Heads-Up, Minnesotan Shakers

The proposed Minnesota state amendment that would ban same-sex marriage and encode discrimination into the state constitution, about which Representative Steve Simon (DFL Hopkins/St. Louis Park) spoke so eloquently, is likely to come up for a final vote in the state senate today.

OutFront Minnesota notes that the vote cannot be vetoed by the governor, so Minnesotans need to get busy calling their state senators and urging them to vote against this hateful legislation.

Call your senator and tell them to oppose the amendment! All you need to know is your zip code. Just dial this toll-free number:

1.855.508.6473

From this number, our system will automatically connect you with your elected officials. Just press 1 and follow the prompts that will connect you directly to your Minnesota State Representative and Senator — all absolutely toll-free. You can call in more than once to reach both of your legislators.

It is vital that undecided and swing vote senators from the suburbs and Greater Minnesota hear from their constituents in opposition to the amendment. Tell your friends and family who live in these places to contact their senators to vote no on the amendment! Have them call 1.855.508.6473 today!

If you're unable to speak with your senator, be sure to leave a voicemail. Tell them you're their constituent (mention your address) and leave them a brief message urging them to defeat this divisive amendment that will hurt Minnesota families.

The Senate Schedule may change! Stay up to date: We don't control the Senate's schedule, but we can keep you informed. They are scheduled to go into session at 10:30am on Wednesday and the amendment may be voted on right away or later in the day. Check your email and follow us on Facebook, Twitter and outfront.org/marriage for the latest information
You can also sign the petition against the amendment here.

[H/T to Shaker GoldFishy.]

Open Wide...

Blog Note

Blogger made some kind of back-end changes last night, and, as a result, we've got some front-end issues. Author names and author pix might be screwed up for awhile, until Blogger fixes whatever caused the problem.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Open Wide...

Open Thread

Photobucket

Hosted by a recycled tire sculpture.

Open Wide...

Question of the Day

What's the best mistake you've ever made?

Open Wide...

Really?

90 degrees? Two days ago, I could see my breath in the air during our morning walk, and now I am melting.

Go to hell, weather.

Open Wide...

Governor Mitch Daniels Signs Bill Defunding Planned Parenthood in Indiana, Of Course

Garbage governor is garbagey:

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels has signed a measure to further restrict abortions in Indiana and make it the first state to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood.
WE'RE NUMBER ONE! WE'RE NUMBER ONE!
The Republican governor is considering a run for president in 2012, and adding his signature to the abortion bill could help his image among social conservatives who say they worry he's too much of a fiscal hawk to get involved in such issues as abortion.

The abortion bill wasn't on Daniels' legislative agenda, but he signed it Tuesday along with 79 other bills.
So much for that truce on social issues, eh, Mitch?
Planned Parenthood of Indiana says it will seek a temporary restraining order and injunction Tuesday in federal court to try to prevent the measure from taking effect.
Sob.

Open Wide...

Caption This Photo

OK - stop for a second. I know Martin Freeman will be playing Bilbo.

[Via]

Open Wide...

Actual Headline

"Homance." That is the actual headline given to Jessica Grose's review of Bridesmaids at Slate, in which she coins the deplorable term. For realz.


This article exists in Slate's "Double X" section, which is ostensibly for women (but, naturally, only the cis ones).

There is a lot about "homance" which I find contemptible, not least of which is the obligation to pretend that "ho" is culturally equivalent to "bro."

Yeah, so not.

[H/T to @JamilSmith.]

Open Wide...

Daily Dose of Cute



"Cheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeese!"

Open Wide...

Maria Shriver, Professional Wife

Maria Shriver and Arnold Schwarzenegger announced today that they are separating after 20+ years of marriage.

Best to both of them.

I wouldn't even mention it except that the coverage of the announcement is positively appalling in its disappearing of her career.

CBS, however, takes the cake with "Bodybuilder-turned-actor-turned-governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and his wife, Maria Shriver, say they are separating after a quarter century of marriage." Wow.

Maria Shriver is a Peabody- and Emmy-winning journalist, an Emmy-winning producer, a best-selling author, an activist, leader on "The Shriver Report: A Woman's Nation Changes Everything," and creator of The Minerva Awards—named for the goddess Minerva who appears on the California State Seal as a symbol of courage, wisdom, and strength—bestowed annually at The Women's Conference to extraordinary Californian women.

