Caterina Caselli: "Sono Bugiarda"
Empathy! How the fudge does it work?
[Content Note: Ciscentrism; transphobia. Part Two in an ongoing series.]
Taking a page from the Saxby Chambliss Playbook (the WORST playbook!), Congressman Paul Broun (R-GA) explained his opposition to insurance-covered trans* healthcare by saying he's not trans* and doesn't need it, so why should anyone else?
"I don't want to pay for a sex change operation," Broun said last week in a speech against Obamacare, "I'm not interested. I like being a boy."So do trans men! Which is the most concise way I can think of to underline everything that is wrong with Broun's fundamental misunderstanding of gender identity and transitioning.
This cavernous lack of empathy, this colossally clueless centering of self and universalizing of one's own perspective and experience, doesn't even make being a decent human being possible, no less a decent public servant in a representative democracy.
Diverse constituencies don't send people to D.C. to legislate on the basis of personal need. That such a huge percentage of elected representatives don't seem to understand this basic principle is an exponentially more monumental problem given the lack of diversity in Congress along multiple axes of marginalization.
In The News
[Content note: Guns, gun violence, gun culture, fat hatred, homophobia]
And I Said What About Breakfast at Tiffany's?
You can either sleep with your toddler in the bed with you or your gun in the bed with you. Not both. It's a rule.
This is the greatest thing in the universe! #NicCage
The Republican National Committee is set to reaffirm party opposition to marriage equality. Nice!
Hey, Fatties!: Gluttony Pants!
Here is a trailer for an upcoming Tom of Finland biopic.
Linda Perry and Sara Gilbert are engaged. Neat! (I didn't even know they were dating.)
Maná supports marriage equality.
Apple has banned a comic for containing images of gay sex. Earlier issues, which showed explicit straight sex, are still available.
Oh, Femen...
[Content Note: Appropriation; racism; rape culture. Originally posted at Elle, PhD.]
Femen declared last Thursday, 4 April 2012, "Topless Jihad Day," a response,
in support of Amina Tyler, a young Tunisian woman who has been targeted by Islamists after she put a bare-breasted picture of herself on her Facebook page in March with the words "Fuck Your Morals" and "My Body Belongs To Me, And Is Not The Source Of Anyone's Honour" painted across her chest.Tyler does need support; she has received death threats and is in fear for her life.
But, oh, Femen, the way you're going about this...
Look, I must admit that I am not a big fan of their topless protests, anyway. I understand something of their sentiment--in a world in which so many women are (a)shamed about our bodies, told what to do with them, how they should look, what is (in)decent, and held to a moral double standard, unflinchingly baring those bodies can be read as a resistive gesture.
But, for women like me, who are a product of that world, yes, but who are also a product of a history in which women who looked like me were commonly put on display as novelties, as scientific oddities, as evidence of the sexual grotesque, as a precursor to being sold into a life of forced sexual and manual labor, topless protests have no appeal.
They also have no appeal for many Muslimahs who "joined forces to protest against the work of Femen" via a Facebook page called "Muslim Women against Femen." And in response to their protest, Femen slipped into the old tried-and-true colonialist, racist, condescending methods of some white feminists.
There is, of course, backstory here. There is a history of white feminists assuming they know what's best for non-white or non-Western women, a history of their exceptionalizing the oppression of non-white, non-Western women in effort to position the Western world as "better"/"more advanced," to construct non-white and/or non-Western men as more-of-all-those-negative-stereotypes that characterize them in the Western world, and to render non-white and/or non-Western women as perpetual victims in need of liberation. Whatever the progressive strengths of white women's feminism, it has not escaped a legacy of ethnocentrism and privilege. There is also, with regards to perceptions of "the Islamic world," a fascination with and disdain for the practice of veiling. There is a narrative that insists that every woman who covers herself is forced to do so and lives a life of misery under an oppressive religion and domineering, murderous men.
