Dear political robocallers of various ilk ("live" included):

I am currently registered Apathetic. I am going to vote for (or against, respectively) the people and measures who/which seem least likely to fuck shit over even more than the alternative(s), based on what I READ from sources I trust, and that is It. No donations, no forwarding the emails to four thousand of my best friends, no joining your zombie blob campaign for no remuneration so that I can feel like Lucy with the football when you inevitably break the promises about the issues I most care about.

No, calling me twenty times a day and leaving long messages on my crap answering machine which doesn't fast forward do NOT make me more likely to want to vote for you, much less do anything else. Likewise, filling up my email box with spam about races I have not the slightest interest in/candidates I couldn't vote for anyway on account of I do not live in those places. They do make me more likely wish you into the fucking cornfield. Hope for your sakes I do not, in fact, have that ability. Thank you and piss off.

Addendum: WHY IN THE NAME OF BABY CTHULHU IS THERE A CARLY FIORINA AD TACKED ONTO ALL THE YOUTUBE BLACK BOOKS VIDEOS IS THIS SOME KIND OF SICK JOKE

Oh joy, just what we all needed: PUMA 2.0

aka: "Shut up, Hamster."

Srsly okai.

Or, I guess, I had a long sit, as my partner drove. I read Deoliver47's post about 'Ms. Hamsher' and it rather annoyed me. I've lived for most of my life amongst those people who now go by "tea baggers" (their own moniker) and I knew that no matter what happened in politics, I could never accept an alliance with such hate-filled individuals and I couldn't understand a progressive that might advocate such a move. Then I read a diary that said Ms. Hamsher had gone on Faux and Friends to appeal to their audience to 'kill the bill'. It wasn't much of a diary (sorry diarist!), so I checked the Fox site itself and damned if it wasn't true. Not only had she gone on Faux, she'd not even asserted herself to decry what the party of "no" had done to decimate the hcr bill. She talked about how the bill would increase costs to the middle class and would effect your current coverage and "causes it to be worse"; it sounded like right-wing talking points.

So, despite my struggle to remain objective, I was getting a lil subjective. When I logged on tonight, the first diary I saw was about Ms. Hamsher joining forces with Grover Norquist to force Rahm Emmanuel to resign. Grover Norquist? Really? I'm sure readers here know who Norquist is...founder, supported by President Reagan, of American's For Tax Reform; opposition of President Clinton's attempt at health care reform; Contra and North supporter; co-author, with Messr. Gingrich, of the "Contract with America; Abramoff aficionado; supporter and promoter of President G. W. Bush. Need I say more? That sort of perked my ears.

But it wasn't until a poster noted that Ms. Hamsher had tweeted about Senator Bernie Sanders losing his seat unless he killed the bill. Losing his seat. The only self-professed socialist in the political spectrum. Losing his seat because he wasn't progressive enough? Bernie Sanders, promoter of single-payer health care? That guy who passionately argued for, and offered an amendment that would provide health care and dental coverage for every American? I almost couldn't believe it. But I clicked the linky, and sure enough...there it was, in all its glory...

moar:

Grover Norquist is a lifelong Right-Wing warrior. Destroying all progressives and any progressive/liberal agenda is his life’s work. He is very good at and has been finding useful idiots to help him divide and conquer progressives for over thirty years.

Norquist started this work with Jack Abramoff at his side. One party rule has always been their goal and Democrats and liberals have always been their blood enemies. Destroying progressives and everything we believe is their life's work. It is what they do.

Grover is deeply connected to Abramoff. Perhaps nobody goes back as far with Jack as Norquist...

...These two created Ralph Reed and inflicted him upon the world and they spawned a host of other lobbyists, activists, media whores, think tankers, staffers and politicians that make up the extreme conservative movement in America. Jack Abramoff’s ability to lobby and be successful as the point of the spear for the K Street Project depended upon Norquist and his weekly gathering of DC conservatives (Jack’s in jail, but these weekly meetings go on—perhaps Ms. Hamsher will be Grover’s featured guest at a future meeting). The sweatshops, sexshops, human trafficking and systematic labor abuse on the Marianas Islands have Grover Norquist to thank for their protection by Republicans just as much as they have Abramoff to thank (and Jack kicked back funds to Grover as part of the circle of "thank yous"). Norquist should be in jail, but he was protected by McCain, Rove, Bush and Congress. Now he is still out on the streets of DC and making fresh "alliances" with gullible and foolish people within the progressive movement. Sadly, Jane Hamsher is one of those foolish people.

...And the heart of her alliance with Norquist is the fact that she is lending her support and credibility to the conservative conspiracy theory that the financial meltdown was caused by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae lending money to poor people through the Community Investment Act and Community Banks. It is an article of faith among conservatives that Rahm Emanuel, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama forced Freddie and Fannie to engaged in risky loans and that these two mortgage giants forced the big banks to do the same. And then the system crashed. See, in wing-nut world everything bad that happened to the economy was caused by poor people taking advantage of the system. This is a scandal that the wing-nuts want exposed just like they want that whole birth certificate thing exposed, and the ACORN thing exposed, and the death panel thing exposed, and the government’s dirty hands on your Medicare thing exposed, and the socialist takeover of America exposed, and the...

...If you want to fight with Rahm Emanuel, fine. If you want to pretend that he is your chosen personification of evil on this earth, go ahead. Whatever. But, if you decide that your hatred of Rahm is stronger than common sense, if you decide that you must join Jane Hamsher in making common cause with a shitbag like Norquist to attack Democrats, the President and his agenda, well then—and I mean this in the most civil way possible—go to hell. You have let your anger and your desire to piss farther and harder than you think Rahm can piss cloud your judgment.

Honestly? I'm listening to people on the left who are against the hcr bill as it stands now, even though I'm leaning toward the "hold your nose and support it, after making it as good as possible till the very end, because whatever that is is as good as we're going to get." But, joining up with Grover "drown the vulnerable anyone who gets in my way the government in a bathtub" Norquist to try to unseat Bernie Sanders because Sanders isn't progressive or aggressive enough in upholding progressive values. Because the guy who's been actually doing work, even brought up a bill for single-payer, has said this bill is worth supporting; and you think you know better, so you're gonna go side with the people who don't think we should have health care (reform) *at all*. Ooooookayy.

