Hosted by Lego Iron Man, who appears to be in a bit of a funk.
Question of the Day
We have done this one before, but not for a while:
Is there a story behind your screen name? Why did you choose your handle?
Mine is just my initials, so I love hearing stories of screen-name inventiveness!
Respect Our Lives
[Trigger warning for disrespect of women's autonomy, violence, and a description of a perineum tear.]
In the context of the Ohio "Heartbeat" Bill, the attack on Planned Parenthood funding, the proposed legislation in South Dakota which would legalize the murder of abortion providers, and everything else Republicans/anti-choicers are doing across the country to turn Roe into a hollow statute, this quote from possible '12 Republican candidate Mike Huckabee is particularly interesting:
"For me this is an issue that - as I've said before - it transcends all of the political issues," Huckabee said at a fundraiser in Tennessee for the Center for Bioethical Reform, an anti-abortion group.Insert contemptuous chortling at the idea that a Republican could lose an election for being too anti-choice.
"I've often said I would gladly lose an election before I would ever yield on the issue of the sanctity of human life," Huckabee added.
Of course, Huckabee didn't say anything about being anti-choice. What he said was that he would never "yield on the issue of the sanctity of human life." By which he means the potential life of fetuses. Which everyone in the media takes as read. And then stops there. And never makes the logical observation about the gaping hole in his reasoning, never asks the logical follow-up questions.
"But, Rev. Huckabee, you do appear to be willing to compromise the sanctity of the lives of pregnant women. Do you not believe that their lives are sacred? Do you not believe their free will is sacred? Do you not believe their right to free of violence done to their bodies is sacred?"
As I've said before (and will almost certainly have occasion to say many times again, until everyone is yawning about what a goddamn broken record I am), the anti-choice position is inherently violent, no matter how politely it is stated. If anyone else suggested that I should be forced to submit my body against my will to nine months of potential discomfort and pain, followed by an act that might include the skin and muscle between my vagina and anus being torn open, I don't think we'd mince words about whether they were using violent rhetoric. But because we can couch it in the bullshit terminology of "a pro-life position," that's supposed to be evidence of civility.
That's supposed to evidence of an unyielding belief in the sanctity of human life.
LULZ.
I am a human. That does not in any way feel like a respect for the sanctity of my life, or the quality of my life, or the agency over my life to which I am meant to have a public (and, according to Huckabee's own religion, divine) right.
No one can argue, with any honesty or credibility, that they give a fuck about the sanctity of life if they would force a woman to carry to term an unwanted or unviable pregnancy against her will. That is the opposite of a respect for life, if the definition of "life" is to have any meaning at all.
And I really wish the media would start pointing that out.
Feminism 101: Helpful Hints for Dudes, Part 2
Following is a primer for men who are interested in learning more about how to respect women's agency. Most of the information in this piece is, as always, generally applicable—i.e. women shouldn't treat other people's bodies as public property, either—but this has been written to be most accessible for men in keeping with the objective of the series.
[Trigger warning for objectification and dehumanization.]
Most blokes, whether they're trying to be more feminist-minded or not, don't consider themselves to be the sort of guy who disrespect women's agency, and yet there are still myriad ways in which men are socialized to express ownership of women.
Here, I'm going to explore three of the prominent ways in which male ownership of women is expressed (and visit some ways in which they can be avoided): Exceptionalism, Breach of Consent, and Failure to Respect Agency.
Exceptionalism.
Some expressions of ownership are insidious, subtle but dangerous: Exceptionalism, which is singling out one woman as an exception to the rule—that is, saying she defies the stereotypes of womanhood—is a less obvious but no less pernicious expression of ownership.
A man who expresses exceptionalism about his mother, his sister, his wife, his girlfriend, his female friend(s)—"My [woman/women] aren't like those other women!"—is implicitly marking territory around women related to him, the boundary marked by women he is willing to see as individuals, and all other women, who are stripped of their individual humanity to be regarded as a monolith.
It can be difficult for men to accept that exceptionalism, which is often intended as a compliment (and frequently received as such!—because women are socialized to hate women just as much as men are), is, in fact, a profoundly damaging anti-feminist practice. But the flipside of "complimenting" individual women by detaching them from womankind is turning the vast majority of women into an indistinguishable horde with universally contemptible traits.
