Sophianotloren

Today in the Singleish and Solo Polyamory Facebook group, I commented on a thread exploring the different ways that solo poly people preserve autonomy or avoid too much enmeshment while also maintaining relationships. Some people dislike it when a lover even leaves a toothbrush at their place; others have different boundaries.

Here’s how I explained my approach to autonomy and connectedness in my life, relationships and home:

To me, although I adore living solo, I also treasure ongoing, ambient connection with the people I love. I prefer to feel their presence in my life, as well as in my heart. Just lightly enough so I don’t feel smothered or hobbled.

When I’m in significant relationships, typically I enjoy daily or near-daily contact of some kind with my lovers. But this adopts various forms and pacing, depending on our respective communication availability and preferences. This is where asynchronous communication, supported by technology, is a huge boon to me — I’m really not much for talking on the phone.

To me, ongoing ambient contact of some kind with my lovers fosters intimacy and understanding, and provides a sense of connection and stability in my relationships that I value.

With my current lover, we don’t get to spend much time together — but we do communicate quite often, usually a few times daily in different ways. Sometimes we send long, deep e-mails exploring issues and feelings, exchanging intimacies or sharing insights and experiences. Sometimes it’s quick text banter or photos.

This is a fairly new relationship, we’re both experiencing pretty significant NRE (new relationship energy), so our communication has been pretty intense. (It’s so refreshing and exciting for me to be exploring an intimate relationship with a fellow writer!) However, our communication is now starting to settle into calmer patterns and rhythms — which I also enjoy. But I value having those intense initial e-mails to look back on.

With my most recent previous lover, we’d mostly text silly internet meme photos to each other a few times daily. Which was sweet and fun. We still do that sometimes, even though we’re no longer dating. Never underestimate the value of simply sharing smiles with people you care about.

Here are the kinds of enmeshment I personally prefer to avoid:

• Logistical dependence. Sharing a home and finances, relying on each other for transportation or other daily needs, etc.
• Social dependence. A strong need to interact socially mostly “as a couple.”
• Emotional dependence. When lovers become too emotionally dependent on me — they don’t have their own friends, expect me to manage their emotions for them, etc.
• Interpersonal territoriality. Expectations that we somehow own or are entitled to control aspects of each other, or at least have the power to grant permission for sharing. This most often comes into play with forming new relationships and sharing sex or other types of intimacy in various contexts. Or feeling entitled to a certain amount of your partner’s time, energy or attention.

Those types of enmeshment tend to bring out unpleasant aspects of my personality: control freakishness, hyperresponsibility, rebelliousness, anxiety and more.

Above all, when I’ve been thus enmeshed, my decisions about relationships often had more to do with maintaining life stability than with the quality of the relationship, or taking care of myself. In the past — when I’ve felt that leaving a relationship would entail substantial disruption to my housing, finances, or social network — I’ve made stunningly bad relationship decisions.

I love having my own space, and I don’t mind sharing it in small ways. Now that I’m no longer dwelling in a tiny apartment, I’m fine when lovers and friends who occasionally spend a night or a few days with me choose to leave a few basics behind — toothbrush, spare clothes, favorite snack, etc. I have convenient places to store their stuff, so it doesn’t impinge on my space.

I also enjoy seeing in my home gifts from my lovers, friends and family. My current lover recently went traveling, and brought me back a beautiful silk scarf. I’ve draped that over a corner of my bedroom mirror. It looks lovely there, and it’s a daily reminder of the bond we share.

What about you? If you’re solo poly, how do you balance connection and autonomy, or avoid too much enmeshment, in your own relationships? Please comment below.

This was ever the more personal blog, even the blog where I tinkered with my spiritual life, my play with magical theory and the like.  The Herlander Walking blog was the word-a-day site, comparable to the ordinary no-grief-to-misplace pen on the side of my purse; while this site was like the silver capped inkwell on my desk where the fountain pens live.

And yet since I walked away from doing any serious writing at Herlander, those public pains and traumas have bled into this blog like spring floods.  And I ruefully admit, it fits a certain part of my title — that ‘skeptical’ label.  More and more, I wonder how able I am to “know” anything; and worse –how to adequately communicate anything?

All around me on the blogosphere, I see signs that I am not alone in this profound sense of …what?  What to call it, even?  Fronts once united, however loosely, seem to fall apart.  People seem unable to agree on much at ALL these days — everyone knows something is direly wrong, but like a pack of nervous interns, they can’t agree on a diagnosis or cure.  Even amidst the pagan blogs I read, I see a sense of unease here and there and I wonder if the source is the same as my own.

We used to make a joke on sleepy mornings about “too much blood in the caffeine system” and I wonder if I have too much political fury in my spiritual system.  And then I wonder how one finds the right amount?  Of course, there is a nighttime version of that joke — “too much blood in the alcohol system!”  And that is how it feels, I feel dizzied and fogged with the sheer burden of content: so many wrongs crying to be righted and so few things going well to balance that ledger.

I first thought the feminism-related issues would tie in with a goddess-spirituality; even a fighting spirit one could see in Durga riding a tiger into battle!  My decades long-tie to Athena made me care more for veterans and the dead of war.  And the crazy violence involving someone shooting several someones every day or so?  What do I tie that insanity to so that I can try making sense out of it?  But I feel like the softer, gentler thoughts I once entertained here are overwhelmed with simply trying to DEAL with all the actual strife and mayhem.

Part of me says, “Well, you call the ‘real’ dealing “sacramental living” – how is this different?”  Well, it doesn’t feel very sacred!  But yes, I always was “ritual light” because I was one of those who thought the beautiful actions of daily living bespoke spiritual connection and intention.  I sang no songs to Demeter, so to speak, but lifted the bread dough I kneaded in acknowledgment.  So, while it seems natural to fight political battles as a part of living a valid spiritual life; I’m struggling with the how.

I had hoped pulling back to this space would focus me.  Aim me, find my way….and I feel lost in a welter of need I can’t answer.  Perhaps, as my summer of reintegration into the marital home goes forward, and my personal life gets rebuilt, I will rediscover a sense of direction.  Right now, the compass spins.  I don’t like being aimless; but I don’t like wasted effort, either.

Tagged: chaos, dissolution

Do you feel it? Do you have that sense of vertigo and nausea, all the way from gut to your 'nads? As you hear the names chiming in the news like a roll call of shame - Mosul, Tikrit, Kirkuk - a chant of our national doom?

The breakdown of Iraq is something that anyone with any sense knew was inevitable once we removed Saddam Hussein, the bottom peg of the Jenga game that is that nation. We predicted civil war and, goddamnit, it was gonna happen. There was no policy that was going to maintain order in that fucked-beyond-fucked country except for eternal occupation by the United States - oh, sorry - coalition of the willing or whatever the fuck we called it. Once more, Barack Obama's presidency is swallowed and squandered by the devastated landscape George W. Bush left behind.

