Martini Ranch: How Can the Labouring Man Find Time for Self-Culture?
[Cross-posted.]
Labor Day YouTubery
Martini Ranch: How Can the Labouring Man Find Time for Self-Culture?
[Cross-posted.]
Holiday Filler
Last of the random pictures. Happy holidays!
Dashing pumpkins
Vacant house in the woods.
Juni and Kali wait for Santa.
Kafkaesque sweetener.
Peek-a-boo rodent.
[Cross-posted.]
The Onion Thinks Sex Trafficking is Hilarious
[Trigger Warning]
Fans (and non-fans) of The Onion may be interested to see this NEW! item they are selling at The Onion Store:
The shirt says "My friend went to Thailand and all I got was this lousy kidnapped prostitute". Note the helpful disclaimer: "*Prostitute Not Included". Hmm. Must be "ironic".
Notice that the catalog entry just says "all I got was this lousy prostitute", but the shirt itself refers specifically to a "kidnapped prostitute".
The shirt does appear to be an actual item for sale, rather than a joke. I was hoping that it was a practical joke, where if you try to put the item in your cart, a big pop-up appears reading "MEGADOUCHE!" or "IronyFAIL!" or something. But alas, no--it just goes in your cart and tells you that you owe them $24.14 with shipping. Whee!
This shirt is available for men; apparently The Onion thinks it's hip for men specifically to joke about kidnapping sex workers. White (or light-skinned, at least) men, if you go by the models on The Onion Store site.
Just as an aside, I also see they charge extra for size XXL. Stay classy, Onion Store.
Here is contact information for The Onion, and customer service at The Onion Store (though customer service appears to be specifically for questions regarding orders).
H/T TwissB in comments at I Blame The Patriarchy.
Random YouTubery: Fainting Goats
Myotonic goats
Myotonia congenita occurs in humans as well, where it is caused by a mutation in the human skeletal muscle chloride channel gene. The dominant form in humans is known as Thomsen's Disease.
Dear Leader
President Obama wants to tell school children to set goals and study hard, and the conservatives go nuts: "He's trying to indoctrinate our children with his socialist agenda!" and instill a cult of personality around him.
Well, they should know all about developing a cult of personality:
Glenn Greewald reminds us of Monica Goodling, the deputy at the Bush administration's Department of Justice who interviewed potential employees with questions like:Tell us about your political philosophy. There are different groups of conservatives, by way of example: Social Conservative, Fiscal Conservative, Law & Order Republican.
Or this exchange with DOJ aide Sara Taylor before the Senate Judiciary Committee:
[W]hat is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?
Aside from the President, give us an example of someone currently or recently in public service who you admire."I took an oath to the president, and I take that oath very seriously," Sara Taylor said in answer to a question early in the hearing.
And of course there were the "public meetings" hosted by the Bush White House where attendees were required to sign loyalty oaths or risked expulsion for arriving in a car without the appropriate bumper sticker.
And right after a break, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) asked her if she was sure about that. "Did you mean, perhaps, you took an oath to the Constitution?" Leahy asked. It was a telling exchange.
But let President Obama speak to school children? Oh, the horror, the horror.
---
As Mr. Greenwald points out in his post, it is possible that some people on the right were unaware of the cottage industry that was built up around the aura of George W. Bush, including those who claim that God had a hand in electing him as our leader during those perilous times, or the shelves of books that were written about him that turned him into the Warrior Prince. If so, I'm relieved that they have recovered from their eight-year coma and wish them a speedy recovery.
HT to Rick.
Crossposted.
A Very Happy Birthday to My Sister!
TheLadyEve: "either this baby is plastic or my stethoscope's stopped!"
TheLadyEve: The Early Years
It was September 5th at around 9:30 AM* when my little sister was finally born, after not just nine months but nine years of waiting. Our parents had been working on a third child for about as long as I can remember. I started to read very young, and a fair number of the books I pulled out of the shelf were about conception (The Origin Of Johnny), fetal development (A Child Is Born), or sex selection (Girl Or Boy: Your Chance to Choose). Our parents probably had hopeless moments, but for me, it was more a question of when than whether I would have a little sibling.
I remember the first grainy ultrasound picture going up on the fridge. Our mother wrote “Charlie” in pencil on the back. Not long after, she had an amniocentesis due to her “advanced maternal age” of 42. The results were 46, XX . Baby’s first practical joke.
Sometime in that last hot California August before TheLadyEve's birth, my sister E. and I rode our bikes to The Shirt Stop and had a big yellow T-shirt made for Mama with a red warning label across the lower belly: Caution: Contents Under Pressure!
We waited at Stanford Hospital for ten hours, harangued by another pair of nervous siblings who were acting out in the waiting area. Our mother’s obstetrician, Dr. Baldwin, had a wry, conspiratorial grin as he motioned us at last into the delivery room to watch our little sister get washed and weighed. She was bright red and kicking; even her hair seemed enraged.
Damn, I thought. She looks pissed off.
Our father brought champagne to Mama’s room and we got to try it, not in Dixie cups but in real plastic champagne glasses, the kind with the bowl and stem that snap together.
It did not take long for that angry little mop top to become TheLadyEve: auteur, entrepreneur, publisher, pastry chef, humanitarian, and humorist. Her early attempts at humor (“Hey, S., how many chickens does it take to change a light bulb?....Two!”) did result in the following injunction from our father: “No jokes ‘til you’re six, LadyEve!” But her work quickly gained speed. She gave Dr. Johnson a run for his money by age four, when she expanded the English language with such rich new words as inducive (which means “when you bend it, it hurts”: my hand is inducive) and disolovent (“soft, snuggly, and comfortable to lie on”).
Always questioning, TheLadyEve’s thirsty intellect provided hours of entertainment: “E.? What are chicken slacks†? And why is he dancing with them?” (see 23 seconds in for context). Or, “why did she dream there were clowns in her office‡?” (see 1.20 and 2.20).
