Narcissistic Fool Makes His Foolishness Apparent

Okay, I was gonna avoid this, simply because it has been talked about in quite a few places already, but, frankly, I'm bored. So I will be taking that out on all of you, and of course, on the poor victim of my scathing wit.

::cue evil laughter::

Anywho, there is this gentleman, a distinguished sort, who was working as a molecular biologist at UC Irvine, which is a state school. There is this lovely little law in California, Assembly Bill 1825, which mandates that state employees holding a supervisory position must take two hours of sexual harassment training every two years.

Well, he felt that this was quite wrong, and refused to take the training unless the university would issue an official document stating that he had never sexually harassed anyone. The university refused, and took away his supervisory duties due to non-compliance with the law.

Wait now...this is where the FUN starts!

He decides to write a scathing editorial for the LA Times about the sham of sexual harassment training, in which he desperately clutches his pearls about his precious academic rights and his tenured position and how it was brutally snatched away from him by, and I quote,

...a vocal political/cultural interest group promoting this silliness as part of a politically correct agenda that I don’t particularly agree with.

::blink::

Hold on a minute...

There's that pesky "I'm so oppressed by the PC Thought Police!" thing again! Seriously, what is it with white privileged male "oppression"? That's right! I forgot, he is throwing a temper tantrum, not laying out substantive critique. Allow me to demonstrate, we can start with the above quote.

So, what "agenda" does he disagree with? The "agenda" that non-white/male/abled/straight /cis persons should be able to work in an environment free of harassment? Or the "agenda" of the state ensuring that supervisors receiving state funds know what the laws are and how to deal with situations that the laws are applicable to?

Nope.

He disagrees with the "agenda" of:

...the state, acting through the university, is trying to coerce and bully me into doing something I find repugnant and offensive. I find it offensive not only because of the insinuations it carries and the potential stigma it implies, but also because I am being required to do it for political reasons.

ummm...

Right.

He does know that these trainings are usually conducted seminar style, right? according to the initial article, he also could have taken the online version of the training, so that the only people who knew he had done so would be himself, and the bureaucrats who keep track of such things. That being understood, what stigma is he talking about exactly? What part of ALL state paid supervisors having to take this training did he miss? How does this create stigma again? Or is he suggesting that ALL state paid supervisors in the state of California are being accused of sexual harassment, since they ALL have to take this training?

That and there are a great many laws over the years have been offensive or violating, and people worked to change them, often times by violating the laws with full knowledge of the consequences.

As opposed to violating the laws and acting surprised that they didn't just accommodate you.

But then again, it is all about you, isn't it?

The imposition of training that has a political cast violates my academic freedom and my rights as a tenured professor. The university has already nullified my right to supervise my laboratory and the students I teach. It has threatened my livelihood and, ultimately, my position at the university. This for failing to submit to mock training in sexual harassment, a requirement that was never a condition of my employment at the University of California 30 years ago, nor when I came to UCI 11 years ago.

So your academic freedom hinges on you being ignorant, willfully so, of the laws regarding equal treatment in your state? wha? Your rights as a tenured professor include the right to harass? of course the university nullified your responsibility, YOU FAILED to meet the requirements that would grant you those privileges. I don't get a driver's license just because I have never run anyone over in a car, you don't get to supervise people without full knowledge of the laws that must be respected while you do your job.

Also, Professor? As opposed to 30 years ago, women are now legally people, and you are legally obligated to treat them as such, because while you seem to have missed it, society EVOLVED around you.

I'm sorry to tell you this, Professor, but for all your whinging about your precious reputation and how being asked to do something that everyone else has to do too makes you look bad, and how "you don't have to take it if you don't wanna!", the only one ruining your reputation is you.

Instead of appearing principled, you appear to be a three year old, who has thrown themselves on the ground kicking, screaming and generally causing a scene in order to cover a guilty conscience. I have a much younger sister, sir. I know the whine of "No one EVER BELIEVES ME!" and that it is an indicator of guilt.

Grow up, cause in the real world, that shit don't fly.

Bush's Environmental Legacy

It's ironic that an administration that likes to quote Theodore Roosevelt as much as the Bush administration does would have spent 8 years actively undoing the protections of the National Park System that Teddy established. One key example here is the Tongass National Forest in southeastern Alaska. One of W.J. Clinton's final acts before leaving office was to extend protections to this nearly pristine wilderness, which was then the largest unlogged coastal temperate rainforest in the world. These protections were rolled back gradually when Bush 2.0 took office and since 2001 the Tongass has lost nearly 20% of it's old growth forest.
The Bush administration has been busy entrenching supporters in the EPA and The Federal Bureau of Land Management as well. According to the Washington Post, between March and November of 2008 the administration has made 20 political appointees in the Department of the Interior into career government bureaucrats protected from the 'whims' of the shifting political landscape. Simply put, agents of the Bush administration are being inserted into permanent positions to protect the interests of logging and mining industries in the Obama era. Still looking to make a buck for your friends at the cost of further rape of the earth, eh Georgie Boy?
Congressman Raul Grijalva (D) AZ, who is apparently under consideration for Secretary of the Interior, issued a letter on October 18, 2008 detailing many of Bush's sins against the land. This administration has ran roughshod over the Constitution, the people of several sovereign nations, and the planet. It's time for this reign of terror to end and to fade quietly into the annals of history.

Sunday reader time!

Ugh...
Its gonna be a quadruple espresso day...I can tell.
Okay! On to the readings!

-White People Think That People of Colour Have More Culture @Restructure! There isn't much I can say that the post doesn't say better. This is the first time I have read anything over there, but I think it will get added to the blogroll. Quote:

"White liberals* in North America often say things like, “White people have no culture.” For the overwhelming majority of white liberals, to be white is to be boring. Some white people even claim that they are “jealous” of people who are not white, as if non-white people have “culture” that white people do not, due to the sole fact they have a higher concentration of melanin in their skin, eyes, or hair.

Of course, the very definition of culture necessitates that white people have a culture." (emphasis in the original)

Go read it. I'll wait.

-Bjork turned 43 on Friday: For those of you who don't know me well, I am a pretty huge Bjork fan (plus we are both Scorpios. Woo-woo geek joy!!!) and the post I linked to has some great videos of hers as well as audio tracks. It also has a link to one of the issues she is active on at the moment, concerning environmentalism in Iceland.


-Quickhit: Lauredhel reports on some particularly egregious Aussie racism.

-Quickhit: Vatican "forgives" John Lennon. @Shakesville.

-Notorious Heterosexuals over at Pam's.

"If anyone wants to make the argument that no LGBT people should be allowed to marry because some go to circuit parties or some lose their temper when their rights are violated, I will reply with some of the most awful and vicious things heterosexuals have done and paint the speaker with the same brush.

I have had it.

If I am responsible for every gay faux pas, then every heterosexual is guilty of every awful act of every other heterosexual."

-Social institutionalization of heteronormative families: This article is written in very specific sociological language, but it is also very very good.

"It seems to me that as a society, we’d be better off supporting individuals and their decisions about the way they want to fashion their life commitments and relationships (sexual or otherwise), rather than catering to one specific template, and then blaming non-traditional families for their struggles that is actually created by their lack of support in our marriage-centric society."

-Trans Murder Apology @The Jaded Hippy about the tendency in some circles to blame transpeople for "getting themselves murdered" by "lying" about who they "really" are:

"It's not her words or her lack of words that creates this "lie", it is her very existence, and more importantly, his response to her existence. He is attracted to her, and by his definition she is not a "real" woman, but in fact a man. Thus he was attracted to a man, in his mind. If this is what he is in fact responding to, as I'm arguing, then his resulting rage is rooted in homophobia.

These responses from these men aren't about the T/I person. They are purely about themselves and their fear of what their attraction to a person with an intersex/trans history means in relation to their self identity as a heterosexual male."

(Edited to remove "feminist" upon clarification from the original author)

-God Angrily Clarifies "Don't Kill" Rule: Special press conference!

"I don't care how holy somebody claims to be," God said. "If a person tells you it's My will that they kill someone, they're wrong. Got it? I don't care what religion you are, or who you think your enemy is, here it is one more time: No killing, in My name or anyone else's, ever again."

"I don't care what faith you are, everybody's been making this same mistake since the dawn of time," God said. "The Muslims massacre the Hindus, the Hindus massacre the Muslims. The Buddhists, everybody massacres the Buddhists. The Jews, don't even get me started on the hardline, right-wing, Meir Kahane-loving Israeli nationalists, man. And the Christians? You people believe in a Messiah who says, 'Turn the other cheek,' but you've been killing everybody you can get your hands on since the Crusades."

