds toilet paper like a woman—like me, because I taught him."
It blew my little mind!
What memories do you have about your misunderstandings about sex/gender?
OFFS
[Trigger warning for violence and xenophobic othering]
NYT:
"A 37-year-old illegal immigrant was under arrest Friday after three people were found shot to death and three others were wounded at two houses just blocks apart in the northern Virginia city of Manassas, the police said."
1. I know it's all the rage in the liberal media these days, but can we give the term "illegal immigrant" a rest? Please?
2. There's nothing in the story that suggests that the status of the suspects' immigration paperwork had anything to do with his motivation. I don't see any motive listed. And yet "immigrant" is the first subject
Why? Well...
"[The suspect,] Mr. Alfaro, 37, from El Salvador, had been ordered deported by a federal judge in 2002, but apparently never left the country, the authorities said."
Deported! To El Salvador! Never Left! EEEELLLLEEEVVVEEENNTTTYYYYY!!!!11!!!!
So three people are dead, and three people are wounded, and Mr. Alfaro may be responsible. That's tragic. But the victims aren't illegal immigrant dead and wounded, they're just dead and wounded, which is pretty tragic in-and-of itself. Furthermore, Mr. Alfaro is a suspected murderer, which, paperwork aside, is a pretty nasty label to own for the time being.
Basically, the reporter is falling back on the lazy (and bigoted!) assumption that non-American-born people aren't actual people (see also, transsexual does X, black does X, woman does X, gay does X).
Oh! There's also the narrative that brown people + coming to America = Crime! Oh noes, fear for the future of the real peoplez! This is an interesting idea, in that it's complete bullshit. Obvious bullshit. You know, mendacity.
So knock it the hell off, already, NYT.
This Summer's Biggest Comedy!
Gritty, dirty. Barfy, farty.
Ugh. The Hangover 2, you are going to be so terrible.
Quote of the Day
[Trigger warning for racism, xenophobia.]
"I appreciate people's sympathy and interest in democracy, that's an American instinct. But unfortunately in this case, this is the Middle East. And the traditions there do not support their embracing [democracy]."—Terry Holt, on a Fox News panel of three foreign policy experts discussing the revolution in Egypt.
Holt is a former national spokesman for the 2004 Bush-Cheney presidential campaign.
George at Think Progress notes that it's "the height of irony for a former Bush-Cheney spokesman to ridicule the idea of democracy in the Middle East," given that Bush "centered his foreign policy around 'our efforts to help the Iraqi people build a lasting democracy in the heart of the Middle East'."
One of the things I have observed with great but bitter amusement during the revolution in Egypt is the compulsion of many conservatives to make some variation on the point Holt is making here, central to which is the idea that democracy is inherently incompatible with "the Middle East," which is shorthand for "Islam."
These are, of course, the same people who have spent nearly a decade vociferously defending both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars on the premise that we are "spreading democracy" to the Middle East, which, by any reasonable (there's the catch!) measure, implies a belief in the compatibility of democracy and Islam.
Their current position will be even more hilaritragic when and if flourishing democracy does take hold in Egypt and Tunisia, and they begin to bray about how it was the visionary George W. Bush who saw the opportunity to spread freedom in the Middle East.
Despite their vacillations, they do remain spectacularly consistent in their refusal to give even the most cursory acknowledgment of the autonomy and diversity of peoples in the Middle East.
Daily Dose of Cute
Matilda and I have another conversation about her rumor-mongering and conspiracy theories.
[Transcript below.]
Tils: Click!
Liss: What? Are you telling me that story again? Didn't we debunk this last week?
Tils: Myah!
Liss: Well, I know you believe it, but it's not true! Do you remember we watched that Anderson Cooper special about it? And you were like, "Yeah, I guess maybe I shouldn't have been watching Fox News."—remember? [Tils looks sheepish.] I know. It's kind of embarrassing.
Tils: Ah!
Liss: Well…
Tils: Ah!
Liss: Well, that's what you get for watching stupid news sources. I've told you about Fox; I've told you about the Drudge Report.
Tils: Myah!
Liss: Yeah, I have.
Tils: Mrrrrwwwaahhh.
Liss: I mean, when are you gonna learn your lesson?
Tils: Mrow.
