Hosted by Maria Conchita Alonso.
The Virtual Pub Is Open
[Explanations: lol your fat. pathetic anger bread. hey your gay.]
TFIF, Shakers!
Belly up to the bar,
and name your poison!
And don't forget to tip your bartender!
Film Corner!
Below, the trailer for Jack the Giant Killer, which is not a movie about a dude named Jack of enormous proportions who kills people, but a dude named Jack who kills giants. Or a giant. Many giants? At least one giant.
Here is the movie's synopsis, which should help with this whole conundrum: "Jack the Giant Killer tells the story of an ancient war that is reignited when a young farmhand unwittingly opens a gateway between our world and a fearsome race of giants. Unleashed on the Earth for the first time in centuries, the giants strive to reclaim the land they once lost, forcing the young man, Jack, into the battle of his life to stop them. Fighting for a kingdom, its people, and the love of a brave princess, he comes face to face with the unstoppable warriors he thought only existed in legend—and gets the chance to become a legend himself."
Hmm, that didn't really help at all, in terms of determining how many giants are actually murdered at the hand of this young farmboy. ("As you wish!") Well, whatever. What's important is that we definitely know this is based on a classic Western hemisphere fable (that was probably ripped off from some classic Eastern hemisphere fable), which means that it stars lots and lots of white men, which is the important thing, obviously.
Nicholas Hoult, who is definitely 22 now, I checked Wikipedia and everything, has turned into a very attractive man after being a very awkward little dude in About a Boy. In his short career, he has been in a lot of movies I like and/or like a lot—About a Boy, A Single Man, Clash of the Titans, X-Men: First Class—and I will probably like this movie, too, even though I'm totally going to make fun of this trailer.
Anyway! Nicholas Hoult is handsome and he is a farmhand named Jack. There is Ominous Music. He is given a handful of beans, which are, according to an urgently whispering fellow with monk-hair, "holy relics from a very special place far, far away." Ha ha sure they are. "They are born of dark magic." Holy AND magical, you say? Why, these ARE special beans. "They have the power to change the world as we know it." By revealing that god is a wizard? "Don't lose them." KEEP THEM SECRET! KEEP THEM SAFE! THEY ARE THE ONE BEANS! "Whatever you do, don't get them wet." Uh-oh! I already put them in the toilet!
Ominous Music gets ominouser. There's a rainstorm. A princess with boobs walks down a castle hall. Them beans is getting wet, yo. A cat meows. Someone says in voiceover, "Once darkness gets a taste for light, it will not stop." Stop what? Eating light? Do these giants eat lightbulbs? Is this an allegory about energy conservation? Hmm, maybe not, since a giant and evil green plant (I bet it's a beanstalk!) just crashed through the floor of Jack's garbage hovel. Maybe this is an allegory about how stupid nature is. It's like Al Gore and Ayn Rand are having a capoeira fight on top of a moving train in my head.
The king wants to know where the princess is, Jack. Jack looks up the beanstalk. I guess she's up there? What was the princess doing in his shitshack? Never mind that. SOMETHING GIANT IS COMING! What is it?! Oh, it's a giant. And the giant has grabbed the princess. Horses. Run! Unsheathe your swords and get ready to fight! Flaming trees over the castle wall. Damn, you really don't want to fight giants. This is why we told you not to get those
Rain. Running. Grabby giant! Swarthy giant eyeball. Yiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiikes.
Jack the Giant Killer, coming to a theater near you in June 2012, just about the time we'll be looking for anything to lift our spirits and distract our minds from contemplating the possibility that Newt Gingrich could be our next president.
Friday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by thistles.
Recommended Reading:
Pam: [TW for homophobia] Romney Proposes Bullshit Three-Tier Marriage System
The Rejectionist: [TW for rape; abuse; misogyny] Eleven Thoughts about Lisbeth Salander
Resistance: [TW for racism; victim-blaming] In Need of a History Lesson
Arturo: [TW for racism] #MARKSWATCH: The Response and The Meme
Brian: [TW for fat hatred] There is a reason my picture is at the top of the page.
Andy: 'Someday' We'll Know if Tom Vilsack Supports Marriage Equality for All (I get the feeling there are a lot of cabinet members trying not to get a step ahead of the boss these days. Sigh.)
Stephanie: 2012 Golden Globe Nominations (With linked feminist reviews, where possible.)
Leave your links and recommendations in comments...
Whoooooooops Your Kyriarchal Assumptions
Actress Gabourey Sidibe arrives for the premiere of the film "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close" in New York, December 15, 2011. [Reuters Pictures]Earlier today, I saw this picture of Gabby Sidibe on the red carpet last night, looking gorgeous as always, and I was reminded of a popular media meme about Sidibe when she was nominated for an Oscar for her breakthrough performance in Precious. It was said in a lot of different ways, by a lot of different reviewers, reporters, and assorted film industry experts, some of whom were more circumspect and some of whom were more blunt, but the gist was always that Sidibe would not—could not—have a sustainable career, because she is fat, because she is a fat woman, because she is a fat woman of color, because she is a fat woman of color with very dark skin, because she is a fat woman of color with very dark skin who played a survivor of sexual violence in her career-launching role.
Since then, Sidibe has starred in Victoria Mahoney's Yelling to the Sky, had a major supporting role in a cable series (Showtime's The Big C), done voice work on two different animated series, played a key supporting role in the recently-released Brett Ratner film Tower Heist, and is currently filming Martin McDonagh's Seven Psychopaths, which has an A-list cast.
Not too shabby. I imagine there are a lot of actors who would be thrilled to have such a non-career.
I would say that I'm looking forward to reading all the follow-up pieces in which the Very Important Knowledgeable Prognosticators of the Entertainment Industry admit that perhaps they were a little quick to judge, to mistake the prejudiced habits of the film industry with some immutable truth about its nature. I would say that except ha ha I'm not stupid and it will never happen.
I hope Gabby Sidibe keeps getting opportunities, and that her career is exactly as long as she wants it to be.
Daily Dose of Cute
[Please note that Dudley and Zelda bare their teeth at each other in this video. They're just playing, but if seeing dogs bare their teeth is triggering or otherwise problematic for you, you should skip this video.]
Dudley and Zelda lie on the floor facing each other, their paws crossed, squeaking a plush snake toy between them. They stop and look at me. "Get it," I tell them. "Get it, puppies!" They sniff at it, sniff each other, look back at me. "Where's the snake? Where is it?" I ask. They look at me. "Where's the snake?" They look at me. "Dudley, get it. Get it!" I whisper. "Zelly Belly, get that snake!" I reach down for it. "What is this?" I hold it up and they take it back for more squeaking. Zelly throws me a quick "Thanks, Two-Legs!" look. Squeak squeak squeak.
Suddenly Zelda hops backwards and sits up with her back against the settee. (This is her cue for: "It's time for the Bitey Game!") "Oh my goodness!" I exclaim to Dudley. "What was that?!" He looks at me. "Oh my goodness!" He squeaks the snake while Zelly waits patiently, then finally catches on. He stands up and sniffs the camera, then goes and offers his neck to Zelda. They snort and huff and play-bite each other. Zelda bats him with her paw. He play-bites her leg. She punches him. "You tell him, Zelly," I tell her. "You tell him."
Dudley sits down beside her, then lowers himself so now Zelly is the taller one. More biteyness. Zelly punches him with both front paws, then falls over. I laugh. Bitey bitey bitey. Iain makes a noise in the loft; the dogs stop and look up, a pair of ridiculous cuteness. Fin.
Important End-of-Year Fundraiser
This is, for those who have requested it, your bi-monthly reminder* to donate to Shakesville and/or to make sure to renew subscriptions that have lapsed.
It is also an important fundraiser to keep Shakesville going.
I'm going to be really honest, here: Donations are way down. Part of the reality of running this space on donations rather than corporate advertising is that my ability to keep it going depends on your support.
