Astraea's Scales

Blog Against Disablism Day

2009-04-29T10:08:00.006-04:00

Today is Blog Against Disablism Day. Visit Diary of a Goldfish to find all the fantastic posts that will be published today.

I have a coworker who frequently says her daughter is lazy. The girl, I'll call her Sarah, recently turned 16 and has been getting very poor grades this year. Everyone knows she's capable of more, but she just doesn't do her schoolwork without a lot of pushing and external motivation. With the motivation to get her learner's permit and start driver's ed she's pulled her grades up considerably in a short period of time.

No doubt there are a lot of people who are lazy and just don't feel like doing any work. But every time she calls Sarah lazy my hackles raise and I want to scream because she has admitted previously that it is possible that Sarah has ADHD. My coworker's husband thinks he has ADHD and has been thinking of seeking treatment, and ADD tends to run in families. Knowing first hand how damaging it can be for a person with ADHD to be treated as just lazy and unmotivated, it is all I can do not to give my coworker an angry lecture. I struggled for many years thinking I was lazy and wondering why I couldn't do all the things I wanted to do. It caused depression and occasional suicidal thoughts. Research has shown that people with ADHD who go untreated are more at risk for drug abuse and other problems such as depression and anxiety.

The problem is not just misunderstanding or denial of ADHD (though that itself is a huge problem), but the belief that people without visible and/or measurable differences in ability think the same way as the majority of people and ahve teh same needs/motivations/capabilities as, say, neurotypical people. This kind of disablism functions similarly to other privilege: the experiences of the privileged are considered the norm everyone should be expected to live up to. Just as women are expected to simply adapt to institutions and social structures that evolved out of male privilege, those with ADHD are expected to be able to succeed in education and careers designed by and for people with "normal" abilities and ways of thinking. Those who don't are called lazy and irresponsible, or are blamed for not pulling their weight at work.

This all puts a lot of added pressure on people with ADHD to function in ways that are not natural to us and do not allow us to reach our full potential. We often have to struggle so much just to keep up with daily life in a world designed for people who function very differently that we have little energy left to take advantage of the things we tend to be especially good at.

This is where the gift vs curse debate comes in. There is a lot of emphasis on ADD as a "gift" from some groups and individuals while others consider it a "curse." The characteristics of ADHD vary from person to person, but I experience it as a curse largely because of external factors and realities. conforming to a world that experiences time in a way that I understand only on a philosophical level, being expected to have social networks at work to advance my career, being expected to understand social cues that go right over my head all make it that much harder to focus on getting things done because it aggrivates my anxiety.

Diablism comes into play when people don't recognize these challenges. I know that to many my symptoms sound like I'm just being whiney and I should just suck it up and deal with it like "everyone else." I struggled for a long time because I didn't know why I couldn't deal with it like "everyone else."

My point is, there is a certain degree to which a disability like ADHD makes one's life harder. And then there is the crushing weight of the burdens that come with living in a world where people with disabilities are expected to adapt to living the model life, and that is often the worse curse of the two.

Why "reducing abortions" is a problem

2009-03-17T08:50:00.003-04:00

This is enough to give anyone chills (emphasis mine):

The Obama administration says they want to be inclusive and represent all Americans. The White House Faith Based Office is now tasked with reducing the number of abortions - something pro-life groups have very good experience in accomplishing. Pregnancy resources centers and restrictions on abortion have a terrific track record in helping women choose alternatives to abortion. Funding abortion or abortion providers is one of the worst things that can be done. What the government funds, we get more of. We hope to begin a dialogue that results in policies which actually work, not just financially benefit certain interest groups like abortion providers." --Wendy Wright, CWA

I'm not even going to touch the cognitive dissonance there. What's truly chilling is that these people very clearly are more interested in reducing abortions (however that has to be done) than reducing unplanned, unwanted pregnancies.

Obama has shown several times now that he likes to play the "bipartisan compromise" card until it's obvious the right wingers aren't interested. Whether this is a conscious strategy or not is moot; What Obama has given up in the name of compromise has had real consequences. He looks set to do the same here, as the quote from Kyle Right Wing Watch explains in the original post. What will Obama give up in the name of compromise with pro-life groups, only to have them continue pushing for the most extreme views? He has already given in to their framing (reduced abortions), and we see how that plays right into their hands in the quote above.

Dollhouse

2009-03-17T07:14:00.004-04:00

I am done with Dollhouse. I have given it more chances than it deserves, and even though I hate to give up watching a show with Eliza Dushku and Amy Acker (and now I love Dichen Lachman), it is just pissing me of more than it's entertaining me. Maia has some good points about how sexual assault is treated on the show at Alas, a Blog. (Can't say I agree with her on the rest of her post, though. She's enjoying the show more than I am.)

I was relieved that we seemed to be free of the icky rape issues in Epsidode 5. Then we get, as Maia pointed out, rape as character development/plot point without actually dealing with rape as an issue. BOO!

And then we get the male active who gets hard in the showers when he is with Sierra. Of course it has to be about how a woman is ultimately responsible. Are we supposed to find it romantic that his attraction to one woman is so damn powerful that it overrides his programing and despite his childlike state he really really wants to fuck her. Barf.

A few big problems here.

1. The actives shower together because they are supposed to be in a completely innocent, blank state. There is no risk to them of assault or violence because none of them is capable. Now we have a man who is sexually aroused and women who may or may not be (so inscrutable, those wimmins without obvious arousal), but are definitely not supposed to be sexual. This is not interesting or cute or amusing to me. It is damn creepy. The women may not have the bodies of children, but they have no autonomy, no sexual desire, no way to understand or deal with sexuality. And we are shown a scene in which one of those women is in the shower with a man who is looking at her sexually.

2. This development perpetuates the framing of sexuality as actively sexual man and passively sexual woman.

3. The trope of the Asian woman who is beautiful and alluring and innocent, arousing men's sexuality without being sexual herself.

Local idiocy

2009-03-09T12:54:00.003-04:00

I feel the need to share a lovely letter to the editor published in my local paper:

DON'T LET SIN RULE IN CHURCH

In response to Marlene Bomer (letter, March 4), let's see what God has to say about women in the church.

In 1 Timothy 2:12,14 it says "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence... And Adam was not deceived, but the women being deceived was in the transgression." It also says in Colossians 3:18, "Wives, submit yourself unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord."

A bishop refers to a man with and over one wife. There are to be no women clergy of any kind; this is unbiblical. It is nothing more than the feminist movement, the same movement that works to promote abortion, to rule over man in the church, our government and everywhere else that society will allow them to rule. They hate the fact that men were disciples and have gone so far as to try to say God is really a woman. What nonsense! These same women who want it all cry when they get it all.

Sin, whatever it is, must not be allowed to rule in the church. That includes things like rock and roll, to which some have put Christian lyrics and called it God honoring. Others, with greed, have tried with their prosperity gospel to turn God into a lottery. Neither Jesus himself nor his disciples were rich on earth.

Others do such things as "holy laughter" or "spiritual dancing" or even "spirit slaying," which Jesus himself never did, nor the apostles. Some have watered down the message of Jesus Christ and his gospel so "people could be at ease with Jesus." They apparently have forgotten that not everyone was comfortable with Jesus when he was on the earth the first time.

It is high time for the church to be the salt of the earth like it was meant to be. People will know when this happens, for the lost will come looking for Jesus Christ, and then they will be able to find Him.

You got that? Women are sin! Like rock and Roll and laughter.

Net Neutrality

2009-02-27T07:47:00.004-05:00

The left needs to be just as loud about this as they were about Social Security. The last thing this country needs is yet another way to grow the gap between those with money for access to information and power and those without.

Heroes continues to disappoint

2009-02-26T09:16:00.004-05:00

I have to agree with the general feeling of the Heroes panel at Racialicious that this season of Heroes started bad and is going further downhill fast. I was a big fan of the first season of Heroes, and even the second season had it's good points. The third? I barely remember except for the Irish woman who provided Peter with what he needed, then was promptly rid of never to be discussed again. This season, however, is nothing but disappointment after disappointment. When the highlight of several episodes is seeing a psycho killer dealing with a difficult teenager, your series is in trouble. I am calling the big reveal of Matt's painting of DC on the floor the jump the shark moment of the series.

This season has also been the worst from a feminist perspective. A declining role for women culminated in the latest episode that revolved entirely around a group of men. The women who appeared served only as motivators for the men.

As for Angela Petrelli, I have gradually turned from finding her intriguing to disappointment that the treatment of her character stems from one of the strongest, most enduring misogynist ideas about women: that women wield a great deal of power invisibly from behind the scenes. That their motivations are mysterious and unfathomable, and their power of manipulation almost unlimited.

A cave of one's own

2009-02-19T09:33:00.003-05:00

Can the idea of the "man room" or "cave" or whatever the fuck they want to call it just die already?

Apartment Therapy has a post up about this growing "phenomenon" asking readers their thoughts on the idea of a "man room." My thoughts are laced with obscenities, but I'll attempt to be more articulate.

First, any talk about a "man room" is bound to be heterocentric because of course it is men who live with women who supposedly need this dudely retreat from the taint of femininity. In this post I am going to focus on the supposed need for a boy's only room for grown male adults who are married to women. The heterocentrism and reliance on stereotypes deserve their own post, along with the class issues (this is primarily a middle class issue). There is another aspect I am going to explore here.

The attention given to the man-cave reflects the idea that men are especially in need of and deserving of space for relaxation that is suited to their interests and comforts. Why don't we think women need a women's room? Because the rest of the house is considered her space. The thinking goes that women are so dominant in the home, that they are so in-charge of that space, that it is their space. I think we're all familiar with the popular complaint that women will decorate and make spaces more feminine, thus ruining them for the men. (If you're not, just watch a week's worth of American sit-coms from the 90's).

What those complaints ignore, of course, is the fact that women are judged differently for their homes than men are. There are pressures on women, especially middle class women, that don't exist for men. Many men claim, for example, that they don't care about mess or clutter, and yet still expect their wives to keep a neat house for their comfort. At the least, they often expect to have clean dishes as they need them, clean and dry towels, clean clothes. This means that women are maintaining "their" space in part for the benefit of others: guests and family both.

The fact is, men do less work in the home while increasingly women do as much work outside of the home. And yet they are still considered more in need of their own space and time to relax, to have their comforts catered to. While space considered belonging to women involves work and stress, and is shared with others, space men supposedly need is centered completely around their needs. (I wonder who cleans up the man cave after the big game?)

A room of one's own is still out of reach for many married women. Men get all kinds of attention for their supposed need for space dedicated entirely to their needs and comfort. But women, whose lives and identities are often erased by their family role, are not expected to need any space dedicated to their comfort. Women who do desire space of their own are considered selfish or silly. A room of one's own for women is still a radical idea.

More on the office of faith-based and neighborhood partnerships

2009-02-09T08:47:00.003-05:00

Francis Kissling provides more information on the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships on RH Reality Check. The information continues to be troubling.

Obama has named 15 of 25 Council members, whom Kissling characterizes as "mostly male, mostly 60-and-over clergy." Most, she reports, are anti-choice, a handful with no record, and only one is pro-choice.

Head on over to the full post for pro-choice, anti-poverty people who Kissling believes should be among the remaining 10 Council members. If you still have any motivation to contact the President, demand a full representation of pro-choice women for the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. It is absolutely unacceptable to have an office tasked with reproductive choice issues sacked with anti-choice men.

Is your abortion government-approved?

2009-02-05T12:06:00.004-05:00

It was painfully obvious during the primaries and election that Obama either did not really understand the issues behind the reproductive justice movement, didn't care, or didn't think that authentically pro-woman framing of the issues would get him elected. Like too many people, Obama overlooked the obstacles women face in truly controlling our reproductive lives. He continued to present the debate as centered around judging women's choices. His framing often suggested that we have already won our rights, that we simply need to defend where we are, and move on to a next stage.

Today, Cara has pointed out the continuing efforts in South Dakota to make abortion inaccessible, while technically legal.

This is going on around the country. Millions of women already have no access to safe, legal abortion even in the first trimester.

And of course, reproductive justice isn't just about abortion. It's about the right to fully control our lives, including whether to have children, when to have them, and how we have them. Women are still fighting tooth and nail for control over our own bodies, from access to contraception, to education, to being treated with respect and not coersion by medical professionals.

"Feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings." This sounds like such a simple statement. Many quote it as such, sometimes as proof of their feminism because they think they believe women are human beings. But the corellary is what makes feminist awareness so powerful and painful; feminists recognize that most of the world does not treat women as human beings. When it comes to reproductive justice in the United States, women as human beings is still a radical notion.

And in the midst of a strong backlash against women's right to abortion, the Obama Administration has taken a stand on the wrong side:

We already know that Obama plans to officially announce Joshua DuBois' appointment to be director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships tomorrow, as well as the unveiling of his newly-formed Presidential Advisory Council of the same name. But I'm told by a religious leader who will be part of the Council that the president also plans to lay out four priorities for the Council. They will include focusing on global poverty (not surprising), the impact of economic recovery plans on low-income Americans (ditto), the faith-based initiative (OF COURSE), and...abortion reduction.

This comes from Amy Sullivan, who is not exactly the best source, but she's quoted by Emily Douglas at RH Reality Check.

This is no surprise. It's exactly the way he talked about the issue during the election. But it's still chilling to see reducing abortion as a top priority of a faith-based governmental council.

It's dangerous and irresponsible, in my not so humble opinion.

ETA An excellent comment on the TIMES site:

plukasiak Says:
Thursday, February 5, 2009 at 5:44 am
This post illustrates the kind of unproductive politicization of the abortion issue that Obama is talking about.
_
uh, its not the media who is politicizing abortion here, its Obama. He's the one calling a reproductive planning initiative "abortion reduction". (and lets not call it "family planning"; we're not talking about whether to take the kids to the beach or to Disneyworld for vacation, we're talking about sex and reducing unintended pregancies.)
_
And there is a danger in this, because the focus of reproductive planning cannot and should not be abortion reduction; reducing the number of abortions is just one of the inevitable by-product of a successful reproductive planning initiative.
_
"abortion reduction" isn't about healthy babies and prepared parents, "abortion reduction" is a phrase that comes right out of the "life begins at conception, and ends at birth" handbook. And whether we like it or not, abortion remains an important aspect of family planning -- while we can reduce the incidence of unintended pregnancies with a reproductive planning initiative, we can't eliminate the need for abortion services, or the need for reproductive planning services to include abortion as an option for women who do not feel ready to be bear children.

An Update

2009-01-31T16:35:00.002-05:00

myiq2xu, the man who posted the gossip about Ali Campoverdi on The Confluence, has shown himself to be a complete douchebag of the what about teh menz variety since he was challenged by some actual feminists. In part because he has recently insisted that people can not unilaterally decide someone is not a feminist for any reason, shortly after declaring Campoverdi could not be a feminist because she did something he didn't approve of. Apparently soon we're going to be told how we are hypocrites by this guy. ha!

