I Came Out…
…to my parents last weekend and it went surprisingly well!
I took the GRE this morning and mostly kicked its ass (ran out of time on the analytical writing sections; those scores are coming in two weeks, so I’ll see how I did then)! An incidental and unexpected benefit of blogging and participating in the blogosphere was that it made the analytical writing sections easy. The first essay presented two opinion statements and I had to write an essay about one. Taking a position on an opinion statement? A prompt and a blank text box on a computer screen? I am so there. The second question presented a short blurb and asked for an evaluation of its argumentation. Taking apart a poorly reasoned argument? A blank text box on a computer screen? I am so there.
I Want You…to Vote Yes On K
At Tony Labat’s I Want You project, sex worker, activist, and artist Sadie Lune (NSFW) took first place with her performance “I Want You”! Congrats!
The San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (SFMOMA) is pleased to present Tony Labat’s I WANT YOU, the latest installment in the newly launched program series Live Art at SFMOMA. Beginning on September 4, 2008, artist Tony Labat invites denizens of the Bay Area to make their own demands of the public. Riffing on the iconic “I Want You” army recruitment campaigns of World Wars I and II, he asks what you would do if you had only one minute to seize the voice of authority, to be the finger-pointing Uncle Sam. How would you fill in the rest? I Want You . . . to do what? And what if your demands were performed before and voted on by a live audience? – SFMOMA
The video of Ms. Lune’s winning performance is by activist, artist, and sex worker Scarlot Harlot. (Video is NSFW, and I’ll put up a transcript later.)
I thought it was a great performance. It touched on the reasons why people should vote yes on K in a direct and simple manner, and I think the simplicity of it provokes deeper thought. “I want you to be nice to sex workers” sounds simple on face, but it challenges the assumptions that many people have about sex workers as inferior, disposable human beings (how many dead hooker jokes have you heard?) or as people that don’t deserve the same justice and presumption of basic humanity and equality as non-sex workers. Why aren’t people nice to sex workers? Why shouldn’t they be? What does it mean to be nice to sex workers? By phrasing her desires in the language of ordinary concerns and leaving “Vote yes on Prop. K!” until the end, Lune made suggestions that seem like common sense (oh, being nice to sex workers – well, sure, why not?) and then tied them to political action. Ding ding ding, the light bulb goes off: Oh! That’s why Bayswan is pushing to pass K! She emphasized that politics is about real people and real concerns. How can you be nice to sex workers? Vote yes on K. Every measure and every law affects real people.
More on the I WANT YOU project and the other winners here. SFMOMA will print and put up posters of Lune’s slogan and those of the other winners all around the city prior to the elections. An awesome performance and awesome, free (well, paid for by SFMOMA) campaign advertising all at once!
The I WANT YOU project is interesting in that it repurposes an iconic piece of WWI- and WWII- era advertising to encourage people to speak up and insert their own voices into the public sphere. Rather than being on the receiving end of Uncle Sam’s demands and pointing finger, they get to speak back to him and say what they want. I like that and I like that the project responds to current political issues with art, then takes the results and puts them up around the city, injecting peoples’ voices into the public realm. Politics meets arts meets individuals speaking up and reclaiming politics through art.
Kickass
Kickass: Jack and Jill Politics: Announcing The Launch Of The Voter Suppression Wiki – Learn, Report, Act
The Role Of The Wiki
The wiki has three broad goals
Educate people about voter suppression. The term encompasses a wide range of tactics designed to limit voter participation. We want the wiki to offer an explanation of what these tactics are, places to learn more about them and the laws involved.
Collect incidents of voter suppression activity. Based on a standard template, wiki users will be able to add reports of voter suppression to the wiki. Each incident has its own page with a standard form to fill in plus discussion area.
Mobilize action to combat and prevent voter suppression. Knowledge is powerful, but only to the extent that you use it to inform decisions. We don’t just want to create a group of pissed off people. We want to create a group of pissed off people who are going to write letters, make phone calls and file lawsuits to protect citizens’ votes.
And Calitics, a blogging community focusing on California politics.
