[Explanations: lol your fat. pathetic anger bread. hey your gay. maybe a vestment.]
TFIF, Shakers!
Belly up to the bar,
and name your poison!
The Virtual Pub Is Open
[Explanations: lol your fat. pathetic anger bread. hey your gay. maybe a vestment.]
TFIF, Shakers!
Belly up to the bar,
and name your poison!
The Terrible Bargain We Have Regretfully Struck
I am republishing this piece because, damn, I know a lot of people who are feeling the weight of terrible bargains in their lives right now.
[Content Note: Misogyny; rape culture; bullying.]
Despite feminists' reputation, and contra my own individual reputation cultivated over five years of public opinion-making, I am not a man-hater.
If I played by misogynists' rules, specifically the one that dictates it only takes one woman doing one Mean or Duplicitous or Disrespectful or Unlawful or otherwise Bad Thing to justify hatred of all women, I would have plenty of justification for hating men, if I were inclined to do that sort of thing.
Most of my threatening hate mail comes from men. The most unrelentingly trouble-making trolls have always been men. I've been cat-called and cow-called from moving vehicles countless times, and subjected to other forms of street harassment, and sexually harassed at work, always by men. I have been sexually assaulted—if one includes rape, attempted rape, unsolicited touching of breasts, buttocks, and/or genitals, nonconsensual frottage on public transportation, and flashing—by dozens of people during my lifetime, some known to me, some strangers, all men.
But I don't hate men, because I play by different rules. In fact, there are men in this world whom I love quite a lot.
There are also individual men in this world I would say I probably hate, or something close, men who I hold in unfathomable contempt, but it is not because they are men.
No, I don't hate men.
It would, however, be fair to say that I don't easily trust them.
My mistrust is not, as one might expect, primarily a result of the violent acts done on my body, nor the vicious humiliations done to my dignity. It is, instead, born of the multitude of mundane betrayals that mark my every relationship with a man—the casual rape joke, the use of a female slur, the careless demonization of the feminine in everyday conversation, the accusations of overreaction, the eyerolling and exasperated sighs in response to polite requests to please not use misogynist epithets in my presence or to please use non-gendered language ("humankind").
There are the insidious assumptions guiding our interactions—the supposition that I will regard being exceptionalized as a compliment ("you're not like those other women"), and the presumption that I am an ally against certain kinds of women. Surely, we're all in agreement that Britney Spears is a dirty slut who deserves nothing but a steady stream of misogynist vitriol whenever her name is mentioned, right? Always the subtle pressure to abandon my principles to trash this woman or that woman, as if I'll never twig to the reality that there's always a justification for unleashing the misogyny, for hating a woman in ways reserved only for women. I am exhorted to join in the cruel revelry, and when I refuse, suddenly the target is on my back. And so it goes.
There are the jokes about women, about wives, about mothers, about raising daughters, about female bosses. They are told in my presence by men who are meant to care about me, just to get a rise out of me, as though I am meant to find funny a reminder of my second-class status. I am meant to ignore that this is a bullying tactic, that the men telling these jokes derive their amusement specifically from knowing they upset me, piss me off, hurt me. They tell them and I can laugh, and they can thus feel superior, or I can not laugh, and they can thus feel superior. Heads they win, tails I lose. I am used as a prop in an ongoing game of patriarchal posturing, and then I am meant to believe it is true when some of the men who enjoy this sport, in which I am their pawn, tell me, "I love you." I love you, my daughter. I love you, my niece. I love you, my friend. I am meant to trust these words.
There are the occasions that men—intellectual men, clever men, engaged men—insist on playing devil's advocate, desirous of a debate on some aspect of feminist theory or reproductive rights or some other subject generally filed under the heading: Women's Issues. These intellectual, clever, engaged men want to endlessly probe my argument for weaknesses, want to wrestle over details, want to argue just for fun—and they wonder, these intellectual, clever, engaged men, why my voice keeps raising and why my face is flushed and why, after an hour of fighting my corner, hot tears burn the corners of my eyes. Why do you have to take this stuff so personally? ask the intellectual, clever, and engaged men, who have never considered that the content of the abstract exercise that's so much fun for them is the stuff of my life.
There is the perplexity at my fury that my life experience is not considered more relevant than the opinionated pronouncements of men who make a pastime of informal observation, like womanhood is an exotic locale which provides magnificent fodder for the amateur ethnographer. And there is the haughty dismissal of my assertion that being on the outside looking in doesn't make one more objective; it merely provides a different perspective.