His attempts to "clarify" what his original post meant have pretty much been shallow, defensive statements. He refuses to look at the implications of what he's saying, which is that it is no surprise that Jon Favreau would be attracted to "that kind" of woman.

What "kind" would that be, myiq?

You see, this is exactly what slut-shaming is: making a judgment about and categorizing a woman based on a) a sexual act, b) sexual activity, c) attitude towards sex or d) the way she dresses, among other things. Basically, it revolves around a woman's sexuality and whether she has done something the shamer believes a woman shouldn't do.

Of course, we don't have to approve of everything every woman does; but it is anti-feminist to reduce a woman to our perceived notions of her sexuality.

Thank Bush for keeping us safe from zombies

2009-01-30T16:20:00.003-05:00

Read this, especially if you need a good laugh for the weekend.

A sample:

The call has gone out to the Republican Establishment Media that it is only through Bush’s vigilance that any of us are alive today. Just take a look at the record:

No terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. Bush kept us safe from terrorists.
No hurricanes in New Orleans since Katrina. Bush kept us safe from nature.
No comets have hit Earth since Tunguska, 100 years ago. Bush kept us safe from celestial collisions.
No #1 albums from Creed since Weathered (2001). Bush kept us safe from Power Ballads.
No reanimation of serial murderer and cannibal, Jeffrey Dahmer. Bush kept us safe brain-devouring zombies.
No sightings of the Four Horsemen on the Interstate. Bush kept us safe from the Apocalypse.
When you think about all of things that didn’t happen during the Bush years, you can’t help but be grateful for the omnipotent scope of his protective embrace.

Multiple births and hypocrisy

2009-01-30T14:13:00.003-05:00

Public womb #239487235.. oh, wait, I mean a woman who recently had octuplets is the target of a round of pearl-clutching because she didn't have a gazillion children in the approved way. Instead of having child after child while preaching Christian Quiverfull values and letting a man prove his virility by getting her pregnant each time, a young woman apparently used fertility treatment which resulted in eight embryos that all survived to be born. And now people are looking into every detail of her life so that they can heap their judgment onto her. She "already has" six kids! The family filed for bankruptcy! Where did the money come from? ZOMG THERE IS AN IRAQI IN THE FAMILY.

The difference between how the media has treated this woman and how they portray a family like the Duggars is stunning.

For example, take a look at this media coverage of the Duggars:

The Discovery Health channel has an entire television show devoted to the Duggars, and on the website you can "Name that Duggar!" and leave well wishes for the newest baby.

MSNBC has an article that is positively glowing, in which they quote Ann Curry referring to the family as "very traditional, even old-fashioned."

Of course, the Duggars are still targetted for ridicule and derision, but the mainstream media has, for the most part, embraced them.

Not so the mother of the octuplets.

Zuzu posted about the octuplets after I'd started writing this, and she has some very interesting things to say, as well:

The problem is, we’re not supposed to judge women who want to have lots of children, we’re supposed to look at every birth as a “miracle” and as desirable, we’re supposed to ooh and ahh over the vast medical team assembled for the delivery, we’re supposed to find it heartwarming that government resources are used during a massive disaster to save frozen embryos rather than finding and rescuing real live people, we’re supposed to say that isn’t it great that she was pro-life, had a choice, and refused a selective reduction that would have resulted in fewer, but healthier, and possibly full-term babies.

I think that looking at the issue from the point of view of what pressures are put on women and how a subset of women respond (and whether that is healthy for all involved or not) is not the same as judging women. It's important to point out the hypocrisy of the culture that sentimentalizes babies and multiple births, but condemns women who don't give birth in perfect circumstances.

Julie Shapiro at Feminist Law Professors also puts this in the larger context of whose right to parent is questioned.

And finally, I find it simply amazing that a woman could find a doctor willing to implant several embryos in a fairly young woman with six children, yet it is nearly impossible for a woman of the same age or younger to find a doctor willing to perform a tubal ligation.

True spirits told me to post this

2009-01-30T11:19:00.005-05:00

I have to share a letter to the editor published in my local newspaper:

FALSE SPIRITS SPEAK TO PSYCHICS

In response to Pauline ------ (letter, Jan. 28) —

I was warning this young man of this evil practice, which was and is the issue.

It is written, "Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them." (Ephesians 5:11)

Of this matter of fear in God's people, it is written, "For God hath not given us a spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind." (2 Timothy 2:7)

In regards to men writing the Bible, it is written, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

As for New Age, God is in everything. It is written, "Truly, truly I say unto you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3:3)

Romans 1:16-32 speaks of those who worship Earth and think God is in everything. Plants and animals are incapable of knowing God. Not every spirit is from God.

In 1 John 4:1 it is written, "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but rather try the spirits, whether they are of God, because many false prophets are gone out into the world."

These demons who speak to psychics are false and need exposing for the sake of the souls of others. The devil will always tell people what they want to hear, and he is a spiritual being. Choose God, choose life. John 3:16 still works!

Because nothing proves your point like random quotations from the Bible.

ETA: Unfortunately I don't have immediate access to the other two letters leading to this one, but here is the snippit that was available from the first letter written by the same religious wacko as the one above:

Courier promoted necromancy

I was greatly saddened and disturbed by the Jan. 26 article, "Psychic gets into the spirit of new job." I was even more disappointed at the Courier's promotion of necromancy and consulters of familiar spirits.

In the article, this young man stated that he was a Roman Catholic. Most Roman Catholics today follow their priest, their pope, and the canon laws of the Catholic church, which have replaced the Bible and...

Thank you, Lilly Ledbetter...

2009-01-29T14:09:00.003-05:00

...and all the other women who have fought for so long for equal pay for women. Passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is only one victory in the war, but I hope that it will make it easier for the many women who have lost thousands of dollars due to discrimination to seek justice. As RKMK has reminded me, those women included Congresswomen who broke party ranks to support this bill.

Thank you.

Where is this common ground you speak of?

2009-01-29T10:55:00.003-05:00

The efforts by Republicans and the media to ridicule family planning help for low income women proves what a lie any "common ground" is between the pro-choice movement and the conservative forced birth lobby. All the big talk - mostly by men - about how pregnancy prevention is a place where the two sides can come together in agreement has been shown to be complete bullshit. As most reproductive justice advocates already knew. This is what many Obama crticis and Clinton supporters tried to point out over and over during the primaries when we were all being told to shut the fuck up and think of the party/think of Roe.

Thank god Roe is safe because some women are gonna need it if they can't afford birth control! Oh wait, they can't afford or get access to abortion, either. Well, I'm sure the Republicans and Democrats will at least help them get pre-natal care, right? If not, we can all agree on the common ground that women should just not have sex unless they are middle class or wealthy. Change you can believe in.

BIMA

2009-01-28T19:58:00.004-05:00

BIpartisanship my ass

My less eloquent response to this whole thing:

Fuck Obama, fuck the Democratic Party, fuck the Republicans. You all fucking suck! Along with NARAL, Ms Magazine and NOW.

Women deserve better 2

2009-01-28T08:32:00.005-05:00

Sometimes the problem with all the ways to communicate... e mailing my cronies, sharing on Google reader... is that I forget I haven't railed against something here as well. I could have sworn I talked about the way Obama pulled the rug out from under subsidizing birth control under Medicaid.

Some hero.

This isn't a shock. Obama's made it clear over and over again that when it comes time to "compromise," those icky women's issues will be the first to go. And Democrats have made it clear that they're all too happy to go along with it.

Which is why I am bewildered by so many feminists falling over themselves to praise every tiny little thing he does... even when he hasn't actually done anything. Are we really so battered from 8 years of conservative rule that we are grateful for the smallest, emptiest gestures?

Is this what victory looks like to Naomi Wolf?

ETA: Great post on Alegre's Corner highlighting statements from NOW-New York State and Planned Parenthood calling out Obama. Alegre rightfully calls out Kim Gandy of NOW for her silence. I also ask, where is NARAL? On their front page they still show Thank You Obama for repealing the Global Gag Rule. I can't find anything in their press releases or news. NARAL chose to endorse Obama and now they are silent when he abandons poor women for political expediency.

Underwear models are obviously just dumb bimbos, according to some "feminists"

2009-01-27T10:45:00.005-05:00

Is Amy Compoverdi being punished for her apparent-boyfriend Jon Favreau's misogyny, and by feminist bloggers of all people?

Both Tennessee Guerilla Women and The Confluence have posts up about rumors taht Favreau is dating Campoverdi, and focus on the fact that she modeled for Maxim, reducing her to nothing more than a pretty body in order to make the connection to Favreau's misogyny. Which makes them little different from all the other sexist reporting on the gossip.

A few select headlines (all linked above):

Ali Campoverdi: Obama Hottie, Feminist Paradox (Gawker)
Ali Campoverdi: White House Maxim Model (Right TV)
Report: Girlfriend of Obama's Speechwriter Is a Maxim Model (Fox News)
Meet the new girl at the White House (good job Clinton's not still President!) (Daily Mail, UK)
Meet Obama's sexy Maxim aide (Metro, UK)

It's almost a side note that Campoverdi has education and has been pursuing graduate level education, something not even mentioned by the two feminist bloggers who oh so helpfully provide a picture of her from the Maxim shoot. The posts both seem to imply (as do many of the sexist headlines coming from such upstanding organizations as Fox News) that Campoverdi doesn't deserve to work at the White House because she posed for Maxim. If it's true she has no qualifications, then talk about that. Don't slyly imply it just because she's worked in a profession you don't approve of.

As TinfoilHattie commented in response to The Confluence:

I don't know. This doesn't sit well with me. First of all, why the lingerie shot? To show that Campoverdi was an underwear model? Then talk about that. Should she have been one? Are underwear models "bad"? Does Ms. Campoverdi purport to be a feminist, making her career selection as an underwear model fair discussion fodder?
Or are you trying to show that someone like Favreau would OF COURSE date an underwear model, because … underwear models are … fill in the blank for me, please. Do you object to his dating an attractive woman? Do you object to his dating an underwear model? Because I don't think you can object to Favreau's choice here without maligning the woman. The message seems to be, "Look what kind of woman HE dates! Doesn't it figure! HE dates a (slut? bimbo? what?)"

ETA:
Been going around and around with a few people who seem to think that this is appropriate because certain women who participate in the patriarchy should be condemned. ("She's asking for it," anyone?)
Funny thing, though, those women who deserve to be condemned and criticized (even 5 years after their supposed offense) happen to work in - go on, guess - the sex industry (which includes sexy modeling of the Maxim variety)! However, this is apparently not slut-shaming because the word slut does not actually appear.

How not to report about rape

2009-01-24T21:16:00.003-05:00

[TRIGGER WARNING}

A 33 year old man was arrested for rape when his 11 year old victim became pregnant. This seriously abysmal article about it not only describes what happened as the alleged rapist having sex or intercourse with the victim. It also describes events in a way that communicates absolutely nothing and most likely glosses over forcible rape.

The 11-year-old girl told investigators Dyson several times attempted to have sex with her while the two were residing at a residence along East Larwill Street, said Merillat, adding the girl said Dyson was successful in having intercourse with her twice.

Of course it doesn't matter if the girl said yes, it is still rape, and a 33 year old man has absolutely no excuse for raping an 11 year old. I can think of a few scenarios in which actions can be described as above that aren't violent or forceful that involve the girl changing her mind, being physically unable, and the man actually listening. But somehow that doesn't seem the most likely.

If he did indeed try to force the girl violently against her will, it is unconscionable to write about it in this way. It trivializes rape and makes it sound as if the girl was willing, as if at 11 she could be capable of meaningful consent.

Not just "another woman"

2009-01-23T09:08:00.005-05:00

I very strongly believe in trying to get more women into all levels of politics on both sides of the aisle. I think that the new organizations The New Agenda and 51% are doing very important work. Even though I personally might have trouble supporting or voting for a conservative woman over a progressive man, it is crucial to work on increasing women's representation. A perfect illustration of this is the Senate vote on the Ledbetter bill. All four Republican women Senators voted for the bill. That's not to say that Republican women will always do what I believe is best for women, but it does show that women are needed to represent women's interests.

So even though the woman I preferred is not going to be Secretary Clinton's replacement in the Senate, I am very pleased that Patterson did choose a woman. Making note of this shouldn't be problematic, but I was still uncomfortable with the way that NPR promo'd their news piece about the appointment. I heard it in my car, so this isn't quite an exact quote, but the pertinent words are correct: "Gov. Patterson chooses another woman to fill Hillary Clinton's Senate seat."

I've been trying to piece out exactly why this bothered me. First of all, no one in the mainstream media was talking about how Blagojevic appointed "another man" to replace Obama. Just like no one in the MSM is going to talk about how another white person has been selected in Colorado. White men are the default, anyone else is a special case.

I think that I wouldn't have such a problem with this if the MSM put it in the context of representation. Instead, the way it's mentioned just serves to make women and minorities the non-default, the other. What do you all think?

Women deserve better (Updated)

2009-01-22T18:23:00.004-05:00

Women suffer and they die because their bodies are considered teh property of others. Sometimes a specific man, sometimes just society as a whole.

Women suffer and they die because they are not given the power over their own lives, treated as children who can't decide what's best for them or their families.

Women suffer and they die because people in power yield authority to religious ideology over rights of bodily autonomy and real world results.

Women suffer and some die because doctors' convenience outweighs how they would choose to give birth.

Women die. Because we're still fighting the people who put their religion, their misogynist "morality" above women's well-being.

This isn't an intellectual debate. It's not a disagreement between two reasonable positions. There is no fucking common ground. Women are dying.

ANd all Obama can give us is an equivocating statement that's nothing more than platitudes.

Women fucking deserve better.

UPDATE:
Apparently, I am not supposed to be so emotional about this. And making a gesture to the anti-choicers is more important than a gesture to the base of the Democratic party.

And don't call a character "wheelchair guy"

2009-01-21T10:37:00.006-05:00

Cheney is a morally bankrupt man who contributed to who knows just how much suffering in America and abroad. Everything about him is reprehensible.

But can we cut out the comments about how he looked extra evil in a wheelchair at the inauguration? I am nowhere near as knowledgeable as I should be to talk about the imagery of people in wheelchairs, but all the snarky comments smack of ableism. This has nothing to do with Cheney and everything to do with the way people who use wheelchairs are Othered.

Warning: Contains acrimonious sarcasm

2009-01-17T11:40:00.004-05:00

OHNOES! Ann Bartow of Feminist Law Professors and Amy Siskind of Radical Leftist (and The New Agenda) have been ridiculed by the notoriously hard core feminists at XX Factor, Jezebel and Stalknblog for criticizing the Ms. Magazine Super!Obama cover.

I hope you two have learned your lesson, you silly PUMA women. Feminism is for everyone! Who are you to insist that a feminist actually lives feminist values or even feels comfortable saying they are a feminist in public? And OMG, how dare you apply feminist criticism to the cover of a feminist magazine? YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELVES.

WTF Ms.?

