On female socialization and grimly logical conclusions

Read this post by fugitivus.

If women are raised being told by parents, teachers, media, peers, and all surrounding social strata that:

it is not okay to set solid and distinct boundaries and reinforce them immediately and dramatically when crossed (“mean bitch”)
it is not okay to appear distraught or emotional (“crazy bitch”)
it is not okay to make personal decisions that the adults or other peers in your life do not agree with, and it is not okay to refuse to explain those decisions to others (“stuck-up bitch”)
it is not okay to refuse to agree with somebody, over and over and over again (“angry bitch”)
it is not okay to have (or express) conflicted, fluid, or experimental feelings about yourself, your body, your sexuality, your desires, and your needs (“bitch got daddy issues”)
it is not okay to use your physical strength (if you have it) to set physical boundaries (“dyke bitch”)
it is not okay to raise your voice (“shrill bitch”)
it is not okay to completely and utterly shut down somebody who obviously likes you (“mean dyke/frigid bitch”)
If we teach women that there are only certain ways they may acceptably behave, we should not be surprised when they behave in those ways.

And we should not be surprised when they behave these ways during attempted or completed rapes.

Women who are taught not to speak up too loudly or too forcefully or too adamantly or too demandingly are not going to shout “NO” at the top of their goddamn lungs just because some guy is getting uncomfortably close.

Women who are taught not to keep arguing are not going to keep saying “NO.”

Women who are taught that their needs and desires are not to be trusted, are fickle and wrong and are not to be interpreted by the woman herself, are not going to know how to argue with “but you liked kissing, I just thought…”

Women who are taught that physical confrontations make them look crazy will not start hitting, kicking, and screaming until it’s too late, if they do at all.

Women who are taught that a display of their emotional state will have them labeled hysterical and crazy (which is how their perception of events will be discounted) will not be willing to run from a room disheveled and screaming and crying.

Women who are taught that certain established boundaries are frowned upon as too rigid and unnecessary are going to find themselves in situations that move further faster before they realize that their first impression was right, and they are in a dangerous room with a dangerous person.

Women who are taught that refusing to flirt back results in an immediately hostile environment will continue to unwillingly and unhappily flirt with somebody who is invading their space and giving them creep alerts.

People wonder why women don’t “fight back,” but they don’t wonder about it when women back down in arguments, are interrupted, purposefully lower and modulate their voices to express less emotion, make obvious signals that they are uninterested in conversation or being in closer physical proximity and are ignored. They don’t wonder about all those daily social interactions in which women are quieter, ignored, or invisible, because those social interactions seem normal. They seem normal to women, and they seem normal to men, because we were all raised in the same cultural pond, drinking the same Kool-Aid.

And then, all of a sudden, when women are raped, all these natural and invisible social interactions become evidence that the woman wasn’t truly raped. Because she didn’t fight back, or yell loudly, or run, or kick, or punch. She let him into her room when it was obvious what he wanted. She flirted with him, she kissed him. She stopped saying no, after a while.

...Women are taught both that these rules will protect them, and that disobeying these rules results in punishment.

read the rest

Also see.

Off that latter, and the "how hard this also makes dating/hooking up," which should not be the first consideration but is still a consideration, I just wanted to add:

As someone who got more or less the standard female socialization + introvert + no real incentive to go after men in any case (usually):

Fucksake, it's not like I don't fucking get how hard it is to meet people, -women-, hello. Women who "just want to be friends;" women who stand you up; women who huddle together with cliques of their friends in the bar all night, all with their backs turned outward; women who give you the runaround because they, too, have the socialization that you recognize oh so well of "never say no directly, because that would be too confrontational, and smile harder to make up for it." And yes, the mixers and such can be extremely forced feeling and dorky. I KNOW.

Yes, I sometimes talk to strangers, the ones -I- want to talk to (and who want to talk back). Yes, I don't live in a hole, thank you, and believe me, it's damn hard to drag myself out of one a lot of the time, what with the chronic depression/anxiety and shit. Yes, it's frustrating as all hell.

And somehow, I do all this -without- all of media and social/cultural expectations drumming it in that my desires -should- be catered to, that they're normal and appropriate, even necessary to grease the wheels of society.

Top that off with the het men in question continuing to pull the same bullshit on me as any other woman because no one is exempt, really, and it's not like the assholes listen to what you want anyway, and it's generally safer to -not- go "actually I'm a dyke" to such people because hey! whole new level of potential shit! and you know something? My sympathy, it is limited.

"Nothing interferes with a man’s ability to score like a woman who doesn’t think his ego trumps her safety."

Via guerrillamamamedicine, over at Shapely Prose hits all the points that -should- be obvious, but apparently still aren't, to any number of dudes like o f'r instance this one.

We’ve recently had a number of dudes dropping in to complain that asking them to be sensitive to women’s boundaries is essentially cock-blocking them. Sure, they say, if they don’t talk to us when we clearly don’t want them to, they’ll be making us feel less threatened in a world where one in six women is the victim of sexual assault — but on the other hand, they won’t get to talk to us, and how is that fair? Nothing interferes with a man’s ability to score like a woman who doesn’t think his ego trumps her safety. Underlying this argument, along with a host of other scuzzy notions, is the same idea Saletan spikes and the Navy wives catch: that taking a “womanly body” out in public is an a priori invitation for male attention...

Then there were the guys who were clutching their pearls (if you know what I mean) in the epic thread, horrified that women might think they were a danger. After all, it’s not their fault that women feel threatened — they’re decent, humane guys. Maybe some men are dangerous, but not them, and aren’t we really creating the problem by not letting them prove how decent they are all over us?

Those guys are right, sort of. There are lots of great men out there — you can tell who they are because when they read that thread, or Saletan’s piece, they go “WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE?” And it really isn’t fair that sometimes their wives also think they can’t be trusted in a sub with 138 other guys and a lady. That’s not their fault. But it’s also not their wives’ fault, or the ladies’ fault. It’s the fault of a culture that tells all of us, over and over, that men just don’t have the ability to resist. A culture that assumes it’s women’s responsibility to keep themselves armored and invisible, because sexual violence is a direct result of temptation.

In other words, the same cultural bullshit that asserts men’s right to invade women’s personal space and/or fuck 13-year-olds also perpetuates the notion that men are more dick than brain. That’s why they just have to talk to women, when they can see the women don’t want to! That’s why they get addled by a womanly body when they know it comes with a pubescent mind! They don’t have the willpower or intelligence to not act like cavemen, at least not when faced with feminine wiles.

Fuck that noise! The real decent guys sure don’t deserve that. And the pearl-clutchers, the ones who were horrified by our insistence that rape doesn’t occur in the passive voice… well, who says they deserve it either?

...But what if that’s not good enough for you? What if you’re the kind of self-styled decent guy who still doesn’t feel like it’s fundamentally worthwhile to contribute to a culture where women don’t feel threatened because they aren’t threatened? What reason do you have to forego the rape-joke T-shirts, notice body language signals, object to misogyny, back off when asked to, maintain a comfortable distance, or any of the other little things you can do to bring rape culture down by degrees?

If the well-being of women isn’t enough for you, consider this: patriarchy thinks you’re fucking stupid. It thinks you’re a penis without a brain that’s worthwhile and powerful only because women are vaginas without brains and that’s somehow worse. It thinks you’re untrustworthy, that you can’t be left alone with a woman, that you can’t be left alone with a child. Feminists didn’t make that shit up — they’re just noting it and passing it on.

Anyone who wants to lump this in with "victim feminism" or whatever the current moniker is isn't paying attention. Yes, women have agency. And responsibility. Same as any other human. But what's conveniently left out of the equation a lot of the time, or at least underemphasized, is not only that men have responsibility (also! too!), but what that responsibility consists of. It's not about being "good." It's not about not overpowering delicate wimmins with your brute masculinity or however that incredibly tedious and ubiquitous cultural fetish/trope goes.

