Hosted by a sea urchin.
Question of the Day
What's for dinner? (Or: Whatever the next meal of the day is, in your part of the world.)
This Will Win Over All the Womenz
Good job, Republican strategists!
The highest-ranking Republican woman in Congress will deliver the party's official response to President Barack Obama's State of the Union Address on Tuesday.Ooh, fancy!
Washington Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, the chair of the Republican conference and a mother of three (her most recent child having been born late last year), has been tapped to deliver the high-profile speech.
...She'll be the first woman to deliver the Republican response to a Democratic president's State of the Union address since Maine Sen. Susan Collins co-delivered the 2000 response with then-Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn.
The GOP has turned toward women within the party to help improve a gender gap from which the party suffered during the 2012 presidential election, especially as some high-profile Republicans made uncouth remarks about abortion rights and rape.OMG. That is probably the greatest sentence that's ever been written.
Winter Sunset
The sunset is catching the icicles on the trees off our front porch just so, lighting them up in bright pinks and oranges. It's really lovely.
Munoz Case Update
[Content Note: War on agency; misogyny; disablism; end-of-life decisions]
Last week, I wrote about the case of Marlise Munoz, a Texas woman who is currently brain dead and being kept alive by a ventilator, against her stated wishes, because she is pregnant, and Texas law "prohibits withdrawing or withholding life-sustaining treatment from a pregnant patient, regardless of her wishes."
Yesterday, CNN reported that her family's attorneys revealed that the fetus her artificially-alive body is carrying is "distinctly abnormal."
"Even at this early stage, the lower extremities are deformed to the extent that the gender cannot be determined. The fetus suffers from hydrocephalus. It also appears that there are further abnormalities, including a possible heart problem, that cannot be specifically determined due to the immobile nature of Mrs. Munoz's deceased body.This information was disclosed ahead of a hearing scheduled for tomorrow, which may determine whether Marlise is removed from life support.
"Quite sadly, this information is not surprising due to the fact that the fetus, after being deprived of oxygen for an indeterminate length of time, is gestating within a dead and deteriorating body, as a horrified family looks on in absolute anguish, distress and sadness," attorneys Jessica Janicek and Heather King said in a statement.
I have a lot of feelings about this, but I want to quote Mikki Kendall (@karnythia) who tweeted the following last night, which is smart and succinct and also reflects my overarching reaction: "I'm...uncomfortable with these write ups out of Texas that frame the Munoz case as being about an abnormal fetus. Marlise Munoz should have been able to pass away in peace, because she's a person. Not because of potential disability for the fetus. Please note, I'm not upset that the family is trying every tactic they can think of, I just want to head off the resulting think pieces."
Yeah.
Your Progressive Pope, Part Wev in an Ongoing Series
[Content Note: Christian supremacy.]
La la la the pope is totes progressive:
In comments that will likely rile the more conservative wing of the church, Francis suggested that in engaging in that dialogue, Catholics shouldn't be arrogant in insisting that they alone possess the truth.Oh, fabulous. So that means the Pope is now pro-choice and pro-marriage equality, positions which allow people to follow their own equally valid principles on reproduction and family, irrespective of their personal choices on those topics? NO?! Huh.
"To (have a) dialogue means to believe that the 'other' has something worthwhile to say, and to entertain his or her point of view and perspective," Francis wrote. "Engaging in dialogue does not mean renouncing our own ideas and traditions, but the pretense that they alone are valid and absolute."
The Vatican scramble-spinner was quick to clarify that the Pope was not "making an official policy statement on interreligious dialogue, noting that the message was merely a reflection, 'not a conciliar or dogmatic text'."
Welp, at least he's getting all kinds of neat credit (again) for "riling conservatives," for basically just saying that other people's beliefs aren't total garbage.
The Pope also had a few words about the internet:
Francis said the Internet offers "immense possibilities" to encounter people from different cultural and traditional backgrounds and show solidarity with them.First of all, everyone knows that the internet is not a gift from God; it's a gift from Al Gore.
"This is something truly good, a gift from God," he wrote. But he warned: "The desire for digital connectivity can have the effect of isolating us from our neighbors, from those closest to us."