2009-01-14T10:23:00.005-05:00

Yes, I'm wading into the Ms. Magazine Super!Obama cover mess. I hate it. I'm not too impressed with the rather shallow analysis of feminists who approve, either. Ellie Smeal's reasoning is especially galling (h/t Feministe):

And better yet, he ran on the strongest platform for women’s rights of any major party in American history. Feminist Karen Kornbluh, the platform’s principle author, ensured women’s rights, opportunities, advancement, and issues were addressed throughout the historic document.

Obama didn't run on a very strong platform for women's rights during the primary, despite the presence of Karen Kornbluh. On the contrary, he was weak in his support of many issues important to feminists, and used sexism to his advantage. The insistance that the strong women's rights positions in the Democratic platform in the presidential election is thanks to Obama is exactly why we absolutely cannot forget or get over the Democratic primaries. History is being rewritten, and the women who refused to simply give silent support to Obama have been forgotten. Hillary Clinton's role is being forgotten.

To give Obama credit for the role of women in the Democratic platform and presidential campaign is to buy into the notion that while he has not played a leadership role in women's issues and did not give strong support to feminist issues in his primary campaign, he is secretly a feminist who is just hiding it for political purposes and he actually pushed for the "strongest platform for women's rights of any major party in America's history."

It boils down to one more man given credit for the work of thousands of women, and women's leadership being undervalued. A man can be a feminist superhero just for saying in private to feminists that he is a feminist. Meanwhile, he leaves all the actual work of supporting women's issues and leading the fight against misogynist policies to the women.

Superman Returns with an impossibly young Lois Lane

2009-01-10T11:17:00.006-05:00

Spoilers ahead!

Second caveat: I'm much more into superhero movies than comic books, so I haven't read the Superman comics. I can't compare the characters to the more "authentic" comic book characters.

I was desperate enough to rent Superman Returns several days ago and my initial intention not to see the movie was pretty well validated. I don't understand why it received such positive reviews from many critics. It was long and boring and I couldn't figure out wtf was the point other than to indulge in a nostalgic need for continuation of the Christopher Reeve movies.

Much of the way the movie was made was not very updated from the 70's and 80's films. Even the music was used in the same ham-handed beat-the-viewers-over-the-head way.*

But Lois Lane has been de-aged to the point of ridiculousness. But 23-year-old Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane was the biggest turn-off in the movie. We're supposed to believe that her romance with Superman happened before she was old enough to graduate college, and that by 23 she had won the Pulitzer Prize?

I suspect we aren't supposed to believe any such thing, but that we're supposed to accept that the very young pretty actress is believable as an older professional woman. In contrast, Margot Kidder was 30 when the first Superman movie premiered, and 39 when Superman IV came out. I guess audiences just wouldn't be able to handle a woman in her 40's as the romantic interest in a comic book movie. Older women are so icky! They're much more appropriate to play aging witches who will do anything to stay young, like the OMG 49 year old Michelle Pfeiffer in Stardust.

*What's also not updated? Sexism! Woohoo! The weird not-earth timeline setting was disorienting, with new technology and cars but old-fashioned costumes and attitudes. Including openly acknowledged lack of women working for the Daily Planet, and regressive roles for women. mmm, nostalgia.

But Roooooooooooe! Part 5

2009-01-09T10:06:00.003-05:00

Wishy washy pro-lifer, pro-abstinence education Tim Kaine has been appointed by the great protector of women to be chair of the Democratic National Committee. Like Obama, Kaine is oh so concerned about reducing the number of abortions because they're icky. I love it when men can come together on this issue and discuss abortions as if women are just inconvenient barriers to protecting Teh Babies. Surely we can all agree that women need to just stop having the sex lest we risk creating a few cells we'll decide we don't want. It's not like we'd have to give it up forever. We can have the sex once we're married, because married women never have unintended pregnancies or need an abortion.[1] And come to think of it, what if there was a way for a woman to not have to raise a baby she didn't want or couldn't take care of??? WHY DON'T THOSE SILLY WIMMINS THINK OF THAT?[2] I'm sure if they did, they would gladly go through pregnancy and not kill the poor innocent cells because, hey, pregnancy is just a temporary inconvenince.

Amy at The New Agenda explains how this is yet one more slap in the face to women and women's organizations who supported Obama.

And I'm reminded of all the people who carried on about how we needed to get behind Obama for the sake of the Democratic party because otherwise the Republicans could win and OMGROE.

But hey, don't get mad, Kaine and Obama are "unifiers"! (pay no attention to the similarity to the word "uniter." It is just a coincidence.)

1. "I have a faith-based opposition to abortion. As governor, I will work in good faith to reduce abortions by: Fighting teen pregnancy through abstinence-focused education;"
2. "Promoting adoption as an alternative for women facing unwanted pregnancies."

Where is the common ground here?

2009-01-09T09:10:00.003-05:00

So are these the kinds of things Obama agrees with Rick Warren on?

However, an investigation into Warren’s involvement in Africa reveals a web of alliances with right-wing clergymen who have sidelined science-based approaches to combating AIDS in favor of abstinence-only education. More disturbingly, Warren’s allies have rolled back key elements of one of the continent’s most successful initiative, the so-called ABC program in Uganda. Stephen Lewis, the United Nations’ special envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa, told the New York Times their activism is “resulting in great damage and undoubtedly will cause significant numbers of infections which should never have occurred.”

During the early 1990s, when many African leaders denied the AIDS epidemic’s existence, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni spoke openly about the importance of safe sex. With the help of local and international non-governmental organizations, he implemented an ambitious program emphasizing abstinence, monogamous relationships, and using condoms as the best ways to prevent the spread of AIDS. He called the program “ABC.” By 2003, Uganda’s AIDS rate plummeted 10 percent. The government’s free distribution of the “C” in ABC—condoms—proved central to the program’s success, according to Avert, an international AIDS charity.

By 2005, billboards promoting condom use disappeared from the streets of Kampala, replaced by billboards promoting virginity. “Until recently, all HIV-related billboards were about condoms. Those of us calling for abstinence and faithfulness need billboards too,” Ssempa [who is supported by Rick Warren] told the BBC at the time. A 2005 report by Human Rights Watch documented that educational material in Uganda’s secondary schools falsely claiming condoms had microscopic pores that could be penetrated by the HIV virus and noted the sudden nationwide shortage of condoms due to new restrictions imposed by on condom imports.

With safe sex advocates on the run, Warren and Ssempa trained their sights on another social evil. In August 2007, Ssempa led hundreds of his followers through the streets of Kampala to demand that the government mete out harsh punishments against gays. “Arrest all homos,” read placards. And: “A man cannot marry a man.” Ssempa continued his crusade online, publishing the names of Ugandan gay rights activists on a website he created, along with photos and home addresses. “Homosexual promoters,” he called them, suggesting they intended to seduce Uganda’s children into their lifestyle. Soon afterwards, two of President Yoweri Museveni’s top officials demanded the arrest of the gay activists named by Ssempa. Terrified, the activists immediately into hiding.

Oh, wait, that last paragraphs is just one of those little things we can respectfully disagree with. It's not like it has significant impact on thousands of people's lives.
Read the whole thing from Max Blumenthal at The Daily Beast.

A privileged white man's crusade against AIDS in Africa doesn't deserve to be lauded as holding him up above those other Evangelicals when it's not so much about eliminating a disease as it is about reinforcing regressive religious morality and exporting so-called Christian values through fear. HOW RADICAL AND UNHEARD OF.

But it's not rape if she's not a person!

2008-12-31T08:04:00.006-05:00

The male snickering over giving Afghan patriarchs viagara so they can once again assert their manly dominance by fucking (women who are never actually mentioned) really takes the prize for most revolting expression of contempt for women this year. Women as people do not even figure into the penis-worshiping gaffaws about giving old men their ability to stick it in something as some kind of peace offering. The women - and girls, of course - are completely invisible. Just what the old patriarchs are asserting their dominance over is left to the imagination, wink wink, nudge nudge.

Let's not mince words: as most feminist blogs have said, what the oh so enlightened boys are snickering over and encouraging is rape. We don't even have to delve into the concept of what is meaningful consent to get there.

First, there's the original Washington Post article itself:

Afghan tribal leaders often had four wives -- the maximum number allowed by the Koran -- and aging village patriarchs were easily sold on the utility of a pill that could "put them back in an authoritative position," the official said.

Well, with four wives to control, who could blame him, amirite? What's being danced around here, and not very subtly, is that sex is clearly being recognized as a tool for a man to put his wives in their place. The penis as a weapon and sex as violence to assert authority is rape. Whether or not that is what's happening, that is what's being encouraged and laughed over as if it's just a cute joke about making little old men horny.

And if there's any question, that little gem is preceded by acknolwedgement that women, called "honey traps," have been used as incentives, compared to money and other services, with no regard for the women themselves as actual people. They are merely things to trade. Once again, women are being simply used, even if technically it's a little blue pill that's being given.

So we don't have to guess or speculate about how willing or unwilling the individual women and girls involved may be. We don't have to project onto them without their own words. We only have to care enough about them to know that they are being treated as faceless, nameless commodities to appease men. As Jill at Feministe said:

Because to me, when I hear that the ability of a man to get an erection around his wife puts him back in an authoritative position, my mind screams rape rape rape rape rape. What else could one possibly mean by equating a man’s capacity for intercourse so closely with authority over a woman? (And any other possible explanation must by its very nature still be deeply misogynistic.)

Some commenters on Feministe have tried to dismiss the fact that Americans are encouraging and enabling rape by suggesting that it's just tied to the attitude that virility=masculinity=authority. To do this they have to again disappear the women who are being acted upon in order to establish this authority. And they have to ignore that if a man must establish authority by fucking a girl or woman, then her say in the matter isn't likely to be taken into account.

Meanwhile, women in Afghanistan who work for women's rights are being punished and silenced. Follow the link and act to support women in Afghanistan.

And the founding fathers were miffed at taxation without representation

2008-12-22T14:51:00.005-05:00

Women are routinely subjected to violence at the hands of men merely for being women. We are underrepresented in our government because our sexist society makes it so much harder for women to run in the first place, and because voters are products of that sexist society. Everywhere we see women's bodies presented for male pleasure and consumption. We are reminded daily that men would like us to be more compliant to their wishes, that they often wish we had no independant desires of our own. Often enough we see claims that we actually do not have any independant desire of our own. Taking a step back to look at the big picture, to see all those little things fall into a pattern, to connect them to systematic rapes of women as a strategy of war, to the legally enforced reduction of women's lives to little more than a tool to serve men and produce more of them, is something too terrifying and horrifying to face up to.

When we see that Obama's cabinet (if all are approved) is made up of 15 men and 5 women (ETA: oops, 16 men and 5 women. Thanks for the correction!), it is a small piece of the reality few are willing to make an effort to comprehend. To some of us, it is almost triggering in a way. A reminder that as a woman, I am viewed as less of a person than men.

The again, maybe I'm just "miffed." At least, I am according to the headline at CNN.com: "Why some women's groups are miffed at Obama."

I have a proposal. From now on, women only pay 20% of the taxes men pay, since women aren't even a fifth of the members of the two houses of congress. I propose further reducing women's tax burden by taking the pay gap into consideration.

The antidote to Twilight

2008-12-22T13:41:00.004-05:00

Kate Harding has a post up about Twilight and the vampire romance in general. There's been a lot of talk about it on feminist blogs.

As an antidote to the awful taste of misogyny in the Twilight series, I highly recommend Robin McKinley's Sunshine. It's a vampire book that never forgets that vampires may be alluring, but they are always, always dangerous. (Don't be turned off by the current horrible cover showing on Amazon.)

Blog Roundup on HHS Rule

2008-12-19T08:56:00.004-05:00

Here is a roundup of posts on the publication of the new HHS "Conscience" Regulations. Feel free to leave additional links in the comments!

Sorry, ladies, but your vagina conflicts with my morals by Jill at Feministe

Anti-Choice DHHS rule finalized by Cara at The Curvature

URGENT Action: Bush's Conscience Rule by frau sally at The Feminist Underground. (Crossposted at Jump Off the Bridge)

Just Released: President-Elect Obama must repeal harmful HHS rule by Marcia Greenberger at Womenstake

HHS Provider Conscince rule: You better shop around by Marilyn Keefe at RH Reality Check

Unconscionable policies, dangerous politics by Jodi Jacobson at RH Reality Check

HHS Finalizes rule that redefinse abortion by Ann at Feministing

And then, just in case you'd forgotten for -one second- why the outgoing administration sucks beyond black hole levels of sucking by belledame222

Bush administration embraces anti-contraception agenda by Amanda at Pandagon

I never should have gotten out of bed this morning by Melissa at Shakesville

I don't have much to add to the many great posts above, except to point out that this is an issue that, as usual, will affect the most vulnerable women the most. It is not just a feminist issue, but an issue of class, race, sexual orientation, gender identification, and more. It is crucial now to contact your Congressmen and Obama and push them on this issue. Many Democrats are not exactly known for their willingness to take a bold stand on issues of reproductive health.

God hates gays, God bless America

2008-12-18T07:30:00.005-05:00

I wanted to say something more thoughtful about Rick Warren's role in Obama's inauguration. First I had to get past the sputtering anger phase.

I have to clarify that my giant temper tantrum was not out of surprise. I'm not surprised.

"I told you so" is verboten in some places, but, well. There it is. i am full of acrimony and not in the mood to be kind to those who pushed for Obama in the primaries by ignoring or obfuscating the problems with his broad coalition approach. That there are people in comments sections of some blogs still defending Obama and playing the "what he really means" game is almost as infuriating as the selection of Rick Warren itself.

There is nothing surprising here. The selection and the talking points surrounding it are nothing new from Obama. And they are still bullshit. As my favorite English prof used to say, one can say there are similarities and differences between almost any two things.

The truth is, some views are considered so far from a respectful disagreement that no matter how much an individual neo-Nazi*, for example, might hypothetically agree with progressives on a single issue, that person would not be invited to play a large public role in the President's inauguration. But being against civil rights for gays and lesbians, and lying and spreading hate to fight against those rights is something that can just be overlooked as a difference of opinion. It makes me sick.

Oh, and his stance against abortion is not even controversial enough to be addressed in the talking points.

The talking points might almost make sense (almost) if Rick Warren were being ivited to speak about those common ground issues. If Warren's importance to the evangelical community were being leveraged to gain support for those issues, it would at least be understandable. But instead he is being given a prominent role specifically as a pastor, and that lends him authority he does not deserve. It comes at the expense of women and the LGBTQ community, for whom Obama has demonstrated less respect than the religious right.

*Think that's too extremist? Am I shamelessly Godwinizing? Rick Warren has compared abortion to the holocaust, and homosexual marriage to rape. Nazis are invoked too easly and often because most of us have learned an almost instinctual revulsion for them and what they did. Neo-nazis, though they haven't been successful in engaging in widespread, institutionalized genocide, are recognized by most people as unreasonably hateful because of their association with German nazis. Those views taint and discredit anything else they do in the eyes of people who view themselves as not bigoted or racist. Certain bigotries have less impact and less influence on public policy only because leaders have been pushed to reject people who hold these views. Obama is proposing the exact opposite of this tactic, and that has never been shown to work in the past.

