Shakesville

Quote of the Day

[Content Note: Racism.]

"The demographic winter of white America is at hand, even as it began years ago for the native-born of old Europe. In political terms, this is depressing news for the Republican Party."—Pat Buchanan, in his latest dispatch from Bigotville.

image of Pat Buchanan as Ned Stark from Game of Thones, saying 'Demographic winter is coming.'

Game of Groans
As soon as I read the latest census alarmism, I knew ol' Uncle Pat would have something to say about it. I didn't expect him to be quite so hilariously forthcoming about what a grim harbinger "the demographic winter of white America" (FOR REAL HE SAID THAT OMG) is for his race-baiting party, though, lol.

But it's a good excuse for him to suggest, again and predictably, severe immigration restrictions, on the fallacy that white supremacy in the US is predicated on holding a demographic majority. It is not.

Friday Blogaround

This blogaround brought to you by lasagne.

Recommended Reading:

Amelia: New Omnibus Anti-Choice Abortion Bill Before Texas Legislature Could Nearly Destroy Access in the State

FMF News: Women of Senate Vow to Continue Fight Against Military Sexual Assault

Robin: Fast-Tracked Forced Ultrasound and TRAP Bill Passes Wisconsin Assembly, Heads to Governor

Fannie: Same-Sex Marriage, Feminism, and Women [Content Note: The post at this link includes discussion of homophobia and misogyny.]

Andy: University of Chicago Frat Plays Disgusting Homophobic, Racist Prank on Postal Carrier [Content Note: The post at this link includes homophobic and racist slurs.]

Angry Asian Man: Purdue Students Charged with Hacking Professors' Accounts and Changing Grades

Robert: This Weekend, Celebrate 50 Years of Women in Space

Brooke: In a World, Where There Is a Movie Called In a World…

Heads-up, Atlanta Shakers! Join the Crunk Feminist Collective at Charis Books later this month, where Robin Boylorn's will be talking about her new book Sweetwater: Black Women and Narratives of Resilience.

Finally: I just want to say congratulations to Jorge Rivas, who is one of my favorite bloggers, as regular readers of the blogaround already know. I will miss him terribly at ColorLines, but I am so excited to see what he does next! And yay for Aura Bogado joining the ColorLines team.

Leave your links and recommendations in comments...

Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime

Scarlett & Black: "You Don't Know"

I totally had this album on cassette. Because I was hot shit in 1987.

Number of the Day

[Content Note: Misogyny.]

90%: The percentage of showings of films today in a 10-mile radius in the DC metro area that "are stories about men or groups of men, where women play supporting roles or fill out ensembles primarily focused on men." Linda Holmes:

I live in the D.C. metro area. which is very good place to find films. If you don't live in New York or Los Angeles, it's about the best you can do. I'm within 10 miles of a multiplicity of multiplexes, not to mention four theaters I would consider "art house" theaters or at least mixes of wider-appeal fare and smaller stuff.

According to Fandango and some back-of-the-envelope math, excluding documentaries and animation, there are 617 movie showings today — that's just today, Friday — within 10 miles of my house.

Of those 617 showings, 561 of them — 90 percent — are stories about men or groups of men, where women play supporting roles or fill out ensembles primarily focused on men. The movies making up those 561 showings: Man Of Steel (143), This Is The End (77), The Internship (52), The Purge (49), After Earth (29), Now You See Me (56), Fast & Furious 6 (44), The Hangover Part III (16), Star Trek Into Darkness (34), The Great Gatsby (16), Iron Man 3 (18), Mud (9), The Company You Keep (4), Kings Of Summer (9), and 42 (5).

Thirty-one are showings of movies about balanced pairings or ensembles of men and women: Before Midnight (26), Shadow Dancer (4), and Wish You Were Here (1).

Twenty-five are showings of movies about women or girls: The East (8), Fill The Void (4), Frances Ha (9), and What Maisie Knew (4).

