[Content note: Terrorism]
Delicious Gummi Liquid!:
That's your liberal media! (Also, BENGHAZI!)
Will Smith is set to star in a modern-day remake of The Wild Bunch. Sad face.
How awesome is this? Totally awesome.
Despite record-breaking flooding in parts of the Midwest this year, budget cuts threaten to shut down hundreds of stream gauges across the United States. Welp.
Free markets in action!
The National Transportation Safety Board recommended that all 50 states adopt a blood-alcohol content cutoff of 0.05%. Good idea.
In The News
I Get Letters
[Content Note: Misogynist slurs; reference to racist slur; Oppression Olympics.]
From an email that arrived in my inbox last night, authored by a self-described "young guy who has only just started researching all of this stuff about discrimination and equality":
I've been reading through the feminist 101 posts and, while I agree with the majority of points made in them, found issue with the subject of misogynistic language.What has been edited out and replaced with ellipses is a bunch of Oppression Olympics about how the n-word is still real bad and stuff. Unlike misogynist slurs. Which are just "ordinary insults," allegedly.
I love words and I love using them. I've never had a problem with swearing because I've always believed that context is what matters; not the words themselves.
If the argument against using these words is that, even if the context is harmless, it slowly but surely reinforces a negative mentality about women … then I would agree.
…Cunt began as a misogynist term; popular usage evolved it into an ordinary insult.
I'll be the first to say that popular usage doesn't erase the original meaning of a word, but popular usage does change the majority of peoples' own meaning of a word; this means that using the word cunt and bitch nowadays doesn't actually reinforce a negative mentality about women at all.
…I'd like to know what you think. If I've missed something or haven't made my point clear, please let me know.
What I find most remarkable about this email, like all the others from men (always men) who feel entitled to email me and demand personal private education, is that its author fails utterly to make even the most cursory attempt to empathize with women who are the targets of misogynist slurs, deployed specifically to remind us that we are less than. He speaks about context as if "cunt" and "bitch" exist in a void. There is no context in which a word that is predicated on devaluing the feminine is "harmless." Not for women.
(And not for men from marginalized populations defined by gender and sexuality who are demeaned with misogynist slurs.)
"Nowadays," he says, misogynist slurs don't "actually reinforce a negative mentality about women at all." Even were it true (it is not) that men (and other women) who call women cunts and bitches are using the words in some sort of magical history-free context that isn't explicitly designed to demean women, and explicitly designed to demean men by comparing them to women, how women who are being called cunts and bitches feel matters.
Even if it were true (it is not) that misogynist slurs do not maintain institutional sexism that marginalizes women, that such slurs don't "reinforce a negative mentality about women" among the people who use them, we know—because multiple studies and millions of public statements by women about their lived experiences confirm this fact—that being repeatedly exposed to oppressive slurs negatively affects the people targeted by them.
Even if it were true (it is not) that misogynist slurs don't negatively affect the slur-users' opinions about women, they still negatively affect women's opinions about themselves.
There are certainly women who don't even bat an eye at being called a cunt or a bitch, myself among them. But it's not because the words don't have the capacity to harm—it's because I'm inured to them after a lifetime of pervasive exposure.
That misogynist slurs have lost their capacity to harm (some women) because of their ubiquity isn't evidence of their neutrality. It's evidence of humans' capacity to normalize abuse in order to survive.
What a luxury, what privilege, that's something my correspondent has never had to consider.
Another US Military Sexual Assault Prevention Chief Under Investigation for Sexual Assault
[Content Note: Sexual violence.]
So far this month: An Air Force sexual assault prevention chief was charged with a sexual assault; an Air Force brochure on sexual assault was found to engage in victim-blaming and advise potential victims to submit to attackers; and the Air Force's top commander blamed "the hookup mentality" for the US military's pervasive rape problem.
And now: Fort Hood's sexual assault prevention chief has been relieved of his duties and "is being investigated for abusive sexual contact, pandering, assault and maltreatment of subordinates."
The soldier is being investigated for, among other things, forcing a subordinate into prostitution and sexually assaulting two others, according to a Capitol Hill staffer who was briefed on the case and spoke about it on condition of anonymity.Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) is done talking about this garbage, and she's taking action "to get to work reforming the military justice system that clearly isn't working. I believe strongly that to create the kind of real reform that will make a difference we must remove the chain of command from the decision making process for these types of serious offenses." Gillibrand will be introducing legislation Thursday "that seeks to accomplish precisely that goal: transferring sex crimes from the watch and authority of military brass and instead funneling such cases to independent military prosecutors, said a spokesman for Gillibrand."
