Saturday, February 28, 2009
Friday, February 27, 2009
A young woman (of color, from what I can tell), is shown to a cell, kicks a shoe out the cell door as it is being closed and then an officer rushes in, slams her against a wall, throws her to the ground by her hair, punches her twice, and then after she is hand cuffed pulls her up by her hair and carries her out of the cell.
"The girl was arrested after she was caught in her parents' car, which had been reported stolen from her parents' Tukwila home. Deputy Travis Brunner spotted the car driving without headlights about 3:45 a.m. on 32nd Avenue South in SeaTac and pulled it over.
She and another 15-yearold girl were arrested and taken to SeaTac City Hall to be fingerprinted before being transported to the youth detention center."
2. I fucking love cupcakes.
"is Hirsch being a good [sic]humanitarium and helping this woman or is he a sleazeball who is out to make money off of someone's unfortunate circumstances?"
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Monday, February 23, 2009
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Everyone, for some reason, has to have an enemy. Even on Myspace surveys, "do you hate anyone?" "Who's your enemy?" (Although, to be fair, Myspace surveys are more likely to as "wh00z ur enemy".) My problem here is that having enemies, hating people, making something like a patriarchal structure with a history of favoring (white) men to the detriment of women (and people of color) into something that can be personified defeats the purpose of things such as feminism. The other problem with this divisive approach is that you end up alienating people who could otherwise be allies.
Not all feminists and feminist theory does this, and that's wonderful. But some feminists promulgate some forms of feminist theory that actually ends up doing more harm to women than good. Feminist theory that embraces this idea that all sex workers are unwilling, and if sex work were just illegal it would end and no wimminz would be subjugated by teh patriarchyz. Feminist theory that embraces the idea that if women would just refuse to give in to the "arbitrary beauty standards of the patriarchy" (like shaving, wearing make up, wearing skirts/dresses/high heels/other uncomfortable shoes) and be natural, the subjugation of women would end (or something). Feminist theory that embraces the idea that men are the enemy because by their very existence they prop up the patriarchy.
These theories alienate sex workers, women who like make up/skirts/dresses/uncomfortable-yet-super-hot shoes, men, and pretty much anyone who doesn't agree with these standards of what I like to call "exclusionary feminism" -- in other words, if you're not part of our club, you're not a real feminist. Well, thanks exclusionary feminists, but I'm pretty sure that I am a feminist. I'm not only a feminist, but I'm a good, well-educated, not-naive, not-secretly-subjugated-by-my-patriarchal-overlords, and I think that any woman who has the courage to stand up and call herself a feminist (or act as a feminist if she's not comfortable with the title -- or any title), or even any man who stands up for the rights of women -- they can be feminists too. That basically your feminism is whatever you want it to be.
You see, the thing is, an "Us" versus "Them" mentality is a patriarchal structure in and of itself. My friend WitchUponAStar once left this quote from a Women's Studies text book in an online forum:
"...Only in a patriarchal society would the inclusion of women be interpreted as a potential threat or loss of men's power. It is a reflection of the fact that we live in a competitive patriarchal society that it is assumed that the feminist agenda is one that seeks to have power over men. And only in an androcentric society where men and their reality is center stage would it be assumed that an inclusion of one group must mean the exclusion of another. In other words, male domination encourages the idea that affirming women means hating men and interprets women's request for power sharing as a form of taking over. This projection of patriarchal mentality equates someone's gain with another's loss. ..."
In other words, by attempting to prop up adversarial philosophical models like criticizing a woman's feminism because she likes sex, or lipgloss, or eats red meat, or any other arbitrary things that have absolutely nothing to do with whether she stands up for herself or other women in asserting their rights to the same rights that people of privilege have; by doing this, radical feminists in fact perpetuate that of which they claim to seek the destruction. And that is simply something up with the likes of which I shall not put!
Using the George W. Bush model of "if you're not with us, yer agin' us" is not only foolish, but it props up the same old idea that there has to be someone on top. And, last time I checked, feminism wasn't about one person being on top (even if that person is a woman), but rather leveling the ground so that everyone has a chance to lie in the sun and get a nice privileged tan.
So, seriously, stop criticizing other women. Stop asking straight women why they sleep with men. Stop telling young girls that pretty and empowered are mutually exclusive. Stop telling sex workers that their voices only matter if they've been forced into it or abused in some manner. Stop telling submissive women that their consent is totally fake. In fact, keep your hyper-privileged-lesbian feminist-bitch-on-a-patriarch-power-trip nose out of my goddamn vagina.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Since I've recently become self-employed, I have been picking up on the chores around the house, cooking, cleaning, and making lunch for the Schmoogie when he's working from home.
We looked at our respective situations Sunday night and cracked up. Two feminist women giving in to patriarchal structures where the man does the earning and the woman does the cleaning. We laughed. I'm still laughing, (on the inside), because it's actually kind of ironic.