There are the persistent, tiresome pronouncements of similitude between men's and women's experiences, the belligerent insistence that handsome men are objectified by women, too! that women pinch men's butts sometimes, too! that men are expected to look a certain way at work, too! that women rape, too! and other equivalencies that conveniently and stupidly ignore institutional inequities that mean X rarely equals Y. And there are the long-suffering groans that meet any attempt to contextualize sexism and refute the idea that such indignities, though grim they all may be, are not necessarily equally oppressive.
There are the stereotypes—oh, the abundant stereotypes!—about women, not me, of course, but other women, those women with their bad driving and their relentless shopping habits and their PMS and their disgusting vanity and their inability to stop talking and their disinterest in Important Things and their trying to trap men and their getting pregnant on purpose and their false rape accusations and their being bitches sluts whores cunts... And I am expected to nod in agreement, and I am nudged and admonished to agree. I am expected to say these things are not true of me, but are true of women (am I seceding from the union?); I am expected to put my stamp of token approval on the stereotypes. Yes, it's true. Between you and me, it's all true. That's what is wanted from me. Abdication of my principles and pride, in service to a patriarchal system that will only use my collusion to further subjugate me. This is a thing that is asked of me by men who purport to care for me.
There is the unwillingness to listen, a ferociously stubborn not getting it on so many things, so many important things. And the obdurate refusal to believe, to internalize, that my outrage is not manufactured and my injure not make-believe—an inflexible rejection of the possibility that my pain is authentic, in favor of the consolatory belief that I am angry because I'm a feminist (rather than the truth: that I'm a feminist because I'm angry).
And there is the denial about engaging in misogyny, even when it's evident, even when it's pointed out gently, softly, indulgently, carefully, with goodwill and the presumption that it was not intentional. There is the firm, fixed, unyielding denial—because it is better and easier to imply that I'm stupid or crazy, that I have imagined being insulted by someone about whom I care (just for the fun of it!), than it is to just admit a bloody mistake. Rather I am implied to be a hysteric than to say, simply, I'm sorry.
Not every man does all of these things, or even most of them, and certainly not all the time. But it only takes one, randomly and occasionally, exploding in a shower of cartoon stars like an unexpected punch in the nose, to send me staggering sideways, wondering what just happened.
Well. I certainly didn't see that coming...
These things, they are not the habits of deliberately, connivingly cruel men. They are, in fact, the habits of the men in this world I love quite a lot.
All of whom have given me reason to mistrust them, to use my distrust as a self-protection mechanism, as an essential tool to get through every day, because I never know when I might next get knocked off-kilter with something that puts me in the position, once again, of choosing between my dignity and the serenity of our relationship.
Swallow shit, or ruin the entire afternoon?
It can come out of nowhere, and usually does. Which leaves me mistrustful by both necessity and design. Not fearful; just resigned—and on my guard. More vulnerability than that allows for the possibility of wounds that do not heal. Wounds to our relationship, the sort of irreparable damage that leaves one unable to look in the eye someone that you loved once upon a time.
This, then, is the terrible bargain we have regretfully struck: Men are allowed the easy comfort of their unexamined privilege, but my regard will always be shot through with a steely, anxious bolt of caution.
A shitty bargain all around, really. But there it is.
There are men who will read this post and think, huffily, dismissively, that a person of color could write a post very much like this one about white people, about me. That's absolutely right. So could a lesbian, a gay man, a bisexual, an asexual. So could a trans or intersex person (which hardly makes a comprehensive list). I'm okay with that. I don't feel hated. I feel mistrusted—and I understand it; I respect it. It means, for me, I must be vigilant, must make myself trustworthy. Every day.
I hope those men will hear me when I say, again, I do not hate you. I mistrust you. You can tell yourselves that's a problem with me, some inherent flaw, some evidence that I am fucked up and broken and weird; you can choose to believe that the women in your lives are nothing like me.
Or you can be vigilant, can make yourselves trustworthy. Every day.
Just in case they're more like me than you think.
[This post was originally published August 14, 2009.]
Photo of the Day
From the Telegraph's Pictures of the Day for 17 October 2013: An eleven-day-old newborn giraffe calf stands beside his mother named Mimi in their enclosure at Himeji Central Park in Himeji, Japan. [Buddhika Weerasinghe/Getty Images]Adorbz.
Quote of the Day
[Content Note: Drones.]
