« April 2006 | Main | June 2006 »

May 31, 2006

Call me a humorless feminist.

Gene Weingarten, for the uninitiated, is a humor writer for the Washington Post. All the cool people in Washington, DC read his online chat at washingtonpost.com. One of the many things I've always liked about Gene is that he's always been respectful of women - no, respectful isn't the word, because he's not terribly respectful generally speaking. But he doesn't respect women less than men: there's equal opportunity irreverence in his work, and it's really quite delightful.

Which makes it all the more disappointing that, in yesterday's chat, he reveals a belief that abominable beer commercial about the "Man Law" of "You poke it, you own it" is funny.

The idea of men owning women, either because they stuck their penises into them or for any other reason, just isn't funny. And not even Gene Weingarten can make it funny.

May 25, 2006

One of these things is not like the others

Via Pandagon, Pam brings to our attention that during Pope Benedict's upcoming visit to Poland, state TV will not be allowed to show advertisements for lingerie, tampons, or beer.

This is really just bizarre. Although I suppose it shouldn't be surprising. It comes from the same mindset that my brother and my father had: if my mother's underwear (or mine) was in the laundry when it was my brother's turn to fold, he used to pick it up by his thumb and forefinger, as though it would contaminate him. And my father did buy tampons for us if we needed them when it was his turn to go to the store - but he complained mightily, as though the clerk might think he secretly had a vagina.

I'm surprised they don't just ban all hints that women exist from television altogether. That would solve that problem.

May 24, 2006

Barbaro Owner: Oh, my poor... pocketbook!

So everyone's talking about the horse. He's a beautiful horse. I feel bad for him. The vet who operated on him swears up and down that it's not about the money, for Barbaro's owners; if he were a gelding, they'd still be doing everything possible to save his life, because they love their horse.

Right.

All I have to say abou that is to point you to owner Gretchen Jackson's own quotes:

"I know I've cried my eyes out," Jackson said yesterday from her 190-acre Lael Farm in West Grove, Pa., less than 10 miles from the George D. Widener Hospital for Large Animals at the University of Pennsylvania's New Bolton Center, where Barbaro had a daring four-hour surgery Sunday in an attempt to save his life. "It's not as exhausting as it is depressing. It's really sad. It's so hard to get a horse that talented. It's amazing, and then he goes and does what other horses do -- they do themselves in."

(link)

Damn that horse, going and breaking his leg and ruining her chance at having a Triple Crown winner to breed for millions of dollars love and cherish!

"When one becomes a racehorse owner, one of the things is to not fall in love with the animal because it is so painful when something like this happens," Gretchen Jackson said.

(link)

But, yeah. They loooooooovvvve the horse.

May 12, 2006

It's the intimidation, stupid

Remember how, immediately after September 11th, 2001, airline security was suddenly a lot tighter, and everyone was glad? "I'm just happy they're there to protect us," we'd say sanctimoniously, to justify to ourselves that we had failed to protest the indignity of having our underwear spilled out of our luggage for all to see. But after a while it got old, and instead of relaxing, the restrictions got, well, more and more restrictive. And those of us who'd travelled overseas, to countries that had dealt with terrorism on a recurring basis since long before 9/11/2001, remembered that we didn't have to sacrifice our personal dignity to clear security, there.

When I was travelling to visit my family over the winter break last year, I flew for the first time in perhaps two or three years. I've always liked flying. And I was happy to be doing it again. I arrived plenty early at the airport, got my e-ticket, and joined the security line. People were shuffling through the line, pulling their laptops out of zippered bags and placing them in the plastic tubs, taking their shoes off, putting those in the plastic tubs, and shuffling on through the metal detectors in their sockfeet. I took one look at the spectacle of hundreds of adults in their socks, and when I heard the recorded looped message that said taking your shoes off was optional, I decided I wasn't going to do it.

Then as I approached the X-ray machine with my stuff, a suited man eyed me, and told me drily that he suggested I take my shoes off. The implication of the look on his face was that there might well be something much more unpleasant in it for me if I refused. I gave him the evil eye right back... and took my shoes off. I didn't want to miss my plane, after all.

But I didn't have any illusions what that confrontation was about, not then, and not now. It was to prove to me that They - the faceless suits of government authority - can make me do what they want me to do, even if, strictly speaking, it's optional.

It's about intimidation. That much is clear if you only look at a crowd of grown men and women shuffling through an airport with no shoes. But to strengthen our case, let's consider this:

Many more airplanes have been brought down by bombs in luggage than by bombs in shoes. (The number for the latter statistic by the way is zero.) Yet 100% bag match - where each bag in the cargo hold of an airplane is registered to a passenger who actually boarded the plane, or the plane does not take off - was a surprisingly low priority for those in charge of airline security in the months and years after September 11th. Then one day, some crazy guy tried - and failed - to blow up a plane by burning his shoe, and suddenly we all have to take our shoes off before getting on a plane.