Liss: I don't know, either.
Tils: Mrrrrwwwaahhh.
Liss: I mean, you're a smart girl, Matilda! You really need to get it together.
Tils: Ahhww.
Liss: I know.
[edit; Tilsy chews on the camera's wrist-strap and pats at it furiously with her fuzzy paws; edit]
Liss: Matilda, the other day Olivia told me that they found an alien skull on the White House lawn. Do you know anything about that? Where is she getting these ideas?
[Tilsy blinks innocently; edit; she's batting at the wrist strap again]
Liss: I mean, look, I'm trying to have a serious conversation with you, and all you can do is, like, play with a string. Is this maybe part of the problem, d'ya think? Do you think that maybe part of your problem is that you're more interested in string than discussing your bad media habits? Matilda, I think this could be part of the problem.
[Tilsy stares at wrist strap; looks cute.]
Bi-Monthly Reminder & Thank-You
This is, for those who have requested it, your bi-monthly reminder* to donate to Shakesville.
Asking for donations** is difficult for me, partly because I've got an innate aversion to asking for anything, and partly because these threads are frequently critical and stressful. But it's also one of the most feminist acts I do here.
It's also the only way I am able to manage this community as a safe space, which requires my full-time commitment in addition to our volunteer contributors and moderators.
Over the past couple of weeks, when widely-linked discussion of a particularly sensitive subject, bought in droves of new and frequently disruptive commenters, the fierceness of our vigilance and the value of what it provides was more evident than usual. People commented how very much like magic it is to enjoy threads free of apologia, bigotry, and hateful/triggering material.
But it is not magic. It is hard and unrelenting work.
So. Here is your reminder to support this space if you appreciate what happens here.
You can donate once by clicking the button in the righthand sidebar, or set up a monthly subscription here. We first made the Subscribe to Shakesville page available in March, which means many of the subscriptions are running out and have to be renewed if you want to keep your subscription active.
Let me reiterate, once again, that I don't want anyone to feel obliged to contribute financially, especially if money is tight. Aside from valuing feminist work, the other goal of fundraising is so Iain and I don't have to struggle on behalf of the blog, and I don't want anyone else to struggle themselves in exchange. There is a big enough readership that neither should have to happen.
I also want say thank you, so very much, to each of you who donates or has donated, whether monthly or as a one-off. I am profoundly grateful—and I don't take a single cent for granted. I've not the words to express the depth of my appreciation, besides these: This community couldn't exist without that support, truly. Thank you.
My thanks as well to everyone who contributes to the space in other ways, whether as a regular contributor, a guest contributor, a moderator, a transcriber, or as someone who takes the time to send me the occasional note of support and encouragement. This community couldn't exist without you, either.
---------------------
* I know there are people who resent these reminders, but there are also people who appreciate them, so I've now taken to doing them every other month, in the hopes that will make a good compromise.
** Why I ask for donations is explained here.
Friday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by Shaxco, publishers of The Shakesonian Field Guide to Ants in the Pants, edited by PortlyDyke.
Recommended Reading:
Amanda: Victoria Jackson, the Leading Lady of Conservative Comedy, Hits CPAC
Andrea: Voices: Reflecting on Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day 2011
Dreadnought: Motherly Love from Suburbia/Connecticut, Part 2 (It's the Roller Derby Quilt!)
Ed: Low Hanging. And Diminutive.
Hanne: Why I Don't Read Those Links You Send Me
Jacinta: Because Sexual Assault is More Common Than You Think [Trigger warning for rape]
Lisa: Gendered Battle Gear
Matt: What Does Being a Man Mean to You? [Trigger warning for transphobia]
Paul: Why Mubarak is Out [Trigger warning for torture and rape]
Susie: Taking it to the Streets
Leave your links in the comments...
Of Course
[Trigger warning for rape apologia, threats, harassment.]
The title of this post, were it not in need of its own trigger and an entire page of space, would have been: Rape Apologists React to Anti-Rape Message with Threats of Rape and Death, Thus Proving Yet Again the Point of Anti-Rape Advocacy. Privileged Dudes Who Think Anti-Rape Activism Is Hilarious Deliberately Misrepresent Message to Make Lots of Fun Rape Jokes. About Babies.