I don't know enough obscenities

2008-12-17T15:41:00.004-05:00

I was resolved to write more on feminist analysis of pop culture and tv because that's where my interests lie and I was just not inspired to write about politics.

But a post on The West Wing is on hold while I have a giant temper tantrum.

Via Pharyngula, Kyle at Rightwingwatch.org has posted news that Rick Warren will be delivering the invocation at Barack Obama's inauguration.

WHAT THE FUCKING FUCK. !*^#^*@$^!@#^*!@$%&!@#^!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The (straight) white man's burden

2008-12-17T15:30:00.010-05:00

The day after Thanksgiving I purchased The West Wing box set, which was finally an affordable price. I've been watching an episode or two a day since then, plus a couple mini marathons.

I watched the first several seasons of The West Wing when it aired, but haven't seen more than a few clips since then. I've actually been glad that I didn't remember the show very well because I'm seeing it now with fresh eyes. And while the show is deservedly praised by many feminists and progressives, it's not without its flaws.

What struck me as I watched the second season was how a lack of women and minorities in the senior staff meant that their interests were championed by straight white men. This was especially glaring when the plot deliberately set up a member of a disadvantaged group as the conservative foil to the liberal staffers.

CJ Cregg is the only woman on the senior staff, and she is the press secretary. She doesn't have much of a role in shaping policy. In fact, there are no women who are regular characters who significantly influence policy. There are no regularly occurring characters who aren't straight. Charlie is the only person of color who is a regular major character. So, needless to say, straight white men are doing most of the talking about liberal policies on the show.

There are a few times when this goes beyond irritating but all too common, and becomes something more than the typical sexism and racism of casting. Fairly consistently, straight white men (typically the stars of the show) are the Champions of Liberalism and they have rarely brought in women or minorities to represent the progressive or activist segment of those groups. (Abbey Bartlet is one exception). So it stands out even more when they bring in a woman and a gay man to represent the conservative point of view.

In "The Portland Trip," a gay man who is a Republican Congressman, Matt Skinner, is pushing for passage of an anti-gay marriage bill. He debates about it with Josh Lyman, a straight man. Josh asks Skinner how he can be a Republican. Skinner responds that not everything in his life has to be about being gay, and he gets the last word.

Josh: How can you be a member of this party?? . . . This party that says who you are is against the law.

Matt: You know, I never understood why you gun control people don't all join the NRA. They've got 2 mil members, you bring 3 mil to the next meeting? Call a vote. All those in favor of tossing guns? Bam! move on.

Josh: That's a heck of a strategy, Matt, I'll bring it up in a meeting.

Matt: I agree with 95% of the Republican platform. I believe in local government. I'm in favor of individual rights rather than group rights. I believe that free markets lead to free people and that the country needs strong national defense. My life? Doesn't have to be about being a homosexual. It doesn't have to be entirely about that.

The problem, of course, is not that this view is presented, but that there have been no lesbian or gay characters to speak for the views of a vast majority of the community.

Similarly, very few women speak to women's issues on the show. In another episode Ainsley Hayes, a Republican woman, argues against the ERA. Again it is Sam Seaborn who argues for the ERA. Because he fails to effectively argue the liberal, feminist view of the ERA (and how can he without looking patronizing?) the conservative opposition to the amendment comes off looking stronger and more pro-woman. Luckily, there is a clip of the crucial part of this exchange on YouTube:

An exception to this pattern is in "Isaac and Ishmael," the episode written in response to the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Leo McGarry is questioning a man who is suspected of.. well, something related to having a suspicious name. The man works in the White House and is an American citizen. Leo is apparently freaked out enough to say some reactionary, racist things while the target of the inquisition helps to show how unjust and racist those views are. (This one exception loses some of its impact by virtue of the fact that a bunch of mostly white people are discussing terrorism and why "they" hate "us" in other scenes.)

Real versus Fake Trees

2008-12-09T11:00:00.003-05:00

This probably comes too late this year for anyone who puts up a tree for the holidays. I don't, but I thought this was interesting nonetheless. In reading occupational safety and health news for my job, I came across an article on the eco-friendliness of real trees vs artificial. According to a botanist quoted in the article, real trees are the way to go. From organic tree farms when possible:

“For the environmentally conscious consumer, a live Christmas tree is preferable to artificial,” he said. “An expenditure on a live tree results in a carbon neutral purchase that poses very little environmental threat, while injecting money into the domestic economy.”

Springer added that the most environmentally friendly tree would be raised organically – without the use of chemical pesticides, fertilizers or herbicides – in nearby environs with its roots intact, so that it can be re-planted after Christmas. He said buying from a local grower cuts down on the use of fossil fuels to transport the tree to the seller’s place of business, which reduces the amount of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere.

Do you buy a tree? If so, what kind?

Larry Summers

2008-12-01T13:04:00.003-05:00

When Larry Summers was rumored to be a possible pick for Obama's cabinet, many women immediately protested. For some time it appeared that Obama had actually done what he'd promised... to listen seriously to concerns, and to support women's equality. There were several pieces written by men pouting over the way the annoyed feminists had created such a controversy that Summers was off the short list, following the grand tradition of treating women as a "special interest."

Sadly, I haven't seen much outrage over the placement of Summers in the National Economic Council, a position that will not have to be confirmed by the Senate. This is nothing but a little switcheroo to make it look as if Obama is taking women's concerns seriously.

It seems Obama has learned the same lesson as Time Magazine:

[H]is controversial comments about women's aptitude for math and science were a reminder that he operates best when he is working behind the scenes.

I suppose we should be glad he didn't just thumb his nose at us and put Summers in as Treasury Secretary anyway. That's change you can believe in!

(H/T FAIR)

More about the HHS rules

2008-11-21T09:07:00.004-05:00

Senators Hillary Clinton and Patty Murray continue to fight the HHS proposed rules which further undermine women's access to reproductive health care. A Ms. piece about the proposed rule points out further problems which have gotten little attention: Title X money could go to anti-choice clinics (via Feminst Underground). Clinton and Murray have proposed legislation to block the HHS rules.

Contact your Senators and express your support for the Protecting Patients and Health Care bill.

Now might be a good time to express support for Clinton by donating. For a $50 donation you can receive a DVD of highlights from her campaign and her convention speech.

Quote of the Day: Headline Edition

2008-11-19T18:44:00.003-05:00

Search On for Teen Son of Dead Lesbian Fugitive

Fox News.

If you give a mouse a cookie...

2008-11-19T12:28:00.005-05:00

If Hillary Clinton is the next Secretary of State she will be the third woman to hold the position since its formation in 1789, not a small accomplishment. Of course, all three women will have been appointed to the position in a short time, raising some interesting questions. Has this become the accepted spot among high-ranking cabinet positions to put a woman, leaving the men to breathe easy... they have done enough. Look how enlightened they are! Look how this shows the president cares about women!

There's also the concern that the more women are seen as fit for a particular job, the less valued that job becomes and the more people will go out of their way to say it is more appropriate for womanly characteristics.

None of these things affect my opinion of whether Clinton is a good fit or whether she should accept the position, but they are questions worthy of discussion.

You know what's not a good question?

"What's with women and the Secretary of State job?"

That's how NPR posed the question in a promo for a piece on the the radical possibility that three out of the last four Secretaries of State have vaginas. Seriously, what's with those women? There are a couple problematic things going on here.

First, in any area long dominated by men, more than a few token women in the area suddenly becomes a concern. This is especially true in positions of power, where a small fraction of representation is considered sufficient. Anyone remember the Year of the Woman? In this case, all it takes to trigger this response is more than 50% women in the small amount of time since the first. Ignore the many men who preceded them!

(Of course, this isn't true just for women. I doubt that the next person elected president of the US will be black. I don't think either party will be willing to try to tackle the hurdle of the "but we've already done that" element. Which is nicely overlooked in all the white self-congratulatory pieces about how wonderful it is that the US can now elect someone other than a white man.)

And second, it reinforces the idea that women in positions of power and authority are taking the jobs away from men.

Finally, I'd like to ask, what's with men and the POTUS job??!!

Doublemint Sexism

2008-11-17T08:36:00.004-05:00

ugh. Two sexisms for the price of one:

And with Bill along (a future Mideast Uber-envoy?) you’d get two secretaries of State for one. Finally it’ll keep Hillary out of the country a lot rather than inside the Beltway plotting for her comeback in 2012 or 2016.

But there are downsides: Hillary can use State as a major power base from which to undermine Obama administration policies she doesn’t agree with (does anyone doubt there’ll be a few?). And to the extent she succeeds as a diplomat, it raises her profile and lowers Obama’s. Note to John Podesta: Maybe put Hillary—and Bill too--on the Supreme Court instead?

Ya know what else is great about Clinton being offered the Secretary of State job? ALL THE MISOGYNY AND SEXISM. WOOO.

For actual grown up analysis of what Clinton as Secretary of State could mean, visit Anglachel.

Keep the presure on the president-elect and congress!

2008-11-14T08:24:00.004-05:00

The National Women's Law Center worked hard to support fair pay for women, and during this crucial time they are going to be working hard to push the new administration and members of the strongly Democratic congress to uphold their promises to women. You can read their Platform for Progress here.

If you have money to spare, The National Women's Law Center could use your help.

Where do we go from here?

2008-11-12T11:28:00.005-05:00

I started a nice, organized essay about lessons learned from this election and how to move on from here. If it were written on paper it would be torn up in tiny little pieces and flung away with impatience.

My feelings about the election are messy. I haven't come to any grand realization or new perspective. I'm not moving on with a new sense of hope and optimism and confidence in my fellow man. heh. So my response is going to be a little messy.

I voted for Obama and I'm not happy about it. I felt a lot of pressure, being in Ohio, to try to cancel out at least one of the assholes I have to hear all day talking about how Obama is OMGSOCIALIST. Maybe I should have just pushed the button for the ACTUAL FOR REAL socialist party. But I'm okay with not being happy about it. It was a shitty decision made in a shitty situation. There was no right thing to do, except doing the best I could and being honest with myself.

We have no progressive party in the US. Obama won by courting the center. He won, in part, by taking advantage of homophobia and misogyny. He won, in part, by emphasizing religion and further blurring the line between what government does and what organized religion does. Pelosi has determined that the country must now be governed from the middle.

That a centrist won against a man who could barely be said to have "won" the Republican primaries and whose campaign was a complete disaster is not something I can celebrate.

I was reading back through old posts from Anglachel, who said it better than I can:

What the campaign lacks, however, and why it cannot achieve what Bill Clinton did, is an unswerving dedication to bettering the lives of ordinary people. It is trading on the most shallow of all political impulses (Oh, please, stop arguing about stuff and making me feel uncomfortable! Stop with the partisan bickering! Won't somebody think of the children?) and deliberately sidesteps the tough work of coalition building. Saying that you will seek common ground with the right - who wants no such thing - builds no coalition to promote progressive causes. It just gets you an inside track with David Broder and the Blogger Boyz who all want to become the next Tim Russert. Getting a bunch of college students with free time to swarm caucuses is not building a coalition, either, btw. ...

And Kate Harding said it perfectly on Shakesville:

Too many times, when asked about progressive issues, he's said he just doesn't think that's the best place to put his energies--and even more gallingly, that the activists working tirelessly on these issues are going about it all wrong.

I'm relieved that McCain didn't win. But I can't be happy for a victory won on the backs of all the people the Obama campaign and his supporters walked over.

Quote of the Day

2008-11-06T12:51:00.003-05:00

The country must be governed from the middle.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi confirming the new OMGSOCIALIST agenda of the OMGRADICAL Democratic party.

Dudes, chivalry is sometimes a little creepy.

2008-10-30T08:39:00.005-04:00

This morning was the second time I've left for work to find my car looking like the ice/frost had been scraped off. It had to have been done early enough for a bit of frost to reform because both times I had to scrape a little and run the defrost.

I live in an apartment building, so my car is parked in the parking lot directly in front of the building. Both times my car has been the only one that looked like it had been scraped.

My reaction to this has been kind of interesting, especially after reading a recent thread at Shakesville about restrictions we as women have on our lives to "keep safe"(which I meant to link but can't seem to find) [Update: FOUND IT!]. I'm mostly confused. I keep to myself and have only ever introduced myself to one neighbor, who lives across the hall. I don't chat, i don't socialize, it's not the type of place where I can go next door and ask to borrow some eggs. So I have no clue who might do this for me, and know what car I drive.

Odds are this is just a nice gesture, but I still find it a bit creepy. And I'm sad that I react that way to what may simply be a kind act of a neighbor.

And I'm angry. I'm angry that as a woman I can't trust a kind, anonymous action. I'm angry that I'm made to feel this way even more than a situation might warrant because I am constantly made to feel like I am responsible for watching for every possible danger. I'm angry that people are so oblivious to this that someone can scrape ice off my car and expect that I'll see it as a nice thing. I'm also a little angry that someone would TOUCH MY CAR without my permission.

Easy Breezy Healthcare

2008-10-29T07:06:00.008-04:00

I have been feeling very lucky lately as I've been getting treatment for issues that led to a diagnosis of ADD. I don't say this to brag, but to raise the issue of health care and why having easy access to health care shouldn't just be a perk.

I started my current job last October after an internship in the same company but with different attorneys in different areas. Sometime around last June, the pressure to learn, to impress, all of that started lessening and as it did I struggled with my ability to focus. I had previously spent four years in a job that was extremely deadline oriented, and the work I'm doing now is very different. There is no set deadline. Once in a while I get a question that needs a quick answer, but often the instruction from my attorney would be to spend as much time as I needed on research because that's what I do best, and that's what he wants.

It's very hard for me to manage time, to focus on a task, and to work for 8 hours, especially in the office environment. So as time went on, I spent more and more time reading blogs, talking to people. Soon I was getting too far behind on work, constantly anxious about going in to work in the morning and having the morning sit-down with my attorney to go over what was going on. I was starting to fall back into serious depression and anxiety.

I've never gotten help for my depression and other problems before. But I decided I really needed to look at my options, because this kind of performance at work would get me in trouble eventually. It turned out under our mental health benefits I would get 8 free sessions with a therapist in the network, and I had to call an 800 number to get assistance.

I finally called one day, and it was so very easy. The people on the phone were very kind, very helpful, and they even called to set up an appointment with the therapist while I was on the line. Easy as that. I was so relieved that I was already able to focus on work a little more.

I recently needed to make a doctor's appointment to get some medication, on the recommendation of my therapist. I of course had to find out who was in my network, and my therapist recommended a doctor in particular, or any in her practice as an alternative. So I called and... none are taking new patients! ugh. My list of in-network doctors is not terribly long despite having really great insurance.

I have such anxiety over going to the doctor, and I am so often frozen at the prospect of doing things that require a series of possibly aggrivating and confusing steps that I have avoided seeing a doctor for a very long time. That is why my therapist recommended a particular doctor she knew to be very good and very caring, and why I was extremely anxious over finding a doctor I knew nothing about. I talked to my therapist and she called the doctor and asked if she would see me at her recommendation. She agreed to see me for the ADD.

