"I'M NOT YOUR FRIEND, BUDDY!!"

And yet: Why Satire Is Dead Part #blazoon.

THESE people are, apparently, completely serious. No, really. "The Young Cons." From Dartmouth*. Word to your, uh, alma mater, yo. -clap- ...pause... -clap.-



From their blog:

http://www.theyoungcons.com/

Stirring up much debate is the verse in the Young Con Anthem:

“Three thing taught me conservative love,
Jesus, Ronald Reagan plus Atlas Shrugged”

This comment is similar to other responses we've received from the video. Yes, we know that Ayn Rand was an atheist, however, she preached the power of the individual and personal responsibility just as Jesus and Martin Luther King Jr.

...I understand why you believe Jesus' values to be liberal.. "he was weak on defense (turn the other cheek), big on social programs (give to the poor), harsh on the wealthy (nearly impossible for the rich man to enter heaven), soft on punishment (he who is without sin, cast the first stone), and pro-taxes (render unto Caesar what is his)" 1

However, Jesus does not ask government to make these commitments. Rather, he requests each individual... to choose out of their free will, from their heart, and because they want to... give up the possessions which they have and "follow Him." The message we receive from Jesus is that people should “give up” their possessions. He did not urge the government to make this commitment.

Supply Side Jesus approves of this message:



The ceiling cats, however, are merely confused. As are the Great Old Ones, Flying Spaghetti Monster, Moses -and- his Burning Bush, baby Jesus, pre-teen Jesus, Jesus H. Christ (third listed in the phone book), Joseph the Carpenter from Brooklyn Heights, nine out of ten dentists, and, well, just a bunch of other people.

*am I the only one who now automatically thinks "Slytherin" every time she sees "Dartmouth?" For several reasons?


pre-emptive ETA: no, I didn't actually make it to the end, either. Shiny nickel to anyone who can. Maybe something awesome happens. Maybe.

And now for something completely depressing.

"Freeper Madness," going boldly into the depths where even dedicated rubberneckers like myself (usually) dare not go. hint: do not read during lunch. -runs off-

Yes, I'm "pro-trans." It's an integral part of my "gay agenda," get it?

i.e. Meanie Meanerton continued.

Sorry, I appreciate Debi taking the time to rebut the idea that

"women are being divided into two camps - pro trans and anti trans.

I can't really say more than Debi and the other commenters have said wrt "hello, trans women ARE women, duh shit they're concerned with "womens' issues," ring ring ring clue phone." So I'll just attempt to address my concern here one last time, in my usual tactful delicate way:

What the fuck do you MEAN, "pro trans and anti trans"?

And, who is "we," by the way? Because I may be a "woman born woman" by Jo22's definition (I am sure I've long since given up claim to the title 'feminist,' but she does say 'women,' here), but really, include me the hell out.

Know why? Because I -already- am alienated when you say:

Feminism should of course take all gender issues very seriously, and they do, but there are other things we are fighting for and against, too...At the moment, all I am seeing is women being divided. There are those who think that the suffering of men who believe/ed themselves to be in the wrong body, should be discussed over and above other feminist issues that some trans women do not seem as bothered by. Abortion rights for example....

I hate to break this to you, Jo, but not all cis women prioritize "abortion rights" as highly as you do either. For instance, you know what the next thing I was going to write about was, before this caught my bloodshot eye? The fuckheads trying to rescind gay marriage rights, AGAIN, on the California ballot. It's not an either/or, Jo: I'm gay, AND I'm a woman: this affects me as both. As it happens, I am more interested in this -personally- than I am in reproductive rights. I also write about "abortion rights" occasionally, possible reproductive rights, certainly bodily autonomy rights ("my body, my choice" means a lot of different things to some of us, see, but is all part of the same principle); but you know what, I'll be damned if someone tries to tell me that I excuse me "we" need to put that first because it's automatically understood to be all womens' first concern: it is not.

Particularly, not in the way I suspect you're thinking of it, and I don't have time at the moment to go hunt up all of bfp's and elle's and others' writings on how actually, no, "abortion rights" are NOT the be-all and end-all of -reproductive rights- when it comes to -all- women; race and class tends to alter that equation in a number of ways that I am not going to get into at the moment.

Point being: well, no, let's keep this simple. Know why online feminist discussions keep coming back to trans issues? Because some "feminists" are being GIANT fuckheads about, and -to-, actual trans women. To the point of being jaw dropping bigots and interfering in what in any other context would be, SHOULD be understood as basic fucking womens' rights. Human rights, even, in some cases. That's it. That's all. Start actually listening to actual trans women, including the ones that don't tell you what you want to hear, (hint, there's probably more of the latter than the former), and you might not be having this problem.

But I mean, I can bloody well guarantee you that if a significant number of "feminists" were being this jaw droppingly obtuse about gay and lesbian cis people, you'd be hearing about nothing else.

As it happens, the way lesbians are positioned in feminism is, well, complicated? and I'm well aware that there are some lesbians who are being obtuse right along with the het women who think it's all just rilly simple: Men vs. Women, and can't understand why -any- other woman doesn't see it that way. And gay men, well...gee, they're men, aren't they, and so clearly eh skip it that's another post.

But you know, I'm just gonna come out and say it. Reason I get so fucking pissed off about this? Because the line between transphobia and homophobia is really, really, REALLY damn thin. And every single ignorant-to-hateful argument that's being made by the "anti" camp is very VERY damn familiar to anyone who's been around professional homophobes for any length of time. Starting right off with "against politics, not people."Please. Listen, you don't put up entire websites questioning -other- peoples' entire subjective -existence- because it counters your -ideology- and then get to complain about how "divisive" -other- people are being, okay?

And now, try googling "pro-gay." Try combining it with "divisive." See what kind of stuff you pull up. Particularly try combining it with, I don't know, "the church." Read some of the sites "critical" of "pro-gay" in some detail. Take a good long look. I'm serious. Here's one:

http://exodus.blogs.com/liveoutloud/2004/08/how_progay_theo.html

http://www.newmanmag.com/display.php?id=9626

(not hyperlinking the fuckers)

Still, you have to wonder: Is pro-gay theology really infecting the church at large? The evidence indicates that there is cause for concern...

oh, and look, Exodus has a whole section on "transgender" as well, what a surprise. I wonder what they say. I bet they're totally "pro-trans," because they're anti-gay and therefore...Oh. Oops.

http://exodus.blogs.com/liveoutloud/transgender/index.html

Transgenderism is a mental disorder

http://www.pfox.org/asp/newsman/templates/newstemplate.asp?articleid=216&zoneid=6

Sunday, April 24, 2005 -

Surgical Sex by Dr. Paul McHugh
Paul McHugh is University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University.

Copyright (c) 2004 First Things 147 (November 2004): 34-38.

When the practice of sex-change surgery first emerged back in the early 1970s, I would often remind its advocating psychiatrists that with other patients, alcoholics in particular, they would quote the Serenity Prayer, “God, give me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.” Where did they get the idea that our sexual identity (“gender” was the term they preferred) as men or women was in the category of things that could be changed?...

http://home.messiah.edu/~chase/h/articles/art5.htm

Homosexuality is tearing apart many denominations across the country. A growing number of conservative denominations have pro-gay groups that attempt to promote a theology that affirms their homosexual activities. Even some conservative Christians are faltering in their convictions as they discover homosexuality among family members and church friends..

..."Church people get into politics for various reasons," Heathman says. "Some are very loving and don't lose sight of the individual, but others are fighting the battle with the world's mindset rather than remembering the spiritual warfare involved."

Heathman says one of the biggest problems with some legislation intended to combat homosexual rights is that it isolates one particular sin. "If we're going to be balanced, we need to be talking about sexual sin in general, not just homosexuality."

...Forget the "church" and "sin" parts for a second. Notice the bit where they're really compassionate and "loving" toward the "individual?" How they're clearly NOT "homophobes" or hateful or picking on the poor struggling homosexuals, just trying to help? To, dare we say, -examine-?

Any of this ringing a bell for you? Because it sure is for me.

And then of course, on the not so kinder gentler note, we have the likes of Sally Kern, who I'd also meant to get to and didn't, at the time, and -still- would've put ahead of yet another post about oh I don't know, whether Obama really should've been endorsed by NARAL?

http://thestateofamerica.wordpress.com/2008/04/01/totalitarian-gay-left-wants-to-silence-ok-rep-sally-kern/

In previous posts, news about gay opposition to ex-gay meeting evidences the totalitarian nature of their political agenda. The same is the case with laws like ENDA, same-sex marriage, hate speech, and the like. Those kinds of laws give special rights to gays at the expense of all others. Those laws suppress First Amendment rights of any business owner who disagrees, anyone who is a moral critic of gays, or any previous moral or natural law. Special rights gay laws are totalitarian in nature...