My sister’s early forays into publishing revealed her prescience. Her newsletters, which were hand-delivered to the family mailbox, foreshadowed the tenor of today’s MSM: “Some sources say that President George H.W. Bush is actually a chicken!” Her interest in non-profit ventures began around the same time, with the creation of the David “Pinpoint” Jones Foundation for Eight-Year-Olds. The Foundation, headed by David “Pinpoint” Jones and his brother Elliot “Whiplash” Jones, sent fundraising flyers admonishing us to “Please remember to support your local 8-year-old. Mr. Jones says, ‘get on the stick!’”
At age 9, TheLadyEve made the local paper by stirring shit from our cousin’s miniature pony up with water and carting it around the neighborhood in a little red wagon, marketing it as “Liquanure” fertilizer.
These early ventures, and all of her grand projects since, are marked by a crystalline focus and dedication that has left her at various times passed out covered with powdered sugar next to a flawless linzer torte for her high school English class, or practicing TaeKwon-Do with a fractured toe, or tackling two jobs and two majors in college. Everyone associated with these ventures—Prevention Point Pittsburgh, Carnegie Mellon University, Northwestern, Chicago Lakeshore Hospital—has benefitted almost as much as I have. Almost. And, she still finds time to make us laugh.
I have much more to say, but perhaps it's best if I keep it for another day, and just say Happy Birthday, M.—you're the best thing that ever happened to me.
Love, S.
________________
*I think it was 9:36 AM; I’ll have to check my diary from the time, but it’s in another state at the moment.
† He's dancing with the chick in slacks/She's a-movin' up and back/Man there ain't nothing like/Twistin' the night away
‡ I had some dreams/They were clouds in my coffee/Clouds in my coffee and/You're so vain...
Saturday Morning Cartoonery: Baton Bunny (1959)
"Baton Bunny" (1959), directed by Chuck Jones and Abe Levitow. Mel Blanc is credited with voices, but the only vocal effect is a cough from the audience. This is the only Bugs Bunny cartoon where Bugs is entirely silent. And even being entirely silent and having nothing to hand but musical instruments, Bugs still manages to work in violence and cultural stereotypes there towards the end.
Facepalme D'Or: Lancôme's Génifique
So, it's been a long week, and once again, I've seen something mind-numbingly stupid come out of the cosmetics industry. Of course, I've seen plenty of stupid things lately, but this one wins the prize for the dumbest thing that someone expected me to believe this week: Lancôme's Génifique "Youth Activating Concentrate". From their website:
Youth is in your genes. Reactivate it.1
Discover the skin you were born to have.
Lancôme invents our first skincare that boosts the activity of genes.2
At the very origin of your skin's youth: your genes.
Genes produce specific proteins. With age, their
presence diminishes.
Today, for every woman, Lancôme creates our 1st Youth Activator - GÉNIFIQUE. Now, boost genes' activity2 and stimulate the production of youth proteins.3
See visibly younger skin in just 7 days.
1 Activate skin's youthful look.
2 In-vitro test on genes.
3 Clinical study on skin proteins, associated with young skin - France.
This ad copy plays off the scientific concept of gene activation. And while it is possible to control gene activation with some experimental methods, there is nothing you can put on your face that will switch on "youth protein" genes, even if "youth protein genes" meant anything. Notice, too, that the copy admits the "effects" of its product on genes was in vitro.
The video embedded in their product page starts off by exploiting the terms genomics and proteomics and gets worse from there."Certain genes produce 'youth proteins' responsible for youthful-looking skin", they claim, and promise to deliver skin that looks "lit from within" and is returned to "ideal youthful quality" in seven days. All for the low, low price of just $78 per fluid ounce.
Codswallop. Except for the $78--that's real enough.
What's actually in it? Lancôme's website does not list the ingredients, but here is a list from a customer who reviewed the product:
Aqua/Water/Eau, Bifida Ferment Lysate, Glycerin, Alcohol Denat., Dimethicone, Hydroxyethylpiperazine Ethane Sulfonic Acid, Sodium Hyaluronate, Phenoxyethanol, PEG-20 Methyl Glucose Sesquistearate, PEG-60 Hydrogenated Castor Oil, Salicyloyl Phytosphingosine, Amonium Polyacryldimethyltauramide/Amonium Polyacryloyldimethyl Taurate, Limonene, Xathan Gum, Caprylyl Glycol, Disodium EDTA, Octyldodcanol, Citric Acid, Citronellol, Parfum/Fragrance.
So aside from thickeners, "slip"-producers, and basic humectants, Génifique is water, yogurt or other bacterial ferment product, denatured alcohol, glycerine, HEPES buffer for pH, dimethicone (which can help reduce water loss from the skin and is available in many drugstore skin products), and "Salicyloyl Phytosphingosine", which is salicylic acid combined with an alcohol from ceramides (why?). Sodium Hyaluronate does hold moisture in the surface of the skin and so it's a good humectant, but it's not new or expensive. Heck, you could just get some yourself and add it to your moisturizer. Products with salicylic acid and ceramides are also pretty easy to find at drugstore prices. Finally, if you want to put a bifida ferment on your face, try plain yogurt--it will also provide the exfoliating properties of lactic acid.
Please feel free to share your own Facepalme D'Or nominees. Your nominee needn't be pseudoscience--there's a whole universe of stupid out there, folks!
Former winners: "Structured Water"
Now That's a Stretch
Actual USA Today headline: "Women gain as men lose jobs."
Actual content of the story: Women have been "gaining" in the sense that they're paid less, work fewer hours, and are more likely to work part-time and in low-paid fields like health care and education—and so are less likely than men to get laid off. How that works out to a "gain" over men baffles me. One man's union manufacturing job is not another woman's crappy $7-an-hour retail gig. And until we as a society address the underlying problem here—women's work is undervalued, and women are underrepresented in employment sectors that actually pay a living wage—we won't be anywhere near the "equality" that stories like this one crow about.
Friday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by Shaxco, manufacturers of Big Gay Robots: Serving your needs for the 21st century and beyond!
