Shared posts

28 Feb 19:11

Not Good Enough

by Maggie McNeill

This essay first appeared in Cliterati on January 26th; I have modified it slightly to fit the format of this blog.

Modern feminists expend considerable time and energy criticizing societal pressures for women’s bodies to conform to certain sexual norms.  While I reject asinine assertions like “clothes, cosmetics, diets, gym membership, trips to the hair salon, the waxing salon and the nail salon [are indicators of women’s] self-loathing” and mercilessly ridicule those who spend their time calculating the body proportions of plastic dolls, I do think it’s worth discussing the way people of both sexes think they have the right to control women’s bodies and to limit what we are allowed to do with them.  Furthermore, while I believe in both the free market and individuals’ right to modify their bodies as they please, I reserve the right to criticize sleazy businesses which use deception to capitalize on women’s powerful desire to be “good enough”.  In fact, I don’t think mainstream feminism is nearly vocal enough in its condemnation of societal attempts to control women’s sexuality and big business’ efforts to profit therefrom; if anything, most vocal feminists are perfectly happy to reduce women’s sexual freedom if it means reducing that of men in the bargain.  But when their publicly-stated goal of “equality” conflicts with their true goal of sexual repression, such women are liable to experience cognitive dissonance which renders them uncharacteristically speechless, as they have largely been on the issue at hand today.

pink viagraIn the last two decades, the pharmaceutical industry has succeeded in medicalizing a number of issues which were previously seen as behavioral or even normal: for example, the ordinary restlessness of schoolboys is often misdiagnosed as “attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder” so that they can then be drugged into docility, and the totally understandable resentment young people feel when they’re treated as “children” is now pathologized as “Oppositional Defiant Disorder” (for which I’m sure some drug will soon be forthcoming).  Virtually all male sexual dysfunction (and some behavior that isn’t actually dysfunctional) is now treated with medication even when it really isn’t appropriate to do so, and for years now the corporate pill-pushers have been dying for a “female Viagra” by which they could profit both from women who are unhappy with their sex lives and, more importantly, those who can be convinced that they’re “not good enough”.  Unfortunately for their dreams of a vast new source of profit, female sexual response is much more complicated than male; it cannot simply be quantified by measuring how often sex occurs or how long it lasts, and it can’t be cured by improving blood flow to the genitals or raising the testosterone level.  Yet there are those who bemoan the fact that female sexual desire has not yet been fully medicalized as male desire has been, and who eagerly await the day when we can see television adverts telling women that there’s something “wrong” with them for wanting sex less often than their partners do:

…there are no medications available in the United States for female hypoactive sexual desire disorder.  That’s the technical term for when women have a distressing lack or absence of sexual desire or fantasy.  Up to one-third of adult women may experience it…But the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has rejected applications to green-light [flibanserin]…If there is no positive action on the drug, it could spell doom for pharmacological efforts to manage female sexual desire…The drug works by increasing brain blood flow in particular ways…it increases levels of the neurotransmitters dopamine and noradrenaline, and lowers levels of serotonin.  Side effects of flibanserin include dizziness, nausea, fatigue and sleepiness.  Unlike some treatments for men, flibanserin needs to be taken once a day, every day…

Let’s break this down point by point, shall we?

1) Calling something experienced by 1/3 of a population a “disorder” is a flagrant misuse of the word.   We don’t even consider homosexuality a “disorder” any more, and it’s only about 3% of the population; how then can the sexuality of 11x as many people be considered a “disorder” in any meaningful way?  Female desire and fantasy cannot be measured by male norms; we stopped doing that decades ago in most areas, so why are we still doing it with regard to sex?  As I’ve written on a number of occasions, “I rarely feel anything like what men think of as normal lust, and I think that’s great; if I felt anything like the kind of near-constant desire men feel, I’d ask my gynecologist if there was anything we could do about it without ruining my looks.”  Yes, the word “distressing” is included in the description, but I think it’s important to differentiate between distress deriving from sexual dissatisfaction and that resulting from either partner pressure or from big businesses telling women they’re “abnormal” because they don’t want to fuck like bunnies in every room of the house 365 days a year.