Two senior Pentagon officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the case is under investigation, also confirmed that the sergeant is being investigated for running a prostitution ring.
Removing the chain of command from the process is a necessary (and long overdue) step, because the military cannot, and/or is unwilling to take the required steps to, effectively address its ongoing crisis of sexual violence—including the most basic acknowledgment that many attackers are part of survivors' chain of command.
There is also the bigger cultural challenge within the military, which I'm not certain Gillibrand's legislation can or will address, of the same nature as the bad math of "Christian axiomatically = good," which acts in service to predators who eagerly wear the cloak of presumed goodness conferred by Christian privilege. The US military is fetishized as monolithically noble, brave, honorable, and good—and of course many individual members of the US military are those things. But lots of them aren't. Some of them are rapists.
One is virtually deemed traitorous at the mere suggestion that a member of the US military (especially a straight white male member of the US military) is anything less than a paragon of moral virtue. They are warriors, they are heroes, they are patriots, they are the good guys who take on the evil-doers.
That collective reputation is fiercely protected. But its fierce protection abets abuse.
Communities in which members are presumed to be above reproach attract abusers who cynically and deliberately exploit the reflexive presumption of moral virtue their membership affords them. Abusers count on the merest suggestion that they are anything but unassailably upstanding being mischaracterized as a hostile attack on the entire community. They count on the community closing ranks around all but the occasional bad apple they cannot justifiably defend.
The setting apart of the military as inherently honorable is antithetical to effective rape prevention. It discourages self-reflection—what need is there to examine one's own ethics if one has already been declared honorable by one's entire country?—and it attracts predators who know they can operate with immunity under the presumption of honor, and it exhorts gatekeepers to ignore evidence which subverts the idea of inherent honor. Which is why, in sexual assault cases, the chain of command routinely chooses silencing victims in defense of the narrative instead of holding their attackers accountable.
There's too much at stake for men invested in a narrative that confers upon them them an unearned reputation of honor for them to be gatekeepers in cases that are the most immediate evidence that narrative is bullshit. They have a vested interest in maintaining it, at victims' expense.
Pulling sexual assault cases out of the chain of command is an important and critical reform. But it is only a start. Truly getting to the root of the military's rape crisis will require giving up some things I'm not sure the military will ever be willing to let go.
Question of the Day
What is the last book you tried to read but just couldn't finish? If you're someone who has to finish a book to its bitter end NO MATTER HOW BAD IT IS, "I am constitutionally incapable of not finishing every book I start" is a perfectly cromulent answer, too!
Tom Hardy and a Puppy Visit the Jolly Greet Giant in Blue Earth, Minnesota
"Tom," said the puppy, licking Tom's chin, "sometimes I feel jealous of other puppies, because they do more tricks than I do, or do the same tricks that I do but better. And then I feel bad." And Tom asked, "Why does it make you feel bad, puppy?" And the puppy said, "Because I feel sad that I can't just be happy for the other puppies, and because it makes me feel like I'm not good enough." And Tom said, "We live in a terrible culture of judgment, puppy, and it encourages jealousy—but envy is a very destructive instinct. You are good enough, just as you are." And the puppy said, "In my doggy brain, I guess I already know that." And Tom said, "Think of it this way, puppy: You are only capable of what you are capable. Sure, there might be puppies who do more tricks, or do the same tricks better, but you have your own unique talents that they don't have. We can only do what we can do. We can't do what someone else can do. And we have a choice about how to respond to that: We can be jealous and wish we were someone we aren't, or we can celebrate the accomplishments of other puppies and people, and recognize our own talents, investing our energies making sure we do best what we can do best." And the puppy said, "You're right, Tom. Admiration and achievement feels way better than jealousy and self-criticism." And Tom said, "There's enough room on this big planet for everyone to be special, and for everyone to be loved for their special qualities." And the puppy said, "Love really does always win, inside us and out." And Tom gave the puppy THE BEST TREAT.
Headline of the Day
Moms Working at Walmart Earn Less Than They Need to Feed Their Kids. That full-time employees of Walmart earn so little that they need to rely on government assistance programs is not news, nor is it news that Walmart discriminates against its female employees, making them more likely to require government assistance like food stamps and the Women, Infants, and Children program. But I am glad to see that it's in the news again. It should be in the news every goddamned day until Walmart is shamed into explaining how it can justify six members of the Walton family holding as much wealth as the entire bottom thirty percent of the US population, while it pays its employees so little that they can't support their families on their paychecks alone.
