read it and weep.

scream, vomit, go numb...

megan_julca has the story.

Basically: Sanesha Stewart, a young trans woman of color, was stabbed to death on Saturday. An alleged sex worker, which, if true, would of course would mean she had it coming even more than she already did. And really, what else could she possibly be anyway? Either way: not human, certainly. As m_j puts it:

naturally it's her fault; after all, she was a "man who dressed like a woman" who "was known to wear stylish, provocative outfits with towering high heels," "was a ... flirty presence," and "had surgery to 'give him [sic] larger breasts and other female characteristics'" even though "it was clear Stewart was still a man." I mean she was just asking for it, amirite?

I mean "the suspect was apparently surprised by the victim's true sex" so it's perfectly acceptable to expect that he would respond the appropriate way and stab her to death in a fit of rage.

See, anyone who *wants* (frivolous, sexualized, appearance-oriented) female characteristics like artificially enhanced larger breasts for hirself, or *chooses* to "wear stylish, provocative outfits with towering high heels" is clearly catering to men, who in turn want nothing but sex, whether or not they are, in fact, entitled to it, that's all they WANT, this is axiomatic;

and even (or especially!) a man is entitled to at least not be -surprised- by finding unexpected body parts and/or Secret Pasts on a person he fancies or even shares any sort of public space with, certainly wimmin are so entitled to that much at least, even if they would never go so far as to physically hurt or -kill- a trans person because wimmin don't do such things, ever. As for denying transfolk access to such things as rape crisis centers: that's merely self-defense. Which is totally different from what we're talking about, here. Certainly no such excuse has been or will be employed when it comes to actual -murder- of a trans person, will it? Self defense. Oh, wait.

Because there's nothing worse than finding out you are sexually attracted to, hell, even had fond feelings about, is there? a person whose gender and/or sex is not the gender and/or sex you are SUPPOSED to be attracted to, according to God or your parents or the lads or the Sisterhood or the feverish little rabbit running your brain. Who doesn't understand -that-? the raw revulsion, the terror, the PANIC leading even unto VIOLENCE that such momentary existential cage-rattlings provides. It's only human.

and in fact, it is the very inherent or-might-as-well-be-it's-so-firmly-entrenched-by-now baseness of Man that creates such situations in the first place, is it not? Clearly only some debauched sick sexual desire would lead any -man- to take on the appearance or identity of a woman, much less sell his body to strange men, who in turn are only behaving in the way that is to be expected, animals that they are.

It is up to women to lead men to their better natures; any woman who doesn't do so but instead "chooses" to do sex work for a living, not just because she has to but actually -flaunting- her patent lack of victim status, or even wear towering high heels and stylish, provocative outfits and PLASTIC TITS is clearly a) falling down on the job b) a male-identified Enemy of Women c) a danger to herself, other women, other womens' husbands, and society, not necessarily in that order d) deserves whatever she gets. Not, you understand, that we would ever say such a thing in so many words. Except when we're forced to.

As for -men- who flaunt stylish plastic tits and towering lack-of-victim-status, even for a -second-, well, first of all, men are men and women are women and therefore a man who pretends he (never she; it is a terrible imposition to have to call a person what she wanted to be called, even in death) can be a woman -also- deserves whatever he gets, even more so, whether that's because he's betraying his Sacred Manhood or violating Sacred Wimminz Country or both at once.

Not that we would ever say such a thing. Unless we have to.

Oh, and the fact that Ms. Stewart was a woman of color? Totally irrelevant. Except when it's not. We will be the ones to decide when it is and when it's not, thank you very much. Why can't we all stick together? Why must you constantly derail from the important issues with your own trifling problems? Don't you know that ____ are ____ in ____? Fuck you anyway, you selfish [redacted], for trying to make me feel guilty when clearly I have it worse than ANYONE. There's only so much empathy to go around, you know, and I need all of it. I mean, "we." yes. "We." Whoever "we" is THIS time.

Did I leave anything out?

/rectal divination

phone conversation just now

dude on other end of phone: Hello. May I please speak to the youngest
adult male in the household who's over eighteen and registered to
vote?

me: (pause, ignoring the second clause) You could, but he's busy in
his litter box right now.

dude: (pause, same dull telemarketer drone) Are you referring to the
cat?

me: Yes.

dude: Well, I meant a human.

me: Sorry, can't help you. -click-

I'm such an asshole...

my theory, by me, brackets [Miz] brackets

(ahem! ahem hem!)



It’s just a small one.

90% of everything that’s wrong with the world is the fault of the assholes. There are many flavors of and justifications for assholery, sometimes quite elaborate ones. Institutionalized assholery can take on a life of its own, yes, and has many dimensions. But ultimately? It all boils down to bein’ an asshole (singularly and collectively).

Therefore, such frames for analysis as feminism and so forth help? but you still also need a basic “no, actually, -this- is just assholery” to ground you. otherwise, there’s absolutely no guarantee you’ll be any better than those other assholes even if you do manage to overthrow ‘em.

the last straw(feminist)

i can't believe this shit. oh wait, yes i can.

those scarecrows are awfully fucking lively, some days, aren't they?

gah.

on edit: this, to me, is both real feminism and real Christianity. and no, it doesn't take a lot of "advanced" tutelage, this. it's really quite simple. shame so many fundamentalists of both stripes apparently can't see it that way.

tangentially: on "advanced feminism" and related topics

Just highlighting this tangential exchange from a thread at RE's, because it's a fair point.

A Nomen Nescio says:

now and then i run into self-described feminists who insist that people should read up on the basics of feminism before commenting on it. these are folks who can get very upset with anyone who tries to criticize what they (the "anyone") see as "feminism" without first having read some laundry list of classics the self-described feminist considers essential to any enlightened debate and criticism of the subject. these are the sort of people who'd not only start "feminism 101" websites, but insist you have to go read all the back archives of same before speaking up on feminism.

which, y'know, is reasonable in itself. there's lots of subjects that people really should read up on before jumping in with both feet and landing with them both in their own mouths. no reason why feminism can't be one more such subject, really.

except... that's usually the case with subjects of academic study. ivory tower stuff, where the language used is highly technical jargon and one reason to read up is just so you'll be able to understand what's being said, and so on.

but if you want to have a grassroots movement for social change --- that is, political activism --- then you really can't afford to retreat into the ivory tower. if you want to change the society we all live in, you'll have to speak to everybody using everyday language that nobody needs any special education to parse. that's really just the way social activism works, i think.

so, is feminism an academic specialty for rarefied study, or is it a grassroots in-the-trenches movement for changing how everybody lives? can any one thing be both at once?

My off the cuff response:

eh, i feel two ways about it. yes, there is more to feminism than usually gets talked about on the blogosphere, and it'd be nice if more people...read more. and no, activism and theory are definitely not exclusive.

meanwhile, thing about feminism 101, that actual site as conceived, I mean, is meant more as a sort of perma-intrablogular FAQ so that other topics elsewhere don't get dragged down, over and over, by people responding to the same questions or points that have been posed by other people a million times before. this, i don't have a problem with. it's not that the concepts are so difficult, it's, well, FAQ.

but yeah, i do find it obnoxious when people throw around shit like "this is advanced feminism," particularly when it's painfully obvious that if there -were- any such thing, that would not be it: 9 times out of 10, it's not about o say comparing subtle differences between early radical feminism, socialist feminism, and cultural feminism, or an exegesis of Helene Cixous' idea of the "abject," or even a non-academic but still complex "personal is political" discussion of the ways in which sexism intersects (o noez) with racism, homophobia, ableism, classism...

but no, most of the time, no no no. usually what it means is, the person is pulling rank, making up in spittle and volume what she (sometimes even he) lacks in either activist cred -or- theoretical chops. much less plain ol' decent behavior toward the actual other women in the topic...

"Cool it. I'm an ice cream salesman. I am senior to both of you."

forget it, Jake, it's Internetstown.

