Trio: "Da Da Da, Ich Lieb' Dich Nicht Du Liebst Mich Nicht Aha Aha Aha"
Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime
Trio: "Da Da Da, Ich Lieb' Dich Nicht Du Liebst Mich Nicht Aha Aha Aha"
On Rape Prevention Tips
[Trigger warning for rape culture.]
In the wake of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board's victim-blaming anti-rape campaign, and much ensuing debate, Salon's Tracy Clark-Flory has written a piece taking a look at the nature and usefulness of "rape prevention tips" directed at women. I was interviewed for and am quoted in the article.
I do understand the impulse among decent people who have no desire to preemptively victim-blame to nonetheless share "rape prevention tips," really, I do. I even understand the urge to defend the need to share "general safety ideas" with women, during discussions of rape prevention. It is, of course, "common sense" that tips to avoid being mugged are equally as useful to avoid being raped.
But to reiterate the point I made to Tracy: Even the "rape prevention tips" typically offered under the umbrella of "general safety ideas" aren't really practical rape prevention advice. Millions of people get home alone after drinking every night in this country, and the vast majority of them aren't sexually assaulted, so is it actually meaningful advice to warn women against walking home alone, or is it just advice that sounds useful in the void of effective rape prevention (i.e. advice directed at predators, potential predators, and their peer enablers)?
The truth is, there's no such thing as a meaningful "rape prevention tip" for potential victims, because the only surefire way to prevent being raped is to never be in the same space as a determined rapist, over which we often have no control, which is why most survivors have been raped in a familiar place by a person known to them.
Real practical rape prevention is dismantling the rape culture, but that's a lot harder than telling a woman to take a cab to her door, as if everyone can afford cabs—and as if cabbies don't sometimes rape people, too.
Read Tracy's piece here.
Fourteen Senators Are Mad As Hell
Okay, they're not mad as hell; they are Democrats, after all. (And one Independent.) But they're definitely at least mildly displeased with the HHS' absurd decision regarding Plan B and with President Obama's support of that decision, so they have written a letter to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, requesting a scientific explanation for her decision:
Dear Secretary Sebelius,The letter is signed by Democratic Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell of Washington, Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Barbara Boxer (CA), Richard Blumenthal (CT), Daniel Akaka (HA), Carl Levin (MI), John Kerry (MA), Tom Harkin (IA), Al Franken (MN), and Frank Lautenberg (NJ). Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who is an Independent and caucuses with Senate Democrats, was the fourteenth signatory.
We are writing to express our disappointment with your December 7, 2011 decision to block the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) recommendation to make Plan B One-Step available over-the-counter. We feel strongly that FDA regulations should be based on science. We write to you today to ask that you provide us with the rationale for this decision.
As numerous medical societies and patient advocates have argued, improved access to birth control, including emergency contraception, has been proven to reduce unintended pregnancies. Nearly half of all pregnancies that occur in the United States each year are unintended. Keeping Plan B behind the counter makes it harder for all women to obtain a safe and effective product they may need to prevent an unintended pregnancy.
We ask that you share with us your specific rationale and the scientific data you relied on for the decision to overrule the FDA recommendation. On behalf of the millions of women we represent, we want to be assured that this and future decisions affecting women's health will be based on medical and scientific evidence.
Greg Sargent quite rightly notes that the letter "is strongly worded stuff, particularly when directed at a Democratic president. It stops just short of accusing the Obama administration of deliberately ignoring science in making this decision. It also puts the administration in an awkward spot. Either it produces a scientific rationale that's acceptable to these Senators, which will will be extremely difficult at best, or it will face more criticism for failing to justify its policy, reinforcing the sense that this Democratic administration abandoned science and put politics first."
This is the last thing the President needs in an election year—which is something he should have thought of before throwing women and trans men under the bus. Again.
Primarily Awful
Here's the latest from the BAD MAX: BEYOND BLUNDERDOME! aka the Republican Primary...
Frontrunner (gag reflex) Newt Gingrich has shit-canned his brand new Iowa political director after dude made disparaging remarks about Mormonism being a cult. Gingrich's Iowa game does not have the moves like Jagger, so this is yet another setback in a key primary state. Whooooooooooops!