This is how easy it should always be. Instead of stress over finding someone to take a new patient, instead of having to face a list of names of therapists and psychaistrists and just picking one, I benefitted from a system that made the process as easy as possible. I could get on with my work and my life without more stress than I was already dealing with.

I wonder how much productivity and working hours are lost when people are stressed about health care. Personally I believe that health care is a right, but for those who care more about the bottom line, how is this system any more beneficial to business than it is to the individual?

The only really frustrating aspect of my health insurance is the prescription drug plan. To push the mail order option for getting prescriptions. There is a different yearly maximum spending if mail order is used, and many prescritions are much cheaper even before my deductable is met.

Mail order does not work for a new prescription that is needed quickly. It does not work for finding the right medication for a mental health issue. I can't order 90 days of a medication and wait 8-10 days to get it when it is quite possible that in 2 or 3 weeks the doctor will adjust the dosage because it is largely a guessing game.

I've always been in favor of universal health care under a system that makes it as easy as possible for individuals. But lately the need for it has come home to me in a much more personal way.

Which I hope doesn't make me sound like the asshole I heard on the radio who was against "socialized" health care until his wife had a stroke and couldn't work and he suddenly realized people often need good health care the most when they are least able to earn it by getting lucky enough to have the right employer.

Bones and the Eccentric Genius

2008-10-27T15:18:00.006-04:00

Several people recommended the show Bones to me in the thread about eccentric geniuses. I watched all of the episodes in the current season and about the first 7 of Season 1. (No, I don't sit and watch that many hours of tv, honest. I have it on while I'm cleaning and doing craft projects and chatting online. Love the ADD, really!)

I apologize in advance for the rambly nature of this post.

HERE THERE BE SPOILERS!

I watched the Season 4 shows online first and had mixed feelings. I wasn't sure how Brennan herself fit into the eccentric genius character. She just didn't seem to have a big enough role to be compared to someone like Detective Goran or Dr. House. Her genius didn't stand out as the deciding factor. She is surrounded by strange people. Ms Feasance comment in the previous thread cleared up some of the confusion. Unfortunately, it seems this is not a good season to get into the show.

I purchased Season 1 and the difference was almost startling. Brennan was assertive and brilliant. Her genius was the centerpiece of the show. I hesitate to call her eccentric because apparently there's the suggestion that Brennan has Asperger's syndrome. But she clearly fits in the mold of the genius who is too smart and too different to interact with others as they are expected to. I note, however, that even here they initially cast a male character with similar characteristics, and S4 has started with a new male eccentric genius in each episode to replace Zack. (ETA: I forgot one of these guest characters was a woman. The less I think or say about her the better. But the others have been men.) They also have the psychologist who is similar in his eccentric genius status. So in the one show where we have a good example of a female misunderstood/eccentric genius they've also cast a male or two in a similar, if less prominant role.

There's also another key difference between Brennan and her male counterparts: she has only borrowed authority. All of the male genius characters I know of have equal standing with or are in positions of authority over those they work with. Detective Goren and his partner, Detective Eames seem to have equal standing but he often takes the lead. The same in Life with Crews and Reese. House is, of course, in charge of his team.

Brennan has authority in the lab but has none when it comes to the FBI investigation into the crimes. Her intense involvement has come only from her demands that she be involved, and her authority is essentially borrowed, granted to her by Booth and the FBI. In Season 4 she didn't even exercize much authority in the lab. I don't know at what point Dr Saroyan joined the show, but she is apparently the one who delegates responsibility and oversees the lab. It will be interesting to see how this develops as I watch more of the show.

There's another pattern that deserves another post, which is the development of the independent, professional, assertive female character (I hate hate hate the phrase "strong women characters" and wish it would die a thousand deaths) through the life of a show. The longer a show goes on, the more likely the female character's development will be centered around romance/marriage/babies to the detriment of other interesting character development.

Astraea's forray into DIY (sort of)

2008-10-26T10:56:00.006-04:00

I bought this cute cork board/cubby thingy at Goodwill a while back to hang in my craft room. I'm going to paint it, and replace the cork.

All was going well until I tested the wire on the back and one end fell right off the hook.

I could use some advice on how to hang this. Where would I get a replacement for the wire thing that was used previously. Is there a better way to hang it that would be very easy to do without major tools? It's not light. I think it is real wood, because it's probably at least a few pounds. (I'm very bad at guessing weight.)

Help please?

Can something we don't know exists be a person?

2008-10-24T09:34:00.003-04:00

I haven't kept up with some news well enough and an amendment up for vote in Colorado had slipped through the cracks.

As wne of the most extreme anti-abortion amendments, it would define a fertilized egg as a person with civil rights. This is even before it has implanted. What's frightening is the 30% of voters who support it and the 22% who are undecided. Thankfully, supporters have not raised a lot of money. But that a poll would find 53% of people either support or might support such an extreme view sends a chill down my spine. That so many would support the government granting rights to something that most potentially-pregnant women will probably not even be aware exists defies logic, biology and common sense.

The Amendment would change the definition of a person in the Colorado constitution to include "any human being from the moment of fertilization."

Ms Magazine and the Feminist Daily News both point out that this puts not only abortion rights in jeopardy, but also birth control and in vitro fertilization.

This opens the door to restricting many women's rights and freedom on the basis that a fertilized egg might exist at any time. I'm sure I don't have to tell anyone reading this that a woman is not even pregnant before the egg has implanted. Yet this amendment, taken to logical conclusions, could allow for women to be charged with a crime for doing anything to prevent that egg from implanting, or doing anything that could cause damage to the embryo.

Quote of the Day

2008-10-21T18:46:00.002-04:00

"Bendy-buses, like atheism, are a danger to the public at large"

Stephen Green of a UK group Christian Voice speaking about atheist ads on busses in England

The eccentric genius is always a man

2008-10-17T12:38:00.004-04:00

I was desperately searching for something entertaining to watch the other day and decided to check out The Mentalist. I didn't have high hopes for the show, but I only wanted something I could put on and half ignore while I did other things.

I turned it off after about 10 minutes.

There are a lot of things irritating and trite about the show, but what really was the last straw is that it is yet one more show about a quirky, misunderstood genius. And, oh yes, that genius is a man.

I don't have a problem with the formula of the strange genius whose unique method and insight saves the day. In fact, in many ways it appeals to me. I love strange characters, misfits. When they are played by good actors and supported with good writing and plot it works really well. Part of the problem is the overuse and abuse, the unoriginality of these formulaic shows, and utter crap writing and casting. But that happens every time a tv show is wildly successful: the cheap knock-offs show up to cash in on a "trend."

The more significant problem is that the genius is almost always a man: Dr. House, Detective Goren, Charlie Crews, Gil Grissom, and others I'm sure I've missed. The Mentalist simply adds one more man to the list.

Shows that star women who are brilliant at what they do rarely portray them as the eccentric genius in a similar way. For example, compare the men above with Allison Dubois of Medium. Allison is easy to relate to, portrayed as "everywoman" who just happens to have a strange ability. Her talent and success aren't the result of genius, but of supernatural talent and stubbornness.

I don't know any other shows that are still running that feature a woman in a role similar to the shows above. I'm sure there must be others that I don't watch. But even going back to older shows, I can't think of any I've ever watched with a woman as the eccentric genius on par with the male characters.

Another example, The Profiler, did feature a woman who was far superior to her peers in what she did. Samantha Waters could easily fill the role of "genius." But she was also normal, easy to relate to. The closest character I can think of is Jordan Cavanaugh of Crossing Jordan. Her impact, however, is dulled by the cast made up almost entirely of eccentrics, whereas the men are surrounded by smart but ordinary folks who have to deal with his strange brand of smarts. Women in those shows are sensible foils, or loyal supporters of the male genius.

Of course, the idea that women can't be geniuses has a very long history. Women have largely been relegated to the status of muse or devoted supporter, and that is reflected in these shows.

Many of the male characters are based on Sherlock Holmes and some might argue that at least the Watson character is now usually a woman. They might argue that a woman in the supporting role is not sexist because the shows are simply mirroring the Holmes/Watson setup. But if that were true, it would be just as easy to cast a woman in the Holmes role. No, it is all too easy to slip a woman into the role of supporter, because that's what women are supposed to be for.

In which I whine and make things all about me

2008-10-17T09:39:00.004-04:00

Does anyone else use iGoogle? I am currently bristling with irritation at the changes they've recently made.

I'm not good at keeping up with a lot of websites, blogs, news, links to follow, etc. I am so bad at being an Internet geek I didn't know what de.lic.ious was for until very recently. I've been trying to use iGoogle to see all the current posts at most of the feminist blogs I read regularly. Again I'm so behind, this has been my first use of rss feeds.

I've had a bad couple weeks since my vacation. I feel out of sorts, in disarray, unable to focus on anything. One metaphor for ADD has been especially appropriate this week: It's like trying to drive a car in a heavy rainstorm with bad windshield wipers. Nothing is clear, and it is an exhausting effort just to avoid crashing.

And now iGoogle is changing and I hate it. I can't seem to figure out how to go to what used to be a tab, showing everything in that section. Sometimes it works, sometimes I have to click on just one thing. When I do get a window with everything showing, they are not as well-defined and separate as they were before. It is now a blur of information that is difficult for this ADD person to deal with.

watch this space for further signs of the apocolypse

2008-10-16T15:31:00.004-04:00

The Bush administration doing something helpful? How is this possible? But it appears to be true. Congress recently passed amendments to the ADA and Bush has signed the measure into law.

The situation is similar to the Ledbetter fair pay issue. The SCOTUS made a ruling in 2002 interpreting Congress's intent as to who qualifies for protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Many found the interpretation too restrictive, and Congress's new amendments clarify who qualifies as disabled under the ADA. This is an excellent move, IMO.

The bill will overturn Supreme Court decisions that have reduced protections for certain people with disabilities – including people with diabetes, epilepsy, heart disease, mental disabilities, and cancer – who were originally intended to be covered by the ADA. The ADA prohibits discrimination against Americans with physical and mental disabilities in such areas as employment, public accommodations, and transportation.

The Supreme Court had interpreted the ADA so narrowly that many people Congress meant to include were not covered. It's a huge victory to have these amendments passed! Let's just hope that there are also improved results for people with disabilities.

NANOWRIMO and variations

2008-10-15T09:28:00.003-04:00

Still feeling so out of sorts and unfocused, so I apologize for more personal posts.

Does anyone do NANOWRIMO? Most of the friends I chat with do participate, since they are mostly writer-types I met through yaoi fandom. I've always admired their dedication. I attempted one year and did all right until I was derailed by a business trip and never got back in the groove.

I considered participating this year, but fiction writing just isn't in my top three priorities right now. Since many of my online friends will be busy writing, however, I am thinking about setting my own big goal for November and dedicating a huge chunk of time to it. I'll use the rest of October to prepare, which will mostly involve getting my apartment as clean and organized as possible so I only have to maintain it and setting goals.

I have a couple possibilities in mind. One would be a feminist/progressive writing version of NANO. Another would be a quilting/craft challenge. I have a lot of projects started and planned and it would be great to dedicate a lot of time to trying to complete them.

Does anyone else have big plans for NANO or variations thereof?

Recovering from vacation

2008-10-13T09:22:00.003-04:00

I apologize for my longer than anticipated absence. I took a long vacation and it has taken me a while to recover!

A friend from England visited me for two weeks and in the middle of the two weeks we flew out to Yaoicon in San Francisco for five days. This of course completely disrupted any structure I'd managed to establish for myself. The vacation itself was wonderful. I had such a great time with a core group of friends I met online about 7 years ago through fan fiction. I love that they are all writer types and a wide range of ages, so we don't suffer from too many crazy immature fangirl antics.

I found that when I was active, social, and involved I didn't have as many problems with food or more than the occasional grumpiness in the large crowds. I rarely had problems except when there were a lot of loud conversations going on in a small crowded space, which happened a few times in the panels and when we were all just hanging out. But overall it was a much better experience than the last time I went to the group ycon meetup (our first) three years ago.

Returning to real life, however, has been a challenge. My apartment was a mess, of course, and that tends to set me off-balance. It's not that clutter bothers me, it's jus that I feel like I need to clean and organize it before I can do anything else. In some cases, that's true. ANd I was just too tired last week to clean. So I've been out of sorts and trying to get back to normal. Which also means I've had trouble getting back into regular reading and commenting at Shakesville or even thinking about blogging.

ADD is also much more on my mind lately and I've had trouble focusing on politics and feminism enough to write interesting posts. I've wasted hours on organization and productivity sites... getting nothing organized or done.

In short, I'm floundering a bit, but I'm back and I will hopefully be blogging more soon.

ADD or just a geek? I report, you decide.

2008-09-17T17:33:00.003-04:00

I just discovered diyplanner.com. OMG! Why did no one tell me about this site before?!

Probably for the best. My organization addiction is dangerous (and mostly useless, since I can't stick with a system).

Before I left work I spent 20 minutes reading a thread on 3-ring binder vs circa, 10 minutes of which was spent reading speculation about Robert Goran's notebook on Law & Order: Criminal Intent. And I wanted to know what kind it is too, dammit!

Joe Biden stopped by for a burger

2008-09-17T13:52:00.003-04:00

I just returned from a local burger joint where JOE BIDEN was having lunch. I didn't get there in time to go in, unfortunately. I was all prepared to ask him why he didn't support Clinton's opposition to the new HHS proposed rule. I saw him walk from the restaurant to his bus, though, looking incredibly smarmy.

The pink nose challenge!

2008-09-12T14:23:00.002-04:00

The cutest pink nose!

What Obama Really Meant

2008-09-08T07:02:00.004-04:00

In an interview on ABC, Obama clarified one of his statements from the Christians for President of Christian America forum. I had no idea they were still talking about when he said knowing when life begins is "above my pay grade." But I guess someone is, because he was asked in the interview on Sunday if it was "too flip." (now that's quality journalism). Always wanting to please the audience, Obama responded:

What I intended to say is that, as a Christian, I have a lot of humility about understanding when does the soul enter into ... It's a pretty tough question. And so, all I meant to communicate was that I don't presume to be able to answer these kinds of theological questions."

Well, isn't that nice.

What Obama didn't do, Biden does with big success wrapped around one massive fail. That is, respond to the question as part of the larger context. This isn't really about Obama's personal faith or beliefs, it's about what he'll do with them when he's president (not that I'm excusing the questions). Obama answers as if people really just want to know about what he believes. Biden is actually able to respond in a way that acknowledges the real issue at hand. But see if you can spot the FAIL:

"I'm prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception. But that is my judgment," Biden said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "For me to impose that judgment on everyone else who is equally and maybe even more devout than I am seems to me is inappropriate in a pluralistic society."

Sigh.

Please make a note of it

2008-09-07T10:32:00.004-04:00

(credit realtoph)

It's official

2008-09-05T16:08:00.003-04:00

I have been diagnosed with ADHD, though not of the hyperactive variety. I have inattentive type ADD/ADHD. By the time I read more about it last week I was actually hoping for this diagnosis and it's a huge relief. Now I move on to working on treatment.