****

That doesn't really address how it does and doesn't play out in what is laughingly known as "real life," I realize.

There is also the (long predating Internets) feminist concept of "the personal is political," which has been tossed about here before, and if I can find the relecant conversations, I'll come back and link 'em.

Nutshell, mine at least: it was supposed to be, and this was indeed a radical concept, once, that so-called "trivial" shit, iow everything normally consigned to the domestic sphere, is also part of the political structure.

So, basically, what this means in practical terms is, sometime during the throes of the Boomer generation sociopolitical upheavals, a number of women who'd been fighting for various leftist causes looked at their lives and then each other, and went,

"You know, Radical Robbie keeps yakking away about labor, and don't get me wrong, I support the union, too; but somehow he doesn't seem to make any connection between the exploitation of the Workers (tm) and the fact that I'm expected to make his damn dinner and do his laundry, without pay, while he yaks away, completely oblivious as to how dinner got on the table and the clean clothes got in his drawer. What's wrong with this picture?"

...among other things. Including reproduction and yes, sexuality in general, which is arguably where the whole thing went pear shaped. Or perhaps, where it became not just "including" but "primarily about, to the exclusion or at least dwarfing of all else." I'm not gonna argue that either way right now. Certainly it's gonna be explosive, because its incredibly intimate and we have (again, arguably, depending on your standpoint) all manner of collective sexual and bodily hangups which cannot be rectified by anti-misogyny alone, although yes, there does seem to be a connection.

Anyway. Long story short, for whatever reason, and however it came about, what seems to have happened here is, "the personal is political" has devolved, by and large, into

"If we all rigorously police ourselves and each other for our individual choices, some of which blatantly support the Patriarchy (tm) and others do not, all those individual decisions to abstain from porn-watching, lipstick wearing, blowjob-giving, and so forth, will add up to Revolution. This is by no means Underpants Gnome logic. p.s. By a total coincidence, those things which I need and value in my own life are among the acceptable compromises or even no problem at all, whereas the things -you- need and value are frivolous at best, oppressive of women, which is to say Me, at worst, and you really need to stop doing it or at least feel guilty about it or I can't treat you like a human being. Why must you be so divisive? You must not be a real feminist. No, really, you're not a feminist. ...Where have all the feminists gone?"

****

Kim has apparently been thinking along similar lines, again. Or rather: here is, perhaps, where that pesky "intersection" comes in:

In Ideal Feminism, all prostitutes are poverty-stricken addicts, bonus if they are under the thumb of an evil male pimp. These prostitutes are all miserable, broken shells of women who want desperately to be set free from sex slavery and addiction.

In Ideal Feminism, all women in domestic violence shelters are beaten and broken frail little husks of themselves, desperate to embrace a life free from the men who abused them.

In Ideal Feminism, homeless women are victims as well; victims of deadbeat dads who don't pay child support; unable to find employment due to sexism in the job market and unequipped with the necessary survival skills due to abuse they suffered at the hands of the patriarchy.

In Ideal Feminisms, all these women are the Linda Lovelace of homelessness, domestic violence, addiction and prostitution.

But...

In the real world, many women just don't have the hatred for The Patriarchy that many of these educated, privileged, soaked-in-reading feminists have. In the dog-eat-dog world of crushing poverty, addiction and homelessness, many women could give a rat's ass for Dworkin or Frye. So much of feminism today seems limited to college campuses, quaint coffee shop discussion, hip little bars and of course, the internets. So much of it seems so marinated and basted in Idealisms, Theories and Ain't I Smart? that I damn near could vomit.

I want a working tool, not a fucking fairy tale.

In the real world, every woman is not Linda Lovelace, beaten, broken, repentant and begging to be rescued. The perfect damsel in distress for feminism to play its knight in shining armor role – and then to plaster the damsel's sad, sad story on poster boards as proof.

Too, these feminists who fill up their blogs with post after post of the plight of third world women and those feminists who apparently scour the internet for stories on violence against women.

You’re talking a real risk there, sister. Good for you for not leaving your house and congrats on your internet searching ability!

"But I am raising awareness," they pout. "I am letting THE WORLD know about these horrors, oh and here is a quote from a famous, published-for-real feminist to back me up!"

Bullshit you're raising awareness.
Who is reading your blog other than those just like you?
Additionally, I never trust an “activist” with clean fingernails.

...Feminism is a woman’s movement.
I do indeed believe women still battle for equal rights and therefore, I believe a woman’s movement is needed. Still, I’m calling it as I see it: today’s feminism, especially blogging feminism is a tainted, stinking, foul cesspool of rivalry.

Right, then:

White feminists v. WoC Feminists.
Anti-porn radical feminists v. “sex pos” feminists.
Born lesbian feminists (with a “clear-eyed gaze”) v. heterosexual feminists.
Non-trans feminists v. trans-feminists
Perfect Grammar Feminists v. Not-So-Perfect-Grammar-Feminists
Childfree by Choice Feminists v. Breeding Feminists
Daughter only breeding feminists v. Son-breeding feminists (I shit you not with this one.)

For starters.

Anyone who claims feminism is some giant umbrella of sisterhood is sadly mistaken. Would that this were so. Rather, feminism is polluted with exclusionary tactics and Orwellian “more equal than others” philosophies.

Saddest of all, some of these feminist bloggers who claim to care so very much about women are the same women who have so polluted this movement for me.

I’m certainly not alone here. Many feminist bloggers show a trail of bodies behind them: women who all finally reached their personal saturation point with whatever exclusionary, sometimes cult-like dogma was slung their way once too often...

No, she's not alone.

There is also, again, the question of: so, is this mostly an online phenomenon. Certainly there are plenty of actual longtime activists who find this blog drama as bewildering and offputting as the next person. The Internets do have qualities of their own, yes.

But, no, at the same time, I think, it's not only that; the 'Net isn't in a completely separate sphere from the "real world," people being people, by and large. and frankly, this shit is, well? Not new.

Eh, rambling now: floor is open.

Teeth: the movie.

This? Looks fucking brilliant. It probably isn't, due to the Law Of Whatever It Is, but...frankly, I'm surprised it took people this long...



from the youtube description:

Dawn is her chastity group's most active participant. But she discovers she has a toothed vagina when she becomes the object of violence and experiences both the pitfalls and power of living the vagina dentata myth.

...eh, maybe not. From a review:

Though reminiscent of the bonsai charms of Larry Cohen's '80s output (and the 2003 direct-to-DVDer Angst), Teeth has a severe lack of concentration, due in no small part to a scattershot editing job: Random shots and scenes abruptly come in to reiterate motives or allow for another redundant sight gag. For a film that is basically humping one note, Lichtenstein sure does know how to wear out a welcome, and by the fourth victim, even seeing a bitten-off penis getting gobbled up by a mutt comes off as repetitive. Call me old-fashioned, but three is enough to get your point across.

The hints and intimations towards feminist theory, the male gaze, and fear of women are all well and good, but it's the B-movie spunk that makes Teeth entertaining. It owes a special ode to Cohen's It's Alive, the schlockmeister's homage to abortion and fear of parenthood. The looming cooling towers insinuate that Dawn's problem stems from pollution, but Lichtenstein's script, often overwrought, is very careful to never explain Dawn's mutation. Though never egregious, the faults in Lichtenstein's filmmaking render Teeth a passable entertainment and nothing more. You'll have to forgive the pun, but it simply lacks bite.

Like everyone and their auntie isn't going to be using that particular pun, but o well.

("bonsai charms?")

fun little idea, anyway, although personally i don't really need to see the leftovers when she's finished dining. never been a big gore fan though.

all i have to say at this point

is this:



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

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

"and life goes on."

the call is coming from inside the house.

Tom Cruise is from head Org and he's here to help.

We are the authorities on, getting people off drugs, we are the authorities on the mind. We are the authorities on improving conditions. Crimanon, we can rehabilitate criminals. Way to happiness, we can bring peace, ahh, uhh, and unite cultures...that...you know, whatever, it's like: We're here to help.

on edit: the Compleat Suppresive Parody video page.