Exceptionalizing a woman can also, in the long term, serve to undermine her sense of self, as it obliquely encourages her, in a bid to retain her value as an Exceptional Woman, to reject any part of herself that might be seen as stereotypical of women. Even if not so intended, exceptionalism thus becomes a form of control, tacitly encouraging a woman to futilely try to wrench her personhood from her womanhood, which is impossible and thus ultimately breeds self-loathing and/or contempt for the man who exceptionalizes her.
If you find yourself thinking, "This woman is not like other women," consider how much your understanding of "other women" comes from intimate knowledge of multitudinous individual woman vs. cultural narratives about women as a whole. Consider as well whether meeting one woman who bucks those narratives might suggest, in fact, not that she is one in (literally) three billion, but instead that women are more individual than is routinely suggested in vast and diverse ways throughout our culture.
It doesn't undermine the specialness of a woman to regard her as a unique person well-suited to your personality and preferences and idiosyncrasies, as opposed to an Exceptional Woman. Indeed, it is more special to be regarded as a cool woman in a world full of cool women than it is the only cool woman on the planet.
Breach of Consent.
Some of the expressions of ownership are more obvious: Breach of consent is clearly an indication of someone who fails to respect the bodily autonomy of another individual. Generally, we associate breach of consent with sexual violence, but consent is something that ought to be respected in all interactions with another person.
We should always be mindful of the access we've been granted by another person: Just because we can find someone's home address, for example, doesn't mean we can assume consent to show up at hir house uninvited.
There are a variety of circumstances in which women's right of consent is routinely ignored, the most ubiquitous of which is casually touching a woman without her consent, as if her body is public property.
Generally, we collectively recognize the groping and grabbing that happens with alarming frequency on public transportation, for example, as problematic—but many of the men who rightfully disdain this behavior nonetheless engage in casual touching without consent in other contexts.
We euphemize nonconsensual but nonviolent touching as "making a pass" or even, simply, "being friendly." But it is not friendly; it is entitled.
This tends to be a point of contention for straight/bisexual men who can't imagine how it's possible to meet, date, flirt with, and eventually become sexually intimate with a woman without ever touching her without her consent. The worry tends to be expressed as, "It won't be sexy or smooth if I ask," but that's not true. Asking a woman, "May I take your arm?" or "May I kiss you?" is actually quite likely to be considered both sexy and smooth, with the additional bonus of being respectful.
What's decidedly not sexy and smooth, however, is making a woman feel uncomfortable, or even triggering her, if she's a trauma survivor, by touching her without her consent.
Communication about consent and boundaries does not have to be stilted and awkward. It just takes practice. In a moment when you think, "I want to touch her; I think she wants me to touch her; I'm going to go ahead and touch her and see what happens," instead of guessing what she wants, and instead of communicating what you want by doing it, try looking deep into her eyes and saying aloud, "I want to touch you; would that be all right?" If it is, asking isn't going to change her mind.
But not asking just might.
Asking, and really listening to the answer, is a key part of treating a woman as your equal and respecting her individual humanity and autonomy. Or: Treating her as though she owns herself.
Failure to Respect Agency.
Men's socialization includes strong disincentives against asking and listening, and strong incentives to reflexively prioritize their own judgment and perspective, which many narratives in our culture exist to (wrongly) assure them is Objective Truth. That is one of the grandest lies that privilege tells any of us—your perspective as a person of privilege is not subjective; you are better capable of assessing truth than anyone compromised by their marginalization.
But, as I said in Part One, institutional bias compromises all of us, whether we stand to benefit from or be marginalized by it.
This lie of objectivity causes many privileged people to disregard the value of asking and listening. Instead, sure of their own flawless capacity for discerning Objective Truth, they substitute their own assumptions for concrete knowledge of a marginalized person's opinions, experience, intentions, etc.
Thus, a man who does not ask his wife, for example, what she wants, what she needs, what she believes, what she is thinking, what she is feeling, but instead merely assumes what she wants, needs, believes, thinks, and feels, is robbing her of her autonomy.
Straight/bisexual men who engage in presumptive behavior will frequently find themselves in vicious fights with female partners, unable to understand what they view as their partner's disproportional fury over a simple misunderstanding. But it is not a simple misunderstanding to substitute your (erroneous, or even correct) assumptions for a good-faith acquisition of your partner's actual thoughts and desires. It is an implicit assertion that you know better and/or that don't respect your partner as an equal, self-governed, rights-bearing individual human.
