Slice o' life on wry

So, after having eaten at the little table, I go to pay for my sammich at the deli. Counterman who made said sammich rings me up. As he does so, sez:

"Did you hear that woman behind you? Sorry you had to hear that."

I go, "no," truthfully, was engrossed in my book. Had vague recollection of irritating noise somewhere. Why?

"She was just..." the man searches, clearly embarrassed..."vulgar."

I go, "o'rly? How so?" (I have to ask).

He seems more embarrassed. "Just...very vulgar, the things she was saying. She just -assumed-, I guess...you know, because I work behind the cash register? that I'm...homosexual. Like I'd know or care what she was talking about...she just assumed"

I look at him.

A note: we are in, not only San Francisco, but essentially on Main Gay Street in Gayville, San Francisco. And the guy is...well...okay, one doesn't want to stereotype, no; but, well, "being behind a cash register" isn't the stereotype I would've thought of. And, I doubt the woman (whose laughter and a few snatches of her bawdy repartee are sort of coming back to me now, as in a dream recollection, although still v. vague about content) was thinking of that, as such, either.

Oh well. "Homosexual." Bless. One doesn't quite know what to say.

He seems anxious to please. "Your sandwich...did I make it okay?"

I smile. "It was fine. Great. No worries." One tries to reassure in whatever way one can...

Orestes pursued by the Furries

(suddenly wishes she had the Photoshop skillz to similarly conceive a new take on "exeunt, pursued by a bear.")


h/t fastlad.

ETA: also thanks to fastlad, who really needs to update more often: wow, this DOES explain everything!

Believe us, no one wants to be around your spawn either, you great lump

.

Wherein Joe I'm So Stupid And Pointless I Can't Even Count To Fifteen Minutes T. Plumber says something offensive and stupid as shit.
I know, right?

While we're on the subject of hateful morons who are the political equivalent of headless chickens (and who would probably cease to exist at all if it weren't for bored and pissy rubberneckers like *ahem* *twist foot* some people who can't help going "say, has that headless chicken stopped running around yet? -No?- Damn): um, no, we already talked about this viz you are not "the new Jew;" apparently this is a really difficult concept, but PUMAs are not "the new gay," either.

But perhaps the most outrageous (read: stupid) thing about that 300-plus comment donnybrook is the largely ignored theme of the post that kicks it off, in which Murphy contends that the whiny, petulent PUMA movement is similar to the gay rights movement led by Harvey Milk in San Francisco:

“…That’s what Puma is. We ARE San Francisco — the place where Americans who are politically homeless, party-less, and DONE with the manipulations, lies, empty promises, and utter lack of integrity of the powers that be find themselves at home. The Puma writers and commenters who have been building Puma for almost a year now have touched MILLIONS of formerly isolated and despondent people who were ready to give up…

We don’t need to worry or panic or move mountains overnight. All we have to do is stay HERE — on the internet, connected to each other via this incredibly powerful, FREE, 24-hour a day, 365 days a year network of people just like us…
We ARE the Castro. Only bigger. And faster. And slightly less obsessed with leather."

Jesus H. Christ on a cable car. Yeah, the PUMAs are exactly like Harvey Milk’s gay rights movement. Only instead of having a leader possessing genuine moral courage, political savvy and organizational skills like Milk, PUMA has a woman who runs a crappy blog and solicits donations. And instead of representing a constituency of millions of people who are routinely beaten, jailed, ostracized from their families and communities and discriminated against for no good reason like gay Americans, PUMA has a few dozen whiny sore losers.

Nice little smarmy aside wrt "obsessed with leather," though; nothing sez "friend of Teh Gay" like a tired homophobic snark.

One other thing: while it wasn't explicitly covered in the movie, I'm pretty certain it wouldn't have taken Milk et al over an hour to figure out how to order pizza.

(huh huh huh "teabagging" huh huh huh)

I love Rachel Maddow. I do.



ETA: and I <3 Bint Alshamsa, too.

Oh well. -bites lip- Blessums Wepublicans. Srsly, never change. Happy Day Of Amorphous Outrage! And, uh, huh, huh, uh...*ehem*. With the...teabags...there. Yeah.

"You should only enjoy it."

ETA: ooooops, appo polly loggies. THAT'S NOT FUNNY. So wipe that smile off your face right now.

Many conservatives were angered by the segment's bathroom humor, while others merely shrugged it off as par for the course among progressive personalities like Ms. Maddow.

..."I'm not offended by it. I expect it. They have responded to popular sentiment across the country by acting like kids on a playground," said RedState's Erik Erikson, who just days ago was earnestly speculating that Levi Johnston and his sister were in an incestuous relationship.

(I know y'all care deeply, DEEPLY, about all this shit)

Anyway. Like I said. I'm so, so, sorry. Certainly the -last- thing I would ever want for this blog is to be perceived as cheap and vulgar.

We briefly interrupt this quasi-non-hiatus to say: Fuck Amazon.com

Here's why. It's not just affecting LGBT "adult" books either. Also see re: why it matters.

If you'd like to let them know your feelings, here's their express customer service form. or call 1-866-216-1072. or just join the boycott.

good a reason to patronize indies as much as possible anyway. Powell's still seems to be okay, also.

eta: "Book Depot" in the UK looks promising. free worldwide delivery!

eta again: someone cynical theorizes this is a sophisticated trolling effort of some sort. if so, as far as I'm concerned all it means is "hey, still another party is (also) an EPIC asshole!"

and, this is also not the first time this sort of thing has been discussed wrt Amazon, apparently.

but, yeah. "lulz." wtfever. well, hey, if it turns out to be the case I guess we'll hear it from the PR eventually. can't wait for it. so far the response, "skeleton crew" or not, has been less than satisfactory.

In other but sort of thematically related postage: I can't get behind lesbian comic author Erika Moen anymore, much as I've liked a lot of her cartoons in the past. Here's why. And disgusted with Annalee Newitz--another person I -wanted- to like-- for similar reasons: here's why. (including comments section).

O.K. Really, I'm...busy. no more blogging for a while. hold my calls. Really. Oh, and happy Zombie Rabbits And Candy Eating Day.

p.s. Doctor Who special was v. disappointing. why can't Tennant stick around for Moffat? whhyyyyyyy???

later to all 7.8 of my readers...

ETA okay, whether he's actually behind it or not, I think we can all agree that "Weev" is a smug entitled POS

Hay dude. Amazon removed its customer-based reporting of adult books yesterday. I guess my game is up! Here's a nice piece I like to call "how to cause moral outrage from the entire Internet in ten lines of code".

I really hate reputation systems based on user input. This started a while back on Craigslist, when I was trying to score chicks to do heroin with. My listings like "looking to get tarred and pleasured" and "Searching for a heroine to do the paronym of this sentence's lexical subject" kept getting flagged. The audacity of the San Francisco gay community disgusted me. They would flag my ads down but searching craigslist for "pnp" or "tina" reveals tons of hairy dudes searching for other hairy dudes to do meth with. So I decided to get them back, and cause a few hundred thousand queers some outrage.

I'm logged into Amazon at the time and see it has a "report as inappropriate" feature at the bottom of a page. I do a quick test on a few sets of gay books. I see that I can get them removed from search rankings with an insignificant number of votes.

I do this for a while, but never really get off my ass to scale it until recently.

[some code which I have no fucking idea about really]

...and I have a neat little list of the internal product ID of every fag book on Amazon.

Now from here it was a matter of getting a lot of people to vote for the books. The thing about the adult reporting function of Amazon was that it was vulnerable to something called "Cross-site request forgery'. This means if I referred someone to the URL of the successful complaint, it would register as a complaint if they were logged in. So now it is a numbers game.

I know some people who run some extremely high traffic (Alexa top 1000) websites. I show them my idea, and we all agree that it is pretty funny. They put an invisible iframe in their websites to refer people to the complaint URLs which caused huge numbers of visitors to report gay and lesbian items as inappropriate without their knowledge.

I also hired third worlders to register accounts for me en masse.

...The combination of these two actions resulted in a mass delisting of queer books being delisted from the rankings at Amazon.

I guess my game is up, but 300+ hits on google news for amazon gay and outrage across the blogosphere
ain't so bad.

