This blogaround brought to you by fizzy drinks.
Recommended Reading:
The latest entry in the Naming & Identity series: Britni.
Jon: Wellness at the Workplace—The Safeway Debacle [Content Note: The post at this link includes discussion of fat bias and behavioral policing and shaming in the guise of healthfulness.]
ILR: Why Do Men Keep Putting Me in the Girlfriend-Zone? [Content Note: This is a satirical send-up of the NiceGuyTM Friend Zone complaint.]
Seth: Deported Parents Who Return Found Dead in Desert or Locked up in Prison [Content Note: The post at this link includes discussion of racism, xenophobia, abuse, injury/death.]
Maya: New Favorite Tumblr: Flip the News
Fannie: Salon Piece on Ego and Revenge in Wikipedia Editing
Dani: Social Justice Theory Has Totally Destroyed Star Trek for Me [Content Note: The post at this link includes discussion of colonialist narratives/language.]
Renee: Special K, The Fat Shaming Cereal [Content Note: The post at this link includes discussion of fat bias, bullying, body policing.]
CeCe: Fatkinis! [Take that, Special K!]
Remember the 17 abandoned puppies found near where I live? All of them have found homes! Yay! (And, no, we are not one of them!)
Leave your links and recommendations in comments...
Wednesday Blogaround
Daily Dose of Cute
As always, please feel welcome and encouraged to share pix of the fuzzy, feathered, or scaled members of your family in comments.
In The News
[Content note: Gun violence, terrorism, homophobia, natural disaster]
Choosy mothers choose gifs:
An FBI agent has shot and killed a man who may have had ties to the Boston Marathon bombings. WTF.
Thanks to a slashed budget, the National Weather Service is looking to cut forecasters, obviously. Good timing!
Also: This guy is just super smart.
A statue of Frederick Douglass will be unveiled in U.S. Capitol on Juneteenth. Cool!
Oh, dear god, help us all! The Overton Window Part 2 is here. And before you ask: No, not in a million years.
As an Illinois House vote on marriage equality approaches, former President Bill Clinton is speaking out in support of it. That's nice.
I may go just to come in last place.
A Fox News television reporter has been named a possible co-conspirator in a criminal investigation of a news leak. See also.
Quote of the Day
[Content Note: Homophobia.]
"On Thursday, 1,400 Scouting volunteers from all across the country will meet in Dallas to vote on a proposal that could end the [Boy Scouts'] ban on gay youth. However, gay adult leaders and employees, like me, would remain banned from Scouting. ...The proposed resolution to allow openly gay youth is a good first step, but it cannot stop there. If the resolution to repeal the ban on gay Scouts is approved, dedicated gay adult volunteers and employees, like me, will still be kept in the closet, and I will have no choice but to resign. For too many years, I eschewed relationships, felt uncomfortable around co-workers and was forced to remain cloaked in secrecy. I cannot continue to live in the shadows. It is not healthy, nor is it ethical."—An anonymous gay employee of the Boy Scouts of America, who has "dedicated more than two decades of [his] life to the Boy Scouts of America—first as a Scout and now for over five years as an employee" and spends "14-hour days and 80-hour workweeks promoting the Scouting program and providing the best possible services to build and retain membership." But fears losing his job every day if his employer finds out he is gay.
Read his entire essay here.
[Commenting Guidelines: Please note that victim-blaming will not be tolerated in this thread. Criticism of the Boy Scouts' homophobic policies is on-topic. Criticism of an individual person who has tried to change an organization he loves to be more inclusive and has regretfully and painfully come to the decision that it is no longer safe or ethical for him to be a part of this organization is not.]
CNN: Asking IMPORTANT Questions
Thank goodness for Wolf Blitzer and CNN. In the midst of a terrible natural disaster in Oklahoma,what I really want to know is: are survivors sufficiently grateful to a (presumably Christian) Deity?
Oh. Wait. I think we have a problem:
There was a moment of levity in Oklahoma Tuesday when CNN host Wolf Blitzer, concluding an interview with a woman named Rebecca and her 19-month-old son Anders who survived the devastating tornado, asked her if she thanked the Lord for a decision that saved her life.“I’m actually an atheist,” she replied, laughing.