Recommended Reading:
Joe My God: Quebec: Schools Must Teach About ALL Religions! Christians: Stop Oppressing Us!
Rolling Around In My Head: Go On Guess
Archie McPhee: Announcing Monkey Goggles!
Doobybrain: Are You Happy?
Dispatches from the Island: Man I Have a Problem
Tom Colicchio: Top Guns on Top Chef
Mondo Rick-o: The Fires This Time Around
Towleroad: Minnesota Teacher Accused of Anti-Gay Harassment Speaks
Leave your links in comments...
Random YouTubery: Where the Hell Is Matt?
We've totes posted this like 9 gazillion times before, but wevs.
It's awesome every. damn. time.
More Filler
More random pictures. This time from the Deeky Gashlycrumb Photographic Arts Library Archive and Bathhouse.
Sunset view from backyard.
Fire-breathing chicken.
Bun Boy Motel. (Insert own entendre here.)
Electric palm trees.
Deeky the wolfboy (self-portrait.)
[Cross-posted.]
Feminism 101: On Anger
Here's the thing: To a subjugated person (yes, this, like most of my F101 posts, can be easily modified for application to most oppressed groups), anger is perfectly rational.
If you have even the merest capacity of imagination, it shouldn't be difficult for you to conjure your emotional reaction if you were, for example, told your entire life that you are equal, only to have the opposite be communicated to you in big and small ways every minute of every day, or if, as another example, there were people who argued that they should have control over some significant function of your body, that they needed to rob you of personal autonomy because they can make better decisions for you than you can for yourself, or if, for instance, you made less money for doing the same job someone else is doing for more, just because of some arbitrary physical feature, like, say, the color of your eyes.
If you are indeed in possession of the capacity of imagination, you have no doubt concluded by this juncture that these scenarios, coupled with a lack of immediate recourse, might make you angry.
So the idea that a feminist/womanist with demonstrable anger is somehow nutz is actually quite stupid.
Here's the other thing: If you are a genuine ally to feminists/womanists, you will never, ever, criticize a feminist/womanist's tone for being "too angry."
And you will never do this because, if you are a genuine ally, not only will you have internalized an understanding of the perfect rationality of the anger expressed by feminists/womanists, but you will also share that anger.
How can you look at a cultural landscape of institutionalized inequality and not be angry, right? I mean, if you're a genuine ally and all.
And, if you are, you'll be glad for that anger, because you know that the opposite of anger, for a progressive, is complacence—and there can be no progress if everyone is perfectly complacent with the way things are.
Progress is dependent on people who get angry, because anger—productive anger, motivating anger, directed anger, rational anger—is the root of all progress.
Feminists/womanists and their allies know that change comes by virtue of anger.
Progress ain't fueled by rainbows and gumdrops.
If you're not angry, you're probably not helping.
[Originally posted May 20, 2008.]
Today's Edition of "Conniving and Sinister"
Strip One, Strip Two, Strip Three, Strip Four, Strip Five, Strip Six, Strip Seven, Strip Eight, Strip Nine, Strip Ten, Strip Eleven, Strip Twelve, Strip Thirteen, Strip Fourteen, Strip Fifteen, Strip Sixteen, Strip Seventeen, Strip Eighteen, Strip Nineteen, Strip Twenty, Strip Twenty-One, Strip Twenty-Two. In which Liss reimagines the long-running comic "Frank & Ernest," about two old straight white guys "telling it like it is," as a fat feminist white woman and a biracial queerbait telling it like it actually is from their perspectives. Hilarity ensues.
A Little Health Sciences Reading
Fear not, there will be a Friday Blogaround. But as a bonus, here are a few health science-related stories I've come across this morning, in case you want a little not-so-light reading for the weekend.
Public Library of Science's PLoS Medicine: PLoS Medicine and The New York Times Unseal Ghostwriting documents
PLoS Medicine and The New York Times intervened in a court case against the pharmaceutical company Wyeth and helped release documents that showed Wyeth paid ghostwriters to generate papers highlighting the benefits and understating the risks of taking hormone therapy.PLoS Medicine's blog, Speaking Of Medicine, has a number of posts on the issue.
ScienceDaily: Scientists Begin To Untangle Root Cause Of Alzheimer's Disease
ScienceDaily (Sep. 4, 2009) — "N60" might not be the first thing that comes to mind when people think of Alzheimer's disease, but thanks to researchers from the United States, South Korea and France, this might change. That's because these researchers have found that the N60 section of a protein called "RanBP9" might be the key that unlocks an entirely new class of Alzheimer's drugs, and with them, hope.The research was published in FASEB Journal on 3 September. If you have access you can read the paper. Even if you don't have access, the abstract is free.
ScienceNOW Daily News: A Breathalyzer for Cancer:
By Sam KeanHaick et. al. are essentially figuring out how to do electronically what dogs can do already. This gold nanoparticle technology is a big improvement over the last generation of electronic noses, which used carbon nanotubes. Carbon nanotubes are affected by humidity, so breath to be tested often had to be dehumidified first.
ScienceNOW Daily News
31 August 2009
A team of researchers may have come up with a golden idea for diagnosing lung cancer. By coating tiny nuggets of gold with a thin layer of organic material, the researchers have developed an "electronic nose" that, with some additional work, could spot lung cancer instantly by analyzing someone's breath.
Hossam Haick and colleagues at the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa embedded the 5-nanometer-long gold nanoparticles in a silicon wafer and then collected exhaled air from 40 cancer patients and 56 people with healthy lungs. All the subjects had to breathe deeply through a purifying filter for 5 minutes. After this "lung washout," they filled five 750-milliliter Mylar bags with air. A machine blew this air over the silicon-gold circuit, and the electrical resistance of the gold nanoparticles rose or fell depending on the presence or absence of certain compounds.