Of the seven movies about women or balanced groups, only one — the Israeli film Fill The Void — is directed by a woman, Rama Burshtein. That's also the only one that isn't about a well-off white American. (Well, Celine in Before Midnight is well-off, white and French, but she's been living in the U.S.)

There are nearly six times as many showings of Man Of Steel alone as there are of all the films about women put together.

If I were limited to multiplexes, as people are in many parts of the country, the numbers would be worse. In many places, the number would be zero. Frances Ha is by far the most widely available of the four women-centered movies, and it's on 213 screens this weekend in the entire country. The East is on 115. What Maisie Knew is on 51. Fill The Void looks like it's in about 20 locations, judging by its site.

The Internship is on 3,399.

I want to stress this again: In many, many parts of the country right now, if you want to go to see a movie in the theater and see a current movie about a woman — any story about any woman that isn't a documentary or a cartoon — you can't. You cannot. There are not any. You cannot take yourself to one, take your friend to one, take your daughter to one.

There are not any.

Literally just last weekend, Iain was reading out the local movie listings to me, and, at the end, I said, "You realize not a single one of those movies features a primary female protagonist?" And he was all, "Fuuuuuuuuck."

And naturally, the vast majority of the films that featured male protagonists featured straight, white, male protagonists.

Is it any wonder that people who aren't straight, white men have "White Dude Saves the World" fatigue?

[H/T to Jess.]

Daily Dose of Cute

image of Matilda the Long-Haired Sealpoint Blue-Eyed Cat sitting on the arm of the couch, looking regal

Matilda, Queen of All She Surveys.
As always, please feel welcome and encouraged to share pix of the fuzzy, feathered, or scaled members of your family in comments.

Discussion Thread: Visibility in Pop Culture, Part 2

As a follow-up to yesterday's thread, I wanted to open up a discussion about visible characters from marginalized populations that are unhelpful (for lack of a better word) in some way.

As an example: Iain and I recently watched Identity Thief, because Melissa McCarthy. (And please note that the film is problematic in more ways than I am about to describe here, e.g. trans/misogyny and consent issues.) And it is so transgressive in so many ways: Melissa McCarthy is just an amazing physical comedian, and she just crushes all sorts of stereotypes about fat bodies and what they are capable of. She is shown as physically strong and flexible and graceful in many ways throughout the story. The film is also remarkably supportive of the idea that fat women can be beautiful and sexy and desirable.

But. There is a sex scene between Melissa McCarthy and Eric Stonestreet (who is a fat man), and the entire scene (even in the "unedited" version, which is what we watched) is filmed in a way that never shows their bodies. The way it is filmed we know they engage in enthusiastic and athletic sex in a variety of positions, but all we ever see are their faces, hanging over the edge of the bed (or wherever) in various arrangements.

It's so deeply weird to watch an extended sex scene where no bodies are ever shown at all, and clearly the reason is because it was considered gross to show fat bodies engaged in a sexual activity. The only time we ever see either of their bodies, clothed or unclothed, is afterwards, where Eric Stonestreet's naked butt is shown while he's sleeping afterwards, which is played for laughs.

So, one the on hand, I was glad to see a film, even with its other problems, that did not treat fat bodies as incapable and weak and ugly. And, on the other hand, I was disappointed that even in a film that is remarkably positive on fat bodies, fat bodies having sex is just a bridge too far!

What have you seen lately in terms of visible characters from marginalized populations that are two steps forward, one step back? Or just the same old tired collection of stereotypes, zero steps forward at all?

Bi-Monthly Fundraising Reminder & Thank-You

This is, for those who have requested it, your bi-monthly reminder to donate to Shakesville and/or to make sure to renew subscriptions that have lapsed.

It is also an important fundraiser to keep Shakesville going.

Running this strictly-moderated and independent space on donations rather than content-generated advertising, which is incompatible with safe spaces, means that my ability to keep it going depends on your support.

I cannot afford to do this full-time for free, but, even if I could, fundraising is also one of the most feminist acts I do here. I ask to be paid for my work because progressive feminist advocacy has value.