Funny. Really funny.

More on why Amazon still isn't off the hook:

What I think is going on: there is a severe vulnerability in the Amazon flagging-for-inappropriate system, and it's been found and exploited by one or more nerds with too much time on their hands. Amazon's mistake, vis a vis the brave new world of social media, is two-fold:

Refusing to acknowledge a vulnerability. People are reaching the point not just that they like transparency in dealing with people who hold lots of important info on their behalf, but they are coming to demand it. Amazon's "nothing more to see here" approach is damaging to the relationship they have with those outraged by the exploit.
Refusing to acknowledge the pain of affected people. If you have an entire relationship built on trust (with personal info, with commitments to move products, with referrals and wishlists, etc), you have the obligation to have that uncomfortable sit-down when a betrayal is introduced to the relationship. Amazon hasn't done that yet. Yikes.
There's a livejournal blogger out there now claiming responsibility for the exploit. I won't link over, because I actually think he's full of crap, as do those who've attempted to reproduce his exploitative code. It's a well known practice for those with no skillz to take responsibility for things they have no part of to build up their hacker cred. Please. You know what tipped me off, for the record? The references to wanting to have anonymous sex with women and heroin from Craigslist. Fetishy-objectifying of women is common in the hacker community, for sure, but this guy is just… silly.

This doesn't mean that someone didn't come up with something similar– I'm almost positive they did. Which means that Amazon has a serious problem, and they better have a better explanation than the "glitch."

There's a bigger picture here: cultural implications

From a tech point of view, recommendation systems and flag-as-inappropriate tools that aren't built to handle gaming the system are just no good. It's unacceptable that a masterminding giant such as Amazon wasn't prepared for this kind of attack. Especially considering how much it affects Amazon's contract and relationship with the people that provide them with the goods its users demand, and how much users trust Amazon to do the Right Thing.

On a wider cultural scale, as I'd mentioned in the article in the WMC, the cultural implications of these attacks — especially when it's big enough to get this kind of attention — are huge. Geek culture is one of the last vestiges of an overtly sexist and toxic environment for anyone who's not a straight guy, most likely white and middle-class. (Not limited to the nerds of computer love, either– check out this post on misogyny and comic books from Amptoons.) When these attacks occur, it reveals not just the hatred that the hackers themselves have for women and LGBT folk, but the wider cultural intolerance we still have running rampant.

...Some would react by clamping on the anonymity, the level of free speech and the accountability, often all at once. Sure, keeping trolls off your comments section is probably a good idea. Enacting laws making it impossible to operate independently and anonymously online? Bad idea. Very bad. We need to be addressing the root causes of our misogyny, our racism, our homophobia — not piling on bandaids, duct tape and bailing twine to keep people's mouths shut...

A trans woman totally stole my uterus in a womens' bathroom.

-deer in headlights stare- ...I got better.

(burn 'er anyway!)

...srsly, stupid people. how frigging hard is it for "progressives" and "feminists" to just agree "yes, if Focus On The Family is for it, we should probably be agin' it?" Especially if it's scaremongering over minorities? dear supposed feminists: you do remember that OH NOEZ EV0L MAN-HATING HAIRY LEGGED PREDATORY LESBEANS WANT UNISEX BATHROOMS was used to help torpedo the Equal Rights Amendment? And that the current iteration of "oh noez scary tranz, tiem for BATHROOM PANICS NAOW" is being brought to you by -exactly the same people?- Who, once again, supposedly only have womens' best interest at heart, yes. Hint: Phyllis Schlafly, despite her presumably still intact female bona fides, is -not- a friend.

Oh, yes, meanwhile, Vermont finally overturned their stupid governor's ruling and made same sex marriage legal, joining Iowa and...well, not California on account of The People Has Spoken, but well never mind. According to people who've been fighting over this for a long time, this latest ruling may well help fuel the momentum to either finally mean a whole lot of longtime together couples don't have to worry about being separated by deportation or denied hospital visitation rights and custodial rights and suchlike; or, the Forces Of Darkness are about to "impose same sex marriage on all fifty states." So, yay on -that.- Maybe in a few years, we'll actually take it for granted that yes, your gonads and/or birth-assigned gender/sex shouldn't be a detriment to marrying the person you love and want to spend your life with.

I wonder how many years it'll take for us to also take it for granted that yes, your gonads and/or birth-assigned gender/sex shouldn't be a detriment to being able to take a crap in peace in a public building.

ETA: Hello.

While we're on a literary note:

An lj comm for a reading challenge: 50 books by writers of color in a year (or pick your time frame).

I have a lot of books I need/want to -finish-, I suppose that would count. my attention span's shot to hell in general wrt finishing books lately, I've noticed (I Blame The Internets). Among them:

"Women, Race and Class" by Angela Davis

"Time On Two Crosses" by Bayard Rustin

and on the SF tip, I've been meaning to give Octavia Butler another go, maybe Kindred, maybe something else.

I want Toni Morrison's essay collection "What Moves at the Margin;" I liked "Playing in the Dark" a lot. ( "Writing Without Whining" is something I could probably learn more about: )

and I think I must be the last person who hasn't read "The God of Small Things," so, one of these days.

In other news: the Klassik Arthers are better enjoyed if we don't have to know they had Teh Homosexshul. It's True You Know.

I'm just bored of this massive asscramp by now, but I must say

big thank you to Natalia for calling out this bullshit. Ren (and again) and Trin and Dw3t-Hthr too, of course. And moving on to more interesting material, potentially, at SM-feminists.

Nothing more to say to Mr. and Mrs. Iconoclast to be, except that I presume then toasters as well as violet wands are off the registry? Damn.

ETA: I agree with this comment by Ernest Greene (over at Renegade's)

Though the social and political links between BDSM and queer cultures may have unraveled a bit, you still can't bash one without bashing the other, as both arise out of the same need to be understood as authentic and inherent definitions of sexual identities rather than as the hateful projections of those who abhor them.

Just as there are abusive relationships among gay people, there are abusive relationships among BDSM people, but no decent, rational observer builds a loathing of an entire sub-culture on the basis of a few pathological examples.

That way of thinking is common to both gay bashers and BDSM bashers, and ND and her pals demonstrate this in spades, pardon the pun.

The common struggle shared by gay and BDSM people is for the right to be who you are and love who, and how, you love without risking exactly the kind of organized opprobrium to which ND and her merry band have subjected us all day in and day out ad nauseum.

She can declare herself something other than a homophobe and her loyal acolytes can rush in to trash anyone who dares call her out for acting like one, but the song remains the same, regardless of the singer or the intended audience.

You either do or do not despise people because of their sexual orientations, regardless of how ethically those orientations are expressed. If the former, you may not be a homophobe but you're no better. If the latter, you're some kind of humanist and can fairly claim a measure of tolerance for diversity.

and then, too, of course, you don't even have to search very long among those same loyal acolytes to find overtly homophobic crap like this. Perhaps not voiced so blatantly by many, but how often challenged? I recall "faggot" (used unambiguously as a slur, yes) go (largely, if not totally-I don't remember, can't dig up the link now) unremarked upon at a Big Radfem Site at least one other time.

There's more to say, and I know I've already said about some of it, about the rather strange position Teh Gay (even the word choice here matters, is different from either "queer" or "lesbian," much less others, but I'm using it for now) has among...well. Hm.

Do I say feminism as a whole? That's a whole nother post. Do I focus on this narrow band of idiots again? I've done it before. Too often.

Just a general note, then, apply as you will: In general, lesbian is strangely positioned within radical-influenced-feminism. Often sort of romanticized and erased at the same time. Appropriated, if you will. Especially when it comes, of course, to Teh Sex.

And separately, perhaps, of course by now most good liberals/Dems/progressives (a lot of others as well, at least publicly) know you don't overtly gay bash any more than you engage in any of the other oppressions that of course no one -really- does except people wearing white sheets or committing crimes. Homophobia is bad mkay. Duh. Next?

Except...