It's a familiar story to anyone who's been around here for more than five seconds—I write something critical of the rape culture; aggressive rape apologists threaten me; passive rape apologists willfully misrepresent my point to mock anti-rape advocacy and the broken hysterics who engage in it. Rinse. Repeat.
This happens to all anti-rape advocates.
Josh Jasper, director of the Riverview Center, which serves survivors of sexual and domestic violence in Wisconsin, Iowa, and Illinois, made an anti-rape advert challenging people to consider what values we're communicating to male children. [Note: Jasper does not take the position that only men commit sexual and domestic violence; this one 30-second ad was designed, however, to address the reality that the vast majority of intimate assaults are perpetrated by men, in large part because of their socialization.]
Male Narrator: [over onscreen text of same] He's tough. He's strong. He's aggressive. He's powerful. And he raped his girlfriend. [over black screen] But he wasn't always this way. [over video of white baby in a diaper, looking generally cute] What are you teaching your son? Redefine what it means to be a man, because ending sexual violence begins with him. [onscreen text: Riverview Center. Creating a Community Free of Sexual Violence. www.riverviewcenter.org]A different ad aired during the Superbowl turned "Jasper's regional spot [into] a YouTube sensation." You don't need to guess what happened after that, because you already know.
"One of the 800 comments I've received in the last 24 hours is that I'm a Nazi sympathizer and I should be taken out and shot," Jasper said.Despite that absurd ugliness, despite the jack-booted enforcers of the rape culture doing their totally typical thing, there is also the usual good news. Jasper reports that the center has seen an increase in calls for help from survivors: "There are a lot of survivors out there who weren't abused last night, but 10, 20 years ago, who are now feeling empowered because people are talking about the issue. That's exactly why I created the commercial and that's exactly why the commercial will stay."
The posts are coming from all over the world, and some are so hostile, Jasper said he's called the Dubuque police chief and removed personal information from Facebook.
"I've been accused of hating all men, that all men are rapists, that I think babies are rapists. The message that we're trying to send is that we need to start a conversation about violence against women, children, and men is an epidemic and we need to start talking about this," Jasper said.
Why the anger?
"I think there are a lot of men who have a deep-seated hatred toward women. I bet I've received 150 messages in the last 24 hours that say it's okay to rape women. If we're going to end the violence, we have to start with them."
*fist-bumps Josh Jasper*
You know, one of the most common arguments I hear from dudes who don't understand why I can't just STFU and let dudes enjoy their rape jokes and stop being such a fat hysterical cunt all the time, is that anti-rape advocacy is pointless since all decent people—which, according to them, is basically like everyone ever, whoooooops (pdf)—already agree that rape is terrible.
But, see, then someone goes and says, "Rape is terrible," and he gets death threats in response. Like, a lot of them. Even though everyone is supposed to consider that observation so self-evident that to say it aloud should hardly be controversial.
That makes the whole "pointless" argument pretty unconvincing, really.
[H/T to Shaker Susan.]
The GOP Continues Its Assault on Women
House GOP Playing Politics With Women's Health:
House Republicans are drafting a continuing resolution that would include the removal of all Title X family planning funds from the federal budget. Title X clinics provide everything from annual exams, to cancer screenings, to contraceptive services, to testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections. The provision would take the program, which as been in place for over 40 years, from $317 million dollars a year to nothing virtually overnight. We expect it to be taken up in the House some time next week.To what end, Republicans? To what fucking end?
The continuing resolution comes on the heels of Rep. Mike Pence's Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act (H.R. 217), which would deny Title X funds to organizations that also provide abortions. The bill is a direct attack on legitimate family planning providers, like Planned Parenthood, who play a critical role for millions of women.
Michael Keegan, President of People For the American Way, issued the following statement:
"This is a shameless attempt to stir up a Right Wing 'culture war,' whatever the collateral damage—in this case, critical healthcare for millions of low-income women. If the House GOP is really interested in preventing unintended pregnancies, it should embrace organizations that provide affordable contraception. If it's interested in public health, it should be interested in helping women defend themselves against disease. If these bills become law, millions of American women will lose access to critical family planning and reproductive health services. This move is not fiscally responsible or socially responsible—it's a blatant attempt to play politics with women's health."