"While the fact that civilians have been killed or injured does not necessarily point to a violation of international humanitarian law, it undoubtedly raises issues of accountability and transparency." — Ben Emmerson QC, the United Nations' special rapporteur on human rights and counter-terrorism, in a report examining 33 drone strikes, in Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Pakistan, and Gaza, which "have resulted in civilian casualties and may have violated international humanitarian law."
Emmerson criticises the CIA's involvement in US drone strikes for creating "an almost insurmountable obstacle to transparency". He adds: "One consequence is that the United States has to date failed to reveal its own data on the level of civilian casualties inflicted through the use of remotely piloted aircraft in classified operations conducted in Pakistan and elsewhere."Yes. Not that the US government will listen.
...The special rapporteur concludes by urging: "the United States to further clarify its position on the legal and factual issues … to declassify, to the maximum extent possible, information relevant to its lethal extraterritorial counter-terrorism operations; and to release its own data on the level of civilian casualties inflicted through the use of remotely piloted aircraft, together with information on the evaluation methodology used."
Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime
Hill Street Blues
This week's TMNS brought to you by television theme songs I love.
The Friday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by coupons.
Recommended Reading:
David: [Content Note: Sexual violence; victim-blaming; rape apologia] Fox News 'Expert' Blames Missouri Teen: 'I'm Not Saying She Deserved to Be Raped But...'
Fannie: [CN: Misogyny; threats; harassment] ABC Story on MRA Aggression Sparks MRA Bias in Comments
Jamilah: [CN: Slavery; racism; violence] Chiwetel Ejiofor Talks 12 Years a Slave
Libby Anne: [CN: Sexual violence; clergy abuse] Evangelicals Have a Child Sexual Abuse Problem, But Some of Them Don't Want to Admit That
Noelle: [CN: Harassment; objectification] Female Cosplayers Share Their Creeper Stories Through Photos
Robert: A Stunning View of Saturn
And finally: If you love Scandal, you should definitely be reading Trudy's writing about Scandal, because it is brilliant. [Spoilers] Here is her latest about last night's episode, and you can find her entire Scandal archive here.
Leave your links and recommendations in comments...
This is a real thing in the world.
Charles Krauthammer is a conservative pundit who writes for a column for the Washington Post, and, if you're not familiar with his work, today's execrable column [content note: racism] is a pretty terrific example of the magnitude of his aggressive indecency.
Anyway. He has a new book coming out next week! And it is called Things That Matter. THINGS! THAT! MATTER! Ahhhhhahahahaha! Can you even imagine writing a book called Things That Matter?! "This is a book that I have written, and I only write about Things That Matter, so." OMG!
The publisher describes it as "the long-awaited collection of Charles Krauthammer's essential, timeless writings," which is EVEN BETTER.
"Hi, I am an adult human being, and this is my book, Things That Matter, which is a collection of my essential and timeless writings." Just LOL FOREVER.
Maybe this isn't as funny if you haven't been reading for decades the noxious swill Krauthammer regularly disgorges into the pages of the Washington Post. Or if you're a person who can imagine writing a book, on any subject, no less a book just regurgitating your previously published garbage thoughts, and titling it Things That Matter.
I hope you will enjoy my forthcoming book, All the Important Things, and Nothing Else: These Are the Only Subjects That Matter, and Here Are All My Essential and Timeless Words About Them. With a foreword by Jesus Christ. In bookstores soon!
[H/T to my pal Norbizness.]
On the Telly
[Content Note: Misogyny.]
Last night, Iain and I saw a few adverts for different sitcoms we don't watch, and every single one of the clips contained a joke about how a straight man hated his female partner and/or was trying to avoid having to spend time with her.
I'm presuming that most of these sitcoms also feature the tiresome trope of the wife/girlfriend thinking her male partner is a stupid, crude, useless, embarrassing jackass, which is also garbage.
But one of the things that makes that particular trope so appalling is the fact that, despite finding their male partners to be stupid, crude, useless, embarrassing jackasses, these sitcom ladies still clearly love them dearly. I mean, who hasn't seen an episode of Everybody Loves the King of Home Improvement According to Mike O'Malley and not thought: "Why does she even care about this reprehensible heapshit?"
These terrible men are deeply loved.
Their female partners, on the other hand, are reviled. Even and especially by their own partners. The worst punishment in the world for a sitcom husband is to have to spend time with his sitcom wife.