You can donate once by clicking the "Make a Donation" button in the righthand sidebar, or set up a monthly subscription using the "Subscribe" button just below it, which has a dropdown menu of subscription options—or visit the Subscribe to Shakesville page, for even more options. 2012 Calendars are available for purchase here.
If you value the content and/or community in this space, can afford it, and want to see Shakesville continue to be managed** as a safe space, please consider setting up a subscription or making a one-time contribution.
If you have recently appreciated getting distilled news about the economy; being able to discuss pranks in a space interested in dismantling the rape culture; finding out where to direct your teaspoon in support of social justice or in opposition to inequality; getting election news about candidates who are discussed on the basis on their policies alone, I hope you will, if you are able, contribute to support this space and make sure it continues to flourish.
I hope you will also consider the value of whatever else you appreciate at Shakesville, whether it's the moderation, Film Corner, the community in Open Threads, video transcripts, the blogarounds, Butch Pornstache, the Daily Dose of Cute, your blogmistress' penchant for inventing new words, or anything else you enjoy.
Let me reiterate, once again, that I don't want anyone to feel obliged to contribute financially, especially if money is tight. Aside from valuing feminist work, the other goal of fundraising is so Iain and I don't have to struggle on behalf of the blog, and I don't want anyone else to struggle themselves in exchange. There is a big enough readership that neither should have to happen.
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 profoundly grateful—and I don't take a single cent 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 regular contributor, a moderator, a guest contributor, a transcriber, and/or as someone who takes the time to send me the occasional note of support and encouragement. This community couldn't exist without you, either.
---------------------
* I know there are people who resent these reminders, but there are also people who appreciate them, so I've now taken to doing them every other month, in the hopes that will make a good compromise.
** Managing Shakesville as a safe space requires, in addition to the time of our volunteer mods, my full-time commitment, and my salary is drawn exclusively from donations. I do not raise funds by corporate or content-generated advertising, as past attempts have resulted in ads served that violated the safe space, and I do not raise funds by required subscription, i.e. locking content behind a pay wall, as I want Shakesville to be accessible as possible irrespective of one's financial situation.
I cannot afford to do this full-time for free, but, even if I could, fundraising is also one of the most feminist acts I do here. I ask to be paid for my work because progressive feminist advocacy has value.
[Please Note: I am not seeking suggestions on how to raise revenue; I am asking for donations in exchange for the work of providing valued content in as safe and accessible a space as possible.]
Pranks and the Rape Culture
[Trigger warning for bullying/child abuse, incest, sexual violence.]
Yesterday, I wrote about a school-sanctioned parental prank at a high school in Minnesota, in which sports captains were blindfolded and promised a special kiss from a classmate, but were instead kissed by their parents. In the video of the incident, parents can be seen planting big smooches on their kids; one parent-child couple rolls around on the floor, and one mom grabs her son's hand and puts it on her butt. The entire scene is played for huge laughs.
Shaker Demivierge dropped into comments the link to an editorial in the local newspaper, which runs interference on behalf of the school and parents. There's a lot of minimizing and excuse-making and finger-wagging at anyone who takes issue with the "prank," and then there's this pathetic admonishment not to believe your lying eyes:
The parents hammed it up as they played their part. At least, we assume nobody was making out as intensely as the video seems to show. [Rosemount High School principal John Wollersheim] and others who were there say they weren't, and we tend to believe them. Parents have taken the opportunity at many other RHS pep fests to make their kids a little uncomfortable, but we suspect they'd all draw the line at the kind of passionate kisses the video seemed to show.Just casually assuming that every parent would "draw the line" at sexual intimacy with hir own child is absurd. I also wrote yesterday about the CDC survey which found that "Nearly 1 in 5 women (18.3%) and 1 in 71 men (1.4%) in the United States have been raped at some time in their lives," and, of those survivors, 42.2% of female victims experienced their first completed rape before age 18, and 27.8% of male victims experienced their first rape when they were 10 years of age or younger. Over half of all survivors reported being raped by someone they knew.
Some of those children who were raped by someone they knew were raped by their parents. And many more will have been subjected to inappropriate sexual contact that doesn't meet the technical definition of rape.
Do the editors of the Rosemount TownPages believe that a parent who sexually abuses hir child will self-select out of a public event at which they have been given license to make out with hir kid? Because that's not how abusers work. That there was even a chance that a parent who's sexually abused hir kid just got an official stamp of approval from mandated reporters to go for it should underline how incredibly inappropriate this incident was, irrespective of what it "looked like," or what we might like to assume.
And, listen, I'm not a parent (but I am a daughter), and it's my impression that most parents, even the best ones, sometimes forget what it's like to be a kid. That's not a function of parenting; it's a function of human nature. I forget sometimes what it's like to be a kid, inclined as are we all to cast our minds backwards and look out through the eyes of memory with perspectives and instincts formed in the intervening years.
But I suspect that what constitutes a not-passionate kiss to me now, as an adult woman, would be very different than what constituted a not-passionate kiss to me as a teenage girl. A standard good-night kiss with my husband would have turned my legs to jelly when I was an unsophisticated kid, so new to the world of sexuality that when the math teacher on whom I had a crush gave me an entirely appropriate kiss on the cheek at the end of the year, I nearly fainted. (Or jizzed in my pants. Or both.)
I guess I'm just not sure that what feels not-passionate to a parent who knows zie's kissing hir kid definitely feels the same way to the kid who doesn't know zie's kissing hir parent. And that's is, suffice it to say, a problem.
So the Republicans Had a Debate Last Night
Yay! Another debate! It had been almost twelve seconds without a Republican Primary debate. I was beginning to go through withdrawal! (Please note that you may be in the throes of Republican Primary debate withdrawal if you experience any of the following symptoms: Joy, smiling, a creeping sense of hope for the nation's future.)
I'm sure there's a transcript somewhere, but who cares, amirite? Official Shakeville Transcript: Taxes, Reagan, illegals, Jesus, bootstraps, taxes, Obama stinks.
The most exciting thing about last night's debate was that Rick Perry, who is definitely still IN IT TO WIN IT, promised to get back in the game. He's gonna go big or go home, because he didn't come here to make friends. True Fact: Rick Perry believes he's on a reality show.
Some other highlights from (I hope you're sitting down) the last (definitely totally for sure) Republican Primary debate of 2011 (sob!):
Newt Gingrich leads everyone in a rousing singalong of "Funkytown."
"Raise your hand if you are a paternalistic fuckbrained bigot whose name rhymes with Zanblorum."
RIP Christopher Hitchens
Christopher Hitchens didn't think I was funny. He didn't know me, but he was certain that I was not funny, because I'm a woman.
That was only one of many things that Christopher Hitchens was sure he knew about me, and other women, and lots of other people who belonged to groups outside his tribe: Male, white, straight, cisgender, Western, educated, wealthy, atheist.
It was his certainty that he knew things about me, without ever being obliged to consider my existence, that always kept me at an arm's length from his work. And his work was good. Sometimes it was genuinely great. Even when I disagreed vehemently with him, I never failed to appreciate the confidence and competency of his craft. He was a superb writer.
One of the finest aspects of his writing was how it told us something about him, even when he was not his subject—though he usually was, even when he was ostensibly writing about the Iraq War, or women's capacity to be his equal, or godlessness. His work invited people to know him.
Even as it belligerently asserted, I don't need to know you.
He was called, and regarded himself as, a contrarian, which is one of those words, like "traditionalist," which is frequently used to mask the small-mindedness of a big mind. I didn't know Christopher Hitchens, beyond what he let all of us see, and I don't know why he could conceive and articulate complicated cultural ideas, but so often fail to embrace simple concepts, like the value of acknowledging the individual beyond the borders of self.
I won't presume to guess. I didn't know him, and he didn't know me.
RIP Mr. Hitchens.
Question of the Day
We've done this before, but this is always a good one to vent about: What film trope needs to go away forever?