As for Obama and (some of) the Congresscritters supporting this bill (Lieberman can also be devoured by roving wolverines, yes, that goes without saying):

Listen, if I'm going to be supporting actual moderate-to-conservatives/self-aggrandizing cynical corporate sellouts going under the progressive flag whose "help" in this case not only doesn't much but may (*may*) even make things worse, I'm at least going to stick with the ones who aren't complete fucking boneheaded losers. That would be the ones who got elected into office, have some proven ability to find their ass with both hands, and are at least *trying* to make some kind of useful policy that will *help* *some* actual people be better able to not, you know, die. Hint: P.R. disasters like the Lieberman blackface stunt do not count as "progressive activism." They do count as "boneheaded loser moves."

p.s. how the hell did I get on Hamster's mailing list, anyway? No, I'm not signing your stupid petition. GOE AWAY.

Damn.

p.p.s. This, dammit.

If anyone thought that Obama's language about bipartisanship and compromise were just a ploy to get elected, and the fierce passionate liberal would then pull away the mask, they were deluded.

To me, Obama's open, bipartisan and cross-ideological tone was never just a pose. It was how he intended to govern, defining a mild, modified liberalism as centrism and putting the opposition on the defensive. A fierce, aggressive liberalism, the counterpart to the high point of conservative exercise of institutional power in the middle of this decade, was not going to succeed. Recall, that such an approach ultimately failed conservatism.

However, Republican senators' refusal to participate in any meaningful way in the health-care conversation, with the small and notable exception of Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe's single, hesitating vote when the bill was before the Finance Committee, is a painful revelation that Obama can't govern the way he campaigned. And that revelation is in itself a kind of cost, a useful illusion now lost. As recently as a few weeks ago, every savvy Hill insider would tell you that health reform might get 58 votes and fail, or it might get 61 or 62 votes. But it wouldn't, couldn't get exactly 60 votes, just because some Democrats -- Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, Mary Landrieu -- would insist on Republican cover. The biggest surprise of the last week is that health reform had to hit that target 60-vote target exactly, and that it did.

Health care's passage shows exactly how small the target is for any future Obama initiative, from cap-and-trade to financial reform. With no room for bipartisan compromise, and also no room to tell Joe Lieberman what everyone surely wants to tell Lieberman, the path forward is hard to see. As long as Republican opposition holds, even with the occasional press-release exception such as Sen. Lindsay Graham on cap-and-trade, there will be no room to the right and even less room to the left..

"'No' to the notion of Bilerico"

On edit: You may want to start here. Or, for a more charitable view, here.*

*a follow-up, less charitable view by the same author

Otherwise, here's the direct link:

http://www.bilerico.com/2009/12/transgender_a_disease_that_doesnt_exist.php

And no, Bil, it's not good because it's (ffs) "controversial," already. You get a modest increase of hits now, because people rubberneck at the transphobic fail. You -lose- readers after the initial flurry of outrage, because, well, see above re: fail. And any readers you -gain- from this are not people any self-respecting "LGBT" advocate, no matter how notional the "T", wants to have.

p.s.



p.p.s. THIS. **

Q: What are the sources of transphobia? Is it best combatted by telling it to go away?

A: Its source is not mere prejudice, but old and complex power relations that must be changed, a task that is neither quick nor easy, and is not accomplished by adding a letter to an organization's name. It is based in heterosexism and heteronormativity masked as "radical" critique...This needs to be called out and addressed by the gay community. It should not be up to the transgender community to battle alone, thus furthering the divide.

...By arguing that those born male must retain identification with maleness, even if not with masculinity, his critique lags well behind the radical curve, and begins to merge with the opinions of conservative traditionalists. At one time the use of bronze tools was the latest in technology. To advocate their use today would be silly.

Gold's opinion isn't silly, however, because it is still held by many. It is a hateful ideology. It is alive and well today and often deployed against the trans community. We may yet see it rear its ugly head in the ENDA wars of 2010. I pray that we do not.

**yes, it's also on Bilerico. I appreciate not wanting to give the blog as a whole any more traffic. I felt a bit weird-since I was already sending them traffic-not even at least linking to one of the follow-ups by trans contributors, not to let Bilerico off the hook but because this is a much better post, and honestly I don't think it necessitates Gold's bilge for posts like this to be on their front page in the first place, especially AT Bilerico, which seems to be one semi-apologetic argument ("it's an ill wind..."). That said, I'm resuming my policy of not reading/linking to them after this. I like a lot of the individual contributors there, but it just doesn't even feel like Bil sees what the damn problem is, even now. The suggestion of having trans editors would help, I expect...then again I apparently missed a bunch of other fail as well (Polanski apologism, too? -LeVay- apologism? Seriously? Argh)



ETA Better. (removed Gold as well as the O.P.) It'd be nice to believe that this is happening because it's really understood why and to what degree this was problematic, not just because the wheel finally squeaked enough to get some grease and the bottom line looked like it might be in danger from this one, after all.

ETA again: if you missed the original fail, a lot of it is cached in fisk form at Autumn's post at PHB. Wherein it is also speculated (not the only place by any means) that it is by the way rather interesting timing considering ENDA is up again and apparently so is the possibility of once again throwing trans folk under the bus.

Also, via a commenter from one of the above-linked posts (Angela Brightfeather):

...We need to be on the offensive with Mr. Gold and tonight while driving home and listenting to Michaelangelo Signoreli's radio show on OutQ radio, he announced that due to all this fuss on Bilerico, he will be talking about Mr. gold's post next week on his show. I immediately called him and told him that I object to giving Mr. Gold any airtime on his show and would consider it an insult to myself to let his kind of non-thinking comments be given any air time at all.

So be ready folks. This isn't over yet and I fully expect that while Mr. Gold will not make a personal appearance on the show, I am sure that there will be any number of gay men calling in about those whinning Trans folks who are such a problem to deal with.

"The flip side of this charming worldview..."

(riffing off the same SP post that inspired this one)

I hadn't even gotten into fillyjonk's other point, the one that started me commenting on this piece, before I got distracted by what felt like the main point. Said other point being:

The flip side of this charming worldview, of course, is male anger at women who don’t make themselves available — see many of our friends in that now-closed thread — or women who have the gall to have a body they find unattractive. That’s the real problem with feminism, with fatness, with (for some pseudo-enlightened guys) the extremely thin beauty ideal: it’s a boner-killer, and boner primacy is a paramount law of the dude cabal. You don’t have to read very far between the lines of most troll comments to see that’s what it boils down to: how dare you possess a womanly body I can’t or don’t want to fuck.