It's about have some fucking empathy. It's about, there -is- such a thing as community, no matter what Maggie Thatcher said. And while you're trumpeting about your rights, your individual autonomy, your -free speech-, all those terrific American concepts that are the very same ones we invoke with such handy catchphrases as "my body belongs to me" (nifty little one, there, applies to a lot more than reproductive rights), you might consider that other cliche wherein "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose."

And, further:

When a whole bunch of swinging dickheads are swinging like all get out and getting into womens' space, at minimum, your responsibility is to not -unsee it-, because it makes you uncomfortable. At -minimum-, you don't go: "Well, yes, he's a jerk, but hey, freedom of expression!" even as someone's standing there clutching her nose. At minimum, you don't go, "yes, okay, there's a lot of fist-swinging going on, (although not as much as you say there is, because -I- don't experience it), but it doesn't add up to anything; it doesn't signify; one and one and one and one do not add up to four, because I will it so."

A side note about the latter phenomenon:

How often do people-the "male pearl clutchers" alluded to above, for instance- not believe that things aren't as shitty as someone else says they are, not just because they wish to perpetuate said shittiness themselves or at least passively profit off it, but because they don't -want- to believe that shittiness exists? Because, that might fuck with their entire worldview as well as their self-image?

(part two to follow)

Flying while transgendered: no match, no flight.

And this, friends and neighbors, is a terrific example of how -systemic- transphobia works. Via Helen of Bird of Paradox:

The fixation that every citizen is a potential terrorist has gained so much ground in recent years that any concerns about implications for international travellers whose documentation might not match their gender presentation have been swept aside.

Now, via The Wall Street Journal Online (link here) I see that the paranoia about “suspected terrorists” has been extended to domestic air travel too:

Airlines this week will begin requiring some people making reservations for domestic flights to submit their dates of birth and genders as part of a screening process aimed at keeping boarding passes out of the hands of suspected terrorists, the Transportation Security Administration said.

[...]

The government’s goal is to vet all passengers on domestic commercial flights by early next year.

Of concern is that the TSA appears to be relying on the judgement of commercial airlines to make these decisions; and these decisions can also be applied to people who aren’t actually flying, but just accompanying a passenger to the boarding gate:

The TSA said it would be up to individual airlines or travel agents to decide how to collect the required information at the time a reservation is made.

[...]

People who receive gate passes, which allow them to proceed into secure areas of airports without boarding passes so they can assist other passengers, also could be required to furnish the additional data.

In other words, if the airline staff don’t like the look of you – or the friend who’s come to wave you off – you may well find that you miss your flight simply because you wore that comfy dress, even though the gender marker in your official documentation dictates that you should have been wearing a collar and tie. It’s absolute nonsense, of course – and trans-misogynistic nonsense, to boot.

...[M]y y point is that being required to provide information about one’s date of birth and gender seems unlikely to deter a committed attacker from hir objective.

It’s hard to see how this measure would have prevented, for instance, the attackers on 9/11 from boarding their planes – and, once again, the people most likely to be adversely affected are trans and gender variant people...

No-match has other implications too, of course, for being hired and fired, for medical care, for being arrested, for any number of situations where "your papers, please:" unless there are specific legal protections for trans folk in place (which there aren't in most states and cities, and even then, what's on the books is not exactly stringently enforced when it comes to civil rights, particularly if you're talking about already-very disenfranchised people), for not presenting or identifying according to your legally identified sex. And if there's a situation where you need to disrobe and your body either doesn't match what the "M" or the "F' on your paper is supposed to represent, or doesn't fully resemble what "M" or "F" is supposed to look like regardless of paperwork, well...you're not supposed to exist, and can be treated accordingly with no recourse.

See, the papers represent more than national citizenship, date of birth, basic stats: it's a way of declaring -personhood-. Which boundaries hold you? What nation, what sex? Are you a citizen of Manland or Womanland? Are you where we think you belong? Are you God forbid attempting to straddle a line that's supposed to be a wall? Are you "real?" Prove to us that you deserve to get on this airplane, work in this job, get that emergency medical care, step on this land, breathe this air. That box you need to check tells us whether you're human or not. Your papers, please.

This is of course not unrelated to the paranoia over "illegal" immigrants, or even American citizens suspected of being such: no papers? Too foreign? Too brown? Wrong time, wrong place? You, too, are a non-citizen, guilty until proven innocent. You're in the wrong box, and we don't have space. You fall in the crevice between the box outlines. Too bad, so sad; just trying to keep the rest of us safe from our formless, nameless terror; we need names, we need faces, and if yours doesn't match any of the acceptable ones, why, we'll stamp it with our fears and lock you away, overtly or covertly. Denied, delayed, detained, deported. De-legitimized. Your papers, please.

This under-the-radar scapegoating is not anything like "hope and change." This is not keeping anyone safe. This is, in fact, killing people. This is wrong, and it needs to stop.

Actually, we already -have- "death panels."

They're called, "the curtain on the window available for you to get any kind of health care under your insurance plan, even when you have one." And, don't hold back, Progressive Nation:

In your free market wonderland every one some how manages to get health care, even those who are poor or live in isolated areas, though the poor and isolated in your own state required assis­tance from the federal government.

And despite all of this, you appear blithely unaware that the free market health care system we have now does, indeed, have “death panels.” I’ve been part of a death panel conversation. I know about death panels.

You have no idea what it’s like to be called into a sterile conference room with a hospital adminis­trator you’ve never met before and be told that your mother’s insurance policy will only pay for 30 days in ICU. You can’t imagine what it’s like to be advised that you need to “make some deci­sions,” like whether your mother should be released “HTD” which is hospital parlance for “home to die,” or if you want to pay out of pocket to keep her in the ICU another week. And when you ask how much that would cost you are given a number so impossibly large that you realize there really are no decisions to make. The decision has been made for you. “Living will” or no, it doesn’t mat­ter. The bank account and the insurance policy have trumped any legal document.

If this isn’t a “death panel” I don’t know what is.

So don’t talk to me about “death panels” you heartless, cruel, greedy sons of bitches, who are only too happy to keep the profits rolling in to the big insurance companies while you spout your mealy-mouthed bumper sticker slogans about the evils of socialism. You don’t even know what socialism is. You don’t know what government health care is. You have no fucking clue about any­thing except that you lost the last election and you’re pissed off.

And, by the way, guess where the "kill Grandma" shit originated? Surprise, surprise:

When reporters asked former Alaska Gov. and Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin where she got the misinformation she posted to her Facebook page about the health care reform bill creating a "death panel" to promote euthanizing the elderly and people with disabilities, her spokesperson pointed to the section in the House Democrats' legislation that begins on page 425.

If Palin or her staff had actually read the bill, they would have realized this section simply promotes advance care planning, which in fact puts the power to make decisions about end-of-life care in the hands of individuals -- not government panels.

So where did Palin get that bad information? It appears she pulled it from a set of talking points that has been making its way around the internet in recent weeks -- talking points assembled by the Liberty Counsel, a far-right religious group that's part of Jerry Falwell's Liberty University empire based in Lynchburg, Va...

Good old Unca Jerry, fouling up the zeitgeist even from beyond the grave. Well, him among many others. But yeah, these are the oleaginous fuckers that would've been thrown out of the temple in the gorram first place; it's no surprise that they're in bed with Big Insurance, all supposedly in the equally improbably names of Free Market Freedom, Jesus Christ, and Tender Loving Care For The Most Vulnerable. Compassionate as a canker.