Women's service work, whether it's mothering, elder care, volunteering, philanthropy, social work, employment in any "pink collar" profession, or social advocacy, is gravely devalued, frequently to the point where it is unpaid work altogether. So, even though fundraising is not fun for me, not doing it is counterproductive to the work we do here every day. It's antifeminist.

This blog started as a hobby, a part-time interest into which I could put as much or as little time as I wanted. It's not a hobby anymore; it's a job. And regarding it thus is a feminist act.

You can donate once by clicking the "Make a Donation" button in the righthand sidebar, or set up a monthly subscription using the "Subscribe" button just below it, which has a dropdown menu of subscription options—or visit the Donation page, for even more options.

If you value the content and/or community in this space, can afford it, and want to see Shakesville continue to be managed as a safe space, please consider setting up a subscription or making a one-time contribution.

If you have recently appreciated getting distilled news about politics, reproductive rights, and other news items; coverage of the surveillance story or the recent childfree series; Fatsronauts 101; being able to discuss aspects of the rape culture in a space interested in dismantling that culture; finding out where to direct your teaspoon in support of social justice or in opposition to inequality, I hope you will, if you are able, contribute to support this space and make sure it continues to flourish.

I hope you will also consider the value of whatever else you appreciate at Shakesville, whether it's the moderation, video transcripts, Film Corner, the community in Open Threads, the blogarounds, Butch Pornstache, the Daily Dose of Cute, your blogmistress' penchant for inventing new words, or anything else you enjoy.

I also want say thank you, so very much, to each of you who donates or has donated, whether monthly or as a one-off. I am profoundly grateful—and I don't take a single cent for granted. I've not the words to express the depth of my appreciation, besides these: This community couldn't exist without that support, truly. Thank you.

My boundless appreciation as well to everyone who contributes to the space in other ways: Thank you to our regular contributors, our moderators, our guest contributors, to anyone who has provided a transcription, to those who have linked to, quoted, Tweeted about, and otherwise supportively recommended this blog, and/or to the people who have taken the time to send me the occasional note of support and encouragement. This community couldn't exist without you, either.

[Please Note: I am not seeking suggestions on how to raise revenue; I am asking for donations in exchange for the work of providing valued content in as safe and accessible a space as possible. I also want to reiterate that I don't want anyone to feel obliged to contribute financially, especially if money is tight. Aside from valuing feminist work, the other goal of fundraising is so Iain and I don't have to struggle on behalf of the blog, and I don't want anyone else to struggle themselves in exchange. There is a big enough readership that neither should have to happen.]

In The News

Deeky W. Gashlycrumb, M.D. is off today, preparing his keynote on taintplay for the annual Taint Misbehavin'! conference at the Stethoscope Institute, so you're stuck with me.

[Content Note: Homophobia; rape culture; war on agency.]

President Obama said at the annual White House Pride event yesterday that ENDA needs to get passed tout de suite. "There's a bipartisan bill moving forward in the Senate that would ban discrimination against all LGBT Americans in the workplace, now and forever. We need to get that passed. I want to sign that bill. We need to get it done now." You heard him, Congress. Get it done and stuff! And make it trans*-inclusive!

Meanwhile, Senator Marco Rubio (R-Ealjerk) says he hasn't yet read the legislation, but "I'm not for any special protections based on orientation." Ha ha cool position, bro! Very year of our lord Jesus Jones two thousand and thirteen!

Rick Santorum has a theory about why Mitt Romney didn't win. It is definitely garbage, but if you want to read about it, you can!

Hey, do you think it's kind of an issue that "many sergeants, lieutenants, and captains [in the US Army] say they do not have a sex assault problem"? I think that's kind of an issue! I'm no military expert, but I'm pretty sure that there are "sergeants, lieutenants, and captains" in the chain of command, right? Anyone? Hello? IS THIS THING ON, AMERICA?

Here's just a great headline: 2013 Is Shaping up to Be the Worst Year for Reproductive Freedom in Recent History. PERFECT. I hope the Democrats can agree that the best strategy is continuing to maintain radio silence and hope the most determined misogyfucks in the country just decide to give up because they're winning TOO MUCH.