I Write Letters: $700Bn Bailout Proposal
Dear Representative Pelosi,
I am writing regarding the proposed bailout for the financial industry. According to the AP newswire, Congressional Democrats and Republicans have agreed to a $700Bn bailout. While I understand that the financial crisis is pressing and immediate action is necessary to prevent a total collapse of the economy, I am concerned about the terms of the bailout. This is a golden opportunity to win concessions on regulating the financial industry and setting terms that would create a more stable economy with a more equitable distribution of wealth that would benefit everyone overall and not just the top fraction of society. I am concerned that in the haste to throw money at the problem and appear decisive, Democrats will not press as hard as they should to set regulatory oversight and terms on the bailout. In the short run, $700Bn might solve the banks’ immediate problems. However, regulatory oversight and farsighted terms and conditions on the bailout would solve the immediate problems and set the groundwork for preventing future crises.
I support Senator Clinton’s proposals, which serve both the poor citizen facing foreclosure as well as the CEO floating to safety on a golden parachute, and I ask that you do the same.
* Secure toxic mortgage securities and create an entity modeled after the successful Depression-era Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC) or the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) created after the Savings and Loan crisis. This would help homeowners keep their homes and avoid foreclosure, and create stability in the market.
* Place a temporary moratorium on the most abusive stock transactions, many of which involve the “short-selling” of stocks. It would provide breathing room for the markets to recover, for investors to make accurate assessments of companies and for regulators to assess what trading practices should be permanently banned.
* Convene an emergency economic summit to show the American people their government is working together. Bringing together leaders in the administration and Congress with lenders, consumer advocates, non profits, financial institutions, and all stakeholders will allow a coordinated response to the crisis.
* Aggressively pursue and encourage mortgage modifications that would encourage lenders to voluntarily work with borrowers to keep them current on payments and in their homes. This measure would protect citizens in the long run by helping them maintain a stable roof over their heads.
* Restore competent federal oversight of the increasingly complicated financial markets. The rapid evolution of the securities and banking industry overwhelmed the current regulatory framework, resulting in a “shadow banking system” that operates outside of oversight and without accountability.
* Require transparency and accountability on executive pay. Senator Clinton has proposed the Corporate Executive Compensation Accountability and Transparency Act to impose new transparency rules on executive pay, end the accounting techniques that hide compensation, and provide shareholders a say in executive compensation packages.
* Ensure the accountability of financial institutions borrowing money from the Federal Reserve’s new lending facilities. Taxpayers deserve to know that the companies they are bailing out are on the road to recovery and aren’t throwing more good money after bad.
$700Bn is a great deal of taxpayer money, approximately as much as the cost of the Iraq war. It behooves you to ensure that it is a wise investment, one that will benefit poor, lower class, middle class, and upper class citizens as much as CEOs, and lay the groundwork for a stable economy that, while not as prone to extraordinary heights, compensates by avoiding extraordinary lows that create crushing debts and weigh most heavily on the poor, lower-, and middle- class citizens.
The wealthy will always be able to take care of themselves; such is the power of money. Your duty as a Representative is to look after the people who are less protected and ensure that they, too, benefit from a bailout plan that would create a stable economy and restore economic security for everyone, not just the top tier of society. I ask you to support a bailout plan only if it is based on economic analysis that is transparent and available to everyone to examine, and transparency and regulatory oversight. Solving the financial crisis is important, but providing money without setting conditions to address the systemic causes of the crisis will only allow the cycle to recur in the future.
As Speaker of the House, you hold unique power to lead the House Democrats in a strong stand for setting conditions on the bailout. Please do not cave into the Republicans cries of “partisanship!” as if partisanship were a flaw rather than a feature. It is imperative that the Democrats stand firm on this issue and advocate for a solution that would protect the poorest citizens as well as the wealthy.
Sincerely,
Pizza Diavola
SF, CA [zip code]
Sent to Pelosi, Boxer, and Feinstein (with appropriate edits). Feel free to take, copy, and edit.
If you are in California’s 8th District and one of Pelosi’s constituents, you can contact her here via email. If you are not one of her constituents but would like to email her anyway to show broad-based support for a transparent bailout plan with regulatory oversight and conditions that will reform the banking industry, you can contact her here in her capacity as Speaker of the House. The number for her D.C. office is (202) 225-0100.
I don’t pretend to understand all the details of the bailout and everything, but I understand a few things:
- Throwing money at a situation without any strings attached might solve the immediate crisis – or it might not, considering that a lack of regulation was a large factor in what got us here.
- Regardless, the bailout is the immediate issue at hand, but it didn’t happen overnight. In order to prevent this situation from recurring, we need to address the root causes of the situation. Throwing money at the financial services industry without setting conditions for how that money will be used is not going to address the systemic causes of the collapse.