Obama is already getting the blame for the uprisings, the Sunni on Shiite violence, the radical Kurds taking what they always wanted (aided by average, everyday Kurds). It's like blaming your current lover for the herpes you got from some dude ten years ago because he's there and why the fuck not direct your rage at someone who is convenient instead of yourself and your own stupid decisions.

Eventually, and you can bet on this, another talking point is going to come around. It's something the Rude Pundit wrote about a long time ago, so, hey, here it is, from February 27, 2006, a gentle reminder that those of us who opposed the war were smarter and more prescient thinking than anyone who supported it. It's titled "Pre-Emptive Blogging: Talking Points For a Coming Attack From the Right" and it goes like this:

"As Iraq spirals into a shitstorm of violence and vengeance, even as some Sunnis and some Shiites try desperately to avert a direct, overwhelming hit by said shitstorm, at some point soon, some right wing bag of douche is going to proclaim that liberals are 'happy' or 'thrilled' by a civil war in Iraq. Liberals can be accused of enabling terrorists by using the dwindling "freedom of speech" we're allowed, and it's a pretty small rhetorical leap from saying the left wants American soldiers to die (which the right has done) to saying the left loves us some civil war. Yes, liberals will be viciously insulted (defamed, even) by conservative commentators, bloggers, Freeper frothers, as if somewhere, in an oh-so-hip underground club, liberals are gathered in an orgy of celebration over the infinite bloodletting in Iraq, chanting gleefully, 'Told you so, told you so, told you so' as they toast with cosmos and down sushi...

"So let's just say it up front here: over here in Liberalburg, we weren't happy when Ronald Reagan was cozying up to Saddam Hussein back in the 1980s. We weren't happy that the United States was backing a brutal, murderous, raping thug, giving him weapons and such. We weren't happy with the first Persian Gulf War. We weren't happy with sanctions that decimated the poorest people in Iraq. We weren't happy that the President wouldn't allow weapons inspectors to finish their work.

"We weren't happy with this war to start with, saying, for instance, that a civil war was the inevitable outcome. We're not happy to be proven right. We're not happy, simply, when people are dying for no good cause, with no good outcome on the horizon, and no good way out. Frankly, oh, dear, sweet right wing, on the whole, we'd've rather been wrong and had tens of thousands of people not killed, tens of thousands of America soldiers not wounded. We'd've eaten the crow and, trust us, wonderful, fair right wing, you'd've shoved our faces in the plate of that black bird.

"But since we were right, maybe, just maybe, someone oughta pay a political price for being so goddamned wrong. Instead, though, the right's gonna try to turn it around and blame the left and those who 'didn't support the war' for its failure. Which would, for all intents and purposes, finally seal the deal on Vietnam redux.

"Somewhere, Saddam Hussein is shaking his head, the only one who, really, and for all the wrong reasons, has the right to say, 'Told you so.'"

There is no joy here, no schadefreude. Just sorrow for the dead and displaced, just the pain that all Cassandras feel constantly.

I’m realizing that just like misogynists define manhood and what it means to be a “real man” around not being a woman, TERFs and other transphobes are defining womanhood and what it means to be a “real woman” around not being a trans woman.

And just like manhood is inconsistent, and women are derided for being both butch and femme, for not liking video games, and also liking video games (fake geek girl, etc), ciswomanhood is inconsistent, and trans women are derided if we’re assertive (really men), or passive (playing at being woman, thinking that women have to be passive).  If we experience or do things that are normally considered “female” experiences, then we’re fake, or faking it, trying to pretend to fit in, much like women in general are derided for being fake when they do “male” things, in order to keep the division of “men are like this, women are like that.”  And the same thing with being a “real woman” and being a trans woman, where nothing you do is enough, it’s either wrong and proves you’re not a woman, or you haven’t done it long enough, or you’re pretending, or you don’t experience enough of it, or you experience too much.  The porridge is never just right.

It’s the same double bind where being a “real” woman moves all over the place to keep it out of reach of trans women, just like being a man moves all over the place to keep it out of the hands of women. 

It’s time we let the prohibitionists know that if they want to pick on sex workers, we have a whole lot of brothers and sisters they’re going to have to face as well.  -  “Friday the Thirteenth Again”

Every year has at least one Friday the Thirteenth, and there can be as many as three in a year; next year will be that way, with the day appearing in February, March and November.  The longest time that can pass between two such days is 14 months, as noted in “The Last Thirteen for Fourteen“.  But this year we only have one, in the middle of the year, and that’s today.  Regular readers know what this means, but for those who’ve joined us since December, here’s how I explained it last September:

…from soon after the beginning of this blog, I’ve asked those of you who aren’t sex workers yourselves to speak up for our rights on this day.  The gay rights movement didn’t really take off until the friends and families of gay people got involved, and…we’re going to need [similar] help to make our voices heard.  We need all the sex workers (such as strippers, dominatrices and porn actresses) whose fields aren’t currently criminalized, and the sugar babies and other women who have informally or indirectly taken money for sex…We need all of the men who hire us at least occasionally…[and] all of the women who recognize that…laws which can be used to arrest us will also work to arrest you.  We need all of those who love porn, polyamory, BDSM or kink, because even though policing of sex usually starts with harlots, it never stops with us.  We need all of the public health and human rights experts who understand the necessity of decriminalization in light of their respective fields, all of the libertarians who recognize that governmental prohibition of consensual behavior is both indefensible and dangerous to individual liberty, and all of the feminists who recognize that a woman’s right to control her own body and make her own sexual and economic choices is the primary feminist issue.  And we need all of the decent human beings who don’t fall into any of those categories, but are simply disgusted by the idea of armed thugs arresting, humiliating and ruining people for the “crime” of consensual sex…

You could write a blog post, make an anonymous comment on an anti-whore news story, bring up the subject with friends, link or reblog this column…anything is a help!  If you don’t feel comfortable making any sort of public statement but still want to help the cause, there’s a “Donate” box in the right-hand column; you could also support my current speaking tour via GoFundMe or just buy a copy of my book.  There are also sex worker organizations such as SWOP, ESPLERP and the St. James Infirmary, or sex-worker-friendly organizations like Women With a Vision, that could use your contribution.  Whatever you do, please post about it in the comments and include a link if appropriate; I’ll republish every one next March together with whatever people do in February.  Above all, please remember that any contribution – loud or quiet, public or private, eloquent or laconic, lengthy or brief – is important and worthy, and everyone one will hasten the day when governments no longer believe it’s acceptable for them to persecute sex workers, our clients and our associates in any way they please.

@francis_terp @joshtpm @TPM @Mr_Electrico No, that's a total fabrication. I don't believe that and never said or implied that.
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) June 12, 2014

So, Mr. Greenwald has no idea where anyone would ever have gotten the impression that he had ever in any way said or implied that our two major political parties are so nearly equally dreadful that distinctions between them are so negligible as to be virtually irrelevant.

Ladies and gentlemen, Glenn Greenwald...

