The Virtual Pub (+ Blog Note)
[Explanations: lol your fat. pathetic anger bread. hey your gay.]
TFIF, Shakers!
Belly up to the bar,
and name your poison!
I am taking tomorrow off, because my garbage back is fubared from a combination of a DIY project we did last weekend and shoveling out the back door so the dogs can access the back yard. (And we've got more snow rolling in this weekend wheeeeee!) I was hoping to make it through the week, but I'm really at the point where I can't sit upright anymore without extraordinary pain, so I'm going to take a long weekend to recover.
Although I am always appreciative of well-wishing, there is no need at all to feel obliged; I just wanted to post something informational for the Shakers who tend to worry when I deviate from my routine.
See you Monday!
Legions of Lazy Strawpeople
So, as I mentioned yesterday, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the Affordable Care Act could, over the next decade, reduce the number of full-time workers by as many as 2.5 million. This has been wildly misrepresented by conservatives as proof that "Obamacare is a job killer." Which is not accurate.
The point of the CBO's report, as noted by the New York Times editors, is that, "thanks to an increase in insurance coverage under the act and the availability of subsidies to help pay the premiums, many workers who felt obliged to stay in a job that provided health benefits would now be able to leave those jobs or choose to work fewer hours than they otherwise would have. In other words, the report is about the choices workers can make when they are no longer tethered to an employer because of health benefits."
By any reasonable calculation, this is a good thing—especially given the high unemployment rate. Detaching healthcare access from full-time employment makes more room for more employees, and also encourages entrepreneurship.
But ha ha reasonable doesn't find a place in much of our national discourse anymore.
In today's Chicago Tribune, there is this incredible passage, even following a similar clarification about what the CBO report actually said:
But, and here's where the impact is likely pernicious, some will quit or work less precisely because they'll now qualify for Medicaid or for subsidies under the law. In effect, they'll have a government incentive to be less productive. ...Government subsidies that persuade people to be less productive are not healthy for the nation.First of all, most of the people who make enough money and/or have enough accumulated wealth that they can continue to support themselves and any dependents making half of their current salary, or on no salary at all, aren't going to qualify for Medicaid if they cut back or stop working. This idea that people on the cusp of Medicaid qualification are going to quit working so they make little enough money to earn subsidized healthcare is patently absurd! They still need to make enough money to survive—despite narratives about generous hand-outs from The Government.
Secondly, we need to be honest about the fact that, while there are many jobs at which people are overworked as a result of profit-prioritizing chronic understaffing, there are also lots of jobs at which people are obliged to spend at least 40 hours a week, even though the job itself doesn't require 40 hours of work. Or: May require 60 hours one week, and only 20 the next.
It really would not be the worst thing in the world if people were allowed to work the number of hours they need to work to fulfill their job requirements.
I mean, not that we all don't love the incredibly stupid game of Staring Intently at Minesweeper on a Monitor Like We're Seriously Working on a Difficult Problem (or whatever variation one's job may require), but we have some truly asinine conceptions about productivity that make hand-wringing about people working fewer hours pretty pointless. For a lot of people, "working fewer hours" might realistically translate into "spending fewer hours being visible at the office," not actually being less productive.
There's a very weird work culture in lots of US workplaces where the thought of letting employees work as much as they need to get their jobs done, and then letting them use the rest of their time outside the office to have the best quality of life possible, is somehow letting workers "take advantage." So, instead, we designate a fixed work week, and then whinge about "productivity" at the mere suggestion that people might have the freedom to work fewer hours and own more of their time.
Quote of the Day
"The answer is no, I'm not running for president in 2016. ...I appreciate the compliment; it's better than a kick in the teeth. At the same time I'm absolutely convinced that there are other people who would have a better chance of becoming the nominee and becoming the next president of the United States."—Former Republican presidential nominee and proficient stander-in-front-of-things Mitt Romney, on whether he will run for president again in 2016.
Awwwww.
I am really going to miss you, Mitt Romney.
An Observation
[Content Note: Sexual abuse.]
As more and more (and more and more and more) garbage articles continue to be written on the subject of "trying Woody Allen in the court of public opinion," I want to make the point (again) that Dylan Farrow's piece in the New York Times was essentially a request to the people who celebrate Woody Allen to not disappear her; to remember her.
It was not a request for further investigation of crimes for which the statute of limitations has already passed anyway. It was not a request for compensation or some other extrajudicial nod toward accountability. It was not even a request to deny Woody Allen work.
It was a request for acknowledgment that what happened to her matters.
It was a request to care about her, not a demand to hate Woody Allen. And all the noise about "trying Woody Allen in the court of public opinion" is trying to mask that, to drown it out. It's a clattering obfuscation to make sure we don't actually listen to what Dylan Farrow was really saying.
Woody Allen is 78 year old. He is fine. He has been fine, and he will always be fine. He doesn't need anyone to defend him against some fantasy that Dylan Farrow telling her story is going to ruin him.
Dylan Farrow, on the other hand, needs to be heard. She needs listeners.
And if all you have to say is some tired bullshit about the court of public opinion, you aren't listening.
UPDATE: Related and recommended reading: Jessica Luther's "The Court of Public Opinion."
Daily Dose of Cute
Tils, almost certainly thinking about Tony again.
As always, please feel welcome and encouraged to share pix of the fuzzy, feathered, or scaled members of your family in comments.
You Really Got Me
[Content Note: Harassment; war on agency.]
There are a bunch of things that harassing emailers and Twitterers and sometimes commenters like to say that they imagine are the greatest GOTCHAS that ever GOT.
There's the stuff about my appearance—"You're fat!" (yup) or "You're ugly!" (okay) or whatever, which ranges from statements of fact to matters of opinion—and there's the stuff that accuses me of having an agenda—which: yes I do, and I'm hardly circumspect about it—and some other broad categories, but the one I love the most is this: "You're pro-abortion."
I imagine they expect that I would vehemently deny being "pro-abortion." Or that it bothers me, really just gets under my skin, even if I don't reply.
Nope. Because I am pro-abortion.
I want every single person who wants and/or needs an abortion to be able to get one, easily and safely. And that makes me pro-abortion.
No caveats about how abortion is a terrible thing, but. No qualifications about how abortion should be rare, but. No lies about how no one wants an abortion, but.
I am pro-abortion.
And, yes, I am also pro- lots of other stuff that incidentally reduces the number of abortions. I am pro-comprehensive sex education. I am pro-contraceptive access and affordability. I am pro-employment policies that support expectant parents, including a livable wage, healthcare benefits, and paid family leave. I am pro-government assistance for poor families. I am pro-lunch programs for children. I am pro-comprehensive support for parents raising children with disabilities. I am pro-dismantling the rape culture. For a start.
And I am very much pro-acknowledging that, even in some more perfect world where unwanted pregnancies were more widely preventable and pregnant people weren't obliged to terminate wanted pregnancies for financial reasons and and and, there would still be a need for access to abortion.
So I am pro-abortion.
The people who levy this label like an accusation like to imply (even though even they know it is patently absurd) that being pro-abortion means some sort of agenda in which people who don't want abortions are coerced or forced into getting them. That's bullshit.
It's bullshit—and it's projection. It's a projection of the anti-abortion position which really and practically wants to deny abortions to everyone, to people who want them.
I am invested in providing meaningful choice. I am pro-choice.
And, yes, I am pro-abortion.
In the News
Here is some stuff in the news today!
Two US warships are taking up residence in the Black Sea to keep an eye on the Sochi Olympics—one a communications ship and one a guided missile frigate. "Pentagon officials told NBC the ships would act as support vehicles for American security operations there."