Growing increasingly wrathful, God continued: "Can't you people see? What are you, morons? There are a ton of different religious traditions out there, and different cultures worship Me in different ways. But the basic message is always the same: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Shintoism... every religious belief system under the sun, they all say you're supposed to love your neighbors, folks! It's not that hard a concept to grasp."

"Why would you think I'd want anything else? Humans don't need religion or God as an excuse to kill each other—you've been doing that without any help from Me since you were freaking apes!" God said. "The whole point of believing in God is to have a higher standard of behavior. How obvious can you get?"

"I'm talking to all of you, here!" continued God, His voice rising to a shout. "Do you hear Me? I don't want you to kill anybody. I'm against it, across the board. How many times do I have to say it? Don't kill each other anymore—ever! I'm fucking serious!"

Kaity's Hot Cocoa

Philadelphia may not be Buffalo, NY but we have our share of cold winters and this one has gotten cold rather quickly. The other night, in keeping with fine winter tradition, I decided to make one of my favorite winter comfort foods. Hot Cocoa, oh ambrosia.... sweet nectar of the chilly gods.

Kaity's Hot Cocoa

6oz milk
4oz half & half or cream
1.5 Tbsp quality cocoa
1.5 Tbsp sugar (I like to use Sugar in the Raw for the molassesy goodness, but any will do)
1 tsp chili pepper powder
1 big fun cheerful mug

Combine milk, cocoa, sugar and chili powder in a pan and heat; stirring regularly. When the powder is mostly dissolved into the milk add the half & half or cream. Keep stirring until hot and without clumps. Do not boil:)
Adjust chili powder to taste. Personally, I really like capsaicinoids (pepper's 'spicy' compounds) so I usually double the chili powder for myself. No worries for those that don't like spicy foods, the milk fat in the cocoa will help to eliminate a lot of the 'spiciness' anyway.

Pour into mug, pad back into living room and enjoy the spicy, sweet, chocolatey goodness.

There's a good reason why both the Mayan and Aztec cultures held cacao plants in high esteem.
We now know that cacao (chocolate) is a good source of antioxidants and theobromine an alkyloid with mood enhancing effects.

Americana Under Assault by Queer Special Forces

According to the new video being circulated by the AFA, yet another reactionary group on the religious wrong fringe, the queers have invaded quiet Eureka Springs, Arkansas and are using it as a forward operating base to expand our 'gay agenda' into the heartland of America. I came across this piece of news on Feministing. No longer content to remain in our liberal bastions of the Eastern Corridor and our beloved Left Coast, we are apparently aggressively attempting to undermine the very fabric of this ultra-conservative christian nation called 'Fly-over Land' or alternatively 'The United States of Jebus'.
I can almost see the AFA's collective nightmare of a sky-blue Blackhawk helicopter with Rainbow insignia inserting a Queer Agenda Special Operations A-team to taint the city's water supply with 'the gay'. In order to ensure total compliance of the local heteronormative population, the Special Operations A-team will be supported by the 1st Transvestite Air Assault Battalion led by Eddie Izzard looking fabulous.
Meanwhile, back in reality....
The only real gay agenda is basic civil rights for every person regardless of sexual or gender identity or lack thereof.

I Don't Think I'm Better Than You

Has anyone else come across this "women are morally superior to men" trope? I have heard it before, mainly in philosophy classes, but I came across it again in the Feministing Community, in an entry by Wendy_notsid about a book called Hating Women : America's Hostile Campaign Against the Fairer Sex By Rabbi Schmuley Boteach. (Sorry, not linking to it.)

There was, of course, a lot of commentary in the book regarding the awful stereotypes presented of women in the popular media, how men are being groomed to view women, and the over-sexualization of young women in popular media and culture that I heartily agreed with, but there were passages of the book that annoyed me greatly, as a feminist and as a humanist in general. Not only was it his criticism of the feminist movement for concentrating too much on being like men and leaving behind their “natural feminine virtues” (I’m not taking this word for word), or his belief that women were respected more prior to the twentieth century (though that really got to me, but it’s a point to pick apart for another blog), but it was also his stressing of how men and women are not equal, but that women are superior beings.

I am sure that the Rabbi meant to help, seeing that he has daughters and seems to subscribe to certain beliefs that indicate that women are to be valued, which is a good thing. I take issue with what is intended to be valued from women, and how this is still limiting to us, as well as the implications for a feminist movement that were to be held to this standard. From the Feministing article:

...he stated the usual evidence of the so-called female superiority: more women do charitable work, more women attend religious services, women are more likely to be sympathetic to the troubles of others, more women excel academically… I know also that there is a belief in a number of Jewish denominations that women are the holier sex because we can bear children and are naturally more moral than men. Another idea is that man was God’s first try in creating a physical being in Its image, and that woman was God’s second, more successful, try.

The idea that any one group of people is morally superior to another is problematic.

First of all, it feeds into the exclusionary stereotype that follows liberation movements, and gives credence to those privileged whiners that are pissed that there is something in the world that doesn't include them. Seriously, why give them more ammo?

Second, it places more responsibility on the shoulders of women to behave "properly" and allows a pass for men to behave however they want with the excuse that they are just "naturally flawed." Women are already blamed for the violence and oppression they face, this just makes that idea even stronger.

Third, this can be used to silence those of us who still insist on pointing out inequality. If we can be placated with the head pat of being "morally superior" (which, by the way, doesn't prevent rape, murder, domestic violence, job discrimination, education discrimination, etc) then we don't need to be treated "like men" (translation: like people) because our needs aren't the same.

The false dichotomy of one group being better than the other prevents any real critical analysis of constructions of personhood and identity, and recreates double standards that are "impossible" to argue against.

Who wakes up and says, "I wish I could be oppressed too"?

I have been talking with my cousin lately. He is 15, and I have been trying to explain the mechanics of oppression, privilege and power to him in a way that doesn't make him think he is being accused of something. Frighteningly, I have had to debunk several ideas that he has picked up from Cthulhu-knows-where about how oppressed he is. After doing that, he said something really upsetting to me:

"I wish I had a struggle of my own, something to fight against."

O.o

The mind...she boggles.

Somewhere along the way, the idea that having a struggle, an oppression to fight against, was in somehow. Stylish. It got you "special rights." Either that, or the rapid loss of privileges was seen as a loss of rights.

The idea that white affluent western men are an oppressed minority is laughable. It is also a perspective that one encounters quite frequently in popular culture, and especially from so-called men's rights activists(MRAs).


Let me explain something about MRAs. These people are rarely concerned with actual rights or oppression. They are primarily concerned with maintaining the status quo, because the only way they can see the rights of men being violated is when women have those same rights.


They see rights, freedoms and opportunity as a zero-sum game, namely, if females are doing well, that means that males must be getting worse. This ties in to the problem with essentialist thinking. If one group is "naturally" better at something, but the other group is doing just as well as them in actuality, then the only way to maintain this false dichotomy, is to assume that something must be holding back the "naturally" better group.

These groups do little more than encourage the very gender essentialist notions that create the inequalities they like to scream about. They help create these structures, and then blame them on the groups that are actively trying to fight them.

They blame feminism for all of their problems, with no knowledge of what feminists and feminist groups actually do. They tend to be against any legislation that deals with domestic violence, any legislation that makes divorce easier for women, against taking the victim's side in rape cases, against women having the choice to abort or continue a pregnancy, generally against anything that doesn't include men regardless of whether they actually need it or not and tend to support using children in custody cases to control and/or threaten ex's, support rapists, and rape apologists, and generally blame women for all of their own personal failings.

They tend to spend a great deal of time spouting off inaccurate information to support the idea that a cabal of women, queers, racial minorities and evil radical feminists control everything, and may even be responsible for the fall of Western Civilization! As a result, they paint hapless white men as the unfortunate victims of an "anti-male" society that grinds them into submission under the boot heel of the Fascist PC Thought Police.

Let us examine some of this, shall we? Not too much, lest we scratch out our eyeballs in frustration.

As far as this idea of "politically correct" (scare quotes intended) as code for "uptight" or "restrictive," I don't see why it is so important to some people to be allowed to use words that create an othering effect of specific groups. One thing that must be put out there right now: complaining about being forced to be "PC" is, in essence, complaining that you can't be a racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic douchenozzle without there being consequences. I seriously don't see why treating other people like the people that they are is such a damn burden. In the US, one does have the freedom to say exactly what one wants to, however, the rest of us also have the freedom to tell you that you are being obnoxious and insulting. Attempting to shame people with the sneering at political correctness indicates that you would rather be able to hurt people because you like to. This would make you, at best, a bully, and at worst, someone incredibly dangerous.

The gentleman doth protest too much is something else I want to examine here. There is a huge discussion amongst these supposed rights activists about false allegations that lead "innocent" men to being dragged through the court system and possibly imprisoned. Yet false allegations "experts" tend to turn out to be nothing more than perpetrators who are finding ways for other perps to get away with beating and raping. There has even been evidence that false allegations are more likely to come from men:

Are Allegations of Sexual Abuse That Arise During Child Custody Disputes More Likely to Be False?