To substitute your own assumptions for straightforward communication is to subvert her agency. And that is a very serious offense.
An offense which can only but easily be avoided by asking and listening, and then respecting what you hear.
Another grave breach of agency, which is related to the failure to acknowledge consent, boundaries, and autonomy, is telling a woman how to behave. One of the most common complaints among feminist women regarding failures to respect their agency is being told to smile.
(Or cheer up. Or be happy. Or some variation on that theme.)
Exhorting a woman to "Smile!" on demand simultaneously suggests ownership—that her existence is only to please you, to do what you want—and robs her entirely of agency. A woman who is not smiling has, as does every human being, reason to not be smiling. To bark a command, no matter how "charming," that she should ignore her own life experience and emotions in order to please like a performing pony, is just an absolute clusterfuck of contempt for agency by someone who, intentionally or not, positions himself as her master.
* * *
I frequently invoke the phrase "My rights end where yours begin" when discussing social justice and civil rights, particularly surrounding issues of choice—reproductive, marriage, or otherwise.
It is a simple phrase to remind myself that my rights extend only as far as they encroach on someone else's. I have a right, for example, to be an atheist; I do not have the right to force anyone else to share my belief. (Not that I would.)
It's a good guiding principle for progressives. (And ought to be for conservatives, but that's a whole other post.)
Similarly, "My agency ends where yours begins" is a good guiding principle for interactions with other people. That means I treat my partner as an individual—which is not to say I don't acknowledge his socialization as a man, but he is Iain first, man second.
It also means I respect his humanity, his dignity, and his right to consent at all times. We've been together almost 10 years, and we have a well-practiced shorthand, as all couples do. But shorthand is not a synonym for "implicit consent." There is no such thing. Our communication has been streamlined over time, but consent is always explicit, the right to say no is always respected, and there is never, ever any cajoling or coercion. Respecting each other's agency means respecting boundaries, and not pressuring one another to move those boundaries.
(As an aside, although the above sounds like I'm referring exclusively to sex, I am referring to any issue on which a partner might be inclined to badger another beyond the drawing of a firm boundary—whether it's spending money, having a child, getting a picture taken, or anything else.)
Finally, "My agency ends where yours begins" means I don't assume that I know more or better about my partner and his wants/needs than he does, and I don't believe I have ownership of his body, thoughts, or emotions.
And it begins with this thought: He is my equal.
Ohio "Heartbeat" Bill
A new bill in Ohio, one that is expected to pass both House and Senate, would ban abortion after the heartbeat is detected. Note: a heartbeat does not mean a viable fetus.
Anyway:
COLUMBUS -- Lawmakers against abortion rights are preparing to go for the legislative equivalent of a Hail Mary, the toughest anti-abortion rights law in the nation, at a time when some in the movement argue it's too much too soon.A bit more on this:
With the GOP in control of both chambers of the General Assembly and the governor's office, a series of bills is being proposed for added steps to restrict abortion rights.
A group of legislators vowed Wednesday to forge ahead with a proposed law that would close the window during which a legal abortion may be performed in Ohio to within weeks of conception. Backers say nearly half of the members of the House of Representatives have signed on as co-sponsors a week before the bill formally will be introduced. Except in situations where the health of the mother is in danger, an abortion would be illegal once the heartbeat of a fetus is detected. The bill would require the doctor to find that heartbeat using "standard medical practice," a term not defined.
A doctor who violates the law could be found guilty of a fifth-degree felony, punishable by up to a year in prison and a $2,500 fine. The mother could not be charged.
The controversial legislation is one of the most stringent anti-abortion plans to be introduced in a state legislature to date.GOP: Pro-Fetus; Pro-Forced Birth; Anti-Woman, Anti-Family, Anti-Decency.
It clearly challenges the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade mandate, under which a woman has the right to abort a fetus until it is "viable," meaning that it's "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid." It's only at the point of viability -- "usually placed at about seven months" -- that states can restrict abortion.
"There are clearly fetuses that are not yet viable but have heartbeats," said Laurence H. Tribe, a constitutional scholar and professor at Harvard Law School. "What they're doing is trying to push the point at which the woman's rights are subordinated to those of the unborn to a much earlier point in pregnancy. ... It's clearly a frontal challenge to Roe v. Wade."