2) If you don’t find the phrase “efforts to manage female sexual desire” chilling, you haven’t been paying enough attention to either my writings or the news.flibanserin

3) Flibanserin is a psychoactive drug which was originally tested as an antidepressant; its whole raison d’être is to alter the mood and behavior of a third of the female population, and journalist Elizabeth Landau appears to think that’s just peachy (and probably even “feminist”).  A huge fraction of womankind is being defined as Not Good Enough and told that the very chemistry of their brains is in need of correction; if you don’t consider that troubling, there’s nothing else I can sat to help you “get it”.

As I wrote in “Caveat Emptor”, there’s a vast difference between a woman choosing to alter her body and her being tricked, talked or shamed into doing so.  And when the characteristic she’s being pushed to change is not merely an aspect of her physical appearance but the very machinery of brain and personality, it seems to me that feminists should be paying a lot more attention to this than to the pressing issue of whether bikini waxing is “feminist”.


28 Feb 07:55

So I have a question, no hate, just curiosity, do you fear /all/ cis people? I mean not every single one will harm you but then again I can't say I understand because I'm not trans but from what I've read you seem to be treated pretty fucking poorly I just don't understand why people treat others poorly when they don't understand something. Ah I'm sorry for asking.

I think there’s been a misunderstanding in some corners about my post because I started by talking about the word “cisphobia” so people thought I was defending what they believe the concept is rather than unpacking what “phobia” means and why my fear of interaction with cis people I don’t know (which is almost all of general society, and is required for me to get services, go about my day, buy things, etc) is not an irrational fear.  Like being afraid of spiders is.

(This is not targeted specifically at you, I’ve just gotten a bunch of people talking on this subject so I’m just going to address it all here)

Many cis people reacting to my post also seem to latch onto this idea that I fear or am implying I fear ALL cis people, and they’re missing the point of what I was trying to say because they’re latching onto the idea that I’m defending “cisphobia” rather than saying that accusations of such are based on a false premise.

When I say I fear cis people, I mean as a group, cis people out there in the world, who are everywhere, that control pretty much all important aspects of my life, like healthcare, my finances, employment, housing, being able to buy things without being harassed, etc… big and little things all generally involve interactions with cis people I don’t know.  Not ALL of them are horrible, but it doesn’t take ALL of them to be horrible for me to never know when me going outside to do shopping, get hormones, or telephone bank is going to lead to a painful, humiliating, and sometimes dangerous situation FOR ME.  Because it isn’t relevant that some cis people don’t want to hurt me.  It’s relevant that I HAVE BEEN HURT REGULARLY BY LOTS OF INTERACTIONS WITH CIS PEOPLE. That I don’t know when it’s going to happen next, but that if and when it does, it’s going to be another humiliating and painful experience that will be burned into my memory.  The nice cis people in the world don’t fix that.  Thinking nice thoughts about me doesn’t fix that I experience this.  Because I still do, and I have to live with it, and it’s MY LIFE that’s being fucked up.

Cis people are more concerned that not ALL CIS PEOPLE are thought of as transphobes than the effect that regular, consistent transphobia has on trans people.  I tried to get this point through in my post, and some responses show they still are focusing on how many cis people are hurting me, rather than how often I’m hurt.  Because I don’t care how many cis people are NOT hurting me, I only care that I’m consistently, painfully hurt and threatened by them.

So yes, I’m scared of cis people because I don’t know when the next time I interact with the world where cis people are dominant, and everywhere, that I’m going to get some aspect of my life screwed up because of their ignorance and hatred, and because other cis people tolerate this, and excuse it.

I also want to point out that there’s a massive difference between being afraid of a group of people because they threaten your dominance and comfort level as the default group in society, and being afraid of a group because they keep you out of participating in society through fear, intimidation, ignorance, hatred, and the threat of physical, emotional, and financial harm.