As I've previously observed: It ain't women who are the primary gatekeepers of that bullshit. It's other men. About the last place on earth you'll find active feminists is in the executive offices of mainstream studios.
This is the Patriarchy played for laughs: Men are terrible, but deserving of love. Women are even worse, and deserve naught but seething hatred.
[Related Reading: Today in Backlash Broadcasting.]
Daily Dose of Cute
Happy Dog is happy.
As always, please feel welcome and encouraged to share pix of the fuzzy, feathered, or scaled members of your family in comments.
Futures Formidable and Vast
I dream of futures formidable and vast.
I dream of them when I am sleeping, and when I am wide awake. Behind each blink of my eyes is an audacious vision, urging me.
My dreams are vivid with abstract images of times and spaces where equality is not a promise but a fact.
In my dreams, we look each other in the eyes and hold each other's gazes without swallowing down fear. We want to know one another and want to be known. Because it is safe.
It turns out there is enough humanity for us all. Plenty to go around.
In my dreams, I do not fly. I float. I float in a cool sea of collective fulfillment. Here, cradled in the embrace of these sparkling, reverberant waves, I realize this true thing: Contentment is better than joy.
In my dreams, the world is full of girls who are more than the incandescently happy we're meant to regard as a finite goal. In my dreams, they are safe. In my dreams, they are valued. Because being safe and valued makes unhappiness survivable and happiness possible. Because both are parts of the complex humanity denied by defining happiness an objective.
In my dreams, the haunting feeling doesn't exist—I don't feel like I will never be enough of any of the things I am expected to be.
In my dreams, there are no more terrible bargains.
Even in my dreams, I expect more. Because I don't know how to expect anything else.
In the News
Here is some stuff in the news today!
Oregon's Chief Operating Officer and Director of Administrative Services Michael Jordan issued a memo to state agencies earlier this week directing them to recognize legal same-sex marriages performed in other states "for the purposes of administering state programs." Legal same-sex marriage is still not offered in Oregon itself, "although a lawsuit filed this week aims to overturn the constitutional amendment that bans such marriages."
[Content Note: Death; end-of-life decisions] This is a really amazing article about why US physicians generally make different end-of-life choices for themselves than their patients do.
There are definitely some questions that the administration needs to answer about the spending on the flawed technology that has compromised the Obamacare roll-out.
[CN: Classism] The Myth of Bootstraps: "A new report by the Southern Education Foundation reveals that for the first time in 40 years, a majority of public school students throughout the Southern and Western United States are low-income."
The International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organization, released research earlier this week revealing its finding that "outdoor air pollution has been definitively linked to cancer and is officially classified as a carcinogen."
A month after the flooding in Colorado, small towns are still struggling to recover, while the nation's attention has been turned to the fuckery in DC.
[CN: Sexual assault] A US federal air marshal "has been arrested and accused of taking cellphone photographs underneath women's skirts as they boarded a plane at Nashville International Airport." I have a special reservoir of sulfur-scented contempt for men tasked with protecting people who exploit and harm women.
Do you like Kristen Bell and/or Dax Shepard? Then maybe you will be interested in the news that they got married! I don't know much about either of them, but something something Veronica Mars and lots of ladies in my life swooning at the mere mention of Kristen Bell's name!
If you were hoping there would be a Calvin & Hobbes movie someday, too bad because there ain't gonna be one! So I am sorry, if you wanted that! I did not want that, even though I love Calvin & Hobbes very much, but I can see why someone might!
This video about Hope for Paws' rescue work in LA with homeless dogs made me blub my face off. In a good way!
Update: Police Attack First Nations Protestors in New Brunswick (UPDATED 5)
[Content Note: descriptions of violence against unarmed people, weapons, racism. Some of the links have images of burning cars and further confrontations between police and protestors.]
Note: There are further UPDATES at the bottom of the post and in comments.
Here are a few updates on the situation in Rexton. As reported yesterday, the RCMP showed up with dogs, snipers, armored vehicles, pepper spray and "bean bag" bullets to force a group of peaceful proetstors, First Nations peoples and their allies, to disperse. (Not surprisingly, the usual media suspects, such as the Washington Times --to which I will NOT link-- have shaped their narratives around the "violent" Mi'kmaq and other tribal protestors who set fire to police cars in response to this escalation, rather than on the decision to confront peaceful protestors/protectors with armed force.)