- CEOs will always be able to take care of themselves. That’s the nice thing about being obscenely rich. People that are less well off, people that are being foreclosed on, people that are seeing their savings and investments vanish into thin are, will not, and those are the people that the bailout needs to provide for.
- The financial services industry and the government officials that they’ve bought are desperate. Nail them to the table because now is the prime time to get concessions out of them that will provide for a stable, regulated economy in the long run.
- A stable, well-regulated economy will probably not provide dizzying heights of wealth. However, those dizzying heights have only ever benefited the teeny, tiny percentage of the very wealthiest people, while everyone else suffers from an unregulated economy where they’re not protected. The bailout proposal needs to balance the concern for growing the economy and making sure that the benefits of that growth accrue to everyone, not just the top 0.0001% of society.
Call and write your senators and representatives, as well as Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Biden, and McCain, and tell them that you want a transparent proposal with oversight and conditions that will protect homeowners and non-wealthy citizens and address the systemic causes of the financial crisis as well as the immediate situation.
HHS Rule Change: LAST DAY TO COMMENT
Get your comments in! The comment period for the HHS rule change closes today! Don’t know what to write? Here’s a sample:
Dear Secretary Leavitt,
I am writing to urge you to stop the proposed HHS rule change regarding reproductive health care and “conscience clause” exemptions. The proposed rule change is extremely vague in terms of defining abortion and leaves it up to health care employees to define abortion according to their own whims. This vagueness will lead to many people classifying birth control and emergency contraception as abortion and taking the rule change as license to deny patients medication, treatment, accurate information, and referrals to other health care employees that are willing to do their jobs and help their patients. Denying women access to treatment on the basis of religious feelings is inherently discriminatory and coercive and the rule change privileges the feelings of health care providers over the real, immediate needs of their patients. The rule change speaks of protecting health care providers, but simultaneously leaves patients vulnerable and unprotected.
In many places, women and girls will have more than one option for accessing reproductive health care. However, their insurance might not cover a visit to another doctor if their primary care physician refuses to write a prescription for birth control. They might not be able to take the time off of work for multiple appointments searching for a health care provider who won’t deny them access to contraceptives. Once they have a prescription, they might not be able to find a pharmacist who won’t refuse to fill their prescription. For the women with more limited options, the situation will be even more bleak. Ultimately, whether or not women can eventually find health care providers who are willing to do their jobs and give them the medications they need, this rule change will put more obstacles in the way of exercising their basic right to access health care and decide their reproductive future. It’ll make it more difficult. It’ll make it more time- and labor- intensive and not everyone can afford to waste those commodities. The burden of the rule change would, like so many other policies restricting health care, fall most heavily and harshly on the lower class and poor people in this country.
The rule change also does not take into account the fact that birth control is also used for treating medical conditions unrelatd to conception and pregnancy, such as endometriosis, menstruation-related anemia, dysmenorrhea, polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), acne, regulating irregular periods, etc. Under the rule change, health care employees would be free to deny patients birth control treatment for these conditions, should the employees have a blanket objection to birth control.
The rule change will be expensive to implement, costing an estimated $44.5M/year to administer. It would increase health care costs for patients, many of whom already suffer from the onerous cost of health care in this country. It essentially gives health care employees carte blanche to refuse to do the jobs they were hired for and to patients’ health, lives, and futures at risk for the sake of indulging employees’ objections to treating women and girls as equal human beings with the ability and the right to make decisions over their own bodies. The rule change is nothing more than a codification of misogyny and an intrusion of a particular form of Christianity into the public sphere.
Sincerely,
[your name]
[your address]
Online comment form at regulations.gov to send a comment. If that link doesn’t work, you can search for the rule change at regulations.gov with any of the following info:
Docket ID: HHS-OS-2008-0011
Docket Title: Ensuring that Department of Health and Human Services Funds Do Not Support Coercive or Discriminatory Policies or Practices In Violation of Federal Law*
Document ID: HHS-OS-2008-0011-0001
Document Title: Ensuring that Department of Health and Human Services Funds Do Not Support Coercive or Discriminatory Policies or Practices In Violation of Federal Law
You can also email consciencecomment@hhs.gov, putting “Provider Conscience Regulation” as the subject – in fact, do both!
