Here is some stuff in the news today...
My thanks again to everyone who weighed in yesterday!
[Content Note: Terrorism; death; descriptions of violence] This is utterly breathtaking: Following is the entirety of a Reuters story on another suicide bombing in Nigeria, likely carried out by Boko Haram: "A suicide bomber at a bus station in northeast Nigeria's Borno state killed at least 17 people on Thursday, a military source and an allied local vigilante said. A second bomber tried to detonate his explosives in the same bus station in the town of Biu, but was stopped by the crowd and beaten to death, vigilante Ibrahim Jaton said." That's it. Two sentences, on an unimaginable horror. I cannot begin to fathom what the people of this region are going through right now.
In good news: "Workers in legal, same-sex marriages will now have the same federal job protections as those in [different]-sex marriages, regardless of where they live, thanks to a rule change by the U.S. Labor Department. The change, announced this week, revises the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Windsor, which struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act provision that interpreted 'marriage' and 'spouse' to be limited to [different]-sex marriages for purposes of federal law. ...The Labor Department's rule change updates the FMLA definition of 'spouse' so that an eligible employee in a legal same-sex marriage will be able to take FMLA leave for his or her spouse regardless of the state in which the employee resides."
[CN: Terrorism; violence] "Jihadi John" has been identified "by the Washington Post and the BBC to be a man named Mohammed Emwazi. ...The Washington Post cited friends and others familiar with Emwazi's case in its report identifying the suspected Islamic State executioner. The BBC did not cite its sources. British officials declined to comment on the reports. NSC spokeswoman Bernadette Meehan said in a statement that the U.S. 'will not comment on ongoing investigations and therefore are not in a position to confirm or deny the identity of this individual.'"
[CN: War] The ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia may be holding: "Ukrainian troops towed artillery away from the front line in the east on Thursday, a move that amounted to recognizing that a ceasefire meant to take effect on Feb. 15 was holding at last. The military showed reporters seven or eight guns being towed away from the front at the village of Paraskoviyvka north of the government stronghold of Artemivsk. Earlier, Reuters journalists saw a larger convoy of 30-40 vehicles also towing guns away from the front on a highway. The move was Kiev's most direct step to acknowledge that the ceasefire was finally holding, a week after suffering one of the worst defeats of the war at the hands of rebels who initially ignored the ceasefire to launch a major advance."
[CN: Class warfare; addiction] At Think Progress, Bryce Covert and Josh Israel look at "What 7 States Discovered After Spending More Than $1 Million Drug Testing Welfare Recipients." If you guessed: Wasting money and "increasing stigma around both welfare and drug use," give yourself a thousand points!
Donald Trump says he's totes for sure definitely serious about running for president again in 2016. No word on whether Tronald Dump will also be running again.
Wow! "A monster black hole powering 'the brightest lighthouse in the distant universe' has been discovered that is 12bn times more massive than the sun, scientists have revealed. The extraordinary object is at the centre of a quasar—an intensely powerful galactic radiation source—with a million billion times the sun's energy output."
Here is just a great video of a bat eating a banana. And then being so done eating a banana.
And finally! This story about a girl in Seattle who receives gifts from the crows that she feeds in her garden is one of my favorite things I've read in ages! Lovely. Crows are the best.
In the News
And Again
[Content Note: Police brutality; racism. Video may autoplay at second link.]
Earlier this month, I linked to a piece ("Washington Official Fears 'Another Ferguson' After Cop Shooting Video Goes Viral") about the police killing of Antonio Zambrano-Montes in Pasco, Washington. Despite what the video at the link seems to show, cops say that they tried to use a Taser on Zambrano-Montes, who they say was throwing rocks at them, before shooting at him 17 times, hitting him at least five times.
Now, Zambrano-Montes's family has filed "a $25 million claim against the city of Pasco alleging that three officers killed the unarmed man 'execution style.'"
Zambrano-Montes, a 35-year-old Mexican national, was shot on February 10, in a case that has sparked local protests and anger at what some say is another example of police brutality and excessive force against an unarmed man who is a minority.This is the essence of the defense of the officers who killed Zambrano-Montes: "After two officers were struck with rocks—at least one of them as large as a softball—police said the officers resorted to deadly force."
