Viewpoint

Newsflash: Victim-blaming is alive and well

wednesdayview — Thu, 13 Apr 2017 17:15:40 GMT

First, read this article:
Woman says man groped her on United flight, and attendants kept bringing him whiskeys.

Here's some highlights:

Over the course of the next hour, Rafieyan says the 64-year-old repeatedly groped her and sexually harassed her.

Rafieyan, a married mother of three from Warren, New Jersey, said she was too “meek” to confront the man.

“...I felt trapped. I couldn’t leave the seat because I didn’t trust him near my daughter.”

Eventually, when her daughter asked to use the bathroom, Rafieyan says she was able to get up and report the groping to one of the flight attendants, who didn’t seem surprised. “She said, ‘I’m so sorry. We felt really bad putting him next to you, but there was nothing we could do. He was doing the same kind of stuff to the other flight attendant.’”

Rafieyan claims that even after she complained, the attendant served the already intoxicated man three more whiskey drinks and a small wine bottle. He became belligerent, accused several people of stealing his passport, and then refused to sit down again until the flight attendant threatened to divert the plane and land early because of his behavior. (Emphasis mine.)

So, it would seem pretty clear to any sensible person reading this that, at the *absolute* minimum, the belligerent, drunk groper should have been moved to another seat. But he really should never have been allowed on the plane in the first place, since, it's, y'know, against the law.

What's interesting to me is that, if you read this article on nj.com, you only have to read a few comments before someone calls this woman "Another whiny soccer Mom" and another person remarks, "Everybody wants a payday, nobody wants to work anymore."

And then you have gems like this one:

"If someone intentionally touched me once, it wouldn't happen multiple times again after the first contact. Is she hoping something comes from this, like more vouchers or 15 minutes? The timing is pretty obvious. If someone touches you, you get up and refuse to sit next to the guy. Then call the authorities if the crew doesn't handle it appropriately."

*THIS* is victim-blaming. It seems very obvious to me, and probably to everyone reading this, that comments like this one blame the victim, ignore the circumstances of the assault, and reinforce the tragically sexist and inaccurate attitude that sexual assault victims are *inherently suspicious* if they choose to report the incident. And EVERY article about sexual assault is FULL of them.

These are just the first examples I happened to find. I'm sure if I had the stomach to keep looking at other articles and other sites, I would find much more egregious comments and even more disgusting examples of rape culture. However, I don't want to cry at work today. I just want to say, to anyone who doesn't see the need to protest rape culture and victim-blaming: I have my reasons. This is just one of many.

Side note: Does it not occur to this commenter that it's unlikely the woman chose when to be sexually assaulted? Does he really think she said, "United is in the news, I should cash in"?!?! She reported the incident on March 29, well before United made the news for forcefully removing a paying customer from an overbooked flight. Obviously, the incident is getting more attention than it ordinarily would because of the police brutality and "dress code" sexism, but that doesn't mean there aren't a hundred other incidents that may have failed to get national attention because of "timing".

What is more likely: that no woman got assaulted on an airplane until after a doctor was dragged from a flight? Or, lots of women have been assaulted on airplanes, so many that it's not considered news-worthy until the same airline commits another, separate, more well-reported abuse of human rights?

I'll give you one fucking guess.

The Consequences of Elections and the Price of Cynicism

wednesdayview — Wed, 01 Mar 2017 16:51:07 GMT

In the wake of Voldemort's election, there's been plenty of blame-storming.

Some people want to blame Hillary Clinton, and anyone who supported her in the Democratic primary, because they're convinced that if Bernie Sanders had been the Democratic candidate, he could have beaten Voldemort. And maybe he would have, we'll never know.

Some people are blaming President Obama, and saying that if he had been "more moderate", people wouldn't have been chomping at the bit to "over-correct" and vote Republican.

Some people are blaming Jill Stein and other third party candidates, and the people who voted for them.

Some people are blaming Republican legislation designed to prevent minorities and the poor from voting (and I don't disagree with them). Some people are blaming the media (and I completely agree with them). A lot of people are blaming Russia, and they have the evidence to prove it. Some people are blaming Julian Assange.

But I have my own theory: Student government is to blame. Student government helped get us into this mess.

Student government is meant to teach students about government and civic responsibility. This is what student government actually teaches kids:
- Government doesn't matter, and nothing they do is important.
- Anyone who runs for office is a brown-nosing resume-packer.
- The most popular candidate always wins.
- Being unqualified doesn't matter.
- If you elect the class clown, the only consequence is that assemblies become more fun.
- The teachers will step in if the president does a terrible job.
- The principal, school district, and parents won't let the school shut down or descend into chaos.

These lessons, consciously or unconsciously, form the basis of our political beliefs for the rest of our lives. And, they benefit the 1%, who don't want you to pay attention to politics or show up at the polls. The rich have a vested interest in convincing you that politics are hopelessly corrupt, and the laws they make are irrelevant. Your apathy is their best defense.

Some people don't vote because they don't live in swing states, and they are certain their vote won't make a difference.

Some people don't vote because of a lack of access - they can't get the time off from work, they can't get someone to watch their kids while they wait in line for hours at the polls, they don't have a state-issued ID card, etc.

Some people don't vote because they hate both candidates equally, and they are unable to separate the candidate from their platform. (I could write a whole other column about this problem, but I don't want to digress.)

And some people believe that no matter who represents them, it will make no difference in their day-to-day lives.