Quote of the day: 1/25/08, ii

"Another word to the faux-liberal press, who are already jumping on
Clinton with their tiny, pink, clawed cat feet, suppurating
condescension for all things "southern," most of all white male
southerners, presumably because these press members saw 'In the Heat
of the Night' in college. You are the shitsuckers that sank Jimmy
Carter's noble ship and slick-slimed the skidding way for Reagan's
greedanoids, from whom we will not recover in our children's
lifetimes. Read Willie Morris or dozens of others on the subject.
See if you can write a piece without mentioning BBQ, dogs, the local
sheriff, chewing tobacco, bubbas, pop coolers, and pickups. It is
important not to miss the world that is actually there."

--Jim Harrison, "The Raw and the Cooked," ca 1992


**no, this is -still- not an endorsement for Hillary

Quote of the day: 1/25/08

Watch these mono-issue people. They ain’t gonna do you no good. I don’t care who they are. And there are people who prioritize the cutting line of the struggle. And they say the cutting line is this issue, and more than anything we must move on this issue and that’s automatically saying that whatever’s bothering you will be put down if you bring it up. You have to watch these folks. Watch these groups that can only deal with one thing at a time. On the other hand, learn about space within coalition. You can’t have everybody sitting up there talking about everything that concerns you at the same time or you won’t get no place.

...I am concerned that we are very shortsighted, and we think that the issue we have at this moment has to be addressed at this moment or we will die. It is not true. It is only a minor skirmish. It must be waged guerrilla-warfare style. You shoot it out, get behind the tree so you don’t get killed, because they ain’t gonna give you what you asked for. You must be ready to go out again tomorrow and while you’re behind the tree you must be training the people who will be carrying the message forward into the next period, when they do kill you from behind the tree.

You must believe that believing in human beings in balance with the environment and the universe is a good thing. You must believe—and I’m being biased and bigoted here again—that having a society that doesn’t solve everything with guns is a good thing...The thing that must survive you is not just the record of your practice, but the principles that are the basis of your practice.

--Bernice Johnson Reagon

as if there weren't enough reasons to loathe these people

John Gibson says! Heath Ledger's death is so funny, you know, he played that gay cowboy that was all tragic and now he's dead for reals, isn't that funny?

dear talking heads: Matthews, Gibson, fucking O'Rly, Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Coulter, Hannity, please feel free to insert your own:

Just: Die In A Fire already. 'K? Yes, you got me, that's right, I'm NOT a bleeding heart liberal, and I'm not laughing today, my heart is BURNING, and I have no more blood or laughter or empathy for empathy-devoid wastes of skin like you. Just: disappear. LEAVE this planet. You have consumed far too much oxygen as it is. There's not enough to go around, you're RIGHT. Now: you go first.

No, seriously. GO. Die in a pool of your own broken misery, you soulless cesspits from hell. Go on. It'll be -funny.- It'll be ENTERTAINING. Isn't it always? Maybe we can snap a pic of your bloodied undies while we're at it, hm? You worthless, wretched, GHOULS. You bloated, entitled, smug pasty fuckers. You, sitting on a pile of your own waste and calling it "civilization," the thing you want to -protect-, STANDARDS, you -foul- little pieces of shit--

tell me, o righteous defenders of Christmas, borders, America, Family Values, hapless blonde women who aren't alive to protest your salivations, who's going to save us from -you?- Who, you carrion feeding fucks? YOU -are- the Weakest Link, goddamit; and while getting rid of your -slime- for once and for all wouldn't fix what's wrong with this culture, probably wouldn't even be much of a beginning, godDAM but it would be a spark to my heart.

Maybe then, I'd have some blood for you. Maybe, finally, then. But not before.

For now, you'll have to settle for bile.

It's all the same to you anyway, isn't it?

fookin' brill

Just a quick link to this piece/speech by Bernice Johnson Reagon, as reprinted at She Who Stumbles. Not currently in the headspace for further commentary, although it did remind me that at some point I had this hazy idea for a post on sociopolitics/activism as "henotheism." anyway: go read, if you haven't already.

-waves rusty gardening shears at Chris Matthews menacingly-, o what a giveaway

So, just to get this out of the way up front: this sort of thing does -not-, of itself, make me more inclined to vote for Hillary, or for anyone else, for that matter. I remain just as enthusiastic about this whole process as I was before.

What it -does- make me think/feel is

1) y'know, if the point is the pervasiveness of good ol' fashioned sexism in the media and specifically that of Chris "Tweety" Matthews, no arguments from me here; and, yes, they ("they" being Media Matters, who sent the following in one of the six squillion mass emails I get from various sources) have a point there, kids

2) thank -fuck- I got rid of cable, my sadness over missing the debut of Torchwood S2 notwithstanding; it's worth it to have had my eyeballs be more or less blissfully free from Big Noxious Giant Talking Head-induced pencil stabs

3) sweet Jesus, I hate Chris Matthews.

Oh, yeah, the email:

Dear Friend,

By now, you may be familiar with this recent exchange between Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and MSNBC Hardball host Chris Matthews:

Sen. Clinton: "I don't know what to do with men who are obsessed with me. I honestly have never understood it."

[...]

Matthews: "It's not obsession."

If you have ever watched an episode of Hardball, you may find Matthews' above statement a bit suspect. After all, as Media Matters for America has previously documented, after The New York Times published an article on Hillary and Bill Clinton's marriage in May of 2006, Matthews asked at least 90 questions on the subject over the course of seven broadcasts on his two programs (Hardball and The Chris Matthews Show). One of his guests during these broadcasts, Washington Post reporter Lois Romano, called Matthews out after he repeatedly inquired about how many days the Clintons slept under the same roof. "[W]hat is your obsession with logistics here?" she asked.

To get an idea of the type of language Matthews regularly uses when covering Clinton, take a look at this sampling:

"I hate her. I hate her. All that she stands for."
"She Devil"
"Nurse Ratched"
"Madame Defarge"
"Witchy"
"Anti-male"
"[U]ppity"
"She's going to tell us what to do."
"Her scolding manner in terms of her public speaking"
"[L]et's talk about the troops ...Will they take the orders?"
"[D]oesn't she know she looks like a fraud?"
"Look at those eyes. Look at the cold eyes that she's giving him. Look at that cold look."
"[L]ike a strip-teaser saying she's flattered by the all the attention"
On Sen. Clinton's endorsers: "castratos in the eunuch chorus"
"Let me tell you how short Hillary's leash is."
"Is she a convincing mom?"
On Sen. Clinton's laugh: "What do you make of the cackle?"
"[S]he's clapping, like she's Chinese. I know the Chinese clap at each other, but what is she clapping at? I mean, it's like one of these wind-up things."
"[S]he was giving a campaign barn-burner speech, which is harder to give for a woman; it can grate on some men when they listen to it -- fingernails on a blackboard, perhaps."
"Is there, out there in the country or out in the Atlantic Ocean, some gigantic monster -- big, green, horny-headed, all kinds of horns coming out, big, aggressive monster of anti-Hillaryism that hasn't shown itself: it's based upon gender ..."
"[B]eing surrounded by women, does that make a case for commander in chief -- or does it make a case against it?"
"Is she hemmed in by the fact that she's a woman and can't admit a mistake, or else the Republicans will say, 'Oh, that's a woman's prerogative to change her mind,' or 'another fickle woman'? Is her gender a problem in her ability to change her mind?"
"[T]he reason she's a U.S. senator, the reason she's a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around."
"She may have gotten The Des Moines Register's endorsement the other day, thanks to her husband's lobbying with its female editors and publisher ..."

She may take the brunt of his vitriol and sexist commentary, but Clinton is far from the only woman targeted by Matthews. Here are some other notable examples:

On House Speaker Nancy Pelosi:

Described her as "scary"
Suggested she would "castrate" House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer
Wondered how she could disagree with President Bush "without screaming? How does she do it without becoming grating?"

