The Virtual Pub Is Open
[Explanations: lol your fat. pathetic anger bread. hey your gay.]
Belly up to the bar,
and be in this space together.
Blog Note
I've got a friend coming to visit for a long weekend tomorrow, so I'll be putting up the pub shortly and taking the rest of the week off.
I presume that I'm going to return on Monday, but my back is still giving me all kinds of grief, because of course I have been working full days, since: 1. A recovery that necessitates doing nothing is SO FUCKING BORING; and 2. I feel guilty when I'm not working. The combination of boredom and guilt is, for me, an irresistible incentive to ignore what my body needs.
Luckily, my visitor is coming fully prepared with a selection of terrible movies to force me to rest for a couple of days, lol.
If, for some reason, my return is delayed, I will let you know.
Triggered, Continued
[Content Note: Narratives of oversensitivity; discussion of being triggered.]
The debate about trigger warnings and content notes (TWs/CNs) continues today, much of it surrounding a piece on the subject Jill Filipovic published at The Guardian entitled: "We've Gone Too Far with Trigger Warnings."
I don't really have much to add to what I already wrote yesterday, but here are a couple quick additional thoughts in response to some of the ongoing debate:
1. I keep seeing this phrase "gone too far." Too far for whom? Certainly not the people for whom TWs/CNs are useful, and might mean the difference between having a public panic attack and not having a public panic attack.
2. Having PTSD or other trauma-induced mental illness isn't a "vulnerability." That's a disablist mischaracterization.
3. The "infantilization" argument, which asserts that TWs/CNs treat readers, students, etc. like babies or weaklings, is really contemptuous of readers who appreciate TWs/CNs and the choice they provide. Offering choice doesn't diminish agency. Quite the opposite.
4. A frequent frame I'm seeing is that people who use TWs/CNs and people who have PTSD or other trauma-induced mental illness are mutually exclusive groups. To the contrary, often the people most invested in providing TWs/CNs to readers, students, friends, whomever are people who themselves experience triggers.
5. I really dislike the compilations of supposedly absurd TWs/CNs. What might appear "extreme" may be a writer's consideration for a specific reader. If you interact with your community a lot, you might be more aware of individual readers' needs. And dismissing attempts and sensitivity and inclusivity as nothing but "performativity" is shitty. Not for nothing, but I never get more fucking vile harassment than when I draw boundaries in this space to reduce harm for marginalized groups (which sometimes includes me and sometimes doesn't, depending on the situation). I know there are people who perform social justice crusader roles for cookies or whatever, but I can't imagine maintaining that facade for long unless this stuff really means something to you, because the cost is steep.
6. I don't understand this "you can't predict every single trigger ever" argument against the use of TWs/CNs. Because you might fail someone, you just resolve to definitely fail everyone? Okay.
7. The old HOW DO YOU EVEN EXIST IN THE WORLD? chestnut is flying fast and furious. You know—that ubiquitous exasperated rhetorical aimed at people who are triggered by stuff that most other people aren't. Well, here's the thing: For some people, existing in this world is actually very difficult.
And if you are someone who has survived abuse, or neglect, or poverty, or illness, or systemic oppression, or any one or more of the number of things that can leave someone with lingering consequences of trauma, but you've managed to survive without any triggers, or you've managed to find the resources and support and safety and space you needed to move beyond them, then good for you. You are very lucky.
I am very lucky. I am still occasionally triggered, but nothing like I was 20 years ago, where I was just emerging from three years of profound sexual abuse and felt like a raw nerve walking through the world. Part of that was my determination to process what had happened to me, and part of it was the hard work of doing that processing, and part of it was the sheer stupid luck of having the resources and support and safety and space I have needed, which sometimes just meant having a friend in the right place at the right time.
What if I'd not had this friend or that friend in the right place at the right time? During a rough month, or a single terrible afternoon? I dunno.
All I know is that if nothing ever happened to you that was bad enough to leave you traumatized, lucky you. And if something bad happened but you have survived it and/or processed it trigger-free, lucky you. And anyone who didn't isn't weak or damaged or oversensitive or too goddamn fragile for the world. They're unlucky.
If you understand why conservatives telling people without boots to pull up their bootstraps is indecent garbage, then it shouldn't be too difficult for you to understand why sneering at someone with triggers "I got over it" is indecent garbage, too.
Today in Your Progressive Pope
[Content Note: Homophobia; clergy abuse; rape apologia.]
Today, Pope Francis is making BIG HEADLINES over his support for civil unions. Wow, right?! Pretty amazing! So what did he actually say?
"Marriage is between a man and a woman."I would say that is way less enthusiastic and exciting than I expected reading headlines about Pope Francis endorsing civil unions, except that's pretty much exactly the milquetoast bullshit advertised by the media as Radical Progressive Popery that I've come to expect.
"The secular states want to justify civil unions to regulate different situations of living together, driven by the need to regulate economic aspects between people, like ensuring health care," he states, saying he can't identify the ways different countries are addressing the matter.
"We need to see the different cases and evaluate them in their variety," he states.
There was something in the interview whence came the Pope's thoughts on civil unions that I find rather noteworthy, despite the fact it's not getting a lot of media attention:
The interview contains some of the pope's only public words on the sexual abuse crisis, which continues to roil dioceses across the world. Asked about the subject, Francis replies: "I want to say two things."The Catholic Church has done "perhaps most of all" for victims of childhood abuse! And everyone is picking on the Catholic Church in spite of their transparency and responsibility (LOL FOREVER) even though their representatives don't abuse children nearly as much as other people!
"The cases of abuse are awful because they leave profound wounds," he states. "Benedict XVI was very courageous and has opened a way. On this way the church has done so much. Perhaps most of all."
"The statistics of the phenomenon of violence against children are staggering, but show clearly that the vast majority of abuse happens in the family setting and neighborhood," he continues.
"The Catholic church is maybe the only public institution to have moved with transparency and responsibility," he states. "No one else has done more. Yet the church is the only one to be attacked."
This fucking guy.
If colluding with police to cover up sex crimes constitutes transparency, and blaming gay priests constitutes responsibility, I'd hate to see what a lack of transparency and responsibility looks like.
An Observation
[Content Note: Fat bias.]
I really dislike it when I get a catalog from a plus-size clothier who uses absolutely no fat women in their catalog. (Ditto their websites.) It's not just a visibility thing (although that, too!), but also just a practical issue of wanting to see how clothes look on fat bodies.
Not all fat bodies are alike, so what any given piece of clothing looks like on another fat woman may not be how it looks on me. But it would still be nice to see some of the clothes on fat bodies that look something like mine.
There is a reason that fat retailers don't use fat models and mannequins: They say it's because fat people don't want to see bodies that look like ours; that we, like everyone else, are so entrained in fat hatred that we reject the appearance of fat models and mannequins.
That may be true for some fat folks, but I think there's a lot of fat folks who would very much like to see clothes presented in a way that gives a better picture of what they'd look like when we wear them.
And, frankly, part of the reason fat folks tend to respond negatively to seeing clothes on fat bodies is because the clothes look like shit on fat bodies, because they're not really designed for fat bodies in the first place. That's a design issue which has nothing to do with the self-loathing of which we're universally accused.
Design clothes that look good on fat models and mannequins, and maybe more fat people will have a positive response to them.
Daily Dose of Cute
The Watch Dog watches. Or: Dorito Ears in Silhouette.
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 potatoes.