Erstwhile frontrunner (sad clown) Mitt Romney meanwhile put on his Rootin'-Tootin' Fisticuffing Britches and called Gingrich an "extremely unreliable leader in the conservative world." Oh HELL no! You kiss your mother with that mouth, Willard?! Ha ha just kidding. That is a very weak criticism. In fact, I'm pretty sure at least 72% of conservatives consider "extremely unreliable" a desirable attribute in a president. See: 2000-2008.
In other Romney-related news, focus groups keep finding that evangelicals don't like Romney (which is definitely not because he's Mormon, ha ha, no way!), but he just won the coveted Christine O'Donnell endorsement, and she's like Queen Evangelica of the Christlands, so EVERYTHING IS SO CONFUSING! Aren't "the evangelicals" a monolithic hivemind like the media keeps telling me?! Next thing you know, women will start voting for different candidates.
In New Hampshire, Ron Paul makes a strong argument for bootstraps: "If we didn't have bailouts, dependency on government, welfare for the rich, food stamps for the poor [people would live within their means]." Fun Fact: Within some circles, Ron Paul is known as "Mr. Cool Logic."
Michele Bachmann calls her opponents "milquetoast" candidates: "I must raise every available dollar between now and January 3rd to ensure our hard-charging constitutional conservative campaign—not some milquetoast opponents like Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, and Newt Gingrich—wins over these undecided Iowa voters." I guess everything looks like milquetoast when you're a rightwing extremist.
In case you weren't aware, Rick Santorum is very religious. His "presidential ambition is rooted in his faith," and his faith is, in fact, "the key ingredient that also powers Santorum's long-shot drive for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination." That is a very nice way of saying it would take a miracle for Santorum to become the GOP nominee. Poor Rick Santorum. It's gotta hurt to be such a resoundingly terrible candidate that, even in a campaign in which every dingaling who throws hir hat in the general vicinity of the ring becomes Conservatives' New Favorite Person of the Day, even the most desperate primary electorate since the last election (McCain-Palin 4ever!) diligently endeavors to pretend you don't exist in the futile hope you will just quietly go away. Aww.
Jon Huntsman predicts he'll "catch on after silly season," because he's a serious candidate. "I don't sign those silly pledges. I don't pander. I don't light my hair on fire. There's just some things I won't do." Like, for example, be invited to the next debate, because his poll numbers are in the toilet. The toilet at the bottom of the Grand Canyon. (Great joke!)
Rick Perry is still definitely in the race! He has not dropped out yet.
Discuss.
Time Selects Non-Woman of the Year
You may have already heard that Time has selected its person of the year: "The Protestor." Despite Time's clever use of the singular (The Protestor sounds like a kinda cool superhero), once again time has avoided naming an individual person of the year.
Why, you ask, should I care?
I asked that same question to 2010 Liss:
Time has not selected an individual woman as its "X of the Year" since then-president of the Philippines Corazon Aquino was named Woman of the Year in 1986. In 1999, Time changed the annual year-end honorific, which had almost exclusively been a "Man of the Year" since its inception, to "Person of the Year," but it merely created an illusion of parity. Still no individual women.
"Person of the Year," my ass. If Time doesn't believe there's been a single individual woman deserving of the title in 24 years, then the least they could do is be honest and go back to calling it what it really is: "Man of the Year."
In 2009, Kate Harding made a familiar observation:
Jeff Bezos, George W. Bush, Rudy Giuliani, Vladimir Putin, Barack Obama and, as of yesterday, Ben Bernanke have all earned solo “Person of the Year” covers since the language was changed — as have Mikhail Gorbachev and Bill Clinton (twice each), George H.W. Bush, Ted Turner, Pope John Paul II, Newt Gingrich, David Ho, Andy Grove and Kenneth freakin’ Starr, since Aquino’s win. I am detecting a pattern.
This year Time named four runners-up. True story: the only woman among them is famous for marrying a famous dude.