Transgender love song becomes a viral hit online in Thailand with 9 million views:

snow-anne:

starlingsongs:

unobject:

secondstringheroine:

This evening I had the misfortune to hear “Transgender Woman Never Cheats” by Thai artist Vid Hiper Rsiam.

According to Gay Star News the song tells the story of “a transgender woman who reunites with her best friend she fell in love with as a teenage boy”; but is in actuality the visual representation of a trans woman struggling with her affection toward a one time (and now again) aggressor.

The clip tells two stories featuring the main characters side by side; one set in the past, and one in the present.

In the past a young girl (who appears male at the time) pines for her friend (a cis man) as they share good times together. They ride bikes, they hang out, they even get matching tattoos. After he confides in her and falls asleep, the young woman leans over to kiss him. When he wakes he is furious, attacks her, leaves her face bloody and then stands to kick her while she is down.

Despite this the two are still upset when one has to move away. The narrative implies they are left without the chance to reconcile.

The present day story sees the two main characters (with the woman now presenting as herself) unknowingly reunite. They sleep together, part ways, then return for bed upon a chance meeting. During the second encounter he sees her tattoo and they learn of their past relationship. The man is infuriated and repeatedly pushes her away, even bloodying her head in the process. He raises his fist to hurt her, but sees affection in her eyes.

At the end of the clip his anger eases and they smile to one another.

This, apparently, is a love song.

The title of the song says it all: “Transgender Woman Never Cheats.” In that alone there are myriad implications which, while appearing to be passive, sympathetic and well meaning, makes a generalization about the loyalty of trans women to their partners. In any other context this might be considered a virtuous stereotype, but when applied to a story about a woman who is beaten and abused, loyalty in spite of herself is a dangerous and misguided thing.

Her gaze toward an abusive figure is sold as endearing and as a form of enduring love that sees beyond the violence he inflicts upon her. Throughout the narrative she is understanding of him, patient, and puts her own safety aside for the sake of his coming to terms with who she is. When he does harm to her she excuses it, accepts it as normal for a man who feels conflicted, and is waiting with open arms when his anger settles.

For the women who’ve been in similar situations, counting on the rage of an abuser to subside is not a certainty. For that idea to be sold on a mass media platform is a dangerous and irresponsible thing.

The message to trans women has long been made clear; that revulsion is the ‘normal’ reaction to our existence, that recognition of our beauty is cast into the land of fetish, that violence toward us is expected, and that our affection toward other human beings (in particular cisgender men) is justification for our being murdered.

There is no fault to be laid on women who have feelings for violent partners, but to call the violence part of a “love story” is a gross idealization of what no individual deserves from a relationship.

what a perfect example of the kind of shit we were talking about. yeah, thats totally  not like really explicit serve the men shit and trans women totally dont get this shit all the fucking time our entire lives starting from when were young, on top of all the other misogyny everywhere. /bitter sarcasam

Look at these pathetic fucking notes. You’d be reblogging your asses off if this was another one about a cis woman. But you won’t see blowback for this shit going viral like it did for blurred lines, we just aren’t important enough.

Message: “Trans women, we found a niche for you to fit into as viable partners: find an abusive jerk, smile at every punch he throws, and your stockholm-syndrome-like loyalty will have us so endeared that we’ll look past your transness.”

That’s so disturbing a message. :\  Also that it’s supposed to be romantic because the guy decides NOT to kill her at the end (after beating her) and is turned by the gentleness of her soul and whatever I guess. 

Besides again, another narrative that is about how cis men feel sleeping with trans women, and trans women not disclosing and cis men being upset, which is what seems to be the first thought that jumps into everybody’s minds whenever people even mention trans women, there are 2 other things going on here.

First, is typical misogynist tropes about women healing abusers, a woman’s love changing a man, etc… we see this a lot all over society and in our fiction, that it’s up to women to fix a man, to quiet a man’s anger, to quell the beast within him, etc…

Second, is the extra layer of transmisogyny which says that trans women are and have to be “better” women.  I’ve run into this a lot with chasers I’ve met online, and reading some of the stuff out there from them about why they like trans women, and a lot of them say stuff like “trans women are the only “real” women left”, or “trans women are more feminine than cis women” (they don’t say “cis” or “trans” but I don’t want to write crap that angers me here right now), “trans women understand men better than cis women”, etc… There’s a lot of stereotypes like this about trans women, that we’re the perfect women for men because they think we “used to be men”, or that we’re the perfect women because we transition obviously because we’re hyper feminine, or that we would want to/try to be hyper feminine and submissive because we’d be afraid to be de-gendered, or that we’d do anything for men because we should be so lucky to have company at all.  And they’re all really gross and come from a gross place.  And they’re a lot like stereotypes about Asian women (and since I’m both, I get both layers on and white cis guys think I’m SUPER submissive and perfect for them to do whatever they want to).

And the video above feels like it plays into all of that.  The perfect woman is a trans woman because she will sit there and take your abuse and just love you so perfectly that her perfect love will quell your transphobia and you’ll realize what a perfect gift you have in the trans woman whose love will never stop even if you hit her.  It’s super super super gross, and the whole idea of the “perfect” woman being one that is completely subservient to a man’s desires, and will take their abuse and stay with them, is no less gross just because it’s applied to trans women.  In fact, in an extra way, it’s more gross because of the way we’re distanced from being like other women, the way we’re made into this extra group of women that should be happy to have any affection at all, and is “perfect” because of our perceived desperation and other stereotypes.

Being okay with stuff like this but not okay when it happens with cis women is basically saying “here, take this group of women, we don’t really like them anyway, hurt them, abuse them, leave us alone”, and isn’t any different than the same kind of attitudes behind excluding trans women from washrooms or women’s shelters because it’s okay if cis men hurt us as long as they don’t go near cis women.

My book Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know was actually written by three people: me and Mark Kleiman (UCLA) and Jonathan Caulkins (CMU).  Inevitably there were some discrepancies and inconsistencies in our positions, and this caught the attention of some our more pedantic readers.  So I would like to take some time to clarify them.  I hope to get us all on the ‘same page’ so to speak.  Better late than never, right? 

Addiction is a bad habit

First of all, there is nothing mysterious about drug addiction.  It’s just a bad habit, and like mother always told you, bad habits are hard to break.  You start taking drugs and then your life spins out of control.  For example, you might start binge drinking and discover you lost control of how much you drink, and you still do it anyways.  Same for drugs.  The drive to take them is powerful.   A signal from your brain saying that you need to take drugs, as though it were a survival need, is very difficult to ignore.  This is the neuroscience explanation for ‘bad habit’: your brain tells you that you must do something or you will die.  It’s like how breathing is a ‘good’ habit.  Addicts driven by these intense signals will try very hard to get the drugs that their brains tell them they need, including resorting to crimes.  In this way, drugs cause crime.  People act irrationally, and need money to buy drugs.  This is proven in experiments with mice: mice who are forcefed lots of meth are aggressive and mean.  We can only assume they would commit crimes if they only could.  So drug addiction is just a really ‘bad habit’ that you simply cannot break even though it causes death and destruction.