Secondly, you know how I feel about the whole "the internet disconnects us" meme. Which is that it's a bullshit universal assertion. Also: The fact that people with marginalized beliefs in predominantly Christian countries—whether atheism, agnosticism, or religions other than Christianity—often connect and organize online specifically in response to Christian supremacy (and, in some cases, the very real threat of harm by Christian supremacists) is maybe something that should register with a Christian religious leader who purports to care about not overwhelming people with his denominations' beliefs.
He called for communications in the digital era to be like "a balm which relieves pain and a fine wine which gladdens hearts" and for the church's message to not be one of bombarding others with Christian dogma.Ha ha that's funny because usually after dealing with a bunch of conservative Catholic harassers on the internet, I use fine wine as a balm to relieve the pain.
Just kidding. I use cheap wine.
An Observation
Sarcasm may be* the lowest form of wit, but sometimes it is also the only appropriate response. Like when responding to anything that comes out of Mike Huckabee's mouth-hole.
-------------
* I'm reasonably certain Oscar Wilde would not have made this particular observation if he'd been alive to see Tosh.0.
That Sound You Hear Is My Mirthless Laughter Reverberating Throughout the Multiverse
[Content Note: Misogyny; war on agency.]
Are you shitting me? You are shitting me:
Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee (R) said Thursday that Republicans need to take a more combative attitude toward winning the votes of women, by emphasizing that women aren't weaklings in need of help from the government.HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!
"I think it's time Republicans no longer accept listening to the Democrats talk about a 'war on women,'" Huckabee said during a speech at the Republican National Committee's winter meeting in Washington. "The fact is the Republicans don't have a war on women, they have a war for women, to empower them to be something other than victims of their gender."
Huckabee said Democrats rely on women believing they are weaker than men and in need of government handouts, including the contraception mandate in Obamacare.
Huckabee said Democrats tell women "they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing them for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of government."
Yes, Mr. Huckabee, please do tell how you're going to empower me to be something other than the victim of my gender. (!!!) (Also: !!!) (Also: Please do not confuse my being a "victim of my gender" with my being "marginalized by misogynist heapshits because of my gender.") (Also: FUCK OFF.) By denying my agency? By usurping my bodily autonomy? By expressing contempt for my right to consent? By policing my sexuality? By instituting policies that treat me like I'm a fucking stupid piece of shit who can't understand there's A BAYBEE INSIDE ME unless I look at it on an ultrasound I don't want or need?
Tell me more about your war for women. It sounds TERRIFIC.
Daily Dose of Cute
"Yes, Two-Legs. Scratch that ear right there."
As always, please feel welcome and encouraged to share pix of the fuzzy, feathered, or scaled members of your family in comments.
This is, apparently, a real thing in the world.
David Joachim: "Hillary Rodham Clinton, as you've never seen her, on the cover of this Sunday's NYT Magazine."
And later: "Nope. No joke. That's the cover."
Welp.
[H/T to Jordan.]
In the News
Here is some stuff in the news today!
[Content Note: Sexual violence] President Obama has announced the creation of a task force "intended to help educational institutions prevent and respond to sexual violence as well as beef up the ability of federal agencies to hold schools accountable if they aren't addressing problems." Good.
[CN: War on agency] A federal appeals court has "reinstated a portion of a 2011 New York City law that regulates Crisis Pregnancy Centers, known as CPCs or fake clinics. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruling means that CPCs operating in New York City must now disclose whether or not a licensed medical professional works on-site at the facility. To comply with the law, CPCs must post the disclosure in English and Spanish at their entrances and in their waiting rooms. Disclosures must also appear on advertisements and be made orally, either in-person to potential clients or during telephone conversations with potential clients." Good.
[CN: Fire; death] Following a huge fire at a senior housing complex in Quebec, at least three people are dead and as many as 30 more are still missing. My condolences and sympathy to everyone involved, from the residents to survivors of the deceased to the staff to the first responders. What a terrible situation. There is hope that many of the missing, some of whom had Alzheimer's, may be found alive.
[CN: Homophobia] Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring "says the state's gay marriage ban is unconstitutional and he won't be defending it in court."