On Michelle Obama during the first Democratic presidential debate:

"I thought Michelle, whatever you say about Obama, his wife looked perfect -- perfect for the occasion ... I'm sorry, those things are important. You guys are ignoring it. Some people are, by the way, just watching tonight. They stopped listening a half-hour in, and they noticed how pretty she is -- Michelle -- and they said, 'I like the fact he's got this pretty wife. He's happily married. I like that.' " After Matthews' take on Michelle Obama's appearance, NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell was compelled to remind Matthews that Mrs. Obama is a Harvard-educated lawyer.

On potential future female presidential candidates:

"[T]here's not even another on the horizon. Where are the governors? Where are the big-state women governors? Where are they? Name one. They don't exist." (Note: Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell, and Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius all run states with populations comparable to male governors who have recently run for president, including Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Bill Richardson.)

On women who live in the suburbs who "may not work outside the home":

"They're talking around election time -- the husband and the wife -- you know, she says, 'I sort of like this Hillary, the first woman president. She's pro-choice.' And the husband says, 'You know, dear, you know, this is going to kill our tax bracket. You know that tuition thing we pay every couple of years for the kids, every year, we can't do that if we get a higher tax bracket. We have to pay more money.' "

...

yadda yadda etc. etc., world without end, ad frakkin' nauseum.

a response to Tom

because i hadn't had a chance to get back to it earlier and the thread in question's now well off the front page over at RE's.

specifically, to this:

"I mean, even you have been using the term "moderate feminist," and just--no"

And just--why not? What's wrong with distinguishing between certain feminists who have certain views and certain other feminists who have certain other views? Is it that you dislike "moderate" and "extremist" in particular, or do you object to any such categorizations?

No, I don't object to any categorizations, categorically. The problem I have with this set-up is that it implies, again, a single-axis continuum ranging from "radical feminist" at one end to "MRA" on the other. And, that's just not how it works. This is the same frustration I've had at I suspect many of the same feminist blogs that have frustrated you, albeit perhaps for different reasons:

1) it inadvertently suggests that second-wave (white Anglo-American) radical and/or cultural feminism(s) (which is what's usually meant by what you're referring to as "extremist" feminism) is the expression of "pure" feminism, all other feminisms being merely more reasonable modifications thereof, when in fact it is no such thing.

2) again, it doesn't take into account any sort of intersectionality, which is the same damn problem I have with I Blame The Patriarchy or any number of other places. It's a web, not a line. For me that's particularly true of sexuality and gender; I am -interested- in what het cis men have to say, okay, but the ongoing back and forth between them and het cis women is just -not- what I find of central importance or how I frame all this shit.

and then, beyond that, there's race, there's class, there are...any number of axes. and, this rarely gets covered, the existence of these other axes, let alone how and where they intersect with sex and/or gender; and no, FC is certainly not the only offender in this regard, but it's one more reason I get frustrated and don't stick around.

3) to a lesser extent: I don't find "moderate feminist" a terrible terrible insult, no, but it's not particularly what I call -myself-, especially, and it'd be nice to be asked, first.

More to the point, and in line with 1): this is the problem I've kept having with FC in general: there -are- names for the various branches of feminism already. You don't have to agree with the delineations for every single one--hell, there's no total consensus where the boundaries always are as far as that goes--but at minimum, it's good to be aware that this is out there, yeah?

So, let's see, what else is news. Oo--primary season! whee. also, I really need to go to the dentist, it's been a while.

Yeah; it's kind of like that right now.

Roughly this is where I'm at, wrt electionblagh:

First of all, per who I'm supporting in the primaries: I'd vote for the exhumed bones of Wellstone + a Ouija board channeling if someone undertook the project. Gore I think we can rule out at this point. Beyond that...well, I keep saying Reply Hazy, Ask Again Later, but Later's pretty much now-ish, and you know, somehow, I still can't be arsed. I'll vote for whoever gets the nom, and I might even put some back into it, depending on...depending. No more money, though. Sorry. Been there, done that, got bills to pay and other shit, thanks.

Never would've thought I'd be this singularly unthrilled at the prospect of finally seeing the back of Dubya, I must say.

Which is not to say that I don't -care-, at all.

But I'm looking at the way this is playing out, -has- been playing out, and thinking: okay, so, assuming the least worst happens. Then what?

This is my analysis, for what it's worth (you might be able to get an espresso at Starfucks if you also rummage around inside the sofa for a while):

There's a...theme that I've been keeping an eye on for quite a while: that it's not smart to put too much faith in the whole, the populist -left- is gonna be the alternative to the Bush administration, even putting aside the whole "oh, yeah, actually the Democratic Establishment isn't really what you'd call populist, is
it. or Left, for that matter." The backlash to the whole Iraq adventure--well, we're seeing it play out already, with the nativism and the anti-immigrant ugliness, which of course all of the Repub hopefuls have been all over like flies on shit; still, it's understood that some of them -really mean it- more than others. Much more so the whole theocratic riff.

There are roughly two ways the whole "rawwwwh America, we're the best, Live Free Or Die" etc. thing plays out, I think, within the R/right. One is what we've been seeing, the neocons, neo-imperialism, combined with a superficially secular/modern/"moderate" appeal to status quo; the real radicalism plays out a little below the surface, Over There, same as it has been for most of these administrations, more or less. They tend or tended to include a lot of spooked former wealthy liberals/libertines of the Christopher Hitchens/Dennis Miller/Gerard Van der Leun sort.

The other is more radically right there in your face: it was partly embodied by the Ashcroft side of the Bush admin (there's a reason why he left, I would say). They might go to war, but it has a somewhat different flavor at least in the initial appeal. First of all they're turned inward and At Home, for better or for worse, depending on who you are. Secular comfortable queers like o say Andrew Sullivan or y'know a -lot- of us are probably going to -personally- be in a lot more trouble with this bunch. They tend to be much more nativist and hardcore reactionary; they also tend to appeal more toward the underclasses, the rural, the blue-collar workers, and, of course, the hard-core Religious Right. Essentially, I would say, we're talking about Tories versus Roundheads.

Now, the Bush administration--hell, the entire last twenty-five/thirty years or so, at least, has seen a sort of unholy/uneasy alliance between these factions: we're going to war in Iraq to protect Western-style secular democracy; we're going to war because it is our Holy Duty as Crusaders for the Lord. They co-existed particularly nicely when the added glue was "by the way, if we don't attack them over here there'll be more attacks over here, AHH AHH WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE." And fuck knows what happens if/when the next major attack on U.S. soil happens.

Meanwhile, what we're beginning to see now, I would say, among other things, is the beginnings of a major rift between the Tories and the Roundheads. Some Dems and liberals and so on are rather gleeful about the whole thing--there's a term, "Huckenfreude," even. The trouble is of course is that, well, the fundamental problem hasn't changed. Genuine populism on the left is, if not actually moribund, still deeply fragmented; and shifting back to Whigs is only going to be a temporary stopgap at best. There are far deeper rifts going on here than simply Whigs and Tories, Republicans and Democrats, and that's echoing across the world, not just here; call it the class struggle reasserting itself if you like, call it Jihad versus McWorld if you like; they both still work.

The real problem is, if we want neither of those options, we've got our work cut out
for us and then some; and the hour groweth late.

yep, still postin' videos.

"We're sorry, but all of our circuits are busy right now. Thank you for your patience. Your click is important to us. Please stand by."






(thanks, Em! ^-^)









bonus fucked-uppedness: "Harry Potter and the Brokeback Goblet"

*ahem*

Okay, and -as- long as I'm on a fangirl streak anyway, I feel compelled to share these findings with whomever might also appreciate...such things: David Tennant in drag.

once as a joke



but here (think this must be from some years ago)...well, i think it's meant to be a comedy, probably? (i have no earthly clue what the Scottish men are saying; I think they're orcs) but um. DT's presentation/performance? oh my wordies. i'll be in my bunk...