Good old Uncle P[F]a[scis]t

So Rachel Maddow, bless her, allowed Pat Buchanan to display some of his true white starched colors on her show.




ETA 7/20: and now Maddow has a follow-up post-mortem of that discussion, correcting some of his erm creative "facts."

As per the level of his sheer paleolithic racism, the only surprise is why anyone is surprised. Here's a sampling of Unca Pat's most shining moments over the years, okay:

After Sen. Carol Moseley Braun blocked a federal patent for a Confederate flag insignia, Buchanan wrote that she was "putting on an act" by associating the Confederacy with slavery: "The War Between the States was about independence, about self-determination, about the right of a people to break free of a government to which they could no longer give allegiance," Buchanan asserted. "How long is this endless groveling before every cry of 'racism' going to continue before the whole country collectively throws up?" (syndicated column, 7/28/93)

On race relations in the late 1940s and early 1950s: "There were no politics to polarize us then, to magnify every slight. The 'negroes' of Washington had their public schools, restaurants, bars, movie houses, playgrounds and churches; and we had ours." (Right from the Beginning, Buchanan's 1988 autobiography, p. 131)

Buchanan, who opposed virtually every civil rights law and court decision of the last 30 years, published FBI smears of Martin Luther King Jr. as his own editorials in the St. Louis Globe Democrat in the mid-1960s. "We were among Hoover's conduits to the American people," he boasted (Right from the Beginning, p. 283).

...In a memo to President Nixon, Buchanan suggested that "integration of blacks and whites -- but even more so, poor and well-to-do -- is less likely to result in accommodation than it is in perpetual friction, as the incapable are placed consciously by government side by side with the capable." (Washington Post, 1/5/92)

...In a column sympathetic to ex-Klansman David Duke, Buchanan chided the Republican Party for overreacting to Duke and his Nazi "costume": "Take a hard look at Duke's portfolio of winning issues and expropriate those not in conflict with GOP principles, [such as] reverse discrimination against white folks." (syndicated column, 2/25/89)

Trying to justify apartheid in South Africa, he denounced the notion that "white rule of a black majority is inherently wrong. Where did we get that idea? The Founding Fathers did not believe this." (syndicated column, 2/7/90) He referred admiringly to the apartheid regime as the "Boer Republic": "Why are Americans collaborating in a U.N. conspiracy to ruin her with sanctions?" (syndicated column, 9/17/89)

...In a 1977 column, Buchanan said that despite Hitler's anti-Semitic and genocidal tendencies, he was "an individual of great courage.... Hitler's success was not based on his extraordinary gifts alone. His genius was an intuitive sense of the mushiness, the character flaws, the weakness masquerading as morality that was in the hearts of the statesmen who stood in his path." (Guardian, 1/14/92) ...

...and so on.

Oh yeah, about that earnest fist pumping for the white working class:

Given his attacks on scapegoated minorities, his sympathy for fascist heroes like Francisco Franco and his striking distaste for democracy as a system of government--he once described "democratism" as an idolatry that "substitutes a false god for the real, a love of process for a love of country" (Patrick J. Buchanan: From the Right newsletter, Spring/90)--Buchanan could justifiably be seen as a descendant of the political tradition of fascism. But that's not a term that was often applied to Buchanan: While supporters frequently complained about people labeling Buchanan a "fascist," no prominent commentator seems to have actually done so.

Instead, the political philosophy that Buchanan was most often associated with was "populism"--a designation that uncritically accepts Buchanan's self-portrayal as the friend of the working class....

On examination, Buchanan's "populist" agenda doesn't go much beyond "It's the Mexicans, stupid." ...

While his economic nationalism and ties to trade- threatened industrialists like Milliken may lead him to oppose trade agreements like NAFTA and GATT, Buchanan has done little to demonstrate any real concern for workers themselves. In fact, back when he was a regular host of CNN's Crossfire, Buchanan used to argue that it was high union wages, not trade pacts, that were weakening U.S. industry (Crossfire, 7/3/91).

As Crossfire co-host (7/3/91), Buchanan vehemently opposed workers' right to strike. "Listen, the job does not belong to the guy who walks out of it," he argued. On the same show he celebrated the 1981 firing of the striking air traffic control workers, gloating that "Ronald Reagan's approval rating soared."

Of course, even if Buchanan did support a broad economic program that would benefit workers, his bigotry would disqualify him as a true representative of all the people. But many of the same elite media who were utterly distressed at the idea that someone like Buchanan might lead a major party seemed quite happy to let him play the role of the leading workers' spokesperson. In many ways, Patrick Buchanan is the perfect "populist" for the corporate press: a charismatic reactionary who channels workers' grievances into the dead end of xenophobia and scapegoating.

There is, of course, a term for this kind of extreme right-wing appeal to the white lumpenproletariat via nationalism and racist scapegoating; and, despite fatuous asses like Jonah Goldberg attempting to Humpty Dumpty the term, it still makes a lot more sense to apply it to a man who praises Franco and apologizes for Nazi war criminals and Klan leaders than to any liberal:

Fascist.

Attacking what he considers the "democratist temptation, the worship of democracy as a form of governance," Buchanan commented: "Like all idolatries, democratism substitutes a false god for the real, a love of process for a love of country." (Patrick J. Buchanan: From the Right, newsletter, Spring/90)

In a January, 1991 column, Buchanan suggested that "quasi-dictatorial rule" might be the solution to the problems of big municipalities and the federal fiscal crisis: "If the people are corrupt, the more democracy, the worse the government." (Washington Times, 1/9/91) He has written disparagingly of the "one man, one vote Earl Warren system."

...Buchanan, shortly before he announced he was running for president in 1995: "You just wait until 1996, then you'll see a real right-wing tyrant." (The Nation, 6/26/95)

So, he didn't make it as a presidential contender. Instead, he's got a comfy position on MSNBC, influential as he's been for at least the past 30 years or so. Lovable old Unca Pat. Yeah. By the way, here's one of several online petitions for MSNBC to at least stop paying him and giving him a soapbox.

ETA: All About Race does a quick debunk of some of Pat's more risible claims from the Maddow clip.

Meanwhile, on the same day Maddow lets him display himself in all his paleolithic but ultimately impotent (at least as regards opposing Sotomayor's inevitable confirmation) splendor in front of a mass audience, the nation's first black president addresses the NAACP:



As Obama noted, there's still work to be done. And no, Obama himself is far from perfect. Still, it is worth looking at the two videos side by side if one needs a reminder of...perspective.

Right wing populism v left wing populism, as expressed through musicals.

Both expressions of powerful energy...the question is, for whose benefit, and how do you channel it?

And, which scares you more?

Which attracts you more?**






**Yeah, for people reading this blog, pretty rhetorical question. But, if you think I'm being facetious by using musical numbers? Actual neo-Nazis quite like that tune (which, needless to say, was not written as a pro-Nazi anthem in its original context, but rather the opposite).

"Do you remember Cabaret with Liza Minnelli, the part where, one by one, the Hitler Youth, our fellas, stand up and start saluting and singing? That is right stirring that is, gets the blood up every time."--Tony Lecomber

also, if you actually go to Youtube? be sure to click around to see who else has uploaded that video, I mean at least a few different users.

Specter jumps the shark to the Dem side of the aisle, and...

Pat Buchanan sez that the Republican Party is "heavily white," and that this is "problematic."

Next up: Focus on the Family acknowledges that the church may be having some trouble holding onto gay folk.

And the Catholic Church notes they've been having some problems with the ol' glass ceiling.

Uh...

