Photo by MamaShakes.
Film Corner!
Below, the trailer for The Art of Getting By, starring Freddie Highmore, Emma Roberts, New York City, and the intersection of angst and love or whatever.
Video Description: George (Freddie Highmore) is a white teenage high school student who wears a black trenchcoat and doodles a lot and is apathetic. He is obviously too clever for school, and thus it bores him, and thus he has license to be condescending and shitty to his white female teacher. And all the other adults around him, except, perhaps, the fashionably scraggly white man who recognizes his doodles as ART no doy.
Indie music. White people. New York City. Did you know that New York City is 100% white people? That is a true fact that you can take to the bank. (It's by Wall Street.)
White art teacher is concerned. Black principal (he commutes from New Jersey DON'T WORRY) is concerned. Mom is concerned. George is apathetic and sarcastic. Oh, George. What are we going to do with you? If only you could MEET A GIRL WHO COULD HELP YOU FIGURE OUT YOU WHO YOU ARE.
Hey, look! It's Sally (Emma Roberts). HI, SALLY!
Sally is a white teenage high school student who is intrigued by George's shitty attitude. He tells her he's "the Teflon Slacker." Sure. She suggests they hang out. They cut school. He Ferris Buellers her some rules about cutting school.
Montage of hanging out, including eating nonspecific Asian food ("noodles") which was DEFINITELY made by white people DON'T WORRY. Pithy dialogue. Music. New York City. White people.
UH OH. Sally tells her mom they're just friends. But George tells his scraggly art mentor that he likes Sally. Scraggly art mentor (who is maybe George's brother or something, but who cares) tells George he'd better "throw her up against the wall and start kissing her; you gotta do something, or you might lose her."
Blah blah contrived tension and misunderstandings that could have been resolved with simple conversations. Oh noes now they're not friends at all. WHAT WILL HAPPEN? Maybe he'll Eric Stoltz a painting of her! Where the fuck is Watts, anyway?
Swelling indie music. George is running and Ben Braddocking on the front door of Sally's apartment. She opens the door! He leans in—OH NO THAT'S IT! I guess we'll all have to see this garbage movie to find out how the trailer ends.
Quote of the Day
[Trigger warning for violence, dehumanization, victim-blaming, misogyny.]
"There's a certain voyeurism in this kind of coverage -- a sense that you don't have to worry about violence because it only happens to these kinds of women," notes Melissa Gira Grant, a writer, activist, and former sex worker. Asked to select the worst recent example, she chose a New York Daily News cover that read "Hooker Slay Exclusive: Web of LI Sickos" and its accompanying inside story, "Internet sex forum wanted 'revenge' vs. Long Island hooker later murdered, dumped in burial grounds." My own pick in the Asking For It category comes from WPIX, which quotes the neighbor of Amber Lynn Costello, one of the victims: "With the people she was hanging around with, who were coming here, it was obvious something was going to happen to her." Best Candid Moment goes to the neighbor National Public Radio quotes without comment who frets about the recent discovery of more unidentified bodies: "It could be more than just prostitutes."—Nancy Goldstein, in her excellent piece on the story which "has been unraveling on Long Island since last December...when the remains of four bodies, disposed of in separate burlap bags 500 feet apart on a scant quarter-mile of beach, were identified as belonging to young women in their 20s who advertised themselves as escorts on Craigslist," followed by the discovery of six more victims.
In what has become a familiar tale, "Some of those 10 people might be alive today if it hadn't been for the lackluster response of law enforcement and the press coverage of the case—much of it sensationalist and dehumanizing—all because of the first victims' sex-worker status."
This is so the worst thing you're going to read all day.
[Trigger warning for fat hatred, body policing, discussions of dieting.]
Care of the Chicago Tribune: Broaching a weighty subject.
True Fact: Every article about the OH NOES OBESITY CRISIS! is required by the Association for Awesome Journalisming to use a pun in its headline and accompany the story with either a headless fatty photo or the image of a scale.
Good job, Trib!