Now this doesn’t happen to most people who take drugs, even those who take drugs to excess.  Most people moderate naturally on their own without external help, nor do they resort to crimes.  They break their ‘bad habit’ often with little effort at all (for reasons we make no effort to uncover).  But if you’re part of that subminority that is susceptible to the disease, you have a hard time stopping even when the physical and behavioral side effects of continued drug taking grow to nightmare proportions.  Dependent users commit enormous amounts of crime under the influence or to finance drug purchases.  Addicts suffer – and inflict on others – an enormous amount of damage.  Half of all criminal violence and automobile fatalities are caused by drunkenness.  (Though we don’t know how many of these people are addicted, or how much of this is caused by treatment itself.)

So addiction is simple to understand as a behavior.  It’s just a really, really bad habit with unintended side effects of violence, crime, and unsafe sex.  Over and over again.  But only for some people.  Simple, right?  Well from a neurological standpoint it is an astoundingly complex story. It has to do with neurons and neurotransmitters such as dopamine.  As shown with mice, the acquired habit can long outlast the reinforcement that generated it.  This explains why there is much crime due to the effort to obtain money to support the habit.  Who wouldn’t commit a crime to support a really bad habit?  I mean if I couldn’t pick my nose in public I would probably go hold up a liquor store in protest.

Addiction causes crime

Heroin and cocaine especially are linked to money motivated crime, an assertion for which we offer no evidence.  The long term opioid user can wind up in a situation where he or she needs some of the drug just to feel normal.  The reason is due to the ‘mood trap’ – if you don’t get your drugs, you’re in for a pretty miserable week of withdrawals (especially if your dealer ran out of ativan).   This explains why people who commit robberies to get money for their heroin seem so miserable.  I mean, I would prefer to commit a crime than face a miserable week.  Once I had to grade 50 papers in 3 days, and I actually considered calling in a threat to create a diversion and give myself more time.  But then I took an ativan.  Same for an alcoholic: long term use can create dependence, and someone who drinks to cure a hangover is well on their way to alcoholism, which then leads to violence and unsafe sex. If alcohol didn’t make you feel quite so rotten the next day, there might be fewer alcoholics, not more. Although this contradicts the well known fact that alcoholics are less susceptible to hangovers, but as I shall show, the ‘science’ can be safely ignored when it doesn’t support our conclusions.

As for meth, the drug makes you feel like  you are ‘king of the world’.  So you are likely to commit crimes while on meth thinking that you are a sovereign citizen and immune to earthly judgments.  Then when you’re out of your stash, which can happen at any time, and the liquor stores are all closed so you can’t come down comfortably, you may try to break into one to get some liquor and cash, accidentally killing the janitor who you didn’t see when you were casing the joint.  Again, this is how a simple bad habit can lead to crime.

Animal studies also explain the persistent craving — which can lead to relapse even after years of abstinence.  It has to do with neurons and neurotransmitters, as we explain in the book.  At least, Mark did his best to explain it but remember he’s not a scientist.  (But I think he’s pretty smart and would trust every word of a fat man with a white beard because I have daddy issues and an intense need to be accepted even at the expense of my integrity.)  12 Step programs teach that an addict must be abstinent, and they can relapse even after years of abstinence.  In a relapse, the drug user experiences a strong craving to take very large amounts of the drug.  Once I was at the supermarket and had an intense cravings for a donut.  Well, I realized I had forgotten my wallet, and my brain was telling me that I needed the donut to survive.  It was a chocolate glazed.  It would have taken me a half hour to return home and get it.  I thought about busking but there was a sign that said “No busking”.  So what could I do?  I just reached in and grabbed the donut and ate it on the spot.  Some people saw me and walked right by.  I was very ashamed of my behavior.  But no one said anything.  I could have gotten arrested!  Well I really understand how drug addicts feel when the cravings hit.  And then, after they finally get the drugs, they get high, and this results in further drug motivated crime under the influence, since drugs affect their judgment, and then this results in more drug motivated crime when they are coming down, in order to obtain more drugs, due to the withdrawal symptoms, which return almost immediately even after years of abstinence.  And then even if they can ‘get clean’, the cycle can repeat itself at any time in the future without warning.  Scary stuff.

Although, remember that most people with a history of a drug problem do not have this problem and can take drugs in moderation if they wanted.  This only happens to a small subset of people, who coincidentally have experienced 12 Step treatments and have a history of lying.

This happens because ordinary constraints of prudence and conscience are so blunted as to enable extreme behavior, and they do things atypical of their actions when not under the influence, but which they insist were not the goal of going under the influence, fun as they were.  And they do it over and over again. Like in the video of the mice that self-administer meth until death.  Problem drug users, in reflective moments, say they would prefer not to use.  Or that they used in greater frequency than intended.  Even if they do nothing to make sure it doesn’t happen again (for which there is a neurological explanation, but like I said it’s very complicated so you probably wouldn’t understand).  They also say that no one wants to have such a drug habit.  They also say that the persistent craving can lead to relapse even after years of abstinence, which then results in further violence and crime in order to obtain the drug due to the intense cravings and then afterwards, due to the re-emergence of withdrawal symptoms – and that’s what makes addiction such a burden, which is proven by animal experiments.  They say that cravings cause drug use and terrible suffering, even though the scientific literature says that cravings actually have little effect on the decision to use.  But as drug policy experts we can safely ignore the science, except to the extent that it supports our conclusions, like I said.

We dedicated our book to the suffering of the poor addicts and their loved ones and the ones they hurt.  And to the professionals on the front lines of treating them.  And we focus our drug policy recommendations on prevention and treatment of addiction, even though we can’t show that treatment doesn’t actually cause addiction.

Drug use unintentionally leads to crime and sexual assault

People are much more likely to be victims of a sexual assault as a result of alcohol and drugs that they willingly consume (the vast majority of date rape victims report voluntarily binge drinking), and often will report that their drink was spiked, even though normally it can be shown that it wasn’t.  Nevertheless, we can be quite sure that rape was not the intention of getting drunk in the first place.  I mean, what kind of girl would get ripped just to get raped, even if they falsely insisted their drink was spiked, and even if we sometimes fantasize about rape during our quieter moments?  The blame rests squarely on the alcoholic men who rape them.  (Although alcoholism is a disease, taking a drink is very much a choice, even if the craving is unbearable, so the men must be held responsible for participating in the ‘rape culture’ that insists that ‘yes’ means ‘yes’.)

