Number of the Day

[Content Note: War; displacement.]

51.2 million: The number of refugees, asylum-seekers, and internally displaced people worldwide.

The UN refugee agency reported today on World Refugee Day that the number of refugees, asylum-seekers and internally displaced people worldwide has, for the first time in the post-World War II era, exceeded 50 million people.

UNHCR's annual Global Trends report, which is based on data compiled by governments and non-governmental partner organizations, and from the organization's own records, shows 51.2 million people were forcibly displaced at the end of 2013, fully 6 million more than the 45.2 million reported in 2012.

This massive increase was driven mainly by the war in Syria, which at the end of last year had forced 2.5 million people into becoming refugees and made 6.5 million internally displaced. Major new displacement was also seen in Africa – notably in Central African Republic and South Sudan.

"We are seeing here the immense costs of not ending wars, of failing to resolve or prevent conflict," said UN High Commissioner for Refugees António Guterres. "Peace is today dangerously in deficit. Humanitarians can help as a palliative, but political solutions are vitally needed. Without this, the alarming levels of conflict and the mass suffering that is reflected in these figures will continue."

...Internal displacement – people forced to flee to other parts of their country – amounted to a record 33.3 million people, accounting for the largest increase of any group in the Global Trends report. For UNHCR and other humanitarian actors, helping these people represents a special challenge as many are in conflict zones.
This number does not, of course, include people who were displaced, and continue to be displaced, as a result of colonialist land grabs.

I really appreciate Guterres' point that prevention of conflict is crucial. This, again, is one of the things I'm talking about when I grouse about how we don't have meaningful conversations about all the costs of war.

We talk about taxpayer dollars, and we don't talk about the human cost. Even when we hesitantly (and usually dishonestly) broach the subject at all, we talk about mitigating loss of life, but we never talk about how war pushes people out of their homes. Often forever.

Open Wide...

Rick Perry: Always Horrible

[Content Note: Homophobia; disablism.]

After conflating homosexuality with alcoholism and then doubling-down by talking about lifestyle choices and "reparative therapy," Republican Texas Governor Rick Perry is once again trying to "clarify" his comments:

"I got asked about an issue, and instead of saying, 'You know what, we need to be a really respectful and tolerant country, and get back to talking about, whether you're gay or straight you need to be having a job, and those are the focuses I want to be involved with,' instead of getting — which I did, I readily admit, I stepped right in it," he said.
I can only assume he means stepped in brontosaurus scat, because that's about the proximate contemporary to his position.

image of the GOP elephant logo redesigned by me as a brontosaurus, accompanied by text reading GOP 2016

Open Wide...

Mike Huckabee: Forever Terrible

[Content Note: Homophobia; Christian Supremacy.]

Former Arkansas governor, failed presidential candidate, and all-around garbage-making machine Mike Huckabee wants to run for president again in 2016. And, if his recent public appearances are any indication, he's fixing to run on a platform of NOBODY HATES THE GAYS AND ABORTION LADIES MORE THAN I DO. (ALSO BROWN PEOPLE!)

Mike Huckabee campaign banner I created, featuring a picture of Mike Huckabee with his jacket thrown over his shoulder and text reading: 'Mike Huckabee: He hates all the same shit you do!' with ticked boxes for: The gays, abortion ladies, swarthy types, and arugula.

Yesterday, his focus was hating on same-sex couples, because it was the one-year anniversary of a Supreme Court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage. Huckabee was the final speaker at a protest at the Capitol which brought out fully DOZENS of passionate straight people whose lives are definitely being totes destroyed by same-sex marriage.
"Judicial supremacy is a curse upon this great Republic," he told the crowd at the rally, organized in part by the National Organization for Marriage, calling the Supreme Court rulings the "greatest heresy of our time."
Sooooo he's protesting "judicial supremacy" at the Supreme Court. Okay. Next stop: Protesting taco supremacy at Taco Bell, home of the Taco Supreme.
He went on to argue that the president and Congress were not required to redefine what he deemed natural laws — including marriage — no matter what rulings "nine people in robes" might hand down from the bench.