If you are someone who's been thinking: "Gee, I really wish Sarah Palin were a contributor on Fox News," well, you are in luck!

Here is a nice story about a retiring school comfort dog who "graduated" with the senior class and got his picture in the yearbook. Aww. Have a fun retirement, Prince! I hope you get into your first choice college, or at least your back-up!

Do you want to read a New York Times profile of Melissa McCarthy? I read it, and it was pretty good!

US Confirms Syria Has Used Chemical Weapons Against Rebels

[Content Note: War.]

President Obama has long said that the use of chemical weapons in Syria would be a "red line" that, if crossed, would oblige US involvement. Yesterday, after US intelligence estimated that at least 100 people of the 93,000 who have been killed in the civil war died as a result of chemical weapons, President Obama announced the decision "to begin supplying the rebels for the first time with small arms and ammunition, according to American officials."

How support will be supplied, and precisely what type of support will be offered, is still not clear: "On a call with reporters, Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes said Obama has decided to give the rebels 'military support,' but refused to directly say whether the U.S. had decided to arm Syria's rebels, saying he was unable to detail every type of support the Syrian rebels will be receiving. Rhodes stressed, however, that this aid would be 'responsive' to the requests of the Syrian Military Council and that it would be 'substantively different' in 'both scope and scale than what we have provided before.' The Obama administration has mulled arming the rebels for months now without [actually supplying arms], instead insisting on only providing non-lethal aid."

The full White House statement on where we stand now is below the fold.

I can't pretend that I totally understand the approach the administration has taken toward Syria. I'm not sure why it is that chemical weapons were the "red line" that necessitates intervention, but the slaughter of 90,000 people over two years by different means was tolerable. In the abstract, maybe defining chemical weapons as The Thing that justifies intervention makes some kind of sense, but in the midst of a real war in which tens of thousands of people are being killed, abstract justifications tend to be less persuasive.

Ultimately, taking a stand against the use of chemical weapons but not taking a stand against mass slaughter doesn't look very principled. Sometimes you just have to decide whether you're in or you're out.

America 2.0: The Latest

• Whistleblower Edward Snowden used a thumb drive to take data from the NSA facility at which he worked, which is a violation of the rules of his employment, where any "portable digital device [is] supposedly barred inside the cyber spying agency." Also: The Feds were hunting for Snowden before he went public, but didn't get to him before the disclosures.

• Because Snowden was able to use a thumb drive despite the ban, lawmakers "plan to draft legislation that would limit the access that federal contractors have to highly classified information." Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, who called Snowden's public disclosure of classified information on the government's surveillance programs an "act of treason," said: "We will certainly have legislation which will limit [or] prevent contractors from handling highly classified data." Irrespective of how one feels specifically about Snowden, or whistleblowing, that's probably a good idea.

• Senator Feinstein, who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, also said yesterday that, as she understands it, a warrant is not required to search the database: "To search the database you have to have reasonable articulable cause to believe that individual has a connection to a terrorist cause. Then you can query the numbers. There's no content. You have the name and the number called. That's all you have. If you want to collect content, then you get a court order." Um.

• It appears the scope of the data collection is more vast than originally reported: "Thousands of technology, finance, and manufacturing companies are working closely with U.S. national security agencies, providing sensitive information and in return receiving benefits that include access to classified intelligence, four people familiar with the process said. These programs, whose participants are known as trusted partners, extend far beyond what was revealed by Edward Snowden, a computer technician who did work for the National Security Agency. ...Makers of hardware and software, banks, Internet security providers, satellite telecommunications companies and many other companies also participate in the government programs. In some cases, the information gathered may be used not just to defend the nation but to help infiltrate computers of its adversaries." Um.

If you still haven't read "The Secret War" yet, this would be a good time. The article details how the US cyberwar complex is building its offensive capabilities, which provides key context for the information that companies are sharing tech info with the US government "to help infiltrate computers of its adversaries."