Except for: kind of really still there, same as everything else. See: the recent femisphere implosion part XXVII over racism for just one example. See: ableism run rampant all over the fucking place. See: well, and then there's the transphobia, which I could apply some similar etiological parallels wrt gender with queer sexuality as EG is making wrt kink and queer sexuality. Have done, more or less. i.e. yes there's transphobia w/in LGB/queer as well as feminism as well as everywhere; yes, trans =! homoseckshul...and individual trans homophobes too, sure. But, as with kink in its respective way: the language, the arguments, the rationalizations, they always seem VERY familiar. Too familiar to ignore, or even not take personally. I mean even more so than in other oppressions that I don't happen to share, even though there's a good argument that there are fundamental patterns to and reasons for for all of them, and that kick in the gut feeling -should- be the same regardless.

But I digress.

Back to kink and queer sexualities, then:

What EG is talking about is what's always been at the core of why I've ID'd with "sex positive" feminism, even though by now the phrase hits my teeth the way a lot of platitudinous New Agey stuff does, for similar reasons: it's not that simple, and it's certainly not all that relentlessly cheery or feel good, fuck knows.

To wit:

At the end of the day, despite the "pornsick" culture some people like to rabbit about, how TERRIBLE, all this deviancy and degeneracy...fact is, "normative" sex, and the punishment for transgressors thereof, is an axis of oppression of its own.

Over and beyond, or more accurately I suppose intersecting with, the piece about transgressing what's considered proper for one's assigned gender/sex.

I mean, they're hard to disentangle altogether. For damn sure, you can have homophobia/het priv operating within a kinky context. Ditto plain' ol sexism. Never even mind racism, classism, ableism, etc. etc.

But. Sex negativity, then, which is a phrase I -do- still keep, even if adopting its natural converse gives me wincey feelings, because it is an entirely valid concept, and no, it is not limited to, nor originated with, any kind of feminism. Is in fact anti-feminist at its core, I would say, which is the other reason I've been so involved in the Endless Wars.

It's a strand, at least, in itself. Winds itself through homophobia and sexism and everything else as well, even as those things wend themselves through the sex-negativity.

But that's why the arguments feel so familiar. Because they ARE.

And while you might hairsplit about, o well some of my best friends are yadda yadda, I don't care what they do in bed as long as they don't do THAT, or--gosh, this bit wasn't at -all- familiar--*talk about it at work.* (which naturally none of us pervs can help doing, -flaunting it.-)

...doesn't matter. Shoe fits, ND and co. Wear it well. And if you don't like it, consider changing your behavior. At least to the point of shutting up and listening for a while.

It's certainly the least one could ask considering all you're demanding from other people who have more on their plates without the added burden of your assholery.

ETA again: via trin, yeah, people really should read this post. This one too, for that matter.

It's official: pretty much anyone at all might invoke "feminism" in service of their ends

Really, I don't know why people keep saying the -word- is out of fashion and needs preservation; it seems to me the -word- is about as endangered as, well, the Traditional Nukular Family and Merry Christmas. As for the proper -spirit- of such things, well. I wouldn't know, being a degnerate heathen and all, but anyway: here are the thinky thoughts of one Father Joe, on "preserving purity:"

How should couples act prior to marriage? I would like to offer certain recommendations:

FIRST, the whole dating scene is a mess. We should opt for the older practices of courtship. Dating today is an excuse for “making out” and compromising virginity. Younger children should not go out on dates and older teens should be chaperoned. Young adults need the mindset that stepping out with the opposite sex is not simply for a good time, but part of the search for a future mate. Dating is transitory. Courtship plays for keeps!

SECOND, both men and women should prize their purity and do all they can to preserve it as a gift for their future spouse. There should be no double-standard for men. As for women, it is not true feminism or liberation to be as sleazy as certain men. Restraint in this area shows strength of character and a discipline that will keep them in good stead within marriage. Today, we must also contend with sexually transmitted diseases which infect millions, sometimes with lethal consequences. Sex kills! This is contrary to its very purpose. The only sure way to remain clean of infection is for a couple to remain pure and to enter upon the marriage bed undefiled.

THIRD, modesty in speech and dress should rule the day. Vulgar flirtation and immodest dress is in vogue starting with pre-teens and going into adulthood. Many complain that styles are so risqué that it is hard for true ladies to find decent clothing. Some women have resorted again to making their own dresses. Men and women are not the same. One pretty but flirtatious girl who had every boy’s eye remarked to me that she stopped short of getting the boys’ motors running. Poor thing, I explained, boys’ motors are always running! The best of young men can be quite weak in the flesh and they need good girls to keep them good. Young men should not lie or compel favors from women with their physical strength. Women should not tempt men with their clothes, or lack of clothes, and suggestive speech...

And so on, and so on, and so on. See, -true- feminism would be, uhhh, ummm, well...anyway, something better. See. Yeah. Isn't it always? Thanks, Father Whosit! We Value Your Opinion.

Oh, I like this bit, too:

FIFTH, while showing compassion to those who make mistakes, we need to retain a sense of shame for scandalous activity. I recall a teenage girl who had a child and everyone kissed and admired the beautiful baby. We were thankful that a prolife decision was made. However, I was troubled that she showed no remorse or embarrassment at having given away her virginity or having an illegitimate child. Most babies in the past born to such girls were given up for adoption. The stigma served a purpose and its eradication is no service to other girls who might make a similar mistake.

Clearly, the Magdalene Laundries were a hotbed of True Feminism. Not to mention True Christianity. Because if there was one thing the message of Jesus was all about, it was stigmatizing people, women especially, who flouted sexual convention and/or were already the untouchable caste in their respective societies. "Lock 'em up and throw away the key, the dirty sluts," sez Jesus. Also, hierarchy, "family values," and rigid adherence to ritual. That whole "whited sepulchre" thing? Or the railing about "scribes and Pharisees?" Don't worry about it, really.

A bit more on Bryant

Stonewall Library has a nicely laid-out series on the history of her antigay career.

If you're still wondering why/how a woman becomes frontsipiece for an anti-gay rights crusade, the key is here:

In 1977, Anita Bryant was perhaps best known as the spokeswoman for the Florida Citrus Commission as well as First Federal Savings and Loan Association, Singer Sewing Machines, Coca-Cola, Kraft Foods, Holiday Inn and Tupperware. She was 37, married to Miami DJ Bob Green, mother of four, a former beauty queen and singer, known in the 1960s for her wholesome image. For three consecutive years she won the “Most Admired Woman in America” poll in Good Housekeeping magazine.

She appeared with evangelist Billy Graham in 1963 to call college students back to God, and organized a “Youth for Decency” rally at the Orange Bowl to protest sexual explicitness in entertainment. In her campaign against the gay rights amendment, Bryant told audiences that her twins, who had been born prematurely and almost died “were saved by the grace of God” and that she would not let them be exposed, as a result of the Metro Commission’s antidiscrimination law, to homosexuals.

and

Bryant wrote to the Dade County Commission that passing the ordinance would mean “infringing upon my rights as a citizen and mother to teach my children and set examples of God’s moral code as stated in the Holy Scriptures.”

Eventually, inevitably,

Anita Bryant’s antigay crusade, as the name of the organization she headed indicated, focused on children. She presented herself to voters as a concerned mother.

Seizing on the fact that Miami’s antidiscrimination ordinance would affect hiring in the schools, her rhetoric revolved around the argument that gay people habitually prey on young children and endeavor to convert them to homosexuality.

A poll conducted early in the campaign by Mike Thompson, an advertising executive and Save Our Children leader, showed that female voters in Dade County overwhelmingly supported the gay rights ordinance. Thompson thought this support was based on women’s experience with their “hairdressers, dress designers and dog groomers.” To change mothers’ minds, Save our Children presented gays as a danger to children.

Whenever she spoke, Bryant warned audience, “Homosexuals cannot reproduce, so they must recruit.

...Bryant’s Christian emphasis did not stop her from aggressively pursuing Miami’s substantial and generally liberal Jewish vote. A preliminary poll showed Jews favoring the ordinance by a large margin, so a coalition of antigay Orthodox rabbis was assembled. They condemned the measure: “Jewish law prohibits parents from allowing their children to be taught by people who are sexually perverted… What right is there to corrupt our children...”

The children, the children, the children. Plus ça change.

California's Prop 8 Push: "Save Our Children!"