And so we come to Femen, members of which looked at the Muslim Women against Femen page, looked at the declarations of Muslimah pride, the statements that some Muslimahs found liberation in covering themselves, did not perceive of themselves as oppressed, were not in need of rescue, and did not see baring of the body as liberating, and responded in the most appalling ways. For example, Femen leader Inna Shevchenko said, "They write on their posters that they don't need liberation but in their eyes it's written 'help me'. "
When I read that, my first thought, quite honestly, was that she sounded like a rapist: "Your mouth tells me one thing, but your eyes/your body/your actions say another." Shevchenko went on to say, "You know, through all history of humanity, all slaves deny that they are slaves."
I wish that were made up, I really do. Shevchenko's remarks are symbolic of the disconnect between many white feminists and other women. There is no actual engagement, no discussion, no validity placed on actual lived experiences, no consideration of cultural differences. Instead, there is a one-size-fits-all, we-know-what's-best-for-you-poor-dears approach that is infuriating, exclusionary, and, sadly, persistent. As Muslim Women Against Femen spokesperson Ayesha Latif mused, "We wonder how many Muslim women they have actually spoken to?"
Latif's comments highlight many of the issues non-white and/or non-Western have with organizations like Femen:
"The assumption they promote is that we are subjugated creatures controlled by men, who need to be liberated by a group of perfectly groomed white women posing nude and using shock tactics. "For them, the more you strip the more of a feminist you are - that's Western feminist ideology. That's not liberation for us, but that doesn’t make us anti-feminist.But in their narrow-mindedness, Femen cannot accept Latif's argument.
Shevchenko generously explains that, "We are proud to share progressive ideas for all over the world." But that "sharing" too often takes on a veneer of coercion--"Trust us; you need liberating and we are going to do it no matter what you say!" Shevchenko blithely asks, "Why do they have to cover their bodies?" but when Muslimahs give answers that indicate that they choose to do so, Femen ignores those answers.
That answer doesn't fit the script white feminists too often write for the "poor, oppressed, victimized WoC" character.
The Return of Anthony Weiner
[Content Note: Sexual harassment.]
So, former Congressman Anthony Weiner, who was once upon a time a fiery progressive who routinely spoke out on behalf of women's equality until he was busted tweeting a picture of his junk, is thinking about running for Mayor of NYC. And ahead of that potential run, he and Huma Abedin, the extraordinarily talented Hillary Clinton aide who is married to Weiner, sat down with Jonathan Van Meter of the New York Times for a series of interviews that turned into this long and very interesting piece published today.
I loved reading about how much support Abedin got from her colleagues and boss; it's an important part of the story and I'm glad Van Meter treated it that way.
It was interesting to read Weiner's take on his behavior—what motivated him and what he was (and wasn't) thinking at the time—and how it provides a window into why it is that politics appeals to men who are likely to engage in destructive behavior in pursuit of approval.
But I was disheartened to find no evidence (maybe because of editorial license, but maybe because it just doesn't exist to include) that Weiner has accepted, internalized, and processed the serious consent issues around sending an unsolicited sexual picture.
Sending a solicited sexual picture to a consenting recipient while a sitting Congressman is self-destructive behavior. Sending an unsolicited sexual picture to a nonconsenting recipient no matter who you are is harmful behavior.
(In either case, there may be auxiliary harm to spouse, family, constituents, etc.)
Until Weiner can straightforwardly address that he understands the difference between the two, which necessitates decentering his own perspective and empathizing with his victims (beyond his wife), he doesn't belong in public office. There are already enough people holding public office who don't understand or don't care about or actually regard as a feature of their position, their capacity to harm.
We don't need any more.
Neat!
Obama to unveil $3.77 trillion spending plan: "President Obama plans Wednesday to unveil a $3.77 trillion spending plan that proposes modest new investments in infrastructure and education, major new taxes for the wealthy and significant reforms aimed at reducing the cost of Social Security and Medicare."
A senior administration official, who naturally spoke only on condition on anonymity, because that's how everything works now, said: "We don't view this budget as a starting point in the negotiations. This is an offer where the president came more than halfway toward the Republicans."
That is not why we elect Democrats.