I was talking to my father recently about that very topic. He has a friend who hated President Obama* and was thrilled about Voldemort getting elected. He asked his friend, "How did Obama's presidency impact you negatively?" His friend had lots of responses, but ultimately had to admit that the President hadn't actually impacted his daily life.

I pointed out that if Obama had not managed to pass the Affordable Care Act, I wouldn't have health insurance. Being able to afford to treat my various pre-existing conditions has had a tremendously positive impact on my life. My father pointed out that what is known as "Obamacare" very closely resembles legislation that Republicans had put forth independently, and legislation that Mitt Romney successfully implemented in his own state. He also pointed out that the ACA was not made law in order to help people like me. The ACA became law because lobbyists for corporate health providers wanted it. "If anything the President - or any politician - did happened to benefit you, it was by accident."

My father is not alone in his cynicism.

I've thought about it a lot, and despite how furious I was during the Bush years, it's hard for me to come up with any ways that his actions affected me directly on a personal level. I was outraged over the Iraq war, but I didn't actually know anyone who was sent to Iraq. I didn't lose a family member or friend to the unjust war. I was enraged over what was happening to reproductive rights in South Dakota and other red states, but I lived in a blue state. My heart bled for those affected by anti-choice rhetoric, but I was never in danger of not being able to afford my birth control pills. I was vocal about the drug war, private prisons, racial profiling, and a million other issues that never affected me directly because I was a white woman living in blue states. I was never in any danger of being stopped and frisked. Bush bungled Katrina, and I cried for everyone affected - but I wasn't one of them. Sexism affects me on a personal level, but sexism exists worldwide no matter who's President. President Bush filled me with rage, President Obama inspired me, but the most you could say is that my taxes supported things I opposed.

Maybe part of the reason no one thinks it matters who the SCROTUS is, is that it takes so long for the consequences of politician's actions to become apparent. Four years, or eight years, is not always enough time for the country to reap what a political administration sows. We intererfered in the Middle East for half a century before those chickens came home to roost. We've been warned for decades about global warming, but Republicans continue to claim it's a hoax, even as the evidence mounts and the effects are felt in catastrophic natural disasters. When Congress de-funds public education today, it takes years for those under-educated children to become tomorrow's criminals. When Congress repeals anti-pollution laws, it takes years for affected communities to notice poisoned water, higher rates of cancer, and children with birth defects. When Congress repeals laws designed to prevent predatory lending, it takes years for another housing crisis and bank crisis to manifest. When the 1% benefits from the short-term effects, the rest of us suffer in the long-term.

It's no surprise that people think, "The President is just one person. How much can one person really accomplish?" They forget that the President appoints and hires an army of people who share his personal and/or party platform, to act on his, or the party's, behalf. Bush is responsible for the war-profiteering of Karl Rove, and everyone he hired. Voldemort is responsible for the actions of his cabinet of neo-Nazis and fascists. And, because he publicly advocated violence, racism, xenophobia, sexism, sexual assault, and mocking the disabled, he is responsible for an epidemic of bullying and a gigantic spike in hate crimes.

I will go one step further, and say that he is personally responsible for every single hate crime that has been committed in his name. He told "the second amendment people" to assassinate Hillary Clinton. He told us that Mexicans were criminals. He told us that refugees were terrorists. He told a generation of men, "Grab 'em by the pussy." And the fact that he went on to be elected President told every person watching that they could behave the same way, and get away with it.

Calls to suicide hotlines skyrocketed after the election results were announced, and it's easy to see why.

So, unlike student elections, when we'd vote for the hilarious anarchist, and somehow the candy would still be sold, the band would still get new uniforms, and someone would make sure there'd still be a class trip and a class gift and a prom, American elections actually matter. Here are some of the ways this administration could very much impact my life and destroy my standard of living:

- 45's anti-immigrant policy isn't just going to plunge the country into debt, it's going to cause major disruption in the food industry. Which means we'll soon be spending more money on lower-quality food. For people who live paycheck-to-paycheck, more money spent at the grocery store means less money spent on everything else, from rent to clothes to car maintenance.

- If the NEA is defunded, the not-for-profit I work for may have to cut staff or shut down entirely, and I could lose my job, and that would certainly affect me.

- If the ACA is repealed and I'm unable to get health insurance because of my pre-existing conditions, I will be unable to pay my medical bills, and that will affect me. It could, potentially, shorten my life considerably.

But none of this changes the fact that the actions of the government matter, even when they don't affect us personally. Even if you aren't a drug addict, you should still want drug addicts to receive treatment instead of jail time (if only because it's cheaper). Even if you don't have children, you should still want all children to have homes to live in, food to eat, and access to quality public education. Even if you are white, you should still want to end racism. Even if you're not an immigrant, you should still want a sensible immigration policy that acknowledges the contributions of immigrants. Even if you don't live in a state with voter-suppression laws, you should want every citizen to be able to exercise their right to vote - even if they might not vote the way you want them to. Even if you don't read the New York Times, you should still want them to be present in the White House press briefings. Even if you're a man, you should want women to be treated with respect. You should want them to have equal pay, you should want them to be able to defend themselves from domestic violence, and you should want them to be able to walk alone at night without fear of assault. Even if you've never been raped, you should want to see rapists prosecuted and convicted. Even if you're not Jewish, you should still be upset when white supremacists burn down a synagogue. Caring about people other than yourself and those in your immediate social circle is what makes us human. Compassion for strangers is the basis of human decency. To care only about yourself is the myopic worldview of the barbarian.