Funny how -no one- ever thinks they're the ones in the wrong; here, too, we have people falling back on "help, help, we're being oppressed by those noisy upstarts and deviants." Noisy, and no doubt, MEAN.

No, really: -is- any of this getting through at all? To anyone, I mean -besides- the people who already get it? Anything? Bueller? I hope so; because if y'all don't like being called "transphobic," you're REALLY not gonna love "homophobic." Because, I mean, being -gay-, well, that's -totally different,- right? Everyone knows it's okay to be gay...I mean, well...everyone except The Patriarchy/right wing..which we're so totally not...just because we keep positioning hetero cis issues as automatically more important than anyone else's...if anyone else even really exists, which you'd often never really know...

p.s. and for the bloodieth time, most of the trans people being mean and yelling at you because you won't listen right now? are queer AND transgendered, -both-, so please, save the arguments about how reactionary transsexuals are because they're all just like Renee Richards which you know because you heard it from a friend of yours who reads Sheila Jeffreys and everybody knows that anyway.
Thanks. Appreciated.

and yeah, I'd like to move on as well. Stop being fuckheads** and maybe we all can, how's that?

**and, if you (To Whom This May Concern, I put it out as a gorram letter to the universe) are -not- a fuckhead, which of course you aren't, then howzabout call out the people who ARE being fuckheads? I mean, specifically, really jaw droppingly bigoted fuckheads? Because, you know, -they're there.-

ETA: and this.

heinousbitca
2008-08-03 04:13 pm UTC (link)
...

i don't always do well with the conflation of different forms of oppression but i might as well put my big shiny useless liberal arts school degree in knowing shit about the feminist movement to say that a lot of the shit getting truthout-ed these days on the part of cisgendered feminists is almost EXACTLY the same kind of shit that was going down about homos in the feminist movement in the 70s and Black women in the feminist movement in the 60s. i know more than a bit about being a homo and my mom, who was excluded for being Black and then for being gay, can talk one's ear off about how all this looks the same, because it is all the same. the feminist movement is about ALL women, not just this pick-and-choose game. it doesn't magically change jack shit when the issue's one's gender identity, and i don't get why it's supposed to be okay when the bullshit excuses start flowing.

ETA again: Also? This.

Let me tell you a little something, when you are bruised, or battered, humiliated and treated like some kind of freakish 'other' it hurts. In a planet that is awash with womens blood, I shouldn't have to tell you that it is the same shade of red, or that it is diluted only by the tears of pain. That screaming that you hear are the collective death rattles of trans women who have met a violent end because of the same kind of ignorance and hatred that you regularly preach. This is not a simple matter of an ideological disagreement, this is life and death. Do you need to be splattered in their blood to take this seriously?

I wish I had the luxury of just dismissing your writings as nonsense. I wish that I could just turn my head and say live and let live to the shit that you regularly spew on the internet. As a WOC with a legacy of slavery, jim crow, beatings, lynchings, and rape I know that words like these[fuckhead mAndrea's, linked there] are exactly how hatred is perpetuated. When you turn someone's life into a comedic routine for your own amusement you are othering, and creating them as less than human. When you can look someone in the eye and decide that they are not your equal, it serves as justification to be violent towards them. Why should you care what happens to them if you cannot even recognize their shared humanity with you?

ETA again, again: Also also? This.

So let me, as a heterosexual ciswoman, someone you fuckheads might actually care about, explain in terms even you should understand, why trans women’s issues matter. I mean, sure there’s the whole “I have a soul” aspect, the whole “I have the capacity for empathy” aspect, the whole “my feminism makes some fucking sense” aspect, but clearly those aren’t playing a major part in the “anti-trans” mindset.

How about this: when you shit on transwomen,** you are giving the Hatred Patriarchy a feminist-approved target. When you say transwomen’s issues are not Our Issues, you are telling men, TV producers, porn producers, idiot boys on Internet forums, the whole lot, that this group is up for grabs. Demonize, stereotype, abuse and murder, it’s okay with “feminism”. And do you really, honestly think they’re making the same magical distinction as you? That they’re saying, “Muahaha, let’s oppress this group of people who think and act and appear to be women, completely abstract from our oppression of Real Women which takes place two doors down!”?

Because, um, they’re not. They’re abusing women. And you have said that’s okay.

Fuckheads.

Quote of the day: 8/4/08

It’s not a radical, politically oriented decision to *not* rape somebody or *not* punch them in the face. Politics schmolitics. That’s basic human decency. That’s kindergarten.

--Purtek

:facepalm: Okay. What's Wrong With This Picture?

-siiiiiiiiiiigh-

Renegade was addressing this post by Nine Deuce, and at first I was--lazily, I admit it--just sort of responding off of RE's response, briefly, because honestly, I just didn't want to get into it, and I didn't want to go over there and really engage. Mostly because I can hear the faint melancholy tinkle of "It's a Small World" playing in the back of my head again, and I--no. I mean--no. I'm obsessive compulsive, God knows, but even I have my limits for this particular argument, particularly--no, can't even be arsed to get into it that far. Okay, fine, porn is the root of all evil, people or at least men are like Pavlov's dogs and can be conditioned by orgasm, the idea that a career in sex work could ever be anything but dangerous and disgusting is merely an illusion and the people who are in such careers and argue otherwise are merely kidding themselves--you know what, I'm not one of those people, I'll stick up for my friends, but otherwise...what the fuck ever, I'm really tired. Whatevs.

But I did eventually click over because I -had- replied even tangentially to Ren's post there, and thought it'd be rum not to at least read the whole thing before commenting.

Unfortunately, I got stopped by this illustration. Which, I take it isn't of ND's drawing, but seems to have met with great approval from at least two other people who've since blogged it at their own spots. Um. Uh.

Okay. Not to be leading or anything, I'm just gonna go ahead and repost it and ask:

Why, exactly, might someone find this offensive? Even someone who -isn't- an Empowerful Stripper or Sparkly Fun Sexy Feminist? Three guesses, and the first two don't count, 'k?



I'll be over here.

ETA: right, okay, clearly I was wrong, Heart and Nine Deuce and witchy-woo have determined that the cartoon is not repeat NOT racist, (or sexist either, of course: we're not laughing AT the clueless blonde in the bikini, NO) and therefore it must not be. And obviously any cartoon by this cartoonist is probably okay, I mean: like, there's no racism here either, right?



ETA again: thanks, Sarah, for explaining -why- the former is erm -problematic- more coherently than I can at this point. I mean, obviously you are another one of those woman-hating meenie meenertons who Just Have It In For um whichever beleaguered personality it is this week and don't really mean what you're saying EITHER, because who would really; but, thanks for the effort: we who are about to crush the True Revolution salute you. Oh, and Ren, too, of course. And Bint, yes indeed.


ETA again, again: Yes, I am aware that the second cartoon is likely anti-W and anti-war. No, it wasn't actually -immediately- obvious to me on first seeing it, for a number of reasons, (for one, having seen a few too many unironic right wing odes to Dubya a la "My Heroes Have Always Been Cowboys" back in the day, and just a shitload of really rank xenophobia) although I figured it out after a few more clicks. No, I don't think that the fact that it's not actually intended to be far-right propaganda means that it isn't using problematic, racially loaded imagery.

The artist in question--who's worked for both right wing and left wing media outlets and whose motto would appear to be that she is, in her words, "an equal opportunity skewer" (how...edgy) has a number of similarly erm ambiguous cartoons wherein mostly I think, as with the first one here: I really don't know -what- the fuck the point was here, exactly; I can -guess- what it's -supposed- to be saying more or less, but, ummmmm, it's not actually funny, see.

And, you know, I COULD go on explaining how actually, it doesn't -matter- that the audience in the first one may not have been -intended- to be -all- of color; it's -still drawing on loaded imagery and pushes reactionary buttons-, or the etiology of the "dumb blonde," but, well, mostly, at this point, I just want to know, from Certain Factions:

So, finally, is irony an all-purpose ass-cover, or isn't it?

Because, see, many of the people now going,

"Racism? What racism? I can't see any racism! The author didn't INTEND any racism (I know this to be true, I have osmosis)! Ergo, it isn't racist! Your perception of any racism therein, therefore, is INVALID. And it certainly isn't sexist! Just because it's drawing on sexist imagery to make its point doesn't make it sexist! It's, why, it's, it's...IRONIC."

i.e., the ones who thought this thing was a BRILLIANT illustration of something or other in the first place?

are the very same people who would -appear- to be insisting that when it comes to stripping, sex work, porn, burlesque, femme accoutrements, you know, pretty much anything that's OF the Patriarchy, BY the Patriarchy...no irony, no subversion, no nuance is possible. The POINT is, MEN will always see it a certain way; and that's all that matters. O.K.