• Meanwhile: Edward Snowden is a traitor and these programs are vast and accessible without a court order, but Snowden is a liar and the scope of the programs is so small: "The NSA leaker is lying about both his access to information and the scope of the secret surveillance programs he uncovered, the heads of the House Intelligence Committee charged Thursday." Republican Representative Mike Rogers, chair of the House Intelligence Committee, said: "He was lying. He clearly has over-inflated his position, he has over-inflated his access, and he's even over-inflated what the actually technology of the programs would allow one to do. It's impossible for him to do what he was saying he could do. He's done tremendous damage to the country where he was born and raised and educated."

Has he, though? Has the country been "tremendously damaged" by Snowden's disclosure? Or, if indeed "tremendous damage" has been done, was it not actually done by the government that decided it was cool to do widespread surveillance on its citizens without their consent, without a national discussion on whether sacrificing these particular liberties in the interest of national security is wise or desirable or even effective, without transparency or oversight or accountability? Wouldn't the architects of this vast dragnet be responsible for any "tremendous damage" to the country, as opposed to the man who pulled back the curtain behind which they were operating?

Because, I dunno, but it seems to me that only but the most unsophisticated terrorist plotters are going to get caught by this kind of surveillance, especially when tiny pieces of information have to be teased out of a massive data mining operation. Surely, most sophisticated terrorist groups presume they are being surveilled on mobiles and unencrypted email accounts and public social media, and use alternate methods of communication. Surely, that level of sophistication requires a different type of law enforcement strategy, something much more highly targeted. This broad program would have to be mighty effective for its disclosure to have done "tremendous harm" to the country. But is it?

• We may find out:

The National Security Agency (NSA) plans to release details of terrorist attacks thwarted by its controversial bulk surveillance of Americans' communications data, a senior US senator said on Thursday.

Senator Dianne Feinstein (Democrat, California), the chairwoman of the Senate intelligence committee, said the NSA director, General Keith Alexander, would provide "the cases where this [surveillance] has stopped a terrorist attack, both here and in other places" as early as Monday.

The claim that the surveillance programs helped stop terrorist attacks has come under criticism from two US senators who sit on the intelligence committee.

"When you're talking about important liberties that the American people feel strongly about, and you want to have an intelligence program, you've got to make a case for why it provides unique value to the [intelligence] community atop what they can already have," Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, told the Guardian in an interview on Thursday.

But the FBI director, Robert Mueller, forcefully defended the programs on Thursday to the House judiciary committee by saying the broad surveillance could have foiled the 9/11 attacks and averted "another Boston."

Um. This program did not avert "the first Boston."

• Finally: The government asked for Yahoo to allow them to spy "on certain foreign users, without a warrant," and when Yahoo "refused, saying the broad requests were unconstitutional," the judges in a secret court in Washington told them it was constitutional, leaving them "two choices: Hand over the data or break the law." The decision "has had lasting repercussions for the dozens of companies that store troves of their users' personal information and receive these national security requests—it puts them on notice that they need not even try to test their legality."

You know, at a certain point, it's not even the actual surveillance programs that are the worst breach of the public trust. It's the government's abuse of its power to force compliance with the programs.

Open Thread

Hosted by a barn owl.

Question of the Day

What was your favorite costume when you were a kid? A Halloween costume, a Purim costume, a Mardi Gras costume, a birthday party costume, a LARPing costume, a fancy dress party costume, a costume you wore in a play or talent show, a costume you made yourself, anything.

As I have previously mentioned, I loved Laverne & Shirley so much as a kid that, I shit you not, a childhood friend and I performed the theme song for a school talent show when we were in third grade. My mom even stitched an L (for Liss/Laverne) onto my blouse for the occasion!

image of me at age 9, standing in my living room in a sassy pose, with my hand on my hip, my hair tied up in a scarf, my jeans rolled up, and sporting a blouse with a cursive L on it

There is nothing we won't try;
Never heard the word "impossible."
This time there's no stopping us—
We're gonna do it!
Which is more awesome, do you think? My sassy pose, or that orange and brown shag carpeting? I'm going to call it a draw.

