by Shaker Tristera
[Trigger warning for discussion of child abandonment and adoption.]
There are many things I can thank Shakesville for opening my eyes to that a younger and definitely stupider me would have once laughed at. I'm eternally grateful for every post, every explanation, and every teacher who instructed me to learn and invited me to think. Because as I grow and learn (yes, even in my thirties), I can in turn teach others. What a wonderful world, et cetera, et cetera.
Because of my own experience, there's one subject I've never found funny, and never joke about: Adoption.
I was recently perusing the very popular pop culture/feminist blog Jezebel when I saw that the following comment, from a discussion "about venturing out of the house with your baby," had been awarded the Comment of the Day (to which I'm linking so you can see the comment for yourself; my objective is awareness-raising, not urging a flame-war): "I don't care where you take your baby. As long as you don't take him or her to my house and run away and never come back. That would really get on my nerves."
I am normally the sort of person who cringes inwardly at these kinds of jokes and moves on, usually to a more pleasing picture of kitties or puppies.
Not today.
Today I got angry. Today I felt that hot wave of shame roll over me again. The laughter, the "hilarity" that is not belonging biologically to the people who raised you. That comically-oversized foam finger that points at you and makes you so blatantly aware that you are different, you are other. The wicked reminder that at least one person never wanted you in hir life.
I wanted to speak up at this commenter, pound on the keyboard through my anger and write about my history: I was left on a doorstep in a country that so strongly discourages and shames single motherhood that its unexpectedly pregnant girls and women often choose abortions and abandonment over going it alone. I was left at the police station, and they sent me to an orphanage. I was days old, abandoned for the crime of being born.
Later, a loving American family adopted me, and to their love and care I will always feel indebted. Others are not so lucky. But then it seemed that once I had been saved, I was never allowed to forget exactly what I had come from (the racist reminders at school; the strange looks from other adults when I spoke about my parents), and even in high school Spanish class, when the rest of the class made family trees, I was told I could "make mine up" because putting my real parents in there (my adoptive parents, who are my only parents) would be a bit strange, wouldn't it?
"But that was so long ago," I've heard. "You were just adopted the once, and you were raised well otherwise. What on earth is still the problem?" Well, I'm no manner of psychologist, but I participated in a study in which the results were unsurprising: Adoptees—particularly transracial adoptees like myself—reported a lower rate than nonadoptees of self-acceptance, and perceived acceptance by peers.
My feelings might not even need any science or validation behind it: When your personal history is made fun of and ridiculed, it hurts. Every joke on a sitcom in which a distressed child asks in a panic, "Are you telling me I'm adopted?!?!?!" and every snarky e-card, and every adoption-related image on the internet that involves cats or otherwise cute animals... it hurts.
This one would ask you if you are a friend of adoptees... do you know anyone who has experienced it, either as the adopter or the adoptee? We are told that we have been accepted into a better life, a cuckoo's egg amongst the finches. Accepted into a more privileged life, yes. But a better one? It's up for debate.
The next time someone makes a joke about it, speak up. I've never met you, but you can say you know me. You can reply, "Hey, I know someone who's adopted... it's a really weighty, emotional issue for her. I think those jokes are a bit hurtful."
Today in Jokes That Are Not Cool
Today in Totally Not Terrorism
[Trigger warning for anti-choice terrorism.]
There are a lot of things that don't get called terrorism in this country, but chief among them is the anti-choice movement, which is the most brazen, unapologetic terrorist campaign in the US, its co-ordination and orchestration done right out in the open, where no one in the media or politics will call it what it is. It is an inherently violent ideology, backed by a decades-long campaign of intimidation, harassment and violence directed at abortion providers and abortion seekers, that is ignored by one party and mainstreamed as a central plank of its party platform by the other.
Last week, I wrote about a Planned Parenthood clinic in Texas which had been damaged by a Molotov cocktail, and now, via Robin, I see that the FBI is seeking tips after a women's clinic in Detroit was damaged by a suspicious package.
The FBI is asking for the public's help in identifying whoever is responsible for leaving a suspicious package outside of the Summit Women’s Center in Detroit earlier this month.This shit doesn't happen in a void. It happens in a toxic cultural mix of endemic misogyny, hostility for choice and consent, violent rhetoric, and a political climate in which even ostensible defenders of reproductive choice talk about abortion in dishonest and unhelpful and clueless ways; that is, when they're not being totally silent on the issue.
The package, according to a news release from the FBI, caused damage to the building, located at 15801 W. McNichols. The package was left sometime after 1:30 p.m. July 16 and before 8:30 a.m. July 18, according to the FBI.