An Annotated Review of the Research

Bala, N. & Schuman, J. (2000). Allegations of sexual abuse when parents have separated.

Canadian Family Law Quarterly, 17, 191-241.

Canadian Family Law Judgments: Nicholas Bala and John Schuman, two Queen's University law professors, reviewed judges' written decisions in 196 cases between 1990 and 1998 where allegations of either physical or sexual abuse were raised in the context of parental separation. Only family law cases were considered; child protection and criminal decisions were excluded.

The study showed that the judges felt that only a third of unproven cases of child abuse stemming from custody battles involve someone deliberately lying in court. In these cases, the judges found that fathers were more likely to fabricate the accusations than mothers.

These people want to tilt at windmills to preserve their privileges to the detriment of those they consider to be lower than them. They couch their true desires in the language of empowerment, and attempt to cast themselves as some tragic victim.

There are inequalities in this world, some of which specifically effect men, and most are rooted in constructions of masculinity. To resolve those inequalities, deconstruction of gender essentialism must occur. There are people who do this, who truly work to make sure that people are seen as equal regardless of what is in their pants.

They are called feminists, and they are not your expectation.

TDOR

This is for the men and women and those in between and outside of that binary who have died because of ignorance and xenophobia. This is for the victims of transphobia. Remember the fallen, and work for a better world so that those we have lost will not have died in vain. Everybody is someone's child and queers are people too.

Shamelessly lifted from TransGriot.
Courtesy of Ethan St. Pierre, as of November 16, the list of people being memorialized for the 10th Annual Transgender Day of Remembrance on Thursday.


Kellie Telesford
Location: Thornton Heath, UK
Cause of Death: Strangled
Date of Death: November 21, 2007
Kellie was strangled to death with a scarf, by 18 year old Shanniel Hyatt, who then covered the body of 39-year-old Kellie Telesford with a white blanket - with the brown furry scarf used to choke her still bound tightly round her neck. Hyatt said he killer her after discovering she had a penis.


Brian McGlothin (Liked to dress in Women's clothes)
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Cause of Death: Shot in the head with an automatic rifle by Antonio Williams who is serving a six year sentence. Brian was 25 years old.
Date of Death: December 23, 2007



Gabriela Alejandra Albornoz
Location: Santiago, Chile
Cause of Death: Attacked and stabbed
Date of Death: December 28, 2007

Patrick Murphy (Found Dressed in Women's clothes)
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Cause of Death: Shot Several times in the head
Date of Death: January 8, 2008
Patrick was 39 years old.

Stacy Brown
Location: Baltimore, MD
Cause of Death: Shot in the head
Date of Death: January 8, 2008
Stacy was 30 years old.


Adolphus Simmons
Location: Charleston, SC
Cause of Death: Shot to Death (Aldophus was 18 yrs. old)
Date of Death: January 21, 2008


Fedra (a known transvestite)
Location: Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia
Cause of Death: Was found lying face up in a pool of blood,
cause of death was not reported.
Date of Death: January 22, 2008


Ashley Sweeney
Location: Detroit, Michigan
Cause of Death: Shot in the head
Date of Death: February 4, 2008
The age of Ashley Sweeney is unknown, she was only described as a young transgender woman in a press release.


Sanesha (Talib) Stewart
Location: Bronx, NY
Cause of Death: Stabbed to Death
Date of Death: February 10, 2008
Sanesha was 25 years old.


Lawrence King
Location: Oxnard, California
Cause of Death: Shot to death by a classmate because he liked to wear
women's clothes. (Lawrence King was 15 years old).
Date of Death: February 12, 2008


Simmie Williams Jr.
Location: Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Cause of Death: Shot to death, Simmie was found wearing women's clothing. (Simmie was 17 years old)
Date of Death: February 22, 2008


Luna (no last name reported)
Location: Lisbon, Portugal
Cause of Death: Brutally beaten to death and tossed into a dumpster.
Date of Death: March 15, 2008


Lloyd Nixon
Location: West Palm Beach, Florida
Cause of Death:Repeatedly beat in the head with a brick.
Date of Death: April 16, 2008
Lloyd was 45 years old.


Felicia Melton-Smyth
Location: Puerto Vallarta, Mexico
Cause of Death: brutally stabbed to death by Francisco Javier Hollos, who said he killed her because she would not pay for sex. Felicia was an HIV activist on vacation from Wisconsin.
Date of Death: May 26, 2008


Silvana Berisha
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Cause of Death: Stabbed to Death
Date of Death: June 24, 2008


Ebony (Rodney) Whitaker
Location: Memphis, Tennessee
Cause of Death:Shot (Ebony was 20 yrs. old)
Date of Death:July 1, 2008


Rosa Pazos
Location: Sevilla, Spain
Cause of Death: Was found in her apartment, she had been stabbed in the throat.
Date of Death: July 11, 2008


Juan Carlos Aucalle Coronel
Location: Lombardi, Italy
Cause of Death severely beaten causing fractures to the head and face before being run over by a car.
Date of Death July 14, 2008
Juan Carlos was 35 years old.


Angie Zapata
Location: Greeley, Colorado
Cause of Death: She was found in her home with two severe fractures in her skull.
Angie was murdered by 31 year old, Alan Ray Andrade. Angie was 18 years old.
Date of Death: July 17, 2008


Jaylynn L. Namauu
Location: Makiki Honolulu, Hawaii
Cause of Death: Stabbed to Death
Date of Death: July 17, 2008
Jaylynn was 35 years old.


Samantha Rangel Brandau
Location: Milan, Italy
Cause of Death: beaten, gang raped and stabbed numerous times before being left for dead.
Date of Death: July 29, 2008
Samantha was 30 years old.



Ruby Molina
Location: Sacramento, California
Cause of Death: Drowned
Date of Death: September 21, 2008
Ruby's naked body was found floating in the American river.
She was 22 years old.


Aimee Wilcoxson
Location: Aurora, Colorado
Cause of Death: undetermined (Police have yet to reveal cause)
Date of Death: November 3, 2008
Aimee was found dead in her bed. She was 34 years old.



Duanna Johnson
Location: Memphis, Tennessee
Cause of Death: Shot
Date of Death: November 9, 2008
Duanna was found dead in the middle of the street. She was 42 years old.


Dilek Ince
Location: Ankara, Turkey
Cause of Death:Shot in the back of the head
Date of Death: November 11, 2008


Teish (Moses) Cannon
Location: Syracuse, New York
Cause of Death: Shot
Date of Death: November 14, 2008
Teish was 22 years old.



Ali
Location:Iraq
Cause of Death:executed for being transgender
Date of Death:2008, Month is Unknown
Video of Ali before she was executed: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2tDVtjQNfQ


*IMPORTANT NOTE FROM ETHAN - (In case I don't get the details posted in time) There were 2 other Iraqi transgender women who were executed at the same time as Ali. Please remember them at your TDoR event.

'ello

Hi Dori and assorted ne'erdowells,

Thanks for inviting me to come and contribute to your blog. I'll get some postings up over the next few days.

Kait

I Smell Toxicity and Plastic

I got an interesting memo at work recently. It was a general memo, intended for the entire team. It mentioned that "hygiene" was an issue and that some people stink and need to wear deodorant to work.

I have a problem with this.

I shower daily, I wear essential oils, I wash my clothing. I don't smell like anything other than how a person is supposed to smell, maybe even a bit better considering I don't eat meat. I have a real problem with our way of categorizing natural human smells as bad, especially when they are smells coming from a female.

Women are regularly subjected to the idea that we stink, especially our vaginas. We are sold items that are supposed to eliminate or cover that musky va-jay-jay scent. Even sexual aids that are sold to us ostensibly for "pleasure," are designed solely to make us smell better for our assumed male partner.

Scents tell us things, about emotions, about health, how we smell tells us if our bodies are functioning properly.

The products that we are sold to make us smell less human can be linked to significant health problems.

If given the choice between smelling like I should, not slathering on or inserting chemicals, and possibly offending people with my scent, or covering myself in caustic chemicals so as not to offend the delicate, brainwashed sensibilities of some random idiot and potentially giving myself a health problem in the process, I'd rather stink.

"Post Racism" my shiny white behind

There has been some buzz lately that the election of an African American to the highest office in the land means the end of racism in America.

...

...

...

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

oh yeah, that's a good one. No seriously.

You see, in the REAL world where progressives function, we know this is not the case. One man does not a glass ceiling shatter. We have seen things like this stated before, like when Geraldine Ferraro was on the Mondale ticket, or even more recently, with the Clinton and Palin insanity this last election.