Anyway, the article is all about how you—yes, YOU, thin human person!—can help your fat friends, family members, and coworkers lose weight by "being supportive" and telling them that just by looking at their fat bodies, you can tell they are unhealthy and about to die.
[K]eep the conversation loving and positive.I know nothing makes me feel more loved and sounds more positive than someone armchair diagnosing my health and predicting my imminent demise!
"How can I help?" [Lynn Grefe, president and CEO of the National Eating Disorders Association] reinforces. "I love you too much to lose you. I want you to be around a long time."
There is exactly one fool-proof way to be supportive of a fat person: Listen to them and give them what they need.
If they don't ask for your help, they don't want it. The End.
[H/T to Shaker Jabes.]
On Birtherism
I am both fascinated and horrified by the obsessive fixation on birth details captivating large swaths of this country right now, and the fact that it's taking hold against the backdrop of a national assault on reproductive rights. Both firmly rooted in cultural habits of treating as public property and policing female bodies, the movements are evidence of lingering, endemic naked hostility to female self-ownership and privacy.
The Obama Birtherism is ostensibly about Barack Obama and his father, about whether he was born outside of the US and whether he is a de facto Muslim by virtue of his father's heritage. (Or, sometimes, because of his step-father's heritage.) His mother is rarely mentioned—except, of course, when she is described by conservative birthers with dog whistles mentioning her race (white) in combination with her "free-spiritedness" (miscegenist). Always underlying the Obama birther theories is a tacit condemnation of the reproductive (and relationship) choices of his mother, Ann Dunham.
More pointedly, the Trig Birtherism is about Sarah Palin, and the assertion that Trig Palin, her youngest son, is not hers at all. The Trig birthers speculate that Trig was actually Bristol's son, or someone else's altogether, that Palin's pregnancy was staged, that the publicly stated circumstances of Trig's birth are a hoax. Trig Birtherism is a particularly strange pursuit, because, were the Trig birthers inconceivably proved right, what we would learn is that Sarah Palin is a liar. Which we already know.
And, frankly, if it turned out that Palin had, like many women before her, lied about her grandson being her son, it would be the least objectionable lie she has ever told.
But the irresistible appeal of Trig Birtherism is that, unlike lies about policy and transparency and nepotism and governance, which actually speak to Palin's fitness for a job in public office, Trig Birtherism provides the opportunity and justification for languorous, meticulous, and non-consensual investigation of a woman's body and holds out the salacious reward of forcing a woman to make public reproductive information that is no one's fucking business.
Trig Birtherism got a new surge of momentum last week with the publication of a paper called "Palin, the Press, and the Fake Pregnancy Rumor: Did a Spiral of Silence Shut Down the Story?" by Bradford Scharlott, an associate professor at Northern Kentucky University. Writing about the paper for Business Insider (because his piece was rejected by HuffPo for not meeting their journalistic standards), Geoffrey Dunn argues, "the American media should demand that Palin produce full and conclusive evidence of Trig's birth and parentage. It's that simple."
One wonders what on earth would constitute "full and conclusive evidence of Trig's birth and parentage," short of closed-circuit video coverage from Palin's vagina of the conception, gestation, and birth. (FAKE! HOW DO KNOW THAT'S HER VAGINA?!)
Of course it matters that Palin lies; it just doesn't matter if she lied about this—especially not when we've already got demonstrable evidence of lies that materially affect the public interest, that have already underscored, again and again, her manifest unsuitability to hold national office.
Birtherism, in which both conservatives and liberals are engaging, is a terrible and intrinsically misogynist game to play, entirely dependent on a belief that policing women's bodies and reproduction is an acceptable recreation. And, further yet, reviving old tropes about "legitimacy" at a time when single parenthood is rising and national leaders want to draw reprehensible distinctions between those who deserve social services, like young men who lost their fathers, and those who don't, like children who had the terrible judgment to be born into poverty to single mothers.
Everything about the birther game feeds narratives that Other and narratives that support the institutional misogyny that underlies the anti-choice movement. Everything about it serves the interests of those who want to limit choice, and those who want to marginalize women and the children they birth/raise who aren't born in the "right" circumstances. There is nothing about the birther game that serves a decent purpose, and certainly nothing that advances women's agency or autonomy.