The threat of terrorism is not the only issue with the Sochi Olympics, as you may have heard. Josh Kurp has a comprehensive guide to all the problems here (it's a great round-up, but I direct you there with the note there's an unnecessary swipe at Detroit and one use of disablist language, in addition to stories about homophobia and animal abuse).
[Content Note: War on agency] An Alaska judge has "approved a temporary restraining order on new state rules that would drastically narrow the definition of a medically necessary abortion for purposes of Medicaid coverage. ...The six-page order is not a decision on the merits, but rather blocks the rules from going into effect while the court further considers the arguments made by attorneys on behalf of the plaintiff, Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest. The court scheduled a status hearing for February 7, during which it will consider issuing a more lasting preliminary injunction, which would remain in place while the challenge to the constitutionality of the rules moves forward."
[CN: Rape culture; clergy abuse] Shockingly, the Vatican is unhappy about the UN's report that uncompromisingly criticized the Holy See's handling of endemic sex abuse. A top Vatican official said the report is "out of date, unfair, and ideological." Welp.
No major clean-up is planned for a 12,000-gallon spill of crude oil in Minnesota because "of its relatively small size" and "the way that it happened: the tanker carrying the oil didn't derail and leak all in one place, rather oil gradually splattered out of the car between the rails onto the track bed as the train was moving." Whoops!
In other Fuck the Environment news: "Fracking is depleting water supplies in America's driest areas, report show." Terrific.
[CN: Driving under the influence; death] Remember Ethan Couch, the 16-year-old wealthy white Texas teenager who received probation after killing four people while drunk driving, because he suffers from "affluenza," i.e. being a privileged shit who's never held accountable for his actions? After prosecutors petitioned for prison time, yesterday a judge ordered that he "will attend a drug treatment facility instead of serving time behind bars."
Oh, science, you are so neat: "Scientists have created a bionic hand which allows [someone who has had their hand amputated] to feel lifelike sensations from their fingers. A Danish man received the hand, which was connected to nerves in his upper arm, following surgery in Italy. Dennis Aabo, who lost his left hand in a firework accident nearly a decade ago, said the hand was 'amazing.' In laboratory tests he was able to tell the shape and stiffness of objects he picked up, even when blindfolded."
Evangeline Lilly is "in talks" to play the female lead in Ant-Man. Hey, filmmakers? Just FYI, she is awesome and could play a superhero. She doesn't need to be a sidekick. I'm just saying. Rinse and repeat as needed for fully one gazaillion other actresses.
A police dog in Birmingham, England, helped save a missing woman's life: "Around 12:40 am on February 4th police received a call that the woman was missing and possibly in danger. Evidence that the woman had been injured was found and PC Keith Bennett and his police dog Ska were called to the scene and quickly went to work. Ska picked up a scent in the back yard of the house and led PC Bennett and other officers to the woman who was injured. The woman was treated by paramedics and taken to the hospital where she is recovering." Yayayayay! GOOD DOG.
Transcript Update!
I keep putting this one off because updates take time that I should be using to email volunteers, but I still think it's important to keep everyone in the loop so here is another transcript update. As you can see, we are so close!! I am freaking out with happy.
(More below the cut.)
Piers Morgan Is Terrible
[Content Note: Transphobia; gender policing; privilege; rape culture.]
Last night, trans advocate Janet Mock returned to Piers Morgan's CNN show to follow up after her previous appearance in which Morgan said she was "born a boy," and other deeply ignorant shit, which resulted in a firestorm of criticism on Twitter, and Piers Morgan claiming he had been attacked.
It was a horrendous segment, in which Morgan barked at Mock: "I have spent an infuriating 24 hours and I want you to explain why I've had to go through this," followed by accusations that she is dishonest and giving her unsolicited advice about how to comport herself during interviews.
The transcript is here.
Following that segment, in which Mock tried valiantly to communicate the problems with cis people defining trans* people's lives for them, Morgan invited a panel of cis people to debate whether it's okay to say that a trans woman was "born a boy."
Throughout, he insisted that he is "an ally" to the transgender community.
I don't know how to say this any more plainly: If you are a cis person who believes it's okay to play arbiter of trans* people's identities and lives, you are no ally.
The most basic piece of ally work that a cis person must do is respect trans* people's right to define their own lives, to be the absolute authorities on their own lives.
If you treat anyone's self-identity as a debatable subject, you are not their ally.
Morgan was disrespectful; he was not listening. He was filtering Mock's life through his Validity Prism, and found wanting her description of her own life. He positioned himself as the Objective Outsider, refusing to even entertain the possibility that his cis privilege does not make him more objective, but in fact compromises his instincts for empathy, by urging him to view himself (and other cis people) as a norm from which trans* people deviate.
That is not reality; that is a false construct created by privilege.
[Note: Morgan followed his rank policing of Mock and other trans* people with segments in which he sided with Jerry Seinfeld for saying some garbage that totally disregards structural inequalities, and in which his panel condemned people for siding with Dylan Farrow, for "litigating this in public, litigating this over Twitter."]
Question of the Day
What is your favorite "I'm stuck in the house because of the weather" activity? Too cold, too snowy, too hot, too rainy, too much pollen, too much mold, whatever.
Maude Save Us
Quote of the Day
"Social media is viewed by gatekeepers as simultaneously worthless and a serious threat. Balancing these opposing views requires a hypocrisy that can be facilitated only by the assurance of power."—Sarah Kendzior, in a piece for Al Jazeera responding to the Nation piece about "Feminism's Toxic Twitter Wars."
Relatedly: Yesterday, the Nation tweeted an "open call for responses to our cover story on Twitter and Feminism," apparently to be published in their letters section. There are some excellent responses below that tweet at the link, and of course there are lots of good responses elsewhere on Twitter. (Drop links in comments!)
I like what Andrea Grimes said (here and here): "The Nation issuing an 'open call' for responses to the Twitter feminism piece shows the degree to which it misses the whole point. Not that there isn't value in printing opposing views, and I hope they do, but the publication retains control over that conversation."
And I like what Sana Saeed said (here, paraphrasing Rania Khalek): "indeed, why pay WOC to respond to a racist, reductionist, dishonest piece about them when we have letters!"
The problem. Here it is.
Marissa Alexander Update
[Content Note: Violence; guns; misogynoir.]
Marissa Alexander is the black woman from Florida (the same state in which George Zimmerman was acquitted of murdering Trayvon Martin, under the same prosecutor) who was convicted and sentenced to 20 years for firing a warning shot into the ceiling when her abusive husband was trying to harm her. After a campaign to petition for her release, Alexander was granted a new trial.
I just got a dispatch from the Free Marissa Now Mobilization Campaign about what's happening ahead of her retrial, scheduled for this summer, and I'm just going to post the entire thing in full (emphases original):
On Thursday, January 30, Marissa Alexander was granted a request to have her trial rescheduled for July 28th. Alexander's attorney, Bruce Zimet, said the initial March 31 trial date was too soon for adequate preparation. He said he needs additional time to line up expert witnesses on Battered Women's Syndrome, ballistics, and research into contested testimony at Alexander's first trial.
In 2012, Alexander, an African American mother of three from Jacksonville, Florida, received a 20-year sentence for firing a warning shot to stop her estranged husband, a serial abuser, from attacking her. No one was injured by Alexander's action. Alexander was denied Stand Your Ground protection and received a lengthy sentence under Florida's Mandatory Minimum laws. After serving nearly three years in prison, Alexander was granted a new trial by a Florida Appeals Court, which said the first trial improperly forced Alexander to prove her innocence. The U.S. legal system puts the burden of proof on the prosecution. Alexander was released on bond on Thanksgiving Day 2013 and is under house detention until her new trial concludes.