Cancer cells exude different compounds than healthy cells do, Haick explains, and the circuit picks up this difference. Tumor growth causes stress in cells, leading to a build up of free radical molecules that attack the lipids in cell walls, tearing out molecules with long chains of carbon atoms. The team identified 42 such molecules and settled on four to track with the nanoparticles: decane, trimethylbenzene, ethylbenzene, and heptanol. These four molecules appear at relatively high concentrations and, after binding to the organic coat on the nanoparticles, cause the resistance to electric current in the circuit to fluctuate in a predictable way. The sensors respond rapidly and are completely reusable, the team reported online 30 August in Nature Nanotechnology.
More on this story from Reuters Health.
Skwerl Fu
(Skwerl-on-skwerl violence below the fold.)
Cape skwerlz in Etosha, Namibia, defend their colony from interlopers:
Ouch!
[Cross-posted.]
Radio Shakesville
What The Hell?
Shaker phdintraining
Nice black prom dress. At least it's not taffeta.
[See also: Deeky, Liss, evilsciencechick, katecontinued, ClumsyKisses, Mistress Sparkletoes, Liiiz, Reedme, Mama Shakes, Mustang Bobby, RedSonja, MomTFH, Portly Dyke, SteffaB, Icca, Christina, Orangelion03, Car, Siobhan, InfamousQBert, Maud, Rikibeth, MishaRN, CLD, Cheezwiz, MamaCarrie, Temeraire, somebodyoranother, goldengirl, Liss (again), summerwing, yeomanpip, Susan811, bbl, Deeky (Part II), A Daily Shakesville Fan, Sami_J, liberalandproud Temeraire: Redux, Mama Shakes II, Bonus Deeky, OuyangDan, J.Goff, Iain, Talonas, The Great Indoors, gogo, kiwi_a, em_and_ink, and Tik_bev.]
Question of the Day
Who is your favorite painter?
I don't know if they're strictly my favorites, but I am quite fond of Jack Vettriano and Edward Hopper, prints of whose work hang in our home, partly because they are Scottish and American complements, much like Iain and I, and partly because I am a philistine and like pictures of people captured in moments that inspire me to daydream stories.
Angry Green Girls: Softcore PETA
Via Sociological Images, Treehugger—an hugely popular environmental web site that describes itself as "the leading media outlet dedicated to driving sustainability mainstream"—has a post today about a group calling itself Angry Green Girls. Basically, they're a group of "hot" women (ahem, "girls") who "use [their] hotness for getting attention, but for a good green cause."
Angry feminists usually get the eye roll. But what about angry green girls? Seems like they're getting plenty of attention ... From hybrid-only bikini car washes to nearly naked shower tips, check out how Angry Green Girl broadens the eco-issue umbrella through her sarcasm-laden eco-tips. Water issues have never looked quite like this.OK, let's assume the writer is just using the "angry feminists" canard as a lazy segue into her larger point about OMG HAWT ENVIRO GIRLZ. The larger problem is that mainstream environmental publications like Treehugger see environmentalism as a compartmentalized "issue" that has nothing to do with women's rights. In that view, exploiting women's bodies is bad, unless, of course, it's for a "good green cause." Then it's just "using sex" to sell environmentalism—and who could disagree with that?
I mean, what are you, a prude?
The other "Angry Green Girls" videos show bikini-clad women lathering up Priuses and "rejecting" men who don't happen to drive hybrids—the subtext being that if you choose the right car, these women will be sexually available to you. Here, the message is that women are objects to be obtained through the right male behavior—no different, really, than suggesting that if you buy her dinner, she'd better put out.
In that way, the "Angry Green Girls" are no different than PETA, which routinely uses naked women as props for their anti-meat-consumption message. The only difference is that PETA's stunts are so blatantly anti-woman (putting women in cages; portraying them as pigs; having them lie on the ground, naked, looking "dead") that it's hard to see them as anything else. The Angry Green Girls are just softcore PETA—a misogynistic message wrapped in an organic string bikini.
Update On Turning Point
Following up on the story I wrote about here, where the funding had been cut drastically for Turning Point, a Chicago-area shelter serving women and children who are victims of domestic violence.
Fundraising efforts, including the Star 105.5 radiothon, online donations (yay, Shakers!), and food donations to the pantry, have raised $70,000 for the center.
A warm and grateful thanks to everyone who donated where they could.
FYI, you can still pitch in by visiting their website and clicking on the "donate now" button.
Thanks so much!
Maine Chance
A referendum to repeal Maine's same-sex marriage law has made it onto the November ballot.
Election officials announced Wednesday that gay marriage foes surpassed the threshold of signatures necessary to put the state law on the November ballot, setting the stage for a furious, two-month campaign that’ll determine whether the number of states allowing same-sex nuptials shrinks to five.The anti-marriage-equality folks raised a stink when the Supreme Court of California held -- correctly -- that to deny two people the right to get married based on their gender was a violation of the equal protection clause of the state constitution. They railed against judicial "activism" and said that the only way for marriage equality to be enacted was through the legislative process; that is the true voice of the people. (It should be noted that the California State Assembly did pass a marriage equality bill on two separate occasions, only to have them vetoed by the governor.) For good measure they mustered enough homophobia and outside help from the Mormons to pass Prop 8 to amend the state constitution. So other states, such as Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire, passed laws enacting marriage equality. Now the "family values" people are saying, at least in Maine, that the law should be repealed; the legislature in Augusta doesn't truly represent the voice of the people because, apparently, they didn't get their way.
Maine’s gay marriage law was supposed to go into effect on Sept. 12, but it was put on hold while the secretary of state’s office verified the number of signatures. With the signatures validated, Gov. John Baldacci on Wednesday signed a formal proclamation putting the gay marriage law to a statewide vote Nov. 3.
“I fully support this legislation and believe it guarantees that all Maine citizens are treated equally under our state’s civil marriage laws,” Baldacci said. “But I also have a constitutional obligation to set the date for the election once the secretary of state has certified that enough signatures have been submitted.”
There are two reasons that I hope the people of Maine vote down the repeal of the law. The first, obviously, is because marriage equality is the fulfillment of the promise of equal rights for all people. The second would be to say firmly to these ignorant and sniveling bigots that they are tired of their non-stop games of Calvinball and making up the rules as they go along.