We are in the midst of a profound and vicious anti-feminist backlash in this nation, and to get past it, we must start with a zero tolerance policy for body and reproductive policing.
[Note: I am aware of the self-evidently despicable Wonkette piece about Trig; I'm not personally interested in giving that garbage any more attention. That is off-topic for this thread, which is about the relationship between the birther and anti-choice movements.]
Bootstraps!
The government never gave me anything! Except for when it did:
Rep. Paul Ryan, the GOP's most outspoken advocate for cutting and privatizing Social Security, has already benefited from Social Security himself, in the form of survivor benefits he received after his father's untimely death.Ryan's "Roadmap for America's Future," aka the "GOP Path to Prosperity," budget plan proposes deep cuts to social services including Medicare and Social Security.
From the age of 16, when his 55-year-old father died of a heart attack, until he was 18, Ryan received Social Security payments, which, according to a lengthy profile in WI Magazine, he put away for college. The eventual budget czar attended Miami University in Ohio to earn a B.A. in economics and political science, and landed a congressional internship as a junior.
Ryan's congressional ascent, all the way to the top spot on the Budget Committee, began with his Social Security-funded college education.
Number of the Day
Four: The number of credible polls "in the past eight months to show an outright majority of Americans in favor of gay marriage."
Nate says it's "too soon to say with confidence that support for gay marriage has become the plurality position (let alone the majority one)," but "opponents of gay marriage almost certainly no longer constitute a majority."
Which means: Opponents of same-sex marriage are now officially a permanent minority in the US.
Pop Quiz!
What is the object in the following picture?
Two hints on what it is not: 1. a medal; 2. something with magic powers.
If you said "a necklace"--good job! You guessed right.
Bonus Question: What are two things people assume my youngest son's necklace must be?
Doubling Down!
LZ Granderson, author of the splendid piece we discussed yesterday, in which he admonished parents not to let their daughters dress like tramps, responded to some of the many comments he received on the article, and, suffice it to say, he wasn't moved by his critics. (Not that he seriously engaged any truly substantive criticism, anyway.)
[Granderson appears onscreen, holding a tablet computer, from which he reads comments.]Awesome.
Here's a comment from Áth Cliath: "I blame Madonna." You are absolutely correct! It is ALL her fault. And Lady Gaga. And Beyoncé. And all the other women who your little girl doesn't know, only listens to, and yet emulates because YOU'RE NOT DOING YOUR JOB.
[edit. title: CNNOpinion.]
What's up? This is LZ Granderson with CNN.com Opinion, and I am here to talk about a piece I wrote recently called "Parents, don't dress your girls like tramps." And, uh, like four thousand of you wrote comments, and this is what I'm here to do today: Comment on your comments.
[edit; a comment by MindLikeWarp is shown onscreen, from which Granderson quotes]
"Just because a corporation can sell something, doesn't mean they should. I blame the parents first, but I definitely think the corporations have a role in it as well. Corporations are run by human beings." [edit; Granderson is back onscreen] You are so wrong, dude! Corporations [laughs] are run by dollars! And they're not gonna put anything out there that we're not going to buy. And they're not gonna give up too much cash just because we as parents refuse to do our jobs. So, yes, you're right: Corporations are the ones selling the product, but we can never, ever forget we're the ones that's responsible for buying the product.
[edit; a comment by Ant92874 is shown onscreen, from which Granderson quotes]
"Completely agree. My friend and I have a term for them—prostitots." [edit; Granderson is back onscreen] That's a little funny—but I think the blame is misguided. You can't blame a little girl for being dressed the way that she is. You gotta look at the parents, and I think it's unfair to kinda call them prostitots. Maybe you should call the parents pimps!
