[Content Note: Misogyny.]
It is the year of our lord Jesus Jones two thousand and fifteen, and apparently there are still companies in the world that will tell a woman who jointly holds an account with her male partner that she needs to get her husband to call if she wants information about that account.
The cool thing is how monopolies mean that woman can't even take her feminist fucking business elsewhere.
Welp
Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime
Semisonic: "Closing Time"
This week's TMNS brought to you by '90s One-Hit (on the US charts) Wonders.
In the News
Here is some stuff in the news today...
[Content Note: Extreme weather; death] We had terrible storms in Chicagoland last night, and the storm system "spawned at least two tornadoes across the north central portion of [Illinois], leaving one woman dead and at least seven others wounded." Because there are a lot of family farms in the area, some animals were killed, too. This is, I fear, just the beginning of what will be a bad tornado season.
[CN: Disablism; guns; violence] Despite rhetoric about and (bad) policies designed around mental illness and gun control, a new study published this month in Behavioral Sciences and the Law has found "little overlap between participants with serious mental illnesses and those with a history of impulsive, angry behavior and access to guns. 'Gun violence and serious mental illness are two very important but distinct public health issues that intersect only at their edges,' [Jeffrey Swanson, Ph.D., professor in psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Duke Medicine and lead author of the study] said." One thing I'll note about the findings is that they include this: "Fewer than one in 10 angry people with access to guns had ever been admitted to a hospital for a psychiatric or substance abuse problem, the study found." and this: "Angry people with ready access to guns are typically young or middle-aged men, who at times lose their temper, smash and break things, or get into physical fights." So, one of the things that definitely needs addressed here is the known gap in men seeking mental healthcare.
[CN: Death penalty; torture] Oklahoma is one of several US states which has tortured a death row prisoner to death, because of the lack of availability of execution drugs, and, instead of revisiting their policy on state-sanctioned killing, they are just determined to find a new way of killing people: "Oklahoma is set to become the first state in the US to allow the use of nitrogen gas as a method of execution. The state legislature has passed a bill, which now awaits the governor's signature to become law." End the death penalty now.
[CN: Homophobia; abortion] Michelangelo Signorile warns that we can't get complacent about the fight for LGBTQIA rights, and (quite rightly) points to abortion as an issue we thought we'd won once upon a time and now is a complete clusterfuck of rollbacks and restrictions.
[CN: Animal endangerment] Damn: "The most extensive genetic analysis of mountain gorillas ever conducted has found the critically endangered apes burdened with severe inbreeding and at risk of extinction but the researchers still see reasons for optimism about their survival. ...The researchers said the main threats to these gorillas are from humans: habitat loss, hunting and diseases transmitted from people. [Geneticist Chris Tyler-Smith of Britain's Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute] said, 'We just need to continue to conserve them: their future lies in our hands.'"
Did you like Season One of True Detective? Well, then you might be excited to hear that a trailer for Season Two has finally been released! I am still very dubious about the rumored plot, though! Especially since the only plot I can discern from this trailer is "brooding and mustaches."
And finally! Just ONE MILLION PUGS in need of adoption playing with a bearded gentleman on a beach! Who doesn't need that in their life?
Quote of the Day
[Content Note: Racism; police brutality.]
"When I say, 'abolish the police,' I'm usually asked what I would have us replace them with. My answer is always full social, economic, and political equality, but that's not what's actually being asked. What people mean is 'who is going to protect us?' Who protects us now? If you're white and well-off, perhaps the police protect you. The rest of us, not so much. What use do I have for an institution that routinely kills people who look like me, and make it so I'm afraid to walk out of my home?"—Mychal Denzel Smith, in a must-read essay, "Abolish the Police. Instead, Let’s Have Full Social, Economic, and Political Equality."
Between the points Smith makes about the amount of time police actually spend responding to municipal violations (which are abused by police to exploit communities, especially poor communities), the fact that we have criminalized need, and how ineffective police actually are in meaningfully responding to violent crime, I'm not sure how much use any of us have for the police, frankly.
And that's not to say that we don't have need for some kind of intervention for violent crimes, in particular. Of course we do. But it doesn't necessarily have to be police, at least not police as policing looks now. We're all just so used to the idea and presence and mythos of police that we fail to imagine anything else.