Politics is not student government. No teachers or administrators are going to step in and make sure America survives. (The closest analogous entity is the judicial branch, which the Republican administration is already seeking to undermine and eliminate.) We haven't, as the cynics among us would believe, chosen someone to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. We elected someone who will either choose the captain who steers our ship into the iceberg, or very possibly, insist on doing it himself.

And we're the only ones who can turn this ship around.

- - -

* I asked him, "Why?!?" and he said, "Why not?!?" and I thought, "Because you shouldn't be friends with racists!" But if I said that, my father would've said that a person can hate Obama without being a racist, and I would've said, "Really? I'm not sure about that..." and it would be an entirely different discussion.

What's keeping me sane right now

wednesdayview — Wed, 15 Feb 2017 22:14:31 GMT

Watching:

Full Frontal with Samantha Bee

The Daily Show with Trevor Noah

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver

Late Night with Seth Myers

The Late Show with Stephen Colbert

Keith Olbermann

Adam Ruins Everything

"The West Wing" on Netflix

Reading:

Role Reboot

Daily Kos

The Onion

Bitch

McSweeney's

The Coffee Stain

Sending Money to:

PTSD Care Packages

Planned Parenthood (in Mike Pence's name)

NARAL

ACLU

Southern Poverty Law Center

V Day

RAINN

Organizing for Action

Red My Lips

Signing Petitions by:

Change.org

CREDO Action

Moms Rising

Color of Change

Why I'm Glad I Let My Husband Keep His Name

wednesdayview — Wed, 15 Feb 2017 05:01:13 GMT

I like to think of myself as an evolved, 21^st century kind of woman. I believe in equality between women and men. Still, when my then-fiancé, Joe, told me he wanted to keep his own name when we got married, I had a cave-woman reaction: I felt like I was being rejected, and my femininity was being undermined.

We had already discussed our vows, and I had agreed (without hesitation) to forgo the traditional “obey”. Why should Joe have to promise to obey me, if I’m not asked to promise the same? That’s just silly and outdated. I hadn’t asked Joe to give up his career and become a fulltime house-husband, either, because, damn, this isn’t the 1950s!

But the name thing caught me off-guard. It had simply never occurred to me that my husband might not want to change his name. Why would he not want us to have the same last name, thereby symbolizing a unified family in the eyes of the world? Did he not want other women to know he was spoken for? Did he want people to think he didn’t respect me? Was he trying to “hedge his bets” in case the marriage didn’t work out?

I presented my concerns, he maturely and rationally explained his reasoning, and it actually brought us closer together. It helped us to clarify our pre-existing expectations about marriage, and it forced me to confront some unconscious biases.

“What’s wrong with my name?”

Why wouldn’t he jump at the chance to abandon the barely-pronounceable Slavic mess that is “Brofcak” and become a “Powell”? He pointed out that he has been Joe Brofcak for his entire life, and while there’s certainly nothing wrong with a man who chooses to abandon the label he has used to identify himself since before he could speak, he was uncomfortable with the idea.

My husband and I are both playwrights, but it had never occurred to me that he had spent years “making a name” for himself, just like I had. If he suddenly started publishing under the name, “Joe Powell”, he would, at least in one sense, be starting from scratch. The average man only has to worry about no longer being recognized by old friends on Facebook if they change their names, but the stakes for someone like Joe were much higher. Even if he published as “Joe Brofcak Powell”, people still might not know he was the same writer. I had assumed that he should care less about his career than I care about mine – even though we have the same job!

Once I realized this, it was obvious that I had, unconsciously, assumed that my husband should make a sacrifice for me that I would never be willing to make for him. And even though that sacrifice may be a tradition, that doesn’t make it any less unfair.

“Don’t you love me and want to be part of my family?”

He insisted that keeping the name he was born with didn’t mean he loved me any less – and it was ridiculous to think it did. It took some time for me to understand that he was not rejecting symbolically becoming part of my family, he was choosing not to symbolically reject his own family. He is proud of his Russian heritage, and did not want to give up that part of his identity. While there are thousands and thousands of Powells, there are very few Brofcaks, and I realized I couldn’t fault him for wanting to protect his name from dying out for as long as possible.

He rightly pointed out that just because people don’t share the same last name doesn’t mean they are not a family. A father who re-marries and take his new wife’s name doesn’t suddenly love his children from his first wife any less, even if they still have their mother’s last name.

When two women get hitched, or when two men tie the knot, neither of them is expected to change their surname, but that obviously doesn’t mean they’re not just as committed to their marriage as a straight couple. Why should I hold my husband to a different standard, just because I happen to be a woman and he happens to be a man? I realized that if I truly believe men deserve the same respect as women, I needed to respect his wishes.

“People are going to assume you’re a Powell.”

He acknowledged that yes, when I introduce him as my husband, people are most likely going to assume he was a Powell. He said that he didn’t mind being occasionally referred to as Mr. Powell, and that he would only correct the person (“Actually, it’s Mr. Brofcak; I kept my name,”) if it was an individual he was likely to speak to again in the future. But he wouldn’t go out of his way to make people uncomfortable, accuse them of being sexist, or act like a Masculininazi.

He also explained that most banks will still let a husband cash a check made out to “Ms. and Mr. Wife’s Name”, as long as he can provide a copy of the marriage license, so he would still be able to deposit the checks our families would give us at the wedding.

“People are going to think you’re the boss in our marriage.”

I’m not proud of this one, but it is something I said during the discussion. And Joe had to admit, he certainly knows women who would never consider letting their husbands keep their own names, because they would consider it defeminizing.