[TW] The groin trauma/speaking or singing in a very high voice thing needs to be put to rest and never spoken of again. It's so ancient it farts dust, and it's never, ever funny.
More Parental Prankery
[Trigger warning for bullying/child abuse and incest.]
If you thought the Jimmy Kimmel Christmas prank was bad (it was! it was sooooo terrible!), get a load of the cool parents at Rosemount High in Minnesota who pranked their kids by blindfolding them and then making out with them: "And these are not just innocent pecks on the lips. The parents are intimately lip-locking their children for several seconds. One even progresses to rolling around on the gym floor. In another instance, a mother moves her son's hand south so he's grasping her butt."
To be clear: The kids were blindfolded. The parents were not. They knew they were kissing their kids, and they laughed uproariously as the kids were further embarrassed by being interviewed about what they thought of the kiss. "Luscious lips," answers one young man, before it is revealed he kissed his mother. My god.
There is video at the link, which I am not going to embed here, and I was pretty skeeved out watching it (to put it mildly). It's terrible enough that these kids were obliged into accepting "a kiss" while blindfolded in the first place, no less that they were "pranked" into kissing their own parents (some of whom might have previously sexually abused their kids). What a horror.
I quite honestly cannot begin to imagine why any parent would participate in this activity.
Now that the video is getting attention, the school has apparently apologized for the prank. Except: Schools who are made aware of the abuse of their students are obliged by law to report it. An apology is not enough. The students of Rosemount High should have some assurance that their school won't help orchestrate their abuse. Remedial mandated reporting for everyone, please.
Iraq War Officially Over
I've been trying to figure out what I want to say about the end of the Iraq War all day. It seems simultaneously enormously important and curiously small, the final bulletpoint in an eight-year war that was supposed to last six months.
I did not support the war, in which than 1.5 million US troops eventually served, more than 30,000 of whom were injured, many of them catastrophically, and more than 4,500 of whom died, but I appreciate the service of the people who fought it, [TW] most of whom did the jobs asked of them with decency.
The numbers of injured, dead, and displaced Iraqis are not so certain. To the people of Iraq, most of whom also comported themselves with decency, even in circumstances that would challenge anyone's will to be decent, I hardly know what to say, except that I'm sorry.
I just don't know that there's anything I could write, nothing that isn't some trite bit of partisan opportunism. No one wonders who I blame for this mess. I don't need to say it again.
So here is a picture of President Obama, at Fort Bragg, celebrating with the troops that he brought home.
There are still 15,000 troops in Iraq, and US foreign policy is still a garbage disaster, but, right now, in this moment, I just want to enjoy the image of our President, welcoming the troops home.
Quote of the Day
"The greatest victories in the battle for life are not going to be won in the halls of government. It's going to be won in the hearts of men."—Rick Perry, who is definitely still running for president, at Mike Huckabee's Anti-Choice Hoedown last night.
File Under: Sometimes the use of "men" as a synonym for "humankind" is even more obnoxious than usual.
Number of the Day
by Shaker BrianWS, who may or may not become a full-time contributor someday based on a variety of circumstances and considerations and planetary alignments, which is sooooo myseterious and let's all enjoy the mystery!
$20,000: The amount of pocket change you'll need to follow Gwyneth Paltrow's awesome recommendations for an "authentic" trip around New York City, via her new iPhone app, "City Guides by goop."
Yeah.
Now there's an on-the-go companion to her regular goop newsletter, equally steeped in privilege, aspirational consumerism, and body policing, but with the added bonus of reminding you that you're poor while you're standing directly outside the window of a shop featuring goop-approved wares that you cannot afford to buy!
It's City Guides by goop: New York Edition. ("London, Los Angeles....and many more" coming soon!) From the app's description:
Built off the success of Gwyneth Paltrow's lifestyle website, goop.com, this app is the first of a series of goop City Guides, bringing you an in-depth and authentic guide to New York City. Taking the site's popular series of "GO" newsletters to the next level, this city guide sends you to even more of goop's much-loved and often undiscovered spots. This is goop's take on New York. goop finds you the ultimate nail salon, the most fantastic food cart for a quick snack, the best boutique to find a unique piece for your wardrobe, a beautiful salon where you can get your makeup done, the coolest playground to take your kids to, and the person to call for an at-home blow dry. A resource for first-time visitors and city dwellers alike, the app is filled with all the new and under the radar places that goop has discovered over the years. This is the city as you'd never known it before.Starting with the fact that "undiscovered" tends to mean great, affordable, neighborhood holes-in-the-wall that local people regularly enjoy but aren't "discovered" until A Person of Importance broadcasts their existence via, say, their pretentious iPhone app, this is just an amazing display of privilege and classism.
"A resource for first-time visitors and city dwellers alike," this new app gives you a new, easy way out for all of those times when you're sitting at home thinking about taking a shower and then making Red King Crab for dinner, but realizing there just aren't enough hours in the day to blow dry your own hair and still make it to the local fishmonger before closing.
Of course, as we know from past editions, you're already a fool if you're not having your favorite fishmonger make deliveries to your home, no doy. But let's say you're just now catching up with goop's lifestyle suggestions and you're still stuck retrieving your own fish, at least now you can save time by calling someone to come over and blow dry your hair for you.
I do understand that a ton of time goes into doing hair for red carpet events where hundreds of photographs will be taken of her, and the least-flattering ones used to drag her down, and I also understand that not everyone is physically able to blow dry hir own hair. But this isn't an app designed for famous actresses, or people with disabilities; it's an app designed ostensibly for a general audience.
And that's the problem: Paltrow offers this app as a resource for tourists and residents, without any caveat that many of the residents of New York City—like those quirky characters who frequent "undiscovered" establishments—are impoverished. As Liss observed when we were talking about this: "There's a long and unfortunate history of treating 'Manhattan' and 'New York City' as synonymous entities, which is not merely a clueless expression of profound privilege and wealth, but a perpetuation of that ugly history which disappears entire boroughs of people, many of whom are poor, many of whom are people of color, and many of whose 'classic New Yorkery'—their accents, their culture—are used to deny them access to the halls of power in the city that trades on their 'colorfulness'."
I don't begrudge Gwyneth Paltrow (or Mitt Romney, or anyone with a shitload of money, regardless of how they wound up with it) their right to go spend that money in whatever manner they see fit, as long as it's legal and consensual. But I do have a problem with someone who is as privileged as Paltrow disappearing the real-life struggles of people who don't have her money and means, without so much as a nod to the classes for whom her app is really applicable. The result is the implication that we could just all eat better, shop better, and live better if we did it a bit more like her.
Yep, Paltrow shares her tips with us because her life is so perfect and she wants ours to be better. And of course, her life is so amazing because she simply discovered the time-saving, smart-shopping, golden secrets to life. It's definitely not because she's white, able-bodied, famous, conventionally beautiful, straight, cisgender, and totally fucking rich. Nope, it's definitely that the rest of us are just too lazy or stupid to get with the program.
Same old story. Rinse and repeat. Now call for a blow dry.
Horrible Governor Does Horrible Thing
Back in 2010, now-Governor Scott Walker campaigned on a pledge to keep the federal government from giving Wisconsin money to improve its rail infrastructure. The government shouldn't be in the train business, or some such nonsense.
This morning, the Walker administration decided that Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin can't use mostly federal monies to screen poor, uninsured women for cancer. The government shouldn't be in the keeping women from dying of cancer business, or some such nonsense.
From the Appleton Post Crescent:
Since 1995, Planned Parenthood has coordinated a breast and cervical cancer screening program for low-income and underinsured women ages 45 to 64 in Outagamie, Winnebago, Fond du Lac and Sheboygan counties.
Though funded primarily with federal dollars, the $1.8 million program — known as Wisconsin Well Woman — is a state and federal partnership.
Tanya Atkinson, executive director of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Wisconsin, said state officials informed the group by phone earlier this month that the state Department of Health Services would not renew the $130,000 contract at the end of the year.