I don't even know what else to say at this point, because I have already spilled an enormous amount of digital ink on the bullshit of 12-dimensional chess and the President's inexplicable need to continually try to win over the Republicans by conceding their policies as an opening salvo and the gross mismanagement of the nation's needs via cuts to the social safety net.
This is not why we elect Democrats. Or, at least, it shouldn't be.
Tom Hardy and a Puppy Stop by the Post Office
They're probably sending you a postcard. I mean, why wouldn't they? They want you to be happy.
Drones, Continued
[Content Note: Drones; war; violence.]
They hate us for our freedom, part wev in an endless series about the garbage disaster that is US foreign policy:
Contrary to assurances it has deployed U.S. drones only against known senior leaders of al Qaida and allied groups, the Obama administration has targeted and killed hundreds of suspected lower-level Afghan, Pakistani and unidentified "other" militants in scores of strikes in Pakistan's rugged tribal area, classified U.S. intelligence reports show.Which is to say nothing of the quality of those standards in the first place. I am not a military expert ("No shit"—everyone, ever), but I am dubious about the claim that anyone currently located in "Pakistan's rugged tribal area" has the individual capacity to execute an imminent operational plot against the United States. Are there routinely people in the US in position to launch an attack who immediately abandon those plans when the senior operative on whose orders they're acting is droned out of existence?
The administration has said that strikes by the CIA's missile-firing Predator and Reaper drones are authorized only against "specific senior operational leaders of al Qaida and associated forces" involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks who are plotting "imminent" violent attacks on Americans.
"It has to be a threat that is serious and not speculative," President Barack Obama said in a Sept. 6, 2012, interview with CNN. "It has to be a situation in which we can't capture the individual before they move forward on some sort of operational plot against the United States."
Copies of the top-secret U.S. intelligence reports reviewed by McClatchy, however, show that drone strikes in Pakistan over a four-year period didn't adhere to those standards.
That's a serious question. I'm not being flip. I know there are real threats. But these are reasonable questions USians need to be asking of our government, when their justifications for warfare make no fucking sense.
The documents also show that drone operators weren't always certain who they were killing despite the administration's guarantees of the accuracy of the CIA's targeting intelligence and its assertions that civilian casualties have been "exceedingly rare."The lies about civilian casualties are well-known and documented, and yet these lies continue.
The administration has declined to reveal other details of the program, such as the intelligence used to select targets and how much evidence is required for an individual to be placed on a CIA "kill list." The administration also hasn't even acknowledged the existence of so-called signature strikes [in which unidentified individuals are killed after surveillance shows behavior the U.S. government associates with terrorists, such as visiting compounds linked to al Qaida leaders or carrying weapons], let alone discussed the legal and procedural foundations of the attacks.The President is running a drone war without meaningful oversight, transparency, or accountability. Congress is rubberstamping it. The US people barely know about it. I beg you to read the whole McClatchy piece about this grave national shame.
Leaders of the Senate and House intelligence committees say they maintain robust oversight over the program. ...But until last month, Obama had rebuffed lawmakers' repeated requests to see all of the classified Justice Department legal opinions on the program, giving them access to only two dealing with the president's powers to order targeted killings. It then allowed the Senate committee access to all opinions pertaining to the killing of U.S. citizens to clear the way for the panel's March 7 confirmation of John Brennan, the former White House counterterrorism chief and the key architect of the targeted killings program, as the new CIA director. But it continues to deny access to other opinions on the grounds that they are privileged legal advice to the president.
This is so the worst thing you're going to read all day.
[Content Note: Cissexism, heterocentrism, body policing, evo psych.]
MSNBC: Science Proves Women Like Men with Bigger Penises. Science has proven it! That means there's no disputing it! It's SCIENCE!
I'm trying to decide what my favorite, ahem, part of this garbage article is—the cissexism in defining gender via genitalia; the heterocentrism which disappears women who aren't attracted to men at all, as well the men who are; the elision of the fact that much of what we find "attractive" is socialized, as evidenced by changing beauty standards across time and cultures; the treatment of sexual attraction as universal; the tiresome specter of evo-psych; or the total fucking pointlessness of a study that makes no goddamn difference to anyone's lives, with the possible exception of making some men feel shitty about their bodies.
