That puppy LOVES spelunking! He can't get enough of it! Ha ha he's always, "Let's go spelunking, Tom!" And Tom was finally like, "All right."
Tom Hardy and a Puppy Visit Mammoth Cave National Park
That puppy LOVES spelunking! He can't get enough of it! Ha ha he's always, "Let's go spelunking, Tom!" And Tom was finally like, "All right."
"Most people really do want to work."
[Content Note: Disablism.]
This is a pretty good article about some of the reasons that disability claims are rising in the US, which is increasingly being cited by assholes as evidence of layabouts gaming the system.
I do, however, wish this idea had been fleshed out a bit:
The economic downturn in 2008 and early 2009 is thought to be the major reason for the jump in disability payments to people who were formerly working.And it's "really just not an option" for reasons that are out of the control of people with disabilities. Lots of people who qualify for disability never take it as long as they can find a job that accommodates their disability. During a recession, with fewer jobs available, it's harder to find any job at all, no less one that provides necessary accommodations and accessibility for a person with a disability (which is to say nothing of PWDs facing the extra hurdle during hiring because of the need for those accommodations and accessibility).
"With every recession, we see a rise in the number of applicants," said Andrew Houtenville, an economics professor at the University of New Hampshire's Institute on Disability. "People are looking for options in terms of income support."
During the 2001 recession, disability claims from those who used to have a steady job shot up 13%, said Barry Lundquist, president of the Council for Disability Awareness, an insurance-industry funded organization. The growth in claims slowed during the subsequent boom years, but then skyrocketed during the most recent recession. In 2009, claims jumped 21%.
Lundquist said it is simplistic to characterize the jump in claims as people simply looking to substitute disability payments for unemployment.
"Most people really do want to work," said Lundquist.
But for some, it's really just not an option.
Sure, there might be job openings, but if you can't stand on your feet all day, then the job openings in retail and foodservice don't do you a lick of good.
I recommended this on Monday in the blogaround, but I'mma recommend it again: Lance Mannion's "Disability."
#femfuture
[Content Note: Disablism; racism; ciscentrism; regionalism.]
Earlier this week, Vanessa Valenti and Courtney Martin, who have a media consulting firm (Valenti Martin Media), released a report on the Future of Online Feminism this week, #femfuture: Online Revolution. The report is available in pdf format here. Jessica Luther Storified her live-tweeting of reading the report here. You can find reactions to #femfuture on Twitter using the hashtag here.
Before I get to my response, I want to say a couple of things:
1. I recognize and acknowledge that Vanessa Valenti and Courtney Martin put a lot of work and time into this report. I also want to acknowledge the work that the feminist online activists who shared their time and ideas contributed to the report. I further want to acknowledge the time and effort that both supporters and critics of the report have dedicated to reading it and discussing their personal perspectives.
2. I have met and corresponded with Vanessa Valenti, and I like her very much. I don't know Courtney Martin. What criticisms I have are not motivated by personal animus. Which I feel obliged to say not because I believe other critics are motivated by personal animus, but because, as always, criticism is being dismissed out of hand in some places with accusations of personal animus.
3. I am going to be talking about my personal reactions to the report. There has been much discussion about accessibility, representation of participants, and inclusion on Twitter, and I want to direct you to some of the women, particularly women of color, who are sharing their own perspectives, so that they might speak directly to you for themselves: Amadi, Flavia (see also Flavia's piece here), Trudy, Grace, Sister Outsider, Angry Black Fangirl, Spectra, Veronica, Alison Rose, Jess. (That is hardly a comprehensive list.) Please read their responses, which are a crucial part of this conversation.
(Lest there be any confusion: These are concerns and criticisms I share. I absolutely do not want my recommendation to read other women's individual perspectives at their source to be misinterpreted as distancing myself from them. I stand in solidarity with them.)
There is also a Twitter account collating responses: #FemFuture Responses. Please feel welcome to link to other critiques (including your own) in comments.
4. I am not going to respond to specifics of the report, but rather give a broad overview of my reaction.
* * *
Let me start by observing that I exist in a weird space. Shakesville is frequently cited as one of the Big White Feminist blogs, for reasons I understand: Content; US-centrism; racial composition of contributors, though we have had for years multiple contributors and mods of color on staff whose work I do not want to invisibilize; a disproportionately white commentariat; and, most importantly, that I am white—the privilege conferred by which is deeply and inextricably embedded in the visibility of Shakesville in ways I can't even fully know.