One of the -other- charming Tucker Max slogans, by the way, (not sure if it made it to an actual bus ad or not; I wouldn't be surprised) was "Fat girls aren't people." A motto he, like so many of his fellow yrch, upholds faithfully by the same kind of invasive in-your-space crap as goes to the "lucky" "hot girls," except instead of aggressive and hostile come-ons often laced with insults, you get...insults, often laced with aggressive and hostile-come-ons. e.g. (via the same Schmucker-related comment thread, I can't be arsed linking back to the original again):

Hey Sara Lee, I was only kidding! COME BACK HERE--MY FRIEND LIKES TO GO HOGGIN. MORE CUSHION FOR THE PUSHIN! IT'S LIKE RIDING A MOPED!!

Of course, this is the same attraction/disgust other "undesirable" women get: the exotically fetishized racial "Other," particularly those whose stereotypes don't map to "hyperfeminine" (i.e. the Asian "Lotus Blossom"); trans women; women with disabilities (viz Fuckhead's charming "I'm two thirds of the way to a Helen Keller"), women who are -too- "slutty" or "low-class," including sex workers; and so forth.

And yes, of course, in this "charming worldview," women are never entirely "people," not -really- (nor for that matter are quite a lot of men, but that's not the subject of this particular post) . Women who're "friends" or "girlfriends" or otherwise "special" may be (sort of) excepted, as long as they don't step out of line or lose their attractiveness and/or utility or make too many demands, like decent treatment. **

But the women deemed "unfuckable" (except, of course, when it's in the name of supposed desperation, or in the interest of gathering exotic/disgusting stories to tell one's friends, or in the dudely bonding activity of attempting to degrade via fucking, or even that the dude in question is secretly attracted but of course can't admit to any such thing in front of his dudebros)--well, those women get to be, shall we say, more -overtly- "not real people." Further objectified. Further dehumanized. Further to fall. Ain't it the way.

One could examine -how- each of these particular ways of being "unpersoned" starts with being "unwomaned." As noted in previous posts and elsewhere, the way trans women are treated perhaps most sharply illuminates this curious phenomenon (i.e. [cis] women aren't -really- people, but compared to people and especially women who get cast outside either the favored or disfavored gender boxes, it's still a lot more "personed"). The "unwomaning"/"desexing" (and/or fetishizing) of women of color and women with disabilities each respectively happens in its own way, within its own context(s), but in service of roughly the same ends.

Fat-bashing and especially fat-woman-bashing is an interesting one, and one I realize I haven't talked about much in this blog, curiously enough, because I am fat. As for the etiology of "fat is a feminist issue," today is my day for quoting Shapely Prose, I guess, because this here is a really good breakdown:

(summarizing themes from feminist philosopher Susan Bordo's book Unbearable Weight: Feminism, Western Culture, and the Body):

-Voracious hunger is considered a sign of manliness.

-Hunger for food and desire for sexuality are constructed as analogous, but this is a gendered analogy. When women are targeted, “their hunger for food is employed solely as a metaphor for their sexual appetite.” When men are targeted, the metaphor goes in reverse: eating delicious food is depicted as a sexual conquest. (The examples for this include hilariously awful ads of men whispering sweet nothings to their Betty Crocker desserts.)

-Female hunger is represented in terms of misogynistic fear: sex is imagined as a form of eating in which the woman consumes and destroys a male object of desire.

...The connection between hunger and desire, especially, can be subterranean: the ideal of thinness, of course, depends on you having the goal of a certain kind of fuckability — but even eating itself is depicted as an act of sensual abandon instead of a necessity for every living thing on earth. As such, men are commended for having hearty appetites — boys will be boys — and women are told to keep their mouths (and their knees) shut.

The quote I highlighted above is the one that was most illuminating to me, because it says (in my non-theory translation) that dieting is the ultimate act of repressive femininity. Essentially, what Bordo argues is that not eating when your body needs food is participating in your own marginalization — but it’s marginalization dressed up as a sexual ideal. This, I think, is why trolls and anti-FA jerkwads are so obsessed with the idea that we want them all to have sex with fatties: fat is, on some unacknowledged level, about sex in our culture.

And of course, while these days women aren't supposed to keep their knees shut, "sluttiness" is still considered degrading, even monstrous, particularly if it's the woman's idea/desire. Also see.

This is all even before we get to: what if the woman desires women rather than men.

Let's skip over the relatively obvious trope of "any woman who doesn't desire the misogynist is a dyke (and probably fat and ugly to boot, and nobody wants those grapes -anyway-), whether she actually is one or not."

Let's start with "yes I am, and especially seeing you represented as the alternative, THANK THE SWEET WEEPING JESUS, because annoying as tolerating your existence is -now-, I can't even imagine what it'd be like to -want- attention from a shitbag like you, which is of course assuming not only straight but either with really low self-esteem or a taste for smug often-not-exactly-gorgeous-themselves mediocrities with more beer than brains."

Not that I am saying that the latter is a small population: hey, it was good enough for Laura Bush.

But the truth is, as much as the political lesbian and other such might like to romanticize the notion, being Sapphically inclined is not actually all that much of an opt-out from being on the receiving end of this sort of bullshit. For one thing, as noted here recently, women, dykes included, can be appalling assholes too. In eerily similar-sounding ways those of the brodudes, even, amazingly enough.

Mostly, though, what happens is, as with any other woman, you're going along your way, minding your own business, and some hairbag or frathole or other form of arrested male development decides to inform you that He Would Not Fuck You Anyway, He Does Not Like You, Spam He Am.

This happens in a variety of contexts, online or off. Occasionally it's completely out of the blue; you just happen to be unfortunate enough to occupy the same airspace (or bandwidth) as the meatsack, and, more to the point, his buddies; you are merely the means to the end of scoring a laugh/bonding moment.

Other times it (also) turns out to be, however obscurely, the meatsack's way of expressing that you have Stepped Beyond Your Place, whatever that entails. A political opinion he does not care for, say; or your not smiling when urged to do so; or laughing too loudly in public (what if it were at him!)

The implication that being adjudged "fuckable"*** by some random wet fart is something one should aspire to in the first place should be as obvious and pathetic as its rough equivalent, the small child changing from "You're pretty!" to "You're ugly! I hate you!" when one tells her firmly that it is past her bedtime (actual experience and Click Moment when I was a young woman of babysitting age).