Just FYI.

[H/T to Shaker Courtney.]

Open Wide...

Women: Should they have autonomy?

[Trigger warning for sexual assault, misogyny, and slut-shaming]

Spoiler alert: I say yes. More to the point, I say we do have autonomy, if only more people would respect it.
--

Earlier this year, lots of people (including Liss) wrote about a Toronto police officer who, during a rape-prevention presentation helpfully (not-at-all helpfully) suggested that women who don't want to be raped consider not dressing like sluts. That was his word, BTW.

There were a few folks who were pretty indignant about this (including York University, which hosted the gathering in question). As a result, SlutWalk was born:

When we first heard about the Toronto Police officer labeling women and people most at risk of sexual assault as “sluts”, we thought about making noise and demanding for more than an apology. We have a constitutional right to a freedom of expression and a freedom of assembly so we’re using it. Putting that into action, we wanted to go right to Toronto Police Service’s front door at 40 College St. with impassioned numbers uniting against these damaging stereotypes. Thus SlutWalk was born and began with SlutWalk Toronto.
Between the catchy name (I, for one, am a big fan of compound words with multiple capital letters) and the controversial message (people should stop raping other people), the movement really took off. Sluts and their allies have organized SlutWalks all over the place.

Today, the BBC's World Service hosted a discussion of SlutWalk on its World Have You Say programme. Because the BBC is among the world's most trusted news outlets, the online link for the story read: "'SlutWalks'- Do you agree with the Toronto policeman?"

Oh boy.

I listened to the first hour of the program with my Tweeps. As far as I'm concerned, Heather Jarvis (founder of SlutWalk Toronto) is a rock star. As for the bulk of the guests, eeesh.

The Beeb has justed posted the podcast. It'll be available for seven days. I'm afraid that I don't know of a transcript, though. Anyhow, here's a quick summary of what I heard. Feel free to chime in with additions if you heard otherwise.

There was a lot of discussion about reclaiming the word "slut". I guess that's to be expected. :Yawn: I'm sure we can agree that women (like all oppressed groups) are not a monolith, and don't agree upon the value of reclamation language. Some women approve! Some don't! News at 11! 10 Central! (I'm sure we can also all agree not to debate that issue here. Thanks.)

Multiple men called in to debate both how women should dress and how they should behave in public. The assumption there is that women aren't autonomous beings, which is certainly an interesting point to make during a discussion of rape.

The BBC gave Gail Dines (She's got a doctorate. I also have a doctoral degree) a lot of airtime. Not to typecast Dines, but she's a prominent anti-porn feminist. Admittedly, Dines didn't give me much to work with. She went on and on about porn, despite Jarvis' desire to talk about rapists. I'm not sure Dines' argument was merely that porn is part of rape culture-- she actually fell in a big ol' pool of evolutionary psychology (porn arouses men, society is hyper-sexual these days, therefore there's a lot of rape). Sigh.

(I'm sure another thing we can agree on is that rape pre-dates porn, and whatever role porn may or may not play in the modern rape culture, is pretty much irrelevant to a conversation that's supposed to be about a police officer telling women to stop dressing like sluts to avoid being raped.)

Oh! There was also a discussion about whether women should display affection towards each other, because WHAT ABOUT THE MEN? Apparently, the sight of two women hugging hornies up the blood, therefore causing rape. I know, I had trouble wrapping my mind around that argument, too. Also, Dines made it clear that this is not about lesbians, this is about men raping straight women, because that's the problem. Suuuuuuuure. Thankfully, Jarvis chimed in to mention the reality of queer women.

I don't recall a ton of conversation about how slutty, provocatively-dressed women who totally sleep around also do not deserve to be raped. That's really a pity, because as I understand, that's sorta the exact point of SlutWalk. Ooops.

I guess it's nice to know where one stands with respect to the world. Listening to the program, I got the impression that most (all? hopefully all?) participants in the debate agreed that rape was wrong. However, a dismal percentage of folks actually felt the need to vocalize that sentiment. As far as respecting women's autonomy, everything short of raping women appeared to be up for debate.