Shakesville is also fundamentally different from the other Big White Feminist blogs in that it is run out of exurban Indiana. None of our contributors are in the major media centers of NYC or DC. I am not in academia; I don't have an advanced degree; I have never worked for a feminist organization. None of my volunteer work has been for an explicitly feminist organization. I am terrible at networking ("No shit."—The Entire Planet), and, even were I so inclined and had that particular skill, there is no feminist network where I live anyway.
The closest I've got to a feminist network is in Chicago, which is a short train ride or drive away that is increasingly difficult for me to make with any regularity because of my garbage back.
I always joke that Shakesville is run from the middle of a cornfield, which is really only half a joke.
All of which is preface to this: Ostensibly, Shakesville is a Big White Feminist blog, and I am a Big White Feminist blogger who should appreciate what #femfuture has to say. But it doesn't resonate with me. It doesn't speak to my needs, or my experience.
Its authors didn't inquire what my needs and experience are.
By which I don't mean me, personally (although, for disclosure's sake, I was not invited to participate), but online feminist activists who are outside major media centers, we Flyover Feminists.
There is a thing that happens in lots of progressive organizing, whereby privileged members of a group located in a major media center universalize their needs and experiences, presuming that someone in another part of the country (or other countries) needs and experiences the same things—and if only they get what they need, they can pass it along. But trickle-down feminism [H/T Tressie] doesn't work, for precisely the reason that the external presumptions about a universal feminism, even among privileged members of the group, don't work. Because other shit matters, too, like whether you live in Brooklyn or next to an endless soybean field.
It's not just that I'm not connected in the same way: I have an entirely different perception of online (and offline) feminist activism.
I have had to do things differently; I have had to be innovative and self-reliant in ways I wouldn't if I were tapped-in the way I am frequently presumed to be. I have been turned down for writing jobs because of editors who presume I can't know shit about shit if I don't live in NYC or DC. I have had producers realize I'm too far away from a studio to appear as a guest. These things have colored my perception, broadened and diversified my online connections, given me natural allies forged in shared experience irrespective of identity, challenged my creativity, limited my opportunities, and shaped me in innumerable other ways.
Listen, I'm not moaning. I'm incredibly fortunate to have had the success I've had, and to have the help and support of so many extraordinary people—most of whom are as removed from major media centers as I am. I'm just trying to convey that this isn't exclusively an issue of failing to speak to people marginalized within movement feminism. I am regarded as a Big White Feminist, and I have many of the privileges of Big White Feminism. And it failed to speak to me, too.
#femfuture isn't about me. Which is fine. It doesn't have to be. But it needs to be more cognizant of that fact, and more straightforward about for whom it's really meant.
The future envisioned by #femfuture will not be mine. I would like to not be disappeared as a presence in online feminist activism just because both my present and my future look very different from where I'm sitting.
Today in Things We Don't Call Terrorism
[Content Note: Anti-choice terrorism.]
This morning in Bloomington, IN, a man was arrested after extensively vandalizing a Planned Parenthood facility with an ax and red paint:
Police arrested Benjamin D. Curell, 27, Ellettsville, said Capt. Joe Qualters of the Bloomington Police Department.Curell has done at least $2,500 worth of damage to the building, front office, and equipment, and faces "preliminary charges of burglary and criminal mischief, Class D felony." I certainly hope those will not be the only charges he faces, since his explicit confessed intent was not burglary but religiously motivated terrorism.
"The suspect made statements indicating the facility was targeted due to abortions being performed there," Qualters said. "He stated his intent was to damage the building because they 'kill' and 'murder' babies. He attributed his actions to his religious beliefs."
Planned Parenthood performs abortions at the facility, the organization's web site states, among other services.
The incident occurred shortly before 4 a.m., Qualters said in a release. Responding to reports of a man trying to break into the building at 421 S. College Ave., police found Currell already inside when they arrived. He was carrying an ax, Qualters said.
"Extensive damage had been done to the building and office equipment with the ax," Qualters said. "There was also red paint that had been splashed onto the building. Curell was taken into custody without incident."
A Planned Parenthood official said today the incident "will not deter us from continuing our mission."
If you would like to make a donation to the Planned Parenthood Bloomington Heath Center, to support them in continuing their mission, go here.[H/T to Amadi.]
Gun Reform Update
[Content Note: Guns.]
This subject makes me sad and frustrated. I don't have anything new to say that I haven't already said a dozen times, but here's the latest:
The U.S. Senate voted Thursday to overcome a Republican-led filibuster against tougher gun laws, clearing the way for a major congressional debate on a package of proposals sought by President Barack Obama in the aftermath of the Connecticut school massacre.Previously: In Pursuit of Doing Something Meaningful and An Observation About Mental Illness and Their Bootstraps Made Them Do It.