"The error in Alexander's first trial has cost the state and taxpayers. But Marissa and her family have paid more than anyone financially and emotionally," says Sumayya Fire, a leader of the national Free Marissa Now mobilization and the African American/Black Women's Cultural Alliance. "While we are anxious to see Marissa exonerated and free from house detention as soon as possible, we also want her to get the best trial possible. Marissa's family appreciates the court's flexibility in rescheduling the trial and allowing more time for preparation," says Fire. "Marissa's thousands of supporters are confident she will win when the jurors understand her situation as a battered woman. Justice really demands that State Prosecutor Angela Corey drop the charges now and not put this woman through the cost and anxiety of another trial."
At the January 30 hearing, Judge James Daniel said he would impose strict rules on media coverage of the case in order to "control what picture is being shown" in pre-trial publicity. The judge also wants to ban live-streaming and the use of Twitter in the courtroom.
Supporters of Alexander believe it is crucial that the prosecutors' office not be the only public source of information. In early January, Prosecutor Corey attempted to revoke Alexander's bond and went public with accusations that Alexander had "repeatedly flouted" the conditions of her bond; "demonstrated her utter disregard for conforming her behavior to the rules others must abide by"; and "disrespected" the Court in "blatant fashion." In fact, Corey's office knew that all of Alexander's trips outside her home had been fully approved by an experienced Correctional Service Counselor. Judge Daniel upheld Alexander's bond and said that her trips outside the house had followed correct procedures and were not intentional violations.
Helen Gilbert, another Free Marissa Now leader and a member of Radical Women, says: "We've already experienced an issue with Angela Corey trying to manipulate public opinion and with community members being shut out of one of Marissa's public hearings. Free Marissa Now wants full transparency and accountability at every step of this trial. The world is watching this case because it will impact not only Marissa's future but also all survivors of domestic violence."
The Free Marissa Now Mobilization Campaign is calling for a week of action from February 8-16 to draw attention to Alexander's case and other criminalized survivors of domestic violence. On February 14-16, thousands of activists around the world are anticipated to raise awareness about violence against women.
-- Campaign organizers urge supporters to hold rallies and forums, create art, fundraise for Alexander's legal defense fund, send cards to Alexander and other survivors of violence, and use social networking to help get the word out.
-- On February 8, supporters on Twitter will raise awareness about Alexander's case and the growing mass incarceration of women and girls in general. Using the hashtags #FreeMarissa and #SaturdaySchool, participants can find the conversation on Twitter @freemarissanow.
-- February 10th is the third anniversary of the day Alexander entered prison. On that date, the Free Marissa DJ project will be launched (www.freemarissanow.org/free-marissa-dj.html). Through this activity, the public is invited to dedicate a song to the cause of freeing Alexander and ending domestic violence and mass incarceration. Donors can contribute at http://igg.me/at/freemarissa2, then post a link to a music video, a quote from their chosen song, or a video of themselves singing the song at facebook.com/FreeMarissaNow. Free Marissa Now hopes to raise $30,000 by early March. The cost for Alexander's legal defense is expected to be over $250,000.
The Free Marissa Now Mobilization Campaign is an international grassroots campaign led by a core of organizers representing the African American/Black Women's Cultural Alliance, New Jim Crow Movement - Jacksonville, Radical Women, INCITE!, and the Pacific Northwest Alliance to Free Marissa Alexander. For more information, see www.FreeMarissaNow.org.
Please, as always, feel welcome to leave links to additional resources in comments.
And I can't emphasize strongly enough how important it is just to make noise about this case, and let the prosecutors know we are watching.
It's Almost Like People Have Noticed That They Are Working Very Hard and Getting Nowhere Fast
A CNN/ORC International survey released today has found that a majority of US respondents want the government to implement policies that reduce the income gap:
A majority of Americans surveyed believe the government should work to reduce the income gap between rich and the poor, according to a new national poll.It's not the sentiment that puts Republicans in a difficult position. It's their policies. Like being opposed to raising the minimum wage to a paltry $10.10, and THINKING THAT PEOPLE AREN'T ENTITLED TO FOOD.
A CNN/ORC International survey released Wednesday indicates more than six in 10 Americans strongly or somewhat agree that the government should work to narrow that gap, compared to 30% who believe it should not.
"That sentiment may put Republicans in a difficult position, because nearly seven in 10 of those surveyed believe GOP policies favor the rich compared to the 30% of respondents who said Democratic policies benefit the wealthy," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.
...Most Republicans oppose such measures, and nine in 10 Democrats favor them. Among independents, two-thirds believe the government should work to reduce the income gap.
The Republican Party has spent a very long time winning elections on the basis of obfuscation and scapegoating, instead of winning on facts and superior policy. But they can't spin the reality that people are hurting, and they want the pain to stop already.
She Said, He Said
[Content Note: Sexual assault.]
The New York Times public editor has announced that the paper may publish a rebuttal to Dylan Farrow's piece authored by Woody Allen.
Woody Allen has asked for, and may get, a chance to respond — in an Op-Ed piece in The Times — to a recent column and blog by Nicholas Kristof in which the filmmaker's adopted daughter detailed her memories of his sexually abusing her.So the decision comes down to the fact that "it was so personal," and not the fact that Woody Allen is a powerful, famous man with lots of privilege. Okay.
"They asked and we said, 'Yes, send it in,'" Andrew Rosenthal, The Times's editorial page editor, told me today by phone.
It's not certain that The Times will publish the piece. "It comes down to the editing process," he said, something that all Op-Ed pieces are subject to.
Publishing such a piece is unusual for The Times's opinion pages.
"Normally, we don't publish a direct response" as a full Op-Ed article, Mr. Rosenthal said, but as a smaller and less prominent letter to the editor. "In this case, it was so personal, we thought that we should."
...Mr. Rosenthal said he did not know when Mr. Allen's Op-Ed piece might appear, but indicated that it could be within the next few days.
I find it interesting, ahem, that the issue was so personal to Woody Allen that it justifies publishing a response by Woody Allen, but not so personal to Dylan Farrow that it justifies not publishing a response by her abuser.
No less giving him, presumably, the last word. Unless the Times is also prepared to let Dylan Farrow respond in a subsequent piece.
I mean, it's so personal. By their own rationale, she should have that chance. Although, somehow, I'm guessing we're just going to draw a line under it once Woody Allen has his say.
Congratulations, New York Times. You're literally turning this story of childhood sex abuse into a "she said, he said." What a terrific way to encourage survivors to share their stories.
[H/T to Slade.]
--------------
UPDATE: I said a lot more about this on Twitter, which I've now Storified here.
Daily Dose of Cute
Dudley had some blogging to do, but was interrupted by a nap.
As always, please feel welcome and encouraged to share pix of the fuzzy, feathered, or scaled members of your family in comments.
The Wednesday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by snow. So much snow.
Recommended Reading:
Jamilah: [Content Note: Transmisogyny; gender essentialism; threats] The Deadly Logic Behind Piers Morgan's Awful Interview with Janet Mock
(Aoife has some thoughts about whether it's even worth engaging with mainstream media microphones like Piers Morgan. Always a difficult decision to navigate for social justice activists whose advocacy needs visibility. No easy answers, but it's important to consider.)
Mia: [CN: Discussion of privilege and supremacy] 4 Ways to Push Back Against Your Privilege
Shantell: [CN: Violent racism] In Memory of Trayvon on His 19th Birthday
Flavia: [CN: Racism; misogyny; transphobia; violence] Why I Do Not Support the European Parliament Recommendations on Undocumented Women Migrants
Andy: A Rainbow Appeared over Scottish Parliament Right Before Lawmakers Approved Marriage Equality
Chris: 6 Elements of Arthur Chu's Jeopardy! Strategy
Leave your links and recommendations in comments...
Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime
[Content Note: There is a strobe-light effect in this video.]
Uriah Heep: "July Morning"
In the News
Here is some stuff in the news today!
[Content Note: Transmisogyny] CNN's Piers Morgan was a total transmisogynistic dirtbag during an interview with trans activist and author Janet Mock. She called him out, he's getting criticism, and now he's framing himself as the victim. Rinse and repeat forever.
The New York Times editorial board does a good job (I know!) of pushing back on the idea that the Congressional Budget Office report on the Affordable Care Act said that the ACA is a job killer. "The report estimated that—thanks to an increase in insurance coverage under the act and the availability of subsidies to help pay the premiums—many workers who felt obliged to stay in a job that provided health benefits would now be able to leave those jobs or choose to work fewer hours than they otherwise would have. In other words, the report is about the choices workers can make when they are no longer tethered to an employer because of health benefits. ...The new law will free people, young and old, to pursue careers or retirement without having to worry about health coverage. Workers can seek positions they are most qualified for and will no longer need to feel locked into a job they don't like because they need insurance for themselves or their families. It is hard to view this as any kind of disaster."
Former American Idol contestant Clay Aiken is running for Congress! I'd vote for him! If I lived in his district in North Carolina! Which I don't!
[CN: War on agency] A planned protest at Louisiana state capitol became a celebratory rally instead when the state Department of Health and Hospitals "decided to entirely rescind new regulations that it had intended to pass on Tuesday," the passage of which would have resulted in all five abortion providers in the state being shut down. This fight isn't over, but that was a good victory for now.
[CN: Clergy abuse] The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has said in a new report that "the Vatican should 'immediately remove' all clergy who are known or suspected child abusers [and make them available to be held accountable by the authorities]. The UN watchdog for children's rights denounced the Holy See for adopting policies which allowed priests to sexually abuse thousands of children. ...It also lambasted the 'practice of offenders' mobility,' referring to the transfer of child abusers from parish to parish within countries, and sometimes abroad." Damn they went there. Good. The report "also criticised Vatican attitudes towards homosexuality, contraception and abortion. The Vatican responded by saying it would examine the report—but also accused its authors of interference." Protip on avoiding outsider interference: Handle your own shit in a responsible way.
[CN: Guns; injury] Wow: "How a Simple New Invention Seals a Gunshot Wound in 15 Seconds."
The Center for Media and Public Affairs counted the targets of all of Jay Leno's jokes during his 22-year tenure as host of The Tonight Show, and guess who his number one target was? Did you guess Bill Clinton? Unless you watch The Tonight Show, I bet you didn't! Because you are probably a reasonable person who does not think "Meh meh Bill Clinton is fat and horny meh!" constitutes comedy in the year of our lord Jesus Jones two thousand and fourteen!
Leno's top five targets were: 1. Bill Clinton (4,607 jokes) 2. George W. Bush (3,239) 3. Al Gore (1,026) 4. Barack Obama (1,011) 5. Hillary Clinton (939). Hmm. I seem to detect a pattern, but I JUST CAN'T PUT MY FINGER ON IT.
I Would've Told You This for Free
But surveyors of the manifestly obvious gotta eat, too:
Surveys commissioned by the Vatican [ahead of a major meeting of bishops that Pope Francis has called for October to discuss the family] have shown that the vast majority of Catholics in Germany and Switzerland reject church teaching on contraception, sexual morality, gay unions and divorce.Surprising to whom? Has Pope Francis ever met any Catholics? J/K!
[The results] were surprising in the near-uniformity of responses: that the church's teachings on sexuality, morality and marriage are rejected as unrealistic and outdated by the vast majority of Catholics who nevertheless are active in parish life and consider their faith vitally important.
Despite the findings, moral theologians warned that church doctrine won't change.Ha ha of course not.
I mean, that's the problem with asserting that your doctrine FOR SURE is 100% the absolute and immutable Will of God. You can't just go changing it willy-nilly when it turns out that the Will of God is kinda shitty.
But church doctrine changes with the culture, just as everything else. Eventually.
(This? Right here? Is why we always ask commenters to be careful to make distinctions between Catholic church leadership and "Catholics" generally. They are, broadly, not on the same page around these issues and haven't been for quite some time.)
Single-Payer Healthcare Now
This is why it was always going to be a bad idea (when it was the Republicans' idea, and when it was the Democrats' idea) to run healthcare reform through for-profit insurance companies:
After overcoming website glitches and long waits to get Obamacare, some patients are now running into frustrating new roadblocks at the doctor's office.To hold down premiums. Cost-cutting strategies. Those are terrific euphemisms for "maximizing profits."
A month into the most sweeping changes to healthcare in half a century, people are having trouble finding doctors at all, getting faulty information on which ones are covered and receiving little help from insurers swamped by new business.
...To hold down premiums under the healthcare law, major insurers have sharply cut the number of doctors and hospitals available to patients in the state's new health insurance market.
...Of course, complaints about outdated provider lists and delays in getting a doctor's appointment were common long before the healthcare law was enacted. But some experts worry the influx of newly insured patients and the cost-cutting strategies of health plans may further strain the system.
Insurance companies aren't in the healthcare business. They're in the making money business. And their decisions will always and forever prioritize profits over people.
Snow
We already had about a foot of snow on the ground, and now we're having another snowstorm, with another on its way this weekend. Right now, the snow has left only this much of our mailbox visible:
So, basically, if we get the additional foot of snow we're supposed to have, our mailbox will be entirely buried.
Having this much snow is a drag for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is snow removal from walks and driveways and cars. We're so lucky to have a neighbor who has a snowblower and does our driveway and several other driveways and the sidewalks in between in addition to his own, which leaves us with minimal shoveling. The biggest thing with which we are our neighbors are contending right now is that the garbage and recycling collection keeps getting delayed, or cancelled altogether.
So we've got a bunch of garbage and recycling piling up in the garage. As do a lot of people.
There's been a lot of sneering from the northeast about parts of the country that can't handle cold or a little snow, which is really shitty. We're prepared for winter, hard winter, and extreme weather is doing us in, too. Not enough plows, not enough salt, frozen pipes, roads littered with potholes that can't be fixed because the temperature is too cold for the repair materials to adhere.
Two inches of snow somewhere that isn't used to it can be just as bad as two feet of snow here.
People in places where it doesn't usually get this cold in winter might have insufficient heat. People in places where it does get cold might have heating bills three times what they'd normally expect, and elevated water bills from keeping the water running to stop the pipes from freezing. People in places where it doesn't usually get this cold might not have appropriate clothes. People in places where it does get cold don't even know what appropriate clothing for -50° temperature is. A bearskin cloak? A spacesuit? Whatever it is, I don't own it.
And while we have tons of snow, other parts of the country are experiencing a terrible drought. Too much precipitation, or too little.
Anyway. I have no plans to sneer at anyone. We're all in this fuckwinter together.
Question of the Day
Suggested by Shaker masculine_lady: "When was the last time an ad compelled you to do something (buy, click, share, etc.)?"
Bipartisan Farm Bill Heads to the President's Desk
[Background: Republicans Think People Aren't Entitled to Food.]
The US Senate has passed the long-delayed farm bill:
The Senate voted with strong bipartisan support to send a nearly $1 trillion farm bill to the White House for President Barack Obama's signature.Ha ha except for the people in those rural communities who may rely on food stamps, of course, since the final legislation cut the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program by $8 billion (= 32 Romneys). Oh well! Let them eat bootstraps.
The Senate voted 68-32 to approve the five-year agricultural and food bill, following the Republican House's vote in favor of the legislation last week.