Except it's not. On the one hand, Jesse does aspire to be a wife and mother (after she gets her master's degree). On the other hand, I aspire to one day make more than the Schmoogie and let him be a househusband if he is so inclined (otherwise, we'll just hire people to do all that stuff for us). And yet, I wouldn't say that I am more of a feminist than she is. And I certainly wouldn't say that, based on our goals, one of us is going to be more fulfilled in reaching them. We have different goals (and, despite our shared birthday, and the fact that we are so remarkably similiar), and will be made happy by different things. Go figure. By pursuing our own dreams (which are separate from the dreams impressed upon us by patriarchal structures that lots of people like to blame for the desires of women), we will find fulfillment. Go figure.
Now, you read this article from Pursuit of Harpyness while I go make some baked goods.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Monday, February 2, 2009
"The Obama administration is telling the Pentagon and gay-rights advocates that it will have to study the implications for national security and enlist more support in Congress before trying to overturn the so-called "don't ask, don't tell" law and allow gays to serve openly in the military, according to people involved in the discussions.While it is interesting that President Obama would call for such a study, it is not definitively or even partially indicative that he's planning on going back on his promise to overturn Don't Ask Don't Tell. I have to say that if I was President right now, I might do the same thing and here's why: conducting a study prior to overturning a stupid rule proves that the rule is stupid.
They said Obama, who pledged during the campaign to overturn the law, does not want to ask lawmakers to do so until the military has completed a comprehensive assessment of the impact that such a move would have on military discipline. Then, the president hopes to be able to make a case to members of both parties that overturning the 1993 law would be in the best interest of national security."
One of two things will happen when the study is concluded: either the Pentagon will say "you know, what, no one in the military really cares if other members are gay, and the sexual orientation of soldiers doesn't have an impact on national security", which means that the President will be completely justified in overturning Don't Ask Don't Tell and conservatives won't be able to point to pentagonal studies (see what I did there?) that say the homos are destroying our military.
The other possible outcome will be the revelation (omg!) that there is prejudice toward gay people in the military and at the Pentagon. What a motherfuckin surprise. In which case, President Obama will say "this prejudice can't stand, we need to make sure that gay people are allowed to serve in the military and not face discrimination for it", and not only will he overturn DADT, but will put in place protective measures for gays (and women) to prevent and deal with harassment (and that pesky thing called rape) in the military. And, officers who have prejudices toward gays and women will not have their commissions continued because, well, they're douchebags and the President isn't going to put up with that shit.
There is no possible way that the Pentagon can conclude that openly gay service-members are a threat to national security: because they aren't!!! Despite the ravings of the Westboro Baptists, homosex is not a threat to national security. It's not possible for a consensual sex act to have any impact on national security (despite what Republicans thought during Bill Clinton's presidency), and a person's inclination to have sex with persons of their same gender has no impact on their ability to do their jobs. Period. President Obama knows this, and wants to make sure that the rest of the country knows it too.
I don't think that President Obama will reneg on his promise to overturn DADT. I believe that he believes in civil rights, and while he may be opportunistically against gay marriage (for the moment -- it's up to us to change his mind, you know), there's no reason why he would change his mind on DADT now.
I have to admit I wasn't always a lover of dogs. When I was younger, my father had a little dog named Shadow who was treated really poorly, smelled extra-bad (even for a dog), and had mange. It was sad, and for some reason being around that dog made me think that all dogs were like that, (and truth be told, that side of the family never treated animals well, and I now know that it was not the fault of the animals that they were unkempt and smelly). But as I grew up, I remember being around other dogs who had nicer coats and were much nicer to be around because they weren't abused. Still, I didn't really ever connect with one until Stewie.
Stewie is my Schmoogie's dog. The first night I stayed up at Schmoogie's house, he told me "by the way, I have a dog -- and just so you know he sleeps on the bed." I asked what kind. "A pug." And I was relieved that it wasn't a big dog. When we got to Schmoogie's we were greeted by a very happy little puppy. He jumped around, yelping with glee, and before long I was completely in love with this pug. I was in love with Stewie before I even fell in love with Schmoogie. I wanted my own pug, I even printed out an adoption form for the Seattle Pug Rescue, with the plans of sending it in when I was working full time.
Circumstances changed, Schmoogie and I broke up, got back together, and I eventually moved in, and his dog became our dog (actually he became our dog long before that because I started buying him toys and cookies, and taking him to work when Schmoogie was out of town). I haven't been able to adopt a pug from the Seattle Pug Rescue because of my finances, but I do always look forward to my dog jumping and yelping with glee when I get home each day.
Stewie makes life better. Dogs make life better.
(And I have to give a shout out to Lucy and Ricky, the pugs of the gal who works downstairs. They are adorable!)
Sunday, February 1, 2009
"PMDD occurs regularly before a woman's menstrual cycle."