Primarily Speaking
Well, we're starting to get to that point in the presidential campaign where enough people are running, or fixing to run, that it's the return of Primarily Speaking, your regular round-up of presidential primary news reported with eleventy biebillion fucktons of snark and exclamation points! Plus cool Photoshops like this shit:
Anyway!
On the Democratic side, we've got Hillary Clinton, who will reportedly announce her candidacy this weekend.
And then there's Vice President Joe Biden, who has not announced whether he will run for president, but is the center of a "Draft Biden" campaign that features him in a Corvette with the tagline "I'm Ridin with Biden." Hoo boy.
And then there's former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley, who seems like a nice enough bloke but couldn't manage to help his successor win election in his blue state (whoooooops!), and whose name I cannot hear without imagining him behind a patriotic podium during a primary debate, shouting at Hillary Clinton: "I like to kick! Streeeeeetch! And kick! I'm FIFTY!"
And then there's Senator Bernie Sanders, who is a socialist (uh-oh!) ("That's like a Communist, right?"—Most of America) and still trying to figure shit out.
And then there's former Republican and current Democrat Lincoln Chafee, who at least gets points for not appearing in front of a US flag and not saying "God Bless America" in his exploratory announcement. He also wasn't wearing a flag lapel pin, so he might also be a Communist.
And then there's Senator Jim Webb, who can go suck an egg because he is terrible.
So: Hillary Clinton and a bunch of straight white dudes. Neat!
On the Republican side, there have already been a couple of official announcements: Senator Ted Cruz, who is the worst, and Senator Rand Paul, who is the worst.
Senator Marco "Thirsty Jerk" Rubio, who is the worst, is expected to officially announce his candidacy on Monday, one day after Clinton announces, so this guy clearly knows how to win a news cycle.
And the prominent contenders currently exploring possible candidacies include: Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, who is the worst; Dr. Ben Carson, who is the worst; New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who is the worst; former New York Governor George Pataki, who is the worst; former Texas Governor Rick Perry, who is the worst; former Senator Rick Santorum, who is the worst; Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who is the worst; garbage nightmare Donald Trump, who is the worst; former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who is the worst; Senator Lindsey Graham, who is the worst; and jettsetting job-killer Carly Fiorina, who is the worst.
Sooooooo, it's shaping up to be quite a field!
My favorite primary headline of the day has got to be this one at CNN [video may autoplay]: "Rand Paul admits to 'short temper.'" Nooooooo lol. I hadn't even noticed! What with all the screaming at female reporters and all.
In a nod to how genteel the Republican primary is definitely totally for sure going to be this time 'round, Senator Lindsey Graham's strategy is apparently going to be "Take Down Rand Paul." Ha ha cool! COOL STRATEGY.
Meanwhile, Senator Ted Cruz is a lying liar, and he's not even good at it. In fairness, the reason he has not developed this skill is because he usually speaks to audiences who are very stupid and believe everything he says.
And finally: Rick Santorum is living it up in Iowa, where he's really making a great case for voting him off the island. [CN: War; Islamophobia] "He said unlike in 2012, national security and foreign policy will be primary issues in 2016. He stated that he called out President George W. Bush, as well as President Barack Obama, for not identifying the threat the United States faces with radical militant Islam." Yeah, if there's one criticism I have of Bush and Obama, it's that they haven't dropped enough bombs on Muslims under the auspices of protecting us from radical militant Islam.
If that doesn't convince you of Santorum's fine presidential credentials, he also promised to be "winsome." CASE CLOSED, YOUR HONOR!
Talk about these things! Or don't. Whatever makes you happy. Life is short.
Here We Go
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will reportedly announce her presidential candidacy this weekend via Twitter:
Hillary Clinton is planning to officially launch her US presidential campaign on Sunday while en route to Iowa, a source familiar with the campaign has confirmed to the Guardian.
The former secretary of state is scheduled to declare her second run for president on Twitter at noon eastern time on Sunday, the source told the Guardian, followed by a video and email announcement, then a series of conference calls mapping out a ... tour beginning in Iowa and looking ahead to more early primary states.
Pros: HILLARY CLINTON.
