[Trigger warning for sexual violence; institutional doubt of survivors.]
"I am betting nine out of 10 times, when a woman asks for a female detective the story is going to be untrue."—Lt. Adam Lamboy, commander of the Manhattan Special Victims Squad, in a story about how the NYPD Special Victims Division does its job, explaining that if a woman who reports being raped requests a female detective, the request is "taken as a sign of possible deception" because the "operative theory is that women who are lying think female cops will be more receptive to their stories."
Terrifying.
It is absolutely horrendous to think that there have been women whose allegations have been dismissed out of hand because, in the aftermath of having been brutally violated by a man, they mustered up the gumption to request a female cop with whom they'd feel safer discussing that most intimate of crimes against them.
[H/T to Shaker Ellen.]
Quote of the Day
Right to Free Speech vs. Right to Privacy
[Trigger warning for invasion of privacy; harassment.]
Attention, ladies: Do not date Greg Fultz—unless you want your private medical history advertised on billboards:
A New Mexico man's decision to lash out with a billboard ad saying his ex-girlfriend had an abortion against his wishes has touched off a legal debate over free speech and privacy rights.Seems to me that the same country puts a premium on privacy rights, and even has some additional specific considerations around privacy and healthcare. But who gives a fuck about that when a "jilted boyfriend" wants to have his say, right?
The sign on Alamogordo's main thoroughfare shows 35-year-old Greg Fultz holding the outline of an infant. The text reads, "This Would Have Been A Picture Of My 2-Month Old Baby If The Mother Had Decided To Not KILL Our Child!"
Fultz's ex-girlfriend has taken him to court for harassment and violation of privacy. A domestic court official has recommended the billboard be removed.
But Fultz's attorney argues the order violates his client's free speech rights.
"As distasteful and offensive as the sign may be to some, for over 200 years in this country the First Amendment protects distasteful and offensive speech," Todd Holmes said.
The decision will be appealed in District Court.
[H/T to KatherineSpins.]
The Dating Name
[Trigger warning for Christian supremacy.]
I've been seeing ads on cable TV for an on-line dating service called Christian Mingle. As you probably guessed, it's for Christians.
The site shows a nice young white couple -- a man and a woman -- on a beach and smiling happily. The tag line is "Find God's match for you," probably working on the premise that while God is the one who is supposed to bring people together, they help. For a fee.
I have no problem whatsoever with on-line dating services, and I have no problem whatsoever with an on-line dating service geared toward a particular group, be it Christians or whatever. There's a dating service called JDates for Jewish people, for example, and I am sure there are plenty of sites geared toward every ethnic, racial, or sexual orientation you can come up with, and probably a few you didn't know were out there, too. Ah, the beauty of the internet.
Christian Mingle looks like a very nice place; you can find your soulmate and exchange your favorite bible passages and thereby see if you're compatible -- "Into long walks on the beach, loaves and fishes, and reading from The Song of Solomon." If that's what you're looking for, then I wish you all the best. But Christian Mingle also limits your choices: you can be a man looking for a woman, or a woman looking for a man, but that's it. No "Man seeking man" or "Woman seeking woman." (JDate, by the way, does offer same-sex selection. Mazel tov.) The people who run Christian Mingle have determined that you cannot be Christian and be anything other than straight.
That's okay; it's their site, and they can set the rules for it, and far be it from me to stomp in there and demand that they provide dating services for non-straight people. What I find objectionable is that they have hijacked the word "Christian" and defined it in their own terms. There are a goodly number of Christian denominations that are open to same-sex couples, and they, along with a number of Unitarian congregations and Quaker meetings, perform and celebrate same-sex marriage where it is legal, and even in places where it's not yet. Since when did these people at Christian Mingle get to decide the rules for other Christians?
So if I may be allowed to offer a little Friendly advice to Christian Mingle: You can call yourself "Christian Mingle" only if you're truly open to all people who call themselves Christian. If not, then change it to something else like "Uptight Religious Zealots Looking for Same (as long as it's the opposite sex, of course)."
Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.
And When Will Andrew Breitbart Apologize?
[Trigger warning for sexual harassment and coercion.]
Leaving aside for a moment the infuriating possibility that Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-Ipfuck) may or may not have sexually harassed women by sending them unsolicited images of his body (he asserts the internet liaisons were consensual exchanges with women above the age of consent; none of the recipients have come forward to assert otherwise at this point), I am incredibly angry that what motivated Weiner to come clean today was the fact that Andrew Breitbart published* additional photos of the congressman this morning, in which he is barechested, and then announced (screencap): "We will be updating BigGovernment.com and BigJournalism.com throughout the day with photographs, timelines, and other clarifying details. However, we will not be releasing all of the material because some of it is of an extreme, graphic nature."