She added she wouldn’t blame other people for thanking the Lord, though.
Whoooooooooops!
But MY Religious Freedom!
[Content Note: Hostility to choice; misogyny.]
A craft store, an automotive parts manufacturer, a contractor, a woodworker, and a light manufacturer walk into a bar an appeals court to challenge the birth control mandate because they claim it violates their religious freedom:
Obamacare's birth control mandate will go before four different appeals courts over the next three weeks as private businesses that object to the policy on religious liberty grounds bring a barrage of lawsuits that opponents hope to get before the U.S. Supreme Court as soon as this fall.Never mind the religious beliefs of their employees, which might be different from their employers'. Too bad for you if you don't happen to work for an employer who shares precisely the same religious convictions as you do!
On Wednesday, two for-profit companies will ask the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to strike the requirement that they provide employees with insurance coverage that includes birth control and other drugs that they say can cause abortion. Three other companies will present oral arguments in different appeals courts by early June.
The companies — a craft store, an automotive parts manufacturer, a contractor, a woodworker and a light manufacturer — say in their separate lawsuits that their religious freedoms are being violated by the Obama administration's requirement, which stems from the health law, that they cover contraception in their employee insurance plans.
The business owners say that they have strongly held religious beliefs against the use of contraceptives and that the fines they would incur for not providing them could amount to millions of dollars. They argue that they should be exempt on moral grounds like certain church-affiliated groups even if they are for-profit businesses rather than nonprofit religious groups.
"What the mandate is requiring our clients to do is to arrange for, pay for and provide coverage that runs contrary to their religious beliefs," said Edward White, senior counsel at the American Center for Law and Justice.
Women are not the only people in need of hormonal contraception, but the vast majority of people in need of hormonal contraception are women. These employers are effectively asking for the legal right to discriminate against female employees because it is their opinion that contraception is not a central part of many women's basic healthcare, whether we are using it to control our reproduction or to treat one of many disorders for which hormonal contraceptives are a commonly prescribed drug.
And, as per usual, they're trying to justify their urge to police women's bodies and reproduction with an invented religious imperative and bullshit science. Birth control doesn't cause abortions. In fact, nothing causes more abortions than pregnancy: As many as 50% of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortions, many before a person with a uterus even realizes zie is pregnant. Which doesn't include unwanted pregnancies that are terminated. Anyone who's genuinely worried about abortions, spontaneous or chosen, should be thrilled to be paying for birth control!
But of course that's not the point. The point is petulant grievance about having to pay for women's healthcare, and dressing up the usual spite in a religious cloak. Maybe a vestment.
Immigration Bill Advances, but Without Rights for Same-Sex Couples
[Content Note: Homophobia.]
This is infuriating:
A far-reaching bill to remake the nation's immigration system is headed to the full Senate... The legislation is one of President Barack Obama's top domestic priorities - yet it also gives the Republican Party a chance to recast itself as more appealing to minorities.Basically, the Democrats have decided have passing an immigration bill, even if it's inherently discriminatory, is more important to their electoral fortunes than holding firm and refusing to pass non-inclusive immigration reform. They are kicking the can down the road, hoping it will get done some other way:
...The legislation would create new routes for people to come legally to the U.S. to work at all skill levels, tighten border security and workplace enforcement, and offer a chance at citizenship to the 11 million people here illegally.
...It was [Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.]'s 11th-hour decision to hold back on an amendment to extend immigration rights to same-sex married couples that cleared the way for the bill's approval.
...Leahy had been under pressure from gay groups to offer the amendment, which would allow gay married Americans to sponsor their foreign-born spouses for green cards like straight married Americans can. But Republican supporters of the bill warned that including such a measure would cost their support. As the committee neared the end of its work, officials said Leahy had been informed that both the White House and Senate Democrats hoped he would not risk the destruction of months of painstaking work by putting the issue to a vote.