Recommended Reading:
Lauren: [Content Note: Sexual violence] Campus Rape and the Rise of the Academic Industrial Complex
Imani: [CN: Misogynoir] Black Women Are an Electoral Voting Force. Recognize.
Anil: [CN: Racism; xenophobia; homophobia] Queering Immigration [Hmm, this link appears to be down at the moment; I'mma leave the link with the hope the piece goes back up.]
Jessie: [CN: Racism; misogyny; classism] The Second Wave: Trouble with White Feminism
Angry Asian Man: [CN: Racism] Just Another "Asian Guy" Getting Coffee
Jeremy: [CN: Homophobia] GOP Reps Thrilled to Receive Award from America's Two Most Anti-LGBT Organizations
[CN: Racism] At least three newspapers couldn't resist using offensive headlines to announce 12 Years a Slave having won Best Picture: See coverage at Black Youth Project and Hypervocal.
Leave your links and recommendations in comments...
In the News
Here is some stuff in the news today!
The Guardian: "The US has formally denounced Russia for failing to attend the meeting over the Budapest Agreement in Paris earlier today. The US secretary of state, John Kerry, hosted the meeting with his UK and Ukrainian counterparts, William Hague and Andriy Deshchytsia. In brief remarks earlier, Kerry said the meeting was 'regrettably missing one member'—Russia—which was the other signatory to the so-called 1994 Budapest Memorandum, in which Ukraine agreed to relinquish its nuclear weapons in return for security assurances from the world powers. The state department said: 'The United States had conveyed an invitation to the Russian Federation to the meeting …We deeply regret that the Russian Federation declined to attend.'"
Oh, so now that it's them being surveilled, they give a shit: "The CIA Inspector General's Office has asked the Justice Department to investigate allegations of malfeasance at the spy agency in connection with a yet-to-be released Senate Intelligence Committee report into the CIA's secret detention and interrogation program, McClatchy has learned. The criminal referral may be related to what several knowledgeable people said was CIA monitoring of computers used by Senate aides to prepare the study. The monitoring may have violated an agreement between the committee and the agency."
[Content Note: War on agency] Last night, Alabama legislators in the state House of Representatives approved "four abortion restrictions that threaten to cut off women's access to reproductive health care in the state. Taken together, the package of anti-choice measures represents some of the harshest legislation in the nation." Chip, chip, chipping away at Roe until it becomes an empty statute. It would be cool if the Democratic national leadership were making this assault on reproductive rights a national conversation, but I guess they're too busy pandering to white men.
Media Matters for America has launched the Mythopedia, ahead of this year's CPAC. The site, which welcomes you with a search bar and the instruction to "Search the Dictionary of Conservative Lies," will serve as a fact-checking tool and "an online compendium of truths and lies peddled by conservatives."
[CN: Guns; violence; harassment] Oscar Pistorius, currently on trial for the murder of Reeva Steenkamp, has a defense team who are apparently just as big a collection of jackasses as he is: "The third state witness to testify in Oscar Pistorius's murder trial told the high court in Pretoria on Wednesday he was inundated with phone calls after his cellphone number was read out in court. ...A member of Pistorius's defence team read out Johnson's cellphone number in court while cross-examining him on Tuesday."
[CN: Domestic violence] Democratic Florida Representative Alan Grayson has been accused by his soon-to-be-ex-wife of shoving her into a door during an altercation. Grayson's press secretary says the charges are false and his office released a statement saying she started it. FFS.
If you can't get enough of the Totes Progressive Pope, you are IN LUCK, because he's getting his own magazine: "The 68-page Il Mio Papa (My Pope) will hit Italian newsstands on Ash Wednesday, offering a glossy medley of papal pronouncements and photographs, along with peeks into his personal life. Each weekly issue will also include a pullout centerfold of the pope, accompanied by a quote. ...The magazine also hopes to transmit the down-to-earth, no-nonsense advice that Francis offers during his weekly encounters with the faithful in St Peter's Square and elsewhere." Sounds terrific!
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel (my mouth still tastes like sulfur every time I have to say that) wants to expand Soldier Field, home of the Chicago Bears, so that Chicago might one day host the Superbowl. To quote Kodos: "Expanding Soldier Field for one hypothetical football game is not a sustainable plan for the future of Chicago, @RahmEmanuel." Leaving aside the fact that this plan is more evidence of shitty priorities, I can't even imagine how Soldier Field can be expanded architecturally. "Just put clown cars on top of the spaceship!" Yeesh.
Recommended Reading
[Content Note: Death penalty; prison abuse; dehumanization; racism; violence.]
Ray Jasper, a prisoner on death row in Texas: "A Letter From Ray Jasper, Who Is About to Be Executed." I'm not even going to excerpt it. Just go read the whole damn thing.
Another Tough Day for Bigots
A new Washington Post-ABC News poll has found that 59% of US respondents now believe that same-sex couples have a right to marry. Even in states with bans on same-sex marriage, 53% of respondents support overturning the bans and allowing the legalization of same-sex marriage. And 50% of respondents now say there is a Constitutional right to same-sex marriage equality.
At this point, we're basically just waiting for legislators to catch the fuck the up.
(Which, as we recently saw in Indiana, as but one example, still demands an awful lot of time and money and energy and action. Progress happens because people advocate for it. It's work. Work that isn't finished.)
There was even more significant support for nondiscrimination in business and for gay parenting:
According to the poll, public opinion is more unified on recent proposals that would allow businesses to refuse serving gays and others based on the religious convictions of the business owner. Nearly seven in 10 respondents say businesses should not be allowed to refuse service to gays. On this question, majorities across partisan lines said businesses should not be allowed to deny service.Social conservatives are fighting a number of losing battles, but none so losery as this one.
...The shifting attitudes extend beyond issues of marital rights to more basic beliefs about the nature of homosexuality and its implications for child rearing. Nearly eight in 10 say that gays can parent as well as straight people, up from just below six in 10 in a 1996 Newsweek survey.
Sixty-one percent support allowing gays to adopt a child, up from 49 percent in 2006 and 29 percent in a 1992 poll by Time magazine and CNN.
...Support for same-sex marriage has changed more rapidly than almost any social issue in the past decade. In a Post-ABC poll in March 2004, 38 percent said same-sex marriage should be legal, while 59 percent said it should not, the same percentage now in favor of allowing gays to marry.
Question of the Day
If/when you travel, what is your favorite way to explore a new place—do you like to do all the touristy things, do you prefer to try to live like a local as much as possible, some combination thereof, or something different altogether?
The Make-Up Thread
By request, and tangential to the Fat Fashion threads, here is a thread to discuss all things make-up. This thread is for everyone who wears make-up, whether you wear make-up on a daily basis, or occasionally; whether you are an expert at applying make-up, or stink at it; whether you are obliged to wear make-up for any reason, or like to wear it; whether you want to recommend make-up that you love, or seek recommendations; whether you are male or female or genderqueer. If you wear (or want to wear) make-up, have at it!
Please keep this thread judgment-free, remembering that there are people for whom wearing make-up is not a choice, for whom it is an issue of personal safety or job security; that there are people who enjoy wearing make-up, and it is not the choice to wear make-up that is the problem, but the fact that for so many people there isn't a choice. Let us not misdirect criticism of a system at individuals who make choices within that system.