Indeed, no authorial intent (what, you're saying the stripper can be an "author?" Get out!) matters. Some things cannot be reclaimed; cannot be "ironic;" queer burlesque is just more man pleasing by any other name; there IS no such thing as "feminist porn," high heels have one meaning, and one meaning only, one size fits all thanks, and so on, and so on, and so on. So sorry; whatever it is you're trying to accomplish, there--have a little orgasm, make art, trivial shit like that--you're going to have to just rip it all up and start from scratch.

But so now we learn that apparently when it comes to making fun of the people you want to make fun of? Employing stuff that, if it ISN'T the same ol' offensive reactionary racist-sexist-etc. shit, sure plays it on TV? Why, THAT'S just FINE. Of COURSE no one's going to interpret either of those cartoons as a straightforward celebration of sexual harassment or shoot-the-Indian! Don't be so stupid! C'mon! Where's your sense of humor? You're imagining things! Yer just so SENSITIVE...

And, finally, this? Sums it up.

Ummm, yeah, about those "racism" charges...

So, okay, wrt the whole Amanda Marcotte/brownfemipower left the blogosphere/appropriation/head explodes business, on top of everything else it now transpires that the book that she and Seal Press have just released has these, well, ummmm, illustrations, okay.

You can see them here.

I'll just wait here while you check them out.

-hums a bit-

Back? Right, so:

Also, I was in the local B&N today, checked out the book, and saw ‘em with my own three eyes. amazing. I particularly like the one (not pictured at DWF there) where there’s this brutelike looking dark-skinned man slouching out of his hut, glaring scarily at Our Heroine as she saunters past.

And, like, they don’t even make any -sense-. They have precisely -nothing- to do with the content, which at a glance seems relatively innocuous, even mildly entertaining, of itself. She didn’t -need- -any- illustrations. And–who thinks that shit is funny? let alone doesn’t get that some people might have a problem?…especially after the cover?…like, what, people complain about the Symbolism of an ape but will be totally fine with -actual stereotyped “natives”?- or, what, won’t notice, or…?

Yeah.

Ah.

...and after that, one just doesn't know quite what to say, at the moment.

*

ETA: Seal Press has apologized.

We are taking action immediately to remove the offensive images from It's A Jungle Out There. We are currently reprinting, and we will make these changes now. We apologize for any pain or concern these images have caused.

We do not believe it is appropriate for a book about feminism, albeit a book of humor, to have any images or illustrations that are offensive to anyone.

Some have asked the valid question, "What were you thinking?"

Please know that neither the cover, nor the interior images, were meant to make any serious statement. We were hoping for a campy, retro package to complement the author's humor. That is all. We were not thinking.

Um. Yeah.

ETAA: and so has Amanda.

ETAYA: back to Seal for a moment, speaking of things one misses because one probably just doesn't even want to see it on account of it's depressing enough already, Sly Civilian pointed this bit out from their "apology:"

“This 1950s Marvel comic is not an accurate reflection of our beauty standards, our beliefs regarding one’s right to bear arms, nor our perspectives on race relations, foreign policy, or environmental policy.”

Aren't we cute. Not at all defensive or snide or dismissive there, no precious.

But o hay, they're going to "anti-racist training," so everything should be better from now on, right?

"Sorry I ran you over with my car during my last drunken bender. I know I didn't hear you the -first- 12,000 times you told me I might have a problem with alcohol? But now after the arrest and everything, I'm thinking maybe you might have a point after all. Not just the one on top of your head, either, you big party pooper! Ha ha! Just lightening the tension a little, if you will. Anyway, I'm going to rehab, so we're all square now, right?

--What do you -mean- they'll have to take away my driver's license? But I worked -really hard- for that license! I studied and took the test and everything! I just got that car! I barely dented the bumper when I hit you, it's in beautiful condition! Why o why is everyone out to get me! It ISN'T FAIR DAMMIT. And stop trying to make me feel guilty, I need a SAFE SPACE. --Oh, you're already stuck in the hospital room, and I have the entire outside? Well, I still don't FEEL safe. I can still feel you glaring at me through your window. Stop it! Stop ruining my happy day! you mean bully, you."

And yeah, considering that these are the same two geniuses referred to here and here, and then alluded to further here, here (speaking of "safe spaces" ffs, read the whole damn post, tell you what, and then come back and argue about how hard it is for the poor white women whose careers might be at stake, okay) and here, I am thinking: sure, go to the anti-racist training? but, um, also:

You're fired. For sheer, utter fucking incompetence, and no, that doesn't get fixed with a "see, this is why pictures of blonde women with white male backups kicking black spear-carrying "savages" in the face are offensive, mkay" written out dutifully 100 times, I am afraid.

If it were up to me, anyway.

Just saying.

-points silently-

So, y'all may have noticed there's been a certain theme this past week or so. And, I was getting ready to post more about some other stuff, and I will, but I guess I feel more or less obligated to note that there's been this one other post, which is, apparently, truly special, along with much of the comments thread.

And I find that for whatever reason, I just can't do it this time. Not sure why, but "computer says no." Took one look at the topic title and others' comment highlights and the cast of characters and just...no. Cannot Do. Not tonight, Josephine.

But as a matter of public...service, or something, here you go, at "The Size Of A Cow," by one Polly Styrene* (which is not -at all- reminiscent of a drag queen's moniker, please note):

"The trans activist privilege checklist"

comments currently at 112 and counting.

So, if this sounds like the sort of thing you'd like to read and even engage with, and if you would like to tackle such scintillating insights** as, from someone complaining about the label "cisgendered"*** applied to her (straight, too, p.s., this one, and white) female self,

So referring to someone as 'coloured' (sorry) has no
bearing on how a person might interact with their reality and doesn't
contradict or cancel out how they define themselves? You're coming
from a terribly priviliged stance if you believe that how you refer to
me has no bearing on who I actually am.

you now know where to find it.

Alternately, you could go directly to the point by point rebuttal.


* dear Polly: yes, you've got me. I am only saying all this, all these words on behalf of transfolk, to appear "edgy and cool." Not because oh I don't know I might actually fucking mean what I'm saying; that, unlike some people, I'm actually capable of going "gee, as a queer woman, I don't like this sort of treatment; maybe I shouldn't turn around and do it to anyone else, particularly these people who are basically assigned by the Patriarchy to the same boat I'm in, only on an even lower level; maybe it'd be better to form alliances instead of playing 'kick the dog' and then wondering why o why no one else wants to support me and my Specialness." And certainly fuck knows it's not like we're talking about actual real people, you know, like people who might be my friends and loved ones. No. I wish to be "edgy and cool;"--look! here comes the Edgy And Cool Patriarchal Cookie-Giving Brigade right now. It just doesn't get better than this!!!

...you stupid hateful fuckstain.

**ETA In fact this is incorrect; the above quote is -not- to repeat -not- to be found at the above-linked thread ("Trans Activist Privilege Checklist") at Polly Styrene's, but rather here.
The management regrets the error.

*** right, right, I remember, Wiki is suspect too because the owner once looked at pr0n or something and it's much too hard to click on a link and fucking read something anyway, let me spell it out for you, moron:

"cis" is equivalent to "straight" or "white." Mkay? As in: white woman, straight woman, cis woman. It doesn't mean you're "no longer female." It means you're not transgendered. That's it. That's all.

I know that's terribly fucking insulting. And of course it's tantamount to (sweet baby Spaghetti Monster preserve us) the term "colored," white lady. Jesus fuck. Look, drop us all a postcard when you finally break on through to China, will you? Try not to say anything stupid and offensive as shit when you get there, at least not enough to make them throw you back through the hole at 500 miles an hour, at least not for the first five minutes, if you can manage it.

christ.

on further edit: this post by trinity is a much more thoughtful and in-depth examination of why this kind of feminist might object to the term "cisgendered" as applied to herself, and why it's still wrongheaded.

Nick Kiddle also has a more patient explanation of How Things Are.

Yeah, okay, what -if-?

I decided to go a slightly different route this time.