I know that Time's person of the year is a gimmick designed to sell magazines, but gimmicks matter, particularly when the media make them major stories. As important as global protests have been (even when they've upheld key parts of the kyriarchy :ahem:), they're not exactly the work of a person. Time, I suggest you find a better name for your crappy award.
Question of the Day
Following up on yesterday's QotD: What are three character traits you have that you strive to mitigate?
Imperiousness, impatience, and disorganization.
Number of the Day
Zero: The number of shits I give that Donald Trump is now threatening to run for president as an Independent. Go for it, fartsack. I've always wanted to hear the sound of the entire country yawning at once.
All Righty Then
Now that primary voters are getting a good look at Newt's ass, it appears that Ron Paul might be the next Republican frontrunner.
LOL. Sure. Why not?
Daily Dose of Cute
I can't recall what was going on when I snapped this picture. Matilda was either rebuffing an attempt to tame with a grooming brush the furry bedlam that is her coat, or giving Zelda the stink-eye for trying to get up on couch in the queen's presence.
"No!"
Harmful Communication, Part Two: Emotional Auditing
[Trigger warning for harmful language, emotional manipulation, rape culture.]
The language of defensiveness, projection, emotional auditing, non-apology apologies, false choices, and magical intent is ubiquitous in social justice spaces—and pretty much everywhere else. This series is intended to really examine how this brand of accountability deflecting language manifests as harm in everyday interactions with the people around us. In the same way that discussions of consent as a broad concept beyond sexual interactions have inspired people to reconsider other consent issues, even something as common as posting photographs online, I hope that this series can make us more sensitive to what we're actually communicating when we engage accountability deflecting language, or what's being communicated when we're on the receiving end of it, and underline why it is inherently harmful.
In Part One of this series on accountability deflecting language, I addressed "Magical Intent," the principle by which someone who has said or done something upsetting argues that the person to whom they've said or done it has no right to be upset because their intent was not to generate that reaction, i.e. that intent is more important than effect.
The convention of magical intent first deflects accountability by seeking to make a harmed person responsible for our having hurt them, by asking them to respond to what we were thinking rather than what we were communicating. ("That's not what I meant; it wasn't my intent; you're taking it the wrong way; you're getting it all wrong.") It then asks them to accept that their feelings are irrational, because all that matters is what we intended them to feel.
That is Emotional Auditing.
Emotional Auditing manifests in many different ways, from dismissing people's responses as "oversensitive" to claiming ownership of people's emotions by asserting to know better what they think or need, but it begins with the presumption that we can control people's reactions. To be sure, we absolutely influence the way that our communication with others will be perceived: The language we choose, the honesty of our communication, the time and place we broach subjects, whether we engage in good faith, the medium we use to deliver information, etc. all have a meaningful effect on how any communication will be received. Even the most casual of relationships exist on a continuum, and situational awareness—including being aware of past communication successes and failures, and being conscious and respectful of individuals' particular needs, experiences, triggers, boundaries, and sensitivities—is important.
But the objectives of being sensitive to other people's needs should be respect for the individual and clarity of communication, not an attempt to try to control other people's responses. In other words, we shouldn't seek to use people's vulnerabilities against them to try to manipulate getting a reaction we want.
Once the desired outcome is: "I want hir to respond like this," we're already on the road to a harmful communication, because to try to control other people's reactions is, in effect if not intent, an attempt to try to control the emotions underlying those reactions.
We cannot (neither pragmatically nor ethically) control other people's reactions—which should not be mistaken for an argument that every conceivable response is equally valid; abuse is always inappropriate. Here, I want to draw a distinction between drawing boundaries for oneself to set off-limits abusive responses, and marking out a spectrum of acceptable emotional response for someone else to set off-limits any and all responses that we wouldn't like. There is a meaningful difference between communicating, "You are not allowed to engage in accountability deflecting language (like 'Magical Intent') with me, because it's harmful," and communicating, "You are not allowed to react to what I said with hurt or anger or sadness, because negative emotions make me feel yucky."
Only the latter constitutes emotional auditing.