I spend most of my life make-up free, but I occasionally like to wear make-up, if I'm going out on the town. (And I say "out on the town" because I am fully 200 years old.) I am very fortunate that virtually no one in my life—not my family, not my spouse, not my friends, not my employers—have ever obliged me or pressured me to wear make-up. The only time I feel like I have to wear make-up is while accessing medical care or getting a haircut, or in other situations where I feel like I need to overcome stereotypes about fat people not caring about ourselves.
As a result of rarely wearing make-up, I am pretty terrible at applying it, lol. Especially eyeliner. Forget it. Eyeliner is never going to happen for me!
Also due to my sporadic make-up endeavors, I don't have much in the way of recommendations, although I will say that I love my Urban Decay Naked eyeshadow palette with the fiery passion of ten thousand suns. I got it on sale (do you detect a pattern?!) and I use it so rarely that it will probably last forever, and I HOPE IT WILL BECAUSE IT IS THE BEST.
Your turn!
Number of the Day
2 million: The number of unemployed USians who are now going without unemployment benefits as of this week, since "Congress failed [at the end of last year] to extend the Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) program that made sure those who had been out of work for 26 weeks or more received unemployment benefits. That immediately left 1.3 million people without a lifeline, and the ranks will swell to 2.3 million by April 5 if Democrats can't find a way to make Republicans drop their filibuster of the extension."
Republicans think people aren't entitled to food. Or housing. Or healthcare. Or a whole lotta things—including the unemployment benefits to which people are entitled by virtue of having paid into the program out of every paycheck when they were working.
An Annotated Index of Ross Geller (101-106)
[Content Note: Misogyny, Patriarchal Relationships, Disability]
Let me tell you a story.
When I was younger, my parents were dedicated fans of the Friends sitcom. I watched it with them, never missing an episode, and I generally liked everyone on the show (flaws and all) with the glaring exception of Ross. I hated Ross with the fire of a thousand suns, and my folks were largely baffled at how harsh and unforgiving I was. (The term "feminist" was invoked at me, and not in a positive manner. But I'm glad the label stuck!) But I didn't care because c'mon Ross Geller is clearly the worst.
Anyway. I grew up and I mostly forgot about Friends until my surgery last year when I found that the episodes work really well for keeping me out of a depression head-space when I'm confined to bed. I started watching the show again and realized that I owed it to my younger self to write a post for her about Why I Dislike Ross Geller. Given that I was about a decade or two away from actually being timely and topical, I was pretty darn shocked at how many people popped in to validate my Ross hatred. Then about a year after that, Melissa found my post and we cross-posted it here because as it turns out, we are Ross-Hating Besties. Which is obviously the best kind of besties!
We now text each other about Ross and how he is THE WORST several times a week (which always makes me dissolve into a fit of giggles), because Liss has been catching the reruns and I've been in and out of bed with back pain and head-cold-allergy-fun. It is our fervent desire to meet up one of these days, plop down on the nearest couch, and watch all the Friends together while heckling Ross and throwing popcorn at the screen.
In the meantime, I am writing an annotated index of Ross Geller's failings, organized by DVD disc since my mom gave me her complete set to hang on to for her (and which is definitely Very Serious Feminist Commentary, lolololol!) and I am dedicating the work to Liss, my bestie who loves to hate Ross with me. ❤
An Annotated Index of Ross Geller: Disc 1
Episode 101: The Pilot
Synopsis: This opening episode establishes the Friends and sets up Rachel and Ross as an overarching romantic arc. Ross has been left by his wife (who has discovered she is a lesbian), and Rachel has left her fiance at the wedding altar. There are long lingering shots of the two alone in their respective spaces (Ross in his new apartment; Rachel in Monica's apartment) wondering what to do now and what life will hold for them. Ross also establishes that he has always had a crush on Rachel, and Rachel acknowledges her awareness of his high school crush and gives him permission to ask her out sometime--Ross does not immediately pursue the relationship, however.
Analysis: This episode sets the tone for how Ross will interact with Rachel. He is initially cheered to see her when she enters the coffee shop for the first time, but despite his obvious interest in pursuing a relationship with her, he doesn't want to give up his angst over the loss of another woman (in this case his wife Carol) and his concerns about his own future--this foreshadows Ross' tendency to treat his relationship with Rachel like a game where his goal is to min/max his internalized concept of "success", rather than focusing on his and Rachel's shared happiness.
Another tone set in this episode is Ross' tendency to belittle Rachel and treat her like she is foolish; he interrupts her phone conversation with her father to mock her "What if I don't wanna be a shoe?" metaphor about her existential crisis. Considering that she has been deeply sheltered all her life, and her father is bringing a tremendous amount of pressure on her to marry Barry (including arguing that it shouldn't matter if she doesn't love him), this is a really asshole move on Ross' part; he is undermining her confidence in her ability to explain and convey her feelings both to herself and others.
The final tone set in this episode and continued forward is Ross' unwillingness to openly and honestly pursue a relationship with Rachel. He frames his confession of feelings in the past tense ("back in high school, I had a, um, major crush on you.") so that he can safely disavow them if Rachel reacts badly; when she acknowledges his crush and gives him encouragement to move forward, he frames his asking her out as a future hypothetical ("do you think it would be okay if I asked you out? Sometime? Maybe?") rather than a direct offer and additionally layers his request with a self-pitying aside that calls attention to his "vulnerability" ("try not to let my intense vulnerability become any kind of a factor here").
All of this is calculated to make it very difficult for Rachel to say No: he's not asking her out, he's asking if he can ask her out at some unspecified future date, and he's drawing awareness to how painful it would be if she didn't let him have this 'little' request. Ross will then choose not to follow up on this "permission" to ask Rachel out for the same reason that he dances so vigorously around the request here: he is afraid of giving her room to issue an unequivocal No, which would mean he would have to stop asking. Instead, he hopes to maneuver her into a relationship with him without her conscious awareness of it ("is it a date if she doesn’t know we’re going on a date?"--Episode 105); if she doesn't know she's being pushed into a relationship with him, she can't say no.
--
He Seems Nice
[Content Note: Misogyny.]
A male passenger on a recent WestJet flight left behind a cool note scrawled on a cocktail napkin for the female pilot:
A female WestJet pilot says she was in "shock" after a passenger left behind a note following a weekend flight to say that the cockpit is "no place for a woman."Call me kooky, but I am impressed by any pilot who navigates my ass safely to my destination!
Crew cleaning the aircraft found a note, written on a napkin and signed by "David," after passengers deplaned from the Calgary to Victoria flight on Sunday.
In addition to suggesting that women don't belong at the controls of an airplane, the note also said that "A woman being a mother is the most honour, not as 'captain.'"
"PS I wish Westjet (sic) could tell me a fair lady is at the helm so I can book another flight," David went on. On the back of the napkin, David wrote that he was "not impressed," and signed it "Respectfully in love, David."
Obviously, everything about David's note is terrific, but my favorite part is his parenthetical apology: "(Sorry not P.C.)" LOL! You know, somehow I think David isn't really sorry for his failure of political correctness. Or basic decency.
[H/T to Shaker pedgehog.]
Triggered
[Content Note: Narratives of oversensitivity; discussion of being triggered.]
Via Jessica Luther, I see that there's another entry, care of Jenny Jarvie in The New Republic, in the increasingly frequent genre of articles about how trigger warnings are ultimately harmful and their proliferation "now threatens to define public discussion both online and off."