I -was- going to write this post mostly about how in fact this does work in what some of us laughingly know as the "real world." How I have attended a number of trans-inclusive women-only events, and miraculously, in fact, they have not devolved into anything-goes men-born-men-infested frat parties. That no, the handful of transwomen and/or transbois/men still ID'd with the community who wanted to be there (funnily enough, in my world, the latter has been a much bigger point of contention than the former) did not, in fact, harsh everyone else's mellow, steal anyone's precious bodily fluids, attack anyone in the bathroom...and that that's -even- been true for (zomg she goes to) sex/play parties, wherein the only stipulation was that organically grown phalli/nads not be displayed unclothed in the public areas. A line, drawn. Maybe not one to everyone's satisfaction, but a hell of a lot more generous one than "if you weren't born with a hoo hoo, yer not welcome, even if no one is going to be -showing- their hoohoos;" and, oddly enough, one just as easily respected and maintained as any other.

And then maybe something to the effect of, yes I am aware that there have been (for example) some extremely dodgy characters who've (for example) ignored MWMF's rules, gone in anyway, and/or also behaved abusively toward individuals. I am (online) passing familiar with at least one of these characters, and I would be one of the first to say, by all means, keep THIS person, this woman, sure, from coming into your festival, because she's a toxic individual. This is not, however, because she was born with male genitalia; this is because she is an abusive sociopath, which is in fact a trait that is not directly attached to one's genitalia or chromosomes. Nor is it automatically deducible that because one was born with a certain kind of genitalia , one has received a certain kind of "training" (one size fits all, M/F, respectively, right?), much less that said training or whatever automatically renders the person more or less "safe."

You know how I know that? Because, friends and neighbors, a lot of women-born-women so-called? Are plenty fucking abusive their own selves. Are not, by anyone's definition, -safe-; are -more- than capable of doing everything the above-mentioned individual did and much, much more. Have done. Are doing. Will do again. Sometimes right there within the hallowed boundaries of your "safe spaces."

And if you can't or won't see that, if your understanding of human nature is really so simplistic that you honestly believe that four legs vulva/uterus good, two legs penis/testes bad and that's all you really need to determine whether or not a space may be rendered -safe,- (well, that, and then whether the greenlit persons in question agree with you on positions x, y, and z, but that usually comes later), then, Houston, you've got a much bigger problem on your hands than who gets on the guest list of the annual Wimmins' Scout Camp.

And then, well, once again, I was going to talk a bit more about how relevant this Bernice Johnson Reagon piece is, ironically enough as it was written over 25 years ago and doesn't explicitly mention transpeople at all; and yet, still, same shit, more or less. What's a "safe space?" What's "women-only" really mean, and what is it you expect out of it? And so on.

All of that. And then, in the comments to this post, the following question was posed (by the author of the post inspiring the O.P. there, by the way, as well as this one, the following was posed.

“Do you believe every person who says they are a woman?
The only way this argument works is if *your* actual meaning of the word goes for everyone–that is, of course, unless anyone who claims womanhood gets it.
Can’t have both.”

And I thought: you know what, okay. Let's take that question at face value for just a second, even though we're clearly far, far afield from any sort of handwaving about the ev0ls of patriarchal surgery and so on and so forth.

"Do you believe every person who says they are a woman?"

Let's just say for the moment that the answer were "yes," putting aside the question of "there goes the neighborhood Festival." What then?

Because, the thing is, see, if you're simultaneously claiming you wish to "get rid of gender?" That, like, doesn't really work. Because, putting questions of genitalia and surgery aside, fact is, a society without gender? wouldn't CARE if a person called hirself a woman or not, no matter -what- hir genitalia or other physical features or manner of adornment were. That -is- what you're supposedly after, right? The end of Class Man and Class Woman, yes? That's what "gender" is all -about-, yes? These terrible -binary- divisions, with one "side" valued over the other; this is what Patriarchy -is-, this is what we want to do away with. Yes? No?

Because, see, -now-, I am thinking: this is maybe a bit like the way the CP still gives or gave lip service to the idea of the "withering away of the State." Oh, sure, that's the end goal, someday. Just not anytime -soon.- And no, we're not really the new boss, much less the same as the old boss, just because it -looks- like we're acting authoritarian; we're just, uhhh, doing this because it's a dirty job and someone has to? But, anyway, NO, we are NOTHING AT ALL like the Powers That Be, we -have- no power and -never will-, now -stop saying that,- or you'll be soooorrrreeeeeee....

Look: the truth is, if you're that wigged out about transpeople, or other transgressions against the -purity- of your single-gender space? Well, you're in plenty of company; what you -aren't- is "against the gender binary." To the contrary, you have a deeply vested interest in maintaining that binary. You have no intention of getting rid of Class Man/Class Woman; you've got too much invested in your identity as -radical revolutionary feminist- (isn't that what all this squawking is about? how you don't get no respect just because you know you have the One True Way of leading the world to salvation?) What're you gonna do if/when the "war" (as someone else just called it) is over? Finally enjoy all the forbidden fruits that can only be possible in a non-patriarchal society (x kinds of sex, visual erotica, play, fuck knows what else)? Take up canasta? Fuck no; if you were that sort of person, you'd be doing that -now-. This shit gives your life -meaning-; you have an -identity- now; take that away, and what do you have?

No wonder you fight so hard against people who say they want to change their bodies or names or clothing just so they can live relatively happily ever after; the very concept must be anathema to you.

I mean, it's -hard work-, this whatever-it-is, isn't that what one of y'all was rabbiting about? How terrible it is that people -want- feminism or whatever Movement to be "easy?" And "hard work," as this gentleman so eloquently explains, basically means privation and sacrifice and (implicitly) eschewing such frivolous/dangerous concepts as "the pursuit of happiness."

And you've given so, so much up. And all you want is this little, tiny circle-jill in the woods or some dank rented rec room with the right to exclude whoever you damn please. A little...lebensraum. That's all.

Because, at the end of the day, what else -is- there? Not -fun-, fuck knows, or play, or all these fraught kinds of sex or dressup or art or...

and why o why does this all feel so drearily familiar, again?

Quote of the Day, 12/3/07

`I don't know what you mean by YOUR way,' said the Queen: `all the ways about here belong to ME--but why did you come out here at all?' she added in a kinder tone. `Curtsey while you're thinking what to say, it saves time.'

Alice wondered a little at this...

`I only wanted to see what the garden was like, your Majesty--'

`That's right,' said the Queen, patting her on the head, which Alice didn't like at all, `though, when you say "garden,"--I'VE seen gardens, compared with which this would be a wilderness.'

Alice didn't dare to argue the point, but went on: `--and I thought I'd try and find my way to the top of that hill--'

`When you say "hill,"' the Queen interrupted, `_I_ could show you hills, in comparison with which you'd call that a valley.'

`No, I shouldn't,' said Alice, surprised into contradicting her at last: `a hill CAN'T be a valley, you know. That would be nonsense--'

The Red Queen shook her head, `You may call it "nonsense" if you like,' she said, `but I'VE heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!'

...Just at this moment, somehow or other, they began to run.

Alice never could quite make out, in thinking it over afterwards, how it was that they began: all she remembers is, that they were running hand in hand, and the Queen went so fast that it was all she could do to keep up with her: and still the Queen kept crying `Faster! Faster!' but Alice felt she COULD NOT go faster, though she had not breath left to say so.

The most curious part of the thing was, that the trees and the other things round them never changed their places at all: however fast they went, they never seemed to pass anything...

And they went so fast that at last they seemed to skim through the air, hardly touching the ground with their feet, till suddenly, just as Alice was getting quite exhausted, they stopped, and she found herself sitting on the ground, breathless and giddy.

Alice looked round her in great surprise. `Why, I do believe we've been under this tree the whole time! Everything's just as it was!'

`Of course it is,' said the Queen, `what would you have it?'

`Well, in OUR country,' said Alice, still panting a little, `you'd generally get to somewhere else--if you ran very fast for a long time, as we've been doing.'

`A slow sort of country!' said the Queen. `Now, HERE, you see, it takes all the running YOU can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!'

--Through the Looking Glass

It's not, but it could be, more or less

The ongoing discussion at Bound Not Gagged (and elsewhere. o, for centuries, now, but just lately, i mean) inspired me to make the following observation in the comments of one post:

#

It feels like…I dunno, like a group of NORML activists and anti-War On (Street/Some, depending on who you ask) Drugs from an anti-State Power POV were butting heads against the “Just Say No/DARE” people. and every time there’s a meeting it’s like,

“We’d like to decriminalize marijuana for reasons x,y, and z”

“Do you KNOW how many people meth kills?? Or heroin??”