The bill, one of five abortion-related pieces of legislation introduced within a week in the Ohio legislature, has a strong chance of passage. Republicans control all branches of Ohio's state government -- the House, the Senate and governorship and the state Supreme Court.
Supporters of the bill argue that it sets a new precedent that's grounded in science and that they're ready to fight it all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"We don't bury people with beating hearts, because the heartbeat is a sign of life," said Janet Folger Porter, president of Faith2Action, who helped craft the bill's language. "We are just applying that same measurement to this end of life and I believe the court is going to recognize -- just like it does with life at the other end of the spectrum -- it's going to recognize this line of life early on."
Similar bills are also being considered by legislators in Texas, Georgia and Oklahoma, and being discussed in Kansas and Arizona, Porter said.
Abortion rights groups say the move by Ohio Republicans is merely a political one that unfairly intervenes in the relationship doctors have with patients.
"They are making decisions for women in banning abortion basically before some women even know they are pregnant," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro Choice. "Technology can give us information but it can't make the decision for us."
Quote of the Day
The consequences of passing this bill are clear — and they would be devastating. More women would have unintended pregnancies. Cancer would develop, undiagnosed, in countless women. There is no doubt: cutting off millions of women from care they have no other way to afford places them at risk of sickness and death.
-- Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, on the current provision to strip all federal funding from Planned Parenthood.
Woot! I Am Empowered!
The 1-2 hour electrical/cable project outside my house, which actually took more than 5 hours (whooooooops!) is now complete, and I am back online!
And, more importantly, the heat is back on. YOWZA.
Thanks very much to Deeks for keeping things hopping, and, of course, to all the other contributors/mods who were down one without me.
DOG BUTT!
(Dudley stands on the couch, watching the work going on outside.)
South Dakota Moves To Legalize Killing Abortion Providers
[Trigger warning for all kinds of fucked up shit.]
Mother Jones reports: A bill under consideration in the Mount Rushmore State would make preventing harm to a fetus a "justifiable homicide" in many cases.
Read. Discuss.
Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime
Pet Shop Boys: "Where the Streets Have No Name (I Can't Take My Eyes off You)"
Blog Note
Liss is currently without power. Yay for infrastructure improvements. Boo for ten minutes notice. She'll be online as soon as they're done completing their work. (Whomever they are.)
In the meantime, enjoy this image of David Bowie as Nikola Tesla:
The Overton Window: Chapter Thirty-Five
I know you've all been waiting for some more faction and here it comes! And by faction I mean there's a scene that takes place in a real restaurant (unlike the Stars 'n Stripes He-Man Patriots Club). Yay for faction! Boo for cab rides. Yeah, you didn't think you'd get away without another cab ride, did you? Remember, cab rides = movement. You can't say the story isn't moving because it is! Literally! See? Noah moved from the hospital to the Buccaneer Diner. A real page turner! Oh, and yeah, that's the faction part. The diner. It's real. Click here if you don't believe me. (You believe me, right?)
I'm not sure, but the writing actually seems to be getting worse as the novel progresses. That hardly seems possible. You'd think through the course of a couple hundred pages the ghostwriter might hit his stride. I guess not. Look at the opening paragraph:
The street address that had been scrawled on the hospital's notepaper didn't lead him to another of the so-called safe houses that Molly had described. When Noah looked up as the cab pulled to a stop he found he was outside what looked like a quaint family-style eatery, the Buccaneer Diner on Astoria Boulevard in Queens, about a mile from La Guardia Airport.
That first sentence is clunky and awkward. As if the author couldn't quite figure out how to express his ideas clearly, and just sort of jammed them together into one uncooperative sentence. Look, it's no secret that Beck is a wealthy man. He could have hired on any number of competent ghostwriters. Instead we're saddled with prose that reads like a tenth grade writing assignment. (No offense to tenth graders.) This is, quite literally, the worst thing I've ever read. And I've read Bret Easton Ellis. Yeah, I've used that joke before. This book is so crappy I can't even be bothered to come up with fresh insults for it.
Honestly, the only thing that keeps me going at this point is that we're only about ten chapters from the end. I can't wait to see how it turns out. (I can wait.) (p.s. I already know how it ends.) The truth is, it shouldn't have taken us 200 pages to get where we are, considering we've not come much anywhere. Right? There's a bomb, and a stolen Powerpoint, and the New World Order. Really, this could have been covered in the prologue. All of which is to say, you've probably guessed by now everything in this book exists solely to set up a sequel.