Clearly we’ve shown that addiction is an involuntary mental condition and a disease, because no one desires to become addicted.  Why would anyone want to get addicted and commit crimes?  That’s just crazy talk.  If they wanted to commit crimes they could just commit them.  Why do drugs too?  But that’s why we need drug laws, because in the absence of drug laws, intoxicated behavior and the neglect of personal responsibilities (e.g. parenthood) by some drug users would constitute a social problem.  Does a child deserve to be neglected due to a parent’s drug use?  Carl Hart debunked the myth of drugs causing widespread child neglect and other social ills, and actually showed that drug laws create more problems than they solve.  But we can safely dismiss such ‘ivory tower’ thinkers who know nothing of the reality on the street.

Addiction is not a lie

Now some people might say that addiction is a lie and that addicts are simply liars who commit crimes under cover of ‘addiction’.  However, George Vaillant, Harvard psychiatrist, 12 Step proponent, and the ‘father of modern alcoholism science’ proved in the 1940’s that personality traits such as sociopathy and lying develop after addictions, not before them.  And this research was so persuasive that no one has ever tried to replicate it since, even though most addicts are self-admitted liars and ‘master manipulators’, and even though addicts lie freely about how much drugs they take (in both directions) to manipulate the criminal justice system, as I’ve shown.  Also, people who fall into substance abuse disorders frequently delude themselves about the effects drugs have on them, so we can safely rely on their self-reported experience of addiction, such as when they say, “The drugs made me do it,” as long as they admitted to a history of dishonesty and denial regarding the effects of their drug use, which is the only logical explanation of why they did it without any apparent attempt to stop.  Also remember that the nondrinker will be uncomfortable and unwelcome among drinkers and drug users, so is not in a position to observe and judge them fairly.  We must rely on their own reports such as may be heard at a 12 Step meeting, or by the experts who treat them, and know them best because they were once addicts themselves.

Policy recommendation: better treatment for the disease

For our policy recommendations, we would point out that some treatment providers are proven significantly better than others.  So we would like to see a push to use the evidence base, and we think these should be supported.  However, bear in mind that when it comes to the evidence base, most treatments are analyzed and reviewed by the people who developed them, so the conclusions are unreliable.  Furthermore, we cannot rely on science, because science has its own goals and purposes, and its participants have their own career strategies, which may be at odds with the needs of policymaking.  There is a conflict between good science and policymaking.  The reason is that no scientist will win the Nobel Prize for reducing the violence caused by drug addiction, and scientists are typically liberal and their values often differ from the average person.  Not to mention, research on drug abuse can create powerful enemies.  Just ask the scientists who demonstrated that DARE is ineffective (assuming they are still alive lol).  So they then create bad research, which then influences policy.  So while we think everyone should get serious about gathering real evidence, we don’t actually recommend it officially.  It’s just not possible.

There is simply a dearth of research on whether Treatment Communities (12 Step based treatment) work, or that treatment doesn’t actually create addiction, but we don’t recommend more research due to the fundamental problems with it mentioned above.  To paraphrase Mark Twain, there are 3 types of lies: lies, damned lies, and drug statistics.  Nevertheless, we have some evidence that treatment is actually harmful.  In CA drug diversion treatment (prop 36), we found that those who failed to show up for rehab were less likely to be rearrested than those who went to some treatment but dropped out: 55% compared with 60%.  Nevertheless, we can say confidently that the 12 step approach is well suited for some.  At least, they insist that it works and it’s the only thing that ever worked, so there is no harm in trying it.  Also, these programs are free, and in cash strapped jurisdictions, the value of free treatment for such a destructive disease cannot be dismissed.  Parents of teens who are recently released from inpatient treatment programs may scramble to find an aftercare program, so this may be the only option.  Even though it’s been shown to be more dangerous than no treatment at all.

Treating addiction as a disease is mostly ineffective, and programs like DARE are ineffective, as are public service campaigns against drugs.  The serviceability of the media in the drug-prevention field is used as a bogeymen with which to frighten children (and their parents), also to no effect.  Much to our surprise,  however, we discovered that encouraging good behavior, such as with the Good Behavior Game (GBG), and swift and certain consequences for bad behavior actually creates a long term improvement in behavior and decreases drug use.  Even in the absence of treatment for drug use or addiction.  This is surprising because addiction is a disease, and yet can be treated as if you were training a puppy.  This may be the most amazing scientific mystery of all.

We are now seeking funds to show whether brief jail terms can be used to fight cancer relapses and AIDS.

This is sort of a big deal:

Target is introducing a potentially precedent-setting policy imposing new rules on companies it hires to clean its stores in the Twin Cities, the retail giant’s hometown. It’s a step forward for union-backed efforts to force major corporations to raise standards for workers they don’t directly employ.

According to a Target (TGT) memo that the labor group Centro de Trabajadores Unidos en la Lucha provided to Businessweek, Target’s Twin Cities janitorial vendors will be required not only to comply with federal and Minnesota labor laws but also to give workers the option of at least one day off each week; establish safety committees and let employees choose half the members; and invite unions to meet at least once a year with management.

Most significantly, the document instructs each vendor—unless released from the obligation at Target’s discretion—to reach deals with labor groups that want to represent their workers. According to the memo, such deals should dictate “terms and conditions of employment” (making life easier for workers) but they must prohibit “economic interference with Target’s operations” by labor groups (making life easier for management).

In other words, Target—whose U.S. store workforce is 100 percent union free—is telling companies that want to clean its Twin Cities buildings to make nice with unions.

We shouldn’t overplay this–Target is not becoming a union shop overnight and it’s a very limited agreement where Target still has most of the power. But the precedent matters. Target has been forced to retreat in an era when we rarely see corporations do anything but crush organized labor.

Baseball Helps… Sometimes:

From the perspective of a fan with a mental illness, baseball can be a way to escape from the reality.

Lindsey Adler, a BuzzFeed sports intern, noted that the unpredictability of baseball holds her attention as she has anxiety and depression. The simplicity of the game keeps it stress free for Adler.

“I’ve found baseball to be really effective in curbing my anxiety/depression,” Adler said. “Watching upwards of 150 games over the course of the season serves as a major distraction from my anxieties. It creates a routine for me, in which I spend approximately four hours every night focusing almost solely on the game.”

The case is similar to Neil Weinberg, an associate managing editor at Beyond the Box Score. Obsessing over an issue is something that people with anxiety might know well. Weinberg experiences this himself, and baseball was a way to curb that.

“I’m really introspective and analytical and so every minute of every day was spent trying to solve this problem that I had, but mental health struggles are almost never something you can think your way out of,” Weinberg said.

Baseball’s statistics, history, and, in general, information rich components are things that Weinberg and Adler both say help them with their anxiety.

“Baseball was great and I improved more and more as baseball returned because instead of thinking about the tightness in my chest I would be thinking through how Verlander was going to approach the Royals’ lineup,” Weinberg said.

Adler looks at another side of baseball that helps her: everything surrounding the game.

“There is also so much to learn outside of games, and that can fill as much time as I choose,” Adler said. “I’m not a sabermetrics wizard, but I can read and analyze stats, and hope to deepen my understanding slowly over time. There’s also, of course, team gossip and rumors; I get really wrapped up in the personal lives of players. Most of what I know about the players lives off the field means nothing, but it serves as a distraction.”