And yet, as has been the thesis here, grown men resort to this devastating retort all the bloody time. More to the point, they feel comfortable referring to an implicit, sometimes explicit, authority in doing so. "Every straight man with a set of eyes." It's true because it's true, because it's true. Obviously the chode in question is being ridiculously self-absorbed; yes, attraction is subjective, but it's more than that. He's comfortable believing he's the center of the universe because he's -used- to that impression being reinforced. Of -course- he doesn't find you fuckable, unworthy woman; and of -course- this should be something you should worry about. What, you thought your life had nothing to do with the whims and demands of Average Entitled Dudebro? Think again. Attention, attention must be paid.

And sooner or later, the old "just ignore them, dear" bromide being as ineffectual to address the root of the problem--i.e. the misogynistic entitled assholes are being misogynistic entitled assholes, and it's their own damn choice to do so, which is unsurprising because they're only being rewarded for it, by and large--one sighs, and cracks one's knuckles, and puts down one's copy of Fun Home or whatever else was a hell of a lot more interesting than the overgrown fratholes who still run way too much of the planet, and -gives- them some attention.

One trusts the recipients of said troll food attention are suitably appreciative.


**If you're depressed enough already after reading that Gawker piece, you might as well skip the comments, a good chunk of which boil down to,

"I don't believe it, and even if it's true that's not really that big a deal anyway, not like -real- abuse, and also it's her own damn fault for taking so much horrific crap from anyone. No sympathy."

The ex ("Bunny") herself would appear to be largely in agreement with the sentiment that she has/had her own reasons for dating a knob like Tucker, and so forth. And no, the repeated labeling of other women as "whores" and so on isn't exactly endearing, that is true. That said, I find her a hell of a lot more sympathetic than him. For one thing, she's actually a much more interesting writer.

***p.s. in case you didn't get your full share of ugly: not just fuckable, but rapeable.

"Stop being so full of ressentiment, you ugly pathological lefties of subnormal intelligence. Shouting is viceful."

I found another fuckwit, y'all. Yes! On the Internets!! Inorite? I'm too lazy for a recap, I've been busy slapfighting with her, because I am out of chocolate and booze and it seemed like the thing to do, but here, enjoy.

Have I mentioned lately that I execrate Cultural Feminists of the FluffyBunny Wicca-y type?

Well, I do.

Sadly, I can't recount the entire story here, as it involves a listserve whose email isn't really for public consumption.

Suffice it to say that I firmly believe that if you anthropomorphize the moon to the point where this story drives you into a state of utter panic and mourning WHAT HAVE WE BECOME, sending out calls for a mass protest and vigil against the "insane" "dudes" of NASA who would DARE to harm our sister-goddess' body like this? to the point where you say you can't "bear" to do the research to confirm the details of the story?

And then, when someone snarks her dissent -very mildly- at you, you are "driven to tears?" and then -separately-, after that, after an (admittedly not very heartfelt) apology from said snarker, said snarker then posts a snark-free link to the story for public interest, and you email back that y'all already KNOW "these facts" but the snarker needs to let it go because you're "grieving" anyway?

This + this = you are driving me to increasing levels of sadism, Fluffy Dianic Too Sensitive To Live Person.

and I mean. a -graduate- student. wtf critical thinking skills...? oh, right, those are from the Patriarchy, never mind.

nyargh.

EDIT In fact, I feel compelled to burst into Song. and so I shall.

Not with FDR's bright red atomic strapon, Squealer.

Limbaugh is having sadly Freudian fantasies about what he (fondly, secretly) imagines Obama and/or other Democrats would like to do to him.

And I say again: Not with Rosie the Riveter's brass-knuckled fist wrapped in ten tons of latex and rolled in a kegger of anti-fascist Icy-Hot flavored Crisco. Not if you -begged- on bended trotters. Not for every penny you've made from your noisome effusions lo these past 800 years or so you've been fouling up the zeitgeist. I may be a pervert, I may be a sadist, but goddam, there are STANDARDS.

and now, i must rinse. ick ack ugh.

The ultimate in Asshat Thunderdome

is David Frum, Bay Buchanan and Ann Coulter bickering over Sarah Palin. It's compelling like the shower of maggots scene in whatever horror movie I've mostly blocked from my brain that was.

i'm just posting this because I already had the tag ready to go, really

Damn. Does it -hurt?-

I never really took the time before to read Pamela Whosis of Atlas Shrugs before, I don't think. Not sure how much influence she has these days, or if she ever even really was more than a novelty act; after all, there's -so much- competition among the foaming classes. And that's before even taking Fox News Channel into account.

Surfing from Twitter just now, though, landed on this moonversation (moonologue?) on Obama's speech to the NAACP. I guess it's probably just boilerplate, standard levels of racism and stoopid from the World Nads Daily (and suchlike) set at this point, nothing new to see here, but. Actually stopped to read this one for some reason. Life on another (small, hostile, noxious) planet:

The speech proves, yet again, that he does not (nor does he want to) represent all Americans. He is the most racist, divisive official we have ever elected to any high office, let alone the most powerful office in the world. The speech was scandalous. Listen to the African American president of the United States rail against discrimination in the country that elected him. Obama deceives and demagogues when he castigates the economy (which he is destroying) as being racist. The economy targets blacks - got that? The US has the highest standard of living for African Americans anywhere in the world, but to the left, facts are irrelevant. He preaches to us that AIDS devastates the African American community here in the US with disproportionate force. Whose fault is that? Sex and drugs is the problem. The culture in the Black community promotes the riskiest behavior...

Oh, there's more. The Muslims are coming ooh ahh etc. More screeching Buchananesque spittle at the Black! President! of the! United! States! focusing on African Americans. In a speech to the NAACP. I mean, how inflammatory and radical can you get?

[Obama]: The first thing we need to do is make real the words of the NAACP charter and eradicate prejudice, bigotry, and discrimination among citizens of the United States. (Applause.) I understand there may be a temptation among some to think that discrimination is no longer a problem in 2009. And I believe that overall, there probably has never been less discrimination in America than there is today. I think we can say that.

But make no mistake: The pain of discrimination is still felt in America. (Applause.) By 2African American women paid less for doing the same work as colleagues of a different color and a different gender. (Laughter.) By Latinos made to feel unwelcome in their own country. (Applause.) 3 By Muslim Americans viewed with suspicion simply because they kneel down to pray to their God. (Applause.) By our gay brothers and sisters, still taunted, still attacked, still denied their rights. (Applause.)