"I don't want to be the senator who asks people to choose between the love of their life and the love of their country," Leahy said, adding that he wanted to hear from others on the committee.
In response, he heard a chorus of pleas from the bill's supporters not to force a vote that they warned would lead to the collapse of Republican support and the bill's demise.
"I don't want to blow this bill apart," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the first to speak up.
"I believe in my heart of hearts that what you're doing is the right and just thing," said Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill. "But I believe this is the wrong moment, that this is the wrong bill."
Sens. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Al Franken, D-Minn., added their voices, and Leahy announced that, "with a heavy heart," he would withdraw his amendment.
Gay rights groups voiced outrage, and the issue is certain to re-emerge when the full Senate debates the legislation. But it is doubtful that sponsors can command the 60 votes that will be needed to make it part of the legislation.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein cited [Republican Senator Lindsay Graham calling the provision for same-sex couples "a bridge too far" to retain his support], then, saying of Leahy's amendment, "I think this sounds like the fairest approach, but here's the problem … we know this is going to blow the agreement apart. I don't want to blow this bill apart."And why is it an either-or choice? Because of Republicans and their flat-out refusal to pass the bill out of committee with Leahy's amendment attached. So they hold immigration reform hostage in service to their bigotry, and the Democrats cave, because the White House has told them to get this shit done, since immigration reform is meant to be a centerpiece of President Obama's second-term agenda.
She cited the fact that the Supreme Court could strike down the Defense of Marriage Act provision that prevents same-sex couples from having equal immigration rights in coming months. She also noted the a bill she is sponsoring to repeal DOMA is holding in the Senate, concluding, "I would just implore to hold up on this amendment at this time."
...Sen. Al Franken, likewise, joined in the decision not to support the amendment, saying, "This is the definition of a Hobson's choice. … It's wrong to discriminate against people, but I do not want the LGBT people who would be hurt by this bill not passing, this whole bill not passing, to be hurt by this falling apart."
Meanwhile, note that Republicans stand to gain everything from this bill passing: They get to crow about their generous bipartisanship; brag about their Big Tent being friendly to immigrants/Latin@s; and reassure their garbage bigot base that they stopped a crucial expansion of gay rights. Yay for them.
There is still time to make this right. Every Democrat in the Senate should get in front of every TV camera zie can find and yell about how the Republican Party is holding inclusive immigration reform hostage because they are homophobic shitheads. They need to be shamed. Do the Democrats have the will and wherewithal to do that?
Contact your Senators, irrespective of their party affiliations, and tell them you want comprehensive immigration reform that includes equal rights for bi-national couples.
Question of the Day
What decision that you regretted, or about which you had mixed feelings at the time, turned out to be a great decision after all?
Tom Hardy and a Puppy Visit the Blue Whale in Catoosa, Oklahoma
"We're thinking about you, Oklahoma," said Tom and the puppy.
Quote of the Day
"Some of the accusations, I mean you wouldn't believe some of this stuff. It's just—I mean, you've got to be on Mars to come up with some of this stuff."—An anonymous senior Republican aide, on the party being "overly consumed with chasing down or addressing inaccurate or unfounded accusations emerging from the inquiry" into the Benghazi attack. This anonymous aide is reportedly one of an increasing number of "senior GOP aides [who] are worried that the partisan overtones are diverting Congress from identifying and addressing the real lessons learned from the attack."
Or, you know, anything that actually matters.
Photo of the Day
A teacher in Moore, Oklahoma, finds one of the students in his class that he thought he'd lost in [yesterday's] tornado. Via Curt Autry NBC 12.All the blubs.
[H/T to Portly Dyke.]
An Observation
[Content Note: Fat bias.]
It remains a radical act to be fat and happy. If you're fat, you're not only meant to be unhappy, but deeply ashamed of yourself, projecting at all times an apologetic nature, indicative of your everlasting remorse for having wrought your monstrous self upon the world. You are certainly not meant to be bold, or assertive, or confident—and should you manage to overcome the constant drumbeat of messages that you are ugly and unsexy and have earned equally society's disdain and your own self-hatred, should you forget your place and walk into the world one day with your head held high, you are to be reminded by the cow-calls and contemptuous looks of perfect strangers that you are not supposed to have self-esteem; you don't deserve it. Being publicly fat and happy is hard; being publicly, shamelessly, unshakably fat and happy is an act of both will and bravery.