...The suit claims Zambrano-Montes was unarmed "with his hands out where they could be seen."
"He had his back to the officers," the claim said. "At this point, the officers started shooting."
At a news conference Wednesday, Kennewick Police Sgt. Ken Lattin told reporters, "We do know this from the preliminary autopsy report, there were no shots in the back."
The Tri-City Special Investigations Unit is still reviewing video to see if there was anything in Zambrano-Montes' hand when he was shot.
When processing the scene that night of the fatal shooting, Sgt. Lattin said at a news briefing, "I think it's safe to say there was a rock found next to his body."
Because obviously the only way to stop a man from throwing rocks—at least one of them as large as a softball!—is to shoot at him seventeen times in the middle of a busy intersection.
I mean, sure, accidentally shooting a bystander was totally a concern, but that's just the chance you've gotta take when they might get hit with a rock. Especially one as large as a softball.
I honestly just don't even know what to say anymore.
Phenomenal Girls
Via Kimberly Foster at For Harriet, this video of black girls reciting the first verse of Maya Angelou's "Phenomenal Woman" for Nickelodeon, in celebration of Black History Month, is 100% THE BEST:
Video Description: Piano music. A male voiceover, over text onscreen saying the same thing, says: "Nickelodeon celebrates Black History Month. Presenting "Because of Them We Can." Honoring Maya Angelou, poet."
A young black girl with two long braids, dressed (as are almost all the girls) in a white t-shirt, hoop earrings, and a string of pearls, looks directly into the camera and says: "Pretty women wonder—" then over video of a young black girl wearing a black and red headwrap, peeking from behind a black-and-white journal notebook "—where my secret lies."
We see a tiny black girl, shot from above so we see the top of her head, standing next to a black woman, who's cut off at the waist in the shot, and another young black girl says in voiceover: "I'm not cute—" the tiny girl looks up at her mom (?) with big brown eyes, playing with the pearls she's also wearing "—or built to suit a fashion model's size."
Cut the the young black girl who was speaking, who is now speaking directly to the camera: "But when I start to tell them—" She's then seen bending over and whispering into the tiny girl's ear, and the tiny girl makes a scandalized face! "—they think I'm telling lies."
Cut to one of the girls stretching out her arms, one arm toward the camera: "I say: It's in the reach of my arms!"
Cut to one of the girls spinning with her hands on her hips, her pearls swinging: "The span of my hips!"
Cut to one of the girls marching: "The stride of my step!"
Cut to one of the girls pursing her lips, then breaking into a smile: "The curl of my lips!"
Cut to a slightly older black girl wearing a multicolored headwrap, looking directly in the camera and smiling: "I'm a woman."
Cut to a tiny black girl, who stands with her hands on her hips, looking directly into the camera: "Phenobamally!"
Cut to a teenage black girl with braces, wearing an orange and white headwrap, looking directly into the camera: "Phenomenal woman."
Cut back to the girl with the braids: "That's us!" A sequence of four of the younger girls pointing at themselves. Then: A young girl in a blue and green headwrap looks up from writing something and smiling. In voiceover, one of the girls says: "Because of them, we can."
Male voiceover: For more information on Maya Angelou, visit Nick-dot-com-slash-thanks.
LOLOLOL Okay
[Content Note: Rape culture.]
Hey, remember Todd "Legitimate Rape" Akin? Well, in case you've somehow managed to scrub his odious existence from your mind, he's pretty awesome! He's got lots of cool ideas about women and rape and abortion!
A few years ago, he lost the Missouri Senate race to Senator Claire McCaskill, for mysterious reasons lost to the sands of time, but now we might have the chance to get to know him all over again, because he's thinking of primarying Missouri's Republican Senator Roy Blunt!
"I have not ruled anything out," the 2012 nominee said, according to The Hill on Wednesday. "I think there is a high level of dissatisfaction among conservatives, that they have to some degree been pushed out of the Republican Party. The sentiment is there. The Tea Party is skeptical and wants some fresh blood, not just the same establishment guys."Good luck to Todd Akin and the Missouri Tea Party, who will definitely be bringing a lot of fresh new ideas to modern politics.