Even despite his promise to withhold some of the more graphic material, a subjective threshold arbitrarily defined in a way Rep. Weiner could not magically discern, Breitbart quite literally coerced Weiner into a public confession of sexual behavior.
The Politico, as but one example, calmly reported this fact, without so much as a raised eyebrow at another media outlet sexually coercing a sitting Congressman:
Early Monday morning, Breitbart wrote that he planned to release "photographs, chats, and emails" throughout the day that would show that Weiner engaged in sexual behavior over the internet. The unidentified woman — who Breitbart says is not Cordova — says that Weiner sent them to her as they flirted online. Another photo that the site has chosen not to publish is titled "ready.JPG" and, Breitbart says, is "extremely graphic" and "leaves nothing to the imagination."Certainly, the threat of making public "compromising" information is not new in politics (and just because it's old as dirt doesn't make it right), but literally threatening to publish sexually graphic private photos is not merely a new low—it's sexual coercion.
And the fact that Weiner fucked up, even if what he did was indeed criminal, does not justify exposing that fact via the threat to make public private images of his body in a state of undress.
I note that this idea would be fairly self-evident if Rep. Weiner were a woman.
No doubt it would still be considered acceptable by our disgusting media and most of its consumers, but the idea that it's a profound invasion of privacy would not be quite so controversial.
I'm pissed like a wild thing at Weiner right now, but no one deserves to be exploited and coerced like that. No one.
---------------------
* I am not providing a direct link for what I trust are evident reasons, but his garbage site is easy enough to find, if you're so inclined.
Weiner Admits Inappropriate Relationships with Women
Rep. Anthony Weiner is holding a press conference right now, which you can watch live here, during which he has admitted having inappropriate relationships with women online over the past several years. He also admits having lied about the photo; says he sent it as a "joke."
Says he's not resigning, nor getting divorced.
UPDATE: Weiner: "To be clear, the picture was of me, and I sent it."
At the moment, I quite honestly can't decide whether I'm more angry that yet another progressive male politician who was a good ally to women turns out to be having "inappropriate relationships" with women and lying about it, or the fact that he's actually helped unethical rightwing attack dog Andrew Breitbart's credibility.
UPDATE 2: Weiner says all the interactions were consensual. Also says he's not making any excuses: "I'm not on drugs; I wasn't drinking; I just did a stupid thing for which I'm taking full responsibility; it's a personal failing." (Paraphrase.) Apologizes for the hurt he's caused to both his wife and the woman to whom the picture was sent, for dragging them into this.
UPDATE 3: "It is really true that the smarter, better thing is to tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may." Says once he told the first lie, he just kept having to tell more. Also: "I engaged in inappropriate online conversations with people that included photographs, but I don't believe I did anything that violated the law." Also says that there was "a long list" of people he hurt, but the woman to whom he sent the picture is at the top of the list.
UPDATE 4: As Weiner walks away from the podium, someone from the press is screaming at him, "Sir, were you fully erect?" And now the lives of all the women with whom Weiner had interactions via Twitter and Facebook will be turned inside-out and upside-down by the same people who shout things like, "Sir, were you fully erect?" at a serious press conference.
UPDATE 5: House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi says she's "deeply disappointed" in Weiner and requests an ethics investigation.
This is so the worst thing you're going to read all day.
[Trigger warning for misogyny; rape culture; gender essentialism.]
Actual Headline: Has equality destroyed your sex life?
Actual Subhead: "A controversial book claims feminism and the rise of 'new men' have killed off women's libidos."
Actual Excerpt from the Article:
Using the internet, neuroscientists Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam analysed half a billion sexual fantasies, preferences and practices, then correlated their findings with animal behaviour studies and the latest findings in neuroscience, to come to the very non-PC conclusion that when it comes to sex, women are wired to find sexual submission arousing.Of course.
...What they seem to be suggesting is that the cavemen were right all along and that what women really want is to be dragged by the hair, all the while feigning reluctance, by macho men waving clubs.
You know, if we didn't think of "women" as a faceless, amorphous monolith with a set of universally shared preferences, but instead as a collection of individual human beings who make individual choices based on their individual preferences, this article would be regarded as the useless piece of fetid garbage that it is and pop evo-psych would be kissing my ass instead of masquerading as responsible science.
[H/T to Shaker Catherine.]