Yeah, eventually i'll get back to more serious posting...

("bombs are flying...people are dying...the whole world's gone to hell, but how are you?...")

...eventually. Then again, i'm kind of enjoying the shallow end.

Btw, did I ever mention my theory that the Sims holds the secret of life?

No, SRSLY. See, they have these little bars indicating their virtual little needs: hunger, bladder, energy (sleep), social, comfort, fun, and, uh, aesthetic something or other. When all or most of the little bars are comfortably above the halfway point, at least, then they're happy, and you can make them do whatever you want, pretty much. They'll do the tedious shit without complaining much (take out the trash, study, look for a job, exercise), and whatever "fun" stuff they do (throw a party, come onto the cute neighbor) is far more likely to be successful. (Sexytime is part of "social," I guess). They're more likely to get promoted, spontaneously start writing a book or playing the piano, take good care of the kids, and so forth.

When one or more of the various bars is running near empty, they won't be able to do much until that need is taken care of (especially if it's hunger or sleep). And if they're running low overall, they whine and stamp their little feet and burst into tears randomly, sleep through their alarm, start fights, and go "uh uh" when asked to do something taxing, instead wandering off to watch TV.

If the social bar gets too low, they start regressing and eventually end up babbling to an imaginary giant rabbit.

It's great stuff, especially if you feel sadistic. Once I created a "Bush administration" household of eight and tormented them all to death. Well, first I had them fighting over three single beds, one shower, and one toilet; the rest had to take turns, and they were all really cranky so they kept kvetching and getting into fights. Then I removed all that stuff, and had them throw a party. It's not a great way to make friends and influence people, walking around unbathed for weeks, soiling one's virtual self and bursting into tears, picking fights, and of course, fly-encrusted garbage everywhere. Then I got tired of it. I put Rove in the swimming pool and removed the ladder; they swim till they drown. Cheney I locked in the attic with no food. Someone burned to death at the stove...and George was a schoolboy whose grades got so low that he was shipped off to boarding school; this was the old version where they don't age. If I had the capacity for Sims 2, I'd totally have had him get abducted and impregnated by aliens.

No, wait, but I had a point, here, somewhere. Something important. What was it again?...

oh, yeah:

Ole-like mjoel! Robaluki khan. Awasa poa. Uh, licht nar? Uh -uh!- Oo shonga day? Cayoo! Krach! Lamoo! Frabbit! Deepwa spanewash deepla blah!

o all right then: the fangirl post.

By request.

So yeah, as noted and obvious in the vids post below, I have turned my affections upon the new Dr. Who and Torchwood.

Or, well, so far I've just been sticking to the new stuff, only referring to the Wiki summaries of older shit when I need a reference.

I started by watching Torchwood, which is a bit grimmer and -slightly- less with the silly (well, the finale was pretty naff);

and then the first DW episode I watched was the "Empty Child" one, the one with the gas masks? which was genuinely creepy and seemed at least somewhat plausible, SF-wise (as these things go). So I was thinking it was all gonna be like that. Also, dunno if this was as true in the old series, but: Russell Davies is, besides being camp as knickers, a rather grim little petunia under it all. You see it more in TW, the whole "there's nothing after death, (except for the scary thing moving in the dark, which disappointingly turns out to be a rather risible CGI monster); "life is all;" it's the inevitable flip side to the firm belief in humanism that carries DW. I mean, that's true in a lot of SF, but this one...seems to go to the existentialist dilemma quite a bit, actually. And whenever it delves into WWII stuff especially, or the whole "British Empire" riff, you really start to see it, although it's symbolically there in even the cheesier Alien Menaces. How -do- you maintain hope in either a benign God or your fellow humyn when there are bombs dropping on your head? How do you defend against the authoritarian menace from outside without becoming Daleks or Cyberpeople yourself? What's actually worse: accepting that dying (personally or collectively) may really be just... the end of everything? Or the price one pays for artifically extending existence just for the sake of existence: shutting oneself off, turning oneself into a machine, or simply the pain of knowing that one is alone within one's own skin/shell, alone in the universe? What's the point of it all, anyway?

and then I go back and start from the beginning of S1, and it's like: giant farting prosthetic aliens! pissy flying salt shakers that shoot blocklike laserbeams at people and scream "exterminate" for long moments before actually y'know doing it, thus enabling people to run away! "K-9!" "the Weakest Link" is still on 200,000 years in the future! with chunky androids! scary savage futurekind 100 trillion years in the future (the universe lasts this long?!) have evolved fangs for eatin' people but apparently still visit their barbershop regularly (perhaps they use the fangs for grooming? nice to know that neither hair nor styles have changed much in 100 trillion years)...and...

and after some initial sputtering, i realized i was basically doing the equivalent of,

"Velvet paintings are -camp- and thus delightful, but flamingos on the lawn? Now that's just -tacky.-"

so said "fuck it" and accepted that this was 1) part of its charm 2) the price one pays for getting to watch both Billie Piper and David Tennant possessed by Zoe Wanamaker.



"Voyage of the Damned" was crap, though. Not campy, just crappy. Not sure how that happened, since it was apparently Davies who wrote that as well and as I've said, I thought the S3 finale was fucking ace. ho well.

"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever."

how deeply true that is.

Weekend get-your-groove-on

Yeah yeah? Yeah, I think so.







and what the hell, a few fanvids*, since I like the songs and also I'm currently sort of obsessed with Dr. Who/Torchwood. -waits impatiently for new seasons even though the DW Christmas special was kind of rubbish-

*not mine, just to be clear; ganked some other folks' efforts that I liked off Youtube along with the rest of 'em is all.

yes.

Little Light wrote a post about a week ago that's another post for the ages, but feels especially right, to me, today:

When you look forward to a decisive battle, you look forward to destruction and chaos being visited on real people. When you seek heroism too vigorously, in the end, you're seeking a world where heroes are necessary: a world with enough disaster in it, and enough people sitting back, that someone "better" has to step in. Heroism is only heroism if it wants to make itself obsolete, but too often it's about separation from others. Revolutions go 'round and 'round, but heads always roll.

When it comes to the big fight between the white hats and the black hats, I've become a third-party voter. You put on a hat, you're not just declaring your moral authority above others. You're volunteering for a world where regular folks get to die in the name of ideals and prophecies and grand overarching plans. You're volunteering for a world where people need to be different in order to make it, where the ticket to Utopia is bought by changing human nature.

Us people, we're a mess. I used to think we had to stop that to be worth preserving. We had to shift our natures, slough off the ape, embrace the angel, burn away impurities in a vast moral crucible. It sounds nice if you don't think about it too hard: for people to survive, to be worthy of survival, they have to stop screwing up.

The solution isn't in making people not a mess. That's no good, because in the end, you'd be rescuing and redeeming something that wouldn't recognizably be people. You'd be insisting that people be what you want them to be if they want a life preserver. That's what an apocalypse is. That's what a revolution is. You can't ignore who--and what, in all of us--gets to go against the wall and smoke that last cigarette.

You have to be able to do for people as they are--as messes. You have to be able to love them as messes. Can you really love people, really love them, without loving all of them? Without loving them as flawed, mistake-making, stumbling messes? It's not about good not being able to exist without evil. It's not about people being incapable of change, of striving, of improvement. It's about saying that they don't have to be improved already to be worthy. It's about saying that the revolution doesn't have to come before we can love and stand with the people next to us. They don't have to be heroes. They don't have to be angels. They just get to be people.

read the rest.

oh fuck, oh shit

Benazir Bhutto killed in attack.

on update: good roundup of links at Problem Chylde.

Asshole Bingo!

-Is- there a card? for the generalized phenomenon, I mean? if not, there ought to be.

or maybe it's more of a flowchart. anyway at the moment, sans graphic or structure, the components go something like this:


*God, I can't understand how anyone could do/behave like/call themselves/be THAT. Sick, stupid, messed-up, filthy, sad... I wring my hands in despair at the fundamental depravity of it all.