State law already prohibits the use of state and federal funds to cover abortions, except in cases of rape or incest, or if the life or long-term health of the mother is at risk.
The state budget further prohibited organizations that provide abortions, refer women to abortion services or have "affiliates" that do the same from accessing "women's health funds."
In 2010, two full-time coordinators from Planned Parenthood served 1,260 women in the four counties, according to [its advocates].
In other news, today the PAC United Wisconsin announced that it has gathered over 500,000 signatures towards recalling Walker.
Dare to Compete
I have been privileged to travel extensively. I've seen the many different ways women contribute. I've met activists working to advance human rights from Belarus to Uzbekistan. I've met with young women standing up for representative government in Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt. I've watched entrepreneurs in Africa, Asia, and Latin America working to improve their lives, the lives of their children, their employees, and local economies. And today, we are addressing another way that women can make a great contribution through public service.—From Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's remarks to the Women in Public Service Colloquium in Washington DC today.
I have been fortunate to serve in different capacities in my life, and have had the support of so many people. But even with all that support, I remember the trepidation that I felt when I was being pushed to consider running for a Senate seat in New York. I had never run for elected office. I wasn't sure it was the right thing to do. And one day, I would wake up and say absolutely not going to do it. The next day, I'd wake up and say, well, so-and-so called me, maybe I should reconsider. And I was on this rollercoaster of emotions until I got what I chose to take as a sign.
I was at an event promoting a documentary about women in sports, in a gymnasium in a high school in New York City. And we were gathered under a giant banner that happened to be the name of the documentary, which was Dare to Compete. (Laughter.) And—you know where this is going, right? (Laughter.)
So just as I stepped forward, having been introduced by this very incredibly dynamic young and tall woman, who happened to be the captain of the high school basketball team, I went up to shake her hand to thank her, and she leaned over to me and whispered in my ear, "Dare to compete, Mrs. Clinton. Dare to compete." (Laughter.)
So, soon after that, I decided to enter the race, and it was one of the best decisions of my life.
You can watch the speech and read the entire transcript here. Clinton's speech begins at about minute 25 in the video.
Daily Dose of Cute
"Love me, Two-Legs."
Zelda may well be the snuggliest, cuddliest, petmepetmepetme dog of all time. She loves getting attention from anyone and everyone; when someone walks in the door, she immediately has to run to the toybox to get a squeaky toy and squeak it with uncontrollable excitement.
And I'm pretty sure she begs to go out in the rain just so she can come back in and get dried off with a fluffy towel.
Photo of the Day
Kosovo President Atifete Jahjaga (right) and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton leave the room after signing an agreement between the two countries on December 14, 2011 at the State Department in Washington. [Getty Images](A picture of the two of them working, in which their faces are visible, can be seen here.)
@scatx: @Shakestweetz >> Clinton being amazing in pink once more >> Photo from Getty Images bit.ly/sKvwXa
@Shakestweetz: @scatx I saw that set last night, and the same picture you picked out was also my favorite (of course).
@scatx: @Shakestweetz one day, we are going to meet and we are just going to talk for like three straight days. #samebrain
@Shakestweetz: That picture could totally be the Knope/Perkins ticket on inauguration day. #icanmakeanythingaboutparksandrec
@scatx: YES IT COULD.
Improvements, Part Two
[Part One.]
There's a hole in my driveway, dear Liza.
The vibrating has somewhat diminished, now that the destruction of concrete is mostly complete. Now I am able to hear the workers shouting and laughing and hollering all day. I certainly don't begrudge them having fun on the job; it just makes more difficult the task of writing when one's mind keeps seeking to listen to voices outside the window. Not that the vibrating was better.
(Yes, I have thought of earplugs, but my goddamn stupid ear canals are too shallow to keep them in. This has been the bane of my existence since the invention of ear buds, when I was still walking around with my Walkman earphones plugged into my Discman like a TOTAL LOSER! So I was told.)
We didn't find out when the end of our driveway was demolished until about 10 minutes before the work began. Iain was leaving for work, and the crew had to move so he could back the car out. It was then they told him our driveway would not be accessible "until further notice." Some of our neighbors were not so lucky, and their cars are landlocked in their driveways. Or were, until they drove across lawn after lawn down the street, until they were free.
Anyway! There's a hole in my driveway. But the improvements are coming. So I am told.
Top Chef: Texas Open Thread
Padma and Tim Somedude get all judgemental with Heather's dish.
Top Chef continues in some non-descript state that I think is maybe Oregon. Could be any state really. Cook cook cook, shop shop shop, in-fight in-fight in-fight. A villain emerges. So does Paul. Who is Paul? How come I never noticed him before? Is he new? He seems nice, which is refreshing. Stay nice, Paul, there are enough jerks on the show!
Spoilers below. Discuss!
Today in Rape Culture
[Trigger warning for rape culture.]
The CDC has just released the results of a comprehensive national survey on rape and domestic violence. The study, The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, has found that nearly a million women are raped in the US every year.
One million women a year.
Here are some other key findings from the Executive Summary (pdf), none of which should come as any surprise to regular readers of this space:
Nearly 1 in 5 women (18.3%) and 1 in 71 men (1.4%) in the United States have been raped at some time in their lives, including completed forced penetration, attempted forced penetration, or alcohol/drug facilitated completed penetration.The study also addressed something that we've discussed previously—experiencing multiple acts of sexual violence in one's lifetime. According to the CDC's findings, more than a third of women who had been raped as minors were also raped as adults.
More than half (51.1%) of female victims of rape reported being raped by an intimate partner and 40.8% by an acquaintance; for male victims, more than half (52.4%) reported being raped by an acquaintance and 15.1% by a stranger.
Approximately 1 in 21 men (4.8%) reported that they were made to penetrate someone else during their lifetime; most men who were made to penetrate someone else reported that the perpetrator was either an intimate partner (44.8%) or an acquaintance (44.7%).
An estimated 13% of women and 6% of men have experienced sexual coercion in their lifetime (i.e., unwanted sexual penetration after being pressured in a nonphysical way); and 27.2% of women and 11.7% of men have experienced unwanted sexual contact.
Most female victims of completed rape (79.6%) experienced their first rape before the age of 25; 42.2% experienced their first completed rape before the age of 18 years.
More than one-quarter of male victims of completed rape (27.8%) experienced their first rape when they were 10 years of age or younger.
Surviving sexual violence was also found to correlate with anxiety disorders and chronic health issues: "Both men and women who had been assaulted were more likely to report frequent headaches, chronic pain, difficulty sleeping, limitations on activity, and poor physical and mental health."
(Imagine if the amount of effort put into "ending obesity" because of its alleged drain on the healthcare system were put into dismantling the rape culture. But I digress.)
This news is being greeted with the usual shock and awe:
"That almost one in five women have been raped in their lifetime is very striking and, I think, will be surprising to a lot of people," said Linda C. Degutis, director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which conducted the survey.I hate the shock and awe response. Shock and awe is a loyal accomplice to the rape culture, its job to lay the tidy, irresistible pathstones to overwhelmed, where indifference justified by presumed defeat takes root.
"I don't think we've really known that it was this prevalent in the population," she said.
I greet these numbers not with surprise, but with steely resolve. Yes, they are terrible. And I stare them in their ugly face and let them try to do their worst to my determination, and then I take a breath and get back to work.
Primarily Terrible
Here's the latest from Bad Max 2: The Legend of Curly's Gold, aka the Republican Primary...
Frontrunner (whuzzat?!) Newt Gingrich was preempted by chanting Occupy Wall Street protesters at a campaign event at the University of Iowa. Smooth as always, and definitely showing his firm grip on the pulse of the nation, Gingrich shouted over them: "I appreciate the 95% of you, maybe even the 99% of you, who will actually have an intelligent discussion and are not going to be drowned out by the 1% who try to impose their will by making noise." LOL! GOOD ONE!