On the 45th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, discrimination cannot stand -- not on account of color or gender; how you worship or who you love. Prejudice has no place in the United States of America. That's what the NAACP stands for. That's what the NAACP will continue to fight for as long as it takes. (Applause.)

I think all of us understand that our task of reducing these structural inequalities has been made more difficult by the state and structure of our broader economy; an economy that for the last decade has been fueled by a cycle of boom and bust; an economy where the rich got really, really rich, but ordinary folks didn't see their incomes or their wages go up; an economy built on credit cards, shady mortgage loans; an economy built not on a rock, but on sand...

...So, yes, government must be a force for opportunity. Yes, government must be a force for equality. But ultimately, if we are to be true to our past, then we also have to seize our own destiny, each and every day.

That is what the NAACP is all about. The NAACP was not founded in search of a handout. The NAACP was not founded in search of favors. The NAACP was founded on a firm notion of justice; to cash the promissory note of America that says all our children, all God's children, deserve a fair chance in the race of life.

It is a simple dream, and yet one that has been denied - one still being denied - to so many Americans.

Quoth the Pam:

When Obama speaks of children who don't "have a fair chance in life", he victimizes them before they have had a shot at grabbing the brass ring. Keep telling someone he's/she's a loser and pretty soon they believe you. Everyone is this great country has a fair chance in life.

It is, I suppose, an interesting twist on the "what happens to a dream deferred" question. Angry White Left Behind Version: What happens to a fantasy based in privilege and denial, challenged? I don't know what the verb is, but judging from the output of folks like Ms. Geller, Pat "Sunshine" Buchanan and Glenn "The Alien Probe Was Too Cold Again" Beck, the result rather closely resembles the end of a very long night with severe stomach flu, no meds, and a stopped up toilet.

The comments are...remarkable only it that their ilk is relatively unremarkable in right wing circles by now: Obama is an Indonesian pretender without a REAL birth certificate and will soon be removed from office, Obama was a Black Panther, W.E.B. Dubois was a commie, and the requisite cry to "arm yourselves." Hey ho, let's go.

Ultimately spending too much time around this sort of thing leaves me feeling strangely...inert. Because, you really -can't- argue with this logic, can you:

The US has the highest standard of living for African Americans anywhere in the world

ETA: DUDE!

I have asked the Netherlands Justice Ministry to issue an exclusion order, barring Pamela Geller Oshry from the Netherlands, and I have asked the British Home Secretary to issue an exclusion order, barring her from the United Kingdom. Better known as Pamela Geller, she is the sole author of the xenophobic, racist, right-wing blog 'Atlas Shrugs'. (For coverage of the blog by others, see LGF Watch and GOVVS).

In general, I believe that the American right is America's problem. However,the US 'counter-jihadist' movement has begun building links with the xenophobic-populist parties in Europe, united by the fear of 'Eurabia'. They have adopted Geert Wilders in particular, and Pamela Geller is his strongest supporter in the US blogosphere. Like some other supporters there (e.g. Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch) she has now begun fundraising for him...

She supported the recent anti-Islam rally organised by Pro-Köln, a regional xenophobic-populist party which is active in building contacts among European right-wing parties. The meeting signals the shift to pro-Israel, pro-Jewish, anti-Islam positions, among xenophobic-populist and nationalist parties in Europe.

...Geller promotes in the United States the activities of the German xenophobic-populist party Pro-Köln. She has regularly written in support of their anti-Islam meetings, at which neo-fascist and right-populist parties are represented: among others, Vlaams Belang, the Czech Národní Strana, the French Front National, and the Austrian FPÖ.

Through her activities, Geller contributes to the emergence of a transatlantic xenophobic movement, and to increasing co-operation among xenophobic right-wing parties.

...Geller openly advocates the use of torture, inside and outside the United States. In combination with her support for racial profiling - classification as a terrorist suspect on the basis of ethnic origin - this constitutes a physical threat to immigrant minorities in the EU member states.

...she describes other Jews who don't share her hard-line right-wing views on Israel and the Palestinians, as "Jewicidal" or "jihadi".

Why, yes, yes it does hurt, apparently. -clutches head and wanders away, muttering about converting to Druidism and changing my name out of vicarious shame-

Mommy, make the stupid STOP now, please.

I can't even watch:

Is this a great country, or what? Even though Alabama's Jeff Sessions was blocked from a federal judgeship because of kooky statements about the NAACP and the Ku Klux Klan, he could still go on to become a U.S. senator, and lead a racially tinged charge against the first Latina Supreme Court nominee. Equal opportunity, indeed!

I thought that Sessions' bullying and blundering in the first two days of the Sonia Sotomayor hearings might get the GOP to ask him to hide his light under a bushel for a bit, but there he was on Wednesday, holding a quick press conference in the hearing break to announce he continues to be "troubled" by Sotomayor's views on race, as if there was any doubt about that.

Not to be outdone by Sessions, though, Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn shamed himself with an unbelievable reference to Desi Arnaz's ancient Cuban stereotype, Ricky Ricardo, husband of Lucille Ball on "I Love Lucy." During a surreal exchange on gun rights, in which the theoretical example was what might happen to Sotomayor if she (wrongly, illegally, but maybe understandably) got a gun and shot Coburn, the right-wing senator told her, "You'd have a lot of 'splainin' to do," referring to Arnaz's refrain when Lucy got in trouble with one of her crazy schemes.

It should be shocking that in 2009, a U.S. senator would be inspired to relate to an eminent jurist who happens to be Puerto Rican with half-century-old Latino stereotypes (as well as a sort of sexist comparison to wacky Lucy) but after these last few days, it isn't shocking. The way Republicans have shellacked Sotomayor over her "wise Latina" remarks shows they really, really want to be the party of aggrieved white men. No others need apply.

Seriously; it's like instead of going up on a bell tower, they just dragged out their total meltdown over the airwaves and Senate floor and so on. For, how many years has it been? And, they just keep getting worse. I mean, Michelle Bachmann still has a job. Her lips, they keep moving.

I suppose something like Autotune the News has the best response in some ways:




Just make a fucking musical. Puppets. Origami. Topiary. I mean...I realize there's some elemental physics law that you can't actually get -rid- of the stupid, just transmute it into something. But godDAM. That's a lot of stupid.

ETA: Go git 'em Maddow.

Yessir, that's our Gubernator

Meanwhile, back in sunny Cali:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger did not get the election results he sought. Now he seems determined to show California voters the consequences.