If you’ve already sent a letter, please take a moment to call 1-877-696-6775 and say: “I am calling regarding the proposed regulatory changes released on August 21. I would like to register my strong disagreement with the proposed change.” – Liss
I called them this morning and all the lines were busy. Keep calling until you get through!
ACLU Action Alert to contact the Department of Health and Human Services
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi: 202-225-4965 (DC)
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid: 202-224-3542 (DC)
Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama: 202-224-2854 (DC)
Democratic vice-presidential candidate Senator Joe Biden: 202-224-5042 (DC)
Senators: Senate.gov
Representatives: House.gov
* Geez, talk about Orwellian nomenclature. The name of the rule change is misleading, since it suggests that it’s coercive and discriminatory to force health care employees to do their jobs. With all due respect, I would like to suggest that it is discriminatory to refuse to provide women treatment on the basis that they don’t deserve the information and health care they need, on the basis of their gender and on the basis that they are inferior human beings without the ability or the right to make decisions about their own bodies. I would also like to suggest that it is coercive to refuse to provide women treatment, information, and referrals and to do one’s best to force them to bear pregnancies they do not want or to suffer without treatment for medical conditions.
Obama on the HHS Rule Change
Last week, I wrote about why Obama and Biden need to fight the HHS rule change. During the course of researching whether or not Obama and Biden had done anything about the rule change, I found a grand total of two things: (1) Obama, but not Biden, signed on to Clinton and Murray’s July 22 letter to HHS Secretary Michael Levitt; (2) one statement that Obama made on the HHS rule change. Actually, that’s not quite correct. The link to Obama’s Senate site will take you to a page showing this text:
Statement of Senator Barack Obama on Proposed HHS Rule Changes
Friday, August 22, 2008For Immediate Release
Contact: Michael OrtizWASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) today criticized the Department of Health and Human Services’ decision to propose a rule that would limit the rights of patients to receive complete and accurate health information and services, particularly access to contraceptives.
“In the waning days of his administration, President Bush continues to issue policies and proposals that put politics ahead of common sense solutions that help middle class Americans in their daily lives.
“This proposed regulation complicates, rather than clarifies the law. It raises troubling issues about access to basic health care for women, particularly access to contraceptives. We need to restore integrity to our public health programs, not create backdoor efforts to weaken them. I am committed to ensuring that the health and reproductive rights of women are protected.”
What I found on September 19, 2008, was somewhat different:
To further clarify, here’s an image of the same press release that went up at 7thSpace, complete with PhotoShopped editorial. 7thSpace was the only other place I found the press release, by the by.
Statement of Senator Barack Obama on Proposed HHS Rule Changes
Friday, August 22, 2008For Immediate Release
Contact: Michael OrtizWASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) today criticized the Department of Health and Human Services’ decision to propose a rule that would limit the rights of patients to receive complete and accurate health information and services, particularly access
Notice something missing? A friend of mine called Michael Ortiz, the press contact listed at the 7thSpace site, and Ortiz promptly fixed the Obama.senate.gov version of the web page to display to full press release. We waited with bated breath to see what it would say…
…and got a pathetic, spineless press release. Obama’s press release does not lay out the many substantive problems with the HHS rule change, does not strongly lay out his objections to it, and does not say what he will do to fight the rule change. “Troubling issues about access”? How about “will greatly hamper access to information and care for millions of women and girls across the country”? “Troubling issues about access … to contraceptives”? How about “Will allow pharmacists, doctors, and other health care workers to refuse to provide contraceptives, prescriptions, and referrals to patients”? “policies and proposals that put politics ahead of common sense solutions that help middle class Americans in their daily lives”? What kind of mealy-mouthed, bland, generic statement is that? That could apply to any number of policies being put forth by the Bush government and the McCain-Palin campaign. It’s unspecific and makes the HHS rule change sound like a run of the mill Bush policy rather than something that speaks straight to patients’ rights, womens’ rights, and the right to health care (all of which are items in the Obama-Biden platform). Obama doesn’t clearly explain what the rule change is or go into even the barest of specifics as to what it will do and why it’s bad. Instead, he talks blandly about “[restoring] integrity to our public health programs.” He says that he is “committed to ensuring that the health and reproductive rights of women are protected,” but he lays out no specific plans for how he will ensure that.