Former frontfunner (sad trombone) Mitt Romney, last seen attacking Gingrich on the basis of his "zaniness," has stepped up his scathing attack strategy by pointing out that Gingrich is "a wealthy man, a very wealthy man." Ooh BURN! It's true what they say: No one can identify a wealthy man, a very wealthy man, like a trust-fund kid who grew up to make millions running a private equity investment firm. You've got him on the ropes now, Moneybags!
Rick Perry is still definitely in the race! He has not dropped out yet.
Ron Paul has gotten the coveted Andrew Sullivan endorsement. It's no Gary Busey, but it's pretty good. It must have been hard for a guy who loves racism and sexism SO MUCH to limit himself to one candidate in the GOP field, so it's really a strong message to racists and sexists that Sully went with Ron Paul. Take heed, bigots!
Michele Bachmann is accusing Newt Gingrich of buying Tea Party support: She's "been hearing this all across the country, that money is changing hands. And that's not how I do business. In fact, I've told people, I've told evangelicals, I've told Tea Partiers—I don't pay people to come out and be my supporters, that's not what I do. When we have tea party groups and all of the rest, I don't do that because I'm just a real person." Oh, Newt Gingrich is a real person, too. A VERY RICH person! Who can buy Tea Party Support! Just ask Mitt Romney.
Jon Huntsman is gaining momentum in New Hampshire. Not a lot—just enough to beat Ron Paul. But enough to sustain an egomaniac's belief that he can definitely for sure totally win this thing!
Rick Santorum said something stupid and homophobic. In other news, today is Thursday.
Bonus Fun! Dynamic television personality and former GOP primary failosaur Mike Huckabee hosted an anti-abortion forum in Iowa for the candidates who bothered to show up (Gingrich, Bachmann, Santorum, and Perry, who is still definitely in the race). Each of the candidates had the opportunity to deliver "seven-minute speeches on their anti-abortion agendas" before the premiere of Huckabee's new anti-abortion documentary, The Gift of Life. That sounds like a GREAT event! SO FUN. Good job on being awesome, Republicans!
Talk about these things! Or don't. Whatever makes you happy. Life is short.
Today in Rick Santorum Says Something Stupid
Good nNews, everybody! Rick Santorum has his own Twitter account! It's certified too, so you don't have to worry about accidentally following a fake Santorum who says things that aren't total garbage!
Here's what the real, certified Rick Santorum had to say yesterday:
Here is 1 effect of changing definition of marriage: "@HuffingtonPost: Marriage rate drops to new low huff.to/tfhN1e" #fb
1. "#fb"?!? I see they're letting everybody on Facebook these days. Christ.
2. Not to be all professorial n' shit, but making more people eligible for marriage would tend exert upward pressure on the marriage rate. Still...
3. We did it bitchez! We reduced the pressure people feel to get married!
Oh, wait, Santorum is assuming that marriage is an inherent good, and that the over fifty percent of American adults who aren't married are awful people. I know US elections are confusing, what with the electrical college and all, but insulting half of the populace doesn't strike me as a very good strategy.
4. What mechanism is Santorum proposing, anyway? Is he suggesting that there are hoards of petulant straight people who refuse to get married now that (less than half of all) same-sex couples have access to their toy? "Fuck, I don't want to play marriage anymore. Marriage sucks. Now I want a pony that shits rainbows. What, queer people already have that too?!?"
In conclusion, America, you should totally elect Rick Santorum, because he's bad at math, hates gay people, thinks half of you are awful, and is convinced that lots of straight people are acting like petulant children.
Sure.
Your move, not-Romney.
Question of the Day
What is the single most important quality that you would like to have your president, prime minister, or leader of another name to have?
Photo of the Day
A stunned Annette Swoffer thought she must have been hallucinating when she found [a young baby fur-seal pup] hanging out with her cats in her kitchen on Sunday night. The seal had made its way from the Welcome Bay waterfront, through the suburb's residential area, across busy Welcome Bay Rd, up a slip road, along Ms Swoffer's long driveway, under a gate, through the cat door and up some stairs before he was found in the kitchen about 9.30pm [and later] made himself at home on the couch. [Link; photo from the New Zealand Department of Conservation]
Quote of the Day
"Zany is not what we need in a president. Zany is great in a campaign. It's great on talk radio. It's great in the print; it makes for fun reading. But in terms of a president, we need a leader, and a leader needs to be someone who can bring Americans together."—GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney, on his "zany" opponent, Newt Gingrich.
How the fuck boring are you if you think Newt Gingrich is "zany"? This is not helping your image as a total snoozefest, Mr. Romney.
Protip: If you don't want pundits incessantly talking about your habitual flip-floppery, make sure it isn't the most interesting thing about you.
Especially because "inconsistency in his voting record" is literally so uninteresting I fell asleep seven times just typing out the phrase.
Sad News, Y'all
Just three days after endorsing Newt Gingrich, professor of political science at Point Break University and actor Gary Busey has withdrawn his endorsement.
"It is not time for me to be endorsing anyone at this time! When there are the two final candidates, then I will endorse," Busey said Wednesday in a statement released through his representative.Aww, shucks. I hope you can still spectacularly flame out without him, Mr. Gingrich! GOOD LUCK!
"Why do I want ponies? They're for girls."
[Trigger warning for bullying/child abuse and gender essentialism.]
So, the other night, Jimmy Kimmel aired a segment which compiled viewers' video responses to his latest challenge for parents to pull holiday-related trickery on their children, after his "film your kids' reaction after telling them you ate all their Halloween candy" segment went viral last month. This challenge was to wrap up some random garbage and give it to kids as an early Christmas present.
I find this entire thing really troubling, because pranks are a form of bullying even between peers, and a prank played by someone in a position of power, especially a parent pranking a child, is bullying that can fundamentally undermine trust.
So I normally wouldn't even give this any attention, except that I thought it was very interesting (where "interesting" = "fucked up") how many parents interpreted "give your kid a crap gift" as "give your son a girl's item," and what effect that had on the boys who received them. Yikes.
Post-feminist world, etc.
Jimmy Kimmel: Last week, I issued a challenge: I asked the parents of America to pull a little holiday trick on their children—we did this on Halloween with candy, and it got a lot of response to it, so we did it again, this time for Christmas—I asked parents to tell their kids they were going to let them open one present a few weeks early, but instead of a good present, I said, "Put something the kids won't like in the box," and then upload the video of that to YouTube, labeled "Hey, Jimmy Kimmel, I gave my kids a terrible present," and a lot of people did do this, and, um, they did give their kids terrible presents, and a lot of the kids, surprisingly, reacted poorly to that.[Via.]
Clip of two little white boys opening presents; one unwraps a half-drunk bottle of juice and whines, "I don't like this!"
Clip of a white girl opening a present; she unwraps an old, brown banana. "What is it?" asks Mom from behind the camera. "An old banana," the girl says. "Isn't that exciting?" Mom asks. "No," replies the girl. She holds it up, sqooshes it, eats it.
Clip of two white girls who have just opened an onion and a battery. "Wow, a battery and an onion!" Dad says from behind the camera. The girl who opened the onion flops over and begins to cry. "What's wrong?" asks Dad. The other little girl says, "We don't want a onion!" Dad asks the crying girl, "Did you smell your onion? Here, smell it." She cries. "No, I smelled it!"
Clip of a white and/or Latin@ boy and girl opening presents; he unwraps a hotdog and she unwraps a carton of eggs. The little girl starts cracking an egg to see if there's anything inside.
Clip of three white children, a boy and two girls, opening presents. The little boy holds up a pink activity book. Deeply aggrieved, he complains, "I got a girl activity book with stickers!" Angry now, he adds: "I'M NOT A GIRL!" His sister, who got some "boy" gift, says, "And I'm not a boy!" Their sister adds: "I'm not a boy, either!" The boy begins to cry: "This is the worst present ever."