[Image description: a kneeling young woman holding an eagle feather aloft faces armed police. The top reads: "Protect Our Mother for Our Unborn Children." The bottom reads "Stop Fracking. Stop Drilling." Image credit: designed by Gregg Deal (@the_lame_sauce) from a photograph taken yesterday by Ossie Michelin (@Osmich).]
As of last night, as reported on the news and confirmed by Shaker CharleyPete (Mad Capper on Twitter @Spacklegeek), most of the police left around 7PM ADT, after arresting around 40 protestors, including Chief Arron Sock of Elsipogtog.
John Levi, a First Nations chief on the scene, had earlier spoken to RCMP officers — trying to reach an agreement on ending the standoff.It is not known what was said but, at the end of the conversation some 40 officers, who were wearing shields and helmets, left. About a dozen remained.
Levi later said that First Nations may have "lost the battle" referring to the fact that SWN Resources, the company at the centre of the conflict, has not agreed to stop shale gas seismic testing, as the protesters demand.
But "we have not lost the war," he added.
There have been solidarity rallies across Canada. According to the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, more are planned for today. According to the Twitter feeds I'm watching (see below), there are many supporters showing up at the courthouse in Moncton this A.M. to provide solidarity for those arrested yesterday.
I don't have a great deal of commentary to add, only that I notice this: as this makes its way into international news, there's often an incomplete background given to these actions (and I don't just mean an ignorance of the larger history of treaty rights and land use in Canada, although there's that as well).
In regards to the specific situation at Rexton: Native Peoples and their allies did not just show up yesterday to clash with police. Nor has this only been a concern for the last few weeks as protestors/protectors have actively blocked the USian company from the contested Crown land. It stretches back beyond this summer's protests as well. As should be clear from the more complete news coverage, tribal leaders have been working for two years to engage NB Premier David Alward about the shale testing and proposed fracking:
In a news release, [Chief Gabriel] Atwin said the Assembly of First Nations in New Brunswick "strongly condemns the acts of aggression that have taken place today within the Mi'kmaq traditional territory near Elsipogtog. We urge all sides not to resort of violence as history has proven these tactics are not productive."Atwin noted, however, that for the past two years, First Nations in New Brunswick have tried to work within the confines of "a restrictive, compartmentalized consultation process" when it comes to seismic testing in the province.
He said the whole process is "completely unworkable because it runs counter to our customs and traditions."
In the same release Assembly Co-chair Chief George Ginnish said the consultation process should include "conversation on potential impacts to our constitutionally protected rights, and provide options to mitigate these dangers."
Ginnish has called on "an immediate end to the violence by all involved, to restart the process taking into account all perspectives in New Brunswick and the inalienable rights of aboriginals."
So yeah, there's that.
As mentioned yesterday, @IdleNoMore4 and @APTNNews have Twitter feeds with frequent updates on this situation. There are many individual news feeds that I've been watching; I especially recommend Savvy Simon (@MsNativeWarrior) and Mikmaq Mama (@MikmaqMama). There have also been good updates from stimulator (@stimulator).
This news is developing; if I can, I'll update during the day. Please feel free to leave your own links and updates in comments below. As ever, please respect that this is a safe space, and use content notes where appropriate.
UPDATE: Idle No more has a list of solidarity protests here. If you know of more, you may add them at the page. Also, APTNNews is reporting that Chief Arron Sock with meet with Premier David Alward this afternoon. I've also been posting some updates from inside the courtroom this morning, courtesy stimulator, in the comments below. I really appreciate and love this picture from the same feed, of Mi'kmaq Warriors Suzanne Patles and Hailey, taken outside the courtroom.
UPDATE 2: Former Chief Susan Levi Peters is quoted as saying: "It's Oka all over again." Yiiikes.
UPDATE 3: CBC is reporting that some protestors/protectors may be held in jail through the weekend. Also, SWN is seeking an indefinite injunction against anyone interfering with their shale exploration. Mmmm-hmmm.
Also, the NB energy minister says that negotiations were breaking down before the RCMP's action, the government tried to be reasonable, chiefs were unavailabe (WHUT), RCMP ensuring safety (sure) blah blah fart.
Meanwhile, the premier says "I'M A RACIST DOUCHEBAG":
Premier David Alward said Friday that "yesterday was a very concerning day." "Our communities are based on and built on the laws of the land," he said. "What took place yesterday touches every New Brunswicker and the violence that we witnesses. "Clearly, there are those who do not have the same values we share as New Brunswickers."Alward said he was not consulted on the RCMP's decision to take action against the protesters.