Thanks again for all the kind words and encouragement from everyone who left a comment on my previous post about it.

I can haz kute

2008-09-03T20:36:00.003-04:00

It's been a crappy couple days for me, personally. Totally unproductive, low energy, and generally feeling lost at work.

So, only one thing will do, and that is TEH KITTEH!!!

Fear and Loathing in the Patriarchy

2008-09-03T11:48:00.003-04:00

(I started this before McCain announced that his running mate would be Sarah Palin, and all of the sexism that resulted. I would probably revamp it a bit now to incorporate more recent events, but the point remains the same).

Deep down under the layers of party politics, sexism and bullying on display this primary season there is another reason for the attacks against Hillary Clinton and her supporters. At the core is pure, undiluted misogyny, the essence of fear and hate that gives rise to the more visible effects.

I have been incredibly moved by the many women who supported Clinton in the primaries, and the women who defended her against sexist attacks. I can't remember the last time I witnessed so many women standing up for a powerful woman who promised to, in turn, represent women. And not just that, but women were standing up for all women, outraged that we are still seen, largely, as stereotypes first, and human beings a distant second.

Hillary Clinton helped us see what is possible. Before Hillary's run for president, I honestly felt little hope that we would see a woman as POTUS in my lifetime - and I'm not very old. Feminism has been so invisible, I despaired of seeing large numbers of women fighting loudly for women's causes. Not because they aren't doing it, but because they aren't heard, and because that fight has so many fronts our focus is weakened.

Women and women's issues have been visible in a way they haven't been in Democratic party politics and the national discussion in years. And the bullies, fauxgressives and talking heads are freaking out because they can't stand the possibility that women will have significant power in the government and public life. Even worse is the idea that women will be listened to, their interests truly represented by political parties.

As I watched the Democratic National Convention, I was continually surprised at how much time women speakers had, how much time was devoted to talking about women and women's concerns. But it is only because women are routinely seen as less important, their interests side issues or distractions. They are usually added on like a side of mashed potatoes to the KFC chicken dinner. But women are half the population. Every issue affects us, and often affects us differently than it affects men. We deserve at least half the time.

There is no doubt in my mind that the time women had to speak and address issues at the DNC would have been considerably shorter if it hadn't been for Hillary Clinton's candidacy and the protests of her supporters at the party's efforts to dismiss her. Despite the efforts by many to silence us, we refused to fall in line. That is how we gain power, and it brought results. If the millions of women who were outraged at sexism, threats and bullying had simply shut up and thrown unconditional support behind Obama and the Democratic party we would not have seen such an effort (flawed as it has been) to reach out to women and to address women's concerns.

Hillary Clinton's run for the presidency has changed the country, and has changed many of us who were as close to the trenches as we could get. Many are talking now of a Forth Wave of feminism, reenergized by the harsh reminder that we are most definitely not in a post-patriarchal time, and that political battles - not just social ones - still need to be fought. Fueled, also, by the reminder that many of those who claim to be on our side still do not get it and will use sexism to tear down any woman they don't like.

Nothing frightens anti-feminists and misogynists more. We are seeing a new backlash: instant, this time, as it benefits from the lessons of the 70s and 80s; assisted by the new technology of the Internet. Women speaking out are bullied, labeled "PUMA" which became short for "old bitter woman." PUMA became coopted by a sliver of the whole, women who will vote for McCain in protest, and part of the backlash has been to use those women against others. We were told if we didn't shut up and fall in line, we were helping the other side, we could fight to be heard after we dutifully helped elect the man who benefited from their sexism (and helping to elect him naturally meant shutting up about sexism, period).

Anyone who knows a little feminist history knows that is not how ti works, and should recognize it for the backlash it is: an attempt to stifle women's voice and limit our power. Women's voices - angry, outraged, loud - made a difference. And to misogynists, that is truly frightening.

(I'd like to than the many people who helped me form my thoughts on this, including Melissa McEwan, CE, Pizza Diavola, RKMK, Rana, RRP and many others. I know I'm forgetting someone important.)

Sarah Palin and Hypocrisy

2008-09-03T07:30:00.006-04:00

This is where you attack Palin for being a hypocrite. But for fuck's sake, it isn't about her daughter. It's about her own politics.

She is pro-forced birth. Under laws she would like to see, women would be forced to continue pregnancies against their will. Those who can't afford a child or don't want one will have no choice. Many young women who are most hurt by this are teens, with limited ability to earn an income, some of them kicked out of their parent's house. Many right-wingers push adoption as the "best" choice for young women, even though adoption has been shown to lead to depression and other problems among women more often than abortion.

But Palin cut funds for a transitional home for teen mothers:

After the legislature passed a spending bill in April, Palin went through the measure reducing and eliminating funds for programs she opposed. Inking her initials on the legislation -- "SP" -- Palin reduced funding for Covenant House Alaska by more than 20 percent, cutting funds from $5 million to $3.9 million. Covenant House is a mix of programs and shelters for troubled youths, including Passage House, which is a transitional home for teenage mothers.

This fits the same pattern other anti-choicers have followed. Promote policies that would force women to carry pregnancies to term, but do little to help them once the child is born. And there lies the hypocrisy: pro-forced birhters claim to respect life, to care for the babies, but they don't care what happens to them once they are born. They won't put their money where their mouth is to help women who make the choice they'd like to force upon them.

It's about damn time

2008-09-03T07:26:00.003-04:00

Obama apparently has ads out in some states highlighting McCain's anti-choice position. I haven't been able to see the ad or find a transcript, but it's good to see the Republicans attacked for their position.

Quote of the Day: Gratuitous Sexism Edition

2008-09-02T15:18:00.002-04:00

"I'd probably call Gustav, instead of the mother of all storms, maybe the mother-in-law or the ugly sister of all storms.

Mayor Ray Nagin, speaking about the damage done by hurricaine Gustav.

Just when you had hoped the media had forgotten the "mommy wars"

2008-09-02T10:37:00.004-04:00

Now comes "The Mommy Wars: Special Campaign Edition" according to The New York Times.

This piece is nothing but vile, sexist trash, and thankfully they announced it right away:

When Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska was introduced as a vice-presidential pick, she was presented as a magnet for female voters, the epitome of everymom appeal.

But since then, as mothers across the country supervise the season’s final water fights and pack book bags, some have voiced the kind of doubts that few male pundits have dared raise on television. With five children, including an infant with Down syndrome and, as the country learned Monday, a pregnant 17-year-old, Ms. Palin has set off a fierce argument among women about whether there are enough hours in the day for her to take on the vice presidency, and whether she is right to try.

I just love the invisible boogeyman hidden in there - the politically correct femininst who makes grown men tremble in their shoes at the thought of uttering something sexist.

*snort*

But oh, we found some women to say it for us, so it can't be sexist! The entire article serves to remind women that their primary role is nurturer to the family, and anything outside of that is a distraction, an unnecessary luxury. They get some choice quotes from some women who are oh so concerned that Gov. Palin might be biting off more than she can chew:

“How is this really going to work?” said Karen Shopoff Rooff, an independent voter, personal trainer and mother of two in Austin, Tex. “I don’t care whether she’s the mother or the father; it’s a lot to handle,” she said, adding that Ms. Palin’s lack of national experience would only make her road more difficult.

“When I first heard about Palin, I was impressed,” said Pamela Moore, a mother of two from Birmingham, Ala. But upon reading that Ms. Palin’s special-needs child was three days old when she went back to work, Ms. Moore began questioning the governor’s judgment. Partly as a result, she plans to vote for Senator Barack Obama.

Her judgment! Because how a woman functions as the angel in the house clearly serves to reveal her professional judgment and performance.

Mrs. Clinton’s recent candidacy was a moment of reckoning for women of her generation, who treated her run as a mirror in which to examine their own lives. With Ms. Palin’s entry into the field, a younger generation of women have picked up that mirror, using her candidacy to address the question of just how demanding a job a mother with such intense family obligations should tackle.

Great FSM, protect me from the generalizations! And let's not dare to include the poit of view that it is none of our goddamned business.

Within minutes of Friday’s announcement that Ms. Palin was joining the Republican ticket, women across the country started flooding blogs devoted to motherhood issues. Administrators of one Web site, D.C. Urban Moms, said they had received hundreds of postings, more than on any other political issue this year. All throughout the holiday weekend, at scrapbooking sessions, on hikes and at barbecues, women talked over the candidacy and the issues it raised.

Scrapbooking sessions! HAHAHA! Because we can't forget to throw in a little gender stereotyping.

Many women expressed incredulity — some of it polite, some angry — that Ms. Palin would pursue the vice presidency given her younger son’s age and condition. Infants with Down syndrome often need special care in the first years of life: extra tests, physical therapy, even surgery.

Just in case you forgot, ladies, all of the responsibility for child care is yours and yours alone. EVen if you have a husband and all of the best resources the country can provide. I mean, jeebus, think about it. This is a woman who, if she wins as VP, will have the most help anyone could possibly expect. A good salary, staff, the best health insurance, resources to hire people to help with the baby. Oh, and let's not forget the other parent, OMG dads can actually take babies to doctors, too!

But it's still not good enough. It will never be good enough, because the pressure to be the best mother in the entire universe is one of the things now keeping women from having the full range of choices that men already do. Being a good mother must be defined in a way that, in and of itself, prevents the unquestioning right to move to the top of her career, just so that women are always going to be questioned.

Later, the article discusses evangelical's view of the situation, and the sheer hypocrisy should be enough to make the entire world implode from cognitive dissonance:

But she received particular praise from religious conservatives, who voiced near-uniform confidence that her large and growing brood would enhance, not detract from, her performance as vice president.

But the real gem is from none other than Phyllis Schlafly, the woman who things every woman but her should be at home raising babies and serving as uber-masturbatory toys for their husbands:

It changes your life and gives you a different perspective on the world,” said Phyllis Schlafly, the conservative organizer who helped defeat the equal rights amendment nearly three decades ago.

“People who don’t have children or who have only one or two are kind of overwhelmed at the notion of five children,” Ms. Schlafly continued, mentioning that she had raised six children and run for Congress as well. “I think a hard-working, well-organized C.E.O. type can handle it very well.”

It makes the evangelical/right-wing misogyny Big Lie obvious: they don't care so much about women staying home, or not pursuing careers in and of itself. They want to punish women who don't make the right kind of choices with glorified servitude. They want to punish women who dare rock the boat of the heterosexist, binary gender, patriarchal system. If you're a woman who will uphold their sick ideals, you will be allowed the power it takes to keep other women down.

Do the Democrats WANT to lose?

2008-09-01T08:56:00.003-04:00

Joe Biden on the difference between the VP candidates:

“There’s a gigantic difference between John McCain and Barack Obama and between me and I suspect my vice presidential opponent,” Biden said.

“She’s good-looking,” he quipped.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ...*headdesk* Repeat as necessary.

I was actually impressed by this LA Times blog about the "joke", written by Andrew Malcolm.

Stress Relief thought of the day

2008-08-31T10:39:00.001-04:00

Is there anything cuter than a cat carrying something in its mouth?

More on Palin

2008-08-30T11:51:00.002-04:00

Hecate has a post up on Echidne's site with has some very good insight into the Palin pick. I agree with her view that choosing Palin was not a stupid move at all on McCain's part, as some liberal blogs are suggesting (especially the partisan blogs). I think it's wishful thinking on their part. Underestimating the competition is the Dem's fatal flaw.

A lot of people are talking about how Palin may appeal to women and the religious right, but Hecate makes a good point about how she is also a direct challenge to Obama's attempt to get the white men in the "mushy middle":

I include men from those groups; the large population in the racist and sexist overlap of that Venn Diagram will pick the anti-woman pretty woman over the black man. She undoes some of the damage that being married to a millionairess with a jillion houses has done to McCain.

McCain chose Palin to appeal to pretty much every group of voters with whom Obama is weak. (I don't include women in general with that group, but women who are Republicans but would have voted to see a woman in the white house. Also, women who are fed up with the misogyny are not going to vote for McCain in large numbers, but they might get disgusted enough to stay at home or vote green if this isn't handled well by Obama and Biden.)

Go read the whole thing.

Dehumanizing Women: Change we can believe in!

2008-08-30T09:13:00.005-04:00

Amid all the disgusting misogyny aimed at Sarah Palin, and the harassment of people daring to talk about it on Shakesville, this is going to seem mild. But these little things count, and the Obama campaign needs to make sure they avoid sexism in all ways, not just the obvious ones.

They've released their first ad in response to McCain's VP pick, and I'm not impressed so far. They really need to get a feminist woman on the team (and not one who was blind to sexism against Clinton):

"Well, he's made his choice," the ad states. "But, for the rest of us there's still no change. McCain doesn't get it, calling this broken economy 'strong.' Wants to keep spending ten-billion-a-month in Iraq. And votes with George Bush 90 percent of the time."

The ad continues: "So, while this may be his running mate..." as an image of McCain and Palin appears on the screen. The image then shifts to a shot of McCain with Bush. "America knows this is John McCain's agenda. And we can't afford four more years of the same."

Do you have the same reaction I do?

"This may be his running mate."

The dehumanizing language is unnecessary, and demeaning. By "this," they mean a woman. What else could they mean when relying only on a visual image to fill in the meaning of "this." There is no reason they couldn't use "she." That would humanize her, and also have the benefit of encompassing all of her experiences and policies, not just her gender.

Stop the world and let me off

2008-08-29T12:00:00.002-04:00

Fauxgressive dudes, fresh from the high of defeating The Bitch through misogynist attacks, still on a feeding frenzy of sexism against the PUMA, will find Sarah Palin to be fresh meat. And they know they can get away with it, because the only ones who will challenge them can be safely considered - in their view - the enemy. Even though their own party's platform condemns sexist attacks. Who is going to stop them?

It's already started on the great orange satan. These commenters aren't representative of anyone, it's true. And I have no idea who may be a prominant voice on kos and who isn't. But the fact that these things are welcome and can stand speaks volumes. Some choice examples:

The "Beauty and The Beast" ticket.........
oh, this is going to be fun....
"come sit on my lap, dearie.."

Her hair looks like . . .
those crazy women who had their children taken away.

Couldn't pick Cindy (11+ / 0-)
He's probably trading her in for a newer model...

Will Palin become the next Mrs. McCain? (3+ / 0-)
or will McCain have Palin do a Lewinsky on him every day to get his juices flowing?
74 year old man (oldest candidate ever!), with a history of cancer, picks the closest possible thing to a totally inexperienced pol to become his VP.
Sing along with me: "Only in America, only in America".

Hillary will be fired up! (6+ / 0-)
Let another woman steal the spotlight of being first in the white house? I don't think so...

Armor up, women. It's going to take some thick skin and a lot of fighting to get through the rest of this election.

No Shit Quote of the Day

2008-08-28T16:13:00.001-04:00

In dealing with all voters, Lewis said, Obama "has to reassure those people they will be included and that there's room for them under the Democratic tent. Make them feel at home." Sincerity is the key, he added.