*although, snerk, it's also kind of funny...

*Oh, well, I didn't mean -you.- Don't take it -personally.-

*What? It's just my opinion!

*YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

*Stop judging me for judging you!

*Anyway, I'm -not- judging -you,- just that terrible awful icky thing that you claim is an integral part of your being,

*which you wouldn't claim anyway if you knew how brainwashed/damaged/foolish/Lost to Darkness you are.

*I'm only trying to help.

*Really, I'm not telling you what to do. All I want is for you to admit that no matter how you protest, deep down, I'm right, you are wrong about your own experience, and you -really feel just like I do.- Isn't that so much better?

*You're derailing. -Why- must you make it all about -you?- Can't you just be quiet and let us talk -about- you?

*yer so SELFISH. What about the Cause?

*Okay, now you're just being rude. How can I learn if you insist on being so rude and angry all the time?

*I can't be expected to know all about this stuff. I'm just thinking out loud.

*Besides, I am an expert (tm) on this subject, whereas you are only talking about your own experience and thus cannot be objective.

*You are oppressing/silencing me with your stultifying Political Correctness. Shut up!

*The problem with you is, you're just too sensitive. And also mean. To me.


*I'm not like other people! I can't stand pain, it hurts me!

*And, you won't even listen to reason, it's like bashing my head against a brick wall, in fact I actually AM bashing my head against a brick wall, o the noise, LALALALALA CAN'T HEAR YOUUUUUU...

*Okay, okay, clearly I screwed up, even though I still don't understand how exactly and it doesn't interest me much to be honest, but! I FEEL REALLY BAD BECAUSE YOU'RE YELLING AT ME *sniffle*, I'm a terrible person, I heap ashes and sackcloth upon my head, I'm sorry I'm sorry I'm sorry I'm sorry I SAID I'M SORRY GODDAMIT CHRIST WHAT MORE DO YOU UNGRATEFUL PEOPLE WANT ANYWAY

*Screw you guys, I'M GOING HOME.

...

*And ANOTHER THING...

in retrospect...

probably, it would have been better to have said something to him more along the lines of,

"Are you still enjoying your entertaining new interactive home video game system?"

instead of, as it came out,

"So. Are you still playing with your Wii?"

yes, i really said that.

no, it was not on purpose.

shut up.

oh. you might have thought from the title that this was going to be some sort of "the year in review" or something, mightn't you?

well.

it's not.

...

but, happy generalized winter holiday season,

and unspecified Benign Presence, supernatural or otherwise, bestow good fortune and compassion on us, every one.

there is is again goddamit

that odd noise i mentioned a few weeks back, which, can't tell if it's a TV or the heater or...what. in the bedroom.

i mean...-if- it's a ha'ant or suchlike, it's a rather monotonous and specifically located one.

what it sounds like, is: someone reading a newscast, endlessly, from moderately far away. on a kazoo. is what it sounds like.

"Well, it's certainly uncontaminated by phones."

At the local Radio Shack, we learn: the phones that are on display without a price marker are thus displayed because they don't actually have any of those models in stock. This includes the model that I wanted, of the options that were presented, which were already not many.

So, okay: what phones DO they have. Guy checks in back. Emerges with two very basic models. I pick one. Guy disappears into the back again. Re-emerges a few moments later and explains that he'd been going to exchange the model he was showing me, which was defective, for a good one; but oops, looks like the recent flooding in the basement has ruined all the phones that were down there, sorry.

I'm sure there is a profound moral to this story, but I'm sure I don't know what.

So, without further ado: the Cheese Shop sketch.



Here is another post about cheese. No phones there either, though.

The reason

At this point? Simply and bluntly: because I don't need any more higher than a kite maintenance down the rabbit hole drama queens in my life. Which, oh dear GOD and little fishes, you -so are.- If that wasn't abundantly clear before, it certainly is now. And, -that- last little cutie was so incredibly -fucking- inappropriate. Both of you. Way. Out. Of Fucking. Line.

Yeah, I get it. You're butthurt. Know what? Spank your inner moppet, whatever. Last shred of sympathy: gone daddy gone.

Now: any time you want to get off that cross, I imagine someone could use the wood. For instance, you. It takes a lot of wood to build bridges, and honeys, you just burnt a -shitload.- Congratulations.

"The great thing about believing everyone is out to get you is that eventually it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy."

Never thought I'd be saying that to or about you; although in retrospect, maybe I should have.

And, finally: know what, I'm busy too. Too busy for THIS bullshit, I tell you right now.


Enough.


obligatory disclaimer, if you don't see yourself here it doesn't apply to you, etc. etc. etc. Move along, nothing to see here. Really. Just...clearing up some detritus. I hope to Christ, anyway.

p.s. Guide for the Perplexed: The -next- time something like this happens, with someone -else- I mean, here's what you do:

you write directly to the person who you're so confident is your dear friend and for good reason, mind you, and, instead of playing bullshit games, say, simply,

"Hey. I just heard about this. Why am I not a part of it? I'm hurt and confused and pissed off."

And, if you're not gonna do that, but instead go at it slantwise, when dear friend answers you in like style, and tells you politely but firmly that there are good reasons why not now, if you can't take her at her word, sure: be as hurt as you want to? but stop trying to access something that you have just been -clearly- told you are not going to be accessing, and back the fuck off.

But then, if you were the sort of person who were capable of doing such a thing, you'd never have been excluded in the damn first place. Get it? It's got fuckall to do with -ideology- or -style.- It's called: Hi! Boundaries! It's called: Hi! Sanity! It's called: Grow. The fuck. Up.

And that's all, folks.

Yesterday...

was the Día de Guadalupe.

(image from here

See Man Egee, the Fruit Basket, Daisy's Dead Air, Bastante Already for more.

As long as we're on the subject of montages...

I'm kind of digging this one.



h/t femmelesbians

"Say It Ain't So Feminism"

brought to you by the awesome Sudy:

World AIDS day, belatedly

She's got a point there, kids:

antiprincess on the real "sex pox."

...whatever side of the porn/sexwork/bdsm fence you sit on, what about AIDS, y'all?

I'm not HIV+, nor am I an AIDS activist. But I know people who work long and hard to purge the idea from the human consciousness that there is some consensual sexual behavior that deserves PUNISHMENT. Not just any punishment, but The Biggest, Baddest, Most Punishing Punishment - long, slow, conspicuously Capital Punishment in the form of a wasting disease, with clearly visible physical benchmarks of its progress as it slowly kills its victims.

so, when I see the word "sexpox", I don't think of cute hawtt titjobbed bisexee suckfuckers who giggle and simper on their spindly heels and tilt their empty heads and smile while cooing "ooh! I'm so empowerful! aren't I, Nigel?"

(and even if I did get that mental picture, it wouldn't match any of the individuals I know who identify as "sex-positive." the gulf of understanding here is unbridgeable, apparently, when it comes to that.)

when I see the word "sexpox", I think of a fatal disease that happens to people who fuck the wrong way, and need to be punished before they can die as a consequence for their behavior.

I mean, I guess, if you think there's a type of consenting adult sexual behavior that NEEDS to be punished by a fatal disease, because that behavior is THAT SINFUL that people who do it need years and years of suffering until they've repented enough to die in misery, then by all means continue slinging around "sexpox" like it's no more harmful than "tranny" or "faggot". (eyeroll)

but if you really think that there's a type of consenting adult sexual behavior that deserves the death penalty, may I humbly suggest you examine what that really means...

and yes, belatedly, World AIDS day was a week ago.