It seems to me that the Obama staff couldn’t be arsed to distribute a correct, full-length version of the press release, given that it appeared in a truncated form on Obama’s own Senate site and on a third party site. It’d be ridiculous to hold Obama personally responsible for that failing, since it’s hardly his role to code pages or distribute press releases. However, I do hold him responsible for not making the rule change a big enough issue that his staffers would be on top of it. I do hold him responsible for issuing only one press release, not taking any public or substantive action against the HHS rule change, not calling out HHS Secretary Leavitt, and not bringing publicity to the scope of the rule change. The rule change will definitely affect the lives of millions, further undermine the much-vaunted protections of Roe v. Wade, undermine state laws regulating conscience clauses, and further undermine the separation of church and state.
SHOW. SOME. LEADERSHIP.
This press release is an example of exactly what I mean when I talk about Obama’s empty rhetoric. It’s all platitudes, no specifics, no specifics on why the policy is bad, what it will do, and what he is planning to do to fight it. It’s great to be committed to ensuring access to reproductive health care, but that verbal commitment means nothing if it’s not backed by substantive actions. The comment period for the rule change closes tomorrow, September 25. I’m still waiting for you to act, Senator.
Love, Honor, Cherish: Jay and Van on Proposition 8
While poking around YouTube’s suggestions of clips related to No on Prop. 8’s ad, I found one by Love Honor Cherish, an LA-based grassroots organization campaigning against Prop. 8. A quick skim of their YouTube homepage showed that their ads feature straight couples, gay couples, relatives, politicians, young people, old people, people of various ethnic backgrounds, and an ad in Spanish. No lesbian couples yet, though. I like their approach, which is generally direct and states that yes, GLBTQI are human beings and therefore deserving of rights, rather than that GLBTQI are humans, too, won’t you please give us our rights? The difference between the two approaches is that one positions GLBTQI people as human beings without positioning GLBTQI people or heterosexual people as the norm, and the other positions heterosexual people as the norm and seeks to slip GLBTQI people into that category as an addition.
I like this ad because it features gay men speaking for themselves; it features an interracial couple; it features two POC. The gay men speaking for themselves aspect is important to me because it states that GLBTQI people deserve these rights simply by virtue of being human and they don’t need a heterosexual messenger to appeal to society at large on their behalf. There’s dignity in that approach and the underlying message is that GLBTQI people are here and we will not disappear. We will not be silenced.
The ad addresses the question, “Aren’t domestic partnerships enough?” and acknowledges the emotional and cultural trappings of marriage. Domestic partnerships are not the same as marriage in terms of the legal benefits; although they might be the same on paper in terms of state-granted rights in California, in their execution, they are often not. Many laws, rules, and regulations say “spouse” rather than “domestic partner,” and many federal rights and benefits do not necessarily apply to domestic partners. Leaving all that aside, however, there’s the simple reality that the modern incarnation of marriage carries certain social and emotional connotations that domestic partnerships and civil unions do not. It’s something emotional and therefore difficult to explain, but Jay makes the point quite effectively: “I couldn’t tell you how I asked him, “If you want to be a domestic partner?” But believe me, I can tell you how I proposed to him.”
No on Prop. 8: Baby Steps, Baby Steps
Via Petulant’s round up of news and links, I saw No on Prop 8’s ad featuring the Thorons:
I have mixed feelings about the ad, namely frustration at its limitations, understanding for the reasoning behind its limitations, and frustration that it had to take that approach. It features a reassuringly straight, white couple dressed in gender-normed colors, and the literal blue collar also places Mr. Thoron as a dependable worker – not poor and unreliable, not rich and out of touch (I don’t hold either class stereotype, but that’s my interpretation of the motivation behind the blue collar touch). The Thorons are portrayed as Regular People, where regular signifies straight, white, and economically secure. Where does that leave GLBTQI people who are in fact GLBTQI, POC, and of all different classes? I understand that the ad would protect their right to marry, too, but the framing of the message bothers me.
It annoys me that the issue is framed as “GLBTQI people are your friends and family. Think about the children!” It annoys me that the issue of marriage equality is portrayed by using straight spokespeople as a front, because presumably having the icky queers speak for themselves would be too frightening and radical and scare voters off. The line, “My wife and I never treated our children differently, we never loved them any differently,” reinforced the “GLBTQI people are not FREAKS, they are JUST LIKE STRAIGHT-ER, NORMAL-PEOPLE, really, we swear,” impression for me. The whole “GLBTQI people are people, too!” message would be much more palatable to me if it were given by actual GLBTQI people speaking for themselves rather than by heterosexual proxies asking the viewer to protect their childrens’ rights.