Which isn't even a comprehensive list of objections!
This is just a perfect aside, though: "Women with a greater body mass index held stronger preferences for big penises." Too many jokes. My brain is shorting out.
But stay tuned for my next totally trenchant entry in the Fatsronauts 101 series: "Fatties Love Fatties!"
Discuss.
A Proposal
I would like to throw the phrase "Treat others as you would like to be treated" in the garbage.
Not everyone wants to be treated like I do.
I propose instead: Listen to people about how they would like to be treated, and then treat them that way.
* * *
Obviously, that's not feasible in every single situation. I'm not being totally literal. My point is just that presuming that one's own preferences are universal is not really a great policy.
Daily Dose of Cute
For awhile, she was actually sitting on top of his feet, but I wasn't quick enough with the camera. They are such great buds. And considering Tils was 8 years old when Dudley came to live with us, and she'd never been around a dog before, I had hopes that they would peacefully coexist, but didn't even dare to imagine that one day I'd see them sharing close space they way they do.
Tils still has no fucking clue what it means when Zelly play-bows at her, though, lol.
In The News
[Content note: Gun violence, gun culture, homophobia, misogyny, animal mistreatment]
All The News. All Of It!
A 4-year-old boy grabbed a loaded gun at a family cookout and accidentally shot and killed the wife of a Tennessee sheriff's deputy.
At least three people were killed in a powerful earthquake that struck southern Iran.
Annette Funicello died from complications of multiple sclerosis. She was 70.
Cory L. Richards, who championed the expansion of birth control and abortion access, passed away after a battle with pancreatic cancer.
WTF: A Redditor confessed to murder in an image macro.
Mitch McConnell: Still a douche.
A study finds that heteros can tell who's the top and who's the bottom in gay couples. Welp.
Steroid-enhanced ferrets are being sold as poodles. Okay.
Number of the Day
[Content Note: Abuse; homophobia.]
$1.1 million: The payout coming to Rutgers University's former athletic director Tim Pernetti, who resigned after men's basketball coach Mike Rice was fired following the broadcast of a video, shot over two years, that showed him shoving and berating players with homophobic epithets during practice.
Pernetti knew about Rice's abuse, but "Rutgers decided to follow a process involving university lawyers, human resources professionals, and outside counsel," Pernetti wrote in his resignation letter. "Following review of the independent investigative report, the consensus was that university policy would not justify dismissal. I have admitted my role in, and regret for, that decision, and wish that I had the opportunity to go back and override it for the sake of everyone involved."
Well, more than a million dollars for abetting abuse should help soothe his troubled conscience.
Whooooooooops I'm a Racist!
[Content Note: Racism.]
So, country singer Brad Paisley, who is white, features a song on his new album called Accidental Racist, which features LL Cool J, who is a black rapper (and television star). Paisley says the song was conceived after "It really came to a boil last year with Lincoln and Django" (HA HA WHUT) which made it "really obvious to me that we still have issues as a nation with this." Brad Paisley didn't know there was still so much racism until two white men made movies about it! And by "racism," he means some percentage of Black people having contempt for White people wearing Confederate flags as if it's just a neutral symbol of "Southern pride."
(Dear Brad Paisley: True Fact #1: There are Black Southerners! True Fact #2: Not only Black people are contemptuous of attempts to rip the Confederate flag from its historical context, accompanied by expectations to treat it like a neutral symbol! Love, Liss.)
Paisley further explains:
I just think art has a responsibility to lead the way, and I don't know the answers, but I feel like asking the question is the first step, and we're asking the question in a big way. How do I show my Southern pride? What is offensive to you? And he kind of replies, and his summation is really that whole let's bygones be bygones and 'If you don't judge my do rag, I won't judge your red flag.' We don't solve anything, but it's two guys that believe in who they are and where they're from very honestly having a conversation and trying to reconcile.Ha ha that is not what happens in the song! What happens in the song is that a White dude basically whines about being seen as racist for wearing a racist symbol and asks a Black dude to please interpret that symbol within the very specific parameters of what the White dude wants it to mean. And then they make a bargain in which the White dude won't be a racist if the Black dude agrees to the White dude's redefinition of a symbol of his oppression. Neat!