Clip of a white girl and a white boy; the girl has just unwrapped a half-eaten sandwich. She has an exchange with Mom, behind the camera, about how she likes Mom's cooking, so Mom thought she'd like the sandwich. The little girl replies she meant when Mom cooks things like "Hot Pockets." The boy offers to eat the sandwich.
Clip of a little boy of color opening a Hello Kitty sweater. "You stinking parents!" he shouts, throwing it down. He charges Dad behind the camera. "Take it back!" he shouts. "I want a refund." Later in the video, he is seen tantruming, extremely upset, about having received a girls' sweater.
Clip of a white boy unwrapping a half-eaten sandwich. "It's a half-eaten sandwich!" exclaims Mom from behind the camera. "Isn't that what you asked for?!" The little boy replies, "No, I asked for toys!" and throws the sandwich across the room.
Clip of three black children, a girl and two boys, opening presents. From behind the camera, Mom says, "What did you get, Jason? Some black beans, cheese, and a Waffle House hat!" To the little girl, she says, "What's in there?" The little girl pulls out a potato. "Oh, you got a Mister Potato Head!" exclaims Mom. The other son cries and accuses Mom of giving them the terrible gifts.
Clip of four white children, a girl and three boys, opening presents. One boy opens a hammer. Another exclaims, "I got ponies?!" Then, later: "I got ponies. Why do I want ponies? They're for girls." The girl adds, "And I got a stupid book." Mom says, "We thought really hard about what to get you this year." The boy who opened the hammer retorts, "Well, you didn't do a very good job!" The boy who got the ponies complains, "This is the worst Christmas I ever had."
Clip of three children of color, a girl and two boys, opening presents, which are of course terrible. Mom explains, "Well, Jimmy Kimmel told me to do it." Yells one of the boys from the other side of the room, "Well, tell him to suck my balls!"
The audience laughs and cheers. Jimmy Kimmel says: "Noted."
Wednesday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by pretty, pretty paint.
Recommended Reading:
Vanessa: Newt Gingrich's Fidelity Vow Includes Promise to Defund Planned Parenthood
Sarah: [TW for rape culture] Disgusting UVM Fraternity Questionnaire Sparks Outrage
Ragen: [TW for fat hatred] Can't You Just Take a (Fat) Joke?
Resistance: [TW for Islamophobia] Dear Lowe's
Arturo: [TW for racism/white privilege] Reactions to 'If I Were a Poor Black Kid'
Adrienne: [Video] Students Respond to ABC's "Children of the Plains"
Michelle: [TW for discussion of eating and dieting] Emotional Eating (This is part four in Michelle's series on Learning to Eat, the first three of which have also been linked in blogarounds.)
Leave your links and recommendations in comments...
Texting! With Liss and Deeky!
Deeky: I am 55 seconds into Atlas Shrugged and Oh My Fucking God is it terrible!
Liss: LOLOLOL!!! Are you going to review it?
Deeky: I dunno. Maybe. Not sure I can. Physically or mentally.
Liss: Bootstraps, son. You need bootstraps.
Deeky: There is this headline on a newspaper at the start. The articles are full of misspellings and grammatical errors! Quality filmmaking.
Liss: That's the liberal media for you!
Deeky: From the paper: "One of the major reasons for gas shortages is that fact that inventories were not very high going into the beginning of the year."
Liss: Who says the Department of Education is superfluous?
Deeky: Another article: "Because houseing prices will keep falling in most places. Prices are still dangerously high compared to incomes and rent."
Liss: The obvious answer is that everyone should live on trains.
Deeky: Sure, no one is really supposed to see that, but come on! This is the age of Blu-Ray! People WILL pause and read the paper.
[Later.]
Deeky: Christ, this is so infantile.
Liss: Of course.
Deeky: It might actually be worse than Country Strong.
Liss: No. Way.
Deeky: I love that this takes place in some fantasy land where the US government isn't a wholly owned subsidiary of the corporate world.
Liss: Why do you hate the job creators?
Deeky: The politics of smelting! Dramatic! This is like the 12 Angry Men of train rail production.
Liss: LOL for realz!
Deeky: I have no idea what is going on.
Liss: It all makes sense if you sniff bootstraps while you watch it.
Deeky: HA! Also, in the future there is no Google. No one knows who John Galt is.
Liss: The government no doubt sold Google to the Russkies.
Deeky: The music is VERY majestic.
Deeky: Except now. Now it's soft. Because there's fucking.
Liss: Mmmmmmm conservafucking.
Deeky: Now they're in the deserts of Wisconsin. This is soooooo terrible.
Liss: That's weird because it sounds GREAT.
Deeky: Seriously: Google. This movie needs Google. How do you set a movie in the future and not have computers?
[Later.]
Liss: I can't believe you watched the whole thing.
Deeky: I still don't know what happened. Something to do with government interference of corporations. And smelting.
Liss: Was it a good cliffhanger?
Deeky: LOL! NO! There was an oil fire and Dagny screamed "Nooo!" and there was a voiceover from Wyatt saying "I'm going on strike."
Liss: Whut? Fuck that noise.
Deeky: I think some of the dialogue was missing. Maybe they only took every other line from the novel. To save time.
I Write Letters
Dear Western Pop Culture and Everyone Who Pays Attention to It:
The Kardashian Sisters are human beings. I just thought we all needed that reminder, since it seems like many of us are incapable of speaking about them without using the most hateful, objectifying, exploitative, and straight-up eliminationist rhetoric.
While I have everyone's attention, I'd also like to specifically address famous men, like Daniel Craig or Jonah Hill, for whom publicly trashing the Kardashians has become a great new pastime: The constant whinging about how the Kardashians aren't famous for "doing anything," because what they do—put themselves out there as entertainers—doesn't meet your threshold for the sort of entertainment that deserves fame, is really ugly.
You don't have to like what they do, and you don't even have to like them. But there's a market for reality programming, and it's a niche they're willing to fill. I sure as shit wouldn't be willing to live my life, or some partially-scripted and highly-edited version of my life, on camera, for the entertainment of others—not for all the money in the world. I wouldn't be interesting enough, anyway, even if I did.
That's not incidental. People want to watch the Kardashians. Whether it's to love them or to hate them, people want to watch them. I don't know if they've got talent, but they've evidently got charisma.
I get that there may be some haunting Video Killed the Radio Star anxiety about the increasing popularity of "unscripted" television, when your multimillion-dollar paychecks are dependent upon the popularity of mega-produced mega-polished mega-productions. But, listen, if there's really not enough room in this media-saturated world for the Kardashians and James Bond, that's not really their fault. Fame is fickle because it's based on the whims of the consumer.
(And the television executive. And the tabloid editor.)
Now back to the general audience for one last thing: In many (most) of these multitudinous attacks on the Kardashians, I have detected a little (a lot) of the sneering hostility that tends to get reserved for women who have the temerity to take up space in the world. Which is really gross, and really pathetic in the year 2011. And don't even get me started on the transmisogynist "humor" used against them, or the heinous ubiquity of "jokes" intending to demean them sheerly on the basis of observing some of their partners are/have been Black men.
Maybe we can all just lay off the Kardashians already. By which I mean: Save our criticisms for things that deserve criticism (like, say, the casual use of transphobic slurs), and stop talking a stream of nonstop rubbish auditing their "right" to be famous.
I'll end with his note of irony: Despite my well-known reputation for consuming all manner of garbage television, I have never seen an episode of Keeping Up with the Kardashians, or any of the spin-offs. The primary reason I even know who the Kardashians are is because of all the people who can't shut up about how horrible it is that they're famous. Whoooooops!
Love,
Liss
Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime
Trio: "Da Da Da, Ich Lieb' Dich Nicht Du Liebst Mich Nicht Aha Aha Aha"
On Rape Prevention Tips
[Trigger warning for rape culture.]