...They were yelling, all of them, even the little kiddies, "Save Our Children! Save Our Children!" It's a curious slogan. How, exactly, is banning same-sex marriage "restoring marriage and protecting California children?" It isn't like Measure OO, a city initiative that would boost funding for youth development, dedicating a chunk of the city's budget to after-school and other programs for kids. In fact there's no money at all in the initiative that would save our children, the gay or the straight ones. And it does nothing to restore anything, or protect anything, it's not really "pro" anything.

And how, exactly, is banning people of the same sex from the benefits of marriage keeping government out? Is the government demanding women marry women or men marry men? According to one TV ad it sorta is. In the spot, a young girl comes home from school and tells her mom proudly, "I can marry a princess!" Have mercy, what parent doesn't want their kid to marry into royalty?...

But you see, in the Kinder Küche Kirche worldview, the real horror here is that the hand that was supposed to rock the cradle has been slapped down. Power, you see. Even under the Rule Of The Fathers: -Mom-, while not at the top of the heap, can actually have a fair chunk, or at least the fascimile thereof, if she's correctly situated, of course. Bryant's appeal, like Palin's after her, taps into classic fascist rhetoric: Mama Bear, finally stirred to action by the evil of the world, rises in righteous rage to protect her home and hearth. And, of course, The Children. Not just her -own- children, mind you, but -yours- (assuming you are one of the Ones That Matter).

And, well, if you don't want to call it "power," your guaranteed material well-being as well as a -lot- of ego-stroking -and- oversight of the little darlings all day, particularly if you're homeschooling, well--shit, who wouldn't defend that? Not to mention you can now go all the way to the White House, with the Fathers' blessings, assuming you play by all the rest of the rules. What's -not- to like?

Today's bigotry in the name of creeping theocracy brought to you by one Howard Ahmanson.

In case you were wondering who was behind Prop 8, The Daily Beast has a profile:

The campaign for Prop 8 has reaped massive funding from conservative backers across the country. Much of it comes from prominent donors like the Utah-based Church of Latter Day Saints and the Catholic conservative group, Knights of Columbus. Prop 8 has also received a boost from Elsa Broekhuizen, the widow of Michigan-based Christian backer Edgard Prince and the mother of Erik Prince, founder of the controversial mercenary firm, Blackwater.

While the Church of Latter Day Saints’ public role in Prop 8 has engendered a growing backlash from its more liberal members, and Broekhuizen’s involvement attracted some media attention, the extreme politics of Prop 8’s third largest private donor, Howard F. Ahmanson, reclusive heir to a banking fortune, have passed almost completely below the media’s radar. Ahmanson has donated $900,000 to the passage of Prop 8 so far.

...Few Americans have heard of Ahmanson—and that's the way he likes it. He donates cash either out of his own pocket or through his unincorporated Fieldstead & Co. to avoid having to report the names of his grantees to the IRS. His Tourette's syndrome only adds to his mysterious persona, as his fear of speaking leads him to shun the media. While Ahmanson once resided in a mental institution in Kansas, he now occupies a position among the Christian right’s power pantheon as one of the movement’s most influential donors. During a 1985 interview with the Orange County Register, Ahmanson summarized his political agenda: “My goal is the total integration of biblical law into our lives.”

The campaign to teach “intelligent design” in public school classrooms, the Republican takeover of the California Assembly, and the rollback of affirmative action in California—Ahmanson has been behind them all. He has also taken a special interest in anti-gay crusades. Ahmanson’s most controversial episode related to his funding of the religious empire of Rousas John Rushdoony, a radical evangelical theologian who advocated placing the United States under the control of a Christian theocracy that would mandate the stoning to death of homosexuals. With Prop 8 organizers claiming in a virtual mantra that their measure will not harm gays or take rights away from heterosexual Californians, Ahmanson has good reason to conceal his involvement in the campaign...

What the world needed: A Batman for "The Handmaid's Tale."

While we're on the subject of rightful finger pointing, can we please put a proposition on the next ballot to invalidate the marriage of Frank Schubert? Or, I don't know, take away his right to go to the toilet unsupervised, something? I mean:

Democratic legislators ask state Supreme Court to void Prop. 8

Reporting from Sacramento -- Forty-three Democratic legislators, including leaders of the California Senate and Assembly, filed a brief Monday urging the California Supreme Court to void Proposition 8.

Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata and incoming President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg signed the friend of the court brief, filed with the state Supreme Court.

No Republican legislator signed the petition, though Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, denounced the anti-gay marriage measure over the weekend.

..."This is a Hail Mary, no question about it," said Frank Schubert, manager of the Proposition 8 campaign.

..."Proposition 8 seeks to effect a monumental revision of this foundational principle and constitutional structure by allowing a bare majority of voters to eliminate a fundamental right of a constitutionally protected minority group," the brief says.

"If Proposition 8 takes effect, this court will no longer be the final arbiter of the rights of minorities," it continues.

The action contends that the ban, created by the initiative that defines marriage as being between one man and one woman, cannot be done by a mere constitutional amendment. Rather, it must be done by a revision of the entire Constitution and the Legislature would have to be involved.

As advocates of same-sex marriage turn to courts, protests, and perhaps a future ballot measure in an attempt to overturn Proposition 8, Schubert declared that the vote is "as over as Barack Obama's election."

...One of the closing ads featured Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). Popular though she is, Schubert said, it was odd that Proposition 8 foes would select Feinstein to lecture voters, including minorities, about discrimination.

"It had the feel of a lily white, liberal campaign," Schubert said.

FUCK YOU YOU FUCKING FUCK.

Oh, this is Frank Schubert: (whose image I can't seem to be -positive- I'm connecting it to the right Frank Schubert--there are several--but I am 99.7% positive he himself is "lily white," surprise):

The parents of two children featured most prominently in video footage in a Yes on 8 ad have repeatedly asked the campaign to stop using images of their children to promote changing the California Constitution to eliminate same-sex marriage. They've written letters. They've made phone calls. The Yes on 8 campaign has refused to pull the footage.

The parents are at their wits' end. So two of them came to Sacramento on Thursday to appeal to legislators and to Yes on 8 campaign manager Frank Schubert in person. I followed them on their journey.

To legislators, their message was: "I don't want to see another parent have to go through this." Assemblyman Mark Leno told the parents that under current law if the ads were for a commercial purpose, consent to use the images would be required. But ads for a political purpose don't require consent. Leno continued that the Yes on 8 use of children's images, however, reveals a tension between First Amendment rights to free speech and the right to privacy. This is a particularly sensitive issue because the campaign did not use images of adults, but of young children -- without the knowledge or consent of the parents. He made a commitment to explore solutions in the upcoming legislative session. But that doesn't do anything now.

Then the parents went to Schubert's office at Schubert Flint Public Affairs at 14th and L. "I've heard he's a father," said one parent. "I want to ask him how he would feel if his children were manipulated like this." She wanted to appeal to him as a moral human being. "This is our last hope," she said.

Neither Schubert nor others in his office would speak to the two parents. Schubert's office called security and a guard escorted them out of the building. The parents left a letter saying, "We appeal to your sense of decency as a parent to take those ads off the air and off your website."

"...and such small portions."

From the "one doesn't know quite what to say" department (but is glad others are on the ball): the comic stylings of one Dick Hafer, as presented by Ethan Persoff, who collects such things.

Specifically: Teh Gay Is Terrible, Let Me Tell SHOW you it. In graphic detail. For pages and pages and...

"We'll continue to discuss male sodomites primarily. Lesbians do many of the same acts, but rely on mechanical devices also, such as penis-shaped electric vibrators."

Starting with: kissing, which apparently involves swapping spit. And then...THE ORAL SEX!!

shocking innit. "bless."

oh yeah, and then there are all kinds of other disgusting things, most of which do NOT involve any clear eyed gazing whatsoever.

it's a sick sad woild...

thanks for the (offblog) h/t, Lisa.

ETA: apparently it made Boing Boing.

And speaking of my gay agenda: California's Proposition 8

to wit, "Let's you and me duke it out some more over whether your marriage is valid, even though mine is completely safe no matter what happens and the state Supreme Court already ruled in your favor: fair's fair."