"What became clear to the RCMP is that encampment that was in Kent County was dangerous," he said. "It provided significant security issues for the people of New Brunswick."
Newsflash, asshat: most of the people at the site are New Brunswickers. They're concerned about "significant security issues" for New Brunswickers too. But in case we needed any more confirmation that you don't give a shit about First Nations people in New Brunswick or their non-Native allies, well, THERE WE GO.
UPDATE 4 [CN: descriptions of violent action]Halifax Media Co-Op reporter David Miles ETA: Miles Howe has a narrative up about what happened yesterday, including his arrest and the gradual decrease of charges against him before his eventual release. Sounds like somebody got worried that arresting a journalist might produce some bad publicity. he is certainly being quite blunt in his account, which makes it crystal clear who started the violence:
Again, one must wonder at the RCMP's pre-sunrise, decidedly violent, means of attempting to enforce an injunction against blocking SWN's equipment. Again, one must reiterate that neither members or the Mi'kmaq Warrior Society or anyone else was anywhere near the newly-unblocked compound gate. Nor were they at all capable of reforming any blockade style formation.Again, it must be reiterated that Lorraine Clair's van the main impediment to accessing the equipment had been removed the night before.
Instead, with guns drawn, the RCMP appeared intent on provoking a violent climax on the near three-week blockade.
I say in no uncertain terms that it is miraculous that no one was seriously injured yesterday, indeed killed. The RCMP arrived with pistols drawn, dogs snapping, assault rifles trained on various targets, and bus loads of RCMP waiting from across the province and beyond.
I also note with contempt that the very night before the RCMP had brought a gift of tobacco to signal peaceful intent in their negotiations, making the attack an even greater betrayal of good faith.
[CN: more extensive descriptions of violence]An interview with Susan Levi-Peters, former Elsipogtog chief, is up at Last Real Indians. In it, she explains that the camp which the RCMP raided was largely unarmed. Further, the Elsipogtog blockaders had announced their intentions to provide a rebuttal to the injunction on Oct 17, a rebuttal which was silenced by the raid, while the current Chief had issued a press release emphasizing continued talks with the NB government.
That resolution was not to be had. Instead, 200 RCMP in paramilitary tactical gear with assault rifles were in formation early yesterday morning, snipers flanked the perimeters, canines were eager to attack at their masters command, yelling filled the air, Armored Personnel Carriers (like those at Wounded Knee 1973) roamed about, the debilitating sting of tear gas was near, a grandmother was shot in the face with a rubber bullet (the same kind that killed an Occupy Oakland protester in 2011), more were shot, more were beaten, including an attorney for the Mik’mak, more were tazed, including an elderly woman who was praying with a rosary, more were tear-gassed and pepper-sprayed, more were arrested, 40 in all including current Elsipogtog Chief Aaron Sock and some 4 members of the Council, most of which appear before a judge today (Friday, October 18). The RCMP attacked a peaceful camp that did not include the Mi’kMak warrior society’s main camp which was located opposite of the peaceful camp. Everyone in the blockade camp was unarmed, mostly women, children, and elders praying, drumming, smudging and letting their voice be heard as the RCMP shot, tazed, and tear-gassed people the peaceful demonstrators were pushed further back toward a line of RCMP vehicles which were set ablaze in response to the RCMP attacks; “at this point I was very concerned for our safety as the cars were prone to explosion” said Susan Levi Peters.
Good Morning! Or Whatever!
Would you like to read a story about how the Republican Party is imploding? And a story about how the Republicans will have to pursue strategies that will make the Tea Partiers even angrier and more inclined to implode the party? They are very fun to read!
Molly Ball: The Conservative War on the GOP.
Brian Beutler: The GOP's Huge Tea Party Mess Has Only Just Begun.
I don't think the Republican Party is actually going to implode anytime soon (unfortunately). But I am happy to see Republicans sweat it out. They have made millions of people in this country desperate and frightened and insecure and wracked with anxiety about their futures. I can't say I'm sorry to see the GOP experience a taste of their own garbage porridge.
Question of the Day
Originally posted by Paul the Spud in May 2008: What movie(s) changed your life?
His answer at that old link is really cool, btw.