This is just one of those examples where feeling overrides logic, and where women’s hearts have just not caught up with our brains. If I keep my name, and he keeps his name, we’re doing the exact same thing, meaning we’re perfectly equal. But somehow, we see this as favoring men. Just as a group of five men and five women will be described as “mostly men”, and a man who speaks as often as a woman in a meeting will be accused of dominating the conversation, this is an example of lingering anti-male prejudices that we all have without even being aware of them.

Ultimately, what Joe pointed out is that, at the end of the day, it doesn’t matter what other people think of our marriage. I needed to be comfortable enough with my femininity to realize that equality between us is not a threat to me.

Because at the end of the day, he is still my husband, and he’s still going to give me the same respect any husband would give his wife. He’s still going to have dinner ready by the time I get home every night. He’ll still be the one to take time off from his career to stay home with the children (whose last names will obviously be Powell), if I decide we want them. I’ll still be the one to control our finances and pay our taxes, and he’ll still check with me before making any major decisions that affect both of us.

My husband and I have now been married for three years, and I’m glad I let him keep his own name. He has just as much right to his career, his family heritage, and his outside interests as I do to mine. Some women have made comments, like, “I guess we know who wears the pants in your family,” but I don’t let it bother me. (He can wear whatever he wants as long as he still does the laundry!)

And when I went with Joe to the premiere of his new play, and the ticket-taker jokingly called me, “Ms. Brofcak”, I wasn’t insulted. I didn’t feel defeminized. I was too busy being proud of my husband.

Further Reading:

Why are women still changing their names?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joni-erdmann/why-are-women-still-chang_b_8486370.html

Why should married women change their names?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/07/women-stop-changing-your-name-when-married

Why I’m not changing my name for marriage
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/reflective-bride/why-im-not-changing-my-la_b_5172581.html

The Plays of Kellie Powell
http://notmyshoes.net/kellie.html

The Plays of Joe Brofcak
http://notmyshoes.net/joe.html

This piece was proofread by, and improved with the help of: Kat Helgeson, Kathleen O'Mara, and Adriana Jones.

Postcards

wednesdayview — Tue, 14 Feb 2017 21:26:57 GMT

I Have RETURNED!

wednesdayview — Tue, 14 Feb 2017 21:13:09 GMT

Joe: "You were never this passionate about politics when Obama was President..."
Kellie: "I didn't have to be! You should have seen me during the Bush years. Want to see my collection of hate mail? I got doxed before doxing was even a thing!"

In retrospect, I do regret dialing down my political activism during the Obama administration, but at the time, I felt like I needed some rest.

Quick Hits

wednesdayview — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 17:58:32 GMT

The National Marriage Boycott - a student-driven group of individuals pledging to not marry until the Defense of Marriage Act is repealed.

Pot Vs. Booze - we all know that marijuana is not as dangerous as alcohol. Would legalizing weed reduce alcohol abuse?

Is it okay to beat your wife? A surprising new poll reveals that, globally, most people think so.

The Consequences of Hate

wednesdayview — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 20:31:28 GMT

From Advocate.com:

A community reacts to the death of 11-year-old Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover, who committed suicide after months of anti-gay taunts …and little action from his school.

Sirdeaner Walker, who has survived domestic violence, homelessness, and breast cancer, knew death could come suddenly -- but she could not have predicted it would find her 11-year-old son first.

Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover was a sixth-grader at New Leadership Charter School in Springfield, Mass. There, many of his classmates were initially strangers, as few of his friends from Alfred Glickman Elementary followed him.

On April 6, Sirdeaner Walker came home, walked up the stairs to the second floor of her home, and saw her son suspended from a support beam in the stairwell, swaying slightly in the air, an extension cord wrapped around his neck, according to police. He apologized in a suicide note, told his mother that he loved her, and left his video games to his brother.

Walker said her son had been the victim of bullying since the beginning of the school year, and that she had been calling the school since September, complaining that her son was mercilessly teased. He played football, baseball, and was a boy scout, but a group of classmates called him gay and teased him about the way he dressed. They ridiculed him for going to church with his mother and for volunteering locally.

"It's not just a gay issue," Walker said. "It's bigger. He was 11 years old, and he wasn't aware of his sexuality. These homophobic people attach derogatory terms to a child who's 11 years old, who goes to church, school, and the library, and he becomes confused. He thinks, Maybe I'm like this. Maybe I'm not. What do I do?"

His birthday, April 17, falls this year on the 13th National Day of Silence, a day on which individuals observe vows of silence for students bullied at school.

But instead of silence, Walker wants action from the school, which she said continuously ignored her, chalking the situation up to student immaturity. She said that every day her son left for school, he walked into a "combat zone" assigned to him because of his inner-city address. But he would not point a finger at specific classmates for fear he'd be called a "snitch."

Walker said that she is angry with teachers and administrators for not taking action, and she called on the state of Massachusetts last week to probe the school, hoping she might prevent other children from feeling as her son did.

"A lot of parents don't know the avenues open to them. A lot of parents don't know where to turn," Walker told The [Springfield] Republican.

In the days following Walker-Hoover's death, parents and community members have grown increasingly critical of the school system's approach to bullies and peer abuse, further fueled by administrators refusing to comment to local media.

Hilda Clarice Graham, an expert on bullies and a school safety consultant with International Training Associates, said students often use assumed sexual orientation as a main weapon against one another. "It's the hammer that hurts the most and is the most vulnerable and hurtful thing going," she said.