Cross-posted.
Filler, Or Random Things I've Photographed Recently
In addition to this lovely picture, I've snapped these images recently during my meanderings around town.
Snake in a tree, outside my office.
Gayblade, an advertising mascot.
Random Devo sign. Are we not men?
Dumb graffito.
Storefront spooks.
[Cross-posted.]
Feminism 101: "Sexism is a Matter of Opinion"
There's a very common misperception that sexism is subjective—that any given incident identified by one person as sexist could be identified by another as not sexist, and either both of them are right, because the whole thing is just a matter of opinion anyway, or the latter is right, because if it's not equally obvious to everyone, it can't be sexist. It's this conventional wisdom about the subjectivity of sexism that underlies the ubiquitous "I don't see it" rejoinder, particularly recurrent in discussions of expressed sexism against women, on which this post will be focused.*
Sexism is, in fact, not subjective. What's subjective are individual reactions to sexism, but sexism itself can be objectively determined. (I'll come back to that in a moment.) Individual reactions to sexism will, naturally, be as vast and varied as the individuals who react—but because there are men, or women, who aren't offended by something, or don't find it sexist, doesn't mean it isn't. One can always find someone who refuses to be offended by something: That Michelle Malkin wrote In Defense of Internment doesn't American government-built concentration camps any less objectively offensive or wrong.
So: Toss out the idea that there must be unanimous consent, or even majority agreement, that something is sexist for it to be determined as such. In fact, toss out the idea that sexism is determined by subjective opinion altogether.
First, though, let's quickly dispatch with the fallacy that there are such things as subjective observers and objective observers. There are two general ways in which this frustratingly pernicious myth is conveyed:
1. Feminists (female and/or male) are always look for sexism, so they will always find it, the inaccuracy of which I previously addressed here.
2. Those most targeted by expressed misogyny (women) are critically biased against being able to correctly identify it.
The implicit suggestion, of course, is that men are unbiased—which conveniently ignores that they have the most to benefit from expressed misogyny, giving them every bit as much, if not more, reason to be biased toward denying its existence as women are biased toward exposing it.
No one is, by virtue of hir sex, gender, or gender presentation, more intrinsically disposed to be more objective—which exposes as the bullshit it is the whole idea that one must be an objective observer of sexism to correctly identify it (or that such a person can even exist).
We're all biased—either because we are the potential targets or potential beneficiaries of sexism, whether we want to be or not. A woman who rejects the existence of sexism is no more unlikely to be oppressed by it than a woman who spends her days documenting it. A man who acknowledges and fights the existence of sexism is no more unlikely to passively benefit from other people privileging men over women than a man who actively marginalizes women. That's the reality of institutionalized sexism; it compromises us all.
So: Toss out the idea that women/men are more subjective/objective observers of sexism.
But, hey—didn't you say that sexism can be objectively determined? How is that possible if no one's objective?
Institutionalized misogyny, like any endemic prejudice (racism, homophobia, transphobia, ageism, ableism, sizism, etc.) should be viewed as a system, with rules and laws governing its existence—although, by virtue of cultural indoctrination, they generally aren't obvious unless one makes an effort to see them.
The patriarchy is very like the Matrix, in that it is a false construct laid over the top of a reality, that makes things look very different. Viewing the same thing while fully and uncritically socialized into the patriarchy and while cognizant of its falsity creates two very different pictures.
I look hotter in the patriarchy.
Like the Matrix, which Morpheus described as "everywhere. It is all around us. Even now, in this very room… It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth," the systemic sexism known as the patriarchy is so comprehensive and profound that "seeing it" actually takes some effort, some willingness to see it. And, like those who find themselves awakening from the Matrix, people who find themselves awakening from the patriarchy learn to identify its patterns, upon which it is dependent for the transmission of its ideals and its continual self-generation.
Pattern-finding is one of the main reasons I do ongoing series about rape jokes, or "odd news," or disembodied things, or the imposition of impossible beauty standards. In addition to illustrating via critical mass the existence of patterns and subverting the ability to dismiss them as unimportant under the pretense any one incident is an anomaly, identifying and revealing the patterns provides the framework in which the existence of sexism can be objectively measured.
Whether something is sexist (be it a word, a consumable item, a practice, or anything else) is neither dependent on how it is intended nor how it is received, but on whether it serves to convey sexism, which itself is determined by its alignment with existent patterns. When 2+2 has equaled 4 since time began, anyone claiming 2+2 suddenly equals 5 would be regarded, quite rightly, with suspicion. It is vanishingly unusual for someone to say/do something that fits perfectly with an ancient pattern of sexism yet is somehow not an expression of sexism.
Let me quickly stipulate and clarify that one can unintentionally express sexism. That innocent intent, or ignorance of the history of how women have been marginalized, does not, however, in any way change the quality of what was being expressed. Something can still be expressed sexism even if the speaker's intent was not to oppress women. And particularly if it does fit neatly into a historical pattern, it necessarily conjures that pattern of sexism, intentionally or not.
So: Toss out the idea that intent determines sexism. And the idea that any of us, or any of the things we say or do, can exist in a void.
What we're then left with is the idea that if something fits into a historical pattern of sexism, unavoidably invokes such a pattern, and/or can be overtly quantified as marginalizing women, it is an expression of sexism.
All of these things can be objectively evaluated by anyone who learns the patterns of the patriarchy and the history of women's oppression.
Women are generally better at identifying the patterns of misogyny by virtue of having been subjected to them for a lifetime. For example: By a very young age (usually around puberty), most girls intuitively understand the concept of women's bodies being treated as community property, even if they can't articulate it. But in addition to the expertise conferred by personal experience, there is such a thing as patriarchy-smashing book-learnin'.
There are people—like your blogmistress—who have spent egregious amounts of time and effort acquainting themselves with the ability to navigate the Matrix the language, imagery, rituals, and cultural cues, both subtle and overt, that are used to promulgate the patriarchy.