"The government doesn't give us our rights," he said. "The government only has the responsibility to protect the rights God gave us."
This is laughable. It is wrong in every conceivable way. And while Huckabee yammers on like some kind of martyr about the "supremacy" of meting out the tiniest bit of equality for a marginalized population, he meanwhile advocates actual, real, practical Christian Supremacy.

And then he has the gall to flash his Gomer Pyle grin and say he's all about love. Fuck off, dominionist.

FYI: Rick Santorum was also there, talking a bunch of contemptible rubbish as usual, but I've already given enough time to these fuckos.

Open Wide...

Open Thread

image of assorted jellybeans

Hosted by jellybeans.

Open Wide...

Question of the Day

Are you left-handed, right-handed, or ambidextrous? Did you come by your handedness naturally, or were you obliged by training or circumstance to use a hand to which you wouldn't otherwise default? Or do you use something other than your hands altogether?

Open Wide...

Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime



Shudder to Think: "Day Ditty"

Open Wide...

An Observation

One of my favorite things about watching the World Cup is the classic camera cut to the spectators during a tense moment in the match. There are few things I find more delightful than someone in a ridiculously oversized hat and garish face make-up looking VERY SERIOUS while intently staring at the pitch.

Open Wide...

Quote of the Day

[Content Note: Privilege; silencing.]

"Civility is nothing more than a word that gets tossed around by pontificating assholes with zero actual experience in the oppression being discussed. Perhaps it isn't the oppressed groups that the word 'sensitive' should be leveled at. Maybe it's the ones who can’t bear to be told to shut up every once in a while."—Courtney Caldwell, in a great post about Penn Jillette being an asshole. Again.

Altogether now: Maybe it's not that we're being too sensitive; maybe it's that you're not being sensitive enough.

[Via Official SpokesGay.]

Open Wide...

On Louie. Once More.

[Content Note: Sexual assault; coercion; descriptions of abuse and manipulation; hostility to consent.]

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about the episode of Louie in which the titular character, played by the show's creator Louis CK, attempts to rape his romantic interest, Pamela.

I've had requests for commentary on the subsequent episodes, and I've now watched the final two episodes of the season, so I could provide a follow-up to that piece.

The penultimate episode opens with Louie calling Pamela. She is jokingly mean to him, in her usual way, as Louie tells her he wants to take her out. He gets frustrated with her when she says she won't go, but doesn't say what her other plans are, and Pamela rhetorically questions why it is that men think if women don't have other plans, that they're owed women's sexual attention.

The only reference to the attempted rape is when Louie asserts he knows she wants to go, and simultaneously implies she owes it to him, because she kissed him back, to which Pamela replies, "I most certainly did not."

He continues to pressure her, and she finally agrees, with the stipulation they'll be spending time together as friends. Louie then calls it a date right before hanging up and laughing deviously. Because everything has to be on his terms.

For their date, Louie takes her to a modern art show and then to Central Park, at night, where he spreads out a blanket on the ground and tells her to lie on her back. When she is hesitant, he instructs her to trust him. Finally, she lies on her back, and then Louie tells her to look at the stars. She is delighted to see shooting stars.

Suddenly, Louie is a romantic hero, despite the fact he could have, at any point, merely told her he was taking her to see a meteor shower, instead of making her go through a bunch of creepy instructions for this surprise romantic gesture. Pamela kisses Louie. He gets his reward.

They go back to his place, and, upon entering, Pamela tells him she's just going to use the bathroom and then leave. But when she tries to leave a few minutes later, Louie blocks the door and refuses to let her go. He shuts the door and essentially tells her that she owes him sex after kissing him in the park. When Pamela disagrees, he tells her to leave.

She follows him into another room, where he's sitting on the couch, pouting. He again accuses her of being mean, and tells her that she hurts him by playing with him, which really means by not being on precisely the same sexual schedule that he is. He says he doesn't even want to know her.