Some bloggers that covered it:

8 Asians:

When December 1st rolled around, otherwise known as World AIDS Day, I didn’t think too much about it. Granted that I’ve been involved in one shape or form in HIV/AIDS prevention among the queer Asian men’s community for over 10 years, first in LA doing some work with APAIT or Asian Pacific AIDS Intervention Team and in SF doing research for APIWC or Asian Pacific Islander Wellness Center, and have done some collaborative work with APICHA or Asian Pacific Islander Coalition on HIV/AIDS in New York, but I’ve been out of that loop for some time, and so I do what I usually do–stopped for a moment, reflected on my friends who’ve become HIV+ and friends who’ve passed on, then moved on with my life.

I bring this up because tonight, a friend of mine from Singapore told me he just tested HIV+ and was contemplating suicide. Part of me put on my unofficial HIV counselor cap and encouraged him to seek services within Singapore, like Action for AIDS. Part of me, on the other hand, after I had done everything I could and got him on the phone with a counselor, had to stop, think, and sigh, “Goddamn, another one of my friends.”...

Lesbian Life

December 1st is World AIDS Day. According the the Centers for Disease Control, women account for more than one quarter of all new HIV/AIDS diagnoses. Women of color are especially affected by HIV and AIDS. But what about lesbians? Where do they they rank in rates of HIV infection?

Well, there is some good news and some bad news on that front. On the one hand, there seems to be very few documented cases of female to female sexual transmission of the disease. On the other hand, the way the CDC tracks AIDS makes it very difficult to document female to female transmission.

But no matter if lesbians are or are not contracting HIV via sex with women, lesbians and bisexual women are just as likely to contract AIDS through other means: sex with men, IV drug use, rape and even artificial insemination. As a matter of fact, in some of these groups, lesbians are even more likely to contract HIV. Shouldn't you be informed? Here are the facts about lesbians and HIV/AIDS.

bideshi blue:

Let's talk about SAFE sex! AIDS has made its way into a variety of communities-gay men, heterosexual men and women, blood transfusions, and injectable drug users, and now migrant workers and truckers who move across regions and countries. However the majority of people living with AIDS are heterosexuals and increasingly women, many of whom lack the knowledge and power to insist on safe sex with their partners.

For example, in many cultures, men visit sex workers and then the men refuse to wear condoms. Some sex workers have made organizations and compaigns to insist on condom usage, such as in Thailand or India. At the same time, if the sex workers are unorganized in such a campaign, "No Glove, No Love", then they face economic pressures to insist that their customers wear a condom because the customer can move on to the next sex worker.

Or women trafficked and/or migrated to India or the Middle East and in sex work may have the same problems and can return HIV positive and face the social stigma from their previous activities and HIV infection.

Migrant workers--men and women--become HIV positive during their construction and domestic-sex-care work(s) and are deported back to their country of origin, for example, Nepali women or Bangladeshi male -female migrant workers, who in turn infect their wives-husbands...

TakeBackTheTech

The specificity of women and girls has only recently been highlighted in HIV/AIDS policy, research, programmes and resource allocation. Women make up nearly half of the 40 million people living with HIV worldwide, and the rate of infection in women are increasing. Women, especially young women and grrls, are vulnerable due to gender inequality, social and cultural norms, poverty, biology, and in particular, violence against women.

Women living in situations of domestic violence are much more likely to become infected by HIV than women who live in non-violent households. It is also difficult for women and young grrls to negotiate condom use and safer sex with their partners, a recognised method to reduce the likelihood of HIV infection.

Female sexuality is often constructed in as passive and lacking. Men and boys on the other hand, are understood to possess active sexual agency, and are expected to initiate the first move in sexual interaction. As such, women who take control of their sexuality fall outside of what is ‘normal’, and are easily hailed as being ‘over eager’ or ‘shameless’.

The majority of sexually explicit content available on the internet supports this construction of female/male sexuality. At the same time, the internet has also become a critical space for the expression of women’s desires and sexual rights, especially women of diverse sexualities. We need to be able to control our own bodies, and articulate our own sexual desires and rights, according to our own terms. Not only is this crucial to help mitigate the rate of HIV infections amongst women and girls, it is part of our fundamental human rights.

Homo Homo Sapien

Last night I attended the launch of the Victoria Midwinter Pitt documentary, Rampant: How a City Stopped a Plague and next Monday (3 December) all Australians will have the opportunity to see this brilliant piece of television as the ABC will be showing it at 8.30pm.

The film tells the story from the perspective of a handful of people who instinctively stepped forward and took on the challenge that Australia faced. It is because of their foresight and that of many others, that Australia has managed to limit the number of deaths from AIDS to over 6,500 people.

There were many scenes in the film that stood out for me but one was a scene where one of the Sisters of Charity made this point:

"WE made a decision to become an AIDS hospital."

...orking across multiple layers of law, human rights, social justice, discrimination and stigma were the hallmarks of our early response to HIV/AIDS and underpinned our successes, our empathy and supported us through our loss and grieving.

We all have our own story to tell – some will do it more publicly than others. My responsibility is to tell my own story which is both personal and political as well, and as truthfully as I can and shame or judgement is not part of it. I may have come out with all barrels blazing but this has been an almost 30 year work in progress and I have done so in this documentary in the knowledge that I was in the safe and ethical hands of a production company (Penny Chapman Productions and staff and director Victoria Midwinter Pitt whose desire it was to document our unique approach to the prevention of HIV/AIDS.

But seriously I have internalised enough whore stigma and have endured enough of other people's social values to last me another lifetime.

Coming out of the scarlet closet so to speak has been a confronting but liberating experience, it's not for all but for those who can it is exhilarating freeing yourself from the prejudice, stereotyping and stigma that often shames sex workers into silence not to mention the harms that can and do befall our nearest and dearest by association. My children have grown up and are able to fight their own battles and in fact would fight anybody who dared to discredit me and my life’s work including my sex work. Thank you Jesse.

This documentary has also given me the opportunity to highlight the intrinsic role sex workers played in the fight against HIV/AIDS - educating men and providing practical 'hands on' experience in the use of condoms and safe sex while fighting for better conditions and law reform to support these initiatives – they are unsung heroes of the epidemic but amazingly continue to be vilified, shamed and discriminated against in the eyes of the law and in society. SEX WORK and sex work ACTIVISM HAS BEEN A LARGE PART OF MY LIFE and this documentary has given me the opportunity to promote sex worker rights and banish some of the shame of silence which hopefully enables more sex workers to speak out particularly important today in this conservative climate WHERE our hard one (law) reforms and in jeopardy where even our sisters in the right wing faction of post-feminist brigade are calling for criminalisation of our clients and maintaining and even strengthening the criminal sanctions on our industry...

What Black Men Think (Keith Boykin)

We can’t stop the AIDS epidemic until we stop the lies that fuel the epidemic. That’s why today I’m featuring the video (above) about black men...It deconstructs some of the most popular myths about black men in America. One of those myths — that there are more black men in prison than in college — was actually repeated last year by the President of Harvard University. Is it any wonder, then, that so many others buy into the myths?

Another popular myth is that black men on the down low are responsible for the AIDS epidemic. The video discounts that assumption, and now new research by the CDC’s Dr. Greg Millett helps to disprove this theory. The research, reported in this week’s Gay City News, indicates that men on the down low are not the cause of the AIDS epidemic in black America.

New Research on Black Men and HIV

“Among the dozen explanations studied, three leading theories were ruled out by Millett’s work. Significantly, the assumption of higher risk behavior among black MSM-as measured by unprotected anal intercourse, total number of sex partners, and commercial sex work-was not found to explain the differential in infection rates relative to non-black gay and bi men. This conclusion was based on a review of more than 25 separate studies,” GCN reported.

Also important, self-identity does not determine risk for HIV. “Black [men who have sex with men] who don’t disclose their sexual behavior compared to black MSM who do disclose their sexual behavior are less likely to be HIV-positive, they’re less likely to engage in unprotected sex with more than five male partners lifetime, and they engage in less unprotected sex generally,” according to Millett...

***

Meanwhile, Black Amazon has a pointed reminder that AIDS isn't the only "sex pox" out there:

Of course STD's shouldn't be stigmatized, and no people aren't " bad people" for having them.