“I wasn’t talking about meth or heroin. I’m talking about pot. Here’s why–”

“Well, la di da for you, I Just Want To Smoke Pot In My FancyPants Hot Tub, it’s all right if you want to rot your -own- brain and give -yourself- lung cancer, but -innocent helpless people are dying.- Think of the children!! God, you’re so SELFISH. You and your “I gotta get high and that’s all I care about.” What have you done to save people from DRUG-CAUSED DEATH?? What have you done to get people off the street? Huh?”

“Well, first of all, it’s -not- just ‘getting high,’ although I personally don’t see anything -wrong- with that. But, one, I don’t think the State should have so much power over a consensual activity, and two, while some drugs are more dangerous than others, medical marijuana–”

“SHOW US YOUR CREDS!”

“Well, okay, I -was- going to talk about getting medical marijuana to cancer patients, but since that clearly doesn’t count for anything, I’ve taken addicts into my home and helped them detox, helped get them jobs. I helped set up a needle exchange program for heroin–”

“Those don’t help. They actually just lead to more heroin addicts. Studies have shown that.”

“Which studies?”

“These studies here. They’ve got graphs and footnotes and academic endorsements and -everything.-

“Okay, those studies there were funded by a pro-abstinence think tank, and furthermore they aren’t in any peer reviewed journal.”

“What is all this fancy talk? You and your ivory tower graphs and footnotes and academic endorsements! We’re talking about REAL LIVES. People are DYING, did we mention?”

“…Look, can we just get back to talking about the pot thing, since we’re clearly just talking past each other when it comes to this stickier stuff?”

“Why do you hate America?”

“AAARRGGGGHHHH” *breaks things*

“You see? You see how irrational and abusive you are? Maybe if you weren’t rotting your brain with all those DRUGS, you’d understand that we’re -just trying to help,- and you’d get out of our way and let us get on with it.”

…lather, rinse, repeat…

Bad blogger, no biscuit

Just to let y'all know: I'm still around, have a bunch of half-finished posts that may or may not ever get finished. and am aware I made some promises to some people to post about certain things, and never followed through. I'm sorry about that. I'm not demoralized by blogwars or nuffin' (some people were asking) but RL wise I'm a bit tired at the moment, and I have some other projects going as well. Eventually I hope to get some more regular content back up again.

yep, that's the name-O, all right

or one of 'em. (BINGO's name is Legion). "Feminist" discussions about transpeople version.


"Vagina=woman & penis=man!"

"Being trans reinforces the gender binary!"

"Transwomen have male energy!"

"There's no such thing as gender; you're buying into a construct!"

Off my back and out my ass.

So, there's this new anti-porn activism blog, apparently. I am only mentioning it here because, well, in case you were ever looking for places where some feminists are apparently okey-fine with the Religious Right: le voila. Plugs and blogroll listings for Diana Russell and Robert Jensen and "off our backs" nestle cozily alongside gems like this, also in the blogroll: National Coalition for the Protection of Children and Families.

"Moving the People of God to embrace, live out, preserve, and advance the truth of biblical sexuality.

Gee, I wonder what -that- means. Oh, wait, here's the sidebar, "Hot topics:"

According to a recent report by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), some comprehensive sex-education curricula taught in the nation's schools has essentially no impact on behavior. The HHS study found abstinence education programs to be nearly 100 percent accurate.

and--why, yes! It's a hotlink to a Focus on the Family Action!

Two Democratic and two Republican lawmakers in Massachusetts – whose election platforms included preserving traditional marriage – voted against a proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

...

Mineau said lawmakers are supposed to do just that: represent the interests of the people who elected them. But these four did not.

"They're going to have to answer to their constituents for that – plain and simple," he said.

Uh huh. Oh, wait, look, there's a disclaimer on the anti-porn activist blog, she doesn't necessarily support everything everyone says on the roll. Decide for yourself, okay. Be -open minded-, right?

Yeah. About people--organizations, rather-- who support motherfucking James Dobson and Beverly LaHaye. I mean, they're -nice- about it; there's nothing right on the front page about how they'd like to feed HOmosexshuls to the wolverines. They just, what, support traditional marriage. Well, sure, we can agree to disagree on that. As long as we agree on the IMPORTANT shit: to wit, porn is like heroin and is bad for women-children and other living things.

Later, we can sort out the little differences like o i don't know between the agendas of radical feminists like the editors of "off our backs," you know, against patriarchy, and people who support THE MOST PATRIARCHAL AND CLOUT WIELDING FUCKING INSTITUTIONS AND INDIVIDUALS IN THE DAMN COUNTRY.

Believe in the "traditional family" as a one-size-fits all, and whomp up laws and campiangs to make it so, go to prayer breakfasts with the President and the Congress to talk about getting rid of abortion and available birth control, let's all party like it's 1955 or maybe 1655, okay, that might be a bit problematic for a feminist but we can gloss over that because, hey, look, at least in 1655 THEY DIDN'T HAVE SO MUCH POOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRN.

o, whatever. No, I don't know this person, and so will refrain from trying to engage further (like, ask, "are you high?"), but: are there even as I type bloggers who are joyfully heralding this newcomer to the feminist Team? Does the Pope shit in the woods?

well, hey, just as long as no one -films- it.

Yeah, I know, I shouldn't even bother. goddam, though. Yeah, I'll be sure to pledge not to -wank- to nekkid pictures, that'll totally bring about the Feminist Revolution.

Okay, okay, okay, so I'm totally freaked out now

so i -finally- saw the season 3 finale of Battlestar Galactica.

and, plotwise, i figured on a fair amount of it (i couldn't help overhearing the gist of the spoilage, even though i studiously avoided seeking any out).

but the existential implications are freaking me out! maaaaaaan

"All of this has happened before, and all of this will--"

oh SHUT up.

it must be that cheesy hippie song they introduced (and yes, THAT was cheesy, i am sorry). it's, like, giving me acid flashbacks...of a past i never had...or did I?

i smell patchouli

it's coming from INSIDE THE HOUSE, i mean the ship.

wooOOOOoooo

On the struggle to keep the world spinning forward; or, why some men are indirectly responsible for large forehead-shaped gouges in my desk

(and I'm not the only one)

It starts, in part, inspired by a...thread, here-ish. (and assorted satellites/spinoffs/related).

In the general context of sexual encounters that won't later be interpreted as "rape" or "assault," and whether or not it's reasonable to expect verbal consent for every little thing:

...verbal signs, which have agreed meanings, are so important.

--Tom Nolan.

"Agreed."

For a number of reasons.

Let's start with the basics:

Generally speaking, the feminist response is to at -least- give very serious attention to the woman who claims that she was attacked/harassed/molested/raped, because traditionally, OVERWHELMINGLY, the default is to believe

1) she was asking for it
2) ____ women, or women in ____ situation (drunk, stripper, wife of the rapist, wearing xyz article of clothing, in that setting, of that age, of this culture, etc. etc. etc.) can’t *really* be raped
3) and anyway who cares if she was. No big deal. “Just lie back and enjoy it.”

Rape is, in the (yeah i’m gonna use it, because in this case it’s appropriate) patriarchal model, only taken seriously when it is a violation of another man’s property. As in, that is what you find in that classic patriarchal Ur-Text, the Bible. Because, that’s what patriarchy -is-. “Rule of the fathers.” If you rape someone else’s wife or daughter or “good” woman, (or son, for that matter) you’ve potentially ruined another man’s line, and you’ve defiled something that has value (i.e. a previously “virgin” woman). You are STEALING from him. It’s a MATERIAL thing. And, later, a -status- thing, which is the material made slightly more abstract. Rape another man in this particular context and well. You're also taking away his manhood. Anyway.

What the woman (or man) thinks or wants or feels traditionally doesn’t much come into it, because, among other things, they -generally- weren’t real big on subjective truths 2000+ years ago, particularly when making Rules For Living, least of all people who by and large weren’t supposed to be subjects. There are some exceptions. But you note that traditionally a lot of people never really quite knew what to do with, say, “Song of Solomon.”

15] And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
[16] Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
[17] Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
[18] But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

--Numbers 31

[13] If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
[14] And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
[15] Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:
[16] And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
[17] And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
[18] And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
[19] And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
[20] But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
[21] Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
[22] If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.
[23] If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
[24] Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
[25] But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:
[26] But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
[27] For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.
[28] If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
[29] Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

--Deuteronomy 22

More recently, our own laws, as well as a lot of current -ideas- about what is, or isn't, "real" rape, are based on medieval English common law:

During the 12th and 13th centuries, an elaborate system of law based on judicial decisions, known as the common law, developed in England. The common law made rape a crime and provided for punishment of the rapist (but not of the victim). Rape was defined as sexual penetration of a woman forcibly and against her will. However, because the common law treated wives as the property of their husbands, a woman’s husband could not be found guilty of raping her, regardless of whether he used force against her to obtain sex. As a result of the wedding contract, wives could not legally refuse to have sex. Therefore, the law considered marital rape an impossibility.