Every time something vaguely progressive happens, it is treated as though this one thing means all oppressions are now officially "out of style," it just isn't cool or with it to be a misogynist, racist fuckneck anymore.

That doesn't stop rising,
racially motivated crimes. (Second and third graders chanting "Assassinate Obama!" for fucks sake?)

To think that it does is to apply a gloss over the realities that people live with, like the likelyhood of being murdered for not fitting gender norms particulary if one is a person of color.

Don't be fooled.

Power systems survive by duping the less powerful into thinking that one small inch forward is equivalent to a major achievement. Its a pat on the head to silence those of us who want to live our lives without oppression informing every move we make.

In the immortal words of Melissa McEwan, promise to keep working my teaspoon, even when my arms are tired.

Sunday Reader

In the best tradition of...well...pretty much all the blogs I read, and due to the Sunday's of double shifts I see marching into the future, I am starting a link roundup of interesting reading.



Wanda Sykes comes out! @ Pam's House Blend


Action Item! Stop Bush from implementing regulations that will allow anti-choice health care providers to refuse to dispense medical care without consequences. Cara has a write up about the regulations over at Feministe.


Krista unpacks the "culture" argument in regards to gender and Islam over at Muslimah Media Watch.


Oh no you didn't! (Why it's not ok to support Prop 8, then hide behind the Constitution) in the Feministing Community.



Carnival Against Sexual Violence 59 is up at abyss2hope.


A discussion of the gendered nature of cursing by Renee over at Womanist Musings (She also has a piece up in the Carnival Against Sexual Violence)


Cara has another post up at The Curvature entitled "Obama is Funny". It's included purely for this quote:

‘Well, the truth is, Brian, we can’t solve global warming because I f—ing changed light bulbs in my house. It’s because of something collective’.”

Notes from the Den of Iniquity

Last night, while going to bed, my spouse and I had a discussion about how my sister tends to stomp every time she goes up the stairs.

Me: "I don't get it. I take pride in being able to move incredibly quietly for my size. Unless I'm angry. Then I want my footfalls to be like a portent of doom."

Spouse: "Baby, you are a portent of doom."

XD

Welcome to another episode of "Just Not Getting It"

::A trigger warning is in effect for this post::

So, I was bored at work, as I so often am, and I ended up reading the New York Times online, as I so often do.

I came across this blog post by Judith Warner entitled “Pure Tyranny”. I had no idea what it would be about, but the title intrigued me. It turned out to be about how we view women’s sexuality and the cultural steps taken to preserve “purity” in women.


She brings up hymenoplasties in Europe, the Austrian man who kept his daughter locked in a basement for two and a half decades in order to rape her and produce children with her (using the excuse that he was a “moral” man who would protect her and make her a “good” woman), and Purity Balls here in the states in which men pledge to “cover” their daughters and protect their purity and girls pledge their virginities to their fathers until their fathers can pass that virginity off to their husbands. She correlates all of these things as a commentary on how controlling women’s bodies is a universal concept and that we as a culture have no right to fling self-righteous indignation at other cultures for doing so.


Needless to say, I appreciated the article, because she said something that I say regularly so articulately and boiled it down quite clearly, that just because we don’t have cultural expectations that oppress women that take the form of radical surgery for the illusion of virginity, we still do have the same warped principles about women’s sexuality that lead to such things. You know, people in glass houses, something about rocks…


Then I read the comments. (I always read the comments and I should damn well know better)


Most of them totally missed the point.


Either the comments were attacking “those backward brown people who are stuck in the middle ages” and smugly patting themselves on the back for being “so much more advanced!”(gag) or they were attacking her for implying that “fathers protecting their daughters is the same as incest” or they were simply attacking her, her feminism, her supposed desire for girls to be “slutty,” attacking feminism in general, touting the joys and benefits of patriarchy (one guy actually blamed the “backwardness” of places like the Middle East on the feminism and “girl power” of the west and how it is obvious that men should be protecting women) etc etc ad infinitum ad nauseum


Herein lies my rage: Why is it that people get so damn offended by female sexuality? Why is it that people can’t see that this obsessive control that is exerted is only done so over women? It IS sexual and mental abuse to convince women of any age that their only value comes from their sex. It is abusive to suggest that women cannot and should not be allowed to make their own choices about their lives and bodies. We are not children, and we are not chattel. We are human beings, full and entire. We deserve the same consideration as any other human being.


Don’t even get me started on the assumed cultural superiority that we have here in the US where we assume that we are better cause we only call women who actually orgasm “whores” instead of killing them on even the suspicion of sexual "infidelity". The mentality is the same, no matter how it is expressed.


And why, on a blog post about women in general and perceived cultural superiority, do so many people jump to the conclusion that it is all about them? No thoughts for the women who are harmed by this, their mothers, sisters, daughters, themselves…no. it must be about attacking their religion because the author DARED to suggest that women having sovereignty over themselves and their bodies is a “God-given” right, or attacking their morals because pre-marital sex is EVIL…there is no connect with how these specific ideas and the long term effect they have is actually factually HURTING REAL PEOPLE!


Get some damn compassion people! If you don’t stop staring at that pool, people you love who happen to be women will be reduced to nothing more than echoes while you revel in your own reflection.

The Spirit of the Stairs

So...privilege.

It's an important, and critical idea, and one I have been dancing around trying to parse out how I want to talk about for days now. I have written and re-written this entry, and have given up on it a few times. However, as far as the intent behind this space, an understanding of privilege and how it works is needed.

The need for this was touched off by several things, some in my own life, and some in the rest of the US.

One of the personal: a gentleman who was otherwise quite nice, who felt privileged enough to say some "well-intentioned" (scare quotes intended) but profoundly homophobic things to me while I was working. It was enough to send me running for a large Americano with an extra espresso shot (for those playing the home game, that would come to four shots of espresso, with the rest of the 18oz. cup filled with steamed water) which I am now sipping and feeling the caffeine tingle to the ends of my extremities.

Another is one friend of mine who repeatedly claims that I go too far on the "female" stuff, and that he feels that I am being unbalanced because I never talk about the problems that men face, and conversely never talk about women as "being at fault" for anything. According to him, I blame men for everything, and let women coast by regardless of whether they deserve to or not. When I call him on the fact that inequalities for women outnumber inequalities for men, he hedges with "well, we should all just be good to each other, but it has to be FAIR," or if I point out that the system that hurts women also hurts men, he moves the goalposts "well some people are just LIKE THAT" or "Some women bring it on themselves."

In the rest of my country, there are simultaneous issues that are encased in layers of problematic privilege with regards to how they are addressed and with regards to the fact that they have even occurred.

One is the passing of Proposition 8 in California, which is problematic on its own. It doesn't help that it's passing is being blamed on POC voters in CA, which is exposing the latent racism of the mainstream, assimilationist GLBTQI movement (which tends to exclude all but the white, able-bodied, cis-gendered men anyway)

In combination with the utter outrage at Prop 8 is the lack of outrage from the same exclusionary GLBTQI community at the murder of yet another trans-woman of color, Duanna Johnson, a woman who had previously been harrassed and assaulted by Memphis police officers, purely because of her gender and her color, who has subsequently been found dead.

For my situation, and how it relates to privilege as well as everything I have mentioned thus far, to make sense, some things about me need to be understood.

1- Yes, I am queer.

2- Yes, I am married.

3- No, my marriage, despite current appearances, is not heterosexual.

4- I am also female-identified, white, able-bodied, poor by Western standards, and feminist without apology.

The problem here is privilege.

What is privilege, you ask?

Privilege is: About how society accommodates you. It’s about advantages you have that you think are normal. It’s about you being normal, and others being the deviation from normal. It’s about fate dealing from the bottom of the deck on your behalf.
-Betty, A primer on privilege.

The man who talked to me this morning was privileged. He assumed when he saw my wedding ring, that since I was married, then I must be straight. His privilege is the ability to assume that marriage is for straight people only, to assume that every person he talks to is most likely not queer, and to assume that I am going to agree with him, because only straight people can be married.

My friend is privileged. His privilege is to be able to assume that he will be included in all things, since most things in our culture tend to be geared towards straight white cis-males like himself. He assumes that his experience is universal, that all men think as he does, and that anything that goes against that is prejudiced against him. His experience must be addressed or he is oppressed. He assumes that fair looks like he wants it to without accounting for the perspective of others. He feels entitled to attention, and to care from activists that don't address his needs, despite the fact that the issues that impact them the most have little to nothing to do with him.

The racist element of the GLBTQI movement is privileged. They can assume that another minority group will support them on the basis of some assumed shared oppression without ever explicitly asking that group for support, they can pretend like there is no intersection of identities, and therefore "erase" POC who are also queer. In cases like Duanna Johnson, they are more than willing to throw our trans* brothers and sister under the bus, as well as anyone else who is not easily assimilate-able in order to further their own quest for rights, regardless if those rights are what the rest of the community actually needs.