Sure, it was energizing to follow along with like-minded folks on the Twittosphere (Can that please be a word now?), but I found it downright scary to climb out of my comfortable spot on the Internet to listen to the world writ-large (at least the portion thereof that listens to the World Service) debate women's place therein. I mean, I deal with this shit every day I decide to leave the house, but there's something exceedingly different about engaging in an actual debate about my autonomy. To steal from one of my twitter contacts, hearing this debate really demonstrated why feminist activism (like SlutWalk) is vital in the first place.

Open Wide...

Quote of the Day

"I decided to do this action because I am tired of hiding in the shadows and being afraid. I want to let people know that I am undocumented and unafraid. I hope that with this action all undocumented people will overcome their fear and come out of the shadows like I have. We are human beings and we must be treated as such."Lupe Pimentel, 18 years old, one of five undocumented students arrested yesterday in the office of my garbage governor, Mitch Daniels (R-Eprehensible).

The students were there to ask Daniels to veto HB1402 and SB590, which would "not only deny an education to undocumented youth, but also criminalize the immigrant community" in Indiana.

In a very real way, Iain and I are the people with whom the anti-immigration rhetoric should most resonate. We live in an economically depressed area with a not insignificant Mexican immigrant population, many of whose families have been here for generations and many of whom are recent undocumented arrivals. Iain is a documented immigrant whose citizenship was secured through a time-consuming and costly process; he had to wait several months for a work permit after arriving; he had difficulty finding work in this area; I had difficulty finding work in this area when I still did office work; we have friends who have had difficulty finding work in this area. We're supposed to take the scapegoating bait and be irate, or feel cheated, or something.

And we do—but our ire is not directed at the undocumented immigrants who live in our community. It's directed squarely at our jackass governor and his conservative cronies running the state (into the ground), who discourage businesses from opening their doors in our state by making the state hostile to female and LGBTQI employers and employees, just for a start, for abandoning one of the state's richest urban centers, for fucking the state infrastructure via defunding and privatization, and generally turning Indiana into a place where, to paraphrase Kurt Vonnegut, anyone with any sense escapes at their earliest opportunity.

(Insert your own jokes here about what that says about a person who escapes at 18 only to voluntarily return 10 years later.)

The fact is, there's plenty of room for me to have a job along with my community's undocumented workers—which, I admit, is easier for me to say since we're not competing for the same job. But most US workers aren't competing for the same jobs generally held by undocumented immigrants, and not because they're "jobs no American wants to do," as John McCain would have us believe, but because the employers actively seek out an exploitable workforce comprised of people who don't know their rights and who can be easily controlled via the threat of deportation, a category out of which most US workers would self-select in favor healthcare benefits and livable wages, even if the crummy employers who exploit migrants would consider hiring citizens in the first place.

Iain came to the States not because his life was dreadful or his family was starving or because he couldn't find work. He came on a fiancĂ©e visa (a resource, btw, still only available to us because we're straight) because he fell in love with an American. He had the great fortune of being born in a country with lots of opportunity, and moving to one with the same. He doesn't need to be here to survive—and yet he is routinely regarded as "deserving" to be here specifically because of the fact that he was privileged in the first place.

At the center of the immigration debate in Indiana, and in the US, is a profound lack of generosity, a stinginess and smallness that sneers at the straw-immigrants who are just here to TAKE and contribute nothing in return—which doesn't sound like any of the immigrants I know (undocumented or otherwise), but does sound a hell of a lot like some of the white Hoosier families I knew growing up in which the ultimate career achievement was successfully conning disability payments out of the government. Which itself, by the way, is a lot less horrible than it sounds when you take stock of the available opportunities for poor folks with a shitty public school education in a state which hasn't had a manufacturing base in a generation.

Anyway, a big part of Iain's vision of America was this beautiful mosaic of cultures, and he couldn't wait to find out what his experience of and in that mosaic might be. We talked about it as we took that flight together over the ocean that once separated us, clutching hands and chattering excitedly, after an Arab-American man was nice enough to switch seats with me since Iain and I were in different rows. The first place he stayed after arriving on American shores was with an old friend of mine who's Native American. Our first neighbors when we moved back to Indiana were an African-American single mom with two sons on one side, and a Latino couple on the other. His first boss at his current job was an African-American Christian woman; his last boss was an Indian Muslim man; his current boss is a Jewish Hoosier man. He's just a ginger-haired Scotsman who's woven himself into the colorful fabric that existed long before he got here—and he likes that about the US. I like that about the US, too.

Just three generations ago, my family spoke with the same accent he's in the process of losing, after all.