Cons: Clinton is a consummate modern Democratic politician. Which means she's way more conservative on many issues that I am (and most of this readership is): She's a corporatist, an opportunist, not committed to full transparency, and way more hawkish on foreign policy than I want any president to be (though I am keenly aware that peaceniks don't get elected). She's not great at talking about race and racism, always sounding awkward and unnatural like she's really trying hard to avoid saying the wrong thing, at a time when we really need a president who can speak confidently on racial issues.
That's not a complete list, but it's a few of my major concerns. And, to be fair to Hillary Clinton, most of them are concerns I would have about virtually any Democratic candidate. But that doesn't make them any less concerning.
The last time Hillary Clinton ran for president, I was alternatingly accused of being in the bag for Hillary Clinton, and being insufficiently supportive of Hillary Clinton, so let me just lay out what things are going to look like around here, regarding her candidacy, and y'all can manage your expectations accordingly: I am going to staunchly, unapologetically defend Hillary Clinton from the unfathomable torrents of misogyny which will be disgorged by both conservatives and progressives who can't be bothered to criticize her on the issues; I am going to be excited and invigorated by Hillary Clinton and her campaign; I am going to be depressed by and frustrated with Hillary Clinton and her campaign.
And if she happens to win, just substitute "presidency" for "campaign."
In 2008, just before President Obama was elected, just before I happily cast my vote for him, I wrote:
Obama's candidacy has been, for me, a continuing lesson on what are and what are not mutually exclusive concepts. Being unthrilled about certain policy positions and tactics, sometimes unthrilled even to the point of feeling like we're taking a step backwards, and regarding his candidacy as yet a step forward in other ways, aren't mutually exclusive.All of those expressed sentiments were truer and more active parts of my thought, four years later. They are still. And I still have great expectations.
Reconciling that with my tendency to view candidates as either singularly Progressive or Not Progressive has been an important learning experience for me.
That's not a "lesser of two evils" argument; it's not a comment about compromise, or balance, or taking what we can get, either. It's about coexistence and complexity, and opening myself up to both in a way I haven't before—in no small part because I've never had the need nor the chance, offered as I've been prior to this election only straight, white, wealthy men who were symbols of nothing but social stagnation at the upper levels of our government.
For a long time, I wasn't quite sure how to work out what to make of this opportunity given to me, to see forward and backward and running in place so vividly all in the same candidate. (I certainly would have had the same problem if Clinton had ended up our nominee.) But moving into a space where I can simultaneously feel desperately excited about the forward, while feeling the usual disappointment and occasional fury about the same old and back, has been good. And liberating.
It feels like the first time you really understand how to keep loving someone even after you've seen their flaws.
It's almost like I'm a real grown-up or something.
Because I am an optimist, a cynic, a cheerleader, and a critic. I can be all of these things, just like Hillary Clinton will delight and disappoint me.
And no matter what, I am going to push back with all of my might against misogyny unleashed at her, because that's how feminism works.
So strap in, y'all. Here we go.
Question of the Day
Suggested by Shaker boutet: "What is your favorite tea? If you're not a tea person, what is your favorite other comfort beverage?"
I've only very recently developed a taste for tea (much to Iain's long-delayed delight), and I haven't even been drinking it long enough to know the difference between which teas I'm drinking. I drink whatever he puts in front of me, and I've enjoyed all of it!
Only hot tea, though. I still don't have a taste for iced tea.
Number of the Day
[Content Note: Homophobia; Christian Supremacy.]
54%: The percentage of USian respondents to a new Reuters/Ipsos poll who say that businesses should not be allowed to refuse services on the basis of sexual orientation.
The poll found solid opposition to allowing businesses to refuse services or refuse to hire people or groups based on religious beliefs.27/28% is still far too many. But this just goes to show how wildly out of step with the majority these bullshit laws and their bullshit proponents really are.
Fifty-four percent said it was wrong for businesses to refuse services, while 28 percent said they should have that right. And 55 percent said businesses should not have the right to refuse to hire certain people or groups based on the employer's religious beliefs, while 27 percent said businesses should have the right.
All Right Then
Former Republican Senator and current Democrat Lincoln Chafee says he's considering running for president and will launch a presidential exploratory committee:
Chafee said he plans to spend the next few months in Iowa, the first caucus state, New Hampshire, which holds the kickoff presidential primary and "other key battleground states."He released this video, announcing his intention to explore a run for the presidency:
A decision on whether to pursue a campaign, Chafee said, will hinge on the level of support he can generate over the next few weeks and months and on how well a web-based fund-raising effort goes.