Nearly half of children between the ages of 9 and 13 have been bullied, and nearly 10% of those students say it happens on a daily basis, according to a study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. In a 2007 Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network study, 86% of LGBT students said that they had experienced harassment at school during the previous year.

Days prior to Carl Walker-Hoover's suicide, he confronted a female bully who verbally accosted him. The event served as an apparent catalyst to Walker's suicide. The school's response was to have the two students sit beside one another during lunch for the next week to encourage conversation.

Graham says the school's response is not ideal because "for mediation to work, there must be equal power." She said bullies' goals are to hurt, and to depend on them to feel remorseful is not an effectual way to deal with them -- that victims are at a disadvantage when trying to make peace alone.

Graham added that schools should handle bullying on a small scale to avoid large-scale responses to tragic events.

"It's the most dramatic call to action a school can receive," she said. "Parents want a guarantee that this will never happen again."

Many residents came out in support of the Walker family in a school-sponsored vigil last Thursday night. Walker says school officials didn't invite her to the event. She said she heard from others but chose not to attend.

School superintendent Alan J. Ingram said on Thursday that cases of bullying must be addressed quickly and fairly, but added that many of the state's charter schools are autonomous and have their own policies. He said 11 of the system's schools have bullying-prevention programs, but most operate in elementary schools.

Peter J. Daboul, the newly elected chairman of the school's board of directors, said the board will have an emergency meeting to review the circumstances surrounding Walker-Hoover's suicide. He said the school follows the Springfield Public School System's protocols for dealing with bullies.

For now, Walker says she worries about her son's best friend, a heavy girl with whom Walker-Hoover would have lunch. Walker said the girl is still teased for her weight. "By whatever means necessary, I'm going to get the message across that the taunting has to end in the schools," she said.

More information and video.

As someone who was suicidal in grade school and junior high, and someone who was ostracized by classmates, this story really hit home for me. The sad thing is, there's really not much that teachers and administrators can do. They can stand up for bullied children, but they can't be everywhere at once. As long as kids are learning hate at home, they're going to bring it to school with them. And it seems like even this child's suicide hasn't made these kids feel remorse. What is it going to take?

It's abstinence-only lobby day...so lobby back!

wednesdayview — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:30:00 GMT

Today the National Abstinence Education Association is having their annual Capitol Hill lobby day. They're planning on meeting with legislators to ask them to continue funding ineffective, inaccurate, misleading and dangerous abstinence only education.

Amplify Your Voice has the full story and a call to action:

This is where you come in: the progressive blogosphere, the reproductive justice community, and youth advocates. We have to make sure that the NAEA's message is not the only side of the story that Congress hears tomorrow. For every lobbyist that a representative gets in their office tomorrow morning, we need 100 letters from our side to counter them.

I urge you to send this letter to your Congressperson, asking them to defund abstinence-only-until-marriage programs.

After a decade of these ineffective programs spending $1.5 billion to misinform and endanger the sexual health of countless youth, it is time to finally bring change to Washington and America.

Via Feministing.

It's Over!

wednesdayview — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 20:44:20 GMT

Did anyone else feel a tremendous sense of relief at around 11pm last night? It feels as though some small segment of the population has finally come around. I feel cautiously hopeful. I know Bush will probably pardon his cronies and issue a bunch of bullshit executive orders in the next two months, but after that... America stands a chance. That doesn't mean we won't blow it. We probably will. But we have a chance, for the first time in eight years. And that feels good.

Now that a Democrat is preparing to take over the White House, I feel free to worry about other things. I'm not too worried about local politics in New York - or Illinois for that matter. My rage and snarkiness have outlived their usefulness, and their welcome. It's time to start using the energy I've been wasting on defensive rants for something that's more productive. I'm not sure what that will be. But I know it's time for a change.

Videos, Videos, Videos

wednesdayview — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 04:18:39 GMT

The 10 Most Talked-About Election Viral Videos.

John McCain: From Maverick Reformer to Reformed Maverick.

Sarah Palin and "The Gender Card".

And, an old favorite: John McCain Debates Himself.

It's hard to be a liberal.

wednesdayview — Sat, 31 May 2008 01:34:24 GMT

"It's easy to articulate a belligerent foreign policy based solely on unilateral military action, a policy that sounds tough and acts dumb; it's harder to craft a foreign policy that's tough and smart. It's easy to dismantle government safety nets; it's harder to transform those safety nets so that they work for people and can be paid for. It's easy to embrace a theological absolutism; it's harder to to find the right balance between the legitimate role of faith in our lives and the demands of our civic religion. But that's our job."
-- Barack Obama in "Tone, Truth, and the Democratic Party."

Hip Spinsters!

wednesdayview — Wed, 28 May 2008 17:19:28 GMT

In the aftermath of my Jane Austen post, this is what I've been thinking about:

Any man who is threatened by your intelligence, your success, or your wit is a waste of your time. I'd rather be single for the rest of my life than have a relationship with someone who felt threatened by how brilliant, talented, and funny I am.

Any tradition that values women based on their partners instead of their individual identity isn't worth preserving. Let's continue to demolish this tradition. Unmarried women are not objects of mockery. They're role models to women who refuse to sell out their dreams.

Jane Austen Rocks.

wednesdayview — Wed, 28 May 2008 02:42:22 GMT

I just watched Becoming Jane with my mom. It's not bad. It's not great, either. But there's an interesting moment when Jane talks with a contemporary "authoress." Mrs. Radcliffe remarks that it's horribly embarrassing for her husband to be married to a woman with a literary reputation. Jane says (I'm paraphrasing), "But surely it must be possible to be a writer and a wife?" Mrs. Radcliffe says, "Oh, yes, it's possible. But it's never easy."