Question of the Day
Riffing on yesterday's QotD: What is your idea of the perfect burger? Toppings? Bun? The bun can make all the difference, right?!
Naturally, any kind of burger (beef, turkey, veggie, black bean, etc.) counts, and "I don't like burgers of any description" is a perfectly cromulent answer.
The White Feminists Who Love Whitesplaining
[Content Note: Racism; whitesplaining.]
Three days after Patricia Arquette's problematic Oscar commentary, white feminists are still whitesplaining at marginalized women who took issue with her comments. And, to a far lesser degree, other white women who are taking them to task for their shitty, racist behavior.
I just had the following exchange on Twitter (with a woman whose racial identity I do not know, but who is parroting the same arguments being made primarily by white feminists), and look at how quickly this escalates into the utterly absurd:
Got that? WE'RE ON THE SLIPPERY SLOPE TO FASCISM, PEOPLE! Because women of color and queer women ask not to be written out of the womanhood and lectured on how much straight white cis women have done for them. FASCISM.
I replied, simply: "LOL. Okay." She came back with: "What do you really think that was about? That lashing out? You must cop it daily."
(Notice the repeated conflation of marginalized women's criticism with violent and silencing acts. "Attacked." "Shut down." "Lashing out.")
I said: "You literally just compared listening to marginalized women to fascism. This conversation is so the fuck over."
But naturally it wasn't: "No I soooo did not. Listening to any women is the opposite of fascism. Apparently unlike you, I'd defend a woman of any description who said something like that & got piled on for it."
I'm the bad feminist. Of course I am.
This, friends, is about one-zillionth of a percent of what black women and non-black women of color are experiencing as pushback, for the simple act of expecting more from a white woman who positions herself as a spokesperson for all women.
Quote of the Day
[Content Note: Racism.]
"The fundamental challenge for my side is the seemingly inexorable change in the composition of presidential electorates. And there's no reason to believe that that's going to stop magically."—Republican pollster Whit Ayres, discussing a new report co-sponsored by the Center for American Progress, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Brookings Institution, which found that "about 70 percent of the Americans eligible to vote are white, a decline of 15 percentage points since 1980."
There is also no reason to believe that Republicans are going to change their positions to appeal to significant portions of demographics other than old white people. "Magically" or otherwise.
Which means that the GOP will continue to double-down on racebaiting, voter suppression, and gerrymandering, in order to try to eke out presidential wins from their dwindling numbers of supporters in national elections.
TV Corner: The Parks & Rec Finale
[Content Note: Bullying. Spoilers.]
Last night was the series finale of Parks and Recreation, so here is a thread for discussion about the episode, the series as a whole, your feelings about the show, etc.
The final season takes place three years in the future, and the finale episode jumps ahead as much as several decades, to let us know what happens in the lives of the characters with whom we've spent seven years.
My favorite arc, out of all of them, was Donna's. Donna has always been one of my favorite characters—there was never enough Donna in any episode for me!—and I was so happy with how her story resolved. She was happy, loved, successful, wealthy, influential, and generous. And still COOL AS FUCK. Perfect.
My least favorite arc was Ann's. Or, more specifically, the arc of Ann's and Leslie's friendship. Partly, that was because Rashida Jones left the show, but, truth be told, the terrific friendship between these two awesome characters, which was one of the primary reasons I loved the show in the first place, was increasingly relegated to the back burner in favor of the focus on their respective relationships with Chris and Ben. There was something sad for me in Ann's return, only to have her and Leslie gazing at their children, hoping their kids will fall in love. I wanted better for Ann; better for Ann and Leslie.
And then there's Gary. Oh, Gary. He of the perfect personal life, incandescently happy until his death on his hundredth birthday. And yet not spared one final indignity, as Ben observes that his name has been spelled wrong on his tombstone. Sigh.
About that funeral scene! And the Secret Service agents who told Leslie and Ben it was time to go. "Which one of them was president?" everyone was wondering on Twitter. Surely it was Leslie, who we later find out served two terms as Indiana's governor. (LOLOLOL FOREVER at the beautiful fantasy of a progressive feminist woman serving two terms as my state's governor!) From the bottom of a pit to the presidency.
Other things: Ron in his canoe. Ben's gaming kingdom. "His name's Jack."