In the wake of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board's victim-blaming anti-rape campaign, and much ensuing debate, Salon's Tracy Clark-Flory has written a piece taking a look at the nature and usefulness of "rape prevention tips" directed at women. I was interviewed for and am quoted in the article.
I do understand the impulse among decent people who have no desire to preemptively victim-blame to nonetheless share "rape prevention tips," really, I do. I even understand the urge to defend the need to share "general safety ideas" with women, during discussions of rape prevention. It is, of course, "common sense" that tips to avoid being mugged are equally as useful to avoid being raped.
But to reiterate the point I made to Tracy: Even the "rape prevention tips" typically offered under the umbrella of "general safety ideas" aren't really practical rape prevention advice. Millions of people get home alone after drinking every night in this country, and the vast majority of them aren't sexually assaulted, so is it actually meaningful advice to warn women against walking home alone, or is it just advice that sounds useful in the void of effective rape prevention (i.e. advice directed at predators, potential predators, and their peer enablers)?
The truth is, there's no such thing as a meaningful "rape prevention tip" for potential victims, because the only surefire way to prevent being raped is to never be in the same space as a determined rapist, over which we often have no control, which is why most survivors have been raped in a familiar place by a person known to them.
Real practical rape prevention is dismantling the rape culture, but that's a lot harder than telling a woman to take a cab to her door, as if everyone can afford cabs—and as if cabbies don't sometimes rape people, too.
Read Tracy's piece here.
Fourteen Senators Are Mad As Hell
Okay, they're not mad as hell; they are Democrats, after all. (And one Independent.) But they're definitely at least mildly displeased with the HHS' absurd decision regarding Plan B and with President Obama's support of that decision, so they have written a letter to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, requesting a scientific explanation for her decision:
Dear Secretary Sebelius,The letter is signed by Democratic Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell of Washington, Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Barbara Boxer (CA), Richard Blumenthal (CT), Daniel Akaka (HA), Carl Levin (MI), John Kerry (MA), Tom Harkin (IA), Al Franken (MN), and Frank Lautenberg (NJ). Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who is an Independent and caucuses with Senate Democrats, was the fourteenth signatory.
We are writing to express our disappointment with your December 7, 2011 decision to block the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) recommendation to make Plan B One-Step available over-the-counter. We feel strongly that FDA regulations should be based on science. We write to you today to ask that you provide us with the rationale for this decision.
As numerous medical societies and patient advocates have argued, improved access to birth control, including emergency contraception, has been proven to reduce unintended pregnancies. Nearly half of all pregnancies that occur in the United States each year are unintended. Keeping Plan B behind the counter makes it harder for all women to obtain a safe and effective product they may need to prevent an unintended pregnancy.
We ask that you share with us your specific rationale and the scientific data you relied on for the decision to overrule the FDA recommendation. On behalf of the millions of women we represent, we want to be assured that this and future decisions affecting women's health will be based on medical and scientific evidence.
Greg Sargent quite rightly notes that the letter "is strongly worded stuff, particularly when directed at a Democratic president. It stops just short of accusing the Obama administration of deliberately ignoring science in making this decision. It also puts the administration in an awkward spot. Either it produces a scientific rationale that's acceptable to these Senators, which will will be extremely difficult at best, or it will face more criticism for failing to justify its policy, reinforcing the sense that this Democratic administration abandoned science and put politics first."
This is the last thing the President needs in an election year—which is something he should have thought of before throwing women and trans men under the bus. Again.
Primarily Awful
Here's the latest from the BAD MAX: BEYOND BLUNDERDOME! aka the Republican Primary...
Frontrunner (gag reflex) Newt Gingrich has shit-canned his brand new Iowa political director after dude made disparaging remarks about Mormonism being a cult. Gingrich's Iowa game does not have the moves like Jagger, so this is yet another setback in a key primary state. Whooooooooooops!
Erstwhile frontrunner (sad clown) Mitt Romney meanwhile put on his Rootin'-Tootin' Fisticuffing Britches and called Gingrich an "extremely unreliable leader in the conservative world." Oh HELL no! You kiss your mother with that mouth, Willard?! Ha ha just kidding. That is a very weak criticism. In fact, I'm pretty sure at least 72% of conservatives consider "extremely unreliable" a desirable attribute in a president. See: 2000-2008.
In other Romney-related news, focus groups keep finding that evangelicals don't like Romney (which is definitely not because he's Mormon, ha ha, no way!), but he just won the coveted Christine O'Donnell endorsement, and she's like Queen Evangelica of the Christlands, so EVERYTHING IS SO CONFUSING! Aren't "the evangelicals" a monolithic hivemind like the media keeps telling me?! Next thing you know, women will start voting for different candidates.
In New Hampshire, Ron Paul makes a strong argument for bootstraps: "If we didn't have bailouts, dependency on government, welfare for the rich, food stamps for the poor [people would live within their means]." Fun Fact: Within some circles, Ron Paul is known as "Mr. Cool Logic."
Michele Bachmann calls her opponents "milquetoast" candidates: "I must raise every available dollar between now and January 3rd to ensure our hard-charging constitutional conservative campaign—not some milquetoast opponents like Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, and Newt Gingrich—wins over these undecided Iowa voters." I guess everything looks like milquetoast when you're a rightwing extremist.
In case you weren't aware, Rick Santorum is very religious. His "presidential ambition is rooted in his faith," and his faith is, in fact, "the key ingredient that also powers Santorum's long-shot drive for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination." That is a very nice way of saying it would take a miracle for Santorum to become the GOP nominee. Poor Rick Santorum. It's gotta hurt to be such a resoundingly terrible candidate that, even in a campaign in which every dingaling who throws hir hat in the general vicinity of the ring becomes Conservatives' New Favorite Person of the Day, even the most desperate primary electorate since the last election (McCain-Palin 4ever!) diligently endeavors to pretend you don't exist in the futile hope you will just quietly go away. Aww.
Jon Huntsman predicts he'll "catch on after silly season," because he's a serious candidate. "I don't sign those silly pledges. I don't pander. I don't light my hair on fire. There's just some things I won't do." Like, for example, be invited to the next debate, because his poll numbers are in the toilet. The toilet at the bottom of the Grand Canyon. (Great joke!)
Rick Perry is still definitely in the race! He has not dropped out yet.
Discuss.
Time Selects Non-Woman of the Year
You may have already heard that Time has selected its person of the year: "The Protestor." Despite Time's clever use of the singular (The Protestor sounds like a kinda cool superhero), once again time has avoided naming an individual person of the year.
Why, you ask, should I care?
I asked that same question to 2010 Liss:
Time has not selected an individual woman as its "X of the Year" since then-president of the Philippines Corazon Aquino was named Woman of the Year in 1986. In 1999, Time changed the annual year-end honorific, which had almost exclusively been a "Man of the Year" since its inception, to "Person of the Year," but it merely created an illusion of parity. Still no individual women.
"Person of the Year," my ass. If Time doesn't believe there's been a single individual woman deserving of the title in 24 years, then the least they could do is be honest and go back to calling it what it really is: "Man of the Year."
In 2009, Kate Harding made a familiar observation:
Jeff Bezos, George W. Bush, Rudy Giuliani, Vladimir Putin, Barack Obama and, as of yesterday, Ben Bernanke have all earned solo “Person of the Year” covers since the language was changed — as have Mikhail Gorbachev and Bill Clinton (twice each), George H.W. Bush, Ted Turner, Pope John Paul II, Newt Gingrich, David Ho, Andy Grove and Kenneth freakin’ Starr, since Aquino’s win. I am detecting a pattern.
This year Time named four runners-up. True story: the only woman among them is famous for marrying a famous dude.
I know that Time's person of the year is a gimmick designed to sell magazines, but gimmicks matter, particularly when the media make them major stories. As important as global protests have been (even when they've upheld key parts of the kyriarchy :ahem:), they're not exactly the work of a person. Time, I suggest you find a better name for your crappy award.