According to the center's Web site, the center is an abortion clinic and provides gynecological services, STD testing and birth control option counseling.
We are without serious allies.
APA Resolves to Support Marriage Equality
On the eve of its annual convention, the policymaking body of the American Psychological Association has voted unanimously, 157-0, to approve a resolution supporting full marriage rights for same-sex couples. They additionally noted that anti-marriage campaigns have a negative psychological effect on members of the LGB community.
"Now as the country has really begun to have experience with gay marriage, our position is much clearer and more straightforward — that marriage equity is the policy that the country should be moving toward," says Clinton Anderson, director of APA's Office on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Concerns.Welcome to the Progress Train, APA.
The resolution points to numerous recent studies, including findings that "many gay men and lesbians, like their heterosexual counterparts, desire to form stable, long-lasting and committed intimate relationships and are successful in doing so."
It adds that "emerging evidence suggests that statewide campaigns to deny same-sex couples legal access to civil marriage are a significant source of stress to the lesbian, gay and bisexual residents of those states and may have negative effects on their psychological well-being."
Happy Birthday, Kenny Blogginz!
Happy Birthday to youuuuuuuuuuuuu!
Happy Birthday to youuuuuuuuuuuuu!
You look like a Great American Paaaaatriooooot!
And you smell like one, too!
(Old Spice + gun powder.)
Boehner's Briefs: Defending The Defense of Marriage Act
Since the announcement in February that the Obama administration will no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in court, House Speaker John Boehner has decided to.
If the briefs filed by attorney Paul Clement yesterday are any indication, the House Republicans will be pushing every anti-gay message possible to ensure the federal government continues to discriminate against same-sex couples. And of course, taxpayers are covering the bill for all these legal fees.The best one -- the one that made me laugh out loud -- was the claim that gays and lesbians have not historically faced discrimination. No, really.
The case was brought by Edie Windsor, who was forced to pay exorbitant federal inheritance taxes when her wife of 44 years passed away because the government did not recognize their marriage under DOMA. Clement’s primary goal in defending the law is to prove that sexual orientation is not a characteristic that deserves “heightened scrutiny” — essentially, that gay people have not been historically subject to the kind of irrational discrimination that justifies constitutional protection. Doing so requires perpetuating common myths and misperceptions about sexual orientation to convince the court to toss out Edie’s lawsuit.
Moreover, whatever the historical record of discrimination, the most striking factor is how quickly things are changing through the normal democratic processes on issues ranging from same-sex marriage to “Don’t Ask Don’t tell” and beyond. Historical discrimination alone never has been a basis for heightened scrutiny. Courts apply a multi-factor test that focuses on current reality and cautions against unnecessarily taking issues away from the normal democratic process.Thud.
There's more, including your favorites like being gay is a choice; gay people already have plenty of political power; same-sex couples make bad parents, and the oldie but the goodie: the institution of marriage must be protected. I guess they didn't have room for the one about how we have to recruit unwitting children (and win a toaster oven if we meet our quota) and how we all have an instinct for style and clothes.
If this is the best that they can come up with, no wonder the Obama administration decided not to defend the law. It's really hard to make the case to a judge without interrupting yourself with sardonic laughter.
HT to Adam Serwer.
Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.
California News
A couple bits of potentially good news from California today! In San Francisco, city officials have introduced consumer protection legislation regarding "crisis pregnancy centers" and misleading advertising. If you recall, similar legislation was recently ruled against in NYC. However, SF officials think they've written it well enough to stand any legal challenge.
Supervisor Malia Cohen introduced an ordinance on Tuesday that if passed, would prohibit so-called "crisis pregnancy centers" from making misleading or incomplete statements about their missions and scope.The First Resort people are making noise about this and are sure of themselves that they can challenge the ordinance.
Also Tuesday, City Attorney Dennis Herrera said he had contacted a San Francisco Bay Area center called First Resort about its advertising practices. He has warned the center that if it does not clarify its Web site to specifically state it does not provide abortions or make referrals to abortion clinics, he will take legal action.
Elsewhere in California, gov Jerry Brown signed into law legislation sought by the LA school district that is regarding creating disturbances near schools. This was done in response to a 2003 protest by the anti-abortion group "Center for Bio-Ethical Reform". The center put up graphic, billboard-size pictures of what they claim to be aborted fetuses on trucks and drove in circles around a middle school for hours--which frightened, upset, and distracted students (some who stopped mid-street to stare).