On the other hand, the ad comes off as a lot less radical and a lot more level-headed than both the virulent Yes on 8 campaigners and the way the Yes on 8 campaign is portraying GLBTQI people. I suppose that it’s meant to appeal to the undecided or wavering voters, the ones that aren’t completely comfortable with GLBTQI people or don’t understand why domestic partnership isn’t good enough, etc., and then there is an advantage in presenting an ad that features unthreateningly straight, white proxies rather than actual GLBTQI people that are in love and married.
In the end, I guess the ad is inherently radical to some extent in that it does treat GLBTQI people as normal, i.e. people, too. Rocking the boat with baby steps. But do baby steps have to include propping up gender norms and the idea of white as the default? It’ll be interesting to see if No on Prop. 8’s other ads will feature same-sex couples diverse in race, age, class, and disabilities, particularly considering how diverse California is.
What’s My Vote Worth?
Courtesy of Google Alerts, I saw Michelle Obama’s piece in the Ohio State daily (2008/09/22). It’s a nice piece about memories of her father’s work as a precinct captain, the turnout of the youth vote in the primaries, and the importance of voting.
Like so many people, I took my right to vote for granted. I never had to march for it. I never knew what it felt like to be turned away while others were told that their voice counted. So when I got to vote for the first time, I did it dutifully – but without any excitement. …
When we vote this November, we’ll be casting our ballots for that world.
I’ve heard people say, “My vote doesn’t matter,” “My vote won’t count,” or, “I’m just one person. What possible difference can I make?” But this year, all our votes matter more than ever.
If you are satisfied with the world as it is, your choice this fall is easy. But if you believe, as I do, that we can change the world together, please join me in voting on Nov. 4. …
This year, I’ll be voting for my daughters’ future and my father’s memory. I’ll vote for the thousands of regular folks who fought to get me the right to vote. And I’ll vote for young people across America – and the generations of young people that will follow, who will someday look back at this time with gratitude that we summoned the courage to begin building the world as it should be.
Seasonality: A Panegyric to Tomatoes. And Oranges. And Peaches. And Pomegranates. And Green Garlic and Persimmons and Clementines…
This summer, I didn’t cook as much as I did last winter. I’m not too surprised, since during the summer I tend to want bread and fruit rather than cooked produce, but I’m a little sad because the bounty of spring and summer will soon pass. Last year, my last fresh tomato was in November, because I picked it up at a farmers market in SoCal when I was down south for the weekend (talk about food miles!) and I made penne all’ arrabbiata with it. Most likely, the last of the fresh tomatoes will be at the end of October, less than a month and a half away. I think about that and regret every week that I didn’t cook fresh sauces and celebrate the vibrancy and flavor of fresh tomatoes. Then I remember that in March, April, and May, I ate tomatoes by the (cooked) pound, thrilled at the extra dimensions of taste they added to spaghetti all’ amatriciana.
Sexism Watchapalooza*
I have a guest post up at Shakesville: Sexism Watchapalooza (*nifty title is Liss’, not mine). It’s about C.M. Paulson’s Associated Content article critiquing the Entertainment Tonight segment that speculated on Ms. Obama, Gov. Palin, Sen. Clinton, and Ms. McCain’s dress sizes. The article itself was good but the ET content was horrendous, as was The Insider’s fat-shaming interview of Meghan McCain.
Feminist is Not a Dirty Word
Via Liss – Lauredhel: Monica Dux Thinks I’m Bad for Feminism’s Image
It’s not a bad thing to be a feminist. Nor is it a bad thing to be a hairy-legged, queer, bra-less feminist woman that doesn’t present herself as stereotypically feminine for the heterosexual male gaze. In fact, one aspect of feminism is ceasing to value women solely for their attractiveness, their bodies, and how attractive men judge them, so whether or not a woman shaves her legs, whether or not she wears a bra, whether or not she sleeps with women is not a litmus test for whether or not she is feminist. The freedom to make those choices of her own volition and according to her own criteria, rather than societal expectations on the proper function of women (to be attractive) – that is part of feminism.