Anyway! That was for sure one of my favorite childhood costumes. I WAS Laverne DeFazio wearing that blouse! Hell yeah we're gonna do it!

Right On

Remember the Cheerios ad featuring a mixed-race family, which piqued the ire of ALL the racist haters, because they are THE FUCKING WORST?

Here is just a perfect parody of the backlash to that adorable ad:

A very young biracial girl holding a box of Cheerios stands in the kitchen, talking to her white mom, who is seated at the kitchen table.

Daughter: Mom?

Mom: Yes, honey?

Daughter: Is it true that eating a healthy breakfast cereal like we do every morning is normal? And in the year two thousand and thirteen, the way our family looks shouldn't be such a big deal?

Mom: Well, it says here [gesturing to box] that Cheerios is heart-healthy, and I say that we have the god-given right to stuff our faces with whatever we want and with whomever we want, no matter what the haters say.

Daughter grins broadly and carries the box of Cheerios out of the room. Cut to her black mom, who is waking up from a nap on the sofa, covered in Cheerios.

Mom 2, looking at camera: What? Now this is a problem?

Text onscreen, in Cheerios font: Eat it, haters.

Mom 2, in voiceover: Denise! Disable the YouTube comments!

LOL FOREVER.

[H/T to Pam.]

Fail, Fail, and More Fail

[Content Note: Rape culture.]

It isn't just the US military that is having a difficult time, ahem, effectively dealing with its widespread and pervasive sexual violence problem. US universities aren't doing such a hot job, either.

Chronic failure across multiple institutions to effectively prevent sexual assault and harassment, to isolate and condemn rapists, and to support survivors: This is the intolerable foundation upon which the entire rape culture is built.

[H/T to Jordan.]

Quote of the Day

[Content Note: Rape culture.]

"The Army has to be an inclusive organization, in which every soldier, man and woman, is able to reach their full potential and is encouraged to do so. Those who think that it is okay to behave in a way that demeans or exploits their colleagues have no place in this Army. ... If that does not suit you, then get out."—Australian Army chief Lieutenant-General David Morrison, in a video address "to the Australian Army following the announcement on Thursday, 13 June 2013 of civilian police and Defence investigations into allegations of unacceptable behaviour by Army members."

The "unacceptable behavior" in question is the circulation of a series of "explicit and repugnant" emails and images demeaning women. At least 17 personnel, including officers, are under investigation.

Australian Army chief Lieutenant-General David Morrison, a middle-aged white man, speaking directly into the camera in a terse tone which I can only describe as tightly-lidded simmering fury: Earlier today, I addressed the media and, through them, the Australian public, about ongoing investigations into a group of officers and NCOs whose conduct, if proven, has not only brought the Australian Army into disrepute, but has let down every one of you and all of those whose past service has won the respect of our nation.

There are limits to how much I can tell you, because the investigations into this network by both the New South Wales Police and the ADF Investigative Service are ongoing. But evidence collected to date has identified a group of men within our ranks who have allegedly produced highly inappropriate material demeaning women, and distributed it across the internet and Defense's email networks. If this is true, then the actions of these members are in direct contravention to every value the Australian Army stands for.

By now, I assume you know my attitude to this type of conduct. I have stated categorically many times that the Army has to be an inclusive organization, in which every soldier, man and woman, is able to reach their full potential and is encouraged to do so. Those who think that it is okay to behave in a way that demeans or exploits their colleagues have no place in this Army.

Our service has been engaged in continuous operations since 1999, and in its longest war ever in Afghanistan. On all operations, female soldiers and officers have proven themselves worthy of the best traditions of the Australian Army. They are vital to us maintaining our capability, now and into the future.

If that does not suit you, then get out.

You may find another employer where your attitude and behavior is acceptable, but I doubt it. The same goes for those who think that toughness is built on humiliating others. Every one of us is responsible for the culture and reputation of our Army and the environment in which we work.