Demonizing people who are our neighbors as somehow less American because of geography and law doesn't resonate with people like us. Being "American" is more than that, and sometimes the people who weren't born here seem to understand that better than many of those who were.

I am a Hoosier, first by birth and then by choice—and I do not support my state government's attack on undocumented residents of this state.

Please sign the petition asking Governor Daniels to veto HB1402 and SB590, and to stop arresting students and instead give them an education, here.

[H/T to Shaker ahoritagordita. Related Reading: Within Our Souls.]

Open Wide...

What are we going to do with you, Tennessee?

[Trigger warning for GLBTphobia and bigotry in general]

You may have heard about the "Don't Say Gay" bill working its way through the Tennessee General Assembly. The bill would have barred teachers from discussing sexuality in front of students in grades K-8, or something like that:

[This bill, as] introduced, prohibits the teaching of or furnishing of materials on human sexuality other than heterosexuality in public school grades K-8. [emphasis mine]
It doesn't look like the House will vote on the bill this year, although the Senate is scheduled to take it up tomorrow. If the full Senate passes the bill, the House will have another opportunity to approve it next session.

But wait, there's more!

Last month, the government of metropolitan Nashville passed an ordinance requiring its contractors to bar discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

But wait, states' rights!

Yesterday, a Senate committee passed The Equal Access to Intrastate Commerce Act, or as I have nicknamed it, the "We Don't Like Your Type Around Here" bill.
This bill prohibits any local government from imposing on any person an anti-discrimination practice, standard, definition or provision that varies in any manner from the definition of "discriminatory practices" under present law or other types of discrimination recognized by state law but only to the extent recognized by the state. Under present law, "discriminatory practices" means any direct or indirect act or practice of exclusion, distinction, restriction, segregation, limitation, refusal, denial, or any other act or practice of differentiation or preference in the treatment of a person or persons because of race, creed, color, religion, sex, age or national origin.

Under this bill, any such anti-discrimination practice, standard, definition, or provision imposed on any such person by a local government prior to the effective date of this bill would be null and void. The above requirements would not apply with respect to employees of a local government.

Additionally, this bill clarifies that with regards to discriminatory practices and human rights, "sex" means the designation of the person as male or female as indicated on the person's birth certificate.
"Bonus": Last time I heard, Tennessee does not allow trans people to challenge the gender that professionals assigned to them at birth.

Extra "Bonus": As you might have noticed, this bill prohibits all kinds of civil rights ordinances.

The Tennessee House has already passed the "We Don't Like Your Type Around Here" bill. If the full Senate votes to approve it, the bill will go to the desk of Republican Governor Bill Haslam.

So yeah, um, Happy Buddha's Birthday everyone.

Open Wide...

I Get Letters

My inbox has been its own magical realm of ponderous nincompoopery lately, and some of the enchanting missives of which I am in receipt are simply too good not to share. Please meet my recent correspondent, Bill:


Obviously, there is quite a lot to love about this email, but my favorite part for sure is "inextricably concerned."

Open Wide...

Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime



Juice Newton: "Queen Of Hearts"

Open Wide...

Photo of the Day

After spending Monday fighting a huge fire in Grand Rapids [Michigan], today some fire fighters rescued a cat from a drain. The rescue took place on Monroe Avenue at Travis Street NW, just south of Ann Street. The cat was heard meowing from the street. [link]
The little kitty was unharmed.

Open Wide...

Number of the Day

[Trigger warning for misogyny, miscarriage, sexual violence, victim-blaming, and Christian supremacy.]

1 in 6. The number of US hospital patients now treated by Catholic hospitals, which "are required to adhere to the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services—archconservative restrictions issued by the 258-member U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops."

Because of the directives, doctors and nurses at Catholic-affiliated facilities are not allowed to perform procedures that the Catholic Church deems "intrinsically immoral, such as abortion and direct sterilization." Those medical personnel also cannot give rape survivors drugs to prevent pregnancy unless there is "no evidence that conception has already occurred."

...The Catholic directives involve not just abortion and birth control but ectopic pregnancies, embryonic stem cell research, in-vitro fertilization, sterilizations and more. "The problem with [the directives]," says Susan Berke Fogel, an attorney at the National Health Law Program in Los Angeles, "is about substandard care becoming rampant in the U.S., threatening women's health and women's lives."