The entire premise of the song, right from its very title, is garbage. There is no such thing as "accidental" racism. On an individual level, a White person may unintentionally say or do something racist, because they are cloaked in the ignorance of unexamined privilege. But that doesn't make it accidental. That is the result of an entire culture carefully built around structural racism that privileges Whiteness and viciously defends White people's ability to coast through life never having to become familiar with any perspectives or lived experiences but their own. That is no goddamn accident.
It is also the result of individual White people choosing to lazily bask in the luxury of their racial privilege, despite the fact there are all kinds of opportunities to question the white supremacist narratives with which we are all socialized. The luxury to know those narratives are bullshit is not one that is shared by people of color, and it is a choice to start the lifelong journey toward understanding (and not trading on) one's White privilege, or to sit in the comfortable easy chair of unexamined privilege. That, too, is no goddamn accident. It is a choice.
Whooooooooops I'm a racist! Fuck you.
And even given that racism can be unintentional (which does not excuse nor mitigate it; that is merely a distinction from intentional racism—the harm is the same either way), that's not even what's being described in the song. What's being described in the song is a White man wearing a t-shirt with a Lynyrd Skynyrd logo, which features the Confederate flag, and expecting Black people to understand it only means what he wants it to mean. That is neither unintentional nor accidental. That is obliging marginalized people to center privileged people's rewriting of a history to salve their own discomfort with that history.
It isn't a fucking accident for a White man to put on a shirt with a Confederate flag. It isn't a fucking accident for a White man to say he's "got a lot to learn BUT." It isn't a fucking accident for a White man to whine about "walkin' on eggshells" and "fightin' over yesterday," as if racism is a thing of the past and not something active and present in the here and now. It isn't a fucking accident for a White man to say "we're still paying for mistakes / that a bunch of folks made long before we came," as if White Southerners' lingering discomfort with slave history is the same fucking thing as the structural effects of slavery that inform the lives of Black USians' to this very day. It isn't a fucking accident to compare the Confederate flag to a do-rag or saggy drawers. All of this is thoughtfully conceived and deliberate bullshit.
Marginalized people don't owe privileged people non-judgment and tolerance and indulgence of their gross redefinition of symbols of oppression in exchange for basic decency. The inherent power imbalance between privilege and marginalization makes the entire idea of an "equal exchange" of good will reprehensibly absurd.
If White people want Black people to trust us, then we should make ourselves fucking trustworthy. That means releasing our stranglehold on a lot of symbols and images and words and practices with racist origins, even if we like them a lot—boo fucking hoo!—instead of trying to argue selective context. Especially when there are always plenty of White folks who still value the embedded racism in those things. Brad Paisley, you are literally expecting Black people to be able to read White people's minds and magically discern whether this one White guy is wearing a Confederate flag just because he has Southern Pride, ahem, or because he hates the fuck outta Black people.
That wildly unreasonable expectation is no accident, either.
The song with lyrics is below the fold.
Quote of the Day
"I think you'll see, hopefully, a chastened Supreme Court is not going to make the same mistake in the (current) cases as they did in Roe v. Wade. I'm hopeful the Supreme Court learned its lesson about trying to predict where the American public is going on issues and trying to find rights in the Constitution that sit with the fancy of the day."—Former Republican Presidential Candidate and Professor of Smartology at Genius University Rick Santorum, on whether the Supreme Court will rule in favor of marriage equality.
Santorum is currently chillaxing in Iowa, but "I haven't made any decisions" about running again in 2016.
Because I am generous, I will offer him some free advice: Don't.
Although, if he decides not to take my great advice and runs anyway, then I offer this suggestion: Familiarize yourself with the concepts of "tyranny of the majority" and "rights." And, given that there is majority support for legal abortion and marriage equality anyway, it might be a wise course of action to take refresher courses on "polling" and "majority," too.