Jarvie is concerned about the use of trigger warnings spilling into offline spheres, like university classrooms, and frets about the possibility of trigger warnings slippery-sloping their way into all aspects of communication (oh the humanity):
The backlash has not stopped the growth of the trigger warning, and now that they've entered university classrooms, it's only a matter of time before warnings are demanded for other grade levels. As students introduce them in college newspapers, promotional material for plays, even poetry slams, it's not inconceivable that they'll appear at the beginning of film screenings and at the entrance to art exhibits. Will newspapers start applying warnings to articles about rape, murder, and war? Could they even become a regular feature of speech? "I was walking down Main Street last night when—trigger warning—I saw an elderly woman get mugged."Film rating systems, which include warnings about certain types of content, including sexual and violent content, have existed for years. Although they are not typically broadcast at the beginning of a screening, with the exception of cable broadcasts where that has been standard practice for some time, viewers can easily access in trailers, reviews, and listings on sites like IMDb notes about the content of a film before viewing it. Newspapers, too, frequently offer notes about content at the top of in-depth investigative pieces about systemic abuse or violent crime, especially when there are graphic descriptions within the story. These sorts of habits already exist in some measure, which makes the alarmism about trigger warnings misplaced, at best.
But what if, as Jarvie fears, trigger warnings (or some variation, like Shakesville's content notes) became common, even in interpersonal communication?
Well, first it's important to understand what a trigger warning actually is. And for that, it's important to understand what being triggered really means: Being triggered does not mean "being upset" or "being offended" or "being angry," or any other euphemism people who roll their eyes long-sufferingly in the direction of trigger warnings tend to imagine it to mean. Being triggered has a very specific meaning that relates to evoking a physical and/or emotional response to a survived trauma or sustained systemic abuse.
To say, "I was triggered" is not to say, as it is frequently mischaracterized, "I got my delicate fee-fees hurt." It is to say, "I had a significantly mood-altering experience of anxiety." Someone who is triggered may experience anything from a brief moment of dizziness, to a shortness of breath and a racing pulse, to a full-blown panic attack.
Speaking about trigger warnings as though they exist for the purposes of indulging fragile sensibilities fundamentally misses their purpose: To mitigate harm.
If a very simple strategy for harm mitigation went into wider usage, that would be a good thing, hardly a reason to wring one's hands.
And, like film ratings systems and newspaper reader warnings, there exist people for whom this type of sensitive communication is already in use. Most of my friends and colleagues make use of some sort of "heads-up" about potentially triggering material, whether it's an explicit content note at the top of an email, or a, "Hey, are you in a space where I can talk to you about X?" in conversation.
Contrary to the idea that this limits the subjects about which we speak, creating a space in which we center safety and frank communication about difficult subjects, it means that we have meaningful and constructive conversations, in moments where everyone has the emotional wherewithal to have them. The only thing that's been curtailed is the idea that we have the freedom to disgorge at each other without consideration for whether someone about whom we care is prepared for a heavy conversation. In other words: Harm mitigation.
When I recently gave a workshop on rape culture, I opened the session by communicating to everyone in attendance that they may have unexpected (or expected) reactions to the material, and everyone should feel free to leave if they needed to, without worry of judgment or causing offense. "I want you to prioritize your self-care." It took all of two minutes of my time to create that little bit of safety, for which people thanked me afterwards.
The thing about being a person who is triggered is that sometimes knowing you can leave gives you the space you need to stay.
If we understand that being robbed of one's consent or agency or humanity can result in an anxiety disorder, it shouldn't be difficult to understand that explicit communication that reduces the feeling of being obliged, coerced, trapped can mitigate that anxiety in potentially triggering situations.
It's just a basic politeness, in response to recognizing that we live in a fucked-up world that harms lots of people in similar ways.
And it's such an easy thing to do. The only reason I can imagine resistance to trigger warnings, or whatever variation, is that their ubiquity will create an expectation of sensitivity with which people can't be bothered. The sort of people who say that people who need trigger warnings are too sensitive, rather than conceding that maybe it is they who are simply not sensitive enough.
Trigger warnings don't make people "oversensitive." They acknowledge that there is a lot of garbage in the world that causes people lasting harm. If for no other reason, I defend my use of content notes on the basis that to fail to use them is to abet the damnable lie that everything's pretty much okay for everyone, and people who have been harmed are outliers.
And, no, I don't worry that I am infantilizing my readers, who have the choice whether to make use of content notes or skip them altogether, based on their individual needs. Nor do I worry that "you can't possibly predict all triggers!"—the reddest of all red herring arguments against using trigger warnings. Sure, you can't. I can't. But I can give it my best effort.
It's not just about me, and the other writers in this space, anyway: It's also about the readers. "The provision of content notes is an exchange in which readers must participate: We communicate the information, and readers must assess their own immediate capacity to process content in the noted categories, then proceed accordingly."
Trigger warnings, or content notes, are a communication between two people. Not a proclamation.
And, ultimately, they indirectly communicate something else very important between a writer and hir reader: To some degree, trigger warnings have emerged as a sort of metric for how inclusive a blog community is. The presence or absence of trigger warnings can serve as a good faith litmus test for whether a writer is sensitive to issues that affect you, and whether the commentariat is likely to be supportive or hostile toward your participation. It's a reasonable thing for a reader to expect that a blogger who provides a trigger warning or content note about transphobia, for example, will have moderators who do not allow rampant transphobia in comments.
Trigger warnings are thus not strictly just an indicator of potentially troubling content on the main page, but also an indicator of how safe the space might be for you overall.
Evidence of sensitivity is suggestive of safety.
Online, offline, everywhere.
Daily Dose of Cute
This guy. LOL.
As always, please feel welcome and encouraged to share pix of the fuzzy, feathered, or scaled members of your family in comments.
Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime
[Content Note: There are images of car crashes in this video.]
The Sugarcubes: "Motorcrash"
In the News
Here is some stuff in the news today!
Former Miss Kentucky Djuan Trent disclosed that she is queer this week after a judge ruled Kentucky's ban on recognizing out-of-state same-sex marriages was unconstitutional. "For months, I have been contemplating how I would write this post, how I would position it, when would be the right time to post it. Should I make it funny? Should I make it mysterious? Should I make it serious? Should I pick a special date to do it? Should I build some kind of anticipation around it? Hmmm...ain't nobody got time for that. I have written and re-written and deleted and restarted this post more times than I care to share, and after all of that I have finally realized: 'There ain't nothin' to it, but to do it.' So, here we go folks... I am queer." Congratulations, Djuan!
President Obama's proposed budget will include a proposal for "expanding a longstanding tax break to better benefit workers who are childless, which the White House estimates will help 13.5 million additional Americans who hold jobs yet remain poor. The current tax break favors low-wage workers with children. Mr. Obama would offset the costs, $60 billion over 10 years, by ending two tax breaks for some wealthy taxpayers."
[Content Note: Racism; class warfare] What's a new gilded age without debtors' prisons? "Private companies involved in debt collection are enlisting the power and prestige of courts and prosecutors to coerce people into making civil debt payments that they cannot afford or are not obligated to make. ...The last decade's racial discrimination in subprime lending—discrimination that the ACLU is challenging in Adkins v. Morgan Stanley—only worsened the [racial wealth gap] by deliberately targeting minorities for loans that exposed them to higher rates of foreclosure and accompanying loss in wealth. It is no surprise, then, that preliminary data suggests that communities of color may be more vulnerable than others to aggressive and abusive debt collection practices."