Lincoln Chafee, a 62-year-old thin white man wearing a white shirt, dark blue suit jacket, and blue-and-white striped tie, appears in a library, speaking directly to the camera.Lincoln Chafee is not exactly a charismatic dynamo, but he's got some integrity, which is always in short supply in Washington. He's a former Republican, so, suffice it to say, he's not exactly a transformative progressive, but he may be attractive to moderate voters, so this is a pretty solid run for a vice-presidential spot.
I'm Lincoln Chafee, and I am a Democrat considering a run for President of the United States.
The 2016 election is an important one, for the Democratic Party and for America. Campaigns are the time for debates about the vision for our future, and for voters to assess the character and experience of those offering ideas.
When the Republicans were last in power, they left the economy in shambles. Over the last six years, President Obama has led admirably. He has revived our economy.
As we look to the future, in this age of nuclear weapons, I'm alarmed by the international instability, especially in the Middle East and North Africa. I don't like where this is going. Americans want safety, stability, and sustainability. We will need fresh ideas, and the most skillful diplomacy in dealing with this ever-changing world.
Throughout my career, as mayor, governor, and United States Senator, I exercised good judgment on a wide range of high-pressure decisions—decisions that require level-headedness and careful foresight. Often these decisions came in the face of political adversity.
During the next weeks and months, I look forward to sharing with you my thoughts about the future of our great country. Thank you.
Because Hillary Clinton is presumed to be the front-runner for the Democratic nomination—presumed, in fact, to be the eventual nominee, despite the fact she has not yet even announced her candidacy—it's impossible to listen to this introductory statement without hearing the implicit jabs at Clinton.
Chafee might not have intended to imply that he would be "level-headed" where other candidates (ahem) would not, but implying that a female presidential candidate would be too emotional and irrational and ninny-brained to exercise good decision-making is perhaps not the "fresh idea" we need injected into this campaign.
Dispatches from the Conservative Legislation Lab
Hey, remember when I introduced you to Glenda Ritz, the Democratic (and democratically elected) Superintendent of Public Instruction for the state of Indiana, who the Republican state legislature and Republican governor are trying to get rid of, because she is trying to stop them from destroying the state's public education system?
Welp, here's a cool update:
Democratic schools Superintendent Glenda Ritz is one step closer to losing her position as leader of the State Board of Education.That's what happens when a Democrat gets elected to a prominent position in Indiana.
The House Education Committee voted Thursday to advance a proposal that would allow the board to choose its own chairman, most likely ousting Ritz from her current position.
Lawmakers also approved changes that would increase the board's size to 13 members, maintaining the 10 seats currently appointed by Republican Gov. Mike Pence. A similar House proposal would keep the current structure of 11 members.
Those in favor of the GOP-led push say the change is necessary to fix a dysfunctional education board, while opponents call the move a political power grab that undermines voters who elected Ritz in 2012.
The bill now goes to the full House for consideration.
People can yell at Hoosiers all they want that we need to vote for change, but when we vote in a Democrat to save our public education system, the GOP gets rid of her.
I know lots of public school teachers in Indiana, and all of them, irrespective of political affiliation, are super pissed about this. It's not even a Democrats versus Republicans battle. It's a people of Indiana state versus their rogue legislature battle.
Ritz was elected specifically to stop the aggressive dismantlement of the state's public education system. And she won her seat with a higher percentage of the vote than Governor Pence won his. But now he and his cronies are orchestrating her ouster, in contravention of the people's will.
As but one example of the mountainous fuckery Ritz is up against: The "pass a test, become a teacher" program to which Ritz objected? Means there are now public school teachers in Indiana with no training. Not even in special education classes. There are students with developmental disabilities being taught by teachers in Indiana with no idea how to teach or interact with them. And they're teaching alongside people who have master's degrees in special education, who are watching helplessly as students are essentially poorly babysat by instructors who have no idea what to do.
The Republican Party argues this is good for kids. It is not good for kids. The only thing it is good for is destroying the public education system.
And so they're literally just getting rid of the woman elected to stop them.