...How did we get to the point where 258 right-wing bishops—all (supposedly) celibate male clerics—are prohibiting doctors from practicing medicine and denying women essential reproductive care? The debacle starts with anti-choice legislation. The U.S. Congress started to pass "conscience clauses" pushed by the Roman Catholic Church and anti-abortion forces in the immediate wake of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in 1973. Today, these laws apply not only to physicians and nurses who oppose abortion, but to entire institutions whose "consciences" allow them to withhold medically indicated care.
You may remember, in 2006, Joe Lieberman's defense of Catholic hospitals' right to practice whatever kind of medicine they wanted because "it shouldn't take more than a short ride to get to another hospital." The practical reality, however, is this:
Kathleen Prieskorn gasped in shock as her medical nightmare began. Still reeling from the heartbreak of an earlier miscarriage, Prieskorn was three months pregnant and working as a waitress when she felt a twinge, felt a trickle down her leg and realized she was miscarrying again.

She rushed to her doctor's office, "where I learned my amniotic sac had torn," says Prieskorn, who lives with her husband in Manchester, N.H. "But the nearest hospital had recently merged with a Catholic hospital—and because my doctor could still detect a fetal heartbeat, he wasn't allowed to give me a uterine evacuation that would help me complete my miscarriage."

To get treatment, Prieskorn, who has no car, had to instead travel 80 miles to the nearest hospital that would perform the procedure—expensive to do in an ambulance, because she had no health insurance. Her doctor handed her $400 of his own cash and she bundled into the back of a cab.

"During that trip, which seemed endless, I was not only devastated, but terrified," Prieskorn remembers. "I knew that if there were complications I could lose my uterus—and maybe even my life."
In the US, that is considered an acceptable risk in order that we might indulge the religious ethics of a group of men employed by an international organization rife with institutional misogyny, homophobia, and rape apologia.

And I use the word "men" advisedly: Sister Margaret McBride was, of course, excommunicated last year for allowing, as part of a Catholic hospital's ethics committee, the termination of a pregnancy to save a woman's life.

By all means, let us continue to treat women's lives and bodies and consent and agency like so much garbage, so that we may protect the delicate sensibilities of some of the most women-hating men on the planet.

Open Wide...

The New York Times' Coverage of Sex Crimes Continues to Be an Absolute Disgrace

[Trigger warning for sexual violence; rape apologia; victim-blaming.]

Not two months after the New York Times was quite rightly resoundingly excoriated for its appalling coverage of the rape case in Cleveland, Texas, I read this unbelievable piece about a New York City police officer on trial for raping a woman who he had been summoned to help while his partner "stood guard."

The article is headlined "In Rape Trial, Officer Calls Woman the Aggressor and Says They Only Snuggled." Now, using the claims of an accused rapist as a headline is a pretty dodgy move in the first place, but it's particularly repulsive when it is patently a lie: The story later reports that the woman has a recording of the officer "in which he made several statements implying that he had had sex with her."

That piece of information, however, is buried in the nineteenth paragraph, well beyond the first couple of paragraphs read by the average reader. Leaving a crucial fact that contradicts the headline until six paragraphs from the end of the story is such awful, and such evidently biased, reporting that it quite literally would not have passed muster in my high school Journalism 101 class.

But here it is nonetheless, in the Paper of Record.

In an article, by the way, which opens with the sentence: "For the past several weeks, Police Officer Kenneth Moreno has sat silently in a courtroom amid accusations that he raped a drunken woman whom he had been called to help."

A drunken woman.

Not inebriated. Not intoxicated. Not incapacitated. Drunken.

She is drunken. Her alleged rapist, however, is emotional: "Officer Moreno flatly denied ever having sex with the woman, becoming emotional when one of his lawyers, Joseph Tacopina, asked him about the allegation."

Well. Between a drunken slattern and an emotional officer of the law, it's clear whose story we should believe. Please disregard the recorded evidence in paragraph nineteen.

Email the Public Editor, Arthur Brisbane and/or submit a Letter to the Editor.

Open Wide...

Open Thread

Photobucket

Hosted by a hardcover book recycled into a book bag.
Get it? A book bag? Haw haw haw

Open Wide...

Question of the Day

If someone gifted to you a small plot of land, say five US acres, in any climate you desired, and money was no object, what would you do with it?

Open Wide...