We all know what she looks like. She’s unwaxed, unattractive and unfeminine (probably with saggy boobs, given her predilection for torching bras). But while most women can describe her characteristics, they can rarely name a woman who personifies the stereotype. – Dux
I don’t wax my legs, don’t wear a bra, and don’t often engage in the trappings of stereotypical femininity (submissive to teh menz, pliable to teh menz). And I don’t give a crap about unattractive – unattractive to whom? Beauty is subjective and I’m attractive to myself. I like my body and someone else’s opinion on that is irrelevant.
And I’m still a feminist.
If I waxed, still wore a bra, cared what people thought of my appearance, and slept exclusively with men?
I would still be a feminist. Feminism is about believing in gender equality and working to end sexism and better the lot of women and girls everywhere. And you can do that with as much or as little body hair as you like.
Bias, Media, and McCain 3
Some more headlines on McCain – but these actually express reality-based opinions!
WSJ, 08/09/15, “Obama Questions McCain’s ‘Honor’” – McCain scrapped whatever honor he once had ages ago, when he reversed his stance on virtually every position he once held, including lobbyists, warrantless wiretapping, and torture.
U.S. News & World Report, 08/09/15, “John McCain’s Journey From Maverick to Liar”
Boston Globe, 08/09/15, “Obama ad says McCain campaign one of dishonor”
The first and second headline unabashedly challenge the idea of McCain as an honorable person (which is tied to his personal story as a POW) and a maverick. By putting ‘Honor’ within quotes, the WSJ headline questions whether that honor is real – if the headline had been “Obama Questions McCain’s Honor,” the nuance would have been that Obama is unfairly questioning McCain’s honor. At the very least, not putting honor in quotes would have taken for granted that McCain’s honor is real. The quotes suggest that although McCain claims he has honor, the WSJ, as represented by its headline writer, disagrees or is skeptical. Compare that headline with the Boston Globe’s “Obama ad says McCain campaign one of dishonor,” which essentially says the same thing but in different words. “Says…dishonor” seems like the Obama campaign is just putting an ad out there saying the McCain campaign is dishonorable or making an accusation – the Boston Globe headline doesn’t take a position one way or the other on the veracity of the Obama campaign’s claims. “Questions…’honor,’” on the other hand, uses a more active verb and suggests that there’s little true honor left to question.
As for the second headline, it neatly acknowledges the maverick story and then points out that although it might once have been true, it no longer is (McCain voted with Bush 95% of the time in 2007). Not only that, it casts McCain as a liar now.
The Subtle Elision of Girls
In yesterday’s NYT, Kim Severson had an article, The Hockey Way of Life. It’s about the Palins’ eldest kid and their future son-in-law and how they played a lot of hockey, essentially. All fine and dandy, except that the summary blurb on the main page read
Hockey often keeps kids in Alaska on the straight and narrow, much the way football and basketball do in other places.
Football, basketball, and hockey keep “kids” on the straight and narrow, eh? I have a thing for rhetoric and precise speech, so I clicked through to see if the article was actually about “kids,” which come in more than one gender, or if “kids” was serving as shorthand for “boys.” Basketball and hockey can have both girls’ and boys’ teams, but I’ve never seen a girls’ football team, although there was always one or two girls on the team in my high school. Below the cut is a look at the article and how often it talks about boys while purportedly being an article on kids and children and how sports keep them “on the straight and narrow.”
CA Elections: Voting Requirements and Referenda
Just because it all bears repeating, I’m cross-posting this H1K entry here: CA Elections: Voting Requirements and Referenda.
In the spirit of (a) fighting voter disenfranchisement shenanigans *cough* Orange County GOP *cough*; (b) recognizing that there are many, many voter referenda on the California ballot this year; and (c) recognizing that few people do more than skim the voter guides on the night before the election, here’s a brief overview on what you can do to prepare for the November election.
1. Register, register, register. You can register to vote in California if
- You are a United States citizen
- You are a resident of California
- You are at least 18 years of age (or will be by November 4, 2008)
- You are not in prison or on parole for a felony conviction
- You have not been judged by a court to be mentally incompetent
The deadline to register for this November’s election is October 20, 2008. You can find the registration forms here at the CA Secretary of State site. You will need to re-register if you have
- moved
- changed your name
- changed your political party choice
since the last time you registered. For instance, I registered as a Democrat in New England a few years ago. When I moved to SF, I re-registered because I wanted to vote in California, rather than absentee as a resident of CT. After the state primary, I re-registered again to change my affiliation to the Green Party.