Becoming intimately, actively involved with the methods by which sexism is conveyed is not unlike becoming fluent in another language. And just like how people who speak Arabic are better translators of Arabic than people who don't, people who have immersed themselves in the critical theories of gender are better translators of what is and is not sexism.
Identifying and defining sexism is not, as "sexism is a matter of opinion" suggests, a speculative chore. There is an existing framework for recognizing and characterizing expressed sexism—and those who have made it their business to become fluent in it are the closest thing to objective experts as exist in any discipline.
If you find yourself inclined to react to the identification of something as expressed sexism with "I don't see it," consider that your "blindness" has been carefully cultivated by the very system that is dependent on your (and everyone else's) not seeing it.
The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.—Morpheus
The red pill's on offer, if you want it.
----------------------
* My focus is on the denial of expressed sexism against women not because I find sexism against men unimportant, but because I have not generally seen significant disagreements here over expressed sexism against men. When I have blogged about, for example, sitcoms or adverts that cast men as mindless dopes, or rape apologia that casts all men as potential rapists, I have not been met with resistance on those premises either by men or women. We are, it seems, collectively better able to identify, comprehend, and agree to condemn expressed sexism against men.
[Originally posted April 25, 2008.]
Today's Edition of "Conniving and Sinister"
Strip One, Strip Two, Strip Three, Strip Four, Strip Five, Strip Six, Strip Seven, Strip Eight, Strip Nine, Strip Ten, Strip Eleven, Strip Twelve, Strip Thirteen, Strip Fourteen, Strip Fifteen, Strip Sixteen, Strip Seventeen, Strip Eighteen, Strip Nineteen, Strip Twenty, Strip Twenty-One. In which Liss reimagines the long-running comic "Frank & Ernest," about two old straight white guys "telling it like it is," as a fat feminist white woman and a biracial queerbait telling it like it actually is from their perspectives. Hilarity ensues.
What The Hell?
Shaker Tik_bev
In her email she claimed to be dressed up for a "special event" at her high school. Where is that? Hogwarts? Way to go, Luna Lovegood.
[See also: Deeky, Liss, evilsciencechick, katecontinued, ClumsyKisses, Mistress Sparkletoes, Liiiz, Reedme, Mama Shakes, Mustang Bobby, RedSonja, MomTFH, Portly Dyke, SteffaB, Icca, Christina, Orangelion03, Car, Siobhan, InfamousQBert, Maud, Rikibeth, MishaRN, CLD, Cheezwiz, MamaCarrie, Temeraire, somebodyoranother, goldengirl, Liss (again), summerwing, yeomanpip, Susan811, bbl, Deeky (Part II), A Daily Shakesville Fan, Sami_J, liberalandproud Temeraire: Redux, Mama Shakes II, Bonus Deeky, OuyangDan, J.Goff, Iain, Talonas, The Great Indoors, gogo, kiwi_a, and em_and_ink.]
Top Chef Open Thread
Chef Tom Colicchio will drink. your. milkshake!!!
He will also, should you require it, totally give you the Heimlich Maneuver to save your life and then be charmingly humble about it.
Blog Note
Hey, Shakers. Iain and I are going to be on holiday for a few days, so posting will be lighter than usual for me. I do have a bunch of stuff pre-scheduled for the next few days, including some re-runs of Feminist 101 pieces, and don't worry—the Virtual Pub has been scheduled, too!
That also means I won't be around to help moderate, so please help out the mods by thinking before you post, trying to avoid flamewars, and respecting any requests they may make re: staying on-topic, use of inappropriate language, etc.
I'll have intermittent email access, so please forgive me if I don't get back to you right away about something urgent.
To anyone who also has a Labor Day or bank holiday this weekend, be safe and have fun! See you next week.
Question of the Day
Suggested by Shaker Kevin Wolf: "This is inspired by the totes cuteness of the Daily Kitteh feature, which has me seriously thinking CAT rather than DOG for a pet, first time ever in my life. (I want to get a pet soon, but have to tread lightly where cats are concerned, due to some allergic reactions to longhairs.) Haven't made up my mind other than getting a rescue animal from a shelter. Anyway, here's the QotD:
For Shaker per owners: Do you have a story to tell about how you adopted/found/saved/acquired your pet? Was it love at first sight? An accidental meeting? Deliberate decision to save an animal? (Feel free to throw in advice for those like me considering adopting an animal.)"
Quote of the Day
"So people go to town halls, they go out to the community, and they're like this. [shakes fists] It makes for great TV. You'll probably make it tonight. Enjoy it."—RNC Chair Michael Steele, responding to 23-year-old college grad/activist Amanda Duzak, who interrupted Steele speaking about healthcare at Howard University yesterday, to tell him about "her own mother who died of cancer six months ago because she couldn't afford her prescription chemotherapy medications. The audience applauded her." Steele accused her of trying to get on TV.
[Start at 2:00.]
In Weird Things I Love
It's an old sign for a ladies' bathroom, but I like to think of my office, aka Shakesville HQ, as a "necessary room for ladies" for a whole other reason.
My Terrible Bargain, or Why I'm Getting Another Ulcer
by Shaker RedSonja
I am a progressive in a regressive workplace.
My immediate supervisor is
• a young-earth creationist
• a Glenn Beck fan
• and a pre-millenial dispensationalist. This means that she believes the earth is 6,000 years old, the Bible is literal truth, and Glenn Beck is hilarious.
• She believes that bisexuals "just can't make up their minds.
The doctor I work for is
• also a young-earth creationist
• an evangelical Christian.
• He believes that same-sex marriage is disgusting, and doesn't "understand why they feel the need to let everyone know what's going on in their bedroom."
• Complained aloud that he was tired of "all these chick flicks, like Fried Green Tomatoes and Steel Magnolias."
Another doctor I work for
• is a huge O'Reilly fan
• a casual sexist, racist, and homophobe.
• Upon seeing two adolescent girls of color walk by the window at work, he announced "Oh look! There go Sasha and Malia!"