These things don’t happen in a vacuum.  So many people seem to frame marginalized groups’ fear or anger about the danger and oppressive acts that the privileged do to us like we’re all equals and we just want to push people out of our way because we’re mean.  We’re not equals, we want you out of the way because YOU ARE IN OUR WAY, you are blocking us from living OUR LIVES.

FFS, I actually had a response to the post accusing me of beginning the slippery slope to genocide because the mainstream narrative is that everything is equal and all actions are equal.  No they’re not.  Shouting at somebody because they’re hurting you, restricting you, stepping on you, is not the same as shouting at somebody because you want them to leave society all together because they weird you out.  And that’s what people seem to think.  That all fear is the same, all anger is the same, and because the fear and anger of privileged groups who want to continue being dominant and default leads to genocide, therefore the fear and anger of those who are being stepped on and pushed out of society will also lead to genocide.  No. 

Transphobes fear and hate trans people because we are seen as an undesirable element in THEIR society.  Cis people see themselves as default and normal in society, and we are at best guests in it, at worst we’re invaders.  So they’re trying to push us out of society, or control how we can live in it.  If they “win”, we are gone.

Trans people’s fear of cis people is because we just want to get through our lives without being put in danger, without being harassed, without having our rights and ability to get healthcare or housing or just buying groceries imperiled or taken away.  If we “win”, we get to live our lives alongside cis people in peace, without fear.

This isn’t a tv show or a movie.  We don’t live in vacuum-sealed-morality world where any fear or anger leads to evilness leads to character corruption and genocide.  We live in the real world, where fear and anger can be tools of the oppressor to destroy, or a natural reaction by the oppressed to push back so we can just exist.  The context matters. 

28 Feb 07:51

Not the Least, and Not the Last

by Vixen Strangely

Yesterday marked some new changes in the battle of LGBT equality, with AZ Gov.Jan Brewer vetoing Senate bill 1062, finding that there was no evidence that people of faith were being unduly burdened and that allowing this bill to become law would have unintended consequences, and with a federal judge ruling the Texas gay marriage ban unconstitutional.

It’s not unalloyed good news, because although I am optimistic (just see my last blog entry) I was not found in a cabbage patch nor was I raised on sunshine and good vibes. The response of some social conservatives definitely reminds me that nothing is over—if anything, the desire of a handful of retrograde culture warriors to wrap themselves in the mantle of faith and claim special privilege as a marginalized group seems to have grown. It’s what you might call a smaller, but more motivated group. Look at it this way, if it’s right that the SCOTUS Windsor ruling has literally made all further argument on gay marriage moot, what the hell is Brian Brown gonna do now? Get a real job? Even Fox News might stop inviting Tony Perkins on, and everyone knows Bryan Fischer is worried that if folks are freely getting gay-married…well, he’s on his own thing and I think he’s more scared of turning into a vulva than turning gay, but my point is, that rear-guard money is catch as catch can and they gotta hustle now. So they will hustle.

The thing with prejudice is, the people with it like to feel justified. Of course they are fine upstanding better people. They wouldn’t even have the prejudices they do if they weren’t! This “religious freedom” gambit seemed like a nice way to co-opt the language of the persecuted to sound like maybe they were the ones all victimized and wronged by liberal fascism. Which is the very worst kind of fascism because of the PBS programming and organic produce, not to mention the whole meaningful chats about “tone”. But the problem is political correctness, don’t you know.

Conservatism won at least one argument with me. I hate political correctness. I will call these professional victims and family values pimps what they are. And for what it’s worth, if they want to talk about respecting religion, I have some reservations about your garden-variety haters deciding it’s totally okay to rip out pages of Leviticus and use them as a fig leaf to cover up their rage-boners over any class of people…being treated totally the same as anyone else.

But here is something to ponder that I don’t think conservatives are taking into account:

This kissing of theocratic ass is costing them—let’s talk about CPAC.

I love CPAC. I pretend I’m appalled because I’m a proper liberal with all the right credentials but as theater? I was a choir geek in high school—I love theater! And who doesn’t like to watch a hot mess of theater sometimes? But anyway, CPAC has engendered drama because they could never let GOProud in the fold. They were out, and never in. The sucking up around the edges to try and pacify the theocrat powers that be apparently cheesed Chris Barron off enough to quit them, hard enough. Is he not a conservative and a brother?