Damn right it's not just words

******************************************************************************************************************************
ETA: BREAKING: Jury found Andrade guilty of first degree murder (along with other counts)

Life in prison without parole. Thank god.
******************************************************************************************************************************

Yeah, this is the cheery fucking post, today. Recently, not one, but -two- eleven year old boys, separately, have killed themselves because of homophobic bullying.

mzbitca says:

April 21st, 2009 at 10:42 am - Edit
Everytime I see some homophobic asshole complain about how gay marriage/the “gay agenda” is hurting them I just want to fucking scream. THEIR agenda is basically killing people and they don’t want to see people fucking holding hands or getting married.

And while homophobia is not the -same- as transphobia?** (and yes, there's a separate issue about co-optation and erasure w/in LGBT organizations, but put that on hold for now) Or misogyny, for that matter? or any other form of gender-based oppression? (After all, Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover never ID'd as gay) Let the record show that they have the same noxious roots. Particularly in childhood.

little light says:

April 21st, 2009 at 9:58 am

God, it just makes my heart ache.

And it was so nearly me, too. I remember kids beating me up with teachers watching, who’d smirk and play innocent when I asked them for help. I think they thought it would fix me, you know? I hear in so many of these bullying stories that the people who think bullying is an important part of growing up say, over and over, it teaches children how to fit in, teaches them to be better, teaches boys especially how not to step out of line, and these are important lessons somehow. They think this bullying fixes kids and teaches them not to be freaks. They know it goes on, even encourage it. And some of us survive, somehow, but some of us–like, God, these poor 11-year-old children–don’t.

And you know–you know–there were a lot of people who knew this was going on, and chose not to stop it, because boys will be boys and that’s how kids are and hey, the kid needs to learn.

We need to find a way to give kids other, safer ways out of this. It just breaks my heart.

Little light had her own post on childhood bullying recently. Read it, if you're up for it--there's trigger warnings at the top. And then, if you're still up for potentially stomach-churning, read all the comments.

Still here? Okay. Moving on. The ongoing Angie Zapata trial, luddites and germs.

Angie Zapata was raised in Fort Lupton, Colorado, the second youngest of six children. Early in life, Angie’s family knew that she was transgender, but it wasn’t until around age 16 that she began living her life full-time as Angie. Being a woman was who Angie was - an incredibly loving daughter, sister and aunt. As a transgender woman, she faced harassment, bullying and exclusion — and eventually death. In July 2008, Angie Zapata was brutally murdered with a fire extinguisher because of anti-transgender bias. She was only 18. Zapata is survived by her mother, Maria and siblings Monica, Gonzalo, Stephanie, Ashley, and Nicole.

In high school, Angie endured harassment from other students and received little support from school administrators. In early 2008, Angie dropped out of school and moved to the city of Greeley, where she rented her own apartment. Babysitting her nephew and four nieces became Angie’s full-time job. She planned to move to Denver to pursue her interest in fashion and makeup as a cosmetologist.

A vibrant everyday Greeley teenager, Angie was an integral part of her family and community. Angie’s sister, Monica Zapata, recounted to The New York Times that, “We loved to take her out, because she got so much attention. I couldn’t even take her to Wal-Mart because people would turn around. Everybody knew Angie.” Although her friends and family were supportive, Angie was no stranger to the difficulties of life as a transgender woman. Monica Zapata said of the harassment Angie faced at school: “One time she came home crying saying, ‘Why, Monica, why won’t people accept me?’”

While the precise details of their meeting are not known, it is believed that Angie met the man who has admitted killing her through a mobile social networking site. On July 17, 2008, Angie Zapata was brutally murdered in her Greeley apartment. Two weeks later, Allen Andrade was arrested. Andrade has been charged with first degree murder, aggravated motor vehicle theft, identify theft and a bias motivated (hate) crime by the Weld County District Attorney.

The trial marks the first time that Colorado’s gender identity-inclusive hate crimes statute has been applied in the investigation and prosecution of an anti-transgender murder case.

You can follow the updates on the trial through Twitter. ETA: warning, details may be triggering.

But, so, yeah, words mean things. And in case you thought it stops when you enter the nominal world of grownups, or even that it's just limited to the "bad apples" like Andrade who actually commit the murders: here's the all-too-common-transmisogynistic trope playing out within the trial:

to wit, not only "She asked for it," but according to the prosecutor, she doesn't even get to be recognized as "she," and THAT'S -why- in this case she "had it coming," basically.

This story in the Greeley Tribune makes my blood boil. Not, surprisingly, the coverage itself, but the defense tactics in the Angie Zapata trial:

The first few times, it almost seemed like the public defenders were misspeaking.

But then, those watching the murder trial of Allen Andrade started muttering under their breaths. Witnesses on the stand continued to correct the attorneys questioning them.

Family members and friends echoed repeatedly, “my sister,” “Angie,” one by one on the stand Friday as public defenders Annette Kundelius and Brad Martin questioned them about “Justin.”

Ok, so got that straight? The defense is ungendering Angie Zapata by using a male name and pronouns. Hammering home that she had a “male” body. That she was “really a man.”

Well, what’s the difference, some more clueless cissexual people might wonder? First, this is a matter of respect. Angie lived and died as a woman. Her family and friends were adamant about that, even in the face of persistent ungendering. Of course, this is a criminal trial, not generally regarded as a place for respect. But neither is it supposed to be a place for poorly reasoned argument. Make no mistake, this is a cheap, dirty tactic.

More importantly than respect, this sets up an impossible standard for trans people to meet. Even if we out ourselves–as Angie Zapata clearly did–we are nevertheless “proved” to have been lying. It means that living her life as a woman, having the name of Angie, of itself constitutes an act of deception. In the trial’s mini-opening statements, the defense said:

“This case is not about judgment of a lifestyle,” Martin told the jury. “It’s not about whether Justin [sic] Zapata’s lifestyle was right or wrong. It’s about a deception and a reaction to that deception. … Justin’s Moco Space profile was that of a female, not of a transgender, and it certainly wasn’t that of a man.”

This article here lays out the reasoning in its title “Andrade: Stunned Victim or Homophobe.” Here, Andrade is improbably conjured as the VICTIM, not the woman he brutally bashed to death. Because obviously, a trans panic “victim” couldn’t simply walk away, couldn’t simply have been mistaken, couldn’t go “nope, sorry, not for me.” No, he’s so victimised–traumatised–by Angie’s sheer existence as an embodied trans woman with a penis, that he was forced to kill her.

Get it now?

(That's a rhetorical question. If the answer is "no," or if you're planning to argue,*** you need to -not- do it here. Yes, it's taken as granted that you're not a murderer, really. Just don't).



** fascinating. The automated spellcheck doesn't recognize "transphobia." It gives "homophobia" a pass, though.

***Kristin said...

...No matter what (and across a wide range of political viewpoints), it seems to be taken as unproblematic to center cis points of view on your experiences because cis points of view must always be validated. No matter that you're specifically writing about experiences that cis people do not have, there still seems to be this instinctive impulse to center cis experience.

...And there's a fair amount of entitlement in all of this, eh? I'm starting to think... I mean, so I've certainly fucked up in this kind of way, but here's the thing.... When cis people start to feel this instinctive urge to center *our own experiences* to the point of drowning out a story of emotional trauma and abuse... When we begin to do this *even though* we are demonstrating an extreme dissonance with the profound pain being expressed... When we can only think to engage with narratives like yours by calling the veracity of your claims into question under the guise of "objective truth"... Honestly? We ought to STFU, stop ourselves from centering our own experiences, recognize what we're doing, and deal with our blind spots without inflicting pain on marginalized people.

That said: I have to concur. Bil of Bilerico, you're wrong here.

Here's why. Also see. And. And. Or just go straight to the person you were threatening to excuse me fantasizing about sic(cing) Lily Law on.