Obama said of the compromise: "As with any compromise, the Farm Bill isn't perfect - but on the whole, it will make a positive difference not only for the rural economies that grow America's food, but for our nation."
"The White House has said that Obama intended to sign the farm bill if it reached his desk." Welp.
Mind you, it wouldn't matter if the President vetoed the legislation. Republicans simply will not agree to pass the much-needed farm bill without steep cuts to SNAP. Because Republicans think people aren't entitled to food.
You Don't Get a Vote
[CN: dismissal of survivors]
Joining the long list of people saying terrible things in response to Dylan Farrow's open letter, columnist Robin Abcarian of the L. A. Times definitely knows better than survivors. For one thing, it apparently doesn't matter whether one believes Dylan or not:
In the long run, it doesn’t matter whether you believe the tragic story of Dylan Farrow, who alleges that her father Woody Allen sexually assaulted her 20 years ago when she was 7 years old.Nor does it matter whether you believe Woody Allen, who was never charged with a crime, and who has steadfastly maintained his innocence.
Now, I'm not a fancy columnist with the L.A. Times, but I do have an internet connection, and with very little effort I've encountered a whole bunch of people for whom it does matter. Survivors and their allies, many of whom have spent much of the last few days explaining the high cost of disbelief.
And when a survivor explains how something feels, you don't get a vote on that. You don't get to put a survivor's feelings through your Validity Prism and judge them "disingenuous":
But honoring Allen is certainly not the equivalent of accusing Dylan of lying or not mattering, and it is disingenuous to suggest so. In 1993, Dylan’s accusations were taken very seriously by her mother, by doctors, by prosecutors. Allen was investigated for months and prosecutors chose not to file charges.
Neat! Also, can't she just shut up already?
Also, Dylan Farrow has had her say, and she has had it very recently. Only four months ago, Vanity Fair published a long profile of Mia Farrow and her children by Maureen Orth. In that piece, Dylan recounted her allegations against Allen in detail, and her enduring trauma, including the death of her 19-year-old sister Tam in 2000.
I'm so sorry that you don't like Ms. Farrow telling her story more times than you would prefer. But again: you don't get a vote. And as for this final bit of finger-wagging:
I earnestly believe that the contours of Farrow’s life are not going to change one bit if Woody Allen wins another Oscar.
Well, I'm glad you believe that earnestly. But still: you don't get a vote.
Earnestness doesn't change the fact that it's pretty fucking awful to 'splain to Dylan Farrow how she will be affected if her abuser is honored, yet again. It's deeply, deeply shitty to claim that believing a survivor doesn't matter because she was "taken seriously" when she first came forward. (Hint: not seriously enough, it seems!) It's frankly obscene to police how often, and when, she tells her story. And since we're throwing the term around, it is definitely disingenuous to insist it doesn't matter whom we believe, despite the chorus of survivors explaining otherwise.
Telling us not to "take sides" is a cruel joke. You clearly have picked one, Ms. Abcarian. And it's not the one where the survivors are standing.
Well Done, Scotland!
The Scottish Parliament has voted to legalize same-sex marriage:
SCOTLAND has become the 17th country in the world to legalise gay marriage after a historic vote at Holyrood.All the blubs forever.
MSPs passed landmark legislation that will allow same-sex couples to have a church wedding by 105 votes to 18.
And Health Secretary Alex Neil revealed the first marriages could take place this autumn - earlier than first thought. He added: "We're doing a remarkable thing today; we are saying on behalf of Scotland to the world, loud and clear, that we believe in recognising love between same sex couples as we do between [different] sex couples."
...Tom French, Policy Coordinator for the Equality Network, said: "This is a profoundly emotional moment for many people who grew up in a country where being gay was still a criminal offence until 1980. Scotland can be proud that we now have one of the most progressive equal marriage bills in the world, and that we've sent out a strong message about the kind of country we are."
...The Scottish government's marriage bill was brought forward after a government consultation, which produced a record 77,508 responses.
On Being Surprised by Rape Apologia
by Shakesville Moderator Hallelujah_Hippo
[Content Note: Sexual assault; rape apologia.]
It's not unusual when a famous or semi-famous person opens their mouth in support of rape culture that I hear expressions of surprise from friends and acquaintances. And I understand their shock and disappointment, and I support their needs to process this new bit of awful in their lives; but their surprise is not something I can help them work through.
Surprise is a luxury I don't have.
As a survivor who has spoken about my past experiences, I have had friends ask if 'maybe I misunderstood the situation,' had family members say 'you're making a big deal out of nothing,' heard otherwise progressive and feminist-identifying friends say 'well, can you blame him for feeling that way; those kind of clothes/behaviors/settings give men ideas.' I've had mutual friends remind me that it's just 'my word against his,' and 'he probably didn't mean it, anyway.' In my life it has been common to hear people propagate and uphold rape culture, in general and in response to me speaking about my own lived experience.
So when I hear a famous person whose books I have read or even liked, an actor or actress who I have admired for the characters they play, a celebrity personality who I generally thought was kind of cool say similar things; it's just one more day in my life, one more person in the 'not safe' box in my head. Some days I'm disappointed, and some days I'm angry, and some days I feel like I'm one of a very few people in the whole wide world actively trying to dismantle rape culture.
But I'm not surprised.
Survivors tend to be intimately familiar with displays of victim-blaming—from friends, from family members, from law enforcement officials, from strangers on the internet. Most of us have multiple stories of our own of friends and family who have silenced us, disbelieved us, and blamed us for our own assaults.
To hear one more person—possibly someone's whose books we've enjoyed, whose movies we liked, whose show we found value in—engage in victim-blaming and silencing narratives is just one more person behaving exactly like lots of other people have behaved towards us. A lot of us survivors don't have the luxury of surprise.
Certainly there are survivors whose experiences are not like mine, who are surprised by people upholding the rape culture in public. I am not here to negate their lived experiences or tell them they are wrong. I'm just speaking about my own feelings about 'being surprised' in response to famous people engaging in rape culture narratives, feelings that some other survivors share.
And while it is not wrong to feel surprised, it's important to recognize that surprise is often a reflection of privilege—and, like all reflections of privilege, expressing it may be upsetting to people who don't share that privilege.
Liss tweeted last night: (1) "To everyone who's shocked by this rank rape apologia, that's the shit I get in my inbox EVERY DAY for being an outspoken survivor." (2) "This isn't an anomaly. It's just public evidence of the harassment outspoken survivors get all the time."
Part of the work of dismantling the rape culture is recognizing that rape apologia isn't an aberration, but a central part of its maintenance. When we see it in public, emanating from someone with a big platform, it's a reminder of what is done to many survivors away from the spotlight all the time, by people who we know intimately and by people who purport to love us, no less by people whose public image we only know from afar.
Many of us never had a chance to be surprised by rape apologia. Some of us have never known anything else.
Daily Dose of Cute
As always, please feel welcome and encouraged to share pix of the fuzzy, feathered, or scaled members of your family in comments.
The Costs of Disbelief
[Content Note: Sexual violence; rape apologia.]
I believe survivors, because I have listened to countless survivors' stories; because I am a survivor who was disbelieved; because I have spent incalculable amounts of time and energy studying and writing about the rape culture; because I know how there is usually precious little to gain and everything to lose even from making a truthful report; because of the facts about the rarity of false reporting.
I also believe survivors because there is a steep cost to disbelieving them.
I don't just mean the personal cost to individual survivors—although that, too. Being disbelieved is a secondary trauma, for many survivors a profound exacerbation of an already devastating act. To survive that sort of physical harm, only to be disbelieved by people who you trust(ed), by people who are tasked with protecting you, to have your lived experience be audited and denied, to be victim-blamed and suspected of lying, to have reporting the harm done to you grotesquely twisted into an accusation of attempting to hurt the person who abused you, can create lasting psychological turmoil from which it is harder to recover, sometimes, than the original act of violence.