[CN: Racism; environmental damage] The Environmental Justice Health Alliance says that Republican environmental policies promote "environmental racism." Yes, yes they do. Good for the EJHA for calling that shit out.
Facebook may be acquiring "Titan Aerospace, makers of near-orbital, solar-powered drones which can fly for five years without needing to land," in order to use the high-flying drones as "atmospheric satellites" to deliver internet access to parts of the world which lack it. All right then!
Jason Collins will reportedly get a second 10-day contract with the Nets. Two 10-day contracts is the maximum allowed by the league; if the Nets want to keep him beyond that, they'll have to sign him for the rest of the season.
[CN: Racism] Chelsea Handler, whose appeal I have literally never understood even a little bit, was hired by HuffPo to live-tweet the Oscars, and did her usual shtick. By which I mean rank racism.
[CN: Peril from housefire] I will never, ever, get tired of stories of rescued pets who save people's lives: "Allysia Birmbaum was in the shower when her neighbor's house caught on fire. ...Zooey [a dog who Birmbaum rescued six years ago] has always been afraid of the shower, but when a fire quickly spread to their home Zooey faced her fear to save Birmbaum's life. 'She was barking at this wall, shifting from foot to and foot, and I didn't know what she was trying to tell me.' ...Birmbaum quickly grabbed Zooey and headed for safety. The two got out just in time, the ceiling in the bathroom ended up collapsing in the fire. 'She saved my life,' said Birmbaum. 'She's the best dog ever!'" ♥
This. Is. Validity Prism.
[Content Note: Auditing, homophobia, heteronormativity.]
The Validity Prism is a phrase I coined in order to simply describe the pervasive habit among people of privilege to filter marginalized people's lived experiences through their own perspectives shaped by their own lived experiences in order to establish authenticity.
In simpler language, it's the habit of measuring someone else's life against one's own while ignoring meaningful differences in those lives.
At its root, the Validity Prism is the practice of auditing, in place of the practice of empathy, done by privileged people who imagine their privilege makes them objective, as opposed to merely giving them a different perspective.
Privileged people who invoke the Validity Prism position themselves in the role of arbiter, who demand to see "proof" that marginalized people's lived experiences are really what they say they are. Marginalized people are not allowed to be experts on their own lives; instead, privileged self-appointed auditors demand evidence of all claims of oppression, which they will measure against their own lived experiences, which necessarily lack that very oppression, and then inevitably find that evidence wanting.
It is a deeply dysfunctional and abusive dynamic, explicitly designed to deny oppression and to deny marginalized people their agency and the right of authority on their own lived experiences.
This morning, at Right Wing Watch, I saw this incredible example of the Validity Prism: Republican Representative Steve King of Iowa says that "being gay is 'self-professed behavior' that can't be 'independently verified.'"
The congressman [implied] that LGBT people are making their identities known in order to entrap business owners into discriminating against them.Rep. Steve King wants "independent verification" of other people's sexual orientations. (Is he volunteering? Fnar fnar!) But not everyone's, of course—just people whose sexual orientations Rep. King considers transgressive by virtue of a heterocentric culture that treats different-sex attraction as the default and the norm.
"The one thing that I reference when I say 'self-professed,'" he said, "is how do you know who to discriminate against? They have to tell you. And are they then setting up a case? Is this about bringing a grievance or is it actually about a service that they'd like to have?"
He then implied that homosexuality cannot be "independently verified" and can be "willfully changed."
"If it's not specifically protected in the Constitution," he said of civil rights protections, "then it's got to be an immutable characteristic, that being a characteristic that can be independently verified and cannot be willfully changed."
People who have the "normal" sexual orientation don't need to provide "independent verification" of their sexuality.
Rinse and repeat for every privileged class, whose members are not obliged to submit their identities to auditors and who are empowered by their privilege to appoint themselves as auditors for people who don't share that privilege.
"I don't see it," they say, having filtered a report of oppression through their Validity Prism and found nothing similar in their own experiences. "I just don't see it."
So certain of their unassailable objectivity that they don't even realize they aren't meant to be looking, but listening.
Photo of the Day
This is a couple of days old now, but, in case anyone missed it, here is just a perfect selfie taken during the White House's first Student Film Festival of Bill Nye the Science Guy, Barack Obama the President Guy, and Neil deGrasse Tyson the Astrophysicist Guy:
AMAZING.
Question of the Day
Suggested by Shaker Floatout2sea: "What was your first pet and what was hir name?"
If you've not had a first pet, either because you just haven't been in a place where it's feasible yet, or because of allergies, or whatever, please feel welcome to answer instead what kind of pet you'd like to have, if you could, and what hir name might be.
My parents had two long-haired white cats when I was born, named Kevin and Shutter, so I guess those would technically be my first pets, in that they were family pets.
My first pet on my own, whom I adopted when I got my first apartment during college, was Jimmy, who died in 2005 and whom I still miss every day.
Big, beautiful Jim.
I loved this guy so much.
Oh, Gun Culture. I Will Never Understand You.
[Content Note: Guns; mixing of guns and religion.]
"Kentucky Churches Giving Away Guns to Help People Discover Jesus." Welp.
The Kentucky Baptist Church has found the strategy "very effective" for its own purposes, but it's drawn criticism from other Baptists. "How ironic to use guns to lure men in to hear a message about Jesus, who said, 'Put away the sword,'" Rev. Joe Phelps, pastor of Louisville's independent Highland Baptist Church, said according to Courier-Journal. "Can you picture Jesus giving away guns, or toasters, or raffle tickets? …He gave away bread once, but that was as a sign, not a sales pitch."lolsob
Oh Good
[Content Note: Privilege.]
"Democrats Try Wooing Ones Who Got Away: White Men."
Well, good luck with "wooing" (straight, cis) white men who don't already agree that traditional Democratic policies also benefit them. I am hard-pressed to imagine how that's going to work without alienating Democratic voters who aren't (straight, cis) white men.
And, y'know, when your primary outreach to Democratic voters who aren't (straight, cis) white men is already "We're not Republicans!", there ain't a lot of room for alienation before people start staying home on Election Day. Or "throwing their votes away" on third parties.
Daily Dose of Cute
"May I help you?"
As always, please feel welcome and encouraged to share pix of the fuzzy, feathered, or scaled members of your family in comments.
The Walking Thread
[Content Note: Violence. Spoilers are lurching around undeadly herein.]
Daryl and Blonde Girl fall asleep standing up. From boredom.
Oh boy. This episode. This fucking show. Last night, my pal Veronica Arreola (@veronicaeye), who is my biggest Walking Thread supporter, tweeted at me:
LOL FOREVER. Like, genuine laughter, because Veronica is witty and clever, which is an entirely different reason than I laugh at The Walking Dead.
Anyway. We pick back up in the Season of Disjointed Stories about Dispersed Grimes Jailians with Daryl and Blonde Girl, whose name I still literally cannot remember, even after an entire episode with her.
Daryl and BG hide in the trunk of a car while zombies try to get in. Eventually the zombies wander sluggishly away, and Daryl and BG set up camp in the woods and eat a snake. BG is all, "Fuck this snake!" and marches off, declaring she wants to drink some booze. (Ha ha sure.)
She's never had any booze, because her zealot conservative dad forbid it, and told her that moonshine would make you go blind. "Like touching your lady parts!"—Hershel, presumably. She is, however, familiar with the famous drinking game "I've Never," because she used to watch her friends play it. LOL. Oh, BG. You must have been the life of the party in the good old days!