Question of the Day
Following up on yesterday's QotD: What are three character traits you have that you strive to mitigate?
Imperiousness, impatience, and disorganization.
Number of the Day
Zero: The number of shits I give that Donald Trump is now threatening to run for president as an Independent. Go for it, fartsack. I've always wanted to hear the sound of the entire country yawning at once.
All Righty Then
Now that primary voters are getting a good look at Newt's ass, it appears that Ron Paul might be the next Republican frontrunner.
LOL. Sure. Why not?
Daily Dose of Cute
I can't recall what was going on when I snapped this picture. Matilda was either rebuffing an attempt to tame with a grooming brush the furry bedlam that is her coat, or giving Zelda the stink-eye for trying to get up on couch in the queen's presence.
"No!"
Harmful Communication, Part Two: Emotional Auditing
[Trigger warning for harmful language, emotional manipulation, rape culture.]
The language of defensiveness, projection, emotional auditing, non-apology apologies, false choices, and magical intent is ubiquitous in social justice spaces—and pretty much everywhere else. This series is intended to really examine how this brand of accountability deflecting language manifests as harm in everyday interactions with the people around us. In the same way that discussions of consent as a broad concept beyond sexual interactions have inspired people to reconsider other consent issues, even something as common as posting photographs online, I hope that this series can make us more sensitive to what we're actually communicating when we engage accountability deflecting language, or what's being communicated when we're on the receiving end of it, and underline why it is inherently harmful.
In Part One of this series on accountability deflecting language, I addressed "Magical Intent," the principle by which someone who has said or done something upsetting argues that the person to whom they've said or done it has no right to be upset because their intent was not to generate that reaction, i.e. that intent is more important than effect.
The convention of magical intent first deflects accountability by seeking to make a harmed person responsible for our having hurt them, by asking them to respond to what we were thinking rather than what we were communicating. ("That's not what I meant; it wasn't my intent; you're taking it the wrong way; you're getting it all wrong.") It then asks them to accept that their feelings are irrational, because all that matters is what we intended them to feel.
That is Emotional Auditing.
Emotional Auditing manifests in many different ways, from dismissing people's responses as "oversensitive" to claiming ownership of people's emotions by asserting to know better what they think or need, but it begins with the presumption that we can control people's reactions. To be sure, we absolutely influence the way that our communication with others will be perceived: The language we choose, the honesty of our communication, the time and place we broach subjects, whether we engage in good faith, the medium we use to deliver information, etc. all have a meaningful effect on how any communication will be received. Even the most casual of relationships exist on a continuum, and situational awareness—including being aware of past communication successes and failures, and being conscious and respectful of individuals' particular needs, experiences, triggers, boundaries, and sensitivities—is important.
But the objectives of being sensitive to other people's needs should be respect for the individual and clarity of communication, not an attempt to try to control other people's responses. In other words, we shouldn't seek to use people's vulnerabilities against them to try to manipulate getting a reaction we want.
Once the desired outcome is: "I want hir to respond like this," we're already on the road to a harmful communication, because to try to control other people's reactions is, in effect if not intent, an attempt to try to control the emotions underlying those reactions.
We cannot (neither pragmatically nor ethically) control other people's reactions—which should not be mistaken for an argument that every conceivable response is equally valid; abuse is always inappropriate. Here, I want to draw a distinction between drawing boundaries for oneself to set off-limits abusive responses, and marking out a spectrum of acceptable emotional response for someone else to set off-limits any and all responses that we wouldn't like. There is a meaningful difference between communicating, "You are not allowed to engage in accountability deflecting language (like 'Magical Intent') with me, because it's harmful," and communicating, "You are not allowed to react to what I said with hurt or anger or sadness, because negative emotions make me feel yucky."
Only the latter constitutes emotional auditing.
(Indeed, drawing clear boundaries about communication preferences is often a necessary response to emotional auditing and/or emotional manipulation.)
So: We cannot control other people's reactions, and to approach communication with some notion that we can, with some expectation that another person should respond in a specific way, with a strategy to elicit an expected and desired reaction, is an inherently harmful communication, because it presupposes there is only one "right" reaction.
We mustn't mistake a reaction we want for the right reaction.
There are certain situations in which most decent people will agree, and be quick to say, that there's no one right reaction. After the death of a loved one, after an assault, after an unfortunate diagnosis, after a job loss—most traumas are met with reassurances that there's not a right way or a wrong way to react.
Fewer people, but still a significant number, will acknowledge there's no one right way to react to things typically regarded as joyful events, either: Becoming a parent, getting married, graduating college, getting a new job. Not everyone is as undilutedly thrilled as we are expected to be in such circumstances, and, irrespective of the void of axiomatic reassurances that it's okay to have various reactions, it's true all the same.
And so it is in most situations: An unexpected reaction is not a wrong reaction.
(Again, to address a notable exception: Abusive responses, which include the disregard of previously communicated boundaries, are clearly inappropriate reactions.)
The ubiquitous urge to make other people responsible for our communication, however, makes most of us less inclined to give across-the-board application to the idea that there are rarely "right" or "wrong" reactions. That would, of course, steal a pretty useful tool out of the accountability deflecting toolbox.
And so instead, we learn how to respond to evidence that we've upset someone with: Don't feel that way. Or: You shouldn't feel that way. Or: I don't want you to feel that way. Or: It doesn't make sense to feel that way. Or: You're being ridiculous. Or: You're being irrational. Or: You're being oversensitive. Or: Your reaction is disproportionate. Or: You're looking for things to get mad about. Or any variation on: You are wrong to feel that way.
And/or an assertion to know another person's mind better than they know it themselves: You're really mad about something else. Or: You're really just trying to punish me. Or: Your hurt, anger, tears are an attempt to manipulate me. Or any variation on: Your emotions aren't authentic.
A healthy and productive reaction to someone expressing hurt or offense is not to audit whether that reaction meets our standards of acceptability (again, with caveat that no one is required to tolerate abuse), but to try to understand why it is that the person is reacting the way zie is. Empathy is the best response to causing unintentional hurt.
Naturally, there are people in the world who are manipulative, people whose perceptions can be affected by mental illness, people who overreact because they're having a goddamn bad day. But none of those are reasons to justify dismissing someone's reactions out of hand as illegitimate: Their existence is, in fact, an argument for the necessity of empathy.
To respond instead to evidence of our mistakes with emotional auditing can be profoundly harmful—and over the course of a relationship, holding another person responsible for our hurting them instead of owning our own harmful communication can cause irreparable damage: After someone communicates enough times that you're exclusively responsible for the hurt they cause you, the only choice with which you're left to break that cycle is to disengage.
Owning our fuck-ups is an integral part of stopping the cycle of harmful communication, not only because it allows for real accountability but also because making authentic amends depends on acknowledging responsibility.
Apologizing in a meaningful way necessitates viewing oneself as a complicated person, with virtues and flaws, good instincts and bad habits, the capacity for kindness and a reservoir of internalized ugliness. It requires fully embracing the idea of knowing and caring about oneself in all one's often regrettable aspects. It rests on the capacity to exist comfortably as a person with visible and acknowledged flaws.
To relieve oneself of the burden of trying to project perfection is to take the first step away from the reflexive use of accountability deflecting language.
And the failure to do so, giving oneself permission to prioritize being right over being compassionate, letting the instinct to say things like, "You're being oversensitive" and "I'm sorry, but…" linger, tends to lead to a cycle of abuse—because if we resist seeing ourselves as someone with flawed communication about which we need to be vigilant, we make the same mistakes over and over, then deflect accountability, again and again, with harmful language.
As I'm sure is evident by this point, a big part of avoiding engaging in harmful communication is being honest about how inclined we are to try to deflect accountability, about what less than productive, effective, and kind strategies we use ourselves, and about where we need to be vigilant and make changes. In other words: Being honest about who we are.
Which brings us to projection, and that will be part three.