And for the record, Bil, I consider a lot of things "unacceptable;" it's why this nice respectable cis white dyke has finally taken you off the roll, much as I've valued a lot of your work. I'm sure you'll manage fine, obviously; but hey, for the record.

p.s. and I have the strangest feeling of deja vu.

ETA: No, you hopeless dumbass, "Die In A Fire" does not LITERALLY mean someone is coming after you with the jug of kerosene and a torch.

also? if you've been avoiding sidewalk cracks all this time? Moms thanks you, but really: it's okay to -step.-

The axe is totes real though. Srsly. BE AFRAID.

ETA again: okay, I know DIAF is actually not exactly cute or funny for people who've been seriously threatened with kerosene and torch, or knew people who, yep, died in a fire. I'm not snarking at people who don't like the term, and it does seem like people are actually getting triggered or -something- right and left here. I was specifically snarking at the guy who suggested that Bil note the common Internet acronym as a "2nd threat," because, you know, if that's the yardstick you're using I think yeah, you -would- be handing out a lot more bans. Like, probably half your commentariat at one point or another (if it's not that, it's something else) Which is your prerogative, ban away (RESPECT MAH AUTHORITAH!), but ffs any random person who invokes that isn't making a -threat-, all right? For a start, besides being common, it's not a threat, strictly speaking, that, it's a curse.

I mean, there's a lot of shit that gets casually uttered on the Internets (and elsewhere) that's actually not necessarily dandy just because everyone says it.

Beyond that, I'm not following this crap anymore because it's making me want to double-spork and I'm running low on eyeballs here. Regardless of how "real" -any- of the growly motions and handwaves are--and yeah, it does at least seem more -realistic- to suspect that someone offering to report someone's info to the police means business than someone talking about "heads on pikes," all right? --yeah, bottom line, Bil's been clueless, so's the HRC (and way beyond clueless) and it really blows that the very -real- and imo justified anger at the White Normative GAY andlesbian (and sort of bi)
... .... ... ... ... ...((((((((((((((((((((((((((((and okay trans when we need 'em for a symbol but meanwhile we'll collectively keep throwing real trans people under the bus every chance we get))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

...face of the "Umbrella" movement gets dismissed, again, because OH NOEZ MEEN SCARY DWAMA DWAMA DWAMA.

Buh bye, Blago

Srsly.

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. – Gov. Rod Blagojevich was thrown out of office Thursday without a single lawmaker coming to his defense, brought down by a government-for-sale scandal that stretched from Chicago to Capitol Hill and turned the foul-mouthed politician into a national punchline.

Blagojevich, accused of trying to sell Barack Obama's vacant Senate seat, becomes the first U.S. governor in more than 20 years to be removed by impeachment.

After a four-day trial, the Illinois Senate voted 59-0 to convict him of abuse of power, automatically ousting the second-term Democrat. In a second, identical vote, lawmakers further barred Blagojevich from ever holding public office in the state again.

"He failed the test of character. He is beneath the dignity of the state of Illinois. He is no longer worthy to be our governor," said Sen. Matt Murphy, a Republican from suburban Chicago.

Blagojevich's troubles are not over. Federal prosecutors are drawing up an indictment against him on corruption charges...

Question: what made this guy so special, as far as corruption goes? Is the real difference mostly that he was more of a blatant asshole about it than, well, *koff* a bunch of government officials who somehow managed to avoid impeachment?

Not that I don't think he deserves it, I hasten to add. Just: wow, he's special, isn't he...

Maybe it's the hair.

What, us torture?

Sickened but not surprised:

Documents say detainee near insanity

By PAMELA HESS, Associated Press Writer 47 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - A U.S. military officer warned Pentagon officials that an American detainee was being driven nearly insane by months of punishing isolation and sensory deprivation in a U.S. military brig, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.


While the treatment of prisoners at detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and in Afghanistan and Iraq have long been the subject of human rights complaints and court scrutiny, the documents shed new light on how two American citizens and a legal U.S. resident were treated in military jails inside the United States.

The Bush administration ordered the men to be held in military jails as "enemy combatants" for years of interrogations without criminal charges, which would not have been allowed in civilian jails.

The men were interrogated by the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency, repeatedly denied access to attorneys and mail from home and contact with anyone other than guards and their interrogators. They were deprived of natural light for months and for years were forbidden even minor distractions such as a soccer ball or a dictionary.

"I will continue to do what I can to help this individual maintain his sanity, but in my opinion we're working with borrowed time," an unidentified Navy brig official wrote of prisoner Yaser Esam Hamdi in 2002. "I would like to have some form of an incentive program in place to reward him for his continued good behavior, but more so, to keep him from whacking out on me."

("whacking out on me")

So. Anyone planning to ask Senator McCain about this tonight? I mean I'd really like to hear what he in particular has to say, all things considered.

yes, THAT, dammit.

On who "Joe Sixpack" really is.

See, JSP isn't referring to our rock hard abs. JSP literally means "the blue collar guy who picks up a six pack of cheap beer every night after work and goes home to watch Nascar (and probably beat his wife/kids and light a cross on the black neighbor's lawn but we won't say anything about that wink wink nudge nudge)." That is the message that they are trying to get across to America.

when in fact, Joe Sixpack IS the black neighbor, and he's having a Nascar watching party with his boyfriend and his sister and her girlfriend, and yeah, sure, they're drinking beer, only Joe's not having too much because he has to get up early to finish writing his sermon. Then they all play Scrabble and talk about trends in science fiction and Japanese horror movies for a while before putting the kids to bed. Guess how they all vote? Go on, guess.

And this bit, I really liked this:

I wish I were only talking to one camp. But I'm talking to my own, too. We "liberal elitists." Because we say the same kind of things when talking about "the average American."

...And that's kind of dangerous, and it's also kind of not true. Like I said, there are those people out there, and we know what camp they are in. But how many of us assumed "the average American" would say that Palin won the debate, because she didn't fall down and start speaking in tongues? And what are the polls saying? And hasn't our side also been moaning about how "Joe Six-Pack" wouldn't vote for a black man? Assuming "the average American" is that special demographic? Do we really think he did so well in the primaries because there's such a vast quantity of "intellectual elites" out there to compensate for all of the average people who'd naturally vote right wing? Come on, people...

(read the rest. Srsly, do.)

This. This. This is the problem I've been having with the lovely nihilism punctuated with spasms of GO TEAM!! all over way too many of the hardcore politicos, from mainstream horserace watching a la Kos down to the more esoteric branches of feminism and beyond.

Because, you know something: it's all too easy for a "the rabble is so easily swayed by this cheap crap, if only they were all as enlightened as me/us" to tip over into the sort of kitschy reactionary bullshit we're looking at right now. (Gerard Van der Leun, here's looking at you). All it takes is a jolt of fear in the right place and we're off to the bunker.

The problem isn't "intellectual elitism." The problem is people on either side of the aisle who're so busy congratulating our clever selves for not letting anyone put anything over on -us- that we forgot what we stood for in the damn first place.

I think, last I checked, it supposedly had something to do with "other people." Democracy, don't you know. The antithesis of "elitism."

You know, Joe and Jane Sixpack. All those zillions of -people- out there. Salt of the earth for sure, maybe, possibly; just don't trust them to find their own ass with a map and a flashlight, the dumbasses

Unlike, say...us, who totally know what we're doing.

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.

Et tu, Scottie?

Damn, that's gotta smart. McClellan: Bush must blame himself for mistrust

If the nation doesn't trust the Bush White House, it's the president's and Dick Cheney's own fault, Bush's former spokesman told Congress Friday.

From life-and-death matters on down — the rationale for war, the leaking of classified information, Cheney's accidental shooting of a friend — the government's top two leaders undermined their credibility by "packaging" their version of the truth, former press secretary Scott McClellan said.