Daily Dose of Cute
The Nappingtons cordially invite you to take a nap with them.
As always, please feel welcome and encouraged to share pix of the fuzzy, feathered, or scaled members of your family in comments.
And Even More Chipping Away at Roe
[Content Note: War on agency.]
Just yesterday, I mentioned that Kansas had become the first state to ban dilation and evacuation (D&E), a common second-trimester abortion procedure.
Today, the Oklahoma legislature has passed a similar bill:
The state senate voted 37-4 on Wednesday for the bill by Tulsa Republican Pam Peterson. It now goes to Republican governor Mary Fallin, who has previously signed several anti-abortion bills.Naturally, "being pregnant against one's will" does not constitute a serious health risk, according to this or any other abortion restriction, despite the fact that there are steep emotional and psychological costs, along with all the typical pregnancy risks, attendant to forcible pregnancy.
Under the bill, doctors cannot use forceps, clamps, scissors or similar instruments on a fetus to remove it from the womb in pieces. Such instruments are used in a dilation and evacuation procedure performed in the second trimester.
The bill would ban the procedure except when necessary to save a woman's life or a serious health risk to the mother.
There are pregnant people who simply don't know they're pregnant until the second trimester. There are pregnant people who can't raise the funds for an abortion until the second trimester. Second trimester abortions must be legal, if Roe is not to be rendered an empty statute.
But that, of course, is the entire point.
Quote of the Day
[Content Note: Sexual assault; rape culture.]
"Victims who come forward to report sexual assaults often run up against a law enforcement system that writes off their accounts, and defers to the accused. Darren Sharper had an added element: he was a famous athlete who helped propel a team to the Super Bowl and who had a reputation for being a Nice Guy. This had an impact on how his cases were handled. Sharper raped a woman in September 2013 in New Orleans and, despite the officer in charge of the case gathering evidence, compelling Sharper to give a sample of his DNA, that DNA matching the rape kit, video evidence, and witness corroboration, 'it wasn't enough for the district attorney.' The reason, the report argues, is because 'prosecutors were hesitant to move too quickly on a local football hero with deep pockets and savvy lawyers' and so they held off an arrest warrant. They wanted a 'bulletproof case before they would sign off on Sharper's arrest.' He then raped another woman in Los Angeles the next month, two in Arizona the month after that, and then in a 24-hour period in January, two more in Los Angeles and another two in Las Vegas the following night."—Jessica Luther, in a chilling but important piece for Vice Sports about the case of admitted serial rapist and New Orleans Saints football player Darren Sharper, and how it is emblematic of why athletes get away with their crimes.
In her piece, Jess prominently points to this report by ProPublica, co-published with the New Orleans Advocate and Sports Illustrated, on how the police in multiple jurisdictions failed to stop Sharper's rape spree, and that report is also highly recommended reading.
Sharper's victims suffered the failures most. With Sharper, they encountered a man practiced in defense and deception. With police and prosecutors, they found deference toward the accused, and what often felt like disbelief concerning their claims.Rapists lie. And police frequently believe them. Especially when they are famous men.
ProPublica and The New Orleans Advocate contacted five of Sharper's alleged victims. Except for brief interviews with two women, none wanted to discuss the allegations. And none wanted their names used.
"It's pretty black and white," one woman said about the police. "They didn't do their job."
In the News
Here is some stuff in the news today...
[Content Note: Racism; police brutality] The lengths to which this cop went in order to cover up his crime: "The police officer who shot Walter Scott radioed in to claim that Scott had 'grabbed my Taser', six seconds after firing his final shot, despite video suggesting the unarmed man was not in possession of the stun gun at any point, a Guardian analysis has shown." Fucking hell.
[CN: Weapons; sanctions] Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei made his first public comment on Iran's nuclear deal being negotiated last week in Lausanne, Switzerland, and "demanded that all sanctions on Iran be lifted at the same time as any final agreement with world powers on curbing Tehran's nuclear program is concluded." Khamenei is not generally a man I'd describe as reasonable, but that seems like a very reasonable request to me, frankly.
[CN: Conversion therapy] In a statement posted by Senior Presidential Advisor Valerie Jarrett, the Obama administration has officially signaled its support of a ban on sexual orientation and gender identity conversion therapies: "As part of our dedication to protecting America's youth, this Administration supports efforts to ban the use of conversion therapy for minors." GOOD.