It's perfect, really. Because having your bag X-rayed isn't really embarrassing. Having your luggage hand-searched in front of you isn't even that bad, unless the screener pulls out your dildoes and waves them around, as happened to a friend of mine. But taking your shoes off? That makes you vulnerable: you can run, but you won't get very far in all likelihood without shoes. It can embarrass you: are your socks holey? do your feet smell? And it certainly sets you off balance, takes you outside your comfort zone, to shuffle through an airport with no shoes.

The shoe thing is not about keeping you safe. It is an exercise in power, in intimidation. And there are similar actions taking place all around us.

For example, a woman from Florida reports that Bush's motorcade pointed an assault rifle at protestors during a recent visit to Florida.

We all know that the President (any president, not just Shrub) as a matter of course has security around when making a public appearance - much of it invisible. Snipers aren't any use if they telegraph exactly where they are. No. This sort of visible security has but one purpose: to scare people. It's certainly no mistake that this rifle was pointed at protesters.

The recent news that the government is tracking ALL our phone calls reveals nothing that many of us did not already know or suspect. And how many times in the last two or three years have you NOT said what you were going to say, or written what you were going to write, when it occurred to you who else might be listening or reading?

This president wants us to be afraid - all of us. He wants us to think we're afraid of terrorists, but he wants us to BE afraid of our own government. So that we don't ever dare dissent. That's what he wants.

May 5, 2006

God no! Let's not be unfair to abusers!

From advice columnist Carolyn Hax's online chat at washingtonpost.com:

Re: Arlington, Va.: Whoa, you make it sound like an abuser is making a conscious decision to mislead with flowers, etc. Couldn't it just be that they didn't have good role models, are dealing with internal issues that creep to the surface, are tired of the way they are treated, etc,etc?

Carolyn Hax: Could be. But if the answer when called on it is some version of, "I'm not the problem, you are," then conscious or un-, this is a "pattern" that isn't healthy and isn't changing and its origin is beside the point.

Because abusers don't beat women up on purpose! They just had lousy childhoods! And they have anger management issues! And she drove them to it, anyway!

Ginmar has a much more thorough and bitingly clever debunking of this same bullshit. The money quote is here:

The abusive man will show you the face of the section of his character that he needs you to see. He assesses people, especially women, according to what he needs from them, and so there are always women he treats very well. He does not abuse his boss, his friends, or his coworkers. He is very skilled. His wife is the only one who sees his fist, and because people see the pleasant face he shows the outside world, they find it impossible to believe such a change can occur.

Ginmar, and her commenters who reiterate this point, are absolutely correct. Men who beat up women somehow manage to keep their tempers in check when they're dealing with a boss, a neighbor, a friend. It's not "anger management" issues and it's not an accident that these men choose the person in their world who is most vulnerable and least likely to be able to fight back against him, and beat her up with impunity.

May 4, 2006

May 4, 1970

Jeffrey Miller lying dead on the ground after the Kent State shootings

Tin soldiers and Nixon's coming
We're finally on our own
This summer I hear the drumming
Four dead in Ohio

Gotta get down to it
Soldiers are gunning us down
Should have been done long ago
What if you knew her and
Found her dead on the ground
How can you run when you know

User kainah at Boomantribune has a diary up about the Kent State shootings - part of a series. What really leaped out at me was the discussion in the comments about how the relatives of people who struggle for justice so often despise us for working against the social order.

Kainah said:

[My mother] told me that afternoon that "they must have deserved it." Since I'd been organizing demonstrations on my campus for months, I figured that meant she'd be OK if they killed me. To say the least, it took a long, long time for us to get over this. And, obviously, I've never forgotten it.

Damnit Janet said:

My grandmother after hearing that my brother and I marched in DC 9/24 told me that she believes Bush has the right to have protesters shot in the head, in public.

She even said that I added to the misery of the people in the Gulf States because instead of using the money to help them, I wasted it on getting to DC. She said people like me were sick because we can't see how great Bush is. That we blame him for everything, even the weather.

She prays every day that Bush will destroy all of G-d's enemies.

Even though I know and understand all the reasons why, it's hard. It's hard knowing that if it was the government against me, my family wouldn't, couldn't side with me. No one has enough faith in their family members to stand against the all-knowing and all-powerful American Government. And if they do, well then, they're considered to bit just a bit off their rocker, aren't they?

Should've been done long ago

That's what our families think of us, how much they value us. A bitter pill.

More later, perhaps...