[CN: Class warfare] Pew Research has found that "most Republicans think rich people are largely responsible for their socioeconomic status. They also feel the same way about poor people. Fifty-seven percent of GOP voters said that a person is rich because 'he or she worked harder than others,' while just 32 percent attribute it to advantages they enjoyed. The results are almost completely flipped among Democrats." Fucking hell.
Actual Headline: "Can Anyone Stop Hillary? Absolutely." Actual subhead: "The former secretary of state may still be the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, but she hasn't done much to help her cause lately." Actual lede: "Time magazine's cover this week asks, 'Can Anyone Stop Hillary?' The answer to that question is yes, but you'd never know it judging by the overwhelming belief among Democratic insiders that the party's 2016 presidential nomination is simply Hillary Clinton's for the asking. For all her popularity among party power brokers, the sense of invincibility that currently surrounds Clinton reflects a kind of suspension of disbelief by Democrats that a more detached reckoning should dispel." We're just recycling articles from 2007 at this point.
Wowowowow: "An exploding star has been spotted in the night sky—the closest supernova to Earth that has been seen in decades. The dramatic event happened 12 million light years away in Messier 82—known as the cigar galaxy for its shape. It was discovered by undergraduates during a telescope class at the University of London Observatory. 'One minute we're eating pizza then five minutes later we've helped to discover a supernova. I couldn't believe it,' said student Tom Wright." Neat!
The Captain and Tennille are getting divorced, and everyone is so sad for them that they're making "Love Will Keep Us Together" jokes. No jokes here. I wish them both well.
Carrie Fisher has confirmed she will appear in Star Wars: Episode 7. Are you excited? Y/N?
Feminism 101: Helpful Hints for Dudes, Part 9
Following is a primer for men who are genuinely interested in learning about how to be a more feminist-friendly dude. Most of the information in this piece is, as always, generally applicable in terms of being decent to the people around you, but this has been written to be most accessible for men in keeping with the objective of the series, which is responding to commonly emailed questions from privileged men (here, generally meaning straight cis men) seeking advice on how to interact with the women in their lives.
[Content Note: Misogyny.]
The thing about living in a patriarchal culture that privileges "traditional" masculinity and polices men who don't conform to its prescriptions is that it severely limits men's acceptable spectrum of expression. To visibly like or enjoy anything that is coded feminine is to make oneself vulnerable to potential retribution from the enforcers of the patriarchy, which might be one's own father, or brothers, or friends, or boss.
One of the ways that many straight/bi men partnered with women find to safely explore feminine-coded things that bring them pleasure is through the safety of a different-sex partnership, within the boundaries of which one can attribute, say, watching Real Housewives or attending a fancy cooking class or shopping for home interiors to the desires of one's female partner.
It can be easier for female-partnered cis men to say, "I'm just going along with this because I love her," than to admit something coded feminine is actually their own preference.
Especially since being the guy who indulges his female partner's preferences tends to get you lots of cookies from women.
And, you know, all of that is okay, when it's done out of a real need for self-preservation and following an honest conversation with your partner about this issue where her consent and understanding is sought. Most of us, at one time or another, have to be a little circumspect about ourselves to maintain our safety, to avoid physical or emotional harm, professional retribution, and/or ostracization.
But it gets messy, and harmful, when the reattribution of one's own preferences segues into a reliance on misogynist narratives. It's very easy to slide from "I watch So You Think You Can Dance with my wife because she loves it" to "I watch So You Think You Can Dance with my wife because YOU KNOW HOW WOMEN ARE." Wink wink nudge nudge. Bitches, amirite?
I'm doing this with her is one thing. I'm doing this because she's making me is quite another.
The latter invokes ancient misogynist narratives about women being nags, harpies, selfish ballbusters. They are narratives so ubiquitous and persistent that it's incredibly easy to greet some dude harassment about liking a "girl thing" by blaming one's female partner.
At that point, you're no longer just using your partner for cover. You're throwing her under the Patriarchy Express.
Ideally, if you like something that's coded feminine, you will just like it, without apology, because fuck the patriarchy. But facing a real threat of harm (and, by the way, potential embarrassment is not a real threat of harm), using your partner as cover, with her consent, is an understandable survival mechanism.