In a special election on May 19, voters rejected a batch of measures on increasing taxes, borrowing funds and reapportioning state money that were designed to close a multibillion-dollar budget gap. The cuts Mr. Schwarzenegger has proposed to make up the difference, if enacted by the Legislature, would turn California into a place that in some ways would be unrecognizable in modern America: poor children would have no health insurance, prisoners would be released by the thousands and state parks would be closed.

Nearly all of the billions of dollars in cuts the administration has proposed would affect programs for poor Californians, although prisons and schools would take hits, as well.

All his cuts target the poor and the disenfranchised, but, well, gosh, there's a good reason for that:

“Government doesn’t provide services to rich people,” Mike Genest, the state’s finance director, said on a conference call with reporters on Friday. “It doesn’t even really provide services to the middle class.” He added: “You have to cut where the money is.”

Blinded. I'm blinded. Fucking brilliant.

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.

Lily speaks for me.

This one goes out to Virginia Foxx, (please write your Congresscritter and ask for censure);

Miss California aka Won't Someone Please Think Of The Tiaras Children;

and of course the poor, besieged, soggy NOMmers

(p.s. it's NOT FUNNY. NOT EVEN A LITTLE BIT. NO.)

while we're at it, let's throw in the drool-n-bile-soaked crypto-fascist talk show hosts who're using the swine flu as yet another excuse to whip up foaming anti-immigrant hatred. Oink, baby.


"Please, don't stay in touch."





Pee. ess.

"For the first time in a nationwide survey, more Americans say they support gay marriage (49%) than oppose it (46%), according to the latest Washington Post/ABC poll.

That 49% supporting gay marriage, in fact, is a significant jump from 2004, when the Post/ABC poll found just 32% in favor.

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...

Apparently I suck at hiatuses

Well, also, I do take requests, and fastlad, my dearest friend who I haven't talked to in way too long, has asked me to snark about this stupid article, which I will because I love him and also because it's a really stupid article and I feel like being bitchy on a topic that a) merits it b) but isn't important enough to make my brain explode.

It should be short. I mean, here's the title:

Brooklyn Virgin Discovers Naked Dancing"

Here's how it starts:

Somehow it happened that in all the years I’ve lived in New York City, I’d never been to Brooklyn. But when I heard that choreographer Noémie Lafrance had a new show opening in Williamsburg, I decided it was as good an occasion as any to venture beyond Manhattan for the first time. I loved the music video she choreographed for Feist’s “1234” in 2007, and “Rapture”—her piece for aerialists staged on the side of a Frank Gehry building at Bard College—was undeniably awesome. So on Tuesday night, I boarded the L train (heading away from the West Village) and made my way to hipsterville. I’d heard from my more global friends that Brooklyn is a charming borough inhabited by cool young families, gourmet cheese shops, and creative intellectuals. It has parks! And trees! And slow walkers aren’t mowed down on the sidewalk! But I’m what you might call a bona fide Manhattanite. Or, to be more precise, a bona fide Upper East Sider. I’ve traveled the world, I said to myself—how exotic could Brooklyn really be?

Perhaps my tweed J. Crew jacket and Tory Burch ballet flats weren’t the best wardrobe choice for that day, but I overcame the fact that I was a total Williamsburg misfit and hoped my foreigner status wouldn’t be glaringly obvious to the natives. (It was)..

It gets more annoying from there. Apparently girlfriend was shocked, shocked, at the realities of downtown* theatre, from lack of proper accomodations to nekkid performers to I can't even read all that shit to be honest. Short version:

"I'm a total pointless snob with nothing remotely interesting to say and particularly not about this show I'm supposed to cover, (I don't know much about Art, but I know what I -don't- like, even if I feel totally insecure about it); but if I write this piece in an archly kidding-on-the-square 'ironic' tone (see, I AM hip, I know 'irony' is what all the cool kids do these days...maybe) people will think I'm ever so charming and clever and amusing."

Not.

-plonk-

The first comment sums it up really:

good riddance and don't come back. we don't need you.

just sorry I never invited her up to my former digs in Queens, and don't I feel DARING for saying that. or, um, not? i did and do consider myself damn lucky to have a (nice, at that) place to live in the city (or anywhere for that matter, look around you you stupid toff) at all?

Oh yeah, and yes, it is depressing that this is a (presumably paid) piece for Vanity Fair and not someone's livejournal, as another commenter noted. Indeed.

(*Williamsburg is often considered an extension or 'new'(er) "downtown," i.e. the East Village moving East. Yes Virginia, that certainly DOES include, nay, is probably by now OVERWHELMED by, a fuckload of privileged gentrifiers and/or other annoying UES twits faux-"slumming" it for the length of the nearly-as-inflated-as-Manhattan-by-now-lease or the evening, respectively, so girlfriend there shouldn't have felt remotely out of place unless she's really so damn insecure that a couple of equally-pretentious hipsters glaring over their black-rimmed glasses gives her the vapors)

Sort of like turning a stone over to see the squiggly worms

Abyss2hope fisks a comment by a rape apologist. It is sort of fascinating and horrifying to see how the mentality works. Thanks for doing it, A2H. Honestly, I got as far as

In my personal opinion, being accused of a crime when one is innocent is worse than being the victim of that crime. That is why we have this "innocent until proven guilty" principle.

and couldn't even get past WTF??! WTF??!?@?# -dissolve into incoherent sputtering-

anyway, though, the rest is equally enlightening in its fucked up way, so, if you're in the sort of mood where you can process that sort of thing: worth a full read.

ETA: oh, wait, here's a lower place.

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.

Ah yes, the all-womens' college as a nurturing haven from the sexism of the outside world...

except when the venal, dumbass administration decides that using the campus to shoot a fratboyxploitation movie (while classes are in session) is a fine idea.

From The Bilerico Report (via Bitch Magazine and Uncensored Feminista):

Agnes Scott College, the supposed World for Women, has become the cesspool for Hollywood's C-list sequels. In my four years here, I've had the pleasure of experiencing the filming of such quality movies as a remake of "Revenge of the Nerds" and "Van Wilder III" Our most recent cinematographic credit is "Road Trip II: Beer Pong."

...Although Agnes Scott was tied for Georgia's most LBGTQ-friendly campus by Atlanta newspaper, Southern Voice, students eating dinner were recruited in the cafeteria to be extras in the film's derisive "Lesbians until Graduation" scene. The recruiter assured us that the only requirement was "acting like lesbians." But in case we were interested, they welcomed same-sex "background kissers."