[CN: Misogyny; racism; violence against women] The BBC has a major feature on the alarming number of murdered or missing First Nations women in Canada. It's not a perfect piece of reporting, but it's definitely worth reading if only to listen to the First Nations women who participated in the article: "They just think no one is waiting for us, that nobody cares about us, that we're disposable."
[CN: Misogyny] Travis Waldron has written a terrific piece on the state of women's football/soccer in England: "'What's the fastest growing sport in England, or the UK, or Europe, or the world?' [Lord David Triesman, who chaired the Football Association from 2008 to 2010] asked me. He didn't wait for an answer. 'Cut the cake however you like, the answer is women's football.'"
Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul's rapport with the media continues to be amazing: "Paul grew testy when pressed in the interview on the question of [abortion] exceptions. 'I gave you about a five-minute answer. Put in my five-minute answer,' he said."
[CN: Transphobia; self-harm; carcerality] Cosmo profiles Chelsea Manning, and her fight to transition, and to grow her hair, while behind bars for leaking US government documents. Through a series of letters, Manning also talks about her personal history, her current life, her dreams, her correspondence with other people who are trans. Please note that Manning's birth name and an image of her as a child are included in the story.
Congratulations to Munira Khalif, a senior at Mounds Park Academy in St. Paul, Minnesota, who "was accepted into all eight Ivy League schools. She's one of only two students in the nation to accomplish that this year. 'I was completely surprised,' Khalif said. 'It took a couple of days for the news to sink in.' Khalif also got into Stanford, the University of Minnesota and Georgetown. In addition to an outstanding academic record and ACT score, the 18-year-old state speech champion also founded a social justice club at school." Blub. I love this girl. ♥
Heads-up if you buy/eat Sabra Hummus: "The presence of potentially deadly listeria in several samples of hummus has prompted a national recall by Virginia-based Sabra Dipping Co. of 30,000 cases of Classic Hummus."
Cool: "According to the 'giant impact hypothesis,' the moon formed about 4.5 billion years ago, when a planet-like object about a tenth of Earth's current mass slammed into our planet. Simulations and recent studies of moon rocks suggest that the moon should be mostly made from the remains of the impactor, nicknamed Theia. This would explain why the moon seems to be made of material that looks a lot like Earth's mantle, as seen in rock samples and mineral maps."
"One Kitten, One Family, Six Million Adoptions." Awwwww. I have my issues with PetSmart stores, but the PetSmart Charities really do great work with rescue. Their grant program is pretty great. Anyway, the picture of that guy with his tiny kitten! AHH! :)
False, and Indecent, Advertising
[Content Note: Classism; fat hatred.]
Rowena Lindsay at the CSM: "Why did DirecTV pull its Rob Lowe commercials?"
It turns out that it's because they were accused of false advertising. Not for the reason they should have pulled the campaign (or never launched it in the first place): Because the entire campaign is a gross piece of classist garbage.
If you're not familiar with the ads, they feature famously good-looking, talented, and successful thin, straight, white, cis actor Rob Lowe and various alter-egos, like "Super Creepy Rob Lowe" and "Peaked in High School Rob Lowe," representing DirecTV (Rob Lowe) and cable (alter-ego Rob Lowe), with Rob Lowe touting the superiority of DirecTV and admonishing viewers: "Don't be like this me. Get rid of cable and upgrade to DirecTV."
DirecTV is still trying to find a way to continue the campaign nonetheless: "Lowe may make an appearance in DirecTV commercials in the future, however, as the company was in the process of creating five new alter-ego characters for him, including 'total deadbeat' Rob Lowe, who gets surgery in a hotel room to save money."
Hahahaha he can't afford health insurance! Terrific!
*thatface*
The alter-egos are less than versions of Rob Lowe because they are poor, or fat, or balding, or underemployed, or awkward. Or because they're "creepy," which is definitely the same thing as being fat or bald. Ahem.
Qualities which are so hideous (AHEM) that comparing cable companies to them is one basis of the false advertising charge:
[The National Advertising Division, which is part of the Council of Better Business Bureaus and fact checks advertisements, suggested that DirecTV] discontinue the catchphrase "Don't be like this me. Get rid of cable and upgrade to DirecTV" because it "conveyed a comparative and unsupported superiority message."Comcast isn't like a poor fat person! And it's outrageous to suggest that it is! Because everyone knows fat poor people are garbage! Basically.