I am privileged. I live in the West, where my standard of living as a poor person is at least three times as good as women in developing countries. I can eat food that is out of season, I have access to medicine, media, and computers. I have a job and don't have to ask my family for permission to live my life. I am also white, and can be sure, when walking down the street, that no one is assuming I am a "welfare queen" or that I am a drug addict, or a thief, or a sex-worker. My gender identity, for the most part, matches my gender presentation, so I do not get intrusive stares and speculations about what I "really" am.

My point is, despite these groups and myself all being privileged, there is one major resounding difference.

I am aware of the ways in which I am privileged and have made it a personal quest to minimize my privilege as much as possible. It's a technique that I call, "How to not be a total fucking asshole." This is not to say that I don't fuck up, I do. I will act privileged, partially because the nature of privilege is to be invisible to those who benefit most from it.

Privilege, at its core, is the advantages that people benefit from based solely on their social status. It is a status that is conferred by society to certain groups, not seized by individuals, which is why it can be difficult sometimes to see one’s own privilege.
-Feminism 101 blog What is male privilege

However, I am open to being called on it, and I am willing to self-examine at any time to make sure that my words and actions match with a progressive attitude towards ending oppression. It's the least I can do to make up for the benefits I get because of my privilege.

I do not call myself an ally, I don't need to be put on a pedestal as a paragon of progressiveness. I am just a person, a privileged person, who has chosen not to be an asshole.

Good Morning.

Thank you Dori for inviting me here.
I will need some help as I have never been a member of a Blogging Group, so am looking forward to learning as I go along.
Hope you have a great day.
Jan

Blog Announcement

Hello to anyone out in the intertubes who reads here.

I have a short announcement to make, the addition of another contributor to this space. I have invited my friend Jan to contribute here. She is someone that I have come to respect and trust in her perspective and her eloquence.

We should have an intro post up from her sometime in the near future.

Logic can be fun

Dear people who cant seem to string together a basic logic chain with a map and a flashlight,

We have had our disagreements, me with the thinking, you with the lack thereof and the taking offense that I would DARE to think for myself and not bow to your inferior non-logic, but I have recently encountered something from you that I feel needs immediate direct attention.

I will never tell you that you are not allowed to have an opinion on an issue that you are not directly involved in or have experience with. You can have any opinion you want, no matter how infantile or stupid it may be. It is your opinion and you are entitled to it.

HOWEVER, your opinion is NOT fact, and because it is your opinion does not mean that it is factually true, or accurate. While I will not tell you that you cannot have your opinion based on lack of experience, exposure or understanding, I WILL tell you when your opinion is uniformed due to the previously stated conditions. Reading newspapers about an issue does not count, knowing someone involved in said issues does not count, caring about it with not practical experience DOES NOT COUNT.

Examples:

1) If you are male, you may have an opinion on abortion, but otherwise it is none of your business, yes, even if it is your significant other seeking said abortion. If you have a healthy relationship, then you should trust her to consider your feelings in the decision. If you can't then you probably should not have been sleeping with her to begin with. If her getting one is so abhorrent to you, then dump her and sleep with someone that will give birth to your spawn. If dumping her is not an option, then tough.

2) If you have no functioning knowledge of a specific culture and their language other than a few news sources and the internet, then you may have an opinion about events within that culture, but your opinion will not come from a place of actual understanding of the mentality of the people involved and the structure of the society that shaped it. Your opinion is therefore, UNINFORMED and most likely based in faulty information.

These things also apply to me, and to anyone who wishes to engage in debate or discussion, so please dont try to turn this around on me. I can tell you that you don't know everything, while still not knowing everything myself.

Have a lovely day,
Dori

Live long enough to see the humor, and long enough to see some change

I tend to range between cynic and idealist in my opinions, but my default setting is generally idealist. I choose to believe that the universe is a balance of positive and negative, and your own experience of it is dictated by the things you choose to focus on. I CHOOSE (and am very conscious that I do so) to focus on the positive or at the very least to hope that things can improve.

I wonder why so many people feel a need to challenge my decision to have hope. Is it because misery loves company? I encounter, on a regular basis, people that go out of their way to attempt to disabuse me of my idealism, and act as though they are doing me a favor by doing so. as if they are "saving me from myself" (red flag!!!!) by revealing how silly it is to care or to hope.

A note to those who feel a driving need to do these things

1st: If you (editorial "you") think you need to "save me from myself" then I only really need to be saved from you

2nd: Who exactly does it hurt for me to have hope? If it hurts you, then that is your problem and not mine. If you think that you need to "tell me what its really like" don't bother.

3rd: Don't assume that because I am hopeful, that I am uneducated, or unaware. I AM aware, and I have made the choice to think this way. You only complain about my "rose-colored glasses" because you are not happy with your storm-cloud colored ones.

Just remember:
"...I'm not going to pretend
that I don't pick my nose
that's just the way it is, my friends
that's just the way it goes
this is who I am
what I do
and what I say
if you like it, let it be
if you don't, please do the same"*

*Lyrics to "Pick Yer Nose" by Ani DiFranco

Fifth Sacred thing

I never realized how much I enjoy watching scenery pass by while I’m traveling. That is what I have always loved about train and car trips. That was what made the trip from Philadelphia to State College worth it. I caught myself watching the greenery by the tracks on the way to work this morning. I felt like I was seeing a hidden pattern in the green, like the code to life was hidden in the plants, the secret pattern that holds the universe together. I get so oddly rambly and introspective in the early morning. :-p

I also just noticed that I still have a tendency to try and rationalize away my perception of the world. I see things in a certain way and I find it odd only because I so rarely see or hear this way of seeing expressed by anyone else. When I do its put into these terms that make it so distant for anybody that is skeptical of the viewpoint that generates them it gets dismissed as “new age” and “floaty spiritual” stuff. It is too close to the vision and not close enough to the language of those who have yet to see it.

Is the idea of One-ness scary? Would it mean that people have to think about the state of the world and the way we are treating it? I know that the spouse has felt this and has seen it. Zie told me. Yet zie also seems to both dull certain perceptions and heightens others by using substances during these experiences. It seems as though zie is heightening hir awareness of this but dulling hir motivation to do anything with this feeling. I have also found that as much as it can enhance the perceptions and the feeling of connectedness, it’s harder to remember that feeling, and to access it later when sober. The ability to access this feeling at any time, or all times, is vitally important. I feel it is the way we should feel at all times. It would motivate people to care about the world around them and to make actions that are good for all instinctual. Oh Lord, I’m expecting everyone to behave as empaths. This is different though. This is empathy for the world that we are part of, not separate from. This is empathy for us.

Maybe this driving need people have to ignore the planet, to separate themselves from nature and the world, to act as though the world is something for them to use instead of a vast system that they are a part of, is born from some sort of inner hatred of self. I could draw lines between the system that the Abrahamic religions have become with the concepts of original sin, and man being naturally both a sinner simply from the act of existing and at the same time lord of the earth, but I hate playing the blame game. Suffice it to say that several factors over the development of Western civilizations have led to this remove from the world around us. We create little environments that have structured, controlled variables; walls, cooled or heated air, cooled or heated water, drains to pull away the natural processes of the human body, prepackaged foods, and refrigeration that allows us to eat whatever we want whenever we want regardless of whether it is the appropriate time of year for it or not. We have made actions that damage or compromise the cleanliness of these created environments socially unacceptable at best and illegal at worst. For example, smoking indoors. To smoke inside a house, even if it’s your own, is considered disgusting, rude and destructive. Many cities across the US have also made it illegal to smoke inside of any public building, restaurants and bars included.

These bans are a perfect example of this remove from nature and how we view our artificial environments as more important than the greater environment in which we all reside. It is still legal to have an industry that pollutes ground water and sends carcinogens flying into the atmosphere. On an even smaller scale, its perfectly legal, expected even, that people should smoke outside. This way of thinking shows the underlying hypocrisy of what is valued. Subconsciously, we believe as a culture that polluting the world that we all depend on is okay, but God forbid we pollute our little universes that we have created, because that is more real, more important than the outside world.

We can control these little environments we have created, but we can’t control the world around us. This is a terrifying thought, if you only feel safe in a completely predictable environment. I find it boring in the extreme. Yes, living as I did was hard. Yes, having access to indoor plumbing has improved my health and demeanor. Yes having access to all of these things has made working towards some of my goals much easier. However, I know what it is like to give up that control, to live with the unpredictability of the world and people around me with no walls to enclose it and to have control of nothing but my own actions. I know what it is like to survive without all of these little comforts we allow ourselves. I can see these things as they are now, comforts, and in some cases blessings. They are also tools to be used, not systems to be dependent on. They are not things that should be expected or taken for granted.