The procedural vote followed a breakthrough by Sens. Joe Manchin, D-West Virginia, and Pat Toomey, R-Pennsylvania, on broadening background checks to include private purchases at gun shows and on the Internet.
Because of the bipartisan deal, Senate Democrats proposing the legislation received support from enough Republicans to pass the cloture motion, 68-31, that sets up debate expected to last for two weeks.
However, the powerful gun lobby led by the National Rifle Association opposes the legislation and made clear it will seek political retribution on any legislator that supports it, including in Thursday's vote on launching Senate debate.
...In announcing the compromise, Manchin noted the proposal meant that firearms buyers at gun shows would face the same background check currently required in sales by federally licensed gun dealers. In addition, it would close a loophole that exempts intrastate gun sales on the Internet from requiring a background check, he said.
Addressing concerns of the NRA that expanding background checks would burden law-abiding gun owners seeking to trade or gift weapons in a personal transfer, Manchin declared that "personal transfers are not touched whatsoever."
Another provision would recognize the legitimacy of concealed weapons permits across state lines.
The Manchin-Toomey compromise also would require states and the federal government to provide records on criminals and the "violently mentally ill" to the national background check system, addressing a criticism by the NRA and other opponents of gun laws that the existing system lacks substantive information.
In addition, the plan calls for a new National Commission on Mass Violence to report in six months on "all aspects of the problem, including guns, school safety, mental health, and violent media or video games."
Reproductive Rights Updates: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Ohio, Texas, North Dakota
It's been an active week for anti-autonomy legislators across the country. Don't you think they look tired?*
In Alabama, the governor signed TRAP legislation into law:
MONTGOMERY, Alabama --- Gov. Robert Bentley signed into law this morning a bill that will set new regulations on abortion clinics that supporters say will improve care and safety for patients.Proponents claim it is for the "health and safety" of people needing abortions, however, that's horseshit. Retrofitting clinics to surgical center standards just isn't an available reality for most. Also, most clinics there have doctors come from out of state to perform abortions (with agreements with local doctors for follow-up care). Here is bill author Mary Sue McClurkin, she of the "fetus is the largest organ" fame, on the bill:
[...]
It requires abortion clinics to use doctors who have hospital admitting privileges in the same city where they do abortions, which supporters of the bill said is an important requirement for follow-up care when women have complications.
The bill will also require clinics to meet the same building safety code standards as ambulatory surgical centers.
“We only think it’s fair that when a woman goes to have an abortion that it be in a very safe and protected environment and that she get the utmost of care. We would hope that one day she would choose not to.”
The law is supposed to take effect starting July 1st.
***
In Alaska, the senate has taken out the mental health provision for people who need abortions and happen to also need Medicaid:
The legislation would only allow for Medicaid payments if a woman is at serious risk of physical harm if she goes through with her pregnancy or if the woman is a victim of rape or incest. It specifically excludes mental health conditions. Supporters of the legislation have characterized that as a loophole through which women can get Medicaid coverage or elective procedures.Yes, that's right! You are correct anti-abortion people: if a person cannot afford an abortion, they are less likely to get one. But. BUT! If they cannot afford an abortion, they cannot afford to have a child either. A medication abortion (generally) costs around $450. A (first trimester, uncomplicated) surgical abortion runs a bit more. A child's related needs? Costs a metric fuckton more than that in years of ongoing costs. But it's never really about quality of life for anyone with you people, is it? No. It's merely about subjugating others to your randomly chosen set of beliefs under some creepy guise of "greater good for children". You? Are gross.
Anti-abortion groups have gotten behind the bill, saying that it would reduce the number of abortions in the state because low-income women are less likely to go through with the procedure if they can’t secure payment. [...]
***
Daily Dose of Cute
Since today is National Pet Day, here are some of my favorite pix of all five furry residents of Shakes Manor, from our oldest girl Matilda (age 11) to our youngest girl Zelda (est. age 4):
Matilda
Olivia
Sophie
Dudley
Zelda
♥ ♥ ♥
In The News
[Content note: Terrorism, homophobia, gun violence, gun culture]
One Million Tacos:
A hacker has figured out how to remotely hijack a plane with his cell phone. Swell.
Gun lobbyists: Still terrible.
Uruguay has effectively legalized marriage equality. Yay!
Nuclear fusion could one day propel rockets that allow humans to go to Mars and back in 30 days.