(Indeed, drawing clear boundaries about communication preferences is often a necessary response to emotional auditing and/or emotional manipulation.)
So: We cannot control other people's reactions, and to approach communication with some notion that we can, with some expectation that another person should respond in a specific way, with a strategy to elicit an expected and desired reaction, is an inherently harmful communication, because it presupposes there is only one "right" reaction.
We mustn't mistake a reaction we want for the right reaction.
There are certain situations in which most decent people will agree, and be quick to say, that there's no one right reaction. After the death of a loved one, after an assault, after an unfortunate diagnosis, after a job loss—most traumas are met with reassurances that there's not a right way or a wrong way to react.
Fewer people, but still a significant number, will acknowledge there's no one right way to react to things typically regarded as joyful events, either: Becoming a parent, getting married, graduating college, getting a new job. Not everyone is as undilutedly thrilled as we are expected to be in such circumstances, and, irrespective of the void of axiomatic reassurances that it's okay to have various reactions, it's true all the same.
And so it is in most situations: An unexpected reaction is not a wrong reaction.
(Again, to address a notable exception: Abusive responses, which include the disregard of previously communicated boundaries, are clearly inappropriate reactions.)
The ubiquitous urge to make other people responsible for our communication, however, makes most of us less inclined to give across-the-board application to the idea that there are rarely "right" or "wrong" reactions. That would, of course, steal a pretty useful tool out of the accountability deflecting toolbox.
And so instead, we learn how to respond to evidence that we've upset someone with: Don't feel that way. Or: You shouldn't feel that way. Or: I don't want you to feel that way. Or: It doesn't make sense to feel that way. Or: You're being ridiculous. Or: You're being irrational. Or: You're being oversensitive. Or: Your reaction is disproportionate. Or: You're looking for things to get mad about. Or any variation on: You are wrong to feel that way.
And/or an assertion to know another person's mind better than they know it themselves: You're really mad about something else. Or: You're really just trying to punish me. Or: Your hurt, anger, tears are an attempt to manipulate me. Or any variation on: Your emotions aren't authentic.
A healthy and productive reaction to someone expressing hurt or offense is not to audit whether that reaction meets our standards of acceptability (again, with caveat that no one is required to tolerate abuse), but to try to understand why it is that the person is reacting the way zie is. Empathy is the best response to causing unintentional hurt.
Naturally, there are people in the world who are manipulative, people whose perceptions can be affected by mental illness, people who overreact because they're having a goddamn bad day. But none of those are reasons to justify dismissing someone's reactions out of hand as illegitimate: Their existence is, in fact, an argument for the necessity of empathy.
To respond instead to evidence of our mistakes with emotional auditing can be profoundly harmful—and over the course of a relationship, holding another person responsible for our hurting them instead of owning our own harmful communication can cause irreparable damage: After someone communicates enough times that you're exclusively responsible for the hurt they cause you, the only choice with which you're left to break that cycle is to disengage.
Owning our fuck-ups is an integral part of stopping the cycle of harmful communication, not only because it allows for real accountability but also because making authentic amends depends on acknowledging responsibility.
Apologizing in a meaningful way necessitates viewing oneself as a complicated person, with virtues and flaws, good instincts and bad habits, the capacity for kindness and a reservoir of internalized ugliness. It requires fully embracing the idea of knowing and caring about oneself in all one's often regrettable aspects. It rests on the capacity to exist comfortably as a person with visible and acknowledged flaws.
To relieve oneself of the burden of trying to project perfection is to take the first step away from the reflexive use of accountability deflecting language.
And the failure to do so, giving oneself permission to prioritize being right over being compassionate, letting the instinct to say things like, "You're being oversensitive" and "I'm sorry, but…" linger, tends to lead to a cycle of abuse—because if we resist seeing ourselves as someone with flawed communication about which we need to be vigilant, we make the same mistakes over and over, then deflect accountability, again and again, with harmful language.
As I'm sure is evident by this point, a big part of avoiding engaging in harmful communication is being honest about how inclined we are to try to deflect accountability, about what less than productive, effective, and kind strategies we use ourselves, and about where we need to be vigilant and make changes. In other words: Being honest about who we are.