Florence King wrote, "The witty woman is a tragic figure in American life. Wit destroys eroticism and eroticism destroys wit, so women must choose between taking lovers and taking no prisoners."

Even today, with Tina Fey and Amy Poehler making a killing at the box office, there are always people lining up to write articles about how women supposedly aren't funny. (They're morons, but they're out there.)

Anyway, Becoming Jane did make me want to read Pride and Prejudice again, and find out more about Jane Austen's life. I happened to find this poem:

You could not shock her more than she shocks me;
Beside her Joyce seems innocent as grass.
It makes me most uncomfortable to see
An English spinster of the middle class
Describe the amorous effects of "brass,"
Reveal so frankly and with such sobriety
The economic basis of society.
-- W. H. Auden, Letter to Lord Byron (1936)

Can you dig it?

You Tell Me Tuesday

wednesdayview — Tue, 27 May 2008 02:46:51 GMT

After observing the backlash and victim-blaming leveled against a young Georgia woman attempting to pursue justice after being sexually assaulted by her ex-boyfriend, I have a question for the people who took her rapist's side.

Considering the hell that rape victims must go through to press charges against their rapists, why would anyone lie about being raped?

I've talked to several women who have been sexually assaulted who decided not to go to the police because it would be so incredibly traumatic and horrific. Many rape victims describe the process of seeking justice as "being raped all over again," and being "forced to relive a nightmare." They face victim-blaming and ostracism. They put their loved ones through the hell of watching them suffer and feeling powerless to stop it.

Here are some answers I have heard:

Myth 1.) Women "cry rape" for the attention.

There have to be easier ways to get attention. You could threaten to jump off a building. You could try out for "American Idol." All of these would be less traumatic than an invasive post-rape examination and being interrogated by hostile police officers. Rape victims get a lot of negative attention, sometimes more than their attackers.

Myth 2.) Women are vindictive by nature, and "cry rape" to damage the lives of men who have hurt them.

Let me tell you, there are easier ways to get even with a man who's hurt you. You can write angry poems about him and post them online for his new girlfriend to see. You can spray-paint "premature ejaculator" (or similar) on his car. You can hire a cheap hit man. I'm sick of all this "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" nonsense. I've faced a lot of rejection in my life. I mean, look at my picture, for crying out loud. Yeah. I've been so angry that I took a dying houseplant and tore it to pieces in a parking lot in front of a crowd of on-lookers. But I've never been angry enough to falsify a police report.

What other explanations have you heard - or even believed - for why a woman would lie about being raped? Let's hear them. I'm ready.

But first, maybe you should read this and this and the documents provided on this page, and this and this...

And maybe you should talk to a friend who has been sexually assaulted. Maybe you should ask her about her experience with the criminal justice system - or, why she didn't go to the hospital or to the police. And then try to give a reasonable explanation why a woman who wasn't raped would be willing to go through that.

I do believe people are innocent until proven guilty. But rape survivors face obstacles that no other crime victims face. If I went to the police and said I'd been robbed, no one would say that I was "asking for it." No one would ask me if I'd given away money willingly in the past. No one would say I was "crying robbery" for the attention or in order to blackmail the criminal.

Coming forward about a sexual assault is probably the hardest thing I hope you'll never have to go through. So maybe you should give survivors a little benefit of the doubt.

Monday Morning Mad

wednesdayview — Mon, 19 May 2008 03:57:09 GMT

Technically it won't be Monday morning for a few more minutes, but I wanted to make sure that anyone gets up early in the morning and spends all day in front of a computer screen to have ready access to a compilation of feminist headlines I've been looking at.

Especially make sure to examine:
* The pro-lifers protest contraception with "The Pill Kills" campaign
* Misconceptions about rape are alive and kicking
* Why Women's Lives are Worse than Ever (and who you can thank for that)

Turn Your Rage Into Action

wednesdayview — Sat, 17 May 2008 16:56:08 GMT

Yesterday I posted about Melanie Ross, a rape victim in Georgia who was ordered to pay her rapist's legal fees after Judge Phillip Brown dismissed her claim as frivolous. His reasoning? The victim was not a virgin. Her rapist was her ex-boyfriend, Daniel Day. Her lacerations and bruises could have been caused by "bumping into furniture." And since Day used a date rape drug, Ross could not be considered a reliable witness.

It is important to realize that Day has not claimed that he did not give Melanie Ross a rape drug, or that he did not rape her while she was under the influence of said drug. His entire defense is that he didn't need to drug her to get her to have sex with him, because they had had a sexual relationship previously. His entire defense is: A man can't rape a woman who has previously consented to have sex with him - or with anyone. And a Georgia Judge agreed with him.

You can read more about this case at Feministing or at SAFER.

Other outraged people have found a few actions that can be taken on Melanie Ross' behalf.

First, you can make people aware of this horrifying case. Tell everyone you know that Georgia punishes rape victims for speaking out, instead of punishing rapists. If you happen to know someone who is a reporter or a columnist (anyone talk to Mick Swasko lately?), encourage them to do some research and write about this appalling situation.

If you take a moment to register for an account, you can comment on local news coverage of the appeal.