The depth of that betrayal in such a vulnerable moment is difficult to convey, to someone who has never experienced it.
I also mean the costs beyond what is taken from individual survivors, when they are disbelieved.
I mean the cost of communicating to other survivors, when we publicly disbelieve one person, that they will be disbelieved. That there is no point to reporting the crimes done to them, because they will not find justice. And may instead find in its place an aggressive avalanche of hostility and suspicion and contempt.
I mean the cost of empowering predators, who are grateful indeed to everyone who participates in the systemic disbelief of survivors. Even if their victims report the abuse they perpetuate, their chances of being charged and convicted are vanishingly small, because of our cultural investment in disbelief.
I mean the cost of failing to stop predators, a majority of whom attack again and again. I mean the cost of creating more victims.
That is a real cost of disbelief. Disbelieving one survivor means almost certainly that hir attacker will create more. And then we'll disbelieve them, too.
And on and on we go.
After he raped me, my rapist started dating another girl, who was a year younger than I and was a friend of a friend. I called her to warn her, with our mutual friend on the phone. She didn't believe her new boyfriend would do anything like that to her, and she wasn't sure she believed he had done something like that to me. So she told me, in a voice that quivered with doubt, before she thanked me for warning her.
It was totally understandable that she didn't believe me. No one else had. Every level of disbelief—the police, the school administration, mutual friends and classmates—communicated to her that she had no reason to believe me.
The next time I spoke to her, she told me he had raped her, too.
All of the people who failed to believe me failed her. The cost of disbelieving me was another victim. And I hardly imagine he stopped there.
She didn't bother reporting him. After all, no one had believed me.
I believed her.
We are told that false reports are rampant, and that legions of men's lives are ruined by false allegations of sexual violence. Neither of these things are true.
I am aware that there have been cases in this vast world of ours in which a person's life has been upended by a legitimately false charge. That is terrible. Full-stop.
I am also aware that some of the people whose lives have been upended by a charge of sexual assault are free to claim that charge was false, simply by virtue of having not been convicted. It's something that rape apologists who constantly invoke the men whose lives have been ruined never concede: Some of those men actually did the things of which they weren't convicted.
And here is another thing that they aren't willing to speak about: There really are legions of men who have raped someone and been accused and not been charged or convicted, and their lives were not ruined, and those men are doing just fucking fine.
There are a lot of survivors, myself among them, who know our rapists are doing just fucking fine.
That is the gift, to rapists, of disbelief—bought with the cost to survivors.
In the News
Here is some stuff in the news today!
The Department of Health and Human Services has announced a new rule that "will allow patients to have direct access to their completed laboratory reports," instead of having to get results directly from their physicians.
[Content Note: Rape apologia] On yesterday's episode of The View, Barbara Walters got in on the Woody Allen defense, saying he's a loving father. "I have rarely seen a father as sensitive, as loving and as caring as Woody is and Soon-Yi to [their two daughters]." Thankfully, Sherri Shepherd talked some sense: "Barbara, when you say, 'I'm speaking from what I've seen,' there are so many things that go on behind closed doors." I despair for the world when a seasoned journalist like Barbara Walters doesn't even know, or care, that many parents who abuse their kids appear to be loving parents to outsiders.
The latest in the bridge closing scandal in New Jersey: "Feds seek files from Christie's office; ex-aide Bridget Anne Kelly won't turn over documents in response to subpoena and invokes Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination." Neat.
Minnesota state lawmakers have introduced "an expansive legislative package—dubbed the Women's Economic Security Act of 2014—to address a wide range of issues affecting women working outside of the home, including mandated paid sick leave, increased minimum wage and expanded access to childcare." Right on.
[CN: Gun violence; racism] Michael Dunn, the white man who shot and killed black teenager Jordan Davis following a dispute over loud music in a parking lot, goes to trial this week. Dunn claims he felt threatened by the car full of unarmed teenagers that he approached. While awaiting trial, he's been sending racist missives from prison.
[CN: Gun violence] In California, a man has been arrested after pointing a gun at a Girl Scout who came to his door selling cookies.
Relatedly: "The PTSD Crisis That's Being Ignored: Americans Wounded in Their Own Neighborhoods."
The Rape Apologia Parade Marches On
[Content Note: Sexual assault; rape apologia.]
This morning, the Today show invited Woody Allen's attorney, Elkan Abramowitz, to be a guest, to respond to Dylan Farrow's allegations that Allen sexually abused her as a child. And then they tweeted the highlights:
Abramowitz reiterated the accusation that Mia Farrow "implanted" the memory in Dylan. In this version of events, Dylan isn't malicious; she's just a victim of her mother's abuse. And so is Woody Allen.
In this version, these allegations are evidence of Mia Farrow's diabolical strategy to destroy Woody Allen, and thus their emergence during a custody dispute is held up as PROOF! that they were invented to hurt him. Which is a logical and believable story for many people, because the rape culture exhorts us to empathize with perpetrators, to center concerns for all the totally innocent men who are wrongly accused by vindictive women. If instead we were exhorted to empathize with victims, perhaps instead we would see a mother whose former partner was already having a sexual relationship with one adult child and was advocating for the safety of her young daughter who had reported abuse to her.
Allen's defenders are so thoroughly reluctant to admit even the possibility that he did this thing, they cannot conceive of a version of events in which it happened, and it was profoundly relevant to a custody hearing, and Mia Farrow was not trying to hurt Woody Allen, but trying to protect her daughter.
Of course that very common story of familial abuse couldn't possibly be true. Allen's a stand-up guy—such a magnanimous guy, in fact, that he isn't even interested in suing anyone for defamation. Sure. Maybe that's because he's a great guy, or maybe it's because you can't sue someone for defamation when what they're saying is the truth.
* * *
Last night, the author Stephen King also waded into the public conversation with this tweet regarding Dylan Farrow's allegations:
He has since deleted the tweet. Instead his timeline now reads:
After literally saying a survivor's story has "an element of palpable bitchery," a man who has made a living being one of the most prolific published authors ever, who has literally written millions of carefully crafted words, says he "probably used the wrong word." As if conveying that Dylan Farrow was "bitchy" would have been better, if only he'd used a better word.
Then he blames tech noobery. Sorry, Stephen King: There is no magic button on Twitter that stops you from broadcasting rank victim-blaming.
And finally, he begs for "mercy." Because he got rightfully criticized for engaging in rape apologia. See how that goes? Now he's the one being attacked. He's the victim. And he needs "mercy." My god.
* * *
I'm getting a lot of "so your position is that you just automatically believe everyone who alleges sexual abuse" type stuff on Twitter, and in my inbox, and in some (deleted) comments here. It is an accusation, made with incredulity and contempt.
And the answer is yes. Yes, my position is that I believe people who allege sexual abuse. Because, as Imani Gandy details here, a comprehensive study in the UK found that only 0.6% of all allegations of rape and domestic violence combined are thought to be false.
0.6%.
And that was the finding of a study using only reported rapes. The majority of sexual assaults go unreported, so if we include all the rapes that are never even reported to police in the first place, that number gets even smaller.
A fraction of a percentage.
My position is based on having listened to countless survivors' stories; on being a survivor who was disbelieved; on spending the time and energy to understand the rape culture; on knowing how there is usually precious little to gain and everything to lose even from making a truthful report; on the above facts about the rarity of false reporting.
Every other position is based on ignorance at best, and every other position upholds the rape culture and empowers rapists, who, after all, benefit quite neatly from a culture which insistently disbelieves their victims.