I'm just so sad we didn't get to see what happened to Councilman Jamm. I can only imagine he is sitting in his private bathroom at City Hall right now, taking the hugest dump.
Daily Dose of Cute
Livsy, the picture of contentment as 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.
The Wednesday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by broccoli.
Recommended Reading:
Cate: [Content Note: White Supremacy] This Is What I Mean When I Say "White Feminism"
Paul: [CN: Illness; contemplation of death; descriptions of surgery] Before I Go
Susan: [CN: Carcerality; misogynoir; sexual assault; criminalizing need] Alternatives to Incarceration: Be Careful What You Wish For
SPLC: [CN: Transphobic abuse; carcerality; self-harm] SPLC Lawsuit Demands Necessary Health Care for Transgender Inmate in Georgia Prison
Carla: [CN: Racism] Does PBS Still Care About Indie Films by and About People of Color?
Liz: [CN: Disablism] Why Are Animals with Prosthetics Upworthy When People Aren't?
Eastsidekate: Heirloom Tomato or Type of Pot?
Jay Smooth: [video] The Oscars, and Learning the Craft of Being Good
Leave your links and recommendations in comments. Self-promotion welcome and encouraged!
In the News
Here is some stuff in the news today...
[Check-In: Is everyone still enjoying/valuing the In the News feature? Let me know in comments if it's a feature you appreciate. To be abundantly clear: I'm not looking for reasons to not do it! Nor am I seeking praise for doing it. I'm just taking the temperature, to make sure it's still something the community values and thus a good investment of my time, or whether I need to redirect that energy. Thanks!]
[Content Note: Discussion of white supremacy] Here is the brilliant Imani Gandy on talking to white women about white privilege: "The Funny Thing About Privilege."
[CN: Privilege] Because we always need "objective evidence" of marginalized people's lived experiences, since Maude forbid we allow marginalized people to be authorities on their own lives: "Research Shows White Privilege Is Real." THANK YOU, RESEARCH.
[CN: War on agency] As reproductive rights advocates have been saying for many years, a central feature of anti-choicers "chipping away at Roe" strategy is to create enough delays that the cost of abortion becomes prohibitive: "According to researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, more than 4,000 women were denied abortions in 2008 because they were past the gestational limit—largely because it took them too long to try to save up the money for it. Nearly six in ten participants said they couldn't get an abortion earlier because of travel and procedure costs."
In a truly amazing (and awesome) turn of events, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel was forced into a runoff election by challenger Chuy Garcia: "It's the first time Chicago has had a runoff campaign for mayor, which is what happens when none of the candidates eclipses the 50 percent benchmark in round one. With 98 percent of the city's precincts counted, unofficial results showed Emanuel with 45.4 percent and Cook County commissioner Garcia at 33.9 percent. ...Garcia sought to keep the pressure on by portraying himself as the populist progressive and attacking the mayor as a puppet of the large corporations and special interests he said filled Emanuel’s massive campaign fund. Garcia gleefully continued to embrace his role as Chicago’s underdog. 'Nobody thought we'd be here tonight. They wrote us off. They said we didn't have a chance. They said we didn't have any money while they spent millions attacking us,' Garcia said. 'Well, well, we're still standing. We're still running, and we're gonna win.'" I HOPE SO!!!
A new poll finds that "under-30s are noticeably less likely than their elders to say that they love America. 93% of over-65s and 90% of people aged 45 to 64 say that they love America, but only 71% of under-30s also say that they love America." Maybe that's because the older generations benefitted from the New Deal, and then turned around and gave the younger generations the Shit Deal. Just a theory!
[CN: Climate change] Oh fuck: "Sea levels along the northeast coast of the US rose by record levels during 2009-2010, a study has found. Sea levels north of New York City rose by 128mm in two years, according to a report in the journal, Nature Communications. Coastal areas will need to prepare for short term and extreme sea level events, say US scientists."