Stomp stomp stomp. Woods woods woods. BG is on a big-time booze mission, and Daryl is along for the ride, because, absent any other Straight White Patriarchs, he's obliged to assume the role of protector. They find a zombiepocalypse-busted country club, and BG locates a bottle of cooking wine. (Delicious!) But she has to use it to kill a zombie. (Damn.)
All the lady zombies in the country club are wearing pearls (lol) and the gentlemen zombies are wearing cardigans (lol), so you know they're rich. And Daryl seems real mad at these rich zombies. I feel an Important Commentary on privilege (and how sad it is that there are straight white men who lack class privilege) coming on. Oh goody!
BG finds a pretty yellow blouse and white cardigan in the country club gift shop and puts them on. I don't know why on earth she wants a sweater, unless it's to mop the gallons of sweat from Grimes' brow if she ever sees him again, but whatever.
Her new duds aren't pristine for long, though, because Daryl uses a golf club (SYMBOL OF RICH WHITE PEOPLE EVERYWHERE) to pound the fuck out of a rich country club zombie, and sprays blood all over BG's new clothes. Sad trombone.
BG makes her way to the country club bar, where Daryl throws darts at pictures of rich people (LOL OMG), in case you hadn't quite gotten the message that Daryl resents rich people yet. BG discovers the only booze left in the place is a bottle of peach schnapps, and then starts crying, presumably because she doesn't have any orange juice to make a delicious Fuzzy Navel. Or maybe because she misses her dad. It's hard to say.
In any case, Daryl smashes the bottle and tells her, "Ain't gonna have your first drink be no damn peach schnapps." Because that's a drink for GIRLS, not a REAL drink, geez. So now Daryl is on a mission to find her some manly booze, which is a real turnaround from when he SHAMED THE FUCK OUT OF BOB for nicking a bottle of booze during the medicine run.
Eventually, Daryl and BG stumble across a ramshackle home and moonshine distillery, which Daryl recognized from a million zombie-shuffles away, because his dad had one just like it. His dad also apparently had a ceramic brassiere (which is also an ashtray?) that he used to put on top of the TV for shooting practice. We're really getting a good feeling for why Merle was a garbage nightmare here.
Blah blah they drink the moonshine and play "I've Never," which becomes another exercise in HITTING US OVER THE HEAD WITH HOW DARYL WAS POOR AND HATES RICH PEOPLE IN CASE YOU HADN'T NOTICED. So subtle, this show.
Daryl is an angry drunk and pisses inside the shack and yells a lot. He drags BG outside and yells more and she yells back and they manage to have a whole fight until hug-time make-up yay-yay without any zombies showing up.
"Well, we are attracted to noise, but, little known fact, we're repelled by passive-aggressive bullshit."—President Ulysses T. Zombie.
That night, Daryl and BG have a heart-to-heart about changing and leaving your past behind, and not being too hard or too naive, or something. The dialogue is terrible even by The Walking Dead garbage dialogue standards, and, having watched this episode right after watching the latest episode of True Detective, where every word is as rich as a dipshit with a gold-plated car elevator, I was laughing real laughs of deep laughter at the juxtaposition.
While I was simultaneously crying fake tears on the inside about how now even Daryl has been reduced to nothing more than a petulant patriarch who needs a spanking.
In the final moments, BG suggests they burn down the shack, i.e. the SYMBOL OF DARYL'S DARK PAST. In case you missed that Important Symbolism. So they do. Using the booze, i.e. the SYMBOL OF BG'S NAIVE PAST. In case you missed that Important Symbolism. And then they flip off the shack while it burns. Ha ha sure.
Next week: Maggie, Sasha, and Bob!
The Monday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by bells.
Recommended Reading:
Trudy: Steve McQueen's Infectious Joy
Angry Asian Man: Robert Lopez Is the First Filipino American to Win an Oscar
Jon: [Content Note: War] Sarah Palin, Wall Street Journal Rewrite History of Russia-Georgia War
Genevieve: [CN: Disordered eating; racism] Eating Disorders Affect Asian Women, Too
Prison Culture: [CN: Solitary confinement] Still Torturing Children
Nicole: [CN: Domestic abuse; hetero/ciscentrism] A Home of Our Own: Temporary Housing and LGBTQ Intimate Partner Violence
Becky: Image Comics Publisher Calls Women "The Fastest Growing Demographic" in the Industry
Leave your links and recommendations in comments...
Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime
[Content Note: There is a strobe-light effect in this video.]
The Cranberries: "Linger"
Criticism is not Maoist Oppression, Even on Twitter
[Content note: Discussions of hate crimes, rape, rape apologia, sexual abuse, racist appropriation, violent imagery]
This is a story about racist appropriation and rape apologia. This is a story about what can happen when people of less privilege criticize a more privileged "ally." It's about the critics being accused of silencing and bullying, even as the more privileged person is free to ignore the substance of their criticism. And it’s a story about why demanding unity in these discussions, or talking about "toxic Twitter," or insisting that we all be okay with this because someone is such a "good guy," is harmful and, frankly, complete bullshit.
On Thursday last week, Mike Elk (@MikeElk, labour journalist and reporter for In These Times) began musing on Twitter about Dylan Farrow’s account of childhood sexual abuse. In doing so, he made the following astonishing tweet, screencapped by Rhania Khalek (@RhaniaKhalek):
Not surprisingly, a few people had a few things to say about that, and Elk received massive pushback on Twitter, such as this response from William C. Anderson (@williamcander):
BrooklynBarangay (@nilliascaiasca) responded by Tweet and in her blog post, "Why journalist Mike Elk can’t compare Emmett Till to Woody Allen (duh) and why he needs to apologize." She quotes some of Elk’s Twitter exchanges and outlines the tweet’s fucked-up intersection of racist appropriation and rape apologia:
…let’s parse this out. Mike Elk is equating the systemic, white violence against Blacks in the South to (wait for it) DYLAN Farrow. A girl, now a woman, who said her step-father molested her. Wait. What? That can’t be true can it? Ok, so he says that by not giving Woody Allen’s the benefit of a doubt is like giving the accusers of Till (White, racist, lynch mob, police, the whole damn Jim Crow South) a benefit of a doubt. Woah. (besides offensive it just doesn’t make sense.)So if Dylan Farrow is like the Jim Crow South then who the hell is Woody Allen?? Emmett Till. Yep, this so called "journalist" just compared Woody Allen to Emmett Till. Remember when Emmett won his lifetime achievement award at the Golden Globes? Yeah, me neither. Remember when Woody Allen was found dead, his eye gouged out, and thrown in a river as a 14 year old boy? Yeah, me fucking neither.
I can’t do justice to all of the Twitter conversations or Elk’s responses. I note that he (a) apologized if he offended anyone, (b) explained that he had confused Emmett Till with other victims of white supremacist violence (hint: the Scottsboro boys are not a good comparison either!) and (c) claimed this was all an attempt to talk about "parenting through divorce," but that "the left" wouldn’t allow that conversation. Apparently that’s because of the "bizaree[sic] pseudo-maoists on the left that silence debate from other lefties whether in SEIU or twitter war toxicity." So, Black people criticizing the appropriation of Emmett Till to defend Woody Allen are just like Mao? Um, okay then.
In short, this was an ahistorical (and careless) appropriation of white supremacist violence against Black people. It was made in defence of rape culture. And it was followed up by excuses, non-pologies, and claims that people with demonstrably less privilege were silencing Elk by criticizing his intersectional fails.