Apparently the main premise of the scene involved the male protagonists stumbling upon the room full of these "making-out lesbians" (to presumably "convert" them?). When we expressed offense, the recruiter said she was warned about encountering uncooperative students who were "really into being women" (versus into being objects?).

This recruitment was foreshadowed by a fake bulletin board as part of the movie's properties advertising the "exploratory meeting" for their fake college's "Lesbians Until Graduation" club, qualified by statements like "Miss your boyfriend from high school?" which is apparently the only acceptable "excuse" for being a lesbian.

To understand the mindset behind these actions, let's examine how the filmmakers put up signs that said that if we entered certain areas on our campus (including our main quad with our library and humanities building), we were granting the production crew permission to reproduce our images "throughout the universe for all of eternity." This same utter entitlement to our bodies was reproduced in the way that the production team assumed that just because we were on (our own) campus and that we were women, they could recruit us for this degrading "Lesbians until Graduation" scene.

...During the filming, we experienced other forms of dehumanization through harassment from the film's production team. One student, when walking by the set with a paper cup of coffee, was accosted by an extra, who asked the student to get him one. Another student was told, in the vein of a pick-up line, that she was so attractive, she should watch out for being raped...

Klassy, eh? What a great recruitment tool for new students, not to mention morale-boosting. Oh, apparently the school picks up 30K for letting the yobs run around campus and film their students, about the cost of one student's yearly tuition.

But, yes, the admin still thinks it's best for the bottom line, as noted in this comment at Bitch:

I am a student at Agnes Scott, and we did bring our concerns to the administration. After sending in individual letters to the deans, they were collected and apparently discussed. Our new president (founding director of Duke University's Kenan Institute for Ethics, no less) addressed the issues we raised by sending an e-mail out to the campus community. It was generally received to be vague with the clear intention of attempting to save face, very unreflective of the president the students had quickly come to know, love, and trust.

Some of the more direct and juicier bits of the email were as follows:

"In some cases, films have also helped to raise Agnes Scott’s profile and, in fact, have attracted students to apply and enroll. We make a decision on a case-by-case basis about whether to include, in the film contract, that Agnes Scott be listed as a location in the credits. In this instance this was not included in the contract."

Yes. We're not going to put our name on the credits. That'll keep our secret safe that we accept money from people who degrade women...

..." But I also need to acknowledge that if we restricted ourselves to films that fully reflect Agnes Scott’s culture and promote our mission, we would drastically reduce film-shoot revenues. I am hopeful that as more women – including Agnes Scott alumnae – enter positions of leadership within the film industry, they will work to change and improve it!"

Yes. Drastically reduce those $30,000 a pop revenues that happen a couple of times a year. This revenue is less than the cost of tuition for one student. Do the math. Also, of course, we should build up the female objectification that has gone rampant in the entertainment industry so we will have a bigger challenge to try to change it. Because, who doesn't love a challenge?

and another:

We protested to the best of our abilities. Several of us made signs, infiltrated the shooting of the "LUG Club" scene, and got the attention of the filmmakers. My sign said "I am not a stereotype." As a result of our silent protest (we stood behind the cameras quietly hold our signs), several crew members thanked us for sharing our opinion and the screenwriter took his photo with us. He thanked us for our interest and stated that he didn't really like these films, but they made money. Not a great excuse, but acknowledging that something wasn't right was a start. Many of us wrote letters to our administration outlining our concerns and were met with nothing short of a brush off from our president. Basically, it was explained to us that it came down to a matter of money (a mere 30K--not enough for one student's full-year tuition and definitely not enough to create a significant overall tuition increase)...Thank goodness I go to a school that will easily abandon its values for a quick dollar and then give me a response that is sanitized for my convenience when I ask why.

Oh, and they fired the harassing extras, so THAT'S all right, then.

So, in a nutshell, no, the students don't seem to get a say in this.

Still another letter:

This was right in the middle of midterms. A lot of students were frustrated that the administration would do this to us, especially at such a stressful time, but many were just too exhausted from academic work to do much more than a small protest. Doesn't excuse it, though.

In the future, I hope that WAVE, the campus feminist organization at ASC, or the LBTQIA Collective will provide more leadership in opposing this bullshit. Every protest that I know of was organized by students acting independently, and they just didn't have the resources to get the word out like those groups would.

Still yet another:

It seems to me we should have seen this coming after what our administration has allowed to take place on our campus over recent years.

Our campus was used for an American Eagle photoshoot, as well as a filming location for the failed Revenge of the Nerds remake. I felt insulted having to take detours to go from building to building so as not to get in the way of various shoots. Imagine, if you will, the a young woman lugging her physics books past a group of preening models lounging in the middle of one of our walkways and overhearing "Like, OMG, there are really no guys here? Why even go to college?" I kid you not. Or how about having to sit an exam while on the quad just outside, take after take of the Large-Crowd-Cheering scene goes on. Try studying or getting some much needed sleep while set up crews make all kinds of racket at 3 am. Yeah, I'm sure that had no detrimental effect on our scholarly pursuits...Need I also remind my fellow Scotties that our students were approached by Revenge of the Nerds crew to be extras as well, supposedly to play the part of average college students in the background of various shots, yet surprise, surprise, only the "hot" girls were actually given the parts, because we all know that only hot-chicks go to college, right?

Can I just say: 30K may be insulting chump change when it comes to how many pieces o'silver your alma mater is getting for all that disruption and disrespect; but it'd probably buy an exasperated student a fine education somewhere that's else. Hey, at least one former student agrees:

As an alumnae, I cannot express my disappointment enough in Agnes Scott. My time at ASC shaped me to become the woman leader that I have become and I am deeply saddened that the administration has actively participated in undermining the values that were instilled in me: think deeply, live honorably and engage the social and intellectual challenges of our time.

So, with a heavy heart but strong passion, I call on all you who are as outraged as I am to boycott Agnes Scott College. Don't apply, don't visit, don't volunteer, don't donate. I am saddened to see that ASC so cheaply sold its values but since that is their priority, a mass movement that impacts them financially may be the only way to get a message across.

So, join our Facebook group: Road Trip II: The Boycott of the Alums (Alums only) or our Facebook event: Road Tripp II: Boycott!

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=40694287895#/ical/event.php?eid=40...

Make your outrage into action!