What's not understandable is blaming her. (Even and especially when she's not there.) What's not acceptable is relying on misogynist tropes, thus entrenching misogyny in some futile attempt to avoid misogynist bullying.
It's self-defeating. But, even more than that, it's a shitty way to pay back the person who makes space for you to safely be your whole you.
Don't be that guy.
The Anti-Choice Position Is Inherently Violent
[Content Note: War on agency; sexual violence; description of a perineum tear.]
This is a perfect example of why I say, over and over, that the anti-choice position is inherently violent:
"When a woman is raped, that's a horrible injustice against her," Live Action president Lila Rose told [CNN Crossfire] co-host Sally Kohn. "The rapist should be held to the fullest extent of the law, liable for that, culpable for that. The woman needs healing and the support of her community. But an abortion doesn't unrape a woman. An abortion just adds more violence on top of that first she endured."This is Lila Rose's shtick, and she's been peddling this despicable filth for years.
...Kohn said, "You are saying, in effect, that the rapist should have more rights than the woman."
"Absolutely not," Rose insisted. "The rapist isn't allowed to kill anybody."
Because Rose frames her argument as "not getting an abortion," she elides the realities of pregnancy. As I've said before (and will almost certainly have occasion to say many times again, until everyone is yawning about what a goddamn broken record I am), if anyone not seeking cover under the auspices of a "difference of opinion on abortion" suggested that I should be forced to submit my body against my will to nine months of potential discomfort and pain, followed by an act that might include the skin and muscle between my vagina and anus being torn open, I don't think we'd mince words about whether they were using violent rhetoric.
And yet all Rose and her cohorts talk about is the supposed "violence" done to a fetus during an abortion. There is no discussion of the actual violence of forced pregnancy and birth.
Rose casually asserts that "abortion doesn't unrape a woman," which is correct. It does not. But what also does not "unrape" a pregnant person is further hostility to hir consent.
I'm (still) hard-pressed to see why I should be any less contemptuous of someone who seeks to legislate control of my body without my consent than I should be of the man who used physical force to make decisions about my body without my consent.
The anti-choice position is inherently violent. Their assertion that the pro-choice position is violence is nothing but sheer projection.
The Worst
[Content Note: Homophobia.]
[Image via Freedom Indiana.]
Last night, after Republican Indiana House Speaker Brian Bosma relocated HJR-3, legislation seeking to codify discrimination against same-sex couples into the state constitution, to a committee committed to passing it, it passed out of committee, despite protests from constituents.
Now that the House Committee on Elections and Apportionment (sure) has passed HJR-3, it goes to the Republican-controlled House for a full floor vote, which could happen any day now.
If it passes the floor vote, it will put a constitutional amendment to codify discrimination into the state constitution up for a vote on November's ballot. Although the majority of Hoosiers don't support this measure, there is a lot of time for outside organizations to pour money into the state to be used on misinformation campaigns. And Indiana's ballot is sort of famously confusing. Plus, we have a voter ID law here.
So, if you're in Indiana, please take a moment to use this easy form to contact your state representatives and let them know you oppose HJR-3. If you're not in Indiana, but you'd like to and can afford to help, you can donate to Freedom Indiana here.
Question of the Day
Suggested by Shaker flyby: "What scene or moment from media (film, TV, book, game...) have you recently found profound or affecting, and why?"
Tweet of the Day
[Content Note: Homophobia; cancer.]
The latest hearing on Indiana's HJR-3, which seeks to codify discrimination against same-sex couples into the state constitution, is taking place right now. Again, pro-equality advocates have packed the place, including Carol Trexler, a woman with cancer who followed chemotherapy treatment with testimony at the state house, to talk about how her wife cannot make decisions or pick up her medical records and cannot take medical leave because their marriage is not legally recognized.
I have never been so angry at our goddamn shitty state Republicans as I am right now. I am rage-crying at my desk.
Seriously, anyone who honestly believes their marriage will be undermined by making the institution inclusive of same-sex couples should maybe consider building their marriage on a foundation more solid than rank, rickety bigotry. My marriage is built on a foundation of love, and love ain't threatened by more love.
(For the record, it ain't threatened by marriages of convenience, either.)