[edit; a comment by oldguy12 is shown onscreen, from which Granderson quotes]
"Nearly all of our domestic problems start, and can be fixed, in the family room. Rearing children has become just another task for too many 'parents' focused primarily on financial success, social standing, and self-indulgence." [edit; Granderson is back onscreen] Oldguy12, there's a lot in there that I agree with, and there's a lot in there that I don't agree with. Folks gotta work! Folks gotta put food on the table. And so I don't think the, the absence of parents being in children's lives can solely be blamed on being self-indulgent. Uh, but with that being said, you're right: We still have to make time to talk and be with our kids. We're still supposed to be the role models.
I'm not a great mathematician; I have no idea how you make twenty-four hours into twenty-eight; I just know that, at some point during the day, we have to talk to our kids.
So women are irresponsible sluts, parents are pimps, and corporations can't be faulted for a lack of principles because they're not run by people; they're run by money. Got it.
I noted yesterday that women are still hold the primary responsibility for procuring children's clothing in most homes. Today I will note that men are still the primary power-brokers in corporations that make, distribute, and sell those clothes. Which means, effectively, that Granderson is holding women responsible for how little girls dress and holding men blameless, without ever acknowledging the reality that the narratives by which people negatively judge women and girls based on how "sexy" their clothing is perceived to be are narratives born of and serving the Patriarchy.
Did I already say awesome? Awesome.
There's a lot more there warranting discussion. Have at it in comments.
[H/T to Shaker scatx, via email.]
Daily Dose of Cute
The silly wee mongrel pictured above just backed up all 70 pounds of himself against me, then looked over his shoulder and whined pitifully. Translation: "Give me butt scratches, Two-Legs!"
Two-Legs happily complied.
Wednesday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by Shaxco, producers of the upcoming after-school special, Deeky and Lissie's Dollhouse.
Recommended Reading:
Andy: [TW for self-harm; bullying; homophobia] Tyler Clementi's Roommate Indicted on 15 Counts Over Suicide
Shark-fu: [TW for racism] Pondering that email with those images accompanied by that caption…
Renee: Don't People Realize Gwyneth Paltrow Works Her Ass Off?
Tigtog: Today in Essentialist Claptrap
Josh: [TW for bullying] I Hated Middle School
Melissa: The Jury Awards—International Women's Film Festival 2011
Leave your links in comments...
Government Science News: 19th Century Jesus Edition
I was just checking out epa.gov for super-serious professional reasons (4 realz). Of course, I didn't find what I was looking for. Instead, I found something I most certainly wasn't looking for:
EPA Launches Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships Initiative/EPA’s coordination with White House effort will support environmental education and healthier familiesFor the record, I find this tiring.
True story, I've been known to teach students about environmental quality and environmental justice. Based on this, I present two personal observations:
1) Unless you're doing some smart-ass analysis of the way various religions support capitalism, I think it's reasonably safe to say that faith-based organizations aren't major drivers of environmental degradation. I mean, I know the College of Cardinals does that cool black smoke, white smoke thing every time it decides upon a new Pope, but I don't recall a rash of nitrate-tainted holy water fouling this nation's water supply. So I don't think it's crucial for the secular government of the United States of America to violate the First Amendment in order to get churches to fix their pollution problem. That's clearly not what's going on here.
2) I'm aware that there's a history of church congregations organizing to fight for the health and safety of their communities. I would classify that as activism. The government doesn't really need activists per se, in that it's the government for christsake. Faith-based organizations can organize to demand that "something be done", but the folks that need to be doing the something tend to be working for the government and/or corporations.
--
Aside from the obvious constitutional issues, as far as I'm concerned, the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships is an instrument of liberal social reform at its worst. People who need help securing healthy food to eat or clean air to breathe generally have a pretty good handle on the nature of their situation, they're just powerless to do anything about it. In other words, this:
Strong relationships with faith and neighborhood organizations will help promote environmental stewardship that will lead to cleaner communities, encourage healthier families and build a stronger America.is garbage. Working-class communities (and frequently working-class communities of color) aren't the ones deciding to build garbage incinerators or smelting plants in their neighborhoods; corporations, and yes, governments, are. Our neighborhoods aren't unhealthy places to live due to a failure of local stewardship, but rather because of a failure of governance. Accordingly, it's more than a bit disengineous for the EPA to shift the blame for environmental problems to the powerless while claiming that churches have the solution. I mean, that's "progressive", but only in the sense that Jane Addams was a progressive over a century ago.