--Rep. John Lewis of Georgia

OMG I can't have ADD! Or, challenging my privilege, prejudice and depression

2008-08-28T14:11:00.006-04:00

I'm unpacking a lot of things about myself lately. (And yes, this is going to be a navel-gazing post). Last week I finally called to set up an appointment with a psychologist to get some help that I've probably needed all my life. I reached that perfect moment when everything came together: I wasn't so low that I couldn't pick up the phone; I'm in a job that provides easy access to resources I need; I was low enough that it was affecting my job; I have been inspired by people to do more than I'm doing, to be "all in," and I realized I couldn't be until I got the help I needed to be all in for myself.

Today was my second session for evaluation. I talked about feeling stupid, feeling isolated, feeling like no one will like me. I talked about how I have trouble concentrating unless I'm already super-motivated, and how I have trouble finishing what I start. There are times when I can be completely immobilized with indecision and anxiety. I finally said out loud that there are times when I procrastinate and get so forgetful that I don't pay bills I have plenty of money to cover.

The psychologist asked if I'd ever been diagnosed as ADD or ever thought I might have ADD.

What!? ADD? That's something other people have. People who have behavior problems, or something. And I will be the first to defend people who have ADD as deserving all the resources and help they need, and to not be discriminated against or made fun of. But it's not me!

That's what ran through my head. I have to admit that I'm still kind of in shock and working through those thoughts. Hence, this post.

Privilege.

I've had the privilege of being very physically healthy, being intelligent, and being fairly successful in school except for some troubles in Jr. High. I was never in any serious trouble. I benefitted from the privilege of not being labeled a troublemaker or having to fight prejudice or misconceptions about a disability or mental illness. I benefitted from never having to face ridicule because of that kind of diagnosis.

Because of that privilege, I didn't give it a lot of thought. People who have ADD were still other people, people I didn't know much about. It literally never crossed my mind that I could have ADD. And I'm kind of ashamed that it takes the possibility of being one of "those people" to try to learn about what it really is.

Prejudice

I've probably bought into stereotypes about what people with ADD are like and considered them a monolithic group. My prejudice also led to getting caught up in discussions of over-diagnosing, over-medicating, and accepting this uncritically.

Depression

Because of my depression I constantly doubt myself and feel like a failure when I'm not perfect. It's not that I am a perfectionist in the sense that I work too hard and push myself to do better and better beyond all reasonable expectations. I lack that driving ambition. Instead, I do things that are destined to lead to mistakes, failure, missed deadlines, overspending, etc and then beat myself up over doing those things in the first place. The main thing I have trouble with that causes problems at work is lack of concentration and the inability to finish things. I've been struggling in my fairly new position because there are no specific deadlines. I've gotten away with things easier in previous jobs because while I constantly procrastinate, I tend to do things at the last minute and do better under the last-minute pressure. I don't have that here, so I notice the problem more.

My psychologist said that people with a higher IQ tend to not be diagnosed with ADD because they hide it more easily. People who are quick learners can get good grades and they usually aren't looked at. (That's not to say, oh poor people who are smart and get good grades, they don't get any attention. They get plenty of praise and encouragement. And IMO if something is causing someone to be noticed because htey are not doing so well, they deserve to be a priority).

I think, also, any trouble people have who are otherwise intelligent and capable is seen as a personal failing. They just need to try harder or be better motivated. I've felt this about myself, and my depressive thoughts amplify it until it becomes my personal failure as a human being. I could accept that depression had contributed to the problem. But it's really hard to wrap my mind around the idea that this is something that I need help for, that maybe I even can't help without some intervention. Because I have a hard time thinking anything other than this is all my fault and I deserve the consequences.

Hillary Clinton

2008-08-27T06:52:00.003-04:00

I'm still reeling from Hillary's speech last night. It was exciting and motivating. It made me forget, for a while, Bob Casey Jr, and all the god talk and the disgust I have for the kind of Democratic party Obama says he wants.

Lilly Ledbetter was the other star of the evening for me. Her personal story was so moving, and I am in awe of her tenacity and courage. For her to take that struggle and defeat, and turn it into motivation to help other women makes her one of my heroes.

I'm sure I'll be blogging more about last night after I've had some coffee.

p.s. Bob Casey Jr. can kiss my ass for talking about women's human rights like an honest disagreement among gentlemen.

Ungrateful bitchez

2008-08-26T14:29:00.004-04:00

“Imagine if, forever and forever, the candidate you had to choose from never looked like you or gave any indication of understanding you or caring.”

Robin Lacoff, talking about why so many women who are eligible to vote don't do so.

And I think this goes for pretty much anyone who isn't a straight white Christian male.

I love the quote, but I have a serious problem with the hand-wringing tone of the article she's quoted in. According to the census, in 2004, 64% of eligible voters voted in the presidential election. 65% of eligible women turned out while 62% of men voted. The article says 60% of women voted, but doesn't cite the source.

Either way, this is part of the very frustrating and sexist method of highlighting Those Strange and Silly Wimminz(tm). We'll call it the "Why aren't the bitchez grateful to be voting at all" edition. My guess is that women vote in approximately the same numbers as men, and for approximately the same reasons.

Kitteh!

2008-08-26T14:27:00.001-04:00

omg, I want to move in to this cat sanctuary.

Once More With Feeling

2008-08-26T09:14:00.006-04:00

What I will not get over

I will always, always remember what it felt like to see a woman almost become the nominee for President of the United States. A woman whose grandmother was born before women had the right to vote.

I will always remember the misogynist attacks and slurs against Hillary Clinton by members of the Democratic party and supposed progressives who wanted her out of the contest. Those hurt more, even, than those from the other side. It reminded me just how few real allies women have. The lessons learned are too valuable to "get over."

I will never forget how many feminists were willing to overlook and rationalize sexist attacks when they were convenient for their favored candidate. The ageism of some young feminists shocked me. So many lessons learned.

I will never forget that the Democratic party leadership spoke out against sexist attacks after Clinton had conceded.

What I will get over

Hillary Clinton's loss. I am sad that we will not see a woman running for president this year, but she is not running. In some ways I agree that it is time to "move on" for me, though I'd never tell anyone else how to do so or suggest they should. And moving on doesn't mean forgetting. I continue to support Senator Clinton, who has impressed me more since June than any politician has done in my life.

Hillary Clinton is not the VP nominee. Ok, this one might take longer considering who we ended up with, and considering the hints that she was never seriously considered. But that's over now, and she will continue to work in the Senate or in any other position she pursues. I don't like it, but I'll get over it.

Why getting over it doesn't change anything

It's obvious that when certain people have said "get over it," they are using it only to shut people up, to bully them into falling in line with their views and their candidate.

Because once your favored candidate loses, the reasons you didn't support the other candidate do not suddenly disappear. People who assume that getting over Clinton's loss will automatically mean supporting Obama also assume that anyone who doesn't support Obama just hasn't "gotten over it."

It's insulting on many levels.

What you really want me to get over is my commitment to issues that I care passionately about. There are some things I simply cannot compromise, and to lay the blame on Clinton herself or on my inability to get over her campaign is wrong. Obama lost my support all by himself for all the reasons one normally supports or doesn't support a political candidate. And if he wants my vote, he'll have to try to win it back just like any other political candidate.

Faith Fest Interrupted

2008-08-26T08:29:00.002-04:00

Well, my internet was fucked up last night so I couldn't watch the rest of the convention. Looks like I missed a lot more god talk. Thankfully Petulant over at Shakesville is putting up videos and transcripts.

Don't have many thoughts right now, except that I am really wishing I could drink to get through this week. I am looking forward to Clinton's speech, though.

Sort of liveblogging the convention

2008-08-25T17:56:00.010-04:00

Because I have to express my disgust somewhere.

5:55 Howard Dean was just announced and is now talking about prominent women in the Democratic party. Where's my barf bag?

Apparently it's the nod to women night.

Let me clarify. These women deserve to be recognized for their accomplishments. Women deserve to be spotlighted. But they don't deserve to be put in a little metaphorical corner of the convention.

6:08 Missed a bunch to fix some dinner.

6:13 Blah blah we listen to the people blah blah blah

6:24 Crap about how much the Democrats love women. Commitment to a woman's right to choose and never putting ideology above a woman's health. Yeah, try to convince me some more. Way to break away from your platform the day before your fucking convention.

6:54 NARAL president Nancy Keenan. Ugh. Do. Not. Want.

ok, this is just dull. I'm moving on to more interesting things.

Faith Fest 2008

2008-08-25T13:31:00.004-04:00

I think I'm gonna hurl.

Really, I don't know what else to say about this. I remain convinced that there is a better way to counter the popular view that Democrats are hostile to religion without embracing the right-wing tactic of putting religion on display as a central part of government. And the attitude coming from some of the left that it's okay if it's the good kind of religion really, really frightens me.

POTC!

2008-08-23T21:02:00.000-04:00

Wooohoo!

Weekend Cat Blogging

2008-08-22T20:26:00.004-04:00

Squall is growing fast!

More Republicans seeing the light on religion and politics?

2008-08-22T10:27:00.005-04:00

While everyone is on the edge of their seats waiting for Obama to announce his hopeful and changeful VP choice, let's talk about religion and politics. It seems to be common wisdom that people are increasingly open to churches' involvement in politics.

A Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life survey has found otherwise. While there is still a significant percentage of the US population that believes churches have a place in politics and social issues, that number has actually decreased in the past four years. In fact, the two positions have now switched and for the first time in at least 12 years, a majority of Americans want churches to stay out of political and social issues.

In 2004 approximately 51% of Americans wanted churches involved in politics while 44%wanted churches to keep out. This year 52% want churches to keep out while only 45% want churches involved. Interestingly, the opinions of Democrats has remained fairly stable, while the greatest change is among Republicans. A slim majority of Republicans now believe that churches should "keep out" of politics.

The change is dramatic. From 58-37% in favor of churches expressing political views to 48-51% in favor. A 14 point difference in 4 years while Democrats remained somewhat stable. Holy shit! Are some republicans waking up to the dangerous influence the religious right has on their party after the last four years? (And how are the Democrats trying to win disaffected Republicans? Through religious language that supposedly appeals to Evangelicals. FAIL!).

While people are increasingly wary of the mix of religion and politics, they are seeing the Democratic party as increasingly friendly to religion. (MOAR FAIL)

Nearly four-in-ten (38%) now say the Democratic Party is generally friendly toward religion, up from just 26% two years ago.

Why are the Democrats always a step behind, going against the trend? UGH.

The survey is very interesting and I might have some more thoughts on it when I have more time to go through the whole thing.

Stephanie Tubbs Jones

2008-08-21T06:52:00.003-04:00

I was so saddened over the death of Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones. I didn't know nearly enough about her, but she will always be one of my heroes for standing up and speaking out against the disenfranchisement of Ohio voters in the 2004 election.

She will be missed.

How do you like them apples?

2008-08-20T08:53:00.002-04:00

Dear Certain Obama Supporters,

About all those snarky PUMA jokes, and all those bitter, divisive attacks on people who express the slightest support for Clinton?

You "won", get over it already!

Very Sincerely,
A little-known Goddess of justice

LOLWTF

2008-08-18T15:11:00.002-04:00

This has been amusing and confusing me for a while, and I finally just had to share. What's wrong with this picture? LOL

Monday Morning AMV

2008-08-18T08:05:00.003-04:00

Really needed this this morning. I feel like crap, and it's my own fault, and I'm staying home from work for half a day anyway.

Whenever I drink too much caffeine, especially before bed, I start getting bad intenstinal cramping the next morning. I've been trying to cut back, but a coffee with my evening snack has been hard to resist. And I never seem to learn my lesson. This seems to happen whether it's coffee or pop I have at night. Anyone know why this might happen?

On to more pleasant things!

Don't worry about that Olympic medal, we promise we still want to fuck you and that's what really matters.

2008-08-15T15:09:00.005-04:00

I haven't been watching the Olympics, but I had seen mention of a US gymnast who was being blamed for her team losing the gold because she fell, even though without the fall she would not have had enough points for them to beat the gold medal team.

Our friends at Fox news have found the silver lining. Dear Ms Sacramone, at least you're still a hottie!

I wish I was joking.

An accomplished gymnast who helped her team place in the Olympics, and she is still just a body to be rated for its fuckableness. She should really just take pride in the fact that a lot of men want to fuck her. So many, in fact, that Fox tells us that "In the moments after Tuesday's heartbreaking loss to China, Google searches for "Alicia Sacramone is hot" were at volcanic levels, according to a report in the Los Angeles Times. Olympics viewers logged on to find photos of the 20-year-old Massachusetts native." Woo! Forget the gymnastics, THAT is an accomplishment for a girl to be proud of!

But the worst line comes at the very end of the article. It was enough to make me physically ill. After suitable attention to her actual sport, we are told that many people have continued to watch her routine online. But if you silly wimmins are thinking that she could possibly be admired for her skill, Fox is here to remind you what women are really for:

A comment on one of her Facebook tribute pages could explain why: "SHE'S 20, so she's not jailbait!" a post reportedly said.

Yeah! We like to watch her because fucking her wouldn't be RAPE. Now that's a compliment!

Prison Guards on Trial

2008-08-14T12:52:00.003-04:00

TRIGGER WARNING

This story is horrifying. An 18 year old high school student was arrested for traffic violations that included trying to evade the police who attempted to pull him over. He was placed in jail over night, where he was apparently taunted by guards because of his "physical appearance" and then moved from his cell to a cell with 14 convicted felons. And he was raped by at least one of the inmates.

Three guards have been charged with conspiracy and with violating the young man's civil rights. The indictment alleges that the guards egged on the inmates to intimidate the victim. They are also alleged to have actually encouraged the other inmates to sexually assault the victim. One guard has pled guilty, the other two are claiming that they did not intend or instruct for the victim to be harmed. Because apparently throwing an 18 year old who broke the speed limit into a cell with 14 felons is perfectly reasonable. One guard is claiming that he asked an inmate to talk to the victim about "making the right choices in life." The victim was left there until the first shift came in the next morning.

A female guard (not one of the three charged) is reported to have had a seizure brought on by the stress of knowing what was happening to the victim.

I don't think this is an isolated incident, nor is this happening in a vaccuum. The guards at this prison apparently make $10 per hour. We as a society create these problems when we refuse to invest in well trained professionals and adequate prisons. This doesn't lessen the guilt of the guards one bit. They are fully culpable. But we also have to acknowledge that when we put in low-paid, highly-stressed people into positions of authority, some of those people will take out their stress on the vulnerable and less-powerful.

I also can't help but wonder what it was about the victim that the guards were mocking and making fun of. Is he a person of color? Is he gay or did the guards percieve him as such?

My heart goes out to the victim. I hope the three guards involved get the maximum penalty.

WTF?

2008-08-14T12:24:00.003-04:00

Can someone please tell me if it's true that Planned Parenthood has praised the decision to give Bob Casey, Jr. a prime-time speaking slot at the DNC?