The South Suburban Humane Society of Illinois has an amazing volunteer named Sandy Barnett: "When the door opens to one of the cat rooms, and all the residents see Sandy Barnett, they flock to her. They know that her pockets hold tasty treats, her bag has soothing brushes, and her lap is warmth and love. But it's Sandy's notebook that says it all: Each day she volunteers, Sandy keeps careful track of each cat, and takes note of their likes and dislikes, and each cat's personality. She shares these notes with potential adopters, and helps perfect each cat adoption, and to help socialize frightened felines." Sandy's volunteer work has been nominated as South Suburban's Cat Shelter Volunteer of the Year, and if she wins, the shelter will win a much-needed $25k for a shelter makeover. Vote for Sandy here.
And finally! Here is just a great video of a bulldog puppy running around in the snow and getting all tuckered out. Aww!
Net Neutrality Update
Things are looking good for net neutrality. On Thursday, the Federal Communications Commission will vote on whether to treat the internet more like a public utility. This vote comes after a lengthy political battle over the best course of action, but it looks like that fight is winding down. The New York Times reports that key GOP opponents have accepted near-certain defeat:Fingers crossed. This has been a long fight, and at times it looked like tiered internet service was perilously close, and I'm not celebrating just yet, but I feel really hopeful.
On Tuesday, Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota and chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, all but surrendered on efforts to overturn the coming ruling, conceding Democrats are lining up with President Obama in favor of the F.C.C.Obama came out in favor of a plan for net neutrality that would reclassify the internet as a public utility late last year, following a passionate public outcry against the FCC's old proposed rules for net neutrality, which could've been used to develop slow and fast lanes of service depending on which companies shelled out for premium fees, in essence creating a tiered internet.
...In January, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler unveiled a revamped plan for net neutrality rules that closely mirrored the president's, kicking of another round of political sniping. But as the vote date looms, it looks likely that the new rules will get voted in.
Republicans Think People Aren't Entitled to Food
[Content Note: Racism; war; food insecurity; class warfare.]
Former Republican Representative Ron Paul, who wanted to be your president and now wants his son to be your president, did an interview with libertarian blowhard Lew Rockwell earlier this month, during which he said that the Congressional Black Caucus doesn't support war because they have the unmitigated temerity to want to use that money to feed poor people in the US:
I was always annoyed with it in Congress because we had an anti-war unofficial group, a few libertarian Republicans and generally the Black Caucus and others did not—they are really against war because they want all of that money to go to food stamps for people here.Now, just for the record, most of the Congressional Black Caucus supported the war resolution for Afghanistan, and none supported the war resolution for Iraq. So, Paul's entire premise that the CBC is routinely and universally anti-war is not accurate.
Also, the CBC's collective voting record on the Afghanistan and Iraq wars actually suggests the members of the CBC's war votes are decided on the principle of the proposed war, rather than on partisanship or popular opinion. Which is not typical of Congress as a whole.
And I'm sure that some or all members of the CBC would say that they'd prefer to spend treasure on feeding people at home, rather than killing people abroad, but I'm also sure that every member of the CBC is well aware that funding for food stamps rarely (ahem) gets redirected from the defense budget, no less from special funding for wars.
"We should be feeding people here at home and reconsidering the way we prioritize our spending" is a rhetorical tool, as well as a true thing, which does not necessarily translate into a literal refusal to vote for a defense action because you want and expect that spending to be redirected to food stamps.
But implying that it does is a neat (super racist) way of making the members of the Congressional Black Caucus sound like simpletons who don't get how shit works, man.
And naturally we're meant to think it's absurd to suggest that maybe instead of spending trillions of dollars on wars of choice, we could invest in providing basics to people in need in our own country. But it's only absurd to libertarian fuckos who think "let them eat bootstraps!" is a solid political and social policy.
To decent people who believe that everyone in the wealthiest country on the planet is entitled to fucking eat, what sounds absurd is the suggestion that there's something wrong with prioritizing feeding hungry people over wars of choice.
"Religious Freedom" in Indiana
[Content Note: Christian Supremacy.]
Yesterday, the Indiana State Senate passed a "religious freedom" bill, with all 40 Senate Republicans voting for it and all 10 Senate Democrats voting against it:
The legislation is intended to protect people with strong religious beliefs, but has raised questions about the dividing line between religious freedom and discrimination.This is, of course, bullshit. There is nothing even resembling a "growing hostility toward people of faith" in Indiana, especially against conservative Christians, for whom this legislation was written and by whom it's supported. People of minority religions, and agnostics and atheists, who do suffer hostility in the overwhelmingly conservative Christian state, neither advocated for nor will be protected by this bill—the entire point of which is to give conservative Christian homobigots the legal right to discriminate against same-sex couples after same-sex marriage was legalized in Indiana last year.