He described the loss of trust as self-inflicted, telling the House Judiciary Committee that Bush and his administration failed to open up about White House mistakes.

The focus of the panel's hearing was the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity, and McClellan said that was a good example of the administration damaging itself by backtracking on a pledge be upfront.

"This White House promised or assured the American people that at some point when this was behind us they would talk publicly about it. And they have refused to," McClellan said. "And that's why I think more than any other reason we are here today and the suspicion still remains."

The White House dismissed Friday's hearing as unenlightening and McClellan, the president's former top spokesman, as uninformed. Republicans on the committee accused him of writing about sensitive matters to make money, a reference to his recent book, "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception..."

I'm sure there's a name for this phenomenon more formal and precise than "rats deserting a sinking ship," but I can't think of one at the moment. Will Ari be next, one wonders?

More on McCain, then.

To wit, no, he is NOT a "moderate," yes, he IS substantially worse than either Obama -or- HRC, and yes, even if this doesn't turn out to be the very last free democratic election in the U.S. or anywhere ever -either,- it -does- matter, and it -will- be more than bad -enough- for way too many people if he wins. Part one of a probably continuing series.

To begin.

From Mother Jones: an article on McCain's "spiritual guide," Rod Parsley, who is worth a post or twelve in his own right. Here is a taste, though, to get you started, on THAT guy. (MoJo article continues below vids).

Senator John McCain hailed as a spiritual adviser an Ohio megachurch pastor who has called upon Christians to wage a "war" against the "false religion" of Islam with the aim of destroying it.

On February 26, McCain appeared at a campaign rally in Cincinnati with the Reverend Rod Parsley of the World Harvest Church of Columbus, a supersize Pentecostal institution that features a 5,200-seat sanctuary, a television studio (where Parsley tapes a weekly show), and a 122,000-square-foot Ministry Activity Center. That day, a week before the Ohio primary, Parsley praised the Republican presidential front-runner as a "strong, true, consistent conservative."

...McCain, with Parsley by his side at the Cincinnati rally, called the evangelical minister a "spiritual guide."

The leader of a 12,000-member congregation, Parsley has written several books outlining his fundamentalist religious outlook, including the 2005 Silent No More. In this work, Parsley decries the "spiritual desperation" of the United States, and he blasts away at the usual suspects: activist judges, civil libertarians who advocate the separation of church and state, the homosexual "culture" ("homosexuals are anything but happy and carefree"), the "abortion industry," and the crass and profane entertainment industry. And Parsley targets another profound threat to the United States: the religion of Islam.

In a chapter titled "Islam: The Deception of Allah," Parsley warns there is a "war between Islam and Christian civilization." He continues:

I cannot tell you how important it is that we understand the true nature of Islam, that we see it for what it really is. In fact, I will tell you this: I do not believe our country can truly fulfill its divine purpose until we understand our historical conflict with Islam. I know that this statement sounds extreme, but I do not shrink from its implications. The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore.

Parsley is not shy about his desire to obliterate Islam. In Silent No More, he notes—approvingly—that Christopher Columbus shared the same goal: "It was to defeat Islam, among other dreams, that Christopher Columbus sailed to the New World in 1492…Columbus dreamed of defeating the armies of Islam with the armies of Europe made mighty by the wealth of the New World. It was this dream that, in part, began America." He urges his readers to realize that a confrontation between Christianity and Islam is unavoidable: "We find now we have no choice. The time has come."

...Parsley, who refers to himself as a "Christocrat," is no stranger to controversy. In 2007, the grassroots organization he founded, the Center for Moral Clarity, called for prosecuting people who commit adultery. In January, he compared Planned Parenthood to Nazis. In the past Parsley's church has been accused of engaging in pro-Republican partisan activities in violation of its tax-exempt status.

Why would McCain court Parsley? He has long had trouble figuring out how to deal with Christian fundamentalists, an important bloc for the Republican Party. During his 2000 presidential bid, he referred to Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell as "agents of intolerance." But six years later, as he readied himself for another White House run, McCain repudiated that remark. More recently, his campaign hit a rough patch when he accepted the endorsement of the Reverend John Hagee, a Texas televangelist who has called the Catholic Church "the great whore" and a "false cult system." After the Catholic League protested and called on McCain to renounce Hagee's support, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee praised Hagee's spiritual leadership and support of Israel and said that "when [Hagee] endorses me, it does not mean that I embrace everything that he stands for or believes in." After being further criticized for his Hagee connection, McCain backed off slightly, saying, "I repudiate any comments that are made, including Pastor Hagee's, if they are anti-Catholic or offensive to Catholics." But McCain did not renounce Hagee's endorsement.

A bit more on Hagee, if you haven't been following, the -other- scary paleolithic right-wing religious zealot McCain endorser:







and a compare-n-contrast with the Obama/Wright business from the Sable Verity:

It took more time than it should have, but on Tuesday Barack Obama firmly rejected the racism and paranoia of his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., and he made it clear that the preacher does not represent him, his politics or his campaign.

Senator Obama has had to struggle to explain this relationship ever since a video surfaced of Mr. Wright damning the United States from his pulpit. Last month, Mr. Obama delivered a speech in which he said he disapproved of Mr. Wright’s racially charged comments but said that the pastor still played an important role in his spiritual life.

It was a distinction we were not sure would sit well with many voters. But what mattered more was the speech’s powerful commentary on the state of race relations in this country. We hoped it would open the door to a serious, healthy and much-needed discussion on race.

Mr. Wright has not let that happen. In the last few days, in a series of shocking appearances, he embraced the Rev. Louis Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism. He said the government manufactured the AIDS virus to kill blacks. He suggested that America was guilty of “terrorism” and so had brought the 9/11 attacks on itself.

This could not be handled by a speech about the complexities of modern life. It required a powerful, unambiguous denunciation — and Mr. Obama gave it. He said his former pastor’s “rants” were “appalling.” “They offend me,” he said. “They rightly offend all Americans. And they should be denounced. And that’s what I’m doing very clearly and unequivocally here today.”

He said he was angry that Mr. Wright suggested that he was insincere when he previously criticized the pastor’s views. “If Reverend Wright thinks that that’s political posturing, as he put it, then he doesn’t know me very well,” Mr. Obama said. “And based on his remarks yesterday, well, I may not know him as well as I thought either.”

...Senator John McCain has continued to embrace a prominent white supporter, Pastor John Hagee, whose bigotry matches that of Mr. Wright. Mr. McCain has not tried hard enough to stop a race-baiting commercial — complete with video of Mr. Wright — that is being run against Mr. Obama in North Carolina.

***

So, the latest with Hagee is, he's apologized for the Catholic-baiting.

John Hagee, an influential Texas televangelist who endorsed John McCain, apologized to Catholics Tuesday for his stinging criticism of the Roman Catholic Church and for having "emphasized the darkest chapters in the history of Catholic and Protestant relations with the Jews."

Hagee's support for McCain has drawn cries of outrage from some Catholic leaders who have called on McCain to reject Hagee's endorsement. The likely Republican nominee has said he does not agree with some of Hagee's past comments, but did not reject his support.

In a letter to William Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights, Hagee wrote: "Out of a desire to advance a greater unity among Catholics and evangelicals in promoting the common good, I want to express my deep regret for any comments that Catholics have found hurtful."

Which is great, if you're William Donohue, apparently (remember him?)

Donohue, one of Hagee's sharpest critics, said he accepted the apology and planned to meet with Hagee Thursday in New York.

"I got what I wanted," Donohue said in an interview. "He's seen the light, as they like to say. So for me it's over."

...you know, this William Donohue.