You can make an adversarial complaint against this judge. Send your letter of complaint, condemning Judge Phillip Brown's actions to:

State Bar of Georgia
800 The Hurt Building
50 Hurt Plaza
Atlanta, GA 30303-2934

You can also write to Daniel Day's father, Georgia State Representative Burke Day. His home phone number is listed as: 912.786.7050. Or you can contact him at his district office:

Representative Burke Day
218 State Capitol
Atlanta, GA 30334
404.656.5096

You can donate to Melanie Ross' Legal Fund, by sending a check to:

Barrett & Farahany, LLP
1401 Peachtree Street, Suite 101
Atlanta, GA 30309
(404) 214-0120

Make the check out to: Barrett & Farahany, LLP and put on the memo that it is for the Melanie Ross Legal Fund. If you have any questions or concerns, please follow up with Barrett & Farahany. (I understand if you don't want to write a check to her law firm and I will continue to look for a way to send donations directly to Ms. Ross.)

If you don't mind being profoundly disgusted with humanity, you can visit this discussion online which attacks Ross and supports Day and tell them to go fuck themselves. You can even try tracking down their real life contact information and reporting them for hate speech.

If anyone else has any ideas for possible actions to take, please post them in comments.

On the verge of a psychotic breakdown

wednesdayview — Fri, 16 May 2008 14:05:50 GMT

In Georgia, a rape case is dismissed as "frivolous" because victim previously had sex willingly with her attacker. Not only is the suit dismissed, the victim is ordered to pay her attacker's legal fees.

U.S. Marine sentenced to four years for sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl.

Washington University in St. Louis is giving an honorary degree to a woman who believes married women cannot be raped by their husbands, that sexual harassment is not a problem for "virtuous women," and who once said, "Sex education classes are like in-home sales parties for abortions."

And doctors in Oklahoma are now required by law to rape some of their patients.

Please, no devil's advocacy today. I cannot handle any comments in which my friends and loved ones blame victims or defend rapists.

Congressman Barney Frank Speaks Out On John McCain

wednesdayview — Mon, 12 May 2008 18:19:18 GMT

"In a number of areas, Senator John McCain is praised for moderation that he has not in fact shown in his votes. It is true that by comparison to many of the angry right-wingers that have dominated the Republican Party with Senator McCain's general support he is less extreme and he has from time-to-time shown an amiability that contrasts with the snarling demeanor of some of his co-partisans. But all this shows is that it is possible to be prejudiced all of the time and pleasant some of the time when it comes to the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people. With one exception, the relevance of which Senator McCain himself is rapidly diminishing, John McCain's record is completely opposed to our efforts to combat prejudice and gain legal equality.

"The one exception has to do with his vote against the constitutional amendment that would have banned marriage. He did vote against that amendment on states' rights grounds. But in his effort to win over the right wing support he has needed to secure the Republican nomination and hold Republican votes in November, he has paved the way for a retreat from that position. He has begun to outline circumstances in which he would support such an amendment, even taking the unconstitutional position that he would "sign" a constitutional amendment if elected president. In fact, presidents do not get to sign or not sign constitutional amendments, and McCain did subsequently clarify that he would only support such an amendment if the courts had held that states must recognize each other's marriages. He has of course made it clear that he will support constitutional Amendments banning marriage at the state level, including in his own state of Arizona, and he regretted the fact that Arizona rejected such an amendment.

"In every other area, McCain has a consistent voting record against our efforts. In 1996, the only time the Senate voted on the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, McCain was one of those who voted no. He has also consistently voted against extending hate crimes protection to gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender individuals.

"In the area of gays in the military, he is one of those who made sure that President Clinton's effort to lift the ban would fail. For example, when President Clinton first proposed lifting the ban, McCain was one of its leading opponents, saying for example on January 27, 1993, "It is incredible to me that President Clinton ... has decided to lift the ban without consulting any leading military official or veterans' organization." In fact, there had been such consultations with military officials and they had opposed the president. Colin Powell, then the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was our leading opponent and McCain, Sam Nunn and other leading pro-military figures combined to defeat the effort.

"Now that many who supported the ban when it was first imposed, including former Republican Senator Alan Simpson and former Army Chief of Staff John Shalikash-Vili, and with Senators Clinton and Obama firmly committed to lifting the ban, John McCain has firmly renewed his support for it -- "I believe that the don't ask don't tell policy is working ... I hear that from our military commanders all the time. There are some issues in which you just have to rely on the views of our military leaders if you're going to give them responsibility for the lives and the welfare of men and women who are serving under their command."

"This apparently reflects the prejudiced view that he expressed in 1993 when he was helping block President Clinton's effort when he said on February 4th, as recorded in the Congressional Record, "The issue of allowing open gay lifestyles in the military is completely different from the kind of changes taking place in civil life ... Homosexuality is a behavioral trait, unlike skin color."

"In addition to strongly opposing same-sex marriage, suggesting that he could modify his opposition to a federal constitutional amendment banning states like Massachusetts from adopting same-sex marriage, voting against ENDA, consistently opposing hate crimes coverage for us, and being recorded against every other effort in the Senate to give us fair treatment, Senator McCain also promised if he becomes president to reduce those protections we have been able to achieve at the Supreme Court level. He has noted his admiration for those justices who have consistently voted against any efforts by GLBT people to establish any right to legal equality, for example Chief Justice Rehnquist, a dissenter in the Lawrence v. Texas case, in which the sodomy laws against gay and lesbian people were stricken.

"Given the alignment of Supreme Court Justices, and their ages, it is virtually certain that if John McCain is president, he will appoint justices who will overturn the Lawrence decision and the leading Supreme Court opponent of fair treatment for gay and lesbian people, Antonin Scalia, will gain allies from McCain's appointments.