The legislation, which takes effect Jan. 1, creates a new misdemeanor crime for creating a disturbance on or next to an elementary or middle school campus where the action threatens the physical safety of students.The center says the law is "meaningless". The center, by the way, won in federal court three years ago when the court found the school district & the police violated the center's First Amendment rights when they told them to go away from the school.
And Lo There Was Much Telling It Like It Is by Republicans Newly Empowered by "Bipartisanism"
Joining his BFF Mitch McConnell in some belligerent chest-beating about how unrepentantly and uncompromisingly horrible their garbage party is, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Ealasshole) said today that "Republicans will continue a push to overhaul programs such as Medicare," and that, despite the promises made to Americans as part of the social contract known as the entitlement programs into which we've paid, we're soon to be shit outta luck and had better start making alternative arrangements for our futures.
That's not hyperbole.
U.S. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R., Va.) on Wednesday suggested that Republicans will continue a push to overhaul programs such as Medicare, saying in an interview that "promises have been made that frankly are not going to be kept for many" and that younger Americans will have to adjust.So, basically, the Republican Party is interested in reforms that would take care of people over 55, i.e. their strongest voting base, and the rest of us can
"What we have to be, I think, focused on is truth in budgeting here," Cantor told The Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal. He said "the better way" for Americans is to "get the fiscal house in order" and "come to grips with the fact that promises have been made that frankly are not going to be kept for many."
..."When we came out with our budget, we said, look, let's at least put people on notice, but preserve those who are 55 and older," Cantor said, referring to a Republican-written budget plan that would turn Medicare, now a fee-for-service program, into a program that subsidizes private health insurance. "The rest of us have got ample time to try and plan our lives so that we can adjust to reality here when you look at the numbers. Again the math doesn't lie."
That is, of course, wildly unreasonable in addition to being comprehensively compassionless.
But who's gonna stop them...?
[Via.]
Daily Dose of Cute
Video Description: Dudley and Zelda run around the dog park last weekend. Zelda does a drive-by to get Dudley to chase her, which he happily obliges. Zelda runs toward me. Dudley runs toward me, and then Iain chases him. Cut to Dudley and Zelda napping on the loveseat together at home. I tell them they're good puppies and make kissy sounds at them. Cut to Dudley and Zelda playing tug-o-war with a stuffing-free plushy toy. Zelda gets it away from Dudley, but tosses his end back to him, because the goal is not to win; the goal is to keep playing.
A couple of still shots below the fold (on most browsers)...
Zelda.
Dudley.
Naptime.
Quote of the Day
[Trigger warning for violent rhetoric.]
"I think some of our members may have thought the default issue was a hostage you might take a chance at shooting. Most of us didn't think that. What we did learn is this—it's a hostage that's worth ransoming."—Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Epulsive).
This extraordinarily frank admission about the vicious cynicism of the Republican members of the US Senate is buried in the last paragraph of a Washington Post article.
Wednesday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by progressive economic policy.
Recommended Reading:
Rich: [TW for racism and various other hate speech] Fear of a Black Spider-Man
Jillian: Steve King: Covering Birth Control Will Make Us 'A Dying Civilization'
Michelle: [TW for discussion of eating] Nutrition is a game we play.
Miriam: How do I become an abortion doula?
Melissa: The Playboy Club Is about Women's Empowerment?
Mike: By the Sweat of Your Brow and the Fruits of Your Labor, Do They Prosper
Andy: Suquamish Tribe Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage
Zack: [TW for homophobia] Top Five Homophobic Statements From Boehner's DOMA Briefs
Leave your links and recommendations in comments...
Fault Lines - The Top 1%
I'm still searching for a transcript for this great report from Al Jazeera (please drop a note in comments if you find one), but I was talking to 'Liss today and said:
"It strikes me as ironic that I live in the country that essentially made the TV famous, but I have to go to new sources outside my own nation to get any real information."
We Are Not Meant to Be Well
Sometimes I write things in my head over a series of months, usually with mixed results. My latest such effort deals with the systemic way in which society keeps those of us with marginalized bodies and marginalized needs from accessing health care.
I'm pretty sure it's worth reading. Of course, I'm biased because I managed to work in a story about genital electrolysis. Good times.
This is what marginalization looks like. Having access to health care is about more than getting an insurance company to pay one’s bills. It’s about being able to focus on living one’s life and maintaining one’s health. It’s about healing. When socially-accepted people need socially-accepted medical care, this is what happens– they go to the doctor and the doctor takes care of their needs.