William A. Donohue, president of the conservative Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, has made 23 guest appearances on TV news programs in 2004. Donohue uses his appearances primarily to attack gays and progressives. He has referred to the "gay death style," remarked, "God forbid we'd run out of little gay kids," claimed that Senator John Kerry "never found an abortion he couldn't justify," and claimed that "Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular ... Hollywood likes anal sex."

... although Hagee's not yet seen fit to apologize for such gems as

"[Gay marriage] will open the door to incest, to polygamy, and every conceivable marriage arrangement demented minds can possibly conceive. If God does not then punish America, He will have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah."

or

"The Quran teaches that [all Muslims have a mandate to kill Christians and Jews]. Yes, it teaches that very clearly."

or

"Only a Spirit-filled woman can submit to her husband's lead. It is the natural desire of a woman to lead through feminine manipulation of the man...Fallen women will try to dominate the marriage. The man has the God-given role to be the loving leader of the home."

or

It was the disobedience and rebellion of the Jews, God’s chosen people, to their covenantal responsibility to serve only the one true God, Jehovah, that gave rise to the opposition and persecution that they experienced beginning in Canaan and continuing to this very day.

And:

How utterly repulsive, insulting, and heartbreaking to God for his chosen people to credit idols with bringing blessings he had showered upon the chosen people. Their own rebellion had birthed the seed of anti-Semitism that would arise and bring destruction to them for centuries to come.

So, McCain's officially said he's not on board with everything Hagee says, to wit:

Reporting on a New Orleans campaign event at which Sen. John McCain's "carefully scripted imagery was interrupted by a voter's question about Pastor John Hagee," CNN's Dana Bash aired a clip of Hagee -- who has endorsed McCain -- saying of Hurricane Katrina, "What happened in New Orleans looked like the curse of God." But Bash did not air the portion of Hagee's comments in which he reaffirmed his previous assertion that Hurricane Katrina was at least in part the result of "sin" that Hagee identified as "a massive homosexual rally." CNN's John Roberts and Kyra Phillips similarly noted that Hagee said that "Katrina was God's punishment for sinful behavior in New Orleans" without mentioning that among the "sinful behavior" Hagee referenced was the gay pride parade.

... McCAIN: When someone endorses me, that does not mean that I embrace their views.

BASH: And, on his bus, a dig at [Sen.] Barack Obama.

McCAIN: I didn't attend Pastor Hagee's church for 20 years. And there's a great deal of difference, in my view, between someone who endorses you and other circumstances.

... McCain called Reverend Hagee's comments, quote, "nonsense," but didn't reject his endorsement.

O.K., so let's go with, Hagee's just this one guy who endorses him, kind of embarrassing, that McCain has to sort of tolerate, perhaps, nod nod wink wink. This is either a sign in his favor or...not, depending on where you're coming from. Certainly McCain's had an uneasy relationship with the extremist theocratic right in the past. And some of the key leaders still don't really seem to trust him.

April 3, 2008 12:10

...James Dobson, the head of Focus on the Family, struck out against the candidacy of John McCain, in a statement sent to the Wall Street Journal. "I have seen no evidence that Sen. McCain is successfully unifying the Republican Party or drawing conservatives into his fold. To the contrary, he seems intent on driving them away," he wrote.

As for Rod Parsley, well...here's an interesting take on that relationship.

No one believes, of course, that McCain, an Episcopalian-turned Baptist-of-convenience, looks for spiritual advice from Ralph - er, Rod Parsley. Long coveted by Republican politicians, Parsley, a Pentecostal, tongue-speaking, faith-healing Bible college drop-out, is not sought after for his theological acumen. He's been on the Republican radar screen since the mid-1980s, when he first began building a national audience through his daily TV programme, Breakthrough. Starting with, he claims, a backyard following of 17 people, he has built a 12,000-member church and a television empire by peddling the idea that if you give him your money, God will bless you a thousand times over with financial abundance. "Sow a seed," Parsley preaches, and "you will reap a harvest."

Parsley didn't invent this formulation, known as Word of Faith, a Christian movement with roots in post-World War II revivals, which has grown like wildfire since the advent of Christian television in the 1960s. Parsley is part of a movement that includes names like Kenneth Copeland and Creflo Dollar, who have been in the news for their defiance of a Senate investigation (led by McCain's fellow Republican Charles Grassley) into possible abuse of their churches' tax-exempt status by diverting donations for their own profit. It includes Parsley, McCain endorser John Hagee, and thousands of others like them, who pastor churches in big cities and small towns, raking in tithes and offerings by peddling the idea that God will bless you with financial rewards if you line your preacher's pockets.

...If you were to look inside the founding documents of Parsley's church and talk to a few people, you'd find his church was set up by a lawyer - later disbarred for helping another pastor fleece his flock - who thinks that the Bible shows that the pastor should be "the highest paid person around" and identifies government as the beast in the Book of Revelation. You would find that this lawyer created an authoritarian structure for Parsley that named him pastor for life. You would find that no one has the right question Parsley or to see the church's finances. If you made a trip to the local courthouse, you would find that Parsley's been sued three times - twice by family members - but that gag orders shield the settlements from public view.

Perhaps McCain might claim his error is a failure to vet Parsley, as he recently maintained he neglected to vet Hagee, Parsley's friend and ally. But Google, Amazon and television offer all the vetting you'd really need. McCain's sin is not a failure to vet Parsley, but his enthusiastic participation in the enterprise he once condemned: the Republican scheme to monopolize the ballots of "values voters" by propping up leaders whose own values are dubious at best.

In other words, as I read all this, at least: McCain's not really a theocrat in his heart, no; but he's totally willing to play (along with) one on TV as far as he has to, if the backroom deals cut with high-profile snake-handler-oil salesmen help get him into power.

And this would be a good, for anyone except the backroom dealers in question, how?

I mean, the prevailing view more or less has been that McCain is a "moderate," a "maverick," even, goes his own way, doesn't owe his soul to anyone, good old fashioned salt of the earth old-school small-c conservative.

And one could, I suppose, try to make the case that somewhere under all the current posturing and posing and pandering with people who sound like they're straight outta the Handmaid's Tale when they don't sound like bargain basement Elmer Gantries, the "real" McCain is still in there, and will return once he's safely in office. (Apart from of course he's still a Republican with the legacy of eight years of Dubya already firmly in place). Well, it can't be -too- bad, right? Maybe? Say, who -is- the real McCain, then, anyway, assuming he doesn't have to dance too much with the ones like Hagee and Parsley what brung him? What are his positions -now-, as opposed to ten or twenty years ago? What's his actual voting record? What could we reasonably expect from a McCain presidency?

ETA: Very briefly, and once again, here's a hint of what we might expect from McCain wrt reproductive rights:

#
Voting Record
# Supports repealing Roe v. Wade. (May 2007)
# Voted YES on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
# Voted YES on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007)
# Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
# Voted YES on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
# Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
# Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
# Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
# Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
# Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
# Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)

# Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)

which, in case you were wondering why NARAL just endorsed Obama, well, it's because if you put him up against McCain rather than HRC, which, like it or not, it looks like NARAL has decided is realpolitik, the contrast is rather stark:

# Rated 100% by NARAL on pro-choice votes in 2005, 2006 & 2007. (Jan 2008)
# Voted against banning partial birth abortion. (Oct 2007)
# Stem cells hold promise to cure 70 major diseases. (Aug 2007)
# Trust women to make own decisions on partial-birth abortion. (Apr 2007)
# Extend presumption of good faith to abortion protesters. (Oct 2006)
# Constitution is a living document; no strict constructionism. (Oct 2006)
# Pass the Stem Cell Research Bill. (Jun 2004)
# Protect a woman's right to choose. (May 2004)
# Supports Roe v. Wade. (Jul 1998)
# Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
# Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
# Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
# Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
# Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
# Sponsored bill providing contraceptives for low-income women. (May 2006)
# Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006)
# Ensure access to and funding for contraception. (Feb 2007)

**** Rated 100% by NARAL on pro-choice votes in 2005, 2006 & 2007. (Jan 2008)****


to be continued.