In addition to creating complete immunity for husbands, English law also contained a number of legal and procedural requirements that made the prosecution of rape difficult. Under the utmost resistance doctrine, a man could be found guilty of rape only if his victim could demonstrate that she had physically attempted to fight off the rape but had been overpowered. A woman who was not physically bruised had little hope of proving a case of rape. If a woman did not promptly complain of a rape, under the fresh complaint rule her case could not be heard. The fresh complaint rule was based on the theory that a delayed report of rape was more likely to be fabricated.

Both the utmost resistance doctrine and the fresh complaint rule were based on assumptions that reflected the status of women in society. These doctrines were explicitly designed to protect men from false accusations of rape, indicating that English society placed more value on preventing false accusations than on protecting women from actual rapes. Legal decisions applying these doctrines assumed that women were likely to fabricate rape accusations, either because they were ashamed at having consented to sexual intercourse, because they had been rejected by their lover and wanted revenge, or because they had fantasized the rape.

Under English common law, certain rules of evidence also helped men defend themselves against charges of rape. Evidentiary rules governed what information was available to the jury during a trial, as well as the weight the jury should assign to the information. Special rules made it difficult to achieve convictions and made the trial an ordeal for the victim. Under these rules, a woman who reported a rape could expect to be questioned in great detail about her sex life. For example, the victim could be extensively cross-examined by the accused rapist’s attorney to show that (1) she had consented to sexual intercourse with the defendant (accused rapist) on that or another occasion, (2) she had consented to sexual intercourse with another man or men, or (3) she did not have a good reputation for chastity.

Although it was difficult to obtain a conviction under the common law, the punishment for rape was severe when prosecution was successful. During most eras, English law treated rape as a capital offense—that is, a crime punishable by death.

Note that -any- reforms or modifications on this basic set-up starts in the 1960's or later, and not just in the U.S.:

In the 1970s most states began to change their laws concerning rape. Many states redefined rape and eliminated some of the common law doctrines and their biases against victims. Beginning with Massachusetts in 1968 and Tennessee in 1971, most states have ended the requirement—usually extremely difficult to meet—that a complainant, or alleged rape victim, produce corroborating evidence to the crime. Some states have passed laws enabling males to press charges of sexual assault.

...Like the United States, Canada modeled its criminal law on English common law. Consequently, Canadian rape laws primarily attempted to protect men accused of rape. Prior to legal reforms in the 1980s, husbands were immune from prosecution for raping their wives. Canada also supplemented the English common law safeguards for men accused of rape. A fresh complaint rule was imposed, prosecutors were permitted to introduce evidence of the victim’s past sexual history to attack her credibility, and judges instructed juries about the dangers of convicting a suspect on the uncorroborated evidence of the complainant.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s the Canadian Parliament reformed these traditional rape laws and doctrines, adopting a new statutory scheme governing sexual assault. Under the current criminal code, both men and women may be found guilty of criminal sexual assault, and marital immunity has been repealed. Furthermore, lawmakers have eliminated many of the evidentiary rules intended to make rape prosecutions more difficult, including the fresh complaint rule and the requirement for corroboration.

The idea that people should be having sex only because they DESIRE one another is relatively very new, at least in “our” (I am coming from a U.S. “Judeo-Christian”-based yadda yadda) culture, and frankly it’s still jostling against a lot of those older ideas. That’s true for women, and it’s true for men as well. Besides feminism, there was the Sexual Revolution; there was also the mainstreaming of psychology, so that now, for instance, you get the concept of post-traumatic stress syndrome:

The identification of rape trauma syndrome also affected attitudes and laws concerning rape. Rape trauma syndrome, a form of post-traumatic stress disorder, is a psychological reaction to rape involving feelings of shock and shame. Victims who experience this syndrome are often reluctant to report a rape. Discovery of rape trauma syndrome undermined the fresh complaint rule, which was based on the assumption that delayed complaints of rape were less reliable.

What's different about -this- is, yeah, it's based on a medical model and there are specific material symptoms one can look for when arguing a legal case; but primarily, unlike so much of what we've been talking about thus far, it's largely defined by the victim's -internal state.- *Feelings.* Apparently, they matter. But...we're all not really caught up to that concept, actually.

So! But never mind the law; now consider the act itself. Now you get to things like -body language- and -missed communication- and boy O boy no one knows what to do, because -now- people aren’t just supposed to be attuned to their -own- feelings, their -own- internal thermostat, which is tricky enough, but -now- they’re supposed to be attuned to what’s going on with the -other- person as well. “Empathy,” what kind of feminizing hippie bullshit is that? And it’s CONFUSING, and what do they WANT from us, and why O why can’t we go back to the way things were I mean a new paradigm mumble something, which either way looks suspiciously like TRYING to fall back on old reliable rules:

-If the setting was xyz, if this mark was or wasn’t present, if that act did or did not occur, if she belongs to such and such a category, if he bought her x amount of flowers-

-Material- shit. THAT’S what people want. Suddenly, everyone’s a lawyer. Something -concrete,- because my god, how how HOW are we supposed to know how other people FEEL, huh?

Well. One way is, you -ask.- (And then pay attention to the answer).

No, it ain’t perfect. No, a lot of people don’t do it so well, particularly whilst simultaneously trying to Preserve The Mood, you know, -desire-, -feeling.-

But dammit, it's an improvement over the shit that came before. And you know what: it's a skill that is honed over time, both on the individual and collective level.

It just hasn't been in vogue for very long. Like a number of other things.

See, value placed on directly expressing one's feelings, however clumsily, -talking, rapping,- "communication skills," well, that's another of those little things that came from the last great Flowering Of Social Consciousness or however you want to define it. The 60's et seq, more or less, yes. Consciousness Raising. I'm Okay You're Okay. Workshops, processing. All that happy crappy.

It is also one of those things that, by and large, goes against the traditional masculine Code. Which, it seems to me, if one were truly invested in trying not just to blame feminism/feminists/women for all its/their shortcomings but also examine what, as a straight man, one needs to do to -liberate himself,-

...then pitching the "strong silent stoic" crap overboard ought to be a priority. Along with the whole, "oh it's not SEXY anymore if you -talk- about it. Or god forbid -ask- for something which -real men- are supposed to just -take-...or at least understand the womens' unspoken signals (because Real Women Don't Ask For What They Want, either) and suavely move in for the kill."

And you know what: Antioch be damned, the very real possibility that some women won't get it be damned (hey, we -all- deal with shit when we try new stuff, we -all- make mistakes or strike out, how the hell do you think it is for gay people coming out and trying to start dating post-adolescence?)I’ve not got much sympathy for people who won’t at least consider -trying.- Particularly if they’re so worried about being misunderstood, lord, they’re just a soul whose intentions are good, -I don’t wanna go to the Big House Maw!-

Okay. So: open up your yap and -talk.-

-Communicate.- If you’re not sure how to read any other sort of language. Actually, even if you -think- you -are- sure.

Because, generally speaking? that is a useful skill. Direct, verbal communication. Comes in handy in a -lot- of situations. Really. I recommend it. You’ll (that is a "general" you, Virginia) get the hang of it. -Practice.-

And finally, yeah, sex-positive (gar) me, I gotta say this:

There are worse things in this world than not getting any.

And:

Look, "critique" feminism and its relations, dudes, for where it falls down, and there are plenty places. by all means.

But, when y'all start saying, more or less, (variously), that feminism is the CAUSE of all your woes: please note:

Traditional rape laws were gender specific, providing that only women could be victims of rape and only men could be rapists. In recent years an increasing number of states have rewritten their rape laws to be gender neutral. In these states it is possible, although unlikely, for a woman to be charged with raping a man. In Canada, statutes prohibiting sexual assault apply to both male and female perpetrators and victims.

Homosexual rape, when it is not covered by a state’s general rape statute, may be covered by statutes that prohibit anal or oral sex between members of the same sex, a type of sodomy. Although some statutes do not distinguish between forcible and consensual acts, forcible sodomy is generally subject to more severe punishments. Homosexual rape is a notorious problem in prisons. However, in society as a whole, rape of men—whether by women or other men—is not a highly visible issue.