Months without baseball in the offseason is a cruel fate for many, but it’s particularly tough for those who use the game to cope with their anxiety.

O:  This is why baseball is so calming for me too I think, and why listening to baseball and baseball analysis helps me so much when I’m freaking out over anxiety, and also why when baseball is over I am sadder than I am otherwise (also, winter, and lack of sunlight).  It’s really cool to see this written out like that and that I’m not alone. :)

While listening to the radio today, I learned of the passing of Ruby Dee, another towering 20th century polymath. Besides her achievements as an actress, writer, and activist on the national stage, Ms Dee and her husband Ossie Davis were pillars of the City of New Rochelle community. As a former resident of New Rochelle, this small-yet-diverse city is dear to my heart. Ossie Davis and Ruby Lee were central to the cultural life of the city, to the extent that the public library has a theater named after Ossie Davis.

My first exposure to Ms Dee's body of work was her performance in the 1961 film production of Lorraine Hansberry's A Raisin in the Sun. After reading the play in 7th grade English class, our teacher showed us the powerful film:





Perhaps Ms Dee's most important role was as an MC at the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom:





While the nation mourns Ruby Dee, her loss is felt especially keenly in New Rochelle, a city in which she and her husband attended PTA meetings and spoke at assemblies at the local public schools. Thank you, Ms Dee, for your dedication to the people who make up this remarkable community- rest in peace.

aww thanks

by Benn Ray

Experience has shown me it's really a matter of two things when confronting people about the dangers of beloved, massive, corporate businesses.

1. The education process. This is the easy one, but it requires patience - sometimes a mind-numbing amount of patience. When we created Independent Hampden back in 2004 to push back against encroaching formula chain retail establishments looking to open on the Avenue in Hampden, we had to educate people as to why these corporate chains were a bad thing.

The benefits of independent retail over corporate retail are not, for most, self-evident - if they were, well corporate chain retail wouldn't have the preferred status it currently benefits from in our society.

We had to point out that Independent Hampden was more than just about preventing the typical homogenization of a unique city neighborhood - y'know, replacing independent, local businesses with the same old businesses you could find along York Road or Ritchie Highway.

We had to explain over and over how, for every $1 you spend at a chain, roughly 12-15 cents (depending on which study you use) actually stays in your community while 45-65 cents of every dollar you spend at a local, independent retailer stays in your community. We had to explain how local, independent retailers also employ other local, independent businesses - your accountants, your payroll services, your local insurance agents, your local security services, your contractors, painters, etc. while corporate chains have central home offices, typically located out of state that handle all that. We showed study after study that reveals that local, independent businesses give more money to local charities than corporate chains do.

And eventually it started to sink in.

That is until an out of state developer wanted to dump a Lowes and Wal-Mart in the center of a thriving small business district, and then we had to begin the education process all over again, this time via Bmore Local. We had to show people how the jobs being promised by developers and city leaders actually came at a cost - to the local taxpayer - and that new jobs weren't actually created, existing jobs were just replaced with lower-paying, lower-benefited, employee-hostile jobs.

We had to show that study after study shows that these sorts of big box businesses externalize expenses to the point in which their full-time employees must use social safety net programs like food stamps and Medicaid. That the supposed savings these big box stores offer come at an expense - typically a subsidy we as taxpayers give without even being aware of it.

2. Combating brand identification/loyalty. This is much more difficult because it involves irrational attitudes in relation to consumption.

The problem is, as Karl Marx pointed out, a commodity is never just an object we buy and consume - a commodity is an object full of theological, even metaphysical niceties. When you buy an item from a store, you aren't just buying from that store, you are buying an ideology - and that ideology varies depending on the shop you buy from.

For example, if you shop from Wal-mart or Amazon, you come to believe you have a right to extreme discounts. This entitlement manifests itself in Amazon shoppers who use smart phones to "showroom" at bookstores - meaning they use non-Amazon bookstores to browse titles they either use their smart phone to buy from Amazon or they go home and buy later from Amazon and not even realize this behavior is inappropriate, short-sighted, and helps to ensure they won't even have bookstores to browse in the future (as many communities are already aware).

This entitlement manifests itself in the angry comments I got from pro-Wal-mart Baltimoreans who, upon learning that the 25th St. Station development collapsed and that its representatives were blaming me and some of my friends, send me their irrational rage that implied they were somehow entitled to have a Wal-Mart in the neighborhood. Typically, when I pointed out the sheer absurdity of such an attitude by asking them what a Baltimore in which every city neighborhood had a Wal-Mart in it might look like, they dropped their complaints.

Capitalism is religious in nature. Just look a the way zealots worship the mythical free market.

And where you shop involves the same consumption of ideology as the brands you buy. That is why we see people who seem to irrationally belong to the Cult of Mac. That's why, when in the past few weeks, when the unpleasantness of Amazon became readily apparent to every person who has ever one-clicked, there were still zealots, desperate to defend the vicious monopsony from the increasing chorus of criticism as a result of its hardball negotiations with big publisher Hachette.

But it really came as no surprise to those who look at Amazon without being tainted by brand identification or ideology. After all, while working hard to utterly own/dominate the book world, selling books for next to nothing, avoiding taxes for years, the company has also managed to not turn a profit while continuing to get investor revenue and Bezos getting stupid rich (some could argue their promise of revolutionary, global-changing logistics is little more than a scam). And at this point, Amazon has more in common with Wal-mart than it does with any bookseller.

Over the years, Amazon has removed "copies of 1984 from Kindles without the device owners’ consent, ... mistreat[ed] ... warehouse workers, ... less than one-sixth of the company’s senior executives were women, and, again, the lack of charitable giving. (... in comparison with other large local corporations like Microsoft or Boeing, they’re impossibly stingy.)"

"The largest bookseller in the United States is a transparency-hating libertarian corporation that doesn’t think about art except as units to be moved. Their goal is to put their competition—authors, publishers, retailers—out of business, and Bezos designed Amazon to be as relentless as possible in pursuing that mission. ..."

So why do people still shop at Amazon?

Oh yeah...
"[People] who would never set foot in a Walmart are passionate about their love of Amazon. Ideals become easy prey when convenience is at stake. ... All the ugliness of Amazon is behind the scenes, hidden behind a thick wall of corporate silence, and for that concealment, any number of people who consider themselves good citizens are willing to trade their loathing of Walmart for a deep and abiding love of the Great Walmart in the Sky."

Still feel good about that Amazon account? I don't see how, unless you are simply indulging in the theocratic nature of capitalism. That brand identification, ideological subscription means more to you than the actual books, records, movies and diapers you buy from Amazon.

I don't know how Hachette's battle with Amazon will play out. Of course I'm rooting for Hachette - I'm rooting for the publisher, the authors. I also think now would be a great time for every other major publisher to press Amazon's hand and force a renegotiation of their terms. Will this happen? No.