This scene is incredibly difficult to watch, because Louie is emotionally manipulating Pamela by communicating to her that the only way she can prove her feelings for him, and the only way he'll keep her in his life, is if she fucks him on demand. It's incredibly coercive, and it is designed to be that way. Louie could have easily just let her leave, and then broken up with her by telling her it wasn't working, but that's not what he does: He pouts and threatens her with abandonment, right to her face, while she's still in his apartment, clearly hoping he can guilt her into fucking him.

And it works: Pamela and Louie exchange sexts of their junk from a few feet away, and then Pamela walks toward the bedroom. Cut to the next morning, and they have fucked and spent the night together.

Everything about this is terrible. I don't know what commentary Louis CK is attempting to make here, but the reality is that what we've seen is a deeply dysfunctional, abusive, coercive exchange in which a man threatened a woman to cut her off altogether if she didn't prove her feelings for him by sleeping with him, even after she made it clear that she wasn't ready.

The theme from the previous episode, in which Louie knows Pamela's real feelings, and just has to pressure her until she yields to them (and him), runs throughout this episode, as well as the next.

The finale opens with Louie coming home from grocery shopping to discover that Pamela has had all of his furniture removed because it's ugly, lest anyone think there is any respect for consent and agency anywhere inside this relationship.

Pamela does girlfriend-things with Louie throughout the day: Hanging out with him and his kids; meeting his ex-wife; attending his comedy show; giving him career advice.

At the end of the day, standing in her kitchen, he tells her that he loves her. It's awkward; she's uncomfortable. She can't/won't say the words in return, because expressing feelings, romantic or otherwise, is extremely difficult for her. Which she tells him. As if he doesn't already know.

The thing is, Louie insistently wants Pamela to be someone that she manifestly isn't. He wants her to be the person she is, the person with whom he fell in love, but also wants her to be this totally other person, who is touchy-feely and serious and romantic. This is a classic emotional abuse dynamic.

Louie again gets angry at Pamela for not being on his schedule, and for not being this totally other person he wants her to be, now that she's his girlfriend. And he gets angry at her for trying to initiate sex in response to his anger, which naturally totally confuses her—because, up until this point, every time Pamela doesn't give Louie exactly what he wants the exact moment he wants it, he guilts or threatens her into sexual contact until she caves.

Now she's learned that pattern, but it's a moving target. Louie doesn't want sex in this moment; in this moment, he wants to hear her say "I love you." And now that she's playing to the old pattern, Louie chalks it up to some flaw in her. "Stop trying to have sex with me to avoid me." He yells at her and points his finger in her face. She reacts unseriously, by sucking his finger, so he storms out.

As he's walking down the street with a face like thunder, Pamela calls him and tells him to come back right now. He returns to her apartment, which is dark, except for a light emanating from the bathroom. There, Pamela is in the bath, surrounded by lit candles. She tells Louie to get in the tub, which he does, after expressing sensitivity about his body, for which she makes fun of him and then has to apologize.

He joins her in the tub and she scrubs his back, asking him to tell her the story of his first kiss, which turns out to be a popular girl kissing him on a dare. When she expresses sympathy, he's all, "Who cares? I got to kiss a popular girl!" He asks her for the story of her first kiss, which is about her getting into a fight with someone and contains no kissing at all.

Pamela then tells Louie that she knows he wants her to be all these things that she isn't, but that she's here, spending time with him in a tub, and caring about him. She asks him, "Can this just be okay?" He looks at her.

That is the final scene. And I have no idea where the show is going from here, but, if it looks anything like a real relationship with these dynamics, no, it can't just be okay. Because someone who constantly pressures their partner to be someone they're not in order to sufficiently prove their love will never just be okay with anything less than their bullshit ideal.

And someone who expects their partner to fuck them on demand will never just be okay with respecting their partner's agency and consent.

And someone who continually asserts to know their partner's needs and desires better than themselves will never just be okay with accepting their partner's feelings for what they are, or respecting their boundaries.