So, here's the deal as I understand it. Yep, that last bit is a real problem:

However, in society as a whole, rape of men—whether by women or other men—is not a highly visible issue.

and, yep, indeed, I, too, have encountered various feminist-identified (and otherwise) women who share this rather -reactionary- view. Along with other such -unexamined- views (i.e. sexual organs are for reproduction, men are men and women are women and that's the way it is, prison rape is funny and anyway penetration is a punishment, on and friggin' on). Such is life. I'm not even gonna say they aren't "real" feminists, or "we're not all like that." Because, dammit, I shouldn't have to.

Because, THIS:

Traditional rape laws were gender specific, providing that only women could be victims of rape and only men could be rapists.

Yeah? TRADITIONAL. Feminism is not the -cause- of that mindset. Feminism is not even a -friend- to that mindset. Feminism is not a perfect antidote to that mindset -all by itself-, no, that's quite right. Because feminism, by and large, has focused -primarily- on the womens' side of the equation. Sort of in the same way that queer rights, by and large, focus through a queer lens, and disability rights' groups focus on the DB perspective, and First Nations/NDN groups focus on...you get the idea. But they are all part of the same general trend. New mindset. New paradigm. New-ish, okay. The one that's led to a -slight- change in how we look at abuse of men, as well as expectations on men (must wear suits and ties, be Providers, not cry, not be gay or effeminate, be aggressive, be an "alpha" dog, etc).

You want to argue that there's a hell of a lot more work to be done in that regard, I won't argue with you.

But, here's the deal, okay:


1) You gotta do the bulk of the legwork yourselves. And, you have to speak -for- yourselves. Feminists of the traditional sort might support you; they might have ideas that you can build on and draw from (shit, you're doing it already); but, they're not gonna do it for you. It's just not gonna happen that way. If most feminists' priorities are not your priorities, it isn't because feminism is a "failure;" it's because -we have different priorities.- Apparently. This is not the same thing as saying that our goals are not compatible. In fact, in at least some of y'all's cases, I suspect we -do- have very compatible goals in a number of respects. However.

2) What -isn't- compatible is the mindset of the MRA's--"alpha and beta males," silly-ass armchair ev-psych, this rule, that rule, women are this, men are that, and feminism ruined everything--and a genuinely progressive, "gender equity" or whatever you want to call it, movement.

Because, it's not just that so many of the MRA's are ill-tempered assholes. It's not even the spew factor. It's that they are deeply -reactionary.-

It's one thing to say you'd like there to be more attention paid to the sexual abuse of men, or the fact that traditional male gender roles are constricting in xyz ways. Or that war is bad for Men and Other Living Things (so let's stop it, hey hey!)

Rants about how women -really want- alpha blahblah and aren't those rape laws awfully hard on the poor guys who might be unjustly accused...that's something else again. That's not -new.- That's not progressive. That's very, very old.

"One of these things is not like the other."

You can't put the genie back in the bottle. So, if you want more sympathy from feminists and other progressives, how about putting more distance between yourselves and the people who talk like they think it'd be a good idea?

The word the Jewish psychologists have for this is "dreck." That will be $150 please.

Alicublog uncovers this toadstone in the rough:

The long history of marriage is of an institution that raises the next generation and transmits the community’s values. Arranged marriages, loveless marriages – those were marriages. But, now, this transmission is less important; indeed, in most western culture the replacement rate has dropped well below 2.1; on the other hand, surrogate mothers and test tube babies, in vitro fertilization and sperm donors – the babies we do have seem less connected to those old definitions of marriage. That many gays don’t see this as remarkable & ahistorical means they don’t really understand marriage, but, we all tend to see the world through the prism of our own time.

Ta ever so for popping in and explaining it to us, really. And here we all
thought marriage started in 1954 when they started giving it away in the bottom of cereal boxes instead of decoder rings. No wonder there's so much confusion and hostility!

But wait! There's more! Some of her best friends...don't get it either:

These thoughts have been brought on by one of those chance confluences: a letter from an old friend and a newer friend’s loan of Bruce Bawer’s book, While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within.

The letter arrived from a friend from freshman English, forty-four years ago; he was my closest confidante through a series of disastrous love affairs but also because we could discuss literature and character and the ethical questions Henry James posed until dawn lightened the windows. He remarked in a letter as we slowly reach out to one another after so many years apart, that he, as a gay man, can only find acceptance in an anarchic socialist world, but of course, he says, I’ve become conservative, matronly, a suburban wife and mother. He isn’t critical but rather accepts that we’ve become different people than we were. I pause at his remark and recognize its truth. On the one hand, I understand that some & some customs of the world through which I move would make him uneasy, make him feel an outsider. Still, he enjoys his quiet life, having mated and stayed with his “significant other” for well over forty years, buying a house on a quiet street. I can’t, of course, imagine him finding peace in a world that is truly anarchic; certainly, he could not find the peace he has found in American capitalism in the practices that the Muslim minorities practice (and encourage) in socialist Europe.

-screeeee- a who?

the practices that the Muslim minorities practice (and encourage) in socialist Europe.

Maybe I'm missing something here. Apparently "socialist Europe" is responsible for...um, which practices, exactly? Oh, wait, you mean the reactionary rage of the disaffected fanatic minority, channelled into vociferous hatred and oppression of women and gay folk, aided and abetted by the supposedly democratic countries' Powers That Be? Yes; thank goodness we don't have any of that here.

Anyhoo, alicublog sums up the gist of the rest pretty well with this:

The author's real point, made somewhere in the first hundred paragraphs, is that homosexuals should shut up about Bush because he protects them from Muslims. But she finds it at least as important to explain -- with endless slabs of convoluted prose as evidence -- that she is well-read and even a bit artistic. This is meant to signal that she is not a mouth-breathing faggot-hater, but someone who is tolerant -- which is to say, she tolerates both her gay friends' continued existence and her colleagues' continued discrimination against them.

This is usually the case with conservative converts of the sort described by Michael Berube with the phrase "I used to consider myself a Democrat, but thanks to 9/11, I’m outraged by Chappaquiddick." They like to think that, because they broke away (assisted by stark fear) from an old orthodoxy, they have become true free-thinkers. But when issues of discrimination come up, they find themselves compelled to defend their new wingnut friends and their bone-deep prejudices.

In reality they haven't broken free, they've just switched gangs -- and have to live by the new one's code, including the by-law about No Poofters. If they want to face their old friends, they have three options (besides sanity, of course, which is out of the question):

They can swallow whole their new friends' lunacy and bravely assert it to all comers;

They can try a it's-for-your-own-good defense, pleading the necessity to accomodate moderate Muslims or red-state voters until such time as we can afford luxuries like civil rights;

Or they can plead the ties of friendship and remind their old friends of how they used to discuss Henry James until "dawn lightened the windows."

That, and the "Christian" part of our Judeo-Christian heritage, (along with our general rootin' tootin' spunkiness) makes us better than the Europeans, who, unlike us, are in danger of falling into the Dark Ages.

--oh yeah, but just so we're clear: she's got -no problem- with the Judeo part, despite the implications of how much better the switch to New Testament values (which we all -totally- embody, especially the bit where the quirky dude in the sandals suggested that hoarding up material wealth and shunning of Those People wasn't such a hot road to the Kingdom):

It is easier to believe others tempt us than within us are desires we must (and with difficulty) control. To many, the shift from the Old Testament to the New may be theologically one of grace, but is also from the tribal to the universal, from the external to the internal. Whether this is the lesson of the Bible or of the slowly modernizing world, it is clearly one that restrains us in ways that those who see temptation in a right angle can not understand and leads to quite different understandings of guilt. The man’s lust, we believe, not the woman’s clothing, causes rape. This and so much else is the mark of a value system internalized and assumed universal. We think it is right. Sure this assumption of a certain universality may impose upon others, but it is more practical than narrow: it is also the only way that people with varying beliefs can easily live beside one another.

And thanks to Jewish psychologists, we began to find words for this internalization...

See, even though you haven't quite evolved to the universal, Christlike place that's what -really- makes this nation great, -you- tribal, Old Testament people have something to contribute, too, you smartypantses, you.

Back to the other People She Respects And Cares About, Really, you know, I'm not even sure this was self-aware/ironic:

Some of my best employees were gay

I'm sure she has lots of other friends, too.

Still more evidence of our -wonderful- priorities

Tale of last 90 minutes of a woman's life

In the emergency room at Martin Luther King Jr.-Harbor Hospital, Edith Isabel Rodriguez was seen as a complainer.

"Thanks a lot, officers," an emergency room nurse told Los Angeles County police who brought in Rodriguez early May 9 after finding her in front of the Willowbrook hospital yelling for help. "This is her third time here."

The 43-year-old mother of three had been released from the emergency room hours earlier, her third visit in three days for abdominal pain. She'd been given prescription medication and a doctor's appointment.