Nope. Moving on, CPAC isn’t having any with atheists either.  Wow. If “none of the above” is a big religious choice of the millennial generation, aren’t they making a big mistake right here? Especially given that 1/3 of millennials left religion specifically over how gay people are treated by their faith?


This wedge issue that used to be good for the GOP circa 2004, is not a great issue about now.  But if they think they look spiffy in albatross, who am I to try and stop them? You go, GOP-ers! Wrap yourself in the flag and the Bible and take all of your guns at once and….

I dunno. Write a very serious letter to editor of the Washington Times. If they have one. I guess.

(X-Posted at Strangely Blogged)

28 Feb 05:52

Outing, Slut-Shaming and Very High Price of Freedom

by Remittance Girl

To my knowledge, there has never been a time or a culture that hasn’t suffered its share of hypocritical stances. Ours, at the moment, mostly revolves around sex. We use it to sell almost everything, we valorize people who use it as a weapon, we crave it, we demand that others should want what we want. At the same time, we publicly punish those who do not walk the very fine and murky line of being sexually alluring but not overly vulgar. Conservative women secretly devour Regency Romances full of sexual innuendo by the boatload, and publicly condemn Miley Cyrus for twerking. We are dellusionally nostalgic for time periods when we believe things were freer, when in fact, there was always hypocrisy and for women, it historically came with far worse consequences than it does now.

I just finished reading “Slut-Shaming and the Duke Porn Star” in the Guardian, and it pissed me off.

Let me make this plain: I have no problem with sexual brazenness. I have a problem with stupidity.  If you are stupid enough to believe that you can earn money for your tuition as a porn star and not have that eventually come to light, you’re stupid. I’m not offended about how she earned her tuition. I’m offended she was stupid enough to believe it would have no negative consequences for her.

Similarly, if you chose to fellate one or many people in public at an Eminen concert, and you actually believe no one is going to pull out their phone and video it, and post in on YouTube, you’re stupid. I don’t care that you’re a serial cocksucker. I think that’s fine. That you act like a victim of a terrible injustice for having to bear the consequences of that… that’s what offends me. Stupid.

When in comes to writing erotic fiction, or sex blogging, or taking pictures or videos of yourself and posting it to a public forum, or even sending them to another person… the same thing goes. I understand that you would like the freedom to be yourself and you enjoy the attention that being sexually outspoken, outwritten or outimaging garners you, but consider that our culture is still (for better or worse) very ambivalent about sexuality. There is a very good chance that you will be exposed at some point. You need to ask yourself, very seriously, if you can bear the consequences of that.

It isn’t fair that we’re so ridiculously hypocritical about sex, but as a culture, at the moment, we are. And that means that when you expose yourself sexually, you hand people, who may not have your best interests at heart, a tool with which to beat you. You really do need to understand this. Yes, it is an unforgivable betrayal to ‘out’ someone who does not wish to be outted, but you have to consider the worst case scenario – it may indeed happen. And if you can’t live with that, then you are better off living keeping your sexual secrets to yourself.

Publicly posting pictures, writing or discussing your sex life and your sexual fantasies is a form of exhibitionism. Please don’t fool yourself that you are being entirely altruistic. You enjoy the attention you get for doing it. But it is not without its price. The price is that you may not be able to control how much of yourself ends up getting exhibited. When it is more than you would like, when your desire for attention ends up getting you more attention than you want, or the wrong kind, please don’t pretend to be shocked and devastated. You KNEW this could happen because it has happened to many others. You took the risk. You enjoyed the risk. You got off on the risk.

It’s a bit like fucking bareback. It’s a cosmic injustice that there are venereal diseases. It’s a bit like skydiving. It’s a cosmic injustice that parachutes sometimes malfunction. It’s a bit like walking around in a conservative country with a miniskirt on and getting spit on and shouted at. It’s a shame there are cultures like that.