Scott Walker's first five solo albums will be remastered and re-released on vinyl and CD.
Okay, Montanans, time to suck some dicks!
Here'e a bit of Molly Ringwald signing Don't You (Forget About Me).
Quote of the Day
[Content Note: Disablism; privilege; gender essentialism; othering.]
"That is insane. I mean this meal here is like $2 a person so I don't know where they're getting (that from). I say I like honey, like raw honey, and a jar is $25, but it lasts for two years. So they were just being sensationalist. There is a lot of inches of column that people need to fill and a lot of times they just try to get attention and say things that aren't true, unfortunately. ...For example, I like to use organic chicken, but it's more expensive—you don't have to."—Gwyneth Paltrow, defending herself against charges that it would cost around $300/day to eat meals prepared from recipes in her new cookbook.
The number is indeed overinflated, because the occasional cost of whole jar of honey or a whole bag of a specialty brand of gluten-free flour are built into the estimates for a single recipe. So it's probably closer to, say, $100/day.
Which obviously all of us can totes afford. And, if not, just switch to the regular chicken.
(Even though in the book she's promoting, she writes: "I am a firm believer in raising animals right and eating only organic, heritage, grass-fed, free-range ones—or even better, game birds from the wild, the way it was meant to be." Admirable, truly. Also not something everyone can afford, if they even have access to ethically-raised meat.)
Ask your favorite fishmonger for other suggestions on how to save money!
Anyway. There are certainly people who write bullshit for attention or page hits or whatthefuckever, but there are also a hell of a lot of people who have written serious and thoughtful criticisms of Paltrow's seemingly clueless privilege embedded in her GOOP lifestyle garbage.
And, you know, even in a shitty economy, there's still plenty of space for luxury brands because there are still plenty of people with lots of money. But the thing to which people (myself included) are objecting is that Paltrow positions her brand as accessible, not aspirational.
* * *
On another note, her new cookbook is also peppered (see what I did there?) with some super insights about gender roles:
On meat: "Gwyneth eats zero red meat and Julia eats a tiny bit here and there, but we both often make it for other people in our lives (mostly men...)."And finally, this great bit of othering: "Fish sauce can be scary, it has so much flavor. And that's why I love it." Yes. Fish sauce, a kitchen staple in literally billions of homes globally, is scary. Good grief.
On an egg white omelet: "This is what to make in the morning if your boyfriend is a body builder. Or you want him to look like one. We got the idea to partially whip the egg whites from a Jean-Georges Vongerichten recipe."
...On men's needs: "I don't eat red meat, but sometimes a man needs a steak."
Here's Why You Don't Bother Negotiating with the Republicans
After President Obama unveiled his spending plan yesterday, which included cuts to Social Security and Medicare, I MEAN EMBRACE OF CHAINED CPI TO SLOW THE GROWTH OF BENEFITS WHICH IS TOTES NOT A CUT (it is a cut), in a bid to look reasonable and force the Republicans to support his budget, Republican Representative and chair of the House GOP's re-election committee Greg Walden went on the offensive last night, calling Obama's proposed budget "a shocking attack on seniors."
I'll tell you when you're going after seniors the way he's already done on Obamacare, taken $700 billion out of Medicare to put into Obamacare and now coming back at seniors again, I think you're crossing that line very quickly here in terms of denying access to seniors for health care in districts like mine certainly and around the country.And there it is.
Republicans would happily destroy the entirety of the social safety net, but when President Obama proposes (legitimately bullshit) cuts, the Republicans accuse him of "a shocking attack on seniors."
This is what happens when you deal with a party with no ethics and whose base cares nought for principled consistency, except for consistency in obstructing anything President Obama wants to do. You can't call their bluff. You can't outmaneuver them by conceding to them. This is a losing strategy.
UPDATE: brooklynbadboy:
'We won't have the White House forever, folks!' So says a "longtime Obama aide," according to Politico:Absolutely.
"We're not going to have the White House forever, folks. If he doesn't do this, Paul Ryan is going to do it for us in a few years," said a longtime Obama aide, referring to the 2012 Republican vice presidential candidate who proposed a sweeping overhaul of Medicare that would replace some benefits with vouchers....You know what? Fine. If we lose the White House and both houses of Congress, then by all means, Paul Ryan should go ahead and get his druthers. If the American people vote for the Ryan budget, then by God they should have it. That's the way the political system works in a democracy. You run on a platform, you win, you get to implement your platform....
Do you think Paul Ryan would ever come out and say "Fellow Republicans, we had better go ahead and raise the minimum wage because if we don't, Bernie Sanders is going to come along and do it in a few years?" Ridiculous.