No, okay, the basics:

A number of developments arose in the wake of Mayor Gavin Newsom's 2004 decision to perform same sex marriages in San Francisco. The marriages were soon annulled by the courts, but San Francisco began a legal challenge that was consolidated with other cases as In re Marriage Cases. On May 15, 2008 the California Supreme Court, by a vote of 4–3, ruled in that case to strike down Proposition 22 and all other prohibitions on same-sex marriage, as violating the state constitution, and ordered the state to begin processing same-sex marriages as of June 17, 2008.[5] The court subsequently refused to issue a stay of its order. [6]

While the case was under way, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed two legislative bills approving same-sex marriage. Anticipating that either the courts or the legislature might overturn Proposition 22, opponents of same-sex marriages introduced a number of unsuccessful attempts to place a constitutional amendment before voters that would prohibit same-sex marriages—and in some cases, domestic partnerships as well.[7] Prior to 2008, none had made it to the ballot.

In late 2007 and 2008, at least four different groups sponsored new ballot initiatives for a constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriages. The one that did obtain enough signatures,[8] is the "California Marriage Protection Act"[9] (officially titled the "Limit on Marriage" Constitutional Amendment by the California Attorney General), sponsored by ProtectMarriage.com[10].

...If passed, the amendment would override the ruling in In re Marriage Cases that struck down both the 1977 law and Proposition 22.[14] The Constitution, as amended, would add a new section (Section 7.5) to Article I, placing it between the state Equal Protection clause and nondiscrimination in business and the professions. This new section would read:

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Interestingly,

According to Joan Hollinger, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, "Constitutional scholars agree that the amendment cannot be effective retroactively, so anyone married before November would be protected.

You can see how there'd be no bureaucratic headaches associated with trying to explain to various agencies how no really, YOUR same-sex marriage is valid, check the dates and the jurisdiction, etc. here, can't you? I mean, already it's clear as mud, the whole thing. You realize that because of the "state's rights" business, we're going to be going through this, if we haven't already, in every. single. state. over. and over. and over...

anyway, meanwhile, so, this one: well, you'd think it'd be a forgone conclusion that this prop's not gonna fly. Lot of people who won't go to the mat for gay folk as such aren't too jazzed about actually amending the constitution, even at the state level. The Gubernator, for instance:

] Republican California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger stated that although he has opposed and has vetoed legislative bills that would legalize same sex marriage in California, he is opposed to the initiative and other attempts to amend the state's constitution.[34] Schwarzenegger released the following statement on May 15, 2008 regarding the ruling:

I respect the Court's decision and as Governor, I will uphold its ruling. Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.[35]

and some other surprises (well, depending on your POV I suppose it mightn't be):

Republican political activist Ward Connerly, the author of Proposition 209 (California's ballot initiative to ban affirmative action), stated, "For anyone to say that this is an issue for people who are gay and that this isn't about civil rights is sadly mistaken. If you really believe in freedom and limited government, to be intellectually consistent and honest you have to oppose efforts of the majority to impose their will on people."

Three of the four judges who ruled in favor of striking down Prop 22, etc. were Republican appointees.

And the ballot that's going in front of the voters in November, thanks to Attorney General Jerry Brown, reads as follows:

ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Fiscal Impact: Over next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact on state and local governments.

Predictably enough,

Proposition 8 supporters immediately mounted a legal challenge to the changes, contending that Attorney General Brown had inserted "inflammatory" language that would "unduly prejudice voters against" Proposition 8.

That legal challenge was denied, and the proposition remains on the ballot as worded. Noting, of course, that challenges to the legitimacy of having the proposition on the ballot at all from the other side did not play either.

These are the poll numbers over the last few months, roughly:

Field Poll in both May and a later one in July has 51% "no," 42% "yes," and 7% "undecided."

There's also an L.A./KTLA poll with the majority in favor of the amendment, but that's from May.

Still, not exactly a done deal, here, particularly since apparently they only need a simple majority win to go ahead and amend the state Constitution.

Oh, btw, McCain's in favor.

"I support the efforts of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution between a man and a woman, just as we did in my home state of Arizona. I do not believe judges should be making these decisions."

...and Obama's agin' it.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, who previously said the issue of gay marriage should be left up to each state, has announced his opposition to a California ballot measure that would ban same-sex marriages.

In a letter to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club read Sunday at the group's annual Pride Breakfast in San Francisco, the Illinois senator said he supports extending "fully equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples under both state and federal law."

"And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states," Obama wrote.

The explanation of -why- a bunch of people are fighting tooth and nail to make sure that longterm same sex relationships such as this one of 51 years are not recognized as -marriage-, if you want to know, goes something like--well, here's the official campaign headquarters for this round, "Protect Marriage:"

http://www.protectmarriage.com/about#consequence

The Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage did not just overturn the will of California voters; it also redefined marriage for the rest of society, without ever asking the people themselves to accept this decision. This decision has far-reaching consequences. For example, because public schools are already required to teach the role of marriage in society as part of the curriculum, schools will now be required to teach students that gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage, starting with kindergarteners. By saying that a marriage is between “any two persons” rather than between a man and a woman, the Court decision has opened the door to any kind of “marriage.” This undermines the value of marriage altogether at a time when we should be restoring marriage, not undermining it.

...Proposition 8 is NOT an attack on gay couples and does not take away the rights that same-sex couples already have under California’s domestic partner law. California law already grants domestic partners all the rights that a state can grant to a married couple. Gays have a right to their private lives, but not to change the definition of marriage for everyone else.

So, briefly:

1) The "will of the voters" is required in order to decide whether to -include- more marriages as, well, marriages; it is a terrible affront to some people that other people think they can get married just like Some People, without even asking Some Peoples' permission or ANYTHING: this is what is known as "demanding special rights."

2) This is especially terrible because, even if Jill and Jane are now a respectable married couple instead of shady deviants lurking in the margins of society, kindergarteners deserve to be protected from the knowledge that this is so.

3) Anyway, you don't really -need- marriage, domestic partnership gives you all the same benefits. It's just the word we want. RLY SRSLY TRUFAX. At the same time, the word is REALLY REALLY IMPORTANT, enough so that we're going to spend zillions of dollars making sure you can't share it with us, because otherwise it'll mean the end of "traditional marriage" (which apparently has nothing to do with rights or legal recognition), and the state is going to crack off and fall into the sea, or something.

4) The Prop 8 authors are not haters so STOP SAYING THAT.

...and why o why does all this sound so strangely familiar...going to the mat over language while swearing it doesn't mean anything -really-...convoluted explanations of why certain borders must remain policed...we only want such a tiny small thing for ourselves, you militants are ruining everything... -think think- Eh, it'll come to me. -glances vaguely downward over the scope of the blog for the last while-


Oh, and by the way? Domestic partnership? Ain't the same, and not just because of the symbolism:

The law does not give same-sex couples any of the more than 1000 rights and benefits that the federal government gives to married couples, including:

the right to sponsor a partner for immigration purposes;
the right to family-related Social Security benefits;
the right to federal income and estate tax breaks; and
the right to purchase continued health coverage for a partner after the loss of a job.

Right now, the federal government wont let any state extend these federal benefits to same-sex couples, no matter what the relationship is called.

Even under California law, same-sex couples are not completely equal. Domestic Partners cannot file joint state income taxes and state employees are not entitled to the same benefits under the states long-term care benefits package. (This could be an advantage. See below.)

In addition, if you enter into a California domestic partnership, many of the protections will not exist if and when you are outside California. For instance, if you or your partner are injured in another state, you are [not, one assumes this is a typo] allowed hospital visitation or the right to make emergency medical decisions on behalf of your partner.

States' rights, see. Rarely a good thing.

More on this later.

"You're the vulgarian, you fuck."

Okay, I know this is cheap as all hell, it's Satsuma for fuck's sake, but still, marvel at it, really:

http://www.womensspace.org/phpBB2/2008/04/21/on-the-pornography-panel-debate-at-william-mary-college-in-support-of-samantha-berg/#comment-16199

[surprise]

Ultimately, I believe pornography is about lack of imagination and dehumanization. It really shouldn’t be a debate at all, but people seem to have an incredible lack of sense delving into what degrades and dehumanizes women. Gay men have become so corrupted by this garbage that they live in a lost world all the time.