Number of the Day
$4.3 billion: How much the state of Indiana stands to lose in Medicaid funding as a result of our new law that prohibits funding for Planned Parenthood.
From an AP article about this issue:
Is Indiana willing to risk $4.3 billion in Medicaid money to strike a blow for the right-to-life movement? ... Is the Obama administration actually willing to leave low-income families without health care to punish a defiant state?Wow.
"Like any game of chicken, it's about who blinks first," said Ed Haislmaier, senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation's Center for Health Policy, a conservative think-tank.
Let us make no mistake: It's not the Obama administration who will be leaving low-income Hoosiers without healthcare if they choose to hold Indiana accountable for its bullshit legislation. It's Mitch Daniels and his band of merry miscreants in the statehouse.
Yahoo Nooz Tweet Fail
[TW for all kinds of misogynist stuff.]
I saw this totally garbageful story on Yahoo earlier under the title "Malaysia 'Obedient Wives' Club: Good Sex Is A Duty". The piece can be summed up, more or less, by these quotes:
"Islam compels us to be obedient to our husband. Whatever he says, I must follow. It is a sin if I don't obey and make him happy," said [new bride, 22-year-old Ummu Atirah] who wore a yellow headscarf.
"Sex is a taboo in Asian society. We have ignored it in our marriages but it's all down to sex. A good wife is a good sex worker to her husband. What is wrong with being a whore ... to your husband?"
Yikes! Right? Lots to unpack there, I know. But that isn't why I am posting. No. When I saw the story I just had to tweet it to my legion of dedicated fans.
So I clicked on Yahoo's little sharing button. And this popped up as the twitter summary:
Obedient Wives Club in Malaysia promotes good sex - Yahoo! News http://yhoo.it/mct2v4
Ummmm.... No. Just no.
Anti-Choicers Make the Darnedest Films
[Trigger warning for violence, kidnapping, forced birth, misogyny.]
Below is the trailer for The Life Zone, a movie by Republican candidate for New Jersey State Senate Kenneth Del Vecchio, who also runs the conservative film production company Justice For All Productions. (Sure.) According to the press release [via] for the film, which was scheduled to premiere at the Hoboken International Film Festival in Teaneck this weekend: "The controversial premise of The Life Zone: three women have been kidnapped from abortion clinics and are being held for seven months—until they all give birth. The film, which appears to cut right down the middle, examining the topic from both sides, offers a powerful, anti-abortion climactic twist."
Sounds great. And looks even better! I wouldn't have figured that a "pro-life" movie would look like the latest installment in the Saw franchise, but all credit to Cecil B. Del Vecchio for the unintentional honesty of representing what a nightmare-scape forcible birth actually is.
A full description of the trailer, given my usual treatment, is below the fold on most browsers.
[H/T to Shaker BCL.]
Robert Loggia (WTF Robert Loggia?!) is in the shadows, with nothing but the magnificent shagginess of his eyebrow clearly visible to the naked heathen eye. He intones in his iconic gravelly voice, "You have all committed a terrible sin." Cue fun-house music-box music.
A would-be-creepy-if-it-weren't-totally-trite montage of poorly lit scenes of a dim makeshift hospital ward, a babydoll head, a bible with a rosary on it, saint cards of Jesus and Mary hung up next to a stark white cross, back to the hospital beds lined up beneath, OF COURSE, a flickering florescent light. LULZ.
A blond white young woman (herein: Blondie) awakens in one of the beds and sits up in alarm. A dark-haired white young woman (herein: Brownie), occupying another bed, looks at her blood-covered hands and screams. There's a third white girl, whose hair is either light brown or strawberry blond, and I'm just going to say it's red because no doy (herein: Red). She won't wake up.
Blondie tries to comfort Brownie, telling her, "We will figure this out!" Robert Loggia, who's a priest (?), tells them, via video (?), "You will indeed figure this out, young ladies." Oh, Red's awake. Hi, Red! Father Bob continues, "I am...YOUR JAILER!"
Reminder: This is a movie that is supposed to convince you that the anti-choice position is awesome.
A garage door opens and in walks a white blond lady doctor, who shall henceforth be known as Dr. Leslie Exposition. Dr. Exposition says: "You were all on the operating table, all ready to commit murder." Cut to Blondie saying, "I was about to have an abortion." Sayeth Red: "Me, too." Cut back to Dr. Exposition: "Your babies will be given life." She looks at the ceiling. "Just as god planned."
"You're nuts," says Blondie. "You kidnapped us!" But Dr. Exposition is having none of it: "You will stay here, in this room, for the next seven months, until you all simultaneously give birth to your children."