Honestly, if it were up to me (which it isn’t, but a girl can dream :-)), I would have everyone as a part of their education spend at the very least two months living with nothing but the most basic of supplies and the knowledge of how to make it from day to day. Train people in what it takes to make it through the day without running water, and controlled climates, electricity, or cooking gas; without refrigeration, artificial or out of season foods, or mindless ways to waste time in the name of entertainment. Let people learn to live from the land and with other people. Destroy the remove. I would make them stay there until they understand that they should value their luxuries as what they are, and value the Earth more, because that is what actually sustains them. Also to value the people around them, to learn that any group of people can be a community and that if people work together, they are much stronger than trying to strike out on their own.

Its time to wake up, people. We are part of the Earth, not separate from it or above it. We do not own it; we cannot buy it, sell it, or steal it. Saying you own the land is like saying that you own your mother’s uterus, and I certainly don’t see anyone staring a war over that. So in essence, all of these disputes over land, they are the global equivalent of sibling rivalry, children fighting over which one of them Mom loves the best. I also am sick of hearing the arguments that since the issues with the environment aren’t as bad as the rabid hippie environmentalists say, that we can continue on our headlong rush to use as much as possible while removing ourselves from the world. That reminds me of the parents who beat their child and rationalize it by saying that it’s not as bad as the beatings that they received as children. I’m going to say this once, but I’m going to say it loud to make sure I’m understood: JUST BECAUSE IT COULD BE A LOT WORSE DOES NOT MEAN IT IS GOOD! Just because you have a cold instead of the flu, it doesn't mean that you don't feel like shit, and it doesn't mean that you aren't sick. Yes, it could be worse, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't take steps to make it better.

There is more to me than this...

I have been going over and having some serious conversations with myself with regards to my family planning choices lately and have discovered something that kinda makes me a bit uncomfortable with myself.

I have had and continue to have fertility issues. About a year and a half ago, my doctors found cysts on my ovaries that could create complications for the process of getting and staying pregnant. Due to lack of insurance, I have not had the opportunity to see a specialist and confirm a diagnosis of a specific hormonal disorder, but since I have just received coverage from my job, I should be able to get that taken care of.

I have also discovered recently that I am able to conceive, but nothing has stuck yet. I have miscarried twice in as many months and was surprised to find that I was not particularly torn up about it. Don't get me wrong, the spouse and I both want a family and chilluns eventually, but so far it doesn't seem to be in the cards without help.

Our niece Jackie was born July 11th, and we got to spend some time with her recently. That day made me feel like I wanted to get pregnant ASAP (that and my dear friend being ready to pop) while I was in the presence of the baby. However, as soon as we left to go home, I started having second thoughts, which led to an almost panic attack at the thought of a pregnancy and parenthood.

It hit me that I was very not ready. When I unpacked the feelings a bit more I realized that I was not ready because I did not want to be limited in my life choices because of a small and totally dependent person. I felt that I wanted to be more than a mother before adding that to the list of ways that I am identified. I felt like being a mother was...beneath me in some ways, like I want to contribute more to the world than just continuing my genetic material.

This is what makes me uncomfortable. I have many dear friends, both online and off who are parents and who still manage to do things with their lives and be parents as well as contributing to the world and society in other ways. I know it can be done, but internally, I feel that motherhood/parenthood is a step down from what I can be for the world. This is not to say that parenting is less than anything else in regards to changing the world, and that is the rub.

I have had the "women have the power of creation" used against me in abusive relationships as a way to put me in my "place," to let me know that they saw this as my only "real" power and as a way to make me feel like I was less valuable than my male partner. I have internalized this to such a degree that I don't feel that being a parent, for me, is a legitimate vocation. I know that this is bullshit, I really do, but I can't seem to get past it in making my own choices. And I feel that if I choose to have a child, I will be relegated to "just" a parent.

I am also terrified. I am terrified that I don't have the patience for children of my own, that I won't love them, that I will resent them, that the novelty will wear off quickly and I will hate the paradigm shift to this being my reality. I am also terrified that I will be defined by the world around me by my reproductive choices. Since I am female, I will be defined as mother first and person second by everyone else in the world, specifically by employers. I want a career, I need a career. The idea that I will be denied this option because of having or potentially having kids makes me so angry and so scared. Part of me wants to do what I have always done, which is do my damnedest to fly in the face of ridiculous assumptions and to challenge them simply by my very being. However, I have also internalized this so deeply, I'm not sure I am strong enough to do that. And it makes me so very angry to know that I live in a society that will judge me regardless of my choices, a society that has taught me that parenthood is worth less than other life paths.

And as a note, this is not intended to offend, in any way, anyone who has made and wishes to make the choice to parent and raise children. I know, intellectually, that this is a valid choice and that it does not lessen someone to make it. I just want to be able to make this choice for myself without all the socio-cultural baggage. Apparently, as a woman in the West, this is indeed too much to ask.

Babe In Total Control of Herself

Due to a discussion on an Ani DiFranco online community, I have been going over the word "bitch" when used as an insult. I know that this is territory that has been chewed to death by theorists, linguists and social commentators, most of whom are far more eloquent and informed than I. This discussion is more for me, and about what I will accept as descriptors and labels for myself.

"Bitch" in the English language is a decidedly gendered insult, the exact implication of which changing depending on who it is applied to. When applied to women, it seems to indicate a woman who is too "man-like" (eg. aggressive, driven, controlling, demanding, etc.) but when applied to men, it is intended to indicate a man who is to "woman-like" (eg. weak, flexible, emotional, etc.)

First of all, can/should a word be able to mean two different, "opposite" things when applied in the same way to two different people? To me, this defies logic at the very least. If we had too many words or linguistic structures that worked this way, language would cease to make sense.

Second, the use of this term reinforces a gender binary for social behaviors that is not carried out by any scientific evidence that can't be countered with an exploration of socialization and how it varies cross culturally.

I guess this could use some context. The conversation that started this was an accusation that Ani is "hard to work with." It had been leveled by local crews of music venues that had hosted her on her recent tour, and I have heard something similar from a friend of mine who used to work at a theatre in my area where she played a few years back. Someone in the community claimed that zie heard that Ani was a bitch.

Based on accounts from other people in the community who had worked with her, she kept a professional distance and had very specific and outlined needs and standards that she expected to be met. Nothing insane or entitled, just specific. According to these posters, working with her was stressful as hell, but when it came down to it, everything went off without a hitch, everything exactly where it needed to be.

It occurred to me that the script people expect one to follow if one appears female bodied is smiling, sweet, accommodating...hell, even I expected it of Ani. Girls who are good people ask nicely, wait their turn and don't make waves.

I all but slapped myself in the face when I realized that i had bought into that shit. Ani is a successful musician and CEO of her own recording company and music venue. She is self promoted, recorded and distributed. She rules every aspect of her business so she doesn't have to make the choice that the rest of us are expected to make: our values or our paychecks. To manage that, one must be driven, specific, aggressive, demanding and totally in control.

To be successful without sacrificing oneself, a woman has to be a bitch.

If being a woman who knows what she needs and demands it because she knows that asking nicely doesn't work makes me a bitch, then that is all I can ever hope to be. Hell, I wish I could have the courage to rewrite that script internally and be the bitch that I know I am.

cross posted in a few places

::facepalm::

Oh.
The.
Irony.

It hurts. It really does.

A portion of an ancient Muslim cemetery in Jerusalem is slated to be demolished to make way for a “Museum of Tolerance”

This decision has been protested by Israeli Arab Muslims, and has been challenged legally. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the museum based on a lack of objection in 1960 when part of the cemetery was converted into a parking lot. That’s right kids. Because no one objected legally to the destruction of an important t historical site during a time period when the whole country was in turmoil and Arabs were treated even worse by the Israeli government than they are now, they can’t object now.

Using racism and intolerance to make room for a museum devoted to tolerance. Isn’t that like matter and anti-matter?

The mind boggles.

Who wants to take bets that if there is any violent backlash what-so-ever from the Arab Muslim population in Jerusalem in regards to this particular issue, it will be painted, YET AGAIN, as naturally aggressive and violent Arabs attacking poor misunderstood Israel?

I’m sorry, when you are the richest country in the area, you have the most well-equipped army, you are illegally occupying territory for over half a century, and you still try to start wars for the sake of hegemony, can you really call yourself the total victim?

If a bully beats up a smaller kid every day (and for the sake of fairness, say the smaller kid said something mean before getting beat up) then the smaller kid kicks the bully in the nuts, who is the aggressor? Really?

And here goes the circus...

Proposition 8 has all but passed.