Young women take on the worst of this, and so vulgarity pervades even this site. Think what most obscenity really is about: insulting the honor of women. That and a rape language culture.

I pretty much make it a policy to let people know that if they are into porn, do drugs or act in vulgar ways, I won’t deal with them. Look for people who care about others, leave behind the vulgar and the clueless. Make it a point to look at art, and to know the difference between what is art and what is pornography.

In a degraded media saturated culture, where violence on TV is common, where blogs are filled with woman hating propaganda, it is about finding what is good in the world.

I find that the arts are a wonderful way to see all that is best and beautiful. Listen to great music often, go to museums, have conversations with people who strive to learn and grow, and encourage all people to share in the beauty of culture that has been around for hundreds of years. There is an antidote to the vulgar; the sound of Vivaldi, an incredible sunset or an Emily Dickinson poem… Turn off the cell phones, turn off the T.V., and savor the conversation and friendship of people who are serious and committed to this life of the mind, and you’ll help defeat pornography.

Pursue the good, and in every way your life will be amazing, sink down to the bad, and bit by bit year after year your character will become degraded. Like the picture of Dorian Grey, this reveals itself in time, unfortunately when it is too late.

Too bad the only anti-porn advocates I ever hear on the radio are right wing christian men. In fact, that is the only time ever that I hear men condemn pornography publically. Hmmm…. what side are men really on?

It is a gift. A -gift-. You can't parody this shit.

In fact, I'm sorely tempted to go along with what appears to be a not unpopular thesis among fellow rubberneckers and speculate that this has all been a very long and elaborate deadpan gag, the Satsuma character, one that would put Andy Kaufman to shame. And I mean, anything's still possible.

On the other hand, well, from slightly more...known...quantities, you also have...well.

Love will drive out the demonic forces of S/M and porn. [--Satsuma]

I believe this with all my heart.

...I agree with you re mental illness in the SM culture and also ::::zipping into flame-retardant suit::: among transpersons, i.e., MTFs that hang around lesbian groups/venues. Someone I very much respect who has done very fine work on transgender issues, a radical/lesbian feminist, said a while back she thinks that quite often, doctors, psychologists, etc. encourage “transitioning” because it’s something concrete that they *can* do, but that it doesn’t help, because again, so often these are not really gender issues the person has, these are issues of mental illness, and as some of us have seen, transitioning is no cure for mental illness.

... by womensspace [aka Heart] February 19, 2008 at 9:22 pm

Isn't she great, folks? Let's give 'er a big round of applause (she seems to be sorely in need of one, after all). Clap, clap.

A bit more wisdom from our favorite wacky l'il citrus fruit to round off with, since she would graciously, if inadvertently, seem to be answering the question I posed here, to wit:

"And I want to know, from feminists, lesbians included: exactly how it is that you justify "being transgendered is an ideology/sickness/perversion/trend" when these are EXACTLY the arguments, but EXACTLY, used by homophobes*.

So, here's one theory:

Remember lesbian porn is viewed by straight men, and this porn addiction will hurt straight women. Straight men force women into sex acts with other women because of this. You will be humiliated by straight men if you don’t stand solid against the entire range of pornographic evil, and it is evil! Sometimes evangelical christians are on to evil, and they have taught us to fight it. It is demonic, and it will destroy the character of women, whether they know it or not.

So this is a fight we can all be in, and we need to be honest about how women are made mentally ill by male sexual colonization. We need to have space for women who have never ever had sex with men — this is a great power women have had througout history, and we overlook the greatness of this. We should celebrate these power women who have kept their bodies free of rape that is ALL SEX with men. Sex with men is rape, whether women want to admit it or not, if women have to rely on it to get fed or taken care of.

MTF lesbians are invading women’s space both straight and lesbian all over the place. Straight women won’t have their spaces either if this persists.

So we can work together to eliminate this preditory assault by the newest form of patriarchal invasion of women’s selves, or we can continue to pretend that lesbians don’t exist, or that we are there to support straight women at our own expense.

...we are the old soldiers who know who we are and where we came from.
We don’t lose sleep over “gender queer” and all the tiresome sex obsessed world that has become more and more the public face of lesbians in big cities.

If we can’t agree on the freedom for women to define and create groups that meet their needs as oppressed minorities, then what’s the point of it all?

Transwomen can aid the cause of women, by doing the anti-rape work, by having marches supporting women’s rights etc. I say, just do the work. But if you harass women at Michfest, or butt into young lesbian coming out groups with porno-talk, and S & M, and just vulgar yuck that I associate with male banter, well then I have a real problem with this.

Clear (eyed gaze) now?

Fisk Me, Baby, One More Time

So, first of all, update on this situation: the upshot is, Renegade and Jill Brenneman are going to speak at William and Mary; Sam Berg, now that her attempt to get RE uninvited has been unsuccessful, has withdrawn. In, um, protest, or something. According to her supporters, this was the professional thing to do. I am sure that she did it in a most professional manner, too, to be sure.

And one should probably just leave it at that.

But, well, just, some peoples' performance excuse me -activism- is so remarkable that I had to, well, remark on it.

Liars. They lie. They negate the lives of those suffering for the choices they make and then have the audacity to promote themselves as the ‘one true voice’ in the well of silence centred in the poverty of those they argue they represent.

And then they get booked to speak at the last minute in discussions about how what they do impacts upon the rest of us (women). And they agree! And then they start posting about “laughing like a super villain” and their “wank worthy fantasy” of debating “some anti-porn sex work types”. To me, the language used is the same language that rapists use (I’m a rape crisis counsellor, I’ve heard it a million times)

Maggie Hays // April 20, 2008 at 12:05 am

...“laughing like a super villain”? “wank worthy fantasy”? I agree that these comments were totally inappropriate. This makes me think: this kind of language is awfully similar to the sort of language a porn-using abuvive ex-boyfriend of mine was often using when talking to me.

#

Laurelin // April 20, 2008 at 10:16 pm


It’s interesting to note how many of the male ’sex pozzes’ use this sort of language to ‘argue’ against radical feminist arguments against pornstitution. They speak of ‘fisking’ us, accuse us of ‘wanking’ over details etc (Witchy has certainly had this aggressive language used against her recently by cowardly fuckwits).- all of it is major projection, of course. They cannot see the world in any other way, they use sexualised language to try and win their pathetic little game. It speaks volumes about them, it really does, and it only proves our point about pornification. The more the shout to drown us out, the more they tell us just who they are.
#

Laurelin // April 20, 2008 at 10:17 pm

I think ‘fisking’ is a sexualised word- do tell me if I’m wrong. (Don’t have a dictionary to hand)

Well--perhaps that would be the problem then; we're really not speaking the same language.

Because, I don't know, just, the professional defender of all women and fearless crusader against porn, Sam Berg, the one you're defending against the abusive pornspeakers here, yes? The professional. She never uses gratuitous sexualized language, one would certainly assume.

So, therefore, there's nothing at all inappropriate or boundary violating or creepy when she says, for instance:

‘Model’ is so 1980’s and doesn’t capture the “I’m hot, bi-sexee, and willing to fuck and suck anything for money” pornsick approval meme nearly as well as “sex worker”.

or

The vaunted "right" for women to be or simply act like cum-hungry bi-sexee hoes is affirmed all over these two liberal cities I have lived in the past few years.

or

There is no sensible feminist reason to ignore the 92% of prostitutes who do not consider it work but slavery in favor of the 8%minority, especially when doing so only affirms the rape culture that already says (often literally) men have a God-given right to wet their penises with women's holes any way they desire, any time they want it.

or

Amber, you can have all of Sonia's former customers now that she has been freed because her many male customers are still around and they have your blessing to continue renting women's insides to spill their fluids into like renting a port-a-potty.

or, one of my favorites:

Turn the male gaze around just once and take a long look at the men who pay to see women smiling while hanging upside down from a pole like a painted negro in a minstrel show dancing for peanuts and stripping looks entirely different.