Question of the Day
What is your favorite sport to play, and what is your favorite sport to watch? Naturally, "none" is a perfectly cromulent answer.
Desperate and Indecent
[Content Note: Homophobia.]
Idaho Senate, we see you:
Frustrated after eight years of rejection, a group of Add the Words supporters blocked the entrance to the Idaho State Senate chamber at the Capitol in Boise Monday morning. The group members, standing in silence and wearing matching black T-shirts, said they were prepared to be arrested.They can't win without breaking the rules. Assholes.
“We are here to insist the Idaho Legislature finally add four words, 'sexual orientation' and 'gender identity,' to Idaho’s Human Rights Act to prevent the suicides, beatings, loss of jobs, evictions and the fear that too many gay and transgender Idahoans live with every day," the group said in a news release. "We do this for those who live in fear and those who may despair this year if no one speaks for them."
The last of the 43 protesters was arrested after 11 a.m., when former state Sen. Nicole LeFavour, D-Boise, was taken into custody after the Senate voted to suspend its rule that allows former members to be on the Senate floor. The rules also prohibit former members from lobbying. Majority Leader Bart Davis, R-Idaho Falls, made the motion to suspend the rules; Minority Leader Michelle Stennett, D-Ketchum, seconded the motion. Both said they respected the protesters' right to speak out, but the Senate had to move ahead to conduct the people's business.
LeFavour stood in the doorway to the Senate, hands over her mouth, refusing to move or to talk. The Senate called the roll, had its opening prayer and pledge, then voted to suspend for the day the rule that allows former members floor access.
[H/T to Shaker Talonas.]
Oh Right. Our Economy Was Built (in Part) on a Big Middle Class with Purchasing Power. Whoooooops.
[Content Note: Class warfare.]
Particularly juxtaposed with the unfathomable fact that raising the US minimum wage is still a controversial proposal, this article about the shrinking middle class, and how corporate retailers are dealing with it, is striking.
In Manhattan, the upscale clothing retailer Barneys will replace the bankrupt discounter Loehmann's, whose Chelsea store closes in a few weeks. Across the country, Olive Garden and Red Lobster restaurants are struggling, while fine-dining chains like Capital Grille are thriving. And at General Electric, the increase in demand for high-end dishwashers and refrigerators dwarfs sales growth of mass-market models.Gee, it's almost like trickle-down economics doesn't fucking work or something.
As politicians and pundits in Washington continue to spar over whether economic inequality is in fact deepening, in corporate America there really is no debate at all. The post-recession reality is that the customer base for businesses that appeal to the middle class is shrinking as the top tier pulls even further away.
...In 2012, the top 5 percent of earners were responsible for 38 percent of domestic consumption, up from 28 percent in 1995, the researchers found.
Even more striking, the current recovery has been driven almost entirely by the upper crust, according to [economists Steven Fazzari, of Washington University in St. Louis, and Barry Cynamon, of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis]. Since 2009, the year the recession ended, inflation-adjusted spending by this top echelon has risen 17 percent, compared with just 1 percent among the bottom 95 percent.
More broadly, about 90 percent of the overall increase in inflation-adjusted consumption between 2009 and 2012 was generated by the top 20 percent of households in terms of income, according to the study, which was sponsored by the Institute for New Economic Thinking, a research group in New York.
...While spending among the most affluent consumers has managed to propel the economy forward, the sharpening divide is worrying, Mr. Fazzari said.
"It's going to be hard to maintain strong economic growth with such a large proportion of the population falling behind," he said. "We might be able to muddle along — but can we really recover?"
Nope
[Content Note: Sexual violence; rape apologia.]
Fresh from publishing a piece in which the writer questions the ethics of a woman with cancer, the Guardian now publishes a piece by Michael Wolff questioning the motives of a survivor's family.
The headline is: "The Woody Allen-Dylan Farrow case: media spin for the Farrow family?" The sub-head is: "The debate over Allen's alleged abuse of Dylan played out in the media two decades ago. Very curious how it's back again."
I suppose it would be "curious" to someone who comprehensively ignores that Dylan is now an adult and is telling her own story from her own perspective for the first time. And to someone who dutifully ignores that Dylan, Ronan, and Mia Farrow have been publicly responding to Woody Allen being honored with another round of nominations and awards, without so much as the most cursory acknowledgement from the people celebrating him that he is more than his art, except when it's to say what a great guy he is.
(That is the piece the "separate the art from the artist" arguers always miss: Awards like the Cecil B. DeMille Award which Diane Keaton just accepted on Woody Allen's behalf at the Golden Globes are about more, they always are, than the art. They are about honoring the person who makes the art.)
Wolff is certain that the Farrows have an agenda, even beyond the typical Revenge Fantasy peddled by Allen defenders:
Indeed, the larger context for this rehashed scandal is not a pattern of abuse or the ongoing dysfunctions of a celebrated family but rather the demands of a publicity rollout. Twenty-one years after the event – all parties long quiet – a story is revived. It is an old scandal for a new generation.Note that Dylan Farrow is nowhere to be found in this conspiracy theory. You know—the young woman whose face and first-person account were published in the New York Times this weekend. The young woman who was seven years old at the time of the abuse she recounts.
The impetus seems to be to establish Mia Farrow as a celebrity activist worthy of the world stage, and, as well, to launch a public career for her son Ronan.
Also note that Wolff fails to mention that Mia Farrow has been a celebrated activist for a very long time, and that Ronan Farrow has already established a pretty solid public career. Which has certainly been aided by his celebrity lineage, but has not been contingent on exploiting his sister's abuse—something he takes so seriously that he severed communication with his father as a result.
Wolff, who further refers to publicly telling one's story of surviving abuse as "a confection," seems very annoyed that Mia Farrow and Nicholas Kristof are friends, and that her daughter's story appeared under his byline. But what Wolff misses is that many survivors have to depend on friends, especially if you've got friends with a megaphone, because no one else believes us.
Even friends who might issue caveats that function to undermine our credibility.
Telling our stories publicly and loudly is crucial, even and especially when justice has been elusive. Convictions are not a reliable measure of the incidence of sexual assault, and thus are not a reliable indicator of the veracity of any allegation. That most sexual assaults never result in a conviction is such a basic fact of sexual violence that no one who does not understand this reality, and the attendant resulting need for survivors to tell their stories, should never write about the subject. And certainly never published by any media organization that cares, even a little bit, about sexual violence prevention.
Wolff ends his piece thus:
Here's a certainty: When you play out your personal dramas, hurt and self-interest in the media, it's a confection. You say what you have to say in the way you have to say it to give it media currency – and that's always far from the truth. Often, in fact, someone else says it for you. It's all planned. It's all rehearsed. This is craft. This is strategy. This is manipulation. This is spin.That is, truly, one of the worst things I have ever read in response to the publication of a survivor's story.
Quote of the Day
"Full time work should not be rewarded with full time poverty. Hardworking men and women who are busting their tails in full-time jobs should have a chance to support themselves and their families and build a little economic security. It is time for Congress to act and raise the minimum wage."—Senator Elizabeth Warren, being awesome. Again.
Also? That would entail raising the minimum wage to more than $10.10.
Photo of the Day
Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Janet Yellen (right) is sworn as Federal Reserve Chair[woman] by Federal Reserve Board Governor Daniel Tarullo at the Federal Reserve Building on February 3. [Mark Wilson/Getty Images.]This morning, Janet Yellen was sworn in as the new chair of the Fed, officially making her "the first woman to lead the Federal Reserve in its 100-year history." Congratulations, Ms. Yellen!
Daily Dose of Cute
"This snow is a drag. I mean, it was fun for awhile, but come on."
As always, please feel welcome and encouraged to share pix of the fuzzy, feathered, or scaled members of your family in comments.