And someone who is emotionally manipulative, sexually coercive, and conditionally affectionate will never just be okay with letting their partner be who the fuck they are.

What I was watching was a horror scene, set to romantic music.

I honestly don't give a fuck if Louis CK does have some sort of long game he's playing, where it will all blow up in Louie's face, and there will somehow, magically, be an effective commentary on how manipulating a woman into being your girlfriend is a terrible fucking thing to do. I am horrified that there are young men, lots of young men, watching this show and seeing this as a romantic arc with a happy ending.

This isn't a model for romance. It's a blueprint for abuse.

Open Wide...

Daily Dose of Cute

image of Olivia the White Farm Cat sitting on my lap, looking at me
Livsy, sitting on my lap and looking up at me while I scratch her back.

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

Open Wide...

Please Support Shakesville

teaspoon icon This is, for those who have requested it, your bi-monthly reminder to donate to Shakesville and an important fundraiser to keep Shakesville going.

If you have appreciated being able to tune into Shakesville for discussion of the costs of public activism, for deconstruction of rape culture in popular TV shows, for a safe and image-free space to discuss acts of public violence, for getting distilled news about politics or other news, for recaps of your favorite show, or for whatever else you appreciate at Shakesville, whether it's the moderation, the community in Open Threads, Film Corner, video transcripts, the blogarounds, or anything else, please remember that Shakesville is run exclusively on donations. I would certainly appreciate your support, if you can afford to chip in. The donation link is in the sidebar to the right. Or click here.

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 grateful—and I don't take donations 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 thanks as well to everyone who contributes to the space in other ways, whether as a contributor, a moderator, a guest writer, a transcriber, and/or as someone who takes the time to send me a note of support and encouragement. (Or a cool drawing!) This community couldn't exist without you, either.

[Further explanation of fundraising is here. Please note that I don't want anyone to feel obliged to contribute financially, especially if money is tight. There is a big enough readership that no one needs to donate if it would be a hardship, and no one should ever feel bad about that.]

Open Wide...

In the News

Here is some stuff in the news today...

[Content Note: Slavery] Today is Juneteeth, a holiday commemorating the end of slavery in the US. If you aren't familiar with the history of Juneteeth, this is an excellent primer. And here is a great piece about the widespread lack of awareness of Juneteeth, even in its 149th year, and about what it means to the people who celebrate it. "Historically, Juneteenth is freedom in and of itself. It's the true ending of slavery. It's an awakening," says Samuel Pugh of the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute. "But as far as it today, it's family. It's friendship. It's relationships. It's the relationships that we have with the community."

[CN: War] The Guardian has the latest developments on Iraq here, including information on President Obama's scheduled address later today.

After reading my piece Women Have Always Been Doing Things, Shaker Jay sent the link to this page of the Gallica project, "an initiative to digitize the resources of French libraries and archives," where they have posted old images of women footballers, alongside text (translated by Jay): "Football, woman style — While the Men's World Cup is taking place in Brazil, let's not forget that football is also women's business! The proof in pictures comes with these snapshots from the 1920s of teams Femina Sport, En Avant, Academia or the Reims Sportives...." Awesome.

Senator Al Franken wants to put Citizens United in the dumpster of bad ideas. THAT IS A GOOD IDEA! Sign the petition here.

[CN: Assisted death] Gallup finds that there is strong support among US respondents for legalizing doctor-assisted euthanasia for terminally ill patients. Currently, only four states have "death with dignity" measures. I would very much like to have access to this if and when I need it.

[CN: Fat bias] In other Gallup polling news, Gallup has found that "obesity is linked to long-term unemployment in the US." And here is their attempt at an explanation: "While these results offer evidence of a strong relationship between unemployment and obesity-related health concerns, the causal direction is not clear. Unemployment may cause some people to engage in behaviors that lead to health problems, while pre-existing health conditions may make it harder for others to find and keep work. For many individuals, both dynamics may be at work, perpetuating a negative cycle of declining job prospects and worsening health." Ha ha it's neat how "employers are biased against fat people because of negative stereotypes conflating fat with laziness, sloppiness, and moral failing" isn't even a consideration, despite the fact it's the most obvious fucking answer, as multiple studies have demonstrated fat bias in the hiring process.