I'm sorry your paper's allegiance to the money and faux hipsterism of strip club culture makes the truth about men's demands for women to act like disposable dick accessories a story that will never be told.

best of all:

Spreademism.com

spread'emism (spread-them-ism), n. 1. the misleading idea that women can fuck and get fucked into political, academic and social equality with men via prostitution and pornography

Contact me at spreademism(at)yahoo.com

****

So, just so we're clear: "laughing like a super villain," "cerebral wank," and "fisking"=abusive pornsick male language, clearly the mark of a Bad Person, no matter what the context.

"spread'emism," "disposable dick accessories," "hot, bi-sexee, willing to suck and fuck anything for money," "wet their penises with womens' holes," and "cum-hungry bi-sexee hoes" = perfectly reasonable language from someone who purports to loathe that sort of language and everything it represents. Certainly not at all offensive or misogynist or abusive, no matter what the context. And, good for all occasions! It's the professional way! It's the FEMINIST way.

Hokey-dokey then.

ETA: Dear Laurelin. You seem rather confused. Let me clear a bit more up for you, since we're talking:

"Silencing" is not, in fact, "making fun of people who are making utter asses of themselves without any help at all, to wit, throwing a tantrum and backing out of a planned debate at the last moment because she can't control the terms."

Silencing would be more, oh, say, threatening to post a porn performer's pictures "without the eye strips" (hi, Stormy!) or, I don't know, back to the case at hand for a moment, trying to strong-arm said conference organizers into disinviting the porn performer in question first.

You are, however, correct about this bit, to wit, that it is neither "silencing" nor "censorship":

when someone refuses to publish your comments on their blog, in their own personal space.

the same as having one’s actions critiqued by feminists. the critique itself presents no barrier to your continuing to act.

being asked to take responsibility for one’s own words.

...although, you know, I get the impression your and my ideas of what means "critique" are also not from the same page or possibly even the same library. Nonetheless. Saying ignorant-ass crap about other peoples' sexuality and lives and then refusing to engage them when they challenge your "critique," in your own space or even in o for example at a public debate? No, that's not "silencing." It is, however, disingenuous, and, frankly, kind of pathetic.

also, wrt this, per your guest poster?

"What to do when a woman who says she’s happy in prostitution says, “Take me, for example” when you know if you actually do take her as her own example by quoting her own words and deeds she will complain, “How dare you make an example of me?”

see, no; "please talk to me directly like a human being" is NOT the same thing as "please gank one of my quotes out of context and use it as your sigline," nor indeed "please raid my personal blog for bits that you find damning and indicative of my general ill character and/or unfitness to make my own decisions, statistical improbability, lack of trustworthiness, what you will, and drag it all over several of the most high profile feminist blogs, STILL without deigning to engage me like a person."

also also, "fisking" is, once again, not what lewd pronsick males fantasize about doing to hapless radical Victorian damsels feminists with an airport metal detector;

and the London Underground is not a political movement.

Please do let me know if there's anything else I can clear up for you.

kisses!

Reality check requested plz

I should probably leave it alone, now, especially considering the author of this particular piece of wisdom, but this was really pretty special:

Should [trans women] be able to access women’s services, I would say generally yes. They would however be better served by specialist TW advisors within the women’s services sector, in that way getting specialist needs addressed. However, it may be problematic within general housing for DV due the the majority of FABs already in residence and who may be so traumatised that a TW that does not ‘pass’ (again, this is the perception of the other women in residence) would further traumatise them. This would have to be on a case by case basis, taking into account ALL shelter residents, not just the TW. Witchy I am sure would verify this. Rape counselling for TW rape victims could well be dealt with by existing rape crisis helplines/centres, however, one would think that a TW would be better served by having a TW advisor.

The second part, that of TWs in a serving capacity in women’s services. This would be generally no. As an adjunct for supporting TWs, yes, as mentioned above. However, many TWs do not “pass” as well as they think they do, especially on the telephone. To the FAB ear, most TWs sound like very camp queens, and this is very off-putting to an FAB expecting to hear a female voice on the other end of the telephone. Before you go ballistic, specialist services like rape counselling can be further divided within the FAB group, between lesbian and heterosexual women. Many lesbians would appreciate more focused care for their unique experiences of rape. That isn’t to say that it is any more or less traumatic for any victim of rape, just different, from the victim’s perspective. That is victim-centred thinking, not ‘phobic’ to any particular group.

Source link: follow the trail of breadcrumbs, I'm not in the mood.

So as I'm reading it, according to this person:

1) trans women must be able to physically "pass" in order to be admitted to an abused womens' shelter, lest they risk retraumatizing the other women

2) trans women tend to sound like "very camp queens" over the phone, which is also traumatizing for women who've just been raped or are otherwise in crisis

3) This is not, repeat, not "phobic" to any particular group; rather, we are concerned that every victim get as focused care for her particular experience as possible. We are fine with trans women counseling other trans women; in fact we feel that this would be best. Which is why we also tell lesbian staffers not to counsel straight women over the phone, lest -they- be traumatized by the experience. Oh, wait. * Well, anyway.


Am I missing something? I just want to be sure. I mean, I've staffed hotlines and walk-in counseling centers, but only under the auspices of the dreaded LGBTQ. Generally, ime, the M.O. has been, callers and/or clients can request a male or female or any other specification for the person they talk to; and if such a person happens to be staffing that day/night, why, we'll accomodate the client. Otherwise, the client has the option of either talking or -not- talking to whoever -is- on staff; and suggestions for other places to try may be given, such as they are.

That, and: we tend to be down with the "camp queens;" in fact, being rejected or abused for sounding like a "camp queen" tends to be among the experiences that might have led a client to come see us in the first place. Generally, we tend to chalk up such monikers/rejections up to "homophobia," not just "transphobia." I'm just that is just my hopelessly selfish anti-feminism showing again, though. Anyway, I'm sure that coming from a woman--excuse me, "born and raised female" woman, such things don't cause any harm at all, because women have no power. At all.

Also, lest we forget, it's not a -right- to volunteer for a womens' crisis center, that is correct. And presumably, the decision to be so exacting about who one does and doesn't allow to speak to or help victimized women is the right one. After all, the women are our first concern; and I'm sure it's true that the constant lack of funding and understaffing for any such organization -at all- takes a backseat when it comes to this sort of thing.

No; it's far likelier that an abused/raped woman will be traumatized by the mere presence of a trans woman or, I don't know, an unrepentant stripper (who doesn't actually talk about her job to the clients) on the staff than that the loss of a willing, caring, hardworking volunteer whose only flaw was having the wrong sort of physical presentation or career, might actually be more of a problem.

Because, silly me, personally I had kind of the opposite impression, but, well, I've been wrong before, so. Just checking.

all i have to say at this point

is this:



Well, no, that's not totally true; I have a couple of comments down at the end of this post at RE's. If it's saying anything new to anyone who has ears to hear, well, Maud speed and Maud bless.

meanwhile, well, the Great Work continues, don't she.

"and life goes on."

...and this emphatically does NOT make me giggle.

The saga of one Claudia Contrada, a 17 year old who is not gay, no matter how much she insists otherwise. How do we know? Well, her mother says so. She's kind of invested in -not- having a lesbian for a child, you see: she co-runs a virulently anti-gay activist organization. One that in fact was busy protesting the very play her daughter was an actor in--"The Laramie Project," natch, it's such an offensive piece--amd which inspired her to come out, just a couple of weeks ago.

This week Contrada's daughter Claudia is starring in the Acton High School Production of the Laramie Project despite the fact that her mother helped to organize a forum against it, and no doubt opened the door for the similarly anti-gay Fred Phelps crew to plan their own protest of the event.

In a most brilliant display of resilience Claudia is standing up as an inspiring role model for anyone, especially young people, struggling with homophobia in their homes or communities. In addition to her acting, some of the things Claudia speaks out about include animal rights, AIDS, and war.

Today in an exclusive interview with QueerToday.com Claudia has revealed that she is a lesbian...

...7. What inspired you to become interested in the rights of oppressed communities, and animal rights, etc.? Who are some leaders (alive or dead) you look up to ?

Well I love animals and have grown up with them so the thought of killing them or torturing them tears me up. It’s disgusting. As far as oppressed communities go, I know what it’s like to be prevented from being who you are. It’s painful and psychologically unhealthy. People shouldn’t have to go through that.