Rare indeed is the fat person who manages to find contentment in hir own skin, because everything around hir is designed so that zie will not. Thusly, the idea of a culture that maintains an inclusive attitude about a spectrum of natural (and acceptable) shapes and sizes is almost impossible to imagine—and yet important enough to imagine and set as goal nevertheless, because the person who is healthy but fat is not being served by our scorn, and the person who is unhealthy but thin is not being served by our approbation.
[Updated from "Weighty Matters," January 02, 2007.]
This is a real thing in the world.
[Content Note: Fat hatred and shaming; body policing.]
Yesterday, actor Keanu Reeves arrived at the Cannes Film Festival looking like he weighed slightly more than he does usually. This was, naturally, a Major News Story, with pop culture commentators wondering, "What happened to Keanu?" and engaging in all sorts of reprehensible body policing and fat shaming. But US Weekly really managed to stand out as especially despicable, among a sea of contemptible stories:
Before I get into the content of this garbage article, I want to observe that "looks bloated" is often used as a synonym for "appears to have gained some weight," and they are not the same thing. Bloating can be caused by and is often a symptom of illness; it can also be a side-effect for the treatment of illness. So can weight gain (and weight loss). Commenting on someone "looking bloated" is often not merely fat-hating, but eliding illness, disability, and/or treatment for either/both.
Actress Kathleen Turner famously weathered nasty commentary about her weight gain and rumors about drug addiction and alcoholism for years before disclosing that she had rheumatoid arthritis, the steroids prescribed for which caused changes in her appearance. Not everyone who "looks bloated" has "let themselves go," as haughtily sniffed by the body-policing tyrants who believe we owe them conformance to beauty standards to indulge their delicate eyes, so easily offended by the obligation to gaze at imperfection.
I have no knowledge of Keanu Reeves' health, nor is it any of my business. I also don't give a fuck that he (might have) gained a few pounds and wouldn't even be talking about it were I not compelled by a metric fuckton of fat hatred. The US Weekly article begins:
Whoa! Keanu Reeves, 48, was spotted at Cannes looking quite different from the slim-hipped looker he was a decade ago. The actor, whose last hit movie was in 2003, which saw the release of both The Matrix Revolutions and Something's Gotta Give, is at the French film festival to promote his directorial debut, The Man of Tai Chi, but he didn't seem quite ready for the spotlight on Sunday, May 19.Wow. That is a lot of bullying horseshit to pack into three paragraphs. The piece then includes a picture of Reeves looking pretty much like his usual self the next day.
Wearing baggy jeans, a gray V-neck tee, and a linen blazer, the former hunk sported stubble, shaggy hair, and a noticeably bloated appearance as he stepped off the yacht "Odessa" in the French Riviera.
The next day, Reeves cleaned up, thankfully, for his movie's photocall. Dressed in a black blazer and navy tee, the actor looked groomed, clean-shaven, and more like the actor audiences first swooned for in Speed.
(And the "random unflattering picture" used in service to body policing narratives and/or fat-shaming and/or reproductive policing and/or plastic surgery spotting, etc. that's all the rage in pop culture media these days is a whole other post entirely.)
I hate a lot about all the gross body policing fuckery packed into this story, but perhaps most of all I hate that "thankfully." Thankfully he cleaned up for us to spare us all the agony of looking at his grotesque self! It's not just the shitty judgment of his appearance, but the implicit expectation that we are somehow entitled to have Keanu Reeves look a certain way for us. That is so fucking vile. THAT IS SO FUCKING VILE.
Keanu Reeves is a 48-year-old agency-bearing human being who has the goddamned right to look however the fuck he wants to look. He doesn't owe the public a thing, least of all a promise to never change, never age, never diverge from whatever arbitrary benchmark separates "hunk" from "former hunk." I can't believe these are sentences I am typing in the year of our lord Jesus Jones two thousand and thirteen because our "civilized" culture still doesn't fucking understand the basic concept of autonomous choice, nor the simple principle of mind your own fucking business and stop bullying people for a pastime.