We're going to get our Casus Belli moment (bye-bye, Harry Reid!), then fade to black. No resolution, no closure, no nothing. Just 275 pages of fear-mongering, pseudo-libertarian wankery, and the worst writing this side of Stephenie Meyer. That end can't come quickly enough as far as I am concerned. Bring on the New World Order, I say. So long as they put a stop to this sort of hackery, I'm okay with being under the thumb of the Nicolae Carpathia or Horatio J. HooDoo or whomever.
The only good thing about this chapter is it is free of any dialogue. It's crap writing, sure, but I guess it could be worse. There's are lot of "Molly explained" and "Noah told her" without actually detailing any of what they said. It's quicker that way, I guess. And sort of frees the author from having to put too much thought into anything.
The two are quickly reunited. I guess if this were a movie (this soooooooooo needs to be a movie) the scene would be warmly lit, and in slow motion, and they'd talk, sure, but we, the audience, would only hear the swell of Howard Shore's tear-inducing score.
Inside the restaurant the lunchtime rush was winding down, with most of the tables emptying out and the floor staff busy doing cleanup and taking care of departing patrons at the register. But sitting alone in a booth near the back, in the nearest thing to a dark corner that was available in such a place on a sunny Monday afternoon, was the young woman he'd come to see.
When Molly looked over and saw him walking up the aisle she stood and was suddenly overcome by a flood of tears she must have been barely holding at bay. She ran to him and threw herself into his arms.
Yay. Star-crossed lovers.
One question: Why are these two lovebirds so thrilled to see one another? They've spent, what, a total of three or four hours in each other's company? (If you cut out all the time Noah's been unconscious. And Noah's spent a lot of time unconscious.) They chatted briefly at work. They barely talked at the teabagger bar. They briefly talked, I guess, in the back of the police wagon. There was a limo ride and chicken and waffles and a nap. Then they watched the Powerpoint, followed by a silent cab ride. Then another brief chat in Molly's safehouse apartment. They hardly know each other. And what Noah knows is largely a lie. He's twice been drugged by Molly. Manipulated by her evoking the memories of his late mother. Had his career nearly destroyed. So why does he want to see her? And Noah represents everything Molly despises. He is colluding to install the NWO. Noah's father just had her mother murdered, her ex-boyfriend arrested, her friends beaten. Why does she want to see him?
This romance, much like everything else in the book makes. no. fucking. sense.
Neither forgiving nor forgetting, he put it all aside for the time being and just held her for a while.
Swell.
Hey, I'm no cynic. (Okay, I am.) I liked Sabrina. I'm all for love where a couple that has nothing in common manage to find romance against all odds and somehow make it work. But it's not that Molly and Noah have nothing in common, they have actually been on opposites sides of a conflict fraught with murder plots, violence and deceit. And I'm not talking some Romeo & Juliet shit here either. Molly and Noah have been active participants in this treachery.
Nonetheless, the two are back in each other's lying, deceitful arms. And there is no time make-up sex.
Molly's traveling companions had gone on ahead to test the waters at La Guardia in preparation for their flight west toward less hostile environs. According to the news the DHS had taken the nation to high alert over the weekend, and that put the airports at the very highest level; this was obviously cause for concern. Sure enough, word had reached her that the first of her friends to pass through the TSA checkpoint had been singled out and pulled aside. They weren't just searched and harassed, as had often been the case in recent years; this time they were arrested and detained.
Molly explained that she had to get out of town and make it to a rendezvous across the country as quickly as possible. Driving wouldn't do; she had to fly in order to make it.
You know, I think maybe at this point, we're just reading the author's outline. It doesn't read like an actual novel. Just some jotted down ideas, some notes that will need to be fleshed out, later perhaps. I feel like I've stumbled onto Tolkien's background sketches for The Hobbit. If Tolkien was a dumbass.
Noah was listening, and he was also studying her face as she spoke. The passing resemblance to that picture of his mother was almost gone now that she'd ceased to maintain it. That likeness had been subliminal at best, just enough to hook into his subconscious. But now, as they sat under the bright fluorescent lights of a Queens diner, he realized that there was absolutely no denying who Molly did look like.
And that gave him an absolutely brilliant idea.