If Democrats run on something and win, then they should implement what they ran on. What Democrats should not do is run on a platform, win, then turn around and implement the policies of the side that lost. That doesn't make any sense. It makes a mockery of the political process. It treats Democratic voters like a bunch of rubes. If Republicans want to cut Social Security, let them run on it and win. We don't need to do their work for them.
No, we won't have the White House forever. That is why we should do what we stand for. What we get elected for.
All Right, We Need to Talk About Candice Glover
[Previously.]
Because I don't even know how to deal with how awesome she is. I must have reversed and re-watched this performance half a dozen times last night. Full-body goosebumps EVERY TIME.
Video Description: Idol contestant Candice Glover, a young African American woman, performs "Love Song," originally a track by The Cure which was recently covered by Adele. The performance is more in the style of Adele, but it is not a straightforward cover—Glover has totally made it her own.
So, so talented. I love her. I LOVE HER.
* * *
Each performer did two songs last night. This was her other performance, which is also amazing:
Video Description: Glover performs Dionne Warwick's "Don't Make Me Over."
Question of the Day
What have you tried recently (or what was the last thing you tried, even if it was awhile ago) that you never thought you'd try, for whatever reason—fear, expense, accessibility, any internal or external impediment?
Evening in America 2.0
Iain Thomson at The Register--ACLU documents shows free access to emails for IRS tax police:
With the US Tax Day less than a week away, the ACLU has released a not-very-comforting Freedom of Information Act request return from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) showing just how easy it is for the tax agency to read people's online communications without a court-issued warrant. [...]I'm not comfortable with any of this, including the pervasive mentality that the only people who wouldn't be comfortable with this must therefore be guilty of something they are trying to hide.
A 2010 presentation from the IRS Office of Chief Counsel stated that "4th Amendment Does Not Protect Emails Stored on Server" and that internet users should have "No Privacy Expectation." Under the current rules, if an email has been opened or if it's more than 180 days old, then the people who check whether you've been good or bad on your tax returns don't need a warrant for full access.
I, like a lot of other people, use my email as a way to store large amounts of information that I may need to access while away from home. Learning that this information is considered "non-private" merely because it is stored in the cloud is very troubling to me, and carries a lot of problematic implications with it.
An Observation
[Content Note: Fat bias.]
My perspective and lived experience are profoundly (though not uniquely) defined by being a fat person.
It's not because of my actual fatness, though: Although this is not true for every fat person, there are very few things I physically cannot do because I am fat.
It's because of fat bias, and the many limitations that are placed on me and the judgments levied against me because I am fat.
My fat itself does not negatively affect my life. Fat bias, on the other hand, does. A lot.
So it's interesting when people assert that fat isn't an axis of oppression, given that all the reasons being a fat person is a core part of my identity are externally drawn.
Quote of the Day
"I would point out that people like me who support hydrocarbon development don't deny that the climate is changing. I think you can have an honest difference of opinion of what's causing that change without automatically being either all-in that's all because of mankind or it's all just natural. I think there's a divergence of evidence. I would point out that if you're a believer in the Bible, one would have to say the Great Flood is an example of climate change, and that certainly wasn't because mankind had overdeveloped hydrocarbon energy."—Republican Congressman from Texas Joe Barton, during today's Subcommittee on Energy and Power hearing on the Northern Route Approval Act, legislation which would authorize Congress to approve the Keystone pipeline.
Divergence of evidence. Yup.
Wednesday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by cornfields.
Recommended Reading:
Igor: In Blow to NRA, Senators Reach Bipartisan Agreement Expanding Background Checks [Content Note: Guns.]
Jarrah: RIP Rehtaeh Parsons [Content Note: The post at this link contains discussion of sexual violence, victim-blaming, bullying, and self-harm.]
Seth: Senate Immigration Bill Will Shut Out Same-Sex Couples
Mazuba: Untangling the Knots: Understanding the Hair Politics of Black Women (Revisited) [Content Note: The post at this link contains discussion of white supremacy and body policing.]
Will: Schroedinger's Closet [Content Note: The post at this link contains discussion of homophobia, invisibilizing bisexual people, and privilege.]
Flyover Feminism: Let's Talk About Names: Laura [Content Note: Misogynist slur.]
Leave your links and recommendations in comments...
Daily Dose of Cute
Zelda, alert and watchful. No trouble will befall you on Zelly's watch.
As always, please feel welcome and encouraged to share pix of the fuzzy, feathered, or scaled members of your family in comments.