But of course virtually no one actually believes marriage equality will undermine different-sex marriages. That's just a thin rhetorical veneer used to mask the vile bigotry of privileged assholes who are ashamed of, but not decent enough to acknowledge, the desperate insecurity about their super-special relationships losing the shimmering, golden glow that only denying equality to same-sex couples conveys upon their gloriously gilded unions.
Marriage is ours, dammit! That's what this garbage is really about. Greed. Prejudice is stingy, because privilege is a zero-sum game.
[Via @NaptownNat, whose coverage of this hearing at the other end of my state has been indispensable, and I am so grateful for her work.]
Simmons' Apology by the Numbers
[Content Note: Transphobia; cis-centrism; hostility to consent. Background: Part One; Part Two; Part Three.]
In my post about Grantland editor Bill Simmons' "apology" for Caleb Hannan's reprehensible article about Dr. V, I noted:
If there's a single observation that can encapsulate what's wrong with Simmons' piece, perhaps it is this: Twice—twice—he says he regrets that Grantland's editorial team failed the writer, Caleb Hannan. "For us, 31-year-old Caleb Hannan had (and has) a chance to be one of those writers. That's why it hurts so much that we failed him." and "As for Caleb, I continue to be disappointed that we failed him." In 2,700 words, Simmons find space to say twice that he is upset by having failed his writer, but cannot find space to express even once his regret at having failed Dr. V.In the post by Aoifeschatology I linked as recommended reading, Aoife noted:
Sorry, as an expressive term of direct remorse, happens only once. To Caleb Hannan, the author of the piece that initiated all of this posthumous reconsideration.Today, over at Skepchick, Heina runs the numbers:
Uses of the Word "Mistake:" 15There's much more at the link.
Uses of the Word "Mistake" in Reference to Actions on the Part of Grantland Writers & Editors: 14
Uses of the Word "Mistake" in Reference to the Actions of the Outraged: 1
...Instances of "Apolog[y/ize]:" 3
Instances of "Sorry": 1
Instances of the Word "Sorry" Directed at Anyone But Caleb Hannan: 0
[H/T to Erica Barnett.]
North Carolina Grand Jury Declines to Indict Cop Who Killed Jonathan Ferrell
[Content Note: Racism; police brutality; guns; death.]
Jonathan Farrell is the 24-year-old black man who was fatally shot ten times by a white police officer after Ferrell crashed his car and sought help at a local residence. The officer, Randall Kerrick, was put on unpaid leave from the Charlotte-Mecklenburg force and charged with voluntary manslaughter. A grand jury was convened to consider the charge, and—despite the fact that, as the saying goes, a good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich—the grand jury declined to indict Kerrick, "instead asking prosecutors to submit a lesser charge."
"We the Grand Jury respectfully request that the district attorney submit a bill of indictment to a lesser-included or related offense," the jury's foreperson said in a hand-written note released by the clerk of court's office late in the afternoon.The Charlotte Observer calls it "a rare and unexpected move," which is the understatement of the year.
Steve Ward, a retired prosecutor who worked for 25 years under former District Attorney Peter Gilchrist, said he's never heard of a grand jury requesting a lesser charge.I can't even imagine what kind of bullshit was presented to the grand jury that they refused to indict on what is an eminently reasonable charge of voluntary manslaughter.
Grand juries meet in private. Attorneys on either side are not permitted to attend. In the Kerrick case, the evidence was presented by Charlotte-Mecklenburg police investigator Edwin Morales and Scott Williams of the State Bureau of Investigation.
The fact that the jury chose not to indict is extremely rare, Ward said. Of the thousands of cases his office sent to a grand jury every year, only a few came back without indictments, he said.
"I'm talking about less than 10 a year."
Here's where it stands now: "The defense claimed victory. The attorney general said his office planned to bring the charges against Kerrick before the grand jury again because some members of Tuesday's panel were missing. ...In Mecklenburg, Ward said, two grand juries are empaneled at a given time, and they serve on alternating weeks for six months. That means if prosecutors wanted a new grand jury to hear their case, it could happen as early as Monday."
I am beyond the fucking beyond.
My contempt for this alleged pursuit of justice so far is immeasurable.
[H/T to Shaker Lurkerina, in comments, who saw it at Global Grind.]