Conservatives whinge endlessly about the Welfare Queens who accept government assistance, while diligently ignoring that working people denied livable wages with healthcare benefits are not the problem: The problem is megacorps like Walmart who want taxpayers—including their own exploited employees—to subsidize their outsized profits by providing the care for their employees they are unwilling, and not required, to provide themselves.
While they lobby against universal healthcare and a livable wage.
Whoooooooooooooooops!
Via Maya, I used Twee-Q to find out how my Twitter retweets break down by gender. The results were pretty much what I expected: 64% women / 36% men.
But check out the message I was delivered at the top of my results page:
"Don't give up! We detect a certain lack of balance - but maybe all that's missing are tips on more interesting males to follow?" Ha ha MAYBE.
Then again, maybe the fact that I disproportionately retweet other women is not for a lack of interesting men to follow, but instead that my "lack of balance" is a deliberate attempt to counter the institutional imbalance outside my Twitter account.
Photo of the Day
Via Our Lives Magazine: "Minneapolis' Lowry bridge shows its pride over marriage equality in Minnesota. Photo credit: Sue Vruno."[H/T to Eastsidekate.]
In The News
Deeky W. Gashlycrumb is busily preparing his keynote address for the Gummi Dildo Aficionados Convention, so you're stuck with me today...
[Content Note: War on agency, homophobia, racism, transmisogyny.
US District Judge Edward Korman refuses government's request to stay order on emergency contraception: "If a stay is granted, it will allow the bad-faith, politically motivated decision of Secretary Sebelius, who lacks any medical or scientific expertise, to prevail—thus justifiably undermining the public's confidence in the drug approval process."
Eric and Juan are fighting for the same immigration rights that different-sex binational couples have.
Soledad O'Brien addresses white people's criticism of her "Black in America" series: "I was like, again, 'OK, white person, this is a conversation you clearly are uncomfortable with, and I have no problem seeing race, and I think we should talk about race."
RIP Dr. Joyce Brothers.
Vice President Joe Biden sends a seven-year-old a handwritten letter, thanking him for his delicious gun reform idea.
Gwyneth Paltrow, still continuing to be terrible, says she was wearing so much make-up at the Met Gala that she "was literally a transvestite."
Ice tsunami! In other news, there are people who still think climate change is a hoax.
Brad Pitt calls his partner Angelina Jolie "heroic" (agreed!) and thanks the medical team "for their care and focus."
A woman who lives near me rescued 17 abandoned puppies and one adult dog from the road, and now they are all safe and up for adoption to good homes from a great local rescue group. And no we're not getting one!
Daily Dose of Cute
Dudley: Just a giant dog, hanging out in my living room.
As always, please feel welcome and encouraged to share pix of the fuzzy, feathered, or scaled members of your family in comments.
Department of Justice Subpoenas AP Phone Records in Leak Investigation
Yesterday, the AP published a story reporting that the US Justice Department had subpoenaed "two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press."
The records obtained by the Justice Department listed outgoing calls for the work and personal phone numbers of individual reporters, for general AP office numbers in New York, Washington and Hartford, Conn., and for the main number for the AP in the House of Representatives press gallery, according to attorneys for the AP. It was not clear if the records also included incoming calls or the duration of the calls.The government would not disclose why it had sought the records, although the subpoena is presumed to have been part of an investigation into a leak about a foiled Yemeni terror plot.
In all, the government seized the records for more than 20 separate telephone lines assigned to AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012. The exact number of journalists who used the phone lines during that period is unknown, but more than 100 journalists work in the offices where phone records were targeted, on a wide array of stories about government and other matters.
The defense of the subpoena is a familiar one, to anyone who was paying attention during the Bush administration: National security was put at risk by the reporting—
AP learned of the plot a week before publishing, but "agreed to White House and CIA requests not to publish it immediately" due to national security concerns. But, by reporting the CIA's involvement in foiling the plot, they put AQAP on notice that the CIA had a window into their activities. The AP's reporting also led to other stories involving an operative in place within AQAP, and details of the operations he was involved in. That operative, it was feared, would be exposed and targeted by AQAP as retribution for siding with the United States.—so the government is investigating the leak and subpoenaed the records only as a last resort:
Regulations, [Bill Williams, a spokesman in the D.C. U.S. Attorney's Office] stated, require DOJ to make "every reasonable effort" to obtain information another way before considering subpoenaing reporter phone records.Naturally, we are required to take the DOJ at their word that every other conceivable measure was exhausted before they obtained the AP's phone records.