There were some inspiringly positive communications in this, too. I admire (like WHOA) Mikki Kendall (@Karnythia), who engaged Elk with patience, even when he pulled a derail into Oppression Olympics territory. (I note with bitter irony and profound contempt that it is Kendall who was recently accused by Michelle Goldberg of being “toxic” for challenging white feminist privilege on Twitter. Nope! )
In the midst of that conversation, Aura Bogado (@aurabogado) criticized Elk for ‘splaining Emmett Till to Kendall:
He responded with a series of abusive tweets (again playing Oppression Olympics ) that included the following:
Suey Park (@suey_park) also confronted Elk about his abusive behavior towards Bogado; he responded angrily about her “lecturing” him and subsequently blocked her. When BrooklynBarangay posted her blog about the discussion, Elk responded by insisting that he had apologized dozens of times, and demanded that BrooklynBarangay “correct” her post.
It is not incidental that Suey Park, Aurora Bogado, and BrooklynBarangay are women of color.
I’ve seen a number of commenters on this discussion (many of whom I respect) say that Mike Elk is a good guy (okay) and that he made one unfortunate tweet (nope) and that he deserves a second chance (er, who said he didn’t?).
Let’s be clear: I do not think Elk needs to be ejected from the human race, progressivism, his favourite chair, etc. I do not think he is the most super-racist or misogynist ever to exist. I do think he has some listening, learning, and making amends to do if he hopes to regain some of the trust he lost over the last few days. And I think he’s very fortunate that some of his critics have already been gracious and forgiving towards him.
Let’s ALSO make this clear: people of color criticizing racist appropriation are not Mao, any more than survivors calling attention to rape apologia are Stalin. I don’t give a shit about ideological purity, but I do care about being inclusive and expecting more.
So it would be suuuuper nice if privileged progressives didn’t try to tell those with less privilege what levels of oppression they must be comfortable with.Because I can’t un-see what I saw.
I saw an ahistorical appropriation of violence against African-Americans.
I saw that appropriation wielded in defence of a privileged white man, and in defence of rape culture.
I saw condescension and abuse towards people of color.
I saw women of color who criticized Elk called unprofessional and libelous, and accused of being greedy for Twitter followers, rather than sincerely critical:
(Speaking only for myself: I would not find the offer of reconciliatory beers very inviting after seeing these exchanges. As a DV survivor, I don’t feel safe with a man who sends streams of verbal abuse at women because they have offered criticism. I do not presume to speak for the perspective of the parties involved, but I completely support their right to ignore that go-for-beers talk, for whatever reasons they have. There's some unexamined privilege in insisting that the offer must be accepted.)
I also saw Elk admit that his initial analogy was "fucked up," (yes!) and then proceed to appropriate a different Black man’s experience while yet again engaging in rape apologia (no!)
As of Saturday, Elk repeated his story about his "buddy who was black" and the white woman twice more, here and here.
Now, this story is about something completely and totally terrible, that should not happen to anyone. And it’s something that Elk knows about personally. But it is still not comparable to accusations against Woody Allen. As Yukio Stachan(@boldandworthy) Tweeted: "Why do you keep using race when it comes to Dylan Farrow's accusations against Woody Allen?"
Woody Allen is a white man. Dylan Farrow was a seven year-old white child. Why on earth is there a connection? Are we supposed to equate a grown woman’s grounded-in-racism shame about consensual sex with the sexual abuse of a little kid? (Hint: Children cannot consent.) Or is this just a general comment, that Elk thinks most rape accusations are false? I cannot find a way to parse this that isn’t incredibly gross and disturbing.
I have no idea what’s going on inside Mike Elk’s head. But I know that neither I nor anyone else has an obligation to say "oh well, let’s go for beers" in order to make other progressives feel more comfortable. Mike Elk is not the victim of the "professional left." In fact, he’s not a victim at all. He holds the cards here.
He can refuse to engage substantively with what happened. Chances are, there are plenty of white "progressives" who will be okay with that.
Or can he take advice from people who've engaged him. Like Angus Johnston , who has useful things to say about what happened beyond that one initial tweet. He can listen to Brooklyn Barangay, who also explains that this not about a single tweet, and it won’t be solved by a single one, either:
But it is one tweet, that actually doesn’t make much sense. No need to lose your entire career over it. But then you go and make it worse. You refuse to understand what you did, you refuse to apologize, you call other journalists who are people of color names and harass people of color on Twitter who tried to call you out on your bull-shit. You walk around wrapped so tight in your white, male, privilege mantle, that you can’t do the right thing. Do the right thing – Mike Elk: apologize, get some antiracism education, give more writing time to people of color journalists, write a piece about white privilege in progressive journalism.
Excellent advice. I’ll add: it would also be a good idea to get educated about rape culture. It might also be helpful to consider the process model of being an ally, rather than thinking of it as a fixed state. In Liss’ words:
In the Fixed State Ally Model, the privileged person views hirself as an ally and claims the mantle for hirself. Zie may also acknowledge that zie is always learning and trying to do better, but states that zie is an ally to one or more marginalized populations.In the Process Model, the privileged person views hirself as someone engaged in ally work, but does not identify as an ally, rather viewing ally work as an ongoing process. Zie views being an ally as a fluid state, externally defined by individual members of the one or more marginalized populations on behalf zie leverages hir privilege.
This isn’t just about Mike Elk, although I do hope, in good faith, that Elk considers some of the suggestions mentioned above. It is about recognizing the basic legitimacy of people in marginalized populations talking about their own oppressions. It is about respecting that those who are marginalized have a right to decide for themselves, as individuals, who’s acting in alliance, and who’s not; no-one is owed a fixed-state ally pass. It's about affording people the basic courtesy of deciding for themselves when they can feel safe with someone who's engaged in harmful behavior, instead of demanding instant forgiveness from them.
It’s about what working towards the same end really is. And what it most definitely is not.
In the News
Here is some stuff in the news today.
[Content Note: Domestic violence; racism; guns] The Office of Florida State Attorney Angela Corey says that it is now seeking "to put Marissa Alexander in prison for 60 years, essentially a life sentence, if it succeeds in convicting her for a second time for firing a shot in the direction of her estranged husband and two of his children. ...'It's unimaginable that a woman acting in self-defense, who injured no one, can be given what amounts to a life sentence,' said Free Marissa Now spokeswoman Helen Gilbert. 'This must send chills down the spine of every woman and everyone who cares about women and every woman in an abusive relationship.' Seeking 60 years is an incredibly abusive and outrageous action by Corey, Gilbert said." Please visit Free Marissa Now to explore the different ways you can help, e.g. writing to Marissa or making a donation.
[CN: Violence; guns] On the first day of Oscar Pistorius' trial for murdering Reeva Steenkamp, Pistorius' neighbor testified that she heard a "blood-curdling" scream on the night of the shooting, followed by four shots. It has always been Pistorius' contention that he thought Steenkamp was in bed and believed he was shooting at an intruder, but the testimony of his neighbor, who lives 187 meters away and had her windows open that evening, seems to contradict the possibility that version of events could be true. "I cannot understand how I could clearly hear a woman scream but Mr. Pistorius could not hear it."