If you become aware of any individual degrading another, then show moral courage and take a stand against it. No one has ever explained to me how the exploitation or degradation of others enhances capability or honors the traditions of the Australian Army.

I will be ruthless in ridding the Army of people who cannot live up to its values—and I need every one of you to support me in achieving this. The standard you walk past is the standard you accept. That goes for all of us, but especially those who by their rank have a leadership role.

If we are a great national institution, if we care about the legacy left to us by those who have served before us, if we care about the legacy we leave to those who, in turn, will protect and secure Australia. then it is up to us to make a difference. If you're not up to it, find something else to do with your life. There is no place for you amongst this band of brother and sisters.

Embedded in this statement is some of the same "axiomatic honor" stuff that is a problem in the US and pretty much everywhere else with a standing military. I'm guessing there are a few female veterans of the Australian Army—or soldiers from any marginalized population—who could quite reasonably argue that exploitation and degradation are also values of the Australian Army, even if they're not the ones to which the Army publicly professes to aspire.

But here, Lt. Gen. Morrison does not pander to members of the Australian Army by assuring them that they are decent people among whom are a few bad apples. He challenges them to live up to the values they profess, tasks them with accountability for nurturing and practicing those values, and tells anyone who doesn't like it to get to fuck.

His tone is not apologetic. It is angry. As well it should be. And that anger is reassuring.

Would that anyone in the US military be as angry about endemic sexual violence, as Lt. Gen. Morrison is about demeaning emails.

[H/T to Shaker Erin M.]

SCOTUS Rules Human Genes Can't Be Patented

This is big news. And good news:

Isolated human genes may not be patented, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Thursday. The case concerned patents held by Myriad Genetics, a Utah company, on genes that correlate with increased risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer.

The patents were challenged by scientists and doctors who said their research and ability to help patients had been frustrated. The particular genes at issue received public attention after the actress Angelina Jolie revealed in May that she had had a preventive double mastectomy after learning that she had inherited a faulty copy of a gene that put her at high risk for breast cancer.

The price of the test, often more than $3,000, was partly a product of Myriad's patent, putting it out of reach for some women. The company filed patent infringement suits against others who conducted testing based on the gene. The price of the test "should come down significantly," said Dr. Harry Ostrer, one of the plaintiffs in the case decided Thursday. The ruling, he said, 'will have an immediate impact on people's health.'

The court's ruling will also shape the course of scientific research and medical testing in other fields, and it may alter the willingness of businesses to invest in the expensive work of isolating and understanding genetic material.

Of course. Because why would corporations have any interest in healthcare advancements unless they're profitable. If only corporations were run by self-interested human beings!

Luckily, the conservatives on the court made sure businesses are still aware of ways they can eke profit out of revolutionary advancements in healthcare that be accessed by privileged people:

"Groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy the criteria" for patent eligibility, [Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the court].

But manipulating a gene to create something not found in nature, Justice Thomas added, is an invention eligible for patent protection.

He also left the door open for other ways for companies to profit from their research.

They may patent the methods of isolating genes, he said. "But the processes used by Myriad to isolate DNA were well understood by geneticists," Justice Thomas wrote. He added that companies may also obtain patents on new applications of knowledge gained from genetic research.

Phew!

Although I am being a cynical asshole (to the fainting couches!), it is genuinely good news that the court ruled against the right to patent human genes. Ha ha well I lasted one sentence, now back to cynicism: I am, however, not thrilled they explicitly left the door open for patenting manipulated genes, given that the future of healthcare may be in genetic therapies. Being able to patent cures to maximize profits will always be a problem, particularly in the US as long as healthcare continues to be treated as a privilege rather than a right.

But good job today, Supreme Court! Sort of!

Discussion Thread: Visibility in Pop Culture

by Shaker hallelujah_hippo

I've got "White Dude Saves the World Fatigue."

I'm a physicist, a gamer, a comic book lover, a metal and rock fan, an avid reader, an amateur artist and poet, a lover of movies at the cinema, and Springsteen is my go-to comfort music.