Which brings us to projection, and that will be part three.
NTSB Calls for Ban on Cell Phones While Driving
A lot of states? Some? Or a few cities? already have bans on using mobile phones while operating a vehicle (unless it's hands-free), and now the National Transportation Safety Board has recommended a nationwide ban:
Federal accident investigators Tuesday called for a nationwide ban on the use of cell phones and text messaging devices while driving.I don't use my phone while I'm driving, because it's terribly distracting—which is probably why I've nearly gotten into accidents more times than I can count with other people on cell phones who totally aren't paying attention to what they're doing. Seems like a solid recommendation, as long as there's an exception for emergencies.
The recommendation is the most far-reaching yet by the National Transportation Safety Board, which in the past 10 years has increasingly sought to limit the use of portable electronic devices. It has recommended such bans for novice drivers, school bus drivers and commercial truckers.
The new recommendation, if adopted by states, would outlaw non-emergency phone calls and texting by operators of every vehicle on the road.
It would not apply to hand-free devices or to passengers.
What do you think?
Quote of the Day
"I told my colleagues yesterday a bit of homespun wisdom that I got from an alderman in Chicago some years ago when one of his colleagues wanted to run for higher office and he was really dubious. He said, 'Just remember the higher a monkey climbs on a pole, the more you can see his butt.' So, you know, the Speaker is very high on the pole right now and we'll see how people like the view."—David Axelrod, chief strategist for President Barack Obama, on the increased scrutiny Republican candidate Newt Gingrich will face now that he's the frontrunner.
[Via Political Wire.]
Calendars o' Cute
[Click to embiggen.]
Recently, there have been a bunch of comments/emails from people saying they'd like calendars featuring the furry residents of Shakes Manor. I am pretty dubious about investing time to create swag upon request, because it hasn't gone well before, but there seems to be some interest in calendars, so I spent time last weekend creating a couple of options.
There are wall calendars of just the cats, just the dogs, and (as seen above) all five, as well as single-sheet calendars featuring each of them individually.
You can buy them here. I get a couple of bucks with each purchase.
It's just the calendars for right now. I know people have expressed interest in t-shirts and additional items featuring other Shakesville-related stuff, too; if there's enough interest in the calendars, I'll spend some more time filling out the shop with other items.
Thanks in advance to anyone who makes a purchase at the Shakesville Shop!
Get With It TLC—This Will Be My Favorite Show!
TLC, the garbage factory formerly known as The Learning Channel, is reportedly not interested in a new reality show being pitched by Sarah Palin and Mark Burnett, who produced Sarah Palin's Alaska that aired on TLC and was obviously television gold.
How is it possible that the channel which will exploit any human being for a tuppence is even contemplating not putting this magic on the air, like, yesterday?
The Hollywood Reporter has learned that Palin and Burnett are pitching another reality series, this one more focused on Palin's husband Todd and his career as a championship snowmobile racer. But for now, TLC owner Discovery Communications has passed, say sources. And A&E Networks, which entered into a bidding war with Discovery for Sarah Palin's Alaska, also is not interested.Only one million per episode for the adventures of Todd Palin and his snow machine?! COUGH UP, TLC! That is a bargain!
So far, networks have balked at the steep asking price – Palin's Alaska went for north of $1 million an episode and sources say Burnett and Palin are asking for a similar payday for the follow-up. Mark Burnett Productions did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
[Note: This would not be my favorite show.]
Et tu, Bing?
I've got a Kinect. This is awesome, because I can yell at my Xbox, and it does things. Voice commands for technology make everything wittier.
Microsoft updated Xbox Live. Now I can say "Xbox, Bing whatever" and the Xbox will search for content on Netflix, Zune, and whatnot.
Remembering recent events, I asked the Kinect to find me information on abortion. I shit you not, I am not making this up, the second result was a very special episode of Rugrats.
FYI, "Xbox, Bing cock ring" returns no hits. For now.
Michele Bachmann Is Definitely a Presidential Candidate
[Trigger warning for misogyny and gender essentialism.]