...Matthew Miller, a former top spokesman for [Attorney General Eric Holder], also defended DOJ's actions noting that the alternative option would have been to subpoena reporters themselves and ask for the identity of their sources, a tactic that would have been almost assuredly rejected by the AP.
"This is how leaks get investigated," said Miller. "Leaking classified information is a crime, and there are usually only two parties who know who committed the crime, the leaker and the reporter. Getting access to phone records allows investigators to see who the possible source might have been and confront them with evidence of a crime."
The criticism of the subpoena is that it is an infringement on the freedom of the press, that subpoenaing records of journalists impedes their ability to function effectively, that it is an intimidation tactic which will discourage anonymous sources and whistleblowers from working with media. That is obviously a huge concern for those of us who are interested in government accountability.
Laura W. Murphy, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington Legislative Office put it bluntly in a press release: "The media's purpose is to keep the public informed and it should be free to do so without the threat of unwarranted surveillance. The Attorney General must explain the Justice Department's actions to the public so that we can make sure this kind of press intimidation does not happen again."
Of course, this sort of surveillance under the guise of "keeping America safe" has been happening for quite some time. As Kevin Drum observes:
The government has been obtaining phone records like this for over a decade now, and it's been keeping their requests secret that entire time. Until now, the press has showed only sporadic interest in this. But not anymore. I expect media interest in terror-related pen register warrants to show a healthy spike this week.Which is absolutely right. Although I will also note that intimidation of the press, and impeding its ability to hold government accountable, is a special sort of fuckery. Nothing makes that more evident than this reality: Despite the potential conflict of interest, the fact is, if the AP hadn't written about it, we wouldn't know.
That could be a good thing. It's just too bad that it took monitoring of journalists to get journalists fired up about this.
An Observation
The juxtaposition of the first two stories today—Angelina Jolie disclosing her own healthcare choice; Jimmy Connors disclosing his former partner Chris Evert's healthcare choice without her consent—underlines why it's crucial that women be allowed to tell our own stories.
Imagine the difference if Jolie had not reported on her own healthcare decision, but instead had been publicly betrayed by her partner. Instead, Jolie wrote:
I am fortunate to have a partner, Brad Pitt, who is so loving and supportive. So to anyone who has a wife or girlfriend going through this, know that you are a very important part of the transition. Brad was at the Pink Lotus Breast Center, where I was treated, for every minute of the surgeries. We managed to find moments to laugh together. We knew this was the right thing to do for our family and that it would bring us closer. And it has.Part of supporting her was letting her tell her own story, about the decisions she made about her own body.
There is immense power just in the fact that Jolie was allowed to give voice to her own healthcare choice, on her own terms.
Quote of the Day
"In my heart of hearts, I know that today love wins."—Democratic Minnesota State Senator Tony Lourey, during the Minnesota Senate debate on same-sex marriage yesterday. The Minnesota Senate voted to approve legislation legalizing same-sex marriage in the state, and Governor Mark Dayton has promised to sign the bill into law this afternoon, making Minnesota the 12th state to grant marriage equality to same-sex couples.
Love wins. 
Jimmy Connors Is a Jerk
[Content Note: Hostility to agency and consent.]
Retired tennis player Jimmy Connors recently wrote a biography to be released this week in which he writes about his fellow tennis player and former partner Christ Evert's abortion while they were together. He did this without seeking her consent to disclose this information.
Jess has written a great piece about it: "Jimmy Connors Shouldn't Be Talking About Chris Evert's Abortion."
In our country, despite Roe v. Wade, there is an incredible amount of political and religious debate around this particular medical procedure. Due to debates around personhood, when life begins, and women's right to their bodily autonomy, abortion is a personal decision that is both constantly politicized and discussed in terms of the morality of the person who chooses to get an abortion.I encourage you to read the whole thing.
One in three women in the United States will have an abortion in her lifetime, and yet there is a feeling in our country that those who have abortions should feel bad about it.
...Exhale Pro-Voice, an organization that helps people after they have an abortion and documents people's abortion stories (both privately and publicly), has published "A Storysharing Guide for Ethical Advocates" (pdf) on how to tell someone else's abortion story. The very first item on their list of how to do ethical storysharing is to "gain informed consent" from the person whose story you are going to tell. And you do so because the results of telling one's abortion story can be very hard and they should have a hand in deciding if they want their story out in the open. "People who experience stigma can feel alone and isolated," the guide states, "and they will often keep their feelings, stories, and experiences to themselves, rather than risk judgment or criticism." Renee Bracey Sherman, an abortion access activist, who has told her abortion story in very public venues including the BBC, says the result of putting herself out there has sometimes been negative, especially from people who oppose abortion: "I have had anti-abortion protestors invade my personal space and harass me—which is physically not safe for me or those who are with me, and keeps my family in a state of worry."