Fuck. FUCK. Fuck.
In The News
[Content note: Violent misogyny, gun violence]
Tuesday News and Stuff:
The Secret Service is is investigating right wing radio host Pete Santilli after he said he wanted to shoot former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the vagina. Good lord, what is wrong with these people?
The Doors' founding keyboardist, Ray Manzarek, died after a long fight with cancer.
Apple: Kinda sleazy.
The Royal Horticultural Society has lifted its century-old ban on gnomes. Viva la gnomes! Viva la freedom!
President Barack Obama announced Sally Ride will be posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Woot!
Immaculate anteater conception! Hallelujah!
NASA is funding research into 3D-printed food. Sounds delicious.
Daily Dose of Cute
Zelly Belly. Such a good girl.
As always, please feel welcome and encouraged to share pix of the fuzzy, feathered, or scaled members of your family in comments.
Tweets of the Day
[Content Note: Misogyny; hostility to consent.]
Another issue with the latest Star Trek film is a scene of Dr. Carol Marcus in her underwear. Not only is the scene gratuitous, but she explicitly asks Kirk not to look at her, and then HA HA THAT SCAMP he turns and looks at her. Yesterday, one of the writers of the film, Damon Lindelof, took to Twitter to respond to some of the criticism:
![series of four tweets from Damon Lindelhof reading: 1. I copped to the fact that we should have done a better job of not being gratuitous in our representation of a barely clothed actress. 2. We also had Kirk shirtless in underpants in both movies. Do not want to make light of something that some construe as mysogenistic. [sic] 3. What I'm saying is I hear you, I take responsibility and will be more mindful in the future. 4. Also, I need to learn how to spell 'misogynistic.'](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v642/shakespeares_sister/shakes6/Damon.png)
[Screencap via.]
Oof.
There is so much wrong there. "Copped to it," indicating, even if unintentionally, they knew it was gross but did it anyway, hoping no one would call them out on it. "Shirtless Kirk," as if women and men are objectified in the same way, as if imagined parity can justify real objectification. "Some construe," as if sexism cannot be objectively assessed. It's all just a matter of opinion! And, yeah, when you're trying to assure people you're listening and taking their criticism seriously, maybe learn how to spell "misogynistic" before you start pounding out bullshit on the keyboard.
[Related Reading: Things That Amuse Me.]
"Death with Dignity" Measure Signed in Vermont
Vermont has become the fourth state, in addition to Oregon, Washington, and Montana, to grant people with terminal illness the right to request an assisted death from doctors:
With the strokes from three gubernatorial pens, Vermont on Monday became the fourth state in the country to allow doctors to prescribe lethal medication to terminally ill patients.I fervently hope that Barbara Coombs Lee is right that legislation giving people greater choice over their end-of-life decisions will increase in popularity nationwide. I would certainly like to have this choice available to me, when and if I need it.
Gov. Peter Shumlin signed the measure in a state House ceremony in Montpelier, capping a decade-long effort on the issue in Vermont.
..."This historic achievement is a political breakthrough that will boost support for death-with-dignity bills nationwide," said Compassion & Choices President Barbara Coombs Lee. The group describes itself as the nation's leading advocacy group for end-of-life decisions.
The law, which went into effect Monday, allows for an end-of-life procedure with the consent of a patient's doctor after the patient has made more than one request for help in ending life. The bill also stipulates that the patient has a chance to retract the request.
Under the bill, a qualifying patient must be at least 18 years old, a Vermont resident and suffering from an "incurable and irreversible disease," with less than six months to live. Two physicians, including the prescribing doctor, must make that medical determination. The patient must also be told of other end-of-life services, "including palliative care, comfort care, hospice care, and pain control," according to the bill.
If you're interested in learning more about assisted death laws in the US, the documentary How to Die in Oregon is an excellent resource.