Discussion Thread: Played-Out Film Genres
So, I recently watched The Perks of Being a Wallflower, because approximately eleventy trillion people had told me I had to watch it, and/or read the book on which it's based, because The Smiths! and Bowie! and Rocky Horror! Which are indeed all things I love, but I did not love that movie. There are a lot of problems with it, which I'm not going to detail, because they're (sorta) beside the point (of this post). Because the main reason I hated it was that I HAVE ALREADY SEEN PLENTY OF COMING-OF-AGE MOVIES ABOUT PRIVILEGED WHITE AMERICAN BOYS. And the broken girls who save them. And the terrible adult ladies who ruin them. And the awesome male English teachers who know they will be brilliant novelists someday.
Enough! This genre is officially played out! US Film Industry: Please cease and desist!
Anyway. I was thinking about how there are at least two dozen different film genres that fit the definition of "formulaic shit I never want to see again," and I bet I'm not alone, so here is a thread to discuss all of them! Go!
[Note: Please take care to use content notes and spoiler warnings as necessary.]
Welp.
[Content Note: Fat-shaming; body policing; bullying.]
This is definitely one of those articles about which, if I weren't on tour with the Twitching Digits, I would totally be writing a 2,000-word screed riddled with profanity. But I'll just quickly make two observations and then turn it over to you in comments for the shredding it deserves.
1. I'm particularly struck by the framing of the article—which is that it's people who react to the image who are the "bullies," but not the person who says "what's your excuse for not looking like me," as if every person is obliged to look like her and capable of doing so. (I'm sure there are people who actually did say nasty, indefensible things, but the framing here is that it's only dissenters, even those who took issue in good faith, who are "bullies.") Not everyone has the ability to look like her; not everyone has the desire to look like her; and no one is required to look like her. The implicit expectation that every fat person should have "an excuse" for not looking like her is hateful, eliminationist garbage. And if eliminationism doesn't count as "bullying," the word has lost all meaning.
2. I also love how it's just supposed to be taken as read that "I don't give a fuck, that's why" is definitely not considered a legit excuse for not looking like X. Which underlines how body policing and fat shaming is not really at all about the health (and certainly not the mental health) of the person being hated, but about the aesthetic preferences of the people doing the hating.
You Should Stop Telling Me To "Love My Body"
[Content note: Body talk, trans* issues]
Yesterday was the National Organization for Women's 16th annual Love Your Body Day.
Here's how NOW explains the day's purpose:
Every day, in so many ways, the beauty industry (and the media in general) tell women and girls that being admired, envied and desired based on their looks is a primary function of true womanhood. The beauty template women are expected to follow is extremely narrow, unrealistic and frequently hazardous to their health. The Love Your Body campaign challenges the message that a woman's value is best measured through her willingness and ability to embody current beauty standards.Right on.
1) Popular culture is saturated with some horribly misogynist (and racist, ableist, homophobic, fat-hating, trans* phobic et al.,) messages about bodies and lives, particularly when it comes to women.
2) Nobody should feel obliged to listen to other people's critiques of their body. This includes multi-national corporations shilling crap just as it does random assholes on the street.
To me, this is all pretty straight-forward. Smash patriarchy, etc., etc.,
However, folks (and in particular, I'm looking at the cis folks out there) have to decouple "don't let other people tell you what to think about your body" from "I think your body is super." If the kyriarchy isn't allowed to talk shit about my body, it shouldn't be pushing any views on my body just to make itself feel better about itself.
My body, my perspective.
Mine.
I sense that this is probably counter-intuitive to a lot of people. However, while I can't speak for other trans* people, I'm sick and tired of other people telling me that I should be cool with my body.
When I came out, people asked me why I had to go and change my body, because all bodies are beautiful.
When I complain to people about having to shave my beard once (or more) a day, people point out that lots of women have lots of facial hair, as if this is somehow relevant to how I feel about my facial hair.
This isn't just idle chatter. Activists have argued that the medical treatments that I (and countless trans* people) seek amount to the mutilation of our beautiful bodies. I don't recall asking them for their thoughts on my body.
I (and I'm not alone in this) don't have access to necessary medical care because other people have decided that it's "cosmetic."
In the end, I don't see a whole lot of difference between people who object to my transsexuality because I'm going against the word of God and people who object to my transsexuality out of my need to not listen to what the wrong people say about my body.
Nobody should be forced to wear cosmetics.
Nobody should be forced to have reconstructive surgery.
Nobody should be forced to be feminine.
And yet, some people wear cosmetics, have various appearance-altering surgeries and/or are women. We're not sell outs to some bullshit ideal (if I only had a vagina for every time I heard that garbage), we're just being ourselves.
I'm happy that lots of other people love their bodies. It'd be awesome if everyone loved their body, but that's not a call I get to make.