But there are. There are all these unfair things in life. And you have an obligation as a person who takes care of themselves NOT to be stupid and ignore the risks. You have every right to take them. It may be a revolutionary act to take those risks. But should it result in pain, please don’t pretend you didn’t know there was HIV or gravity or misogynistic cultures.

I decided to ‘out’ myself because I realized that if I was going to publicly argue for the value of erotic writing as a literary genre, I was going to have to put my name to that. I considered the consequences. I considered the consequences to those who were close to me. I decided that there is no freedom without risk, but that I was willing to suffer the consequences if they should come.

No revolutionary, no political activist, no suffragette or campaigner for equal rights will tell you that freedom is free. In order for us to get past our current state of deep cultural hypocrisy, we require people who are informed and willing to take the risk of being outed and condemned. We do not need another whining victim who is ‘stunned’ or ‘shocked’ that she couldn’t keep her porn-name secret.

 

28 Feb 05:48

The Asshole Party*

by driftglass
UNITY

Senate Republicans Kill a Bill to Expand Veterans' Benefits

WASHINGTON -- It's not until you watch it happen close up that the way things do not get done in the World's Legislative Body becomes well and truly nauseating. This afternoon, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont brought forth a carefully crafted bill to provide $21 billion in new veterans benefits over the next decade. These included medical benefits, education benefits, and job-training. It contained 26 provisions that came from the Republican members of the Veterans Affairs Committee, which Sanders chairs. It was so wide-ranging that it contained a provision that would eliminate a rule prohibiting the Veterans Administration from covering in vitro fertilization on behalf of veterans whose wounds prevent them from conceiving a child in the usual manner. There was a time, and not so long ago, when both parties would fall all over themselves to help America's veterans. How many platitudes are we going to hear on the stump between now and November about America's Heroes and Our Wounded Warriors? This bill was a put up or shut up moment.


Badly.

Only two Republicans were willing to vote with Sanders, and the bill died a procedural death. The final straw was an attempt by Republican legislators to hang an amendment onto the bill calling for increased sanctions on Iran. There was also some cheap bullshit thrown around about the budget, most notably by Senator Jefferson Davis Beauregard Sessions of Alabama. There also was, spectacularly, some debate time taken up by, believe it or not, Benghazi, Benghazi!, BENGHAZI!
...
These are not people who can be cajoled or tricked or persuaded into doing the right thing ever.  These are not people who can be compromised with.   These are not people with whom you can have a "debate" in any meaningful sense.  At the end of the day, the GOP is just a party full of loud, bigoted, pig-ignorant assholes, who have been gathered under one roof and weaponized with money and media because, as it turns out, there are just enough loud, bigoted, pig-ignorant assholes wandering the land to wreck the country if they all really put their backs into it.

And some really rich, really terrible people really, really want them to put their backs into it.

As one disreputable pundit has repeatedly pointed out, we have once again become a house divided against itself, and such a structure cannot stand.

We cannot endure permanently half-Fox and half-free.


We will become all one thing, or all the other.

* The worst of my typos have been corrected.  Usually I let them go, but I banged this post out very fast and it went up full of really distracting verbal potholes.  Thanks to commmentor Psychoticus Rex for calling this to my attention.
driftglass
28 Feb 05:47

Black (and White) History Month

by syrbal-labrys

Jefferson's Gravestone, Monticello, VANormally I do not participate in articles about Black History Month.  Since I am a white woman, I figure my doing so would be as out of place as I consider it for men to write long monologues about birth or abortion or rape — things they know much less about than they THINK they do.  But recently putting up something I found a bit humorous and a bit profound on my other blog, I did get the indignant comment that I did not publish, as well as an email telling me that the writer of our Declaration of Independence was a horrible slave owning rapist and undeserving of ANYone’s attention or reverence.  And furthermore, I was no proper feminist for liking ANYthing about him….blah, blah, my eyes glazed over.

Well.  As anyone who has known me more than 15 minutes knows, I often bitch about the insufficiency of history courses (and books) in recent American education.  I will not presume to know whether or not Sally Hemmings was a victim of rape; at the