• He can often be heard announcing that "you girls (meaning myself and my adult coworkers) are too [fill in whatever characteristic he's objecting to]!"
• Recently informed me that "girls don't read Asimov" and "Everyone in this country has the same opportunities."
If I spoke up every time someone used the word gay, or retarded, or said something racist or sexist or homophobic, or called out every right wing talking point that got spewed, or countered ever bit of irrational creationism, or bristled every time someone inflicted religion upon me or a coworker, I would never get any work done.
So this is my bargain: I shut up, I earn my paycheck, I give my patients excellent care, and I get an ulcer. I try not to hear the comments about people I love, my friends and family, myself, and how we are all less than. I try to shut my ears to jokes about fat clients, about how women are such crazy bitchez, about how all the damn furriners should just learn English! About how the woman whose live in boyfriend killed her should have just left, about how the 12 year old girl who was raped "asked for it," about how there are death panels in Sweden.
Sometimes I break the bargain. Sometimes, like today, I speak up.
"Don't call her a girl, she's a woman."
"Well, she's college age—she's a college girl!"
"No, she's a woman."
"Why does it matter? See, that's the problem. What I say shouldn't matter, it should be my intentions!"
"I don't care about your intentions—calling her a girl is infantilizing and not okay, please don't do it!"
And I was promptly reminded of the bargain—as long as I am content to remain less than, I will be considered an exception to the crazy bitchez rule. As soon as I speak up, I am a man-hating feminist and should be treated as such.
I long to scream "Emotional does not mean irrational!" but it would go unheard. I want to throw things and rage and cry and shake them until they see, goddammit, that all of us Others—we are people. But instead I keep the bargain.
I'm looking for a way out, into another job I can do without crying on the way home, without feeling myself dying inside, without feeling that I am betraying those I call myself an ally to by not speaking up. But I will hate every moment of it.
[Terrible Bargain: One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven.]
Seattle Times FAIL
Here's a predictable tale of woe for you: Last weekend, four men decided to hire three prostitutes from Craigslist. But instead of doing the jobs they were hired to do, the three women made off with about $400.
Why did the Seattle Times decide this story (whose comments thread, btw, will make you cry) was newsworthy? Because the men reported the women were "chunky"—and as everybody knows, fat women—especially fat HOOKER women—are HILARIOUS:
Mountlake Terrace police are on the lookout for a trio of escorts who are alleged to have stolen about $440 from four customers who had invited them over for a weekend party. ... When the woman and two female friends arrived, the men later told police, they found that none of them looked like the woman in the ad. The women were described vaguely to police as being "larger and thicker" than the female pictured in the Craigslist ad.To translate: Women: Defective products. Men: Disappointed consumers. Got it.
"The men said they were not as advertised," said Hansen.
Nevertheless, the disappointed men -- who ranged in ages from 22 to 46 -- handed over their money while the women were still at the door, police said.
Then there is a paragraph about how the women stole the men's money. Then, this:
The suspects were all described as being about 5-feet-8, white and "chunky," in their late 20s, possibly from Tacoma. One had curly, wavy brown hair and called everyone "baby," the men told police. The second had lip piercings and stringy brown hair. The third had short, sandy blond hair, according to police.I can't wait for the follow-up by reporter Clarissa Claridge, in which she examines the reasons women become Craigslist escorts, what punishment the four men received for soliciting prostitutes (which is illegal in Seattle), and how the three escorts rate their male "customers" on a scale of one to 10.
While trying to describe the suspects to police, the men decided to rate the women on a scale of 1 to 10. Three said the women all rated a "2." But the man described by police as the most intoxicated disagreed and claimed they rated a "4."
Um, What?
I have two questions for the New York Times about Peter Baker's article, "A Real Fairy-Tale Wedding."
1. Why is a piece about the media furor surrounding a rumor about Chelsea Clinton's wedding filed under politics, when stories about domestic violence, stalking, sexual harassment, and rape are filed in the "Fashion & Style" section?
2. What the fuck is this paragraph doing in the piece?
The persistence of the rumor [that Chelsea Clinton would be married in August in on Martha's Vineyard in a glitzy wedding attended by the president] despite the lack of tangible evidence says something about today's free-for-all Internet media culture, where facts sometimes don't get in the way of a good story. It also says something about the Clintons and the mistrust they have engendered over the years that so many people do not take them at their word, even over a question like this.Seriously?! SERIOUSLY?!
I mean, it's nice to see you admitting that you consider an unsubstantiated and resoundingly-denied rumor about the wedding of someone whose personal life is none of our business "a good story" and all, but, uh, why is it, exactly, that you consider an unsubstantiated and resoundingly-denied rumor about the wedding of someone whose personal life is none of our business "a good story" again?
And WTF with the unwarranted swipe at the Clintons? The Gray Lady sure is a petty asshole these days.
Contact the New York Times' Public Editor here.
SCOTUS Watch
The AP reports: "Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has hired fewer law clerks than usual, generating speculation that the leader of the court's liberals will retire next year. If Stevens does step down, he would give President Barack Obama his second high court opening in two years."
Justice Stevens is 89 and has been on the court since 1975.
I wish he'd take Scalia and Thomas with him. But the conservatives aren't going anywhere with a Democrat in office.
Shaker Help Request
by Shaker MzBitca
Hey, everyone.
I am teaching a class referred to as "abnormal psychology". I hate the term and have already discussed why with my class but I want to make sure that my class is as progressive as possible and includes the voices of those who are dealing with the symptoms of mental illness. I am working on eliminating harmful language from class discussions such as "psycho" and "crazy" and I have read pieces from those that talk about their PTSD symptoms or other such things. I also generated a discussion about the recent clusterfuck that was the Salon article. I want to make sure that the reality of mental health treatment is discussed in this class and I have a decent enough concept of how frustrating it is from my end of being a provider and trying to get people services but would love input on how it can be on the other side. I also am looking for feedback and suggestions from others, either blogs or on-line communities or even just helpful feedback about how to best present the information.