In fact, it's very possible that Hachette and Amazon could be the next Rubbermaid and Wal-mart - where American company Rubbermaid simply could not meet Wal-mart's terms and were dropped by the retailer and ended up going out of business. 

But Amazon can't concede, because they will then lose the power to bully every other publisher. But part of the problem here is that publishers have created this beast. Instead of partnering with existing booksellers, publishers have simply catered to Amazon, helping them secure 50% of the book market share - making them too big to handle.

I've been to BEA (Book Expo America) several times (the book industry's biggest convention), only to have major publishers look at my badge and see that I wasn't from Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Wal-mart or Costco and promptly ignore me. This indicates a lemming-like determination for self-destruction. Or maybe I'm just being pissy cuz my little feelings got hurt.

Regardless, there are still booksellers out here. And a little support from publishers would go a long way in helping them sell books and not being so reliant on Amazon. But publishers and some readers are so anxious to bury the "middlemen" (as I've seen some ignorant Amazonians call bookstores), and so lazy, I find it highly unlikely that they'll take the path of long-term self-preservation, and instead sell their products under-value to a vicious, monopsonistic online retailer that cares not about what they are selling, just how quickly and cheaply they can sell it while plotting to own every aspect of the book world.

Source1.

Further reading 1,

Further reading 2.

Further reading 3.

Further reading 4.

Related articles Indie booksellers join Hachette's battle with AmazonNew chapter in anti-Amazon feelings as Hachette loses the plot over marginsAmazon halts sales of some Hachette books as publishing battle escalatesSeattle indie bookstore jabs at Amazon, enters Hachette fray with promise to hand-deliver J.K. Rowling's new novel

summer-of-supervillainy:

I’ve gotten a lot of really supportive messages today.

Ami has not.

Here’s the thing. Ami and I tag-teamed back and forth the entire time. We talked things over on IM, our posts inspired each other and built on each other. We supported each other.

Ami is trans. I am cis. The transphobia started upsetting her long before it upset me. I was protecting my girlfriend from attacks. She was being attacked. So I was able to post more, and with more righteous anger and less vulnerability, insecurity, and hurt.

My privilege insulated me from being a target, and from being shaken by engaging with transphobia. It also made me make poorer choices than Ami has made, and Ami talked me out of them. My privilege means I came out of this encounter feeling good, while Ami feels shaken and upset.

And my privilege has gained me support, credit, and praise that Ami does not have. 

This isn’t right. This isn’t fair.

This is giving me cookies, and I don’t want them if Ami doesn’t get any.

Did I mention I have the best g/f? :*)

flatandsassy:

Eventually the 20th Century History class at Starfleet Academy stops being a fringey elective and becomes a required course, and all the cadets are like “this is so irrelevant, why do we have to learn this” and anyone who’s been around for a while is like “there is an 812% chance that you will time travel to the 20th century during your Starfleet career”

"but the temporal prime directive" 

"At the very least you will get trapped a holodeck program based on the 20th century, and you will need to know all these weird idioms"

"But why is it only the 20th - "

"We don’t know why it’s only the 20th century we have a whole corps of scientists trying to figure out what’s happening with that it seriously makes no sense but in the meantime, knowing how to work a combustion engine is pretty much guaranteed to save your life so get the hell on that."

The @Savedyouaclick Twitter account decodes linkbaity headlines so you don't have to click on things that aren't likely interesting to you.

Sexism. RT @Slate: What we found while lurking on an anonymous college message board for two years will disgust you:

— Saved You A Click (@SavedYouAClick) June 5, 2014

I'm foursquare for headlines that are punchy and intriguing, but I'm also a believer in "attention conservation" -- a headline should try to convey both the substance and the fascination of the piece, but not by withholding information that, if you had it, would dissuade you from clicking altogether.

He was happy to be there. Really opened up. RT @eonline: John Legend opens up about Kim Kardashian and Kanye West's "beautiful" wedding!

— Saved You A Click (@SavedYouAClick) June 6, 2014

Population-based cap on liquor licenses. RT @Slate: Why is it so hard to get drunk in Boston?

— Saved You A Click (@SavedYouAClick) June 6, 2014

It's abuse that can cause psychological damage. RT @voxdotcom: The case for banning spanking

— Saved You A Click (@SavedYouAClick) June 5, 2014

(Image: Bull Itch, Emilio Labrador, CC-BY)

chudobs:

theshriekingsisterhood:

amecans:

princessannaofsherrington:

by HKY91

ah yes, valid criticism about frozen being a shit movie must be so hard on these fictional character’s self esteem.

Nevermind that the racism and sexism in Frozen hurts actual children, think of how ur tumblr posts would make these fictional characters feel

INCREDIBLE

I hate when people try to frame criticism of creative decisions by creators (especially large companies) as being attacks on the poor little characters.  This is just like when Stan Lee tried to deflect criticism of the way he writes Sue Storm by writing a comic where the F4 read fan mail and Sue was crying about how mean everybody was to her.  Sue Storm isn’t real, and acting as if people mad about the sexist creative decisions of a male writer is actually being mean to a fictional woman is really really really disingenuous.  Or when people act like Escher Girls isn’t about the way companies and the industry as a whole represents women, but is “shaming” the sexuality of the sad warrior women who just want to express themselves in boobs and butt fighting stances and battle bikinis.

These fictional characters are details in a product, and criticism of the decisions that go into making that product is no more awful than criticizing the design of the new iPhone.  It’s not hurting the iPhone’s feelings, it’s about Apple.  And trying to pretend that criticism of a multi billion dollar company like Disney is actually picking on a little girl is so so so amazingly dishonest, and willfully trying to dodge the real issues.

You’re poor. You’ve been arrested. You go to court and you can’t afford to hire a private attorney, so the court tells you to apply for a public defender. You go to their office and fill out a form and they ask you some questions. You have to tell them how much you make, how many dependents you have and how many assets you have. They thank you, give you your next court date and say that they have to complete an investigation into your finances before a final appointment is made.

That’s fine, you say. It makes sense. People shouldn’t be getting taxpayer funded services if they don’t qualify. Many states have made it a crime to lie on the application for public defender services and at least one state has held that there’s no confidentiality in the information provided in those applications.

So you go home and one day a nice man, Eric Carrizales, knocks on your door and says he’s here to investigate whether you really qualify for the public defender.

Carrizales spends a couple of hours a day at the courthouse sifting through applications and going to applicants’ homes to talk about their answers.

What a great public service. The Indigency Council that makes the appointments is tremendously happy about Carrizales’ work:

McLennan County Indigent Defense Coordinator Cathy Edwards said she has seen about a 40 percent drop in requests since sheriff’s office Detective Eric Carrizales began investigating them in November.

Edwards said she received as many as 50 applicants in a week prior to Carrizales’ arrival. Now, she sees about 30.

Carrizales’ investigations also help put Edwards’ mind at ease when granting a request.