[CN: War; violence] Terrible attacks continue in northeast Nigeria, with at least 74 people having been killed in three weekend attacks. "On Saturday, two blasts in a crowded district of Maiduguri left at least 35 dead, while another 39 were killed in the nearby village of Mainok by gunmen believed to be Boko Haram fighters."
[CN: Guns] The district attorney for Walker County, Georgia, has declined to bring charges against a homeowner who shot and killed a 72-year-old man with Alzheimer's who wandered onto his lawn. Terrific. The gun laws in this country are just fucking amazing. Rage. Seethe. Boil.
[CN: Misogyny] Whooooooooooops! "Scientists continue to neglect gender in medical research, endangering women's health by focusing on males in studies that shape the treatment of disease, a report found. The lack of attention to gender differences occurs at all stages of research, from lab to doctor's office, according to the report released today by the Connors Center for Women'€™s Health at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, and the Jacobs Institute of Women's Health at George Washington University in Washington. Animal and human studies typically use male subjects and, even when females are included, researchers fail to analyze and report results by sex, the authors said."
A Drew University baseball player comes out to his team, and gets a warm welcome. Yay!
"Science proves elephants are even smarter than we thought." 1. I love elephants. 2. This, like research on dog intelligence, should really begin to inform what we consider acceptable treatment of these animals. 3. I move that the Republican Party find a new animal to represent their party immediately.
Via Spudsy: "The most adorable Han Solo and Chewbacca are this kid and his dog." OMG!
The Latest in Ukraine
[Content Note: War.]
Following the violent protests in Ukraine which culminated in the ouster of President Viktor Yanukovych's government and the installation of an interim team, Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered Russian troops into the Crimean peninsula in eastern Ukraine, in a bid to seize back the region, where most of the population is ethnic Russian and there is some support for rejoining the Russian state.
An anonymous senior official with the Obama administration reports: "Russian forces now have complete operational control of the Crimean peninsula."
So now the international community has to decide what it's going to do, and NATO is looking to the US and President Obama to take the lead.
There is no serious talk of military intervention, because no one is keen to go to war with nuclear Russia, but there are various degrees of non-military response, some of which are more aggressive and provocative than others.
Working the telephone from the Oval Office, Mr. Obama rallied allies, agreed to send Secretary of State John Kerry to Kiev and approved a series of diplomatic and economic moves intended to "make it hurt," as one administration official put it. But the president found himself besieged by advice to take more assertive action.I'm relieved to have a president who does not think the United States can or should "go it alone" in foreign policy, and instead makes a serious effort to coordinate meaningfully with the international community.
"Create a democratic noose around Putin's Russia," urged Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina. "Revisit the missile defense shield," suggested Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida. "Cancel Sochi," argued Representative Mike Rogers, the Michigan Republican who leads the Intelligence Committee, referring to the Group of 8 summit meeting to be hosted by President Vladimir V. Putin. Kick "him out of the G-8" altogether, said Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the Democratic whip.
The Russian occupation of Crimea has challenged Mr. Obama as has no other international crisis, and at its heart, the advice seemed to pose the same question: Is Mr. Obama tough enough to take on the former K.G.B. colonel in the Kremlin? It is no easy task. Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany told Mr. Obama by telephone on Sunday that after speaking with Mr. Putin she was not sure he was in touch with reality, people briefed on the call said. "In another world," she said.
...No significant political leaders in Washington urged a military response, but many wanted Mr. Obama to go further than he has so far. Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, the top Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, has already devised language to serve as the basis for possible bipartisan legislation outlining a forceful response, including sanctions against Russia and economic support for Ukraine.
The president has spoken out against Mr. Putin's actions and termed them a "breach of international law." But he has left the harshest condemnations to Mr. Kerry, who on Sunday called them a "brazen act of aggression" and "a stunning willful choice by President Putin," accusing him of "weakness" and "desperation."
In addition to Ms. Merkel, Mr. Obama spoke with his counterparts from Britain and Poland on Sunday and won agreement from all the other G-8 countries to suspend preparations for the Sochi meeting and find ways to shore up the economically fragile Ukrainian government. The administration also canceled a trade mission to Moscow and a Russian trip to Washington to discuss energy while vowing to also scrap a naval-cooperation meeting with Russia.
...While Mr. Obama has not gone as far as many in Washington want him to go, the president has been less focused on immediate actions than on making sure he and America's traditional allies are on the same page. Working from the Oval Office over the weekend, wearing jeans and a scowl, he called several of his G-8 counterparts to "make sure everybody's in lock step with what we're doing and saying," according to a top aide.
Kicking Putin out of the G-8 might be a sticking point, as Germany has "publicly expressed opposition to expulsion," but I trust that Obama and Merkel will find effective agreement moving forward. I hope so, anyway.
The truth is, there is no bigger threat to a reasonable solution than Putin. I am, quite frankly, significantly less concerned about what sort of action will be proposed by US-European allies than I am about what bullshit he's going to pull next.
In the meantime, I am thinking of all Ukrainians, and wish them safety and peace.
The Oscars Thread
I didn't watch most of the Oscars last night, so I don't have much of a review, other than: Yay for Lupita Nyong'o, who won Best Supporting Actress for 12 Years a Slave, and gave a beautiful acceptance speech:
Thank you to the Academy for this incredible recognition. It doesn't escape me for one moment that so much joy in my life is thanks to so much pain in someone else's. And so I want to salute the spirit of Patsey for her guidance. And for Solomon, thank you for telling her story and your own.Your dreams are valid. Blub.
Steve McQueen, you charge everything you fashion with a breath of your own spirit. Thank you so much for putting me in this position; it's been the joy of my life. [Tears, applause.] I'm certain that the dead are standing about you and watching and they are grateful and so am I.
Chiwetel, thank you for your fearlessness and how deeply you went into Solomon, telling Solomon's story. Michael Fassbender, thank you so much. You were my rock. Alfre and Sarah, it was a thrill to work with you. Joe Walker, the invisible performer in the editing room, thank you. Sean Bobbitt, Kalaadevi, Adruitha, Patty Norris, thank you, thank you, thank you — I could not be here without your work.
I want to thank my family, for your training [laughs] and the Yale School of Drama as well, for your training. My friends the Wilsons, this one's for you. My brother Junior sitting by my side, thank you so much, you're my best friend and then my other best friend, my chosen family.
When I look down at this golden statue, may it remind me and every little child that no matter where you're from, your dreams are valid. Thank you.
Major wevs to Jared Leto winning Best Supporting Actor for his portrayal of a trans woman. If anyone was going to win for that role, it should have been one of the many trans actresses who should have been cast in the first place. Of course, the Academy is way more inclined to reward a cis-het man for his "bravery" in being willing to play a trans woman than to reward the actual bravery of an out trans woman forging a visible career in a deeply transphobic industry.
Matthew McConaughey won Best Actor for the same film, Dallas Buyers Club, in which he played a straight white man with AIDS at the dawn of the HIV/AIDS movement, who transforms from a bigot to a saint, or whatever. (Which reportedly does not even accurately reflect the life of the man on whom the character is based.) "All right all right all phbbbbbt."
And major eyerolling at Cate Blanchett for her display of cognitive dissonance during her acceptance speech for Best Actress, for talking about paying attention to women and telling women's stories while thanking Woody Allen, the architect of a campaign of not listening to his own abused daughter. Good grief, Cate Blanchett. GOOD GRIEF.
Anyway. So Jordan Catalano won an Oscar. Next year, they'd better give one to Skippy Handelman!
A complete list of winners is here. Discuss.