Yet again in our nation's history, a whole group of people have had their rights denied them by the (barely) popular vote. There is something slightly different about the particular case of California. In the other states where marriage rights have been limited to one privileged group, the codification of those restrictions simply made existing restrictions into even harder-to-defeat laws.

In CA, the right to marriage had already been granted by the courts as a constitutional right. Proposition 8, has taken away pre-established rights.

And the LAPD, have of course, been dealing with the distraught populace who are watching their rights and the rights of their neighbors dissolve into the ether of fear and bigotry in the classiest way possible.

"How" you ask?

Well, by beating protesters of course!

The link leads to a video from the BBC.

You know, this looks kinda familiar...

The ham is floating

HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO ME!
HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO ME!
WE ELECTED A NEW PRESIDENT!
HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO ME!

This has to be one of the bestest birthday presents EVAH!

On the day I turn 25, I am very aware that this is a day to tell my grandchildren (should I ever have any) about. It is a day that has seen a true historic moment, but it is not without it's sadness.

Last night was amazing. I got home from work around 10:30, and pulled out the tequila. I was stressed and nervous as hell, dealing with the stress of watching the numbers trickle in while I was supposed to be working. entropyinjersey, amichandrn and I watched the election maps as the returns came in. As soon as Ohio was called, we knew, but I refused to believe it until there was a concession speech from McCain and an acceptance speech from Obama.

Then my mom called, screaming about McCain conceding, and how I had to come over and drink with her. So I went over, we drank and we watched President-elect Obama's acceptance speech, and there were many tears.

We could hear some noise from outside, and saw a local news cast about people taking to the streets in celebration...so we took to the streets in celebration as well.

We walked up to Broad street and there were people hanging out of car windows, running in the streets, dancing, singing, shouting, hugging...Most of them were my age or thereabouts, and it was so beautiful to see. As we got closer to City Hall, we came upon a crowd of dancing, laughing people in the middle of the street, they chanted "YES WE CAN" and waved an American flag above the Obama signs, proud, some for the first time, of the potential that their country had shown.

We decided to head back due to the rain and the fact that it was 2am. We walked down Market street to Independence Hall, and stopped at a display/archeological dig that is excavating and exploring the lives of slaves in the home of the first presidents. This site was a big issue when it was discovered, and led to a discussion of how honest did we want to be about our nation's history, and the stories of those who truly worked to build it. It took protests and activism, and demands that the truth not be silenced in order to preserve some heroic ideal of the founding white men who began the government that now will have a man of African decent as Commander-in-Chief.

Needless to say, it was a profound moment of looking at the immediacy of our history. An election where a woman who is the daughter of a slave can cast a vote for an African-American man, and see that man in the highest office in the land, an election that brings people who were long thought not to matter in and gives their voices wings.

However, all is not well, and there is still much to do, considering all but one proposition that enables discrimination against LGBTQ persons and divorces them from their human rights have passed, including Proposition 8 in California. We are still living in a world where some people are told that they are lesser simply because their very existence is seen as a threat to those who want to keep their unearned privileges. We will have to fight for recognition as full human beings, who simply want to live our lives in peace.

This election is not an end, but a beginning. I truly believe that we can make a difference and we can win based on integrity and compassion.

Yes...

We fucking can!

and we better.

At Brandeis, Carter Responds to Critics

Most of you have probably heard about Jimmy Carter and his book, so you can probably see why I am posting this. I do not have a terribly complex deconstruction, just a few comments. If you don't understand at any point in the article what the big deal is, just ask me and I'll try to elaborate.

WALTHAM, Mass., Jan. 23 — In his first major public speech about his controversial book “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,” former President Jimmy Carter told an audience at Brandeis University on Tuesday that he stood by the book and its title, that he apologized for what he called an “improper and stupid” sentence in the book and that he had been disturbed by accusations that he was anti-Semitic. well, everyone knows that if you don't support Israel 100% then you must hate Jews! My mother, who is not religious in any sense (never even had her bat mitzvah) accused me of the same thing when i stated that Israel was out of line. how stereotypical of me, a self hating Jew.

Mr. Carter’s book, “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,” drew protesters to Brandeis on Tuesday. Critics have said the book contains errors and misrepresentations of the roles of both the Israelis and the Palestinians. funny how you don't hear complaints like that when someone writes something denouncing Palestinians

Although controversy had preceded his visit here, Mr. Carter was greeted with a standing ovation and treated with obvious respect by the audience, even as students asked questions that were critical of his assertions.

“This is the first time that I’ve ever been called a liar and a bigot and an anti-Semite and a coward and a plagiarist,” Mr. Carter told the crowd of about 1,700 at Brandeis, a nonsectarian university founded by American Jews, where about half the students are Jewish. “This is hurting me.”

He added, “The fact that they deteriorate into ad hominem attacks on my character has probably been a greater barrier to progress than the fact that I chose a particular word in the title.” the fact that they deteriorate to ad hominem attacks on your character Mr. Carter, is because they have no other way to refute what you have said. Thats what happens when you try to force people to see the injustices that are committed in their names or that they are brainwashed.

Mr. Carter said he realized his use of the word “apartheid” “has caused great concern in the Jewish community.” He said he had used it “knowing that it would be provocative.” He said he had intended to describe conditions not in Israel but in the occupied Palestinian territories, and had not meant to “equate Zionism with racism,” but to point out “that this cruel oppression is contrary to the tenets of the Jewish religious faith and contrary to the basic principles of the state of Israel.” A-freakin'-men

But he said a sentence in which he seemed to suggest that Palestinians would not have to end their suicide bombings and acts of terrorism until Israel withdraws from the territories “was worded in a completely improper and stupid way,” adding: “I have written my publisher to change that sentence immediately. I apologize to you personally, to everyone here.” except that according to international law, that is a very correct assertion. The Palestinians have the right to resist an occupying power, and to counter it with force. I do not support that as an effective action simply because historical precedent in this situation alone has shown us that these actions only contribute to an escalating cycle of violence, but i am not going to deny that their actions are, according to international law, justified.

While many students and professors said they disagreed with elements of the book, they said they welcomed the opportunity to hear Mr. Carter.

“I’m happy to have a contrary viewpoint, I’m happy to have a former president, I’m happy to have controversy,” said Daniele Kohn, 21, a fine arts major, who asked Mr. Carter why, in a television interview, he had seemed to suggest that the Palestinian condition was worse than the Rwandan genocide. (Mr. Carter responded that he had not meant to suggest that.) “I think this school hasn’t gotten publicly upset in far too long.”

Mr. Carter’s book has prompted criticism from many American Jews and some Middle East experts, who say it contains factual errors and misrepresents the role of both the Israelis and the Palestinians.proof? In addition to the word apartheid, with its implication that Israel’s actions resemble the racist policies of South Africa, these critics object to Mr. Carter’s assertion that Israel has committed human rights abuses against the Palestinians, that pro-Israel lobbyists have stifled debate in the United States and that American newspaper editorials are overwhelmingly pro-Israel. EXCEPT THAT THEY ARE! theres plenty of proof and a good portion of it comes from ISRAELI reporters!

The book prompted the resignations of 14 of Atlanta’s business and civic leaders from the Carter Center’s advisory board. Kenneth W. Stein, a professor at Emory University who was the first executive director at the Carter Center, resigned his position as a fellow there in December. And Dennis Ross, a former envoy to the Middle East who is now a news analyst, has accused Mr. Carter of using maps that Mr. Ross created without his permission, and mislabeling them in the book, accusations Mr. Carter has denied.

Mr. Carter initially rejected an invitation to speak at Brandeis because it suggested that he debate Alan M. Dershowitz, a Harvard law professor who has sharply criticized the book. Wanting the university to welcome contrary views, more than 100 students and faculty members signed a petition contending that Mr. Carter should be invited without conditions. Questions were preselected by the committee that invited Mr. Carter, and the questioners included an Israeli student and a Palestinian student.

After Mr. Carter left, Mr. Dershowitz spoke in the same gymnasium, saying that the former president oversimplified the situation and that his conciliatory and sensible-sounding speech at Brandeis belied his words in some other interviews.

“There are two different Jimmy Carters,” Mr. Dershowitz said. “You heard the Brandeis Jimmy Carter today, and he was terrific. I support almost everything he said. But if you listen to the Al Jazeera Jimmy Carter, you’ll hear a very different perspective.” duh dipshit. thats how politics works. just because he presents things differently to different people does not mean he is changing his facts or lying. the facts that are presented are still the same. lets put this in perspective, shall we? would you talk to your grandmother the same way you would talk to your best friend? probably not, but you can tell them both the same information without changing the facts

Mr. Carter started his Brandeis speech by calling it “the most exciting invitation” he had received since his inaugural address 30 years ago, and enumerating his years of pro-Israel stances and involvement in the Middle East peace process.