So while I applaud NOW for fighting on this one particular front (even if it's one that corporate feminists have been fighting on seemingly forever), I don't want to answer anyone's bullshit questions about why I love my body. I don't want people to act as if I've never considered loving my body.
Shit, I try to tolerate my body. I'm a strong person, but every single day in this body is a struggle. I'm not throwing that out there to elicit pity (HEY LET'S ALL GET ON THE INTERNET AND FEEL BAD ABOUT OUR BODIES). I'm just pretty jarred that so many cis people think telling other folks to love their own bodies isn't extraordinarily hostile. I get that the idea probably never occurred to a lot of you, but that's the precisely the problem.
Crossposted from A Cunt of One's Own
[See also: People with disabilities, some of whom also have complicated relationships with their bodies. Please feel welcome to speak about your own lived experiences with "love your body" campaigns feeling hostile, taking care to use "I" language and to avoid engaging in Oppression Olympics.]
Quote of the Day
Someone looks hella tired of Republican shenanigans.
[It's] not a surprise that the American people are completely fed up with Washington. At a moment when our economic recovery demands more jobs, more momentum, we've got yet another self-inflicted crisis that set our economy back. And for what? There was no economic rationale for all of this. Over the past four years, our economy has been growing, our businesses have been creating jobs, and our deficits have been in half. We hear some members who pushed for the shutdown say they were doing it to save the American economy. But nothing has done more to undermine our economy these past three years than the kind of tactics that create these manufactured crises.—President Obama, during his address this morning on the budget deal to end the shutdown and avoid default.
...[T]here's no good reason why we can't govern responsibly, despite our differences, without lurching from manufactured crisis to manufactured crisis.
In fact, one of the things that I hope all of us have learned these past few weeks is that it turns out smart, effective government is important. It matters. I think the American people, during the shutdown, had a chance to get some idea of all the things large and small that government does that make a difference in people's lives.
And we hear all the time about how government is the problem. Well, it turns out we rely on it in a whole lot of ways. Not only does it keep us strong through our military and our law enforcement, it plays a vital role in caring for our seniors and our veterans, educating our kids, making sure our workers are trained for the jobs that are being created, arming our businesses with the best science and technology so they can compete with companies from other countries. It plays a key role in keeping our food and our toys and our workplaces safe. It helps folks rebuild after a storm. It conserves our natural resources. It finances start-ups. It helps to sell our products overseas. It provides security to our diplomats abroad.
So let's work together to make government work better instead of treating it like an enemy or purposely making it work worse. That's not what the founders of this nation envisioned when they gave us the gift of self-government. You don't like a particular policy or a particular president? Then argue for your position. Go out there and win an election. Push to change it. But don't break it. Don't break what our predecessors spent over two centuries building. That's not being faithful to what this country's about.
Video of the address is here. The full transcript is here.
Police Attack Mi'kmaq Protesters in New Brunswick (Updated 2)
[Content note: violence, racism. Some of the links contain photographs of oppression and/or violence, and all contain more graphic descriptions than I have written here.]
In a developing story, the RCMP took action against Mi'kmaq and allied protestors in Rexton, New Brunswick today. The protestors have, for weeks, been blocking access to the site in protest against the NB government bringing in a USian shale gas company to explore fracking possibilities. In addition to the environmental concerns about fracking, the provincial government has ignored calls to involve Indigenous Peoples in decisions relating to Crown land.
The police have used pepper spray and there are reports of shots being fired. At least four cars are reported to be on fire, and the police have arrested Chief Arren Sock and some of his councillors from the Elsipogtog Band.
The police have also closed the roads around the protest (Route 134 and Highway 11)in order to "ensure public safety." Yeah,I'm sure the Mi'kmaq being harassed and attacked by the police feel super-safe. Particularly when one of the RCMP officers is reported to have shouted "Crown land belongs to the government, not fucking Natives." Very, very safe. Sure.
APTN National News and Idle No More have up-to-the-minute updates on Twitter.
Hat tip to The Mad Capper on Twitter.
Please feel free to use the comments for a safe-space discussion, especially bearing in mind the usual cautions for photographs of violence.
UPDATE: [CN: photo of armed police]Police in riot gear and armored transport are reported to have arrived on the scene. h/t Stimulator.
UPDATE 2: On Twitter,@Msnativewarrior is reporting that the Chief and his council have been released. She also says that Global News will be broadcasting live from the site.