There are fewer providers catering to marginalized peoples’ needs. Why risk one’s career to work in a specialty that your medical school won’t discuss, your colleagues don’t universally respect, and your patients can’t afford? With fewer, and frequently less-knowledgeable providers, the burden falls on patients to figure out precisely what procedures they need performed, how they should be performed, who will perform them, and how they can reach these professionals who will perform them. The cost in time, energy, and money is more than many folks can afford.
Making oppressed people go to all that work is also counterproductive, provided that the goal of the system is to make people well. It isn’t. As far as I can tell, the massive mental, physical, and financial strain that society places on some patients is a feature, not a bug. We are not meant to be well.
The full essay is here.
Number of the Day
45.8 million: The number of people in the US currently receiving food stamps, up from 43.2 Million in January. The number would be even higher, "but only about 67 percent of the eligible people actually apply."
Discussion Thread: Recession Realities
In comments, Shaker CassieC writes:
I was wondering if there could be a thread for shakers to share what this recession/depression/catastrophe is doing to them and their friends and loved ones. ... I've just been reading people's accounts here and there, on various threads, and I know how strong the pressure is not to tell these stories of personal difficulties in the US, because of our society's f-ed up code of personal success/failure, which makes it so difficult for the personal to be seen as a collective, legitimate phenomenon.Here it is.
Commenting Guidelines: Commenters are strictly prohibited from criticizing each other, auditing other commenters' choices, questioning other commenters' circumstances, or offering advice, unless it is explicitly solicited. You are being invited to talk about your own experiences, not stand in judgment of anyone else's.
Impossibly Beautiful
Below is a picture of Sarah Jessica Parker, a woman who is effervescent, smart, has had extraordinary professional success, and is legendarily stylish.
Parker arrives for the screening of Wu Xia in Cannes, May 14, 2011. [AP Photo]
Whether she is beautiful has always been a subject of much debate, because she does not conform perfectly to traditional definitions of beauty. It will not be debated in this space, because to debate it is to tacitly concede that there is some objective Beauty Standard, some platonic ideal of feminine beauty, and that conformity to that ideal is an issue of character.
What matters is not whether any of us find Sarah Jessica Parker beautiful; what matters is that, yet again, Marie Claire has found her to be not beautiful enough.
Just over a year ago, I wrote a piece about a Marie Claire cover featuring SJP in which her famously wrinkly hands were Photoshopped to look like babydoll hands stuck on the ends of the arms of a confident 45-year-old woman. Now she is on the cover of their September issue, and they've done the same damn thing to her again.
[Click to embiggen.]
Compare to the image at the top of this post, in which SJP's unretouched hand is visible as she blows a kiss to fans.
That Sarah Jessica Parker has a life rich with family and friends, and is a successful actress on stage and on screens small and large, a savvy businesswoman, and a well-respected arts advocate and philanthropist, isn't enough. She hasn't yet earned the right to be Who She Actually Is on the cover of Marie Claire, because Who She Actually Is isn't good enough if she's got WRINKLED HANDS at age 46.
I have wrinkled hands not terribly unlike SJP's. Marie Claire would evidently like me to be ashamed of them. Fuck that. I love my hands, and I love Sarah Jessica Parker's hands, too.
The real ones.
------------------------
By way of reminder: Comments that try to suss out what changes, exactly, were made, and even comments noting that, for example, the removal of laugh lines because they are ZOMG wrinkles actually robs a face of its character or humanity, are welcome. Discussions of how "she looks prettier/hotter/better in the candid picture" and associated commentary (which would certainly make me feel like shit if I were the person being discussed) are not. So please comment in keeping with the series' intent, implicit in which is the question: If no one can ever be beautiful enough, then to what end is the pursuit of an elusive perfection?
What's on the Chopping Block, and Who's Holding the Line (Or Not)
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has promised that the House Democrats named to the committee prescribed by the debt ceiling plan and tasked with reducing the deficit by at least $1.2 trillion will oppose cuts to the social safety net:
"That is a priority for us," Pelosi said. "But let me say it is more than a priority - it is a value... it's an ethic for the American people. It is one that all of the members of our caucus share. So that I know that whoever's at that table will be someone who will fight to protect those benefits."It is, of course, qualified good news, because
And then there's this: "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) will also appoint three members to the committee. And if even a single one of them is willing to cut into Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security benefits, then Pelosi's efforts won't really matter—the committee's report can be approved by a bare majority of its 12 members. But if Reid and Pelosi play this smart, they could create a sturdy firewall."
It is incredible and terrifying and infuriating to me that so few people, possibly as few as one, will hold in their hands the power to protect or dismantle the social safety net.