“It makes me feel better to know that what Eric’s finding — the ones he’s going out and investigating — I’m making the right decision by appointing these folks an attorney,” Edwards said. “These folks really don’t have anything.”

Glad to hea-hang on a second, did she say “sheriff’s office Detective Eric Carrizales”?

Yes, yes in fact Carrizales is a cop. They send a cop to the homes of defendants seeking to apply for the public defender and have him interview and investigate them.

In fact, there’s such a problem with falsifying information on applications, that a whopping 2 people have been arrested since November.

When put in perspective, you begin to see why Edwards has seen a drop in applications. It might have to do with the fact that people don’t want a police officer coming into their homes and asking them questions.

Oh, you know what else a police officer might do when he enters a home? He might look around:

In addition to reducing the number of applicants, Carrizales’ work has also led to several arrests.

Carrizales said he has made more than 20 arrests simply from following up with applicants at their homes and finding fugitives with outstanding warrants.

Colyer said the sheriff’s office expected the additional arrests because the investigation of one crime often leads to the discovery of other offenses.

Though some crime suspects are wary of Carrizales entering their homes, Colyer noted that those with nothing to hide welcome his investigations.

So the county sends a police officer to the homes of poor, underprivileged people in the guise of conducting an investigation into just how poor they are, exactly, and then use that opportunity to investigate other criminal activity and arrest those people.

This isn’t an option that is given to poor people seeking the assistance of a lawyer. This is a condition precedent to getting a lawyer.

This is an abuse of the power of the system in the worst way imaginable.

H/T: PD Gumshoe

by Amy M. Denissen and Abigail C. Saguy

When asked to describe her first day on a construction site, Loretta, a Black butch lesbian tradeswoman, replied, “If looks could kill, I probably would have died. It was like they couldn’t believe I was showing up. ‘Who is he? What is that? What’s it doing here?’” While describing her gender nonconformity as marginalizing and even dehumanizing, she also said that her male coworkers feel more “free” to use crass language and “scratch their balls” around her because “she’s not really a chick” and that this provided some measure of inclusion, while also shielding her from sexual advances.

Loretta’s experience illustrates some of the gender and sexual quandaries that tradeswomen confront in the male-dominated building trades; a set of relatively well-paid occupations that remain gender segregated (less than 2% women workers) long after the 1972 passage of federal regulations to encourage the hiring of women.

Denissen and Saguy draw on 63 in-depth interviews with women working in the construction trades, including 28 lesbian tradeswomen, to shed light on the complex relationship between sexual and gender oppression. They find that tradeswomen respond to gender boundaries and double binds by cleverly engaging in gender maneuvering, in ways that vary based on sexual identity, gender presentation, race, and body size. Ultimately, however, such individual strategies may be insufficient as some men deploy the stigma of lesbianism to discourage solidarity and collective action among tradeswomen, gay and straight.

By Amy M. Denissen and Abigail C. Saguy on their article, “Gendered Homophobia and the Contradictions of Workplace Discrimination for Women in the Building Trades,” published in the June 2014 issue of Gender & Society.  To read the press release, click here.

Filed under: Inequality, Sexualities, Work & Organizations

Some friends of mine used to say “Stupidity should be fatal — and none of that gradual stuff, either.”  And then we would look at each other and feel a need for speed of another kind — alcoholic stupor speed!  Because it depressed us to realize that stupidity IS fatal, but usually not for the immediate idiots you had in mind.  No, institutionalized stupidity kills OTHER people.  And religiously institutionalized stupidity does it with a blissful expression, I assume.

So, because of stupidity, people die in agony in Africa because their stupid doctors — if they even HAVE a doctor — don’t want to use enough morphine to keep them from jumping in front of trucks to end the pain.  I find it telling that an awful high number of these people are women.

And before you simply shrug that off as “Well, deepest, darkest Africa– after all,”  consider America.  In this, the 21st century, maternal mortality rates are rising.  An American woman is more likely to die due to pregnancy related issues than a woman in Saudi Arabia!  This is largely the result of right wing political choices in the arena of medical coverage; and they have let their choices be guided by religious fanatics for a good while now.  Even Blaise Pascal would have folded his cards on his famous wager if confronted with such facts as that article lays bare.

And even when women try to fight the storm and change perceptions?  If they do it on television, it just might get edited out.  Like when Shailene Woodley tried to school Jimmy Fallon on gender politics, for instance.  How’s that for a “Shush, Honey, now you just sit there and be pretty!” move?  I mean, we can’t have a female celebrity showing signs of brain over tits, right? (And me?  I don’t care why Fallon cut it, he can fuck off — I won’t watch the show any more.)

Still having trouble thinking it is really misogyny at base of these kinds of problems and the related horror stories?  Well, it is pretty deeply ingrained…I had to read this story twice, making sure I hadn’t fallen into The Onion by mistake.  But no, it is real — people don’t take necessary shelter from hurricanes that have female names.  Because who’s afraid of a Girl? Is it too much to hope that if global climate change makes more hurricanes, that all the misogynists might be taken out by the Lady Storms?

Tagged: birth, burning stupid, death, gop lies, medicine, misogyny, moron media, religious discrimination, religious folly, sexism, television

 

This week’s recap comes complete with necessary references to both My Girl and Apocalypse Now. Something to whet your appetite:

A key aspect of this scene is that Graves lets the camera linger on both Missandei and Grey Worm for a few beats too long before reversing the shot, which creates an odd effect. Instead of seeing how the other character is reacting to what each of them says — which is what typically happens with a reverse shot, as Person A says something and the camera cuts to Person B reacting to it — Graves allows the audience to see both Missandei and Grey Worm reacting to what they’ve just said, which calls to mind the self-conscious awkwardness of a first date. They’re both judging themselves before they give the other a chance to, and it’s charming, because they’re both far more forgiving of the other’s missteps than they are of their own.

Male character: ARGH!!
Female character: oh. oh!! UHHHng!!!! I'M COMING!!!!?

bevsi:

sobs

This is pretty. :)

jebiwonkenobi:

When I was little I thought being an adult meant not having a bed time but I’ve come to realize that it just means being in charge of my own bed time and it turns out that I am not equipped to handle that responsibility.

AND THEN I REALIZED THAT SLEEP IS TERRIFYING AND FRIGHTENING WITH AN ANXIETY DISORDER AND NOT SLEEPING MEANS TALKING TO MY BFF, SHARING FEMSLASH WITH MY G/F, AND READING STAR WARS BOOKS >_>;;

Re my last post: I really should try to sleep earlier because I end up getting into this anxiety cycle where I don’t want to sleep because I have so much anxiety and my brain latches onto stuff and magnifies it until I’m sure my fears are real, and then I can’t sleep so I try to read and stuff to calm myself down, and then I end up getting more tired and more scared and anxious, and then when I try to sleep I have nightmares or I can’t sleep and stay up just crying and freaking out.  And that leads to me being tired the next day and being scared and anxious too. :\