"Humor can be an effective and creative way for advertisers to highlight the differences between their products and their competitor's," the NAD said in a statement. However, "humor and hyperbole do not relieve an advertiser of the obligation to support messages that their advertisements might reasonably convey — especially if the advertising disparages a competitor's product."
The entire campaign relies on denigrating marginalized people: Even "Creepy Rob Lowe" is not merely "creepy" by virtue of his behavior, but also because he wears the look of a working-class biker.
Followed by a catchphrase that says don't be like them. Eww gross.
Cue the caterwauling about how I am oversensitive and shrill and Most Humorless Feminist in all of Nofunnington. Don't I get it that it's just a joke?
Sure. I get it. I get it big time.
Forgive me (or don't) if I still don't find the humor in calling marginalized people trash.
An Open Letter to the Chancellor of the University of Pittsburgh
[Content note: transphobia, suicide]
On Tuesday, I returned my diplomas to the University of Pittsburgh, along with this letter to the chancellor. In time, I'll probably have more to say, but for the moment, I'm simply too drained. Here's the letter, with hyperlinks added for context.
Dear Chancellor Gallagher:Crossposted from A Cunt of One's Own
I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing today as a concerned alumna of the University of Pittsburgh. Recent news has made me aware of our university’s resolute failure to provide a safe and welcoming environment for its transgender students, faculty, and staff. This failure is symbolized by the Johnstown campus’s 2012 expulsion of Seamus Johnston, the subsequent announcement of a policy that forbids many trans students from using sex-segregated facilities that match their gender, and your administration’s April response to the ruling in Johnston vs. The University of Pittsburgh, in which you disingenuously asserted that it was “never [y]our intent to violate anyone’s rights.”
Our university’s actions have been reckless and wrong. My studies in biology and the philosophy of science inform my conclusion that your administration’s actions are informed less by a profound misinterpretation of science than they are by dated discourse on religion and social order.
I’m not merely concerned about the technicality of your administration’s failure. While at Pitt, I struggled (as most students do) to balance my academic development with my evolving sense of self. I did so on a campus that lacked visible role models for a young trans woman. My difficulties were such that in 1997, I briefly withdrew from the university following a pair of unsuccessful suicide attempts.
I do not blame the university for my past struggles. I raise them because it is important for you to realize the implications of your administration’s harmful policies. Eighteen years after my darkest semester, I unequivocally do blame your university for failing to create a space where all community members can balance professional development with healthy personal growth.
Thus, I write this letter for both you, and the LGBT community at Pitt. I desperately hope that your administration reverses its dangerous policies on gender-segregated spaces such that it recognizes the reality of trans lives within and beyond the gender binary. Additionally, I need your administration to change the tenor of its interactions with trans people from that of bureaucracy impatient with those who cloud its worldview to that of a university celebrating the accomplishments and potential of valued members of its family.
If your administration will not affirm the dignity of its transgender students, faculty, and staff, I will. I understand that there are trans and lesbian, gay, and bisexual people who are thriving at Pitt, but there are also those who are struggling. They have my love and support. I call for other members of the Pitt community to affirm the same.
Given your administration’s refusal to embrace Pitt’s transgender population, I cannot in good conscience continue my affiliation with my alma mater. Please find enclosed my diplomas (a Bachelor of Philosophy in Biological Sciences and a Bachelor of Arts for studies in the history and philosophy of science) along with the university pennant that adorned my previous offices in the academy. I would be more than happy to reclaim them at such time as the University of Pittsburgh sees fit to welcome people like me.
Respectfully yours,
Katherine Janet Forbes, PhD, Chancellor’s Scholar (Fall 1996 Freshman Class)
Enclosures: 3
Cc: Dr. Jem Spectar, President, University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown
Dr. Edward Stricker, Dean, University of Pittsburgh Honors College
Dr. Paula Grabowski, Chair, Department of Biological Sciences (Oakland)
Dr. James Lennox, Chair, Department of History and Philosophy of Science (Oakland)
Rainbow Alliance, University of Pittsburgh (Oakland)