These interests are integral parts of who I am. But I am suffering from a malaise, a disinterest in my favorite things.

So many of the things that I seek out as inspiration, escapism, entertainment, and fun serve only to remind me that I don't matter—at least, not as much as the white, cis, straight, able-bodied, Western men saving the world (or the universe). Even the anti-heroes and villains typically fail to encompass my existence.

It's like almost no one who makes stories even realizes I exist, much less seeks to get inside my head and sympathize with my character. Like I am a figment of my own imagination.

Like everyone else on the margins I feel relegated to being a great sidekick at best or an offensive stereotype if I show up at all. Sometimes being absent or merely being glimpsed in passing is a relief.

And it makes me angry.

And it makes me sad. Because I expect more, and I keep being disappointed.

Anyone else want to (and able to) commiserate about this feeling?

Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime

Snow Patrol: "Chasing Cars"

Daily Dose of Cute

image: Dudley the Greyhound lies on the sofa with his neck twisted around so he can look out the window poutily

Last night: Someone was VERY unhappy about the storm cutting into his running around in the backyard in the dark doing Maude knows what time.

As always, please feel welcome and encouraged to share pix of the fuzzy, feathered, or scaled members of your family in comments.

Oh, Ohio

[Content Note: Hostility to consent.]

In an effort to not be left behind in the anti-autonomy race to the bottom of the barrel, this is Ohio republicans' House Bill 200:

A BILL
To amend sections 2305.11, 2317.56, 2919.171, and 4731.22 and to repeal section 2317.561 of the Revised Code to modify the notification requirements given by a physician 48 hours prior to the performance or inducement of an abortion, to require the physician to perform an obstetric ultrasound examination 48 hours prior to the performance or inducement of an abortion, to modify the definition of medical emergency that applies to the law regulating abortion, and to eliminate medical necessity as a reason to perform an abortion without complying with the 48-hour notification requirements.

This bill, well. "Horrendous" or "inhumane" don't even begin to cover it. Here is the legislation, as edited and written by Rep. Ron Hood (R)--and co-sponsored by 34 of his republican colleagues. Strike-outs are where they eliminated parts of the current law and underline is their new addition.

Sec. 2317.56. (A) As used in this section:

(1) "Medical emergency" means a condition of a pregnant woman that, in the reasonable judgment of the physician who is attending the woman, ~~creates an immediate threat of serious risk to the life or physical health~~ so complicates the medical condition of the woman ~~from the continuation of~~ that the death of the woman would result from the failure to immediately terminate the pregnancy ~~necessitating the immediate performance or inducement of an abortion.~~

(2) "Medical necessity" means a medical condition of a pregnant woman that, in the reasonable judgment of the physician who is attending the woman, so complicates the pregnancy that it necessitates the immediate performance or inducement of an abortion.

~~(3)~~ "Probable gestational age of the embryo or fetus" means the gestational age that, in the judgment of a physician, is, with reasonable probability, the gestational age of the embryo or fetus at the time that the physician informs a pregnant woman pursuant to division (B)(1)(b) of this section.

(3) "Conflict of interest disclaimer" means a written statement divulging the gross income from the previous year of a physician who performs or induces an abortion or of a facility where an abortion is performed or induced, the percentage of that income that was obtained as fees for the performance of an abortion, and a statement concerning the monetary loss to the physician or facility that would result from the woman's decision to carry the woman's pregnancy to term.

(4) "Viable pregnancy" means a pregnancy in which a fetal sac is located inside the pregnant woman's uterus and fetal cardiac activity is present within the fetal sac.

Yes, you read all that right: "medical necessity" is no longer allowed (only death is a reason for an emergency abortion); a doctor must disclose how much they made/how much they'd make from the abortion (the fuck, really?)/how much not having an abortion would affect a clinic financially; this defines 'viable pregnancy' as one that has an in-utero embryo and any cardiac activity. Which is blatantly another bullshit "heartbeat" law.