"It is also the case that under Republican presidents we have seen virtually no significant appointments of openly gay and lesbian people, with the exception of an ambassador and some appointments to fairly unimportant commissions. In the Clinton administration, by contrast, and the administrations of most Democratic governors, there are appointments made to high positions without regard to any LGBT prejudice and so we are fairly represented."

Via The Democratic Party

An Internet Quiz that actually has something to say

wednesdayview — Fri, 09 May 2008 17:48:04 GMT

Can you tell the difference between George W. Bush and John McCain?
Hint: It's harder than you think.

Sad people sometimes experiment with drugs. Shocking!

wednesdayview — Fri, 09 May 2008 13:19:38 GMT

"A teen who has been depressed at some point in the past year is more than twice as likely to have used marijuana as teens who have not reported being depressed — 25 percent compared with 12 percent, said the report by the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy."
-- Feds: Teen use of pot can lead to dependency, mental illness

This is what I like to call ASS-BACKWARDS REASONING. They use this data to say that marijuana use causes depression, when in fact, doesn't it make more sense for depression to cause drug use?

I was in therapy when I was eight. I was suicial at eleven. I was diagnosed clinically depressed at twelve. I first tried pot when I was eighteen. I doubt my experience is unique.

I'm sure my old prof Pete at Drug War Rant will be all over this in no time.

Some of my favorite recent DWR posts:
- Veteran suicides may exceed battlefield deaths
- News flash: war on drugs is still racist
- "Soccer mom" reporter braves clouds of pot smoke
- Drug war lies and the liars that tell them

Man assaulted in Champaign because of sexual orientation

wednesdayview — Wed, 07 May 2008 23:10:46 GMT

Hate Crime in Champaign
"Steven Velasquez is a student at the U of I. He was walking with friends when he says he was attacked for his sexual orientation... He was walking down Green street with two girls and another guy when a man started yelling at them for being gay... He's shaken up but taking a stand ready to press charges. It's not going to be easy but he won't let this go unnoticed... Velasquez was released from the hospital the following day. Doctors say he was knocked out unconscious and suffered from some head trauma... The man arrested, Brett Vanasdlen is charged with a hate crime. He's out on bond."

A site run by wackos called "Americans for Truth" alleges that Velasquez (they refer to him as "the homosexual") started the conflict. I didn't find much media coverage, but I did find a story on Box Turtle Bulletin and some analysis at Daily Kos.

If you find yourself wanting to believe the story spread by "Americans for Truth," take a look at this. The post has been deleted, but thanks to Google Cache, you can get the gist of Brett's position: "How badly is a gay marriage going to hurt your family? ...If a gay couple adopts kids... What about their future? How would life be growing up?" It's pretty obvious that no matter what his parents or friends or coaches say, he was openly hostile to gay people.

If you're a U. of I. student or alum, get in touch with the Office of LGBT Resources. If you are a Parkland College student or alum, or if you live in Champaign, you can attend a meeting of "Queer and Ally" (Q&A). If you have other suggestions for action, please post them in comments.

No More Bush Judges!

wednesdayview — Wed, 07 May 2008 18:05:28 GMT

If you haven't signed up for the Credo Action Network, go do it now. (Giving them your phone number is optional.) The most recent e-mail I got from them was about judges nominated by Bush. You can send an e-mail to Senator Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, asking him to shut down the judicial confirmations process until a new president is sworn in next January. I mean, unless you want all your civil rights taken away from you by scary motherfuckers...

No Marriage Amendment on the Illinois Ballot!

wednesdayview — Tue, 06 May 2008 06:07:30 GMT

"Protect Marriage Illinois did not file a petition to put an anti-gay marriage question on the November ballot... The deadline has now passed, and so a statewide referendum effort is not possible for the anti-gay folks until 2010! The signatures PMI collected over the past year may not be used for a 2010 petition; they will have to start from scratch."
-- Rick Garcia, Equality Illinois

It's distressing that Protect Marriage Illinois exists in the first place. It's disturbing that they collected so many signatures. But they're not getting their gay-bashing referendum on the ballot in MY state this year! Mourn the losses, because they're many, but celebrate the victories, because they're few.

Desperately Seeking Minions

wednesdayview — Mon, 05 May 2008 20:39:01 GMT

I'm hating LJ more and more. It's been kind of a downhill journey ever since they went all corporate, with their sponsored communities and this new "Explore LJ" feature is just... sickening. Is it just me? Blogger has its problems, too, but you get a hell of a lot more freedom. Plus, there's the simple fact that since graduating college, a lot of people have stopped writing in and reading their LJs. As far as I know, Erin and Kathy are the only people who read my posts... I love you both, but still, this is discouraging. There are just so many blogs that are fantastic, I barely have time to read them all, much less write my mediocre, "Yeah, me too!" LJ posts... I'm not trying to make excuses for my laziness, I just want to explain why, even though I'm the same angry socialist I've always been, I've been too depressed to feel like my rants can have any positive effect.

What I really, really want... is to talk to someone who already agrees with me. I'm so tired of feeling alone in my beliefs. I don't want people to argue with me. I want someone to say, "You're right! Patriarchy fucking sucks! What should we do about it?" I want to preach to the choir, because that's how you make them sing. I want to persuade other people - but I want to have fun and make friends while I'm doing it. I don't want to bicker over semantics, I want to lead.

So I guess what I'm saying is, I love Jessica Valenti. Does anyone else love Jessica Valenti? Does anyone want to have a "49 Double Standards" book club? Because I'm there. I'm so there.