Quote of the Day
"We don't have to see a Roe v. Wade overturned in the Supreme Court to end it. … We want to. But if we chip away and chip away, we'll find out that Roe really has no impact. And that's what we are doing."—Rev. Pat Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition, quoted in Dahlia Lithwick's piece "The Death of Roe v. Wade."
Me, during the last election, once of a zillion times making the same point:
Using Roe as a cudgel to batter feminists/womanists (FWs) into line is becoming increasingly futile because the Democrats have been weak on protecting choice—and, hence, women's autonomy—for years. Yes, Roe is still in place, but the GOP has successfully chipped away at abortion rights on the federal and state levels for two decades. The point is, certainly the Democrats will nominate and approve justices who will protect Roe, but if they aren't willing to protect it from being rendered an impotent and largely symbolic statute because it's been hollowed out by "partial-birth abortion bans" and "parental consent laws" and state legislatures that refuse to fund clinics offering abortions, what does it really matter if they protect Roe?
Last summer, the New York Times ran a piece titled "Abortion Foes Advance Cause at State Level," which began: "At least 11 states have passed laws this year regulating or restricting abortion, giving opponents of abortion what partisans on both sides of the issue say is an unusually high number of victories. In four additional states, bills have passed at least one house of the legislature." This year, there have been 916 pieces of legislation related to reproductive health and rights introduced in 49 legislatures, more than 500 of which are anti-choice measures.
FWs who are paying attention to what's happened to practical choice in this country know that the Roe card is already functionally meaningless at this point in large swaths of the country—and that's about the national Democratic Party as a whole, not just about its nominee in this election. The Dems are falling down on the job of serving their FW constituents in general and women specifically.
And the argument about appointing pro-Roe justices is designed, in part, to mask that failure. Not all of the restrictions on abortion rights have been decided in the court; many (if not most) are proposed and passed in state legislatures—and only those challenged n court depend on judicial appointments. Federal, state, and local funding of clinics has nothing to do with whom Democrats appoint to the bench. Fights over zoning laws and gifted property to build new clinics may also find their way to court, but oftentimes never make it that far. Anyone who still thinks that every encroachment on reproductive rights is being decided in a courtroom has some catching up to do.
A lot of progressives treat legal abortion like an on-off switch, but it's not remotely that simple. Legal abortion is only worth as much as the number of women who have reasonable and affordable and unencumbered access to it. That number is dwindling; IIRC, as of the year 2000, less than a third of the incorporated counties in the US had abortion clinics. That's not just inconvenience—between travel expenses and time off work along, the cost of securing an abortion can become an undue burden.
Realistically, if you're a woman who already has to drive three hours and across state lines to get an abortion, how much is "we'll protect Roe" actually supposed to mean to you?
Those making the Roe argument seriously need to consider what it sounds like to one of those women when she's told how her right to choose is best supported by someone who treats Roe as a magical abortion access password.
This is happening in the United States, a country where abortion is meant to be legal and women are meant to be equal citizens with bodily autonomy and agency over their medical care, while a Democratic president sits in the White House saying absolutely nothing about the unrelenting assault on choice.
A president who was elected on the votes of women who were promised he would "protect Roe," who now instead silently oversees its slow subversion by a thousand legislative cuts.
I continue to be surprised (ahem) at the cavernous void of outrage across the progressive blogosphere at the president's silence. One might imagine the male-authored blogs at which protecting Roe is such a huge issue during elections would be prominently featuring coverage of the president's failure to lead the charge against this assault on women's basic bodily autonomy. One would think they'd be angry at the president who made them look like fools, after they caterwauled endlessly about how he was going to be the Great Protector of Roe, but now cannot be moved even to issue a critical statement of those who would hollow it out to its empty husk.
It's almost like certain gentlemen ostensibly on the Left side of the aisle only care about Roe as a bargaining chip, and not as a fundamental right of women. Huh.