Anyone care to guess what Noah's brilliant idea is? No, don't bother. You'll never guess. You're not a dumbass. You could never guess. No one could. It's that bad.
Question of the Day
As I said two years ago: So today is Valentine's Day. Eh.
However! Good music abounds! So share 'em here--your favorite songs about partner love, platonic love, romance, and/or heartbreak. Happy, sad, angry, dark, goofy, non-traditional...let us know (and if there's a story to go with, share that too!).
I'll start us off with a, er, few of mine (without repeating the most excellent songs of the last post, lol):
LOL
[Trigger warning for various mentions of inappropriate "humor."]
An actual bid for conservative email addresses poll currently being run by that honorable bastion of conservative thought, Townhall.barf.
[Click to embiggen.]
Yes, who IS the most liberal media personality?
Is it Keith Olbermann, the rape apologist and misogynist who has "joked" about killing Hillary Clinton, referred to Michelle Malkin as " a big mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it," and used alleged promiscuity to justify incessant jokes at the expense of young women like Britney Spears and Paris Hilton?
Is it Chris Matthews, the homophobic, racist (and racist and more racist), misogynist (misogynist, misogynist, misogynist, misogynist, misogynist, misogynist...) dildobrain?
Is it the Bill Maher, the deeply misogynist, fat-hating, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, one-man rape joke machine?
Is it Jon Stewart, who, when he is not actually lecturing liberals on how terrible they are, spends his time anchoring a comedy news show that is written almost exclusively by white men and uses humor that's as edgy as it is progressive like fat jokes and transmisogyny?
Or is it a tie between ALL THESE AWESOME LIBERALS?
You know, the sad part is that there are lot of
But they are all just opportunists whose ideas of justice had boundaries extend only as far as whomever he wants to make fun of, be cruel to, or marginalize as unserious or uncredible.
They were Bush-haters. They were never progressives.
Number of the Day
7.5%: The percentage by which, on an annual basis, full-time state and local employees are under-compensated in Indiana, in comparison with otherwise similar private-sector workers.
After his election in 2004, Governor Mitch Daniels rescinded the rights of highway police, hospital attendants, mechanics, and other state workers to collectively bargain for wage and hour increases, working conditions, and other benefits, eliminating the unionization rights and contracts of approximately 25,000 state employees. Governor Daniels is also promoting vouchers for private schools and reducing public school funding, which may result in teacher pay cuts and layoffs.Daniels justified all of the above on the basis that Indiana state and local employees were overpaid.
This is what we have to look forward to if the Republican Party is craven enough to nominate Mitch Daniels as their '12 candidate and the nation is foolish enough to vote him into national office.
Monday Blogaround
Today's blogaround is brought to you by Shaxco, makers of new LadyVote voting machines. LadyVote: capable of registering 146 million distinct opinions!
scatx: Fuck yeah, Google!
Razib Khan: The undersampled 1 billion (genetically that is)
Gender Reality: If you can talk to the media (Caitiecat had a related post here last week.)
Knitting Clio: Women’s History And Wikipedia Part II: Wikiproject Women’s History
Arya M. Sharma, MD: The Science Behind Health At Every Size (HAES) (H/T Obesity Panacea)
Sociological Images: [TW violence against women] Shifting Cultural Sensibilities and Valentine's Pleas
Terri Sundquist: [TW violent crime] Was Dr. Crippen Innocent After All? New Forensic Evidence 100 Years After his Execution
steamfashion: More CNSE News! (The CNSE is the Canadian National Steampunk Exposition)
And finally, another entry for The Franco Files. Ladysquires: I Have Questions
Leave your links in comments!
(image description: a black-and-white photo of James Franco looking like James Dean, with a cigarette and spectacles. Image credit: c. sexowski, Flickr Creative Commons, via Ladysquires)
I Write Letters
Dear Adobe,
I was already unthrilled when the text tool stopped working in your Photoshop Elements software which I JUST PURCHASED like two weeks ago.
I was even more aggravated after your help forums were of no help. No, I am not using text that is the same color as the background. No, I do not have the text buried behind another layer. No, the text size is not being measured in pixels instead of points. Yes, I have tried resetting the tool. Yes, I have tried restarting the program.
I am, however, most irritated that I am 24 minutes into what I've been told is a 38-minute wait time on your customer service line.
I'll DEFINITELY be less angry after waiting 38 minutes.
Love,
Liss