[CN: Misogyny] A few years ago, I wrote about (and here) a giant Marilyn Monroe statue in Chicago, which became an inadvertent monument to how women are treated. Today, I saw these pictures of a nearly identical giant Marilyn Monroe statue in China, which has been unceremoniously tossed in a garbage dump. NBC reported this under the headline: "Dumped! Giant Marilyn Monroe Thrown Out with the Trash." Yeah.

And finally! Tom Hardy loves watching cooking shows to unwind. Oh, Tom Hardy. And he leaves them on for the dogs when he's out, because: "They've got to feel that someone's in the house." Oh, Tom Hardy.

Open Wide...

This Is Rape Culture

[Content Note: Rape culture; description of sexual assault at link.]

Three male students at James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia, sexually assaulted a female student, then distributed video of the assault. The woman filed a formal complaint with the school's judicial affairs office, and, after a series of hearings, the director of judicial affairs found the three men "responsible for sexual assault and sexual harassment, punishing them with expulsion after graduation. The men would not be allowed to walk at commencement and were prohibited from coming to campus after they got their degrees."

Got that? They'll be expelled after they graduate.

The unusual "expulsion after graduation" sanction allowed two of the men to graduate on time in May. The third plans to remain on campus for his senior year in 2014-15.
The woman subsequently filed a complaint with "federal officials about the school's handling of the attack," which "has prompted an investigation by the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights." This, after she was obliged to go through an appeals process with the university, which resulted in the upholding of the original post-graduation expulsion ruling.

Throughout the course of trying to find some kind of real justice, her grades slipped, causing her to lose her financial aid, and she has had to withdraw from the university.
[S]he filed a complaint with the Education Department on April 30, because of the sanction and because she believed the men were afforded more rights than she was, allowing them more time to file appeals and more access to relevant documents. She said the fears the school's response will prevent other sexual assault victims from coming forward.

"What is a girl going to think that I had video proof and I still have to see these boys on campus?" [she] asked. "How would she ever feel comfortable coming forward?"
After the university gave three sexual predators what is effectively a suspended sentence, and forced their victim through a ringer that resulted in her having to leave university, which will certainly deter other female students from even bothering to report being assaulted, this is the breathtaking statement from JMU, care of university spokesperson Bill Wyatt: "James Madison University takes very seriously any allegation of sexual assault and is committed to providing a safe and inclusive environment for every member of the JMU community."

Nope and nope. That is audacious garbage. If JMU's administration understood, or cared about, the most basic thing about sexual predators—that is, that predators prey—they would not even try to send out a spokesperson to claim with a straight face that allowing predators to stay on campus is indicative of a commitment "to providing a safe and inclusive environment."

They are simply banking on the fact that most people will look at this case and assume it's yet another case of "good boys making a bad decision," that it was all just a mistake, a big misunderstanding. That is, if they aren't busy just calling the victim an outright liar.

JMU is actively abetting rapists, by allowing them to stay on campus and by discouraging victims from reporting.
Lisa Maatz, vice president of government relations at the American Association of University Women, said the sanction undermines campus safety and sends the wrong message.

"What if they rape another woman while they're allowed to finish their degrees? When this type of outcome happens, it seems like the school has dismissed the survivor's very real trauma and negated her courage in coming forward," Maatz said.
And they're doing it so brazenly, it's hard to believe that's not precisely the point.

Open Wide...

Family Equality Now

[Content Note: Homophobia; child endangerment.]

This is absolutely rage-making: Jason Hanna and Joe Riggs are a gay couple who live in Texas, who are the fathers of twin sons born by surrogate. Each of the boys is the biological son of one of their fathers.

But because Texas still does not have legal same-sex marriage, and does not recognize Hanna's and Riggs' marriage in DC, a court is preventing them from putting their names on their children's birth certificates.