8. Do you identify as LGB or T?

I am a lesbian, which my mom still does not get. She just says that I am confused. I realized in around eighth grade, but I was in denial for quite some time because I was scared due to my mother constantly saying that homosexuality is wrong. How can it ever be wrong to love though? That’s what I’d like to know.

Shortly after this,

The story spread among LGBT and progressive blogs. And on November 2nd, Claudia went on to give a stellar performance in the sold-out Laramie Project play that depicts the brutal anti-gay murder of Mathew Shepard. Despite overwhelming support from the community, the play was protested by Fred Phelps thanks to the red carpet Claudia's mom rolled out for them by holding an anti-Laramie Project forum at the school a few weeks prior.

That should have been the end of this story.

But today things suddenly took a turn for the worse. The author of the MassResistance website*, longtime anti-gay activist Brian Camenker, announced that Amy Contrada had pulled her daughter from school and the remaining performances of the play. As usual, his expose' also included lies and attacks on me, QueerToday.com, and the Acton school system. The twisted material was also sent out via e-mail to his supporters and the Massachusetts legislators.

As I read his vicious rant my heart sank because Claudia's cherished role in the Laramie Project, and her support system of friends, teachers, and counselors had been robbed from her in order to maintain her mother's sick addiction to hate...

This is how Amy Contrada justifies her actions:

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/07d/cac/

(I'm not hyperlinking the fuckers. I'm sorry, I'm just not).

Homosexual activists violate special-needs student, daughter of MassResistance staffer.
High school involved. Also Boston Globe reporter.
Persuaded vulnerable girl to "come out" as a lesbian on homosexual website -- for their propaganda advantage.
This is the kind of thing the homosexual movement does in schools across Massachusetts. It is pure evil.


ACTON, MASSACHUSETTS (NOV. 7, 2007) Homosexual activists - possibly in cooperation with school staff -- have viciously targeted a 17-year-old special-needs student, the daughter of Amy Contrada, a MassResistance staffer. (It's outrageous that a parent is now forced to reveal once-private information in order to stop this assault.)

Claudia Contrada was born in Korea and was adopted by Amy and her husband as an infant. Claudia's special needs include psychological/emotional issues and learning disabilities. Amy and her husband had Claudia enrolled in private parochial schools until her special needs exceeded those schools' abilities to deal with them. Thus, in seventh grade, they had no choice but to enroll Claudia in the Acton-Boxborough public school system.

But Claudia is talented in singing and especially acting. She has a beautiful voice and a fantastic memory for lines and lyrics. She has won awards for her acting. Her therapists said that Claudia's participation in the school's drama program is directly related to treatment of her special needs.
Pro-homosexual, violent play

This year the high school decided to have the drama club perform "The Laramie Project", a very objectionable pro-homosexual, anti-Christian play filled with profanity and extreme violence. Last summer, Amy met with school officials and also the drama board and begged them to choose a different play, citing Claudia's vulnerabilities. They responded very coldly, and refused to consider it...

Of course, Claudia is no more a lesbian than the man in the moon. She's always had crushes on boys, and her bedroom has always been (and still is) plastered with pictures of boys.

[picture of her daughter's wall]

Claudia's bedroom wall: Does this look like a lesbian's room to you?

So when Claudia told Amy and her husband that she's a lesbian, they basically ignored it as another silly idea that Claudia got from the latest school lunacy, and nothing more. Claudia doesn't really understand what "lesbian" is. It was all about getting attention. They did worry that she was starting to hang out with some very strange kids who had their own emotional problems stemming from "gay" and "transgender" identity issues...

Got that so far? We've got: outing the kid as a (transracial) adoptee, because it is important for everyone to know what kind, saintly people the parents are for taking the wee waif in (and incidentally, whatever's wrong with her is Not Their Fault). We've got rampant ableism--incidentally, what -are- Claudia's "special needs," exactly? There's nothing in the interview or anywhere else that suggests that she's got anything hampering her ability to get on in the world besides hateful, fucked-up "parents" and other authority figures, who, speaking of evil and religion and so on, sound like poster figures for Scott Peck's "People of the Lie." Whatever it is, though, it clearly means she just doesn't know her own mind; she's -confused-, poor dear. Also, she has pictures of teenage boy pop idols on her wall, which means she's totally straight. There is no contradiction here. Anyway, it's best she get taken out of school and away from the Bad Influences, for her own good,- of course. I'm afraid from there it actually gets worse. Photos of her queer classmates, the "corruptors," with personal information and lurid tales of their supposed depravity...

agh. sorry. ill. anyway.

Here is the most recent update from QueerToday.

Here is more information on the hate group run by Amy Contrada, "Mass Resistance" (Watch)


More later.

Quote of the day, 11/8/07

Consensually kissing the ass of a human being is remarkably less damaging than consenting to kiss the ass of the state.

--Sly Civilian

Quote of the day, 9/26/07

"...Poor old gentleman!" she said to the old man. "Mrs. Archer is certainly not going to let you leave here without a full meal inside of you."

Mrs. Archer looked doubtful. "I have some eggs," she said...

"I would rather not trouble you," the old man said to Mrs. Archer.

"Nonsense," Kathy said. "We've got to see that you get a good hot meal to go on with." She took Mrs. Archer's arm and began to walk her out to the kitchen. "Just some eggs," she said. "Fry four or five...I'll tell you, fry up a few potatoes too. He won't care if they're half-raw. These people eat things like heaps of fried potatoes and eggs and..."

..."Kathy," [Mrs. Archer] said, "I'm just a little worried. If he really is drunk, I mean, and if Jim should hear about it, with the baby here and everything..."

"Why, Jean!" Kathy said. "You should live out in the country for a while, I guess. Women always give out meals to starving men. And you don't need to tell Jim. Blanche and I certainly won't say anything."

"Well" said Mrs. Archer, "you're sure he isn't drunk?"

"I know a starving man when I see one," Kathy said. "When an old man like that can't stand up and his hands shake and he looks so funny, that means he's starving to death. Literally starving."

"Oh my!" said Mrs. Archer. She hurried to the cupboard under the sink and took out two potatoes. Two enough, do you think? I guess we're really doing a good deed."

Kathy giggled. "Just a bunch of Girl Scouts," she said...

...Then Kathy came, leading the old man by the arm. "There," she said. "Now, Mrs. Archer's fixed you a lovely hot meal."

The old man looked at Mrs. Archer. "I'm very grateful," he said.

"Isn't that nice!" Kathy said. She nodded approvingly at Mrs. Archer...

..."What's your name?" Kathy asked.

"O'Flaherty, Madam. John O'Flaherty."

"Well, John," Kathy said, "I am Miss Valentine, and this lady is Mrs. Archer and the other is Mrs. Corn."

"How do you do?" the old man said.

"I gather you're from the old country," Kathy said.

"I beg your pardon?"

"Irish, aren't you?" Kathy said.

"I am, Madam." The old man plunged the fork into one of the eggs and watched the yolk run onto the plate. "I knew Yeats," he said suddenly.

"Really?" Kathy said, leaning forward. "Let me see--he was the writer, wasn't he?"

"Come out of charity, come dance with me in Ireland," the old man said. He rose and, holding onto the chair back, bowed solemnly to Mrs. Archer. "Thank you again, Madam, for your generosity." He turned and started for the front door. The three women got up and followed him.

"But you didn't finish," Mrs. Corn said.

"The stomach," the old man said, "as this lady has pointed out, shrinks. Yes indeed," he went on reminiscently, "I knew Yeats..."

...Then he turned and thumbed his nose at Mrs. Corn. "I hate old women," he said.

"Well!" said Mrs. Corn faintly.

"I may have imbibed somewhat freely," the old man said to Mrs. Archer, "but I never served bad sherry to my guests. We are of different worlds, Madam."

"Didn't I tell you?" Mrs. Corn was saying. "Haven't I been telling you all along?"

Mrs. Archer, her eyes on Kathy, made a tentative motion of pushing the old man through the door, but he forestalled her.

"Come dance with me in Ireland," he said. Supporting himself against the wall, he reached the outer door and opened it. "And time runs on," he said.

--Shirley Jackson, The Lottery and Other Stories