Thank you, Dr. Exposition. Kudos to Blondie and Red for the assist. We now understand the colossally asinine premise of the film, in excruciating clarity. I don't want to say that the maker of this movie assumes his audience is very, very stupid, but the maker of this movie assumes his audience is very, very stupid.
"I'm after the legendary uptapped forced birther dipfuck demographic!"—Cecil B. Del Vecchio.
Anyway!
Blondie pounds on a door (but not too hard: "This stuff's rented!") and demands to be let out, even though I'm pretty sure Dr. Exposition made it clear that isn't going to happen. Blondie, what exactly about "you are going to stay in this room until you simultaneously give birth with two other kidnapped pregnant teens" don't you understand?! IT'S PRETTY SIMPLE!
Red whispers conspiratorially, "I can take out that silly church doctor." Something (probably the promise of a surprising end twist right in the press release for the film—great marketing!) tells me that M. Red Shyamalan is really the demented brains behind this whole operation!
"I have implanted small electronic devices in each of you," says Dr. Exposition. And because we've all already seen 9,000 movies in which small electronic devices have been planted to stop imprisoned people deviating from the elaborate plans of their evil captors, Dr. Exposition is left without anything else to do.
"You guys don't buy this electric fence nonsense, do you?" asks Red. Oh, she's so the mastermind.
"You'll all be freed once your babies have been born," exposits Dr. Exposition. Um, I'm pretty sure we've already established that, Leslie!
"I have a constitutional right to an abortion!" says Red, posing (or is she?!) as a straw-feminist saying things that anti-choice people imagine pro-choice feminists might say. "I have the right to choose!"
Dr. Exposition says the young women will never be hurt, and I guess except for that whole kidnapping, forced-birth, implanted with an explosive stuff, she's right!
While the girls sit around a table eating in their hospital-dungeon while wearing their super-unfashionable nightgowns, Red plots to end her pregnancy in its 7th month. "You're seven months pregnant, Stacy!" says Brownie. "Even you have to admit that you have a real baby now!"
"If something goes wrong with the pregnancy, I go home," says Red.
"That might be the only way you DON'T go home," says Blondie, confirming that none of these ladies has considered the possibility that the people who kidnapped them and held them in a windowless, airless, makeshift naughty girls ward in order to force them to give birth against their wills might be lying to them about letting them go home.
Cut to screaming. Red's on the floor. Dr. Exposition shouts, to no one, "Start preparing for an emergency delivery!" Over scenes of Red in labor, and Dr. Exposition screaming "PUSH!" at her (because no doy), Father Bob says, "You were told earlier that you are staying with Dr. Wise (lulz—ed.) until you give birth. And that will never change." Huh?
Credits. And I am depressed to note that I cannot remember the last time I saw a film advertised in which the first four names were female.
Fin.
Seriously, New York Times? Seriously?
[Trigger warning for sexual violence and rape apologia.]
Shaker Rennet emails this New York Times story about the rape allegations against former International Monetary Fund leader Dominique Strauss-Kahn, which invites reader comments with the note:
With no eyewitness or other direct evidence of a forcible attack, the case between Dominique Strauss-Kahn and prosecutors is shaping up to be a battle of she-said, he-said.I believe that may also have been the subhead on the article's main page until it started getting complaints from readers. Now it just sits at the top of the comments page, inviting people to weigh in with the most classic rape apologist trope, "he-said, she-said."
Share your thoughts.
I'll note that this piece, like several others we've recently discussed, including both articles about the NY police officers charged with and acquitted of rape, was authored by John Eligon. Maybe it's not the best idea to put a rape apologist on your rape beat, NYT.
Email the Public Editor, Arthur Brisbane and/or submit a Letter to the Editor.[Previously on the New York Times' appalling coverage of sexual violence: One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14.]
Well, It's Nice to Have Goals
Distinguishing himself from the other candidates in the GOP field, Rick Santorum told George Stephanopoulos this weekend that he is "it in to win." (Note: Video starts playing automatically at link.)
And with that another Republican challenger jumped into the 2012 race this morning on "GMA."No official announcement yet about Santorum having hired American Idol laureate Randy Jackson as his campaign manager:
"We're ready to announce that we are going to be in this race and we're in it to win," Rick Santorum told me.
[Video Description: Jackson saying "in it to win it" like nine million times.]
Sunday Shuffle
Now this song reminds me of being sixteen and driving around in the summertime with the windows rolled down and the music (particularly this song!) turned UP.
What's on your shuffle today?
Open Thread
This week's open threads have been brought to you by famous cats, real and animated.