As for the alum who disagrees with the idea and thinks they should "donate like crazy" while insisting the money go to the places they want it to go (so that the school isn't -forced- to resort to renting the campus to Alan Smithee), ummm...I guess it's none of my business, never having been to Agnes Scott; but in my own experience of expensive private colleges that constantly solicit funds...generally, a) you might want to get into the financial office and take a look at the -actual- numbers; they could well be healthier than they let on b) earmarking your donations, especially if it's an administration that's been cheerfully impervious to -basic- requests like "please get these sexist fuckheads and disruptive camera crews out of our space and especially during fercrissakes MIDTERMS kthxbai," maaayyyyyyy not work. Maybe. Just saying.

Anyway. Ick.

Yup.

What she said.

The man has been saying goodbye for so long, he’s come to resemble one of those reconstituted rock bands that have been on a farewell tour since 1982. We had exit interviews by the carload and then a final press conference on Monday, in which he reminisced about his arrival on the national stage in 2000. “Just seemed like yesterday,” he said.

I think I speak for the entire nation when I say that the way this transition has been dragging on, even yesterday does not seem like yesterday. And the last time George W. Bush did not factor into our lives feels like around 1066.

(...AND....three...two...one...)

Uh, yes, hello, that would be gross sexism right there.

Jon Favreau, luddites and germs.

Yes, sorry, I don't care how talented he is: this is nasty shit, and fucking -stupid- also; and a good case for sexual harassment. It's up to HRC if she wants to include this in the hatchet-burying, of course, but personally, I don't think keeping this jerk as director of speechwriting for the White House is a really terrific idea, Dear Obama. As in, I think firing his ass would be a better one, myself.

I mean, I think there are probably other good speechwriters out there, you know?

ETA: evil fizz points out:

Actually, from the WaPo piece, it sounds like he’s actually in the process of applying for other jobs, specifically with the Secretary’s of State office. A stellar way to make a first impression on your future boss if there ever was one.

And I can say with considerable certainty (although with no small amount of bitterness) that one photo like that is never going to constitute actionable sexual harassment. Not saying it’s not harassing, just that it’s short of the legal definition.

It takes a certain amount of chutzpah to apply to work for the very woman you’ve been groping-by-proxy, I gotta say. If she really she wants to take him on for whatever reason it’s her own lookout I guess; but at minimum I don’t think he should be Obama’s director of speechwriting, for o just a whole -bunch- of reasons.

ETA, again: I had to go and look.

jenniforhillary 12.06.08 at 10:06 pm
Some of you get my take, and some don’t. I am saying–and it is my
opinion and just that–that I DON”T WANT TO TALK ABOUT HILLARY ANY
MORE. This may or may not be ‘throwing her under the bus’ (in my
opinion, it is not) BUT WHAT IT IS IS REFORMING THE QUESTION AND THE
ATTACK!!

INSTEAD OF ASKING HILLARY WHAT SHE IS GOING TO DO ABOUT THIS BULLSHIT,
LET’S ASK THE FUCKING MEN. LET’S ASK ACLU, NAACP, NOW, and NARAL.
LEAVE HILLARY ALONE is not exactly a condemnation people, but rather a
plea.

What if, like Dances suggests, we have stop having sex with men AND we
stop discussing Hillary Clinton. Let’s deal with issues, and assholes,
and forget about her for a while. And I agree with Trish, what men do
or don’t do is has fucking little to do with Hillary–so leave her outa
it.

I like Sandi’s idea a lot. Let’s make an image of His Lowness and have
some women (how about Oppie and Brazilla) molesting his lower
half….and send it on….let’s fight the boys with bullets they
understand… ...

jenniforhillary 12.05.08 at 11:35 pm
And, for the record, if I don’t hear the word RACIST for 100 years, I
will be happy.

THAT BEING SAID, I accept and apologize that I said something that was
perceived as racist, because that was NOT my intention.

THAT BEING SAID, I think that VAGINA trumps COLOR and always has AND
MUST if women are ever to stop being treated like shit.

THAT BEING SAID, I like mean women a lot, unless they are being mean
to me…..(thought a lil’ humor might be a good thing)

...I can't stop reading that thread; it's a magnificent clusterfuck of fail.

OP: blah blah something or other the usual womanhood is a universal experience if you've got a vagina, BUT WE NEED TO STOP TALKING ABOUT OUR BITS, here is a lovely illustration from "The Yellow Wallpaper" to demo just how universal my call to all wimminz everywherez is. Can't we all just get along?? (except for Obots, obviously)

Commenter: That's lovely, even though I don't really understand what you're trying to say. But it's lovely anyway.

Other commenters: rhubarb rhubarb agreed rhubarb rhubarb, something vaguely approaching what looks like feminist and/or the existence of teh gay CR 101

A commenter: I think I don't like this bit of what I thought you were trying to say, so I'm going to assume you really weren't. You really meant the bit about we should put aside our difference and get along. Right?

Murphy: Wrong. I MEANT, STOP TALKING ABOUT YOUR BITS fulminate fume rant

A commenter:...'k then.

Others: ...So! How 'bout that weather or cupcakes or something, then! (We love you, Murphy!)

Murphy: and while we're at it, SCREW THE LESBIANS!! you self-absorbed LESBIANS with your clitoris gazing and so on! what've YOU ever done for anyone, HANH??

A lesbian commenter: Among other things, set up your entire website and do all the work around here. p.s. fuck you too then.

Murphy: Don't LEAVE, lesbian commenter, you've done all the work around here!! Whatever will I do without you? please o please o please don't go

ALC: O.K.

****

It's like an enigma inside a trainwreck, wrapped in bacon. Or something.

ETA, encore une fois: Best. exchange. EVAR.

sandipuma 12.06.08 at 2:25 am
That picture with Hillary is disgusting and i am sure she could have
pushed them away.Anyone of her stature would never have to except that
without doing something about it.

DancesWithPumas 12.06.08 at 3:21 am
sandipuma 12.06.08 at 2:25 am
That picture with Hillary is disgusting and i am sure she could have
pushed them away.
———————-
That picture of Senator Hilalry Rodham Clinton is a cardboard cutout.

sandipuma 12.06.08 at 3:32 am
Dances i noticed that afterward and i still think it’s disgusting and
degrading to all women and their families. After i read then looked
back at the picture, anyway thats Obamas close freinds for ya. I will
never have a good word to say about Obama and if it be for the next 4
years i will never look at him on TV.I will never listen to his voice
and i do not believe Hillary found this humorous.