I can't find any source for it, and I don't want to visit the PP website until I'm home.

More tripe from HHS Secretary Leavitt

2008-08-14T08:45:00.004-04:00

Our esteemed HHS Secretary Leavitt has another post up on his blog about the proposed rule that would allow health care providers to define contraception as abortion and would force any organization receiving federal funding to certify that they won't refuse to hire health care professionals who refuse to perform abortions and who refuse to prescribe or provide contraception. Once again, the "conscience" of the pro-forced birth people is put above women's health.

He begins his post with an unbelievably snarky insult, which I think is extremely unprofessional:

I’m delighted to announce that with the help of Planned Parenthood, my blog -- for the first time -- received more visits than my teenage son’s MySpace page. Perhaps I’ll address the subject of physician conscience one more time.

In the style of bettyboondoggle, a translation: Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!

He goes on to bemoan about the poor doctors and their right to freedom of expression and action and points out that "It is currently a violation of three separate federal laws to compel medical practitioners to perform a procedure that violates their conscience." But I guess it's okay to violate the consciences of other health care providers who want to hire people who they believe will respect the reproductive health care needs of their patients.

I am just outraged all over again when I think about how hard it is for women and minorities to do anything about actual job discrimination, and how the Republicans will bend over backward to protect a company's "right" not to hire someone based on appearance, sexual orientation or gender identity. But hey, if you're a misogynist who wants to limit women's access to reproductive health care, screw the employer's rights!

The next paragraph should be a psychology lesson in projection:

Obviously, some disagree with the federal law and would have it otherwise, so they have begun using the accreditation standards of physician professional organizations to define the exercise of conscience unprofessional and thereby make doctors choose between their capacity to practice in good standing and their right of conscience. In my view, that is simply unfair and a clear effort to subvert the law in favor of their ideology.

While the voices he is actually listening to are the effort of professional "pro-life" organizations who are deliberately trying to place their own in positions where they can deny abortion and contraception services in an effort to subvert women's rights to health care, he accuses reproductive justice organizations of the same. This guy is just unbelievable.

This is not a discussion about the rights of a woman to get an abortion. The courts have long ago identified that right and continue to define its limits. This regulation would not be aimed at changing or redefining any of that. This is about the right of a doctor to not participate if he or she chooses for reasons they consider a matter of conscience. Does the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association believe we can protect by Constitution, statute and practice rights of free speech, race, religion, and abortion—but not conscience?

LOL/sob.

And for our next act, some blatant lies:

Is the fear here that so many doctors will refuse that it will somehow make it difficult for a woman to get an abortion? That hasn’t happened, but what if it did? Wouldn’t that be an important and legitimate social statement?

See, he truly believes all of those pooooooor physicians and nurses and pharmacists who insist that their consciences are being violated - VIOLATED, I say! - because they can't work for Planned Parenthood and spread their lies and hatred to women. But I guess all the evidence from women and reproductive justice organizations that they are having trouble receiving the care they have a right to are lies, or something.

Early on he objected to comments submitted with obscenities. The HHS proposed rule is obscene. Forcing women to search for a provider who will give her the health care she needs is obscene.

I want to reiterate. If the Department of Health and Human Services issues a regulation on this matter, it will aim at one thing, protecting the right of conscience of those who practice medicine. From what I’ve read the last few days, there’s a serious need for it.

A blatant admission that women's health is unimportant to the head of the HHS, and that the impact of this policy on women is not even under consideration.

I see that while the responses to his last post were overwhelmingly pro-choice, this post now is followed by a bunch of supporters. How convenient.

Quote of the Day

2008-08-14T07:16:00.002-04:00

"I think Hillary Clinton has been very gracious. I think some of her supporters have been less than gracious."

--Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, speaking to talk show host Ronn Owens on Wednesday.

A Teaspoon Victory

2008-08-12T09:27:00.003-04:00

The initial draft of the Democratic Platform (via Pam's House Blend) is somewhat predictable when it comes to women's issues.

The language is weak and pandering when it comes to women's issues in this draft. The section on "Opportunity for Women" uses language that treats women like the "other," speaking about women or for women. For example "when America extends its promise to women" is a classic example of setting women apart from "America." It also makes women completely passive in the process, as if women have just graciously accepted America's (read: men's) invitation to be included, because America (read: men) have suddenly realized that it (they) benefits from including women. Oh, and maybe it's wrong to exclude them but that's not really the important thing here.

As if women have not fought like hell to gain what we have, and as if America (read: men) hasn't fought like hell to keep us out. Yes, even you, oh enlightened Democrats. As recently as this fucking primary. Congratulations for graciously allowing Hillary Clinton to compete in a presidential primary to beat her head against that glass ceiling until it cracks. Here's your fucking cookie.

But.

But women are addressed in the platform in a way that is an improvement upon many previous platforms. Title IX is included. Support for fair pay and the Lilly Ledbetter Act is included. The global gag rule, identification of gender inequality as contributing to human trafficking, and other issues are also welcome additions to the platform.

And I think we can thank Hillary Clinton, her supporters, and others who wouldn't just STFU and "get over it" when sexism was used against her, when Obama used sexist language, when he pandered to the misogynists. If that fight hadn't brought such attention to women, to issues that affect women, these issues would probably not even be included. We used our fucking teaspoons, and they couldn't ignore us. And that is why we can't shut up. We can't silence our voices for the sake of "party unity" that doesn't include us. We have to continue our fight. Because what we have now is not good enough, not by a long shot.

So fuck you, to all of those who would like us to cheer from the sidelines. Fuck you to "feminists" who label critics "PUMA's", who want us to criticize in careful language that reassures the Democrats that we will still vote for them. And fuck you to those who want Clinton, her delagates and supporters silenced.

Paladins for Choice - Part 2

2008-08-11T09:04:00.004-04:00

In Part 1 I discussed the Democratic party's problematic approach to reproductive justice and their focus on Roe as if it was the front on the war on women's autonomy and freedom. They want to be the white knight, the Paladin, a symbol of valor who never gets his hands dirty with messy reality. They want to acknowledge the other side, the moral issues, the desire to reduce the abortion rate and make sure those strange women inexplicably willing to murder their poor innocent 8 month old fetuses don't get access to late term abortion unless they're on death's door. Make no mistake, the Democratic party as a whole is not fighting on the side of reproductive justice advocates. Their enemy is not the pro-forced birth, anti-sex crowd; their enemy is the messy, bloody abortion.

There have been several names floated around for a possible VP nominee, and most of them have confirmed the Democrat's weak commitment to protecting women's autonomy and freedom. I have seen other so-called progressives and even feminists claim that opposition to a VP nominee based on their record on abortion is "nit-picking." Some seem convinced that only bitter old Clinton supporters have any interest in opposing whichever man is deemed worthy of the VP slot by Obama because of a little thing like abortion. It's true that we bitter old women have a special interest in the possible VP's stance on abortion, and certain Obama supporters have themselves to thank for that. They made it the issue when they repeatedly used abortion rights as a reason we should support Obama and help him win. When they then declare that weakness on abortion rights are not a good enough reason to not vote for someone, they are being hypocritical. By supporting a VP who is not strong on abortion rights, the Democratic party is showing how little it actually cares for the issue.

I said I was going to get into the possible VP candidates here, but other issues have come up in the meantime and I think I'll leave it at that.

One of those things is the choice to have Bob Casey, Jr. speak on the same goddamn night as Hillary Clinton. Bob Casey, Jr is an anti-choice democrat, and is a Senator from Pennsylvania. He is in support of overturning Roe v. Wade and is against emryonic stem cell research.

What. The. Fuck.

Why "Fuck the Olympics" is perfectly appropriate

2008-08-09T11:38:00.005-04:00

Bill over at Shakesville wrote an angry post about the Olympics in China and those helping to gloss over the human rights abuses there. There was some discussion about his declaration "fuck the Olympics." Some argued that the spirit of the Olympics shouldput it above criticism; the IOC is the more appropriate subject of criticism. Others argued that the attention on China will be a good thing in the long term.

Well, Democracy Now had sports writer Dave Zirin on this week talking about the Olympic games and a historic pattern of countries and cities engaging in human rights violations to prepare for the games. This is happening in China, as well. This is not unique to China, though their long history of abuses makes the violations perhaps easier to recognize.

Some people in the discussion at Shakesville suggested that the US is no better and we have no right to criticize China. I don't think that's true. We are perfectly capable of criticizing both countries. But as always, privileged Americans and other Westerners should be careful about pointing out how terrible THAT country is, unlike OURS. There are two separate issues that are better addressed separately: 1. The decision to host the games in China, a totalitarian state with human rights abuses on a massive scale and 2. The human rights violations happening in connection with the Olympic games: crackdowns on protestors, forcing people out of their homes, etc. As for the second, Zirin makes it clear that China is not unique in the abuse of citizens during and in prepration of the games, and indeed, it happened in Greece and in Atlanta, GA and Los Angeles, CA here in the US.

Weekend Cat Blogging

2008-08-08T19:40:00.000-04:00

Sometimes I wish I had my kitten's life.

leavitt's tap dance

2008-08-08T09:15:00.006-04:00

HHS Secretary Leavitt has responded to the objections to the draft proposed rule that would deny federal funds to health care providers who won't hire pro-forced birth nutjobs. Oh, excuse me, professionals who won't act against their conscience. Their consciences just happen to tell them that they get to make decisions about women's reproductive health for them. (His blog is a better direct source than the news article above.)

While Leavitt claims that the draft is going to be rewritten and possibly will not go forward at all, the rest of his comments are, let's just say, less than surprising.

Right out of the gate, he coopts the language of the reproductive justice movement in an attempt to disappear the actual people affected by this policy and focus on the poor, oppressed health care providers:

Several months ago, I became aware that certain medical specialty certification groups were adopting requirements which potentially violate a physician’s right to choose whether he or she performs abortion.

Because the "right to choose" is very important, you see. But more important for health care providers than patients. He also deliberately obscures the policies of the certification groups, whose ethics rules require physicians to refer patients to doctors willing to provide reproductive services that the patient seeks. They do not require any physician to actually perform abortions.

Now, Secretary Leavitt gallantly wrote to certification groups objecting to those policies and claims on his blog that the response he received was "dodgy and unsatisfying," but of course does not provide evivdence of such. I guess since he's been so honest so far in his first two sentences, we should just trust his judgment. Snort.

Not only are there clear provisions in three separate laws protecting federally-funded health care providers’ right of conscience, but doing otherwise undermines the most fundamental moral underpinning of freedom of expression and action.

ok, we're just getting to the second paragraph and already my blood is boiling. Freedom of expression and action!? OMFG, you've got some gall, Sec Leavitt. You have got to be fucking kidding me. Ok, now here's where he gets to denying that this has anything to do with contraception:

An early draft of the regulations found its way into public circulation before it had reached my review. It contained words that lead some to conclude my intent is to deal with the subject of contraceptives, somehow defining them as abortion. Not true.

Yes, we were just misled. Perhaps by the section that tosses out science as a basis for defining pregnancy. Or maybe it was by the part where those poor oppressed conscience-owners get to decide for themselves what abortion is.

Now watch while he denies that this has anything to do with contraception OR abortion:

The Bush Administration has consistently supported the unborn. However, the issue I asked to be addressed in this regulation is not abortion or contraceptives, but the legal right medical practitioners have to practice according to their conscience and patients should be able to choose a doctor who has beliefs like his or hers.

See what he did there? More coopting of the right-to-choose language. He tries here to come back to actual patients, claiming that this somehow protects them. Patients' right to choose has been perverted from the right to choose the health care and reproductive services they need to a supposed right to choose a doctor who shares "beliefs."

(BTW, you can submit comments on Leavitt's blog. So far they are overwhelmingly against the proposed rule, which is awesome.)

But what this response really tells me is that they know very well that most Americans would not support the proposed rule, so they have to lie about its purpose.

If you haven't signed HillPac's petition yet, it is here.
There is also a petition to be sent to Congress to support their objection to this proposed rule.

Quote of the Day

2008-08-08T07:28:00.001-04:00

As to those avid Clinton supporters who still haven't warmed up to him and may even resent him, Obama said, "We're not talking to those people, we're talking directly to the Clinton campaign people and staff."

--Barack Obama, speaking about the upcoming Democratic National Convention.

Quote of the Day

2008-08-06T19:16:00.003-04:00

"I tried kissing girls," Lauper told The Times.

"But it didn’t feel right for me and eventually I was forced to come out as a heterosexual.”

--The very awesome Cyndi Lauper, who also calls Bush "anti-American" and said his treatment of gays and lesbians makes her "blood boil."

Astraea's Scales

Blog Against Disablism Day

Why "reducing abortions" is a problem

Dollhouse

Local idiocy

Net Neutrality

Heroes continues to disappoint

A cave of one's own

More on the office of faith-based and neighborhood partnerships

Is your abortion government-approved?

An Update

Thank Bush for keeping us safe from zombies

Multiple births and hypocrisy

True spirits told me to post this

Thank you, Lilly Ledbetter...

Where is this common ground you speak of?

BIMA

Women deserve better 2

Underwear models are obviously just dumb bimbos, according to some "feminists"

How not to report about rape

Not just "another woman"

Women deserve better (Updated)

And don't call a character "wheelchair guy"

Warning: Contains acrimonious sarcasm

WTF Ms.?

Superman Returns with an impossibly young Lois Lane

But Roooooooooooe! Part 5

Where is the common ground here?

But it's not rape if she's not a person!

And the founding fathers were miffed at taxation without representation

The antidote to Twilight

Blog Roundup on HHS Rule

God hates gays, God bless America

I don't know enough obscenities

The (straight) white man's burden

Recommended Reading: Mandatory Ultrasounds

Real versus Fake Trees

Larry Summers

More about the HHS rules

Quote of the Day: Headline Edition

If you give a mouse a cookie...

Doublemint Sexism

Keep the presure on the president-elect and congress!

Where do we go from here?

Quote of the Day

Dudes, chivalry is sometimes a little creepy.

Easy Breezy Healthcare

Bones and the Eccentric Genius

Astraea's forray into DIY (sort of)

Can something we don't know exists be a person?

Quote of the Day

The eccentric genius is always a man

In which I whine and make things all about me

watch this space for further signs of the apocolypse

NANOWRIMO and variations

Recovering from vacation

ADD or just a geek? I report, you decide.

Joe Biden stopped by for a burger

The pink nose challenge!

What Obama Really Meant

Please make a note of it

It's official

I can haz kute

Fear and Loathing in the Patriarchy

Sarah Palin and Hypocrisy

It's about damn time

Quote of the Day: Gratuitous Sexism Edition

Just when you had hoped the media had forgotten the "mommy wars"

Do the Democrats WANT to lose?

Stress Relief thought of the day

More on Palin

Dehumanizing Women: Change we can believe in!

Stop the world and let me off

No Shit Quote of the Day

OMG I can't have ADD! Or, challenging my privilege, prejudice and depression

Hillary Clinton

Ungrateful bitchez

Kitteh!

Once More With Feeling

Faith Fest Interrupted