I have already stressed to my students that we are talking about real individuals and that they need to be cognizant that we are discussing situations that their fellow peers or family members deal with on a daily basis and so these discussions are not purely academic but very personal to a large number of people. I have also encouraged them to come to me privately about any concerns they have or any topics that may be triggering to them. I want to do the best to make my classroom both a safe and educational space.
Any help from my fellow shakers would be greatly appreciated.
Wednesday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by Shaxco, makers of Deeky's Casual Slacks for the frugal fashionista in every man.
Recommended Reading:
Marcella: Carnival Against Sexual Violence 77
Lindsay: Carnival of Feminists 3
Susanna & Jennifer: Women are not a "Niche" Market: We Demand Female Condoms Now
Andy: Minnesota Teachers Who Mocked Student for Being Gay Are on Leave
Alaya: The Bechdel Test and Race in Popular Fiction
Angry Asian Man: A Box of Ugly Ass Asian Family Dolls
Bill: Haggard Logic
Leave your links in comments...
Dynasties and Double-Standards
I've got a new piece up at The Guardian's CifA, "Dynasties and Double-Standards," about the Today show hiring Jenna Bush Hager as a correspondent and how the decision is yet another example of erupting anger to dynasties and nepotism only or particularly once it's a daughter (or wife) who wants to get in on the action.
It was, even in many liberal circles, considered an impudent thing to complain in the 2000 presidential election that both candidates were legacies from prominent American families, resoundingly unfair to suggest a man couldn't, or shouldn't, be president just because of the family from which he came. What about the Kennedys?!Read the whole thing here.
Yes, what about them indeed. There was very little uproar when Joe Kennedy and Patrick Kennedy brought a new generation of Kennedys to Congress, because the Kennedys are, after all, the good American dynasty. And so we never raised a fuss about any of them sliding into politics on their family name.
Until, of course, it was suggested that Caroline Kennedy be picked to fill the US Senate seat from New York vacated by Hillary Clinton when she moved to the US state department. Then came the chorus: Enough of this dynasty! Caroline Kennedy, an extremely accomplished, well-informed and intelligent woman, was suddenly being discussed as though she were Paris Hilton – just some heiress with a fancy name who pranced in with an oversized sense of entitlement. Whether she was the best person for the job was a secondary concern to the abruptly omnipresent assertion that she was undeserving by virtue of her genes.
And then there is the woman whose shoes she eventually did not fill: Hillary Clinton – the former first lady whose Senate run, presidential campaign and nomination to secretary of state were plagued with charges of dynasty and nepotism (and worse), the equivalent to which George Bush the younger was never subjected during his illustrious career executing people in Texas, ruining the country and breaking the world.
In fact, suggestions of dynastic intrigue during the 2000 election – which came down to a single state, Florida, in which Jeb Bush, brother of candidate GWB, was then governor – were dismissed as sour grapes at the time. And Clinton's recent mention of that fact, as an example of how the mere appearance of impropriety during an election can strain a democracy at its seams, was still considered "controversial".
Today's Edition of "Conniving and Sinister"
Strip One, Strip Two, Strip Three, Strip Four, Strip Five, Strip Six, Strip Seven, Strip Eight, Strip Nine, Strip Ten, Strip Eleven, Strip Twelve, Strip Thirteen, Strip Fourteen, Strip Fifteen, Strip Sixteen, Strip Seventeen, Strip Eighteen, Strip Nineteen, Strip Twenty. In which Liss reimagines the long-running comic "Frank & Ernest," about two old straight white guys "telling it like it is," as a fat feminist white woman and a biracial queerbait telling it like it actually is from their perspectives. Hilarity ensues.
Sanford Still Hanging In There
"Embattled" (I love that word) South Carolina Governor King David Mark Sanford, who has not resigned because it's part of God's plan for him to stay in office, now says that God is on his side, even if no one else is:
Sanford acknowledged Tuesday that he has been shaken by the failure of a single fellow Republican to back him in his fight to save his job, but vowed to fight on for conservative causes and for "what God wanted me to do with my life.""And let's not forget my voracious sense of entitlement! I mean, what am I—just supposed to quit because I'm a cheat and a liar and an ethics-challenged wankstain? Geez!"
The governor, trying to survive a scandal involving a widely publicized extramarital affair, also ... vowed not to quit despite growing pressure from South Carolina lawmakers and Republican Party officials to resign or face impeachment. He said he intends to complete his term, not to hold on to power but to fight for conservative principles of governance.
"I feel absolutely committed to the cause, to what God wanted me to do with my life," he said in an interview. "I have got this blessing of being engaged in a fight for liberty, which is constantly being threatened."
That's not what Jesus wants, people.
Meanwhile, Mike "100% Track Record" Rogers has outed South Carolina Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer, which could explain why Sanford, despite getting no support, hasn't been shoved kicking and screaming out of office yet, either. The GOP leadership in South Carolina is sitting in a smoky room somewhere, trying to decide if they want to stick with the coop-flying adulterer with a Messiah complex and ethics violations or "take their chances with the queer."
The fact that they even need to deliberate that question says everything you need to know about the modern GOP.
What The Hell?
Shaker em_and_ink
Nice fishnets, Gothie McGothersmith.
[See also: Deeky, Liss, evilsciencechick, katecontinued, ClumsyKisses, Mistress Sparkletoes, Liiiz, Reedme, Mama Shakes, Mustang Bobby, RedSonja, MomTFH, Portly Dyke, SteffaB, Icca, Christina, Orangelion03, Car, Siobhan, InfamousQBert, Maud, Rikibeth, MishaRN, CLD, Cheezwiz, MamaCarrie, Temeraire, somebodyoranother, goldengirl, Liss (again), summerwing, yeomanpip, Susan811, bbl, Deeky (Part II), A Daily Shakesville Fan, Sami_J, liberalandproud Temeraire: Redux, Mama Shakes II, Bonus Deeky, OuyangDan, J.Goff, Iain, Talonas, The Great Indoors, gogo, and kiwi_a.]