For Exhale Pro-Voice, the entire reason for practicing "ethical storysharing" when it comes to telling another's abortion story is to "make sure that the person [who had the abortion is in] the center of the storytelling process and ensures that her rights, needs, and leadership are supported and respected throughout the process." Bracey Sherman says that anyone who tells someone else's abortion story as Connors has done can make the person who had the abortion "feel violated and adds to the shame that folks who have had abortions may already feeling." Beyond that, it can have real-life consequences. "When someone shares your experience for you," Bracey Sherman says, "especially without your permission, they put you and your story out into the world in a way that could have grave consequences—family shaming, intimate partner violence, mental health stress, loss of a job, etc."
That Connors felt okay about sharing this story without Evert's permission, and has tried to justify it by saying it's his story, too, is the result of the infuriating "decision between a woman and [her partner/doctor/minister]" frame, of treating abortion as something other than an individual healthcare decision. Because, no matter with whom a woman (or any other pregnant person) consults before making that decision, ultimately it is her decision alone (or should be), because it is a decision about what happens with her body.
I will also briefly note the rich irony of Connors implying he's upset he didn't get more say in Evert's decision, then turning around and disclosing her decision without her consent. "I hated how you made a decision without consulting me. So I am going to do the same thing to you, BUT WAY MORE PUBLICLY." Forgive me if I don't feel any sympathy for his predicament.
"I made a decision to have a preventive double mastectomy."
Angelina Jolie has written an extraordinary op-ed for the New York Times, titled "My Medical Choice," about her recent decision to have a preventative double mastectomy after learning she carries the BRCA1 "breast cancer" gene and had an estimated 87% risk of developing breast cancer.
This piece is remarkable for a lot of reasons. Jolie notes that she "finished the three months of medical procedures that the mastectomies involved" on April 27, and: "During that time I have been able to keep this private and to carry on with my work." And having managed to keep it a secret, itself a rather impressive feat, she decided to then publicly disclose it, in order that "other women can benefit from my experience."
It's remarkable because she writes very plainly that her ability to get the $3,000 BRCA1 test is a privilege, and advocates wider access:
Breast cancer alone kills some 458,000 people each year, according to the World Health Organization, mainly in low- and middle-income countries. It has got to be a priority to ensure that more women can access gene testing and lifesaving preventive treatment, whatever their means and background, wherever they live. The cost of testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2, at more than $3,000 in the United States, remains an obstacle for many women.And because she does not assert or imply that her decision is the only right decision, but one of many options:
For any woman reading this, I hope it helps you to know you have options. I want to encourage every woman, especially if you have a family history of breast or ovarian cancer, to seek out the information and medical experts who can help you through this aspect of your life, and to make your own informed choices.And it's remarkable because Angelina Jolie is generally regarded as one of the most beautiful women in a world that profoundly values beauty and defines women's worth by their sex appeal, and she is telling women to value their health.
I acknowledge that there are many wonderful holistic doctors working on alternatives to surgery. My own regimen will be posted in due course on the Web site of the Pink Lotus Breast Center. I hope that this will be helpful to other women.
There is something deeply moving to me for a woman whose body, by nature of her profession, has been treated like public property even more than most of us, writing such an intimate piece about her body, making it public property in yet another way by her own choice, for the benefit of other women.
Question of the Day
What's the last subject about which you wrote to a member of your government—local, state, and/or national?
Tom Hardy and a Puppy Visit Petra
"Tom," said the puppy, licking its nose, "how do I stop worrying about things?" And Tom said, "I don't know if it's possible to stop worrying about things, puppy." And the puppy said, "Well, I'd like to worry less, at least." And Tom said, "Everyone's different, puppy—and some people and puppies can't control their anxiety very easily, or at all—but one of things we can all do for each other is not judge one another for worrying. The last thing any of us needs is to be shamed for worrying, which never helps." And the puppy said, "That's so true. You don't seem to worry a whole lot, Tom." And Tom said, "Well, puppy, I try to remember that if something isn't in my control, then worrying does no good at all; it only makes me feel bad. And that if something is in my control, then I should trust in my own competency. That helps. But I still worry sometimes." And the puppy said, "Thanks for telling me that, Tom. At least I don't have to worry that I'm alone in worrying about things." And Tom said, "Nope." And they high-fived.