That is, she dresses like a professional, and she has an unyielding commitment to a rigid ideology. But, because Bachmann is a woman, and women are delicate flowers with a singular capacity for decorating the world by being pretty and subservient, this means she is "something of a contradiction" according to a piece in the WaPo headlined: "Michele Bachmann's ladylike toughness." Yiiiiiiiiiikes. It gets worse in the subhead: "Michele Bachmann is something of a contradiction. She dresses in ladylike suits and pearls, but as The Washington Post's Sarah Kaufman describes, she delivers her tough views with no hesitation."
You'd think a paper as robust as the Washington Post would have heard the breaking news by now that women are human beings and the year is 2011.
Text Onscreen: Washington Post.Grim stuff.
Sarah Kaufman in voiceover, over drawing of Rep. Michele Bachmann: Don't let the delicate appearance fool you—there is nothing weak about Michele Bachmann.
Video of Bachmann during debate: —I will go over to the Department of Education, and I'd turn out the lights, I'd lock the door—
Kaufman, onscreen: In fact, what strikes me most about the Minnesota Congresswoman is how tightly wound she is. [over video and stills of Bachmann] She's something of a contradiction: The way she dresses in ladylike suits and pearls emphasizes her femininity and her small stature, and yet her outlook is super macho. She has tougher views than almost any of the men on the debate stage. She delivers them with no hesitation.
Video of Bachmann during debate: If I were president, I would be willing to use waterboarding.
Kaufman, over video of Bachmann: Her stage presence is all about steeliness, resolve, and absolute certainty. The downside is: Will she listen to any views other than her own? Can she empathize? She may look like one of the ladies who lunch, but the impression she gives is that, inside, she's solid, hard, and unbending.
Anyone who finds it "striking" that a conservative woman—or any woman seeking national election—feels obliged to out-macho the men, in a nation where funding war is prioritized over funding healthcare and women comprise only 16% of the Congress, has no business covering politics.
Nor does anyone who pretends to find it striking, in order to levy a misogynist attack rife with dog whistles against a female candidate.
Contact the Washington Post ombudsman here.
Primarily Gross
Here's the latest from the epic parade of failosaurs competing to be THE BIGGEST DIRTBAG OF THEM ALL! aka the Republican Primary...
Frontrunner (barrrrrrrf) Newt Gingrich has been offered a million dollars by odious conservative radio host Michael Savage to drop out of the race. Ha ha Michael Savage you are being an even bigger fuckbrain than usual! Newt Gingrich farts in the general direction of your million dollars. That will barely even cover his tab at Tiffany's!
Former frontrunner (whoooooooops!) Mitt Romney wants to "turn around America and keep America American with the principals [sic] that made us the greatest nation on Earth." It's hard to believe he's not running away with this race with stirring, well-crafted, and totes not at all embarrassingly juvenile rhetoric like that!
Rick Santorum is counting on Iowa. Did you hear that, Iowa? Rick Santorum is counting on you to turn him from a national joke into a national candidate. TALL ORDERS! I hope you are up to the task.
Jon Huntsman is not running as an independent! "I'm not running as an independent. I'm not running as an independent. I don't know how many times I have to say that." A million! By the way, you're definitely not running as the Republican nominee, either.
Rick Perry is still definitely in the race! He has not dropped out yet.
Are you interested in meeting the man behind Ron Paul's awesome campaign ads from 1989? Sure you are! Who wouldn't be? No one, that's who! So thank goodness that the Washington Post has profiled this very interesting gentleman! "I wouldn’t consider myself a member of his army." "I don't get into campaign strategy." Ha ha GREAT STUFF. A real dynamo, this guy.
Michele Bachmann has strengths and weaknesses, and in the Venn diagram of those two things, "her certainty" lies in the intersection. So says the WaPo. Is it evident that I have lost all interest in Michele Bachmann? I have lost all interest in Michele Bachmann. And this primary.
Wake me when the Republicans have nominated one of these garbage nightmares, so I can repeat ad infinitum that whoever it is should never be president.