Responding to one of the criticisms of him, he said: “I have never claimed or believed that American Jews control the news media. That is ridiculous to claim.” He said “a lot of support for Israel comes from Christians like me who have been taught since they were 3 years old to honor and protect God’s chosen people from whom came people like our Christian Savior, Jesus Christ.”

But he said he believed there was too little willingness in Congress and elsewhere to debate or accept his premise that “Israel will never find peace until it is willing to withdraw from its neighbors’ land and permit the Palestinians to exercise their basic human and political rights.”

Despite the warm and dignified welcome, several students said they were disturbed by the book and Mr. Carter’s conclusions.

“He did some great work in the past,” said David Kuperstein, a junior, but “it has made me a little bit angry, the unfounded skew and bias that he specifically shows in his book toward Israel.” hardly unfounded, in fact it is quite supported by, oh i don't know, the international community via the UN? Or maybe the Peace movement against the occupation in Israel? or maybe just with some common fucking sense and an objective view of historical fact? Why is it that every time someone tries to say that Israel has or is doing something wrong, people pull out the "thats biased against Jews!" argument? The state of Israel and the Zionist agenda are not indicative of an entire group of people based on genetics or religion. In fact the basis for Zionism was atheist and socialist! HEADS OUT OF ASSES PEOPLE! MOUTHS CLOSED, EARS TO BE OPEN! Just because Israel was founded on the concept of a home for people who were being rejected by almost the rest of the world does not make it infallible or any less capable of corruption.

Two in one day! Is that Hitler with ice skates?

Words that are from Arabic that can be found in English

Admiral
Alcohol
Alcove
Algebra
Almanac
Arsenal
Azure
Candy
Coffee
Cotton
Elixir
Gazelle
Hazard
Magazine
Mattress
Ream
Saffron
Sahara
Satin
Sherbet
Sofa
Sugar
Zero

(tequila is also originally an Arabic word)

yup, interesting huh?

Culture Mirror

People in America tend to make assumptions. Television and other forms of media easily sway them. Therefore, it is not surprising that the vast majority of people seem to think that Islam is synonymous with violence. They are astonished at the concept of a religion that advocates hatred and senseless violence. They elect politicians who bandy about words like “Islamo-fascist,” who claim to want to preserve the security of their constituents from aforementioned “Islamo-fascists” by starting wars with their leaders, yet who do not even know the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite Muslim.
These opinions and actions rest on several misconceptions. The first being that Islam directly advocates violence towards non-Muslims or towards western governments. The second is categorizing violence that is perpetrated by Muslims who use their religion as justification for senseless violence. Senseless violence is defined by the people who make these uninformed clams as violence that is not political in nature, but theological (Mamdani 2004). With this paper, I intend to prove that Islam does not sanction violence perpetuated by Muslims, who may or may not use Islam as justification. I also intend to prove that Islamic violence is not theological in nature but social and political, with a historical framework to support it.
It is popular opinion in America that Islam is inherently a violent religion. The concept of jihad is used to support this, as is the high incidents of human rights abuses that can be attributed to predominately Muslim countries. Examples include the withholding of rights from women and public beheadings in places like Saudi Arabia; the morality squads in Iran, who enforced the theocracy-dictated codes of appropriate behavior in the decades after the 1973 revolution; or the tribes in Africa who continue to practice female circumcision and use Islam as justification. The most common reasoning is nothing more than stereotyping. It is assumed that because there is an established concept of holy war then the religion itself must be based on violence. This religious stereotyping is not surprising given the emphasis on a secular state in the West. Because we are surrounded by a culture that insists on separation of religion from everyday life, it is impossible for us to understand the concept of a culture that is so ingrained with a religion that even the members of the society who do not practice the religion use many of the sayings and phrases.
I would like to start with the concept of the jihad. The misconception is that Muslims are required to kill "infidels" wherever they may be found. This is untrue. There are five pillars of Islam. In summary, the practices are (In order of priority):
· The Testimony of Faith (Shahadah) - the declaration that there is none worthy of worship except Allah (Arabic: God) and that Muhammad is His last messenger.
· Ritual Prayer (Salat) - establishing of the five daily Prayers.
· Obligatory (religious) almsgiving (Zakat) - which is generally 2.5% of the total savings for a rich man working in trade or industry, and 10% or 20% of the annual produce for agriculturists. This money or produce is distributed among the poor.
· Siyam, Fasting
· The Pilgrimage to Mecca (Hajj) - this is done during the month of Zul Hijjah, and is compulsory once in a lifetime for one who has the ability to do it. If the Muslim is in ill health or in debt, he or she is not required to perform Hajj. (Wikipedia 2006)
These are the only things required of a Muslim, and in fact, the only one that is absolutely obligatory is the Zakat. Nowhere in the structure of Islam is there a requirement for holy war. That misconception is born from the ideals of radical Muslim groups who have insisted upon taking one passage from the Qur’an, which calls for resistance to a tyrant, as a message to struggle against the Western superpowers. That requirement for holy war is an earmark of the Salafiyya movement which seeks to combine Western technological advancement with Islamic religious teachings. This combination should be remembered by anyone who advocates a “modernization” of Islam.
There are two different forms of the jihad. The first is the internal jihad, the struggle of every Muslim to lead a life that is truly Islamic in mature, trying to reconcile personal obstacles to completing the five pillars. This can be expressed vocally or through art and writing. The second is the external jihad, which may or may not require armed conflict and is only acceptable in the case of unseating an oppressive tyrant (Asani 2002). Suicide bombing, despite popular western belief, is not sanctioned within the precepts of the external jihad. Murder and suicide are both sins in Islam. Nowhere does it state that intentionally killing yourself will send you to heaven. It is stated that death in the line of fighting for Islam will earn you great esteem and glory in the afterlife. Actions such as suicide bombing are actually earmarks of a population that is at the last desperate stage of being trampled. When you have no weapons but your bodies, then what else are you supposed to do? Actions such as suicide bombings are predictable end results of an oppressed society, not the by product of an inherently violent ideology.
There is an explanation for why the ideology of the jihad is so attractive to Muslims in countries with strong Anti-American standpoints and elsewhere. Most Muslim countries were once occupied territories. Many of them were colonized by European countries from the mid 18th century until the end of the First World War. Even after the end of colonialization, the Western powers had started to industrialize and began to export their culture of consumption. The tyrant that these groups oppose is the tyrant of a rampant consumer culture that removes people from relationships with each other or their faith and attempts to replace it with relationships to objects, products, brand names and companies. (Kilbourne2000) They are fighting to prevent the homogenization of their culture into a larger global culture.
Westerners see the level and techniques of violence perpetrated by Muslims as needlessly high and, dare I say, savage. Thus misconception is spawned from two different conditions of the western lifestyle and educations systems. The first is that most majority populations in the west have not been so oppressed as to understand the feeling of having no recourse but horrendous violence. The other failing is in the educational system of the west. In the west, there is a tendency to categorize violence that is committed by those who are enemies as theological, having no historical or political motive. I believe it is an attempt to ethnocentrically paint the west as the only true good way to be. A good example would be the Nazi movement. The Nazis are automatically portrayed as evil, their actions being driven by some shapeless concept that is antithetical to all that is good. It is ignored that the ground in Germany was fertile for the fascism of the Nazi movement because of the economic condition of the country, which was a direct result pf the exclusion of Germany from the League of Nations, which led to the imposition of reparations on the already stretched thin economy of Germany post-World War One.
In the same way that the Nazis are painted as being evil for evils sake, Muslims are painted as being overly violent and reactionary. Because of the lack of historical perspective and frame work, it is ignored that the Muslim religion has been under attack since its inception. First there is the original attack against Muslims by the Meccans, then the schism between the Sunnis and the Shiites, the oppression of the Arab Muslim world by the Ottoman Turks and then the colonies imposed by Europe, and once the European colonies were gone, there were the proxy wars of the Cold War, and now that there is no obligatory enemy for the West to compare itself to in order to prove its superiority, Islam has become the new enemy.(Halliday110) The war if capitalism against communism has been won, so now it’s the war of secularism versus religiosity.
The relationship of Islam to violent action is the same as most other major religions. Christianity also has a history of violence that was rationalized using the Scripture. It must be remembered that while Christianity was and still is used as justification for violence, it was never the source of Violence. This is true of Islam as well. To Westerners, it is unfamiliar ground, a non-secular world, so it is ignored that the violent actions that occur in the Middle East are reactions to current and past social and political situations. If that was admitted, it would have to come to light that maybe, just maybe, our own political system, which we espouse as the greatest in the world, may not be as wonderful as we claim. We may have to look and truly see the effects of attempting to create a homogenized, global economy that tramples local cultures. We would need to engage in self reflection, and the mirror is a very scary place.