..."You don't have to look too far to find a growing hostility toward people of faith," author Scott Schneider, R-Indianapolis, said. "This bill acts as a shield, not a sword."
The bill has become a rallying point for conservatives disappointed with last year's defeat of a proposed constitutional same-sex marriage ban and subsequent federal court decisions that effectively legalized gay marriage in Indiana.And trans people, and genderqueer people, and people of minority religions, and people who are not religious at all.
Supporters say the measure is needed to protect religious business owners who don't want to provide services for same-sex weddings.
Critics, however, say the measure would legalize discrimination against gays and lesbians.
This law is written so broadly that the implications are enormous. An emergency room doctor, even if zie's the only one on duty, could refuse to perform a lifesaving abortion. A pharmacist could refuse to dispense birth control. A utility company, even if it has a monopoly in the area, could deny service to same-sex couples, or atheists, or Wiccans. All they have to do is claim that to provide service to queer people, or nonbelievers, or "witches," is a religious burden, that "compels a person to take an action that is contrary to the person's exercise of religion."
And "person" is defined as: "An individual, an association, a partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a church, a religious institution, an estate, a trust, a foundation, or any other legal entity."
Any legal entity is allowed to withhold any service on the basis that providing such service is contrary to their religious beliefs.
And "I don't like those people because my god said so" is sufficient justification of those beliefs. In fact, the law stipulates that "the person's sincerely held religious belief" is a legal justification "regardless of whether the religious belief is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief." Got that? So, don't want to provide services to people of color? Just assert it's a "sincerely held religious belief," and it doesn't matter that there's no recognized religious justification for it. All that matters is that you "sincerely" believe it.
This is incredible. This is harmful. This is the legal right to discriminate against marginalized people passed under the auspices of protecting privileged people who need no protection.
This is Indiana: The Conservative Legislation Lab.
Question of the Day
Suggested by Shaker SisterShimmy: "What do you like on your pizza? ('I don't like pizza' is a perfectly cromulent answer.)"
I am pretty flexible on pizza toppings, although I'm not super keen on black olives or anchovies, because I find them too salty. Pretty much anything else, though. Including pineapple!
[Got a good suggestion for a Question of the Day? Let me know here!]
Justice Department: No Federal Charges for George Zimmerman in Killing of Trayvon Martin
[Content Note: Racism; violence; guns; death.]
Federal Officials Close Investigation Into Death of Trayvon Martin:
The Justice Department announced today that the independent federal investigation found insufficient evidence to pursue federal criminal civil rights charges against George Zimmerman for the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin on Feb. 26, 2012, in Sanford, Florida. Prosecutors from the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, officials from the FBI, and the Justice Department's Community Relations Service met today with Martin's family and their representatives to inform them of the findings of the investigation and the decision.You may have noticed that both Holder and Gupta referenced the "high standard" that must be met to bring federal hate crime charges. Here is a little bit more about that:
"The death of Trayvon Martin was a devastating tragedy. It shook an entire community, drew the attention of millions across the nation, and sparked a painful but necessary dialogue throughout the country," said Attorney General Eric Holder. "Though a comprehensive investigation found that the high standard for a federal hate crime prosecution cannot be met under the circumstances here, this young man's premature death necessitates that we continue the dialogue and be unafraid of confronting the issues and tensions his passing brought to the surface. We, as a nation, must take concrete steps to ensure that such incidents do not occur in the future."
..."Although the department has determined that this matter cannot be prosecuted federally, it is important to remember that this incident resulted in the tragic loss of a teenager's life," said Acting Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta of the Civil Rights Division. "Our decision not to pursue federal charges does not condone the shooting that resulted in the death of Trayvon Martin and is based solely on the high legal standard applicable to these cases."