2. If you are an immigrant and have received citizenship, YOU CAN VOTE. Any letters, mailers, fliers, emails, etc. you receive saying otherwise are NOT TRUE. Just make sure that you’re registered with your current name and address, otherwise when you go to the local polling site, you might not be on the voter rolls. If you receive any material saying that you cannot vote because you’re an immigrant, regardless of your U.S. citizenship, hang onto the material and call 1-800-345-VOTE, a toll-free hotline established by the CA Secretary of State, to report voter fraud. In the 2006 elections, the GOP sent a bunch of mailers to immigrant-sounding households in Orange County, trying to mislead voters into thinking that they were not allowed to vote. That is voter disenfranchisement and a CRIME.
Yes on K: “Sex Work Is Not A Crime”
For SF residents, Measure K is on the city ballot this November (one of 22 SF measures): “Changing the Enforcement of Laws Related to Prostitution and Sex Workers.” Simply put, Measure K would decriminalize prostitution:
Proposition K would prohibit the Police Department from providing resources to investigate and prosecute prostitution. It would also prohibit the Police Department from applying for federal or state funds that involve racial profiling to target alleged trafficking victims and would require any existing funds to implement the Task Force’s recommendations.
Proposition K would require the Police Department and the District Attorney to enforce existing criminal laws that prohibit coercion, extortion, battery, rape, sexual assault and other violent crimes, regardless of the victim’s status as a sex worker. It also requires these agencies to fully disclose the investigation and prosecution of violent crimes against sex workers.
Proposition K would prohibit the City from funding or supporting the First Offender Prostitution Program or any similar anti-prostitution program.
The Board of Supervisors would be able to amend this measure by a two-thirds vote if it found the amendments would reduce criminalization of prostitution and violence against sex workers. [emphasis mine]
Ultimately, K would increase the safety of sex workers by enabling them to access health care, report crimes (whether as witnesses or victims, and sex workers are disproportionately likely to be victims of assault, rape, and other violent crime), and work without fear of being jailed. Whether you support, oppose, or don’t have an opinion on sex work, K would lead to a better, safer situation all around.
In today’s SFGate, Violetblue gives some background on the history of sex work in SF and interviews Patricia West, activist and sex worker. It’s a good read that clarifies some of the arguments for K while addressing the opposition arguments: Sex Work Is Not A Crime
VB: Anti-K pundits seem to think that all sex workers are victims, and seem to be muddying the issues by saying that Prop K would make human sex trafficking harder to stop. What’s the difference between sex work and human trafficking, and why can’t anti-K people seem to be able to tell the difference?
PW: Sex work is consensual adult sex for pay. Human trafficking is done by force and coercion. Proposition K will not prevent law enforcement from investigating and prosecuting human traffickers. Additionally, when Proposition K passes, workers and clients will then feel free and safe to report abuses in our own industry without fear of prosecution. The opposition is using the term as a scare tactic; their hope is to associate Proposition K with this reprehensible practice. This is their dishonest campaign strategy and it does a disservice to the voters of San Francisco.
VB: So, will there be legal brothels in SF if it passes?
PW: No, there will not be legal brothels in San Francisco when Proposition K passes. Proposition K is about the decriminalization of prostitution, not legalization. Decriminalization is a reasonable balance between legalization and criminalization. Proposition K will stop the city’s prosecution of prostitutes. It requires that the Police Department and District Attorney’s office vigorously enforce laws against extortion, battery, rape and other violent crimes; regardless of the victim’s status as a sex worker.
VB So, if a sex worker is raped or beaten, as it stands now she/he/they are afraid to report the crime and seek help. San Francisco’s past showed that decriminalized access to health care for sex workers over 100 years ago had an enormously positive impact. Does Prop K have anything to do with sexual health in the city like that?
PW Proposition K will improve public health by lessening the stigma that prevents many workers from seeking basic health-care services. Also, possession of condoms is currently used as criminal evidence against workers. In my experience as a Street Outreach volunteer, I have had some workers refuse condoms for fear of arrest.
Between Spitzer and David Vitter, sex work and sex workers are much in the media this year. Hopefully, Yes on K will be able to capitalize on that attention and pass in SF. For more information on the proposition, see the Yes on K website. To volunteer, email info@yesonpropk.org.