ETA: btw, you know what else about Rod Parsley?

Some analysts credit Parsley for helping President George W. Bush win Ohio in 2004. As pastor of the 12,000-member World Harvest Church, Parsley used his platform to campaign for a state ban on gay marriage. When those he rallied entered the polling booth, most also pulled the lever for Bush, who won the state by only two percentage points.

Parsley has ambitious goals for the November election, which features hard-fought Ohio gubernatorial and Senate races that could also shape the presidential election in 2008.

Dear American Psychiatric Association: What the -hell- are you thinking?

Via Questioning Transphobia, the Bilerico Project:

A short time ago, I’d [Mercedes Allen] discussed the movement to have “Gender Identity Disorder” (GID, a.k.a. “Gender Dysphoria”) removed from the DSM-IV or reclassified, and how we needed to work to ensure that any such change was an improvement on the existing model, rather than a scrapping or savaging of it.

Lynn Conway reports that on May 1st, 2008, the American Psychiatric Association named its work group members appointed to revise the Manual for Diagnosis of Mental Disorders in preparation for the DSM-V. Such a revision would include the entry for GID.

On the Task Force, named as Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders Chair, we find Dr. Kenneth Zucker, from Toronto’s infamous Centre for Addictions and Mental Health (CAMH, formerly the Clarke Institute). Dr. Zucker is infamous for utilizing reparative (i.e. “ex-gay”) therapy to “cure” gender-variant children. Named to his work group, we find Zucker’s mentor, Dr. Ray Blanchard, Head of Clinical Sexology Services at CAMH and creator of the theory of autogynephilia, categorized as a paraphilia and defined as “a man’s paraphilic tendency to be sexually aroused by the thought or image of himself as a woman.”

Drs. Blanchard, Zucker, J. Michael Bailey (whose work has even gone so far as to touch on eugenics) and a small cadre of others are proponents of dividing the transsexual population by sexual orientation (”homosexual transsexuals” vs. “autogynephilic”) and have repeatedly run afoul of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH, formerly HBIGDA), and openly defied the Standards of Care that WPATH maintains (modeled after the original SoC developed by Dr. Harry Benjamin) in favor of conversion techniques. Blanchard and Bailey supporters also include Dr. Alice Dreger, who re-stigmatized treatment of intersex, controversial sexologist Dr. Anne Lawrence, and Dr. Paul McHugh, who had set out in the begining of his career to close the Gender Clinic at Johns Hopkins University and has been one of our most vocal detractors.

An additional danger that gay and lesbian communities need to be cognizant of is that if Zucker and company entrench conversion therapy in the DSM-V, then it is a clear, dangerous step toward also legitimizing **ex-gay therapy and re-stigmatizing homosexuality...

The call to action, thus far:

The APA press release states that for further information regarding this, to contact Rhondalee Dean-Royce (rroyce@psych.org) and Sharon Reis (sreis@gymr.com), though it’s possible that they may govern the press release only, rather than have any involvement in the decision to appoint Zucker. The APA itself is headquartered at 1000 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1825, Arlington VA, 22209. Their Annual General Meeting is currently being held (May 3-8, 2008) in Washington, DC.

I’m poorly situated (Western Canada, with no travel budget) to lead the drive for this, which I see as a very serious danger to the transgender community. So I am calling on the various Transgender and GLBT organizations to band together to take action on this, and will assist in whatever way that I and AlbertaTrans can.

I am also calling upon our allies and advocates in the medical community and affiliated with WPATH to band together with us and combat this move which could potentially see WPATH stripped of its authority on matters regarding treatment of transsexuals.

**
Yeah, about that ex-gay therapy. Here's a bit of how that works, one of many such stories:

For three years I had weekly sessions with Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, president of the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). Dr. Nicolosi thought that homosexuality was a pathology, a sublimated desire to reconnect with one’s lost masculinity. The theory: under-attentive fathers and over-attentive mothers create gay children. The purpose of therapy was to put me in touch with my masculine identity and thereby change my sexual orientation.

I would like to say that I resisted therapy throughout, but the truth is that I liked and respected Dr. Nicolosi. And the theory sounded plausible (I was too young to know that plausible does not mean true). It is a period in my life that I do not think about often, not because it hurts especially but because it has become increasingly irrelevant.

...Years after I stopped therapy, I requested the case notes, knowing they would be destroyed after seven years. They provided an annotated collection of long-forgotten events. Next to the description of an argument with a male friend, Dr. Nicolosi scribbled “needs to look at the real source.” This was code: whatever the problem, it would be traced back to my lost masculine sense of self; I was angry because my friend had not paid attention to me as my father had not. Much of therapy also involved uncovering the numerous ways in which my parents had cheated me (as a teenager, I was more than happy to blame things on them).

Disgust with what was termed the “gay lifestyle” was implicit in therapy. I remember Dr. Nicolosi telling me, in response to the question of whether one could easily contract HIV from semen, that if this were the case then gays would be “jerking off in hamburgers all over” to infect people.

I learned to be a man: I was encouraged to play catch with my father, work out, watch football. At one point Dr. Nicolosi assigned me a therapy partner who was my age. Ryan and I used to speak by phone (he was in Colorado, I in Arizona), gossiping about school, at one point promising to send each other pictures of ourselves (the canker was already on the rose). After not hearing from him for a few weeks I called his family, who told me that Ryan had gone to court and emancipated himself from them. His father, in tears, told me this had ruined his life...

And just in case you -still- are under the delusion that right-wing Christian fundamentalists are somehow going to be better friends to trans folk than they are to lesbigay people, in the U.S. or elsewhere:

that guy Zucker? who's on the new APA committee? Here's what you're getting in bed with, "radical feminists" who "question transgender," gay folks who believe that all this trans stuff is none of our business and a distraction from the real issues, and basically anyone who gives a damn about human rights viz a viz gender, sex, and mental health but doesn't see the problem here:

Zucker has long been a self-proclaimed "leading figure" in the care of gender variant children. Many hundreds of such children have been forced through his infamous facility (formerly known as The Clarke Institute) by their parents and by the centralized Canadian health care system, and have been coerced there into denying their innate gender feelings - at least while young and under the control of Zucker.

Zucker is widely-known for his insistence that feminine boys "drop the Barbie", and for his strict enforcement of traditional masculinity on boy children as a means of "curing GID". Zucker is especially focused on prevention of transsexualism, considering gender transition to be a very bad outcome. In the process, Zucker has become the darling of groups like the Catholic Education Center and the National Association for Research and Therapy on Homosexuality (NARTH) (more), which have highly promoted his work among their homophobic and transphobic constituencies.

In March 2007 NARTH published a report entitled "Gender Identity Disorders In Childhood And Adolescence: A Critical Inquiry And Review Of The Kenneth Zucker Research". In that report, NARTH lauds Zucker's reversion therapy at CAMH (aka The Clarke Institute), in which he psychologically intervenes to "cure" childhood GID, seeing it as a way to "cure" homosexuality too. The report concludes:


"Zucker’s priority is “helping these kids be happily male or female,” but he also acknowledges that the treatment process does, in some cases, apparently avert homosexual development . And in support of parents’ rights to avert a homosexual outcome for their children, Zucker cites a persuasive quote from Richard Green: “The right of parents to oversee the development of children is a long -established principle. Who is to dictate that parents may not try to raise their children in a manner that maximizes the possibility of a heterosexual outcome?"" -- NARTH, March 2007