The federal investigation sought to determine whether the evidence of the events that led to Martin's death were sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman's actions violated the federal criminal civil rights statutes, specifically Section 3631 of Title 42 of the U.S. Code or Section 249 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, as well as other relevant federal criminal statutes. Section 3631 criminalizes willfully using force or threat of force to interfere with a person's federally protected housing rights on account of that person's race or color. Section 249 criminalizes willfully causing bodily injury to a person because of that person's actual or perceived race. Courts define "willfully" to require proof that a defendant knew his acts were unlawful, and committed those acts in open defiance of the law. It is one of the highest standards of intent imposed by law.Emphasis mine. And the fact we all know damn well that Zimmerman caused bodily injury to Trayvon Martin because of his race doesn't matter, because the Feds can't prove it.
George Zimmerman just got away with murder again, nineteen days after what would have been Trayvon Martin's 20th birthday, and two days before the third anniversary of his death.
Drinking Beers with MRAs. Again.
[Content Note: MRAs; antifeminism; misogyny; rape culture; violence.]
Earlier this month, Vox published a piece in which a male reporter has beers with MRAs, and I had a few thoughts about that, ahem.*
Today, I see that GQ is the latest publication to file a story in the "Dude Reporter Has Beers with MRAs" genre: "Are You Man Enough for the Men's Rights Movement?"
To be fair to its author, Jeff Sharlet, he clearly does not sympathize with MRAs—and, in fact, I am familiar with some of his previous work challenging MRAs and patriarchal institutions like "The Family," whose members share in common with MRAs [CN: rape] some reprehensible views on sexual violence.
But I nonetheless question, again, the value of these pieces, particularly when there is a catastrophic dearth of pieces, comparable in scope and visibility, in which the targets of these men are thoughtfully profiled.
And I wonder if a casual reader comes away understanding, even a little, the vast harm these men do from a story that ends thus:
Elam and Factory slip out onto the balcony for a smoke. I follow. We look into the darkness of St. Clair Shores and the lake beyond, three men smoking in the damp air before dawn.Just three men smoking in the damp air. Jokes about bitches making sandwiches. Dicks and balls. In the dream world of King MRA. As if that world is self-contained, and their fantasy doesn't spill all the fuck out all over women all the time.
When we return to the room, Elam and Factory are giddy, horsing around, teasing Blair. "Your last line," Elam tells me, "should be, 'Then we got the munchies, and Paul said, "Bitch, go get me a sandwich."' " He's joking, more satire, because right now his brotherly love extends to ladies with a sense of humor. He would never ask a bitch to make him a sandwich. But seriously, he says. Seriously.
And that's when Elam draws me my diagram. The Dick & Balls. He doesn't mean to draw the Dick & Balls, but he does. It is a sign. "Yes," says Elam, "I guess it is." He smiles. Everyone smiles. We are high in the manosphere now, the great phallic oversoul, the red pills are working, the rape jokes no longer land like bombshells, they're like the weather, ordinary as rain. We've made it: the dream world of Elam, where men are men, no matter how broken.
I wonder how many readers will conclude that they're basically delusional but harmless, as long as you're nowhere near them.
I wonder how many readers will realize that they sometimes come for you.
The final paragraphs of Sharlet's piece read to me as a way to give the casual reader permission to not care about these guys. And if urging people to care about the harm they do isn't the point, then what is.
I realize I'm meant to be grateful, because Sharlet essentially mocks MRAs in much of this piece, but I can't put this any more plainly: Humanizing MRAs in a way that either intentionally suggests or may unintentionally suggest they're really just creepy but ultimately hapless dodos doesn't actually help those of us targeted by them.
To the contrary: We are obliged to take seriously the threats and harassment which emanate from "Men's Rights" quarters, and, when we ask in turn for others to take seriously the harm being done to us, it's decidedly unhelpful to be met with some variation on "just ignore them; they're dingalings; what's the big deal?"
I'll grant it's pretty helpful to misogynist terrorists to be regarded that way, though.
---------------------------
* For fuller context: That same week, Buzzfeed also published a detailed profile of MRA leader Paul Elam, and the Guardian published Lindy West's account of meeting a man who viciously trolled her (and then reformed his ways). Neither of these pieces was the same in tone as the other pieces, but they are among a number of pieces lately in which people who engage in misogynist trolling are being profiled and/or humanized, for various purposes.