Turning to Rodriguez, the nurse said, "You have already been seen, and there is nothing we can do," according to a report by the county office of public safety, which provides security at the hospital.

Parked in the emergency room lobby in a wheelchair after police left, she fell to the floor. She lay on the linoleum, writhing in pain, for 45 minutes, as staffers worked at their desks and numerous patients looked on.

Aside from one patient who briefly checked on her condition, no one helped her. A janitor cleaned the floor around her as if she were a piece of furniture. A closed-circuit camera captured everyone's apparent indifference.

Arriving to find Rodriguez on the floor, her boyfriend unsuccessfully tried to enlist help from the medical staff and county police — even a 911 dispatcher, who balked at sending rescuers to a hospital.

Alerted to the "disturbance" in the lobby, police stepped in — by running Rodriguez's record. They found an outstanding warrant and prepared to take her to jail. She died before she could be put into a squad car.

...The Times reconstructed the last 90 minutes of Rodriguez's life based on accounts by three people who have seen the confidential videotape, a detailed police report, interviews with relatives and an account of the boyfriend's 911 call.

"I am completely dumbfounded," said county Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, who has seen the video recording.

"It's an indictment of everybody," he said. "If this woman was in pain, which she appears to be, if she was writhing in pain, which she appears to be, why did nobody bother … to take the most minimal interest in her, in her welfare? It's just shocking. It really is."

...When the officers talked to the emergency room nurse, she "did not show any concern" for Rodriguez, the police report said. The report identifies the nurse as Linda Witland, but county officials confirmed that her name is Linda Ruttlen, who began working for the county in July 1992.

Ruttlen could not be reached for comment.

During that initial discussion with Ruttlen, Rodriguez slipped off her wheelchair onto the floor and curled into a fetal position, screaming in pain, the report said.

...
Ruttlen told her to "get off the floor and onto a chair," the police report said. Two officers and a different nurse helped her back to the wheelchair and brought her close to the reception counter, where a staff member asked her to remain seated.

The officers left and Rodriguez again pitched forward onto the floor, apparently unable to get up, according to people who saw the videotape and spoke on the condition of anonymity.

...When Rodriguez's boyfriend, Jose Prado, returned to the hospital after an errand and saw her on the floor, he alerted nurses and then called 911.

According to Sheriff's Capt. Ray Peavy, the dispatcher said, "Look, sir, it indicates you're already in a hospital setting. We cannot send emergency equipment out there to take you to a hospital you're already at.

...Marcela Sanchez, Rodriguez's sister, said she has been making tamales and selling them to raise money for her sister's funeral and burial. Her family has been called by attorneys seeking to represent them, but they do not know whom to trust.

She said the latest revelations, which she learned from The Times, are very troubling.

"Wow," she said. "If she was on the floor for that long, how in the heck did nobody help her then?

"Where was their heart? Where was their humanity? … When Jose came in, everybody was just sitting, looking. Where were they?"

Sanchez said her sister was a giving person who always took an interest in people in need, unlike those who watched her suffer. "She would have taken her shoes to give to somebody with no shoes," she said. Rodriguez, a California native, performed odd jobs and lived alternately with different relatives.

...Over the last 3 1/2 years, King-Harbor has reeled from crisis to crisis.

Based on serious patient-care lapses, it has lost its national accreditation and federal funding. Hundreds of staff members have been disciplined and services cut.

h/t Veronica

Oh, yeah, that reminds me. Sicko is coming to a theatre near you soon.

Speaking of the Vice War:

via The Angry Black Woman, this story:

Jonathan Magbie

Jonathan Magbie

On September 24, 2004, 27-year-old Jonathan Magbie died while serving a 10-day sentence for marijuana possession in a Washington, D.C., jail. Magbie, a quadriplegic since a drunk driving accident at the age of 4, was a first-time offender.

D.C. Superior Court Judge Judith E. Retchin defied a presentencing recommendation that Magbie be given a term of probation — a sentence that even the prosecutor found acceptable.

Retchin imposed the sentence because she didn't like Magbie's attitude, and the car in which Magbie was riding when apprehended had a loaded gun and cocaine. Magbie had told Retchin that marijuana made him feel better and that he didn't think there was anything wrong with using it.

A miscommunication between jail, hospital, and court officials gave Retchin the impression that the D.C. jail could handle Magbie's medical needs — primarily, a near-constant need for ventilation to help him breathe. In fact, the jail could not accommodate him, but by the time Magbie reached a hospital, he was dead.

Ironically, D.C. voters passed a medical marijuana initiative in 1998 with 69% of the vote. The initiative has never taken effect because Congress blocks its implementation. Had the law been in effect, Magbie might have been able to present a medical defense in court, and might be alive today.

Yes well of course there are a number of conclusions one can take away from this little story, besides the part about the maryjane, aren't there. Starting, as ABW notes, with the color of his skin. (Three guesses: it's not the same as Paris Hilton's, and presumably neither is his class). Another might have to do with gee golly, quadriplegic? Oh yeah, we can accomodate y--oh no, oops, guess we can't, oh well, sorry about your DEATH.

In jail, that is. In jail for toking marijuana, because it makes him feel better. Made.

But punishment is really way more important that helping people -feel better.- Besides, he should've just taken Vicodin or something.

I mean, presumably the person who originally caused his condition, the drunk driver was severely punished. We hope so. It'd make up for -everything.- If not, some fuckoff celebritante's tears will do for the moment, I guess. bread and schadenfreude. What else is there?

Oh yeah, and: the judge "didn't like his attitude." Chew on that one for a while.
This is after all the point: not safety, not even adherence to law, not what's best for everyone: RESPECT MAH AUTHORITAH.

yeah, I can't imagine where it all went wrong.

Well, at least they won't have to worry about "raunch culture," right?

Iran moves to execute porn stars.

People involved in adult films are "corrupter of the world," Iran's parliament says
• Producers, directors, cameramen and actors could face the death penalty
• Distributors and producers of pornographic Web sites could also face death
• The vote follows the leaking of a sex tape allegedly involving an Iranian actress

The "main elements" referred to in the draft include producers, directors, cameramen and actors involved in making a pornographic video.

The bill also envisages convictions ranging from one year imprisonment to a death sentence for the main distributors of the movies and also producers of Web sites in which the pornographic works appear.

Besides videos, the bill covers all electronic visual material, such as DVDs and CDs. Other material, such as porn magazines and books, are already banned under Iranian law.

To become law, the bill requires an approval by the Guardian Council, a constitutional watchdog in Iran.

It is widely believed that the drafting of the bill came about as a reaction to a scandal last year, when a private videotape, apparently belonging to Iranian actress Zahra Amir Ebrahimi and allegedly showing her having intercourse with a man, became available across Iran.

The videotape was leaked to the Internet and released on a black market DVD, becoming a full-blown Iranian sex tape scandal. Ebrahimi later came under an official investigation, which is still ongoing. She faces fines, whip lashing or worse for her violation of Iran's morality laws.

The unnamed man on the tape, who is suspected of releasing it, reportedly fled to Armenia but was subsequently returned to Iran and charged with breach of public morality laws. He remains in jail.

In an exclusive interview with the British newspaper The Guardian early this year, Ebrahimi denied she was the woman in the film and dismissed it as a fake, made by a vengeful former fiance bent on destroying her career.

In recent years, private videotapes have increasingly been leaked to the public in Iran, riling the government and many in this conservative Islamic country, where open talk of sex is banned and considered taboo.

However, pornographic material is easily accessible through foreign satellite television channels in Iran. Bootleg videotapes and CDs are also available on the black market on many street corners.

h/t trin

Lemme guess:

1) "You see from this how women are all equally oppressed as a Class everywhere; it is a direct continuum from pole dancing classes over here to the whipping and possible execution of this woman (we'll just gloss over the whole State repression of sexual expression aspect, not to mention zomg what about the men involved). We are as one with this poor woman in her suffering, except for the actual possibly-going-to-be-tortured-and-executed part. Quick, to the Blamemobile!"

2) "Those evil barbaric bastards! Let's bomb 'em! Or at least take 'their' women away from them! That'll learn 'em! Thank God we live in a democracy, eh?"

3) Extensive coverage on the minutia of what was, or wasn't, on the tape, and whether it is, or is is not, the actress in question, what she looks like, how she's feeling as she awaits her fate, how many lashes she might be whipped with, and how and when she might be executed, all done with great concern and not-at-all salacious detail, to be followed immediately by up to the minute coverage on Paris Hilton, with absolutely no change in tone or sense of urgency at all.

"Oh yeah. In the new millenium I believe we will all be insane."

--Angels in America