But sorry y'all it's still

A BIG FUCKING DEAL.

and I'll curb my observation that social stigma tends to work in specific rarefied airs.

But the constant and unrelenting message of Fuck it , it's not serious, no big deal?

WHAT?!

Sex is a big deal, having an std BIG DAMN deal, (especially when for all the hair tossing bullshit that std is only actually manageable if you have health care)

YES Y'ALL BIG DAMN DEAL

and

KNOW WHAT WE"RE ALL WORTH A BIG DAMN DEAL.

If you got it through sexual contact something went WRONG. You're n ot a horrible person, you still should have a fulfilling sex life, and the ability to have sex only with caring willing understanding partners

BUT NO IT'S NOT FUCKING BENIGN.

Petit explain this to me, what the heck is with everyone ratcheting DOWN the stakes. Self care sexual care big fucking deal

and you know what we'll make mistakes.

and they'll be serious one.

Isn't it bad and wrong to be convincing people that being healthy and RESPONSIBLE is no big damn deal.

As if self care isn't hard?...

...and a bit of news:

News release from Immigration Equality:

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued proposed regulations which purport to offer a "streamlined," "categorical" waiver for HIV-positive visitors from other countries. Under current immigration law, any foreign national who tests positive for HIV is "inadmissible," meaning he is barred from permanent residence and even short term travel in the United States. There are waivers available to this rule, but obtaining them has always been difficult.

On World AIDS Day last year, President Bush announced his intention to create a streamlined process for foreign travelers with HIV to enter the United States more easily. Currently the United States is one of only 13 countries in the world, including Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan, which ban travel for individuals who are HIV-positive. Now, almost a year later, DHS has proposed regulations which would make it even harder to get a short-term waiver.

"Unfortunately, despite using the terms 'streamlined' and 'categorical,' in reality these regulations are neither," said Victoria Neilson, Legal Director of Immigration Equality. Under the new rules, a visitor would need to travel with all the medication he would need during his stay in the U.S., prove that he has medical insurance that is accepted in the U.S. and would cover any medical contingency, and prove that he won't engage in behavior that might put the American public at risk. The maximum term of the waiver would be 30 days.

"More than two decades into this epidemic, the United States continues to stigmatize people with HIV and treat this illness unlike any other virus," Neilson continued. "Creating insurmountable hurdles to travel does nothing to protect the American public from HIV."

And now for a much more pleasant and productive conversation:

translation into HumanSpeak:

-This- is what a feminist looks like? Not in my universe.

But then I don't live in Bizarro World, and it's -not- a fun place to visit.

But, okay, for the record: (hey, she wanted me to take fresher material than the "You're that professional virgin who got your vagina embalmed" crack; happy to obleege, energy creature)

"RE will be back, prancing like she's at her job. I mean, she's used
to men tucking dollar bills in her G-string, maybe she expects that
from everybody these days?"

and

They accuse radfems of calling them sluts and whores when they're the
ones adopting the double standard to their advantage and profit. If
you dare point out they make money sucking off men, they leap to that
particular accusation."

"Why shouldn't we call you sluts and whores when that's what you ARE? WELL??"

Right-o: you didn't -say- it. First. Of course. "Tit-jobbers," excuse me. "Fuckbot." "Hot, bi-sexee, will suck and fuck anything for money." Not that that's ever a real person; just an image which some tit-jobbers who prance around in g-strings and suck off men for money make themselves LOOK like.

much much more here, if you like that sort of thing.

on edit: the saga continues, apparently. more Issues than National Geographic, by Maud. from someone called "captain vanille":

God DAMN are you a slimy, smarmy, manipulative little shit. You come in here all flowers and puppies, completely ignoring the fact that you are, behind your fuck-me red lips and pert tits, the epitome of what they mean by the word "viper" - not a snake, oh no, but a poisonous, smirking, betraying, Patriarchal collaborator.

Now I must rinse.

oh yeah: Energy Creature? Since you're owed, now, apparently: I'm sorry. Sorry you're such an incurable flaming tinfoil-wearing misogynist ASSHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLEEEEE...

Quote of the Day, 12/3/07

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

Alice wondered a little at this...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--Through the Looking Glass

Quote of the day, 12/2/07

Meg Swan: We are *so* lucky. We are *so* lucky to have been raised amongst catalogs.

also

[Yelling at her husband who is trying to coax their son down from the roof]
Fay Berman: Don't look him in the eye! It challenges him! He doesn't like that!

--Best In Show

Young Women's Empowerment Project

Thanks for spreading the word, bfp.

Our mission as the Young Women’s Empowerment Project is to offer safe, respectful, free-of-judgment spaces for girls and young women impacted by the sex trade and street economies to recognize their goals, dreams and desires. We are run by girls and women with life experience in the sex trade and street economies. We are a youth leadership organization grounded in harm reduction and social justice organizing by and for girls and young women (ages 12-23) impacted by the sex trade and street economies.


Buy Tickets for Our First Ever Art Show
Posted November 4th, 2007 by Anonymous

Want to buy tickets to the Opening Night of an art show made entirely by YWEP artists?

Come Celebrate the:
Survival of the Artist in a world of Dics, Dicks and Dicts
$25.00 ticket

Follow these directions to buy tickets:
1.Click the tab "Give to YWEP" -
2.Make a donation that reflects the number of tickets you are purchasing
3.Then print your receipt and bring it with you to the show- your receipt will be your ticket!

Join us on Friday, Dec. 14 from 8 pm to 11 pm

at Mekhaskhen Art Gallery
Located at 5459 S. Drexel
in Hyde Park, Chicago

after the fifteen minutes are up

This is kind of horrible. Anyone remember the "God Warrior?"
Marguerite Perrin?




So, I didn't know, apparently her daughter died in a traffic accident a couple of months ago.

Just sad, of course, except:

I dunno. I got there through a circuitous route; right before it I was looking at Marguerite vamping it up for Jay Leno, all smiles and charm and apparent normality after that crazy-ass meltdown. Quite a change in demeanor, if you watch both. Take careful note of the family's faces during the meltdown.

But anyway, so, inevitably, the grotesquery turned it into a media circus and of course she ate it up, did Marguerite. Funny haha. All part of the game, you know.

and now I'm looking at the story of the daughter and it's: drove through a guard rail. No skid marks. No drugs or alcohol.

and I'm thinking: yeah. I wonder.

"I needed your prayers."

"So it's my fault."

"You did come to my mind."

Creepy shit, that was, anyway. Creepy and sad. Now a lot sadder.

Oh well. The show must go on, right?

On edit: and having said all that, and on which note (the Show Must Go On), I gotta admit, I'm sort of in love with Candis Cayne for this routine. (stick with it to the end).

(presumably from before the accident; nothing to do with the daughter)

gremlins

Is there an "uncanny valley" for sounds?

Because, there's a distinctly -odd-...something...that's only audible in the bedroom, these last couple of nights. At first I was convinced that someone was playing the TV or the radio, because it sounded just enough like the rising and falling patterns of speech, with appropriate pauses, but--maddeningly!--just low enough to not be able to make out what was being said, or even what language.

Then I tried to figure out where it might be coming from, since at four in the morning it was getting a bit old. So I tracked it to where I -thought- it was coming out of--sure enough, someone on the floor above playing what sounded like the news in a foreign language, loud enough to be heard through the front door. I knocked and asked her politely to turn it down. She apologized and did. I went back home. No change.

So then I figure it must be the pipes or the radiator, after all. It's wintertime, or nearly, old buildings make a lot of weird sounds as they creak into warmth.

Except...I can hear the pipes. It's -not- the same sounds. They're going right now. They don't sound like that. And, I never hear that particular sound in the rest of the apartment, or during the daytime, like now. Only in the bedroom. At night. In the dark.

i'm sure it's nothing really

And no, it is not a steady pound-pounding coming from somewhere beneath the floorboards.
I'm fine.

That yellow wallpaper's really got to go, though.