[B]ecause a judge can use his or her own discretion in these cases, neither of the men is currently on the birth certificates of either of the boys, nor have they been able to co-adopt each other's biological child.

Only the surrogate mother — who has no biological relationship to the boys, since embryos were transferred to her — is on the birth certificates. In essence, the men are not legally defined as the parents of their own children. And though they have DNA tests for proof, they're worried, particularly if something were to happen to one of them while the other still has not been able to co-adopt the other's biological child.

"As of right now in Texas two men cannot be on the birth certificate," Jason Hanna explained in an interview with [Michelangelo Signorile] on SiriusXM Progress. "So our attorney followed the letter of the law. We petitioned the court. We had DNA testing there [in court] and petitioned the judge to ultimately remove the surrogate mother from the birth certificate, who has no biological ties to the boys. We would like each biological dad to be placed on the birth certificate of our own son, and then ultimately proceed to the second-parent adoption. The entire petition was denied."

...It was particularly jarring to Hanna and Riggs because other gay couples in Texas, including friends of theirs, have successfully completed this process.

...Hanna and Riggs worry, as they wait for the next step, because they're in a scary legal limbo.

"Without [co-adoption], if something happened to either me or Joe we don't have any legal recourse to keep the other's biological child," Hanna said. "The state could come in and separate these two brothers…We want to reiterate how important it is for a state to recognize each family, whether it's same-sex or opposite-sex, and really to ensure everyone has equal protection from the state."
Where are the conservatives to yell about "activist judges" now? It doesn't get more "activist" than being empowered to decide the fate of an entire family at your own discretion.

I don't know how the judge can legally rationalize denying even putting the biological fathers' names on their individual sons' birth certificates.

(Also, not for nothing, although this story doesn't address how the surrogate feels about being on the birth certificates, aside from its being clear she didn't advocate for it, I know there would be a lot of surrogates who explicitly would not want their names there, for various reasons.)

There are so many concerns about this cruel ruling. Among them is the possibility that, because of nothing but rank homophobia, one or both of these boys could end up in foster care if something happens to one of their dads.

Legally structuring parental rights (or lack thereof) to increase the possibility that a child would end up in state custody, in a system that fails a whole lot of kids and exposes many of them to profound trauma, is child endangerment. I can't put it any more bluntly than that.

Open Wide...

Community Note

[Content Note: Trans* erasure; disablism.]

A couple of quick reminders—and no individual commenter should take this personally, because this is after a bunch of comments, nor should anyone receive this as though I am angry; it's just time for some gentle reminders:

1. Please don't use the reply function in comments, so we can maintain flat threads for people with visual processing disorders. I'm sorry I'm not able to turn off that function, but Disqus doesn't give us that option.

2. Trans*, genderqueer, and intersex erasure is a violation of the commenting policy. That means defining people by their genitals and/or behavior related to those genitals. So, for example, defining women as people "with a vagina" or defining men as people "who pee standing up." If you mean women, just say women. If you mean men, just say men. If you mean people, just say people.

3. Disablist language is a violation of the commenting policy. Using "insane" (or any variation thereof) as an emphatic modifier is not okay, nor is using any euphemism for mental illness as a synonym for bad behavior. If you mean indecent, or cruel, or hostile, use those words. Additionally, please note that idiot/idiotic, moron, lame, etc. are disablist words, and they are also not okay. Be thoughtful, too, about how many English idioms are disablist in nature, like, "There is none so blind as those who will not see," so you can avoid them.

These are things I've had to learn, too, so I'm not expecting anyone to change behaviors and habits I haven't had to change myself. Please help us keep the space as safe as is possible. Thanks so much.

Open Wide...

Open Thread

image of a running jackrabbit

Hosted by a jackrabbit.

Open Wide...

Question of the Day

Suggested by Shaker catvoncat: "Who are your favorite female characters on TV and/or film, and why?"

Open Wide...