The Monday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by snow.
Recommended Reading:
Atrios: Yah They Screwed It All Up
Aaron: [Content Note: Rape apologia] Woody Allen's Good Name
Michelle: [CN: Discussion of eating] Cooking for Yourself: You Are Worth the Effort
Jess: [CN: Sexual assault] Iowa State Goes to Iowa Supreme Court to Keep Player off the Team
Andy: [CN: Homophobia; racism] Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL) Slammed for Homophobic and Racist Remarks
Trudy: [video] 10-Year-Old Academy Award Nominee Quvenzhané Wallis Was Featured in a Super Bowl XLVIII Commercial for 2014 Maserati Ghibli
Jamilah: [video; references to slavery] SNL Kicks Off Black History Month: "28 Reasons to Hug a Black Guy"
Leave your links and recommendations in comments...
In the News
Here is some stuff in the news today!
Something about a ballsport game? I don't know.
California is still experiencing a drought so extreme that "17 rural communities providing water to 40,000 people are in danger of running out within 60 to 120 days." Meanwhile, three more winter storms are going to dump more snow on other parts of the country.
(We have more than a foot of snow sitting on the ground already, and, by next weekend, we could have as much as two feet more after being hit by a storm midweek and another one next weekend. Oy.)
[Content Note: Death penalty] Missouri executed Herbert Smulls while an appeal asking to halt his execution was still pending before the US Supreme Court. And it was probably legal.
A new analysis from the Guttmacher Institute has found that the US abortion rate is its lowest since 1973.
The Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol is joining ABC News. I guess ABC figures there just isn't enough wrong in their political coverage these days. "How can we exponentially up our wrong quotient?" "How about we hire Bill Kristol, who is literally the wrongest person in the history of being wrong?" "Now there's an idea you can take to the bank!"
[Note: Video plays automatically at link] Here's a neat headline: "House Republicans pivot in search of a positive message." Maybe something like, "We are positive that people aren't entitled to food," perhaps?
[Note: Harry Potter spoilers] Do you think that Hermione should have ended up with Harry? Well, JK Rowling agrees with you! Personally, I like the idea of the smart, slightly overserious girl ending up with the smart, slightly goofy ginger guy FOR SOME REASON.
Jesse Eisenberg will play Lex Luthor. Okay.
RIP Philip Seymour Hoffman
Yesterday, actor Philip Seymour Hoffman was found dead of an apparent drug overdose. He was 46.
His Times obituary is here.
Hoffman was a beautiful actor, who was once described by Meryl Streep as "just the most fun to work with and the most—he sets such a great example to all of us of how to live your work with integrity and imagination every time, every time out." He was in some of my most beloved films, including The Big Lebowski and Magnolia, in the latter of which he played a home hospice nurse named Phil Parma, who is one of my favorite film characters of all time. He played many vulnerable characters, and imbued them with such lovable humanity.
Hoffman always struck me as being, in real life, the sort of grumpy, mercurial fuck I tend to adore. He was someone I would not have been afraid to meet for fear of disappointment.
I am sorry he is gone.
My sincerest condolences to his family, friends, and colleagues.
[Note: If there are less flattering things to be said about Hoffman, they have been excluded because I am unaware of them, not as the result of any deliberate intent to whitewash his life. Please feel welcome to comment on the entirety of his work and life in this thread, though please note, as always, that speculation and judgment about addiction are not welcome in this space.]
Dylan Farrow, Rape Apologia, & Rape Culture 101
[Content Note: Descriptions of sexual violence in linked article; rape apologia.]
This weekend, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof published Dylan Farrow's story of surviving childhood sex abuse perpetrated by Woody Allen, her (then) adoptive father. Farrow's account is difficult to read, terrible, challenging, and brave. Kristof published her story with an introduction, directly below her picture and directly above her first-person account, that included the following: "He deserves the presumption of innocence."
"He deserves the presumption of innocence" has absolutely no place in an introduction to a survivor's story for this simple reason: "He deserves the presumption of innocence" is fundamentally incompatible with "She deserves to be believed."
Naturally, having made this observation on Twitter (I Storified my tweeted reactions to this story here for those not on Twitter), I got immediate pushback that Kristof was merely making a legal disclaimer. No. It was eminently possible to note that Allen was not charged and not convicted without saying "He deserves the presumption of innocence."
"He deserves the presumption of innocence" writes Allen's victim out of her own story. She needs to presume no such thing. Dylan Farrow does not owe her abuser the presumption of innocence, and yet Kristof asserts to readers that is what Allen deserves, talking right over her, like she isn't even there, in a space between a picture of her face and her own account of being abused.
I would feel deeply betrayed if I agreed to tell my story of surviving abuse only to have it prefaced by the assertion that my abuser "deserves the presumption of innocence." It is profoundly unethical and frankly cruel to undermine a survivor in that way. It is also shameful rape apologia.
I cannot put it any more plainly than this: You are not supporting a survivor if you insert a caveat that effectively amounts to: "Remember, she might be lying."
"He was not convicted" does not function in that way. "He was not convicted" is factual, and also a commentary on a rape culture in which very few rape allegations result in convictions. "He deserves the presumption of innocence," outside of a courtroom, in front of a survivor's story, is not a fact. It is an insidious subversion of a survivor's credibility.
Being disbelieved is a secondary trauma. The suggestion a survivor's lived experience might be a lie is the opposite of support—and to do that under the guise of allyship is particularly gross. Empowering rape apology is not support for a survivor.
The rape apologists were out en masse after publication of Dylan Farrow's account. Many of them cited this article in the The Daily Beast, published a few days earlier under the headline, "The Woody Allen Allegations: Not So Fast." Despite the fact that this piece is being circulated and recommended as an "objective" or "skeptical" or other gaslighting words view of the allegations, it is nothing more than an Allen admirer regurgitating Allen's defense.
The author has said he respects Dylan and Mia Farrow, but just finds their allegations wanting. But the whole Dylan Could Be Lying narrative (of which we were all helpfully reminded by Nicholas Krisof) hinges on the suspicion and accusation that Mia Farrow gave her then 7-year-old daughter the invented story in order to trump Allen in a custody battle. Which is not only the implication she's a revengeful liar, but that it was she who abused her daughter, by filling her head with a story of sexual abuse that didn't happen.
Accusing a mother who believed and advocated for her abused child of being an agent of abuse is unfathomably indecent and inarguably incompatible with having "respect" for her.
And the people spouting this line of bullshit in Allen's defense aren't even intellectually honest enough to admit that that's what they're really saying, that what they're really doing is leveling utterly unfounded allegations of abuse against Mia Farrow, despite the fact her daughter has said that Farrow supported and protected her.
So where are all the defenders who are outraged about "unfounded" (except for Dylan Farrow's lived experience) allegations of abuse against Allen when legitimately unfounded allegations of Farrow are being levied against her? Whoooooops they're the ones making them.
This isn't about any sort of principles. It's about protecting predators, especially when those predators happen to make movies you like.
Here is some Rape Culture 101: Sexual predators can and do make popular art. They exist in every profession. They do not look different from everyone else. They all (or most all) have people in their lives who think they're terrific. They may be genuinely non-harmful to some people in their lives while abusing and exploiting others.
Many sexual predators are super charismatic. That's how they groom victims AND people who will defend them.
Things that protect sex predators from prosecution: Money, power, fame, white straight cis male privilege. Allen has all of these.
You cannot identify a rapist just by looking at him. But you know who can identify rapists? Their victims.
Their victims deserve the presumption of being believed.
Open Thread
This week's open threads have been brought to you by candy I used to buy at the roller rink.
(I can't believe I would eat Razzles. Bluuuurghhhh...)