Amazon Unveils Smartphone

At a press conference in Seattle today, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos unveiled Amazon's new smartphone, the Fire Phone:

Amazon entered the smartphone war on Wednesday with the Fire Phone, a feature-packed device built for shopping and aimed at turning up the heat on rivals Apple and Google.

...The Fire Phone will pitch Amazon into a fight dominated by Apple and Samsung, which dominate the smartphone market. But the company is clearly taking aim at Google, too, as the search giant tries to build its own media and music business through Google Play.

Amazon has struck deals with Netflix, HBO Go and Hulu Plus to stream movies and TV on the device, and Bezos made clear he was courting the millions of people who use its Amazon Prime service to get music and films to encourage them to swap devices.

...Bezos also revealed the device will use its four cameras to show images in "dynamic perspective" – technology that will render maps, pictures of clothing and other images with a 3D perspective. The cameras will also allow the phone to recognise head gestures from users to change the display. The phone is equipped with a Quad-core 2.2GHz processor, Adreno 330 graphics and 2GB of RAM.

...Bezos announced that the phone would run a program called Firefly that recognise items including songs, books, groceries and then enable you to buy them from Amazon.
Ha ha of course it will.

I can't even imagine wanting a phone that constantly prompts me to buy shit from Amazon, but that's just me! Maybe you think the Fire Phone sounds terrific? Discuss!

Open Wide...

Recommended Reading

[Content Note: Racism; appropriation; dehumanization; hostility to consent; threats.]

Meet Suzan Harjo, the Native American activist who was the driving force behind the cases that resulted in the US Patents and Trademarks Office's cancellation of the federal trademarks for the Washington R*dskins.

I'm not even going to excerpt it. Just go read the whole thing.

Amazing. Lots and lots of amazing women involved in, and leading, this fight.

Open Wide...

TV Corner: Fargo

[Content Note: Discussions of violence and privilege. Spoilers for the finale of Fargo.]

image of Allison Tolman in character as Deputy Molly Solverson, standing outside her father's diner, in Fargo

There's a fella once, running for a train—and he's carrying a pair of gloves, this man. He drops a glove on the platform, but he doesn't notice. And then later on, inside the train, he's sitting by the window and he realizes that he's just got this one glove left. But the train's already started pulling out of the station, right? So what does he do? He opens the window. And he drops the other glove onto the platform. That way, whoever finds the first glove can just have the pair.

* * *

The finale of the miniseries Fargo aired last night. And it was terrific.

[Warning: Here come the spoilers!!!]

I was incredibly sad to see FBI Agents Budge and Pepper meet their demise, even as I recognize it as being part of what I took away as the moral of the story. Which is that kyriarchy-empowered straight white men whose violent entitlement is protected by their privilege and abetted by institutions that are disposed to reflexively view them as Good Men are dangerous, harmful, destructive. They are violent toward people who are more vulnerable than they are, by virtue of their identities or otherwise. And ultimately women prevail over patriarchal violence when their male allies support them, even when it's scary.

That's okay. I get to be chief.

But the costs will be higher, because they always are, for male allies of color.

In the end, the only patriarch who is left standing is Molly's dad, who leveraged his privilege against harm, rather than traded on it to get away with harm.

Chief Bill Oswalt can't stomach looking at the bloody results of his insistent willingness to extend good will to Lester Nygaard. Lorne Malvo, the consummate predator, meets the beginning of his end stuck in a literal bear trap, and meets the end of his end face to face with a recovering coward, who finds his bravery lying below an urgency to challenge the threats to his family. And Lester's hubris takes him right onto thin ice, where he has metaphorically been all along, until the actual ice finally gives way.

A bunch of men each running around clutching one glove.

It would have been a satisfying end, except for the fact that there was so much destruction wrought in defense of those fucking useless gloves. Which is the way of the world. Lester and Lorne are gone, but so are Budge and Pepper.

There's nothing truly satisfying in that.

And so it goes. This morning, I read reviews of the finale that refer to Lester and Lorne as the protagonists of the series. Which might be fair enough, if only Molly had been called the hero.

But she wasn't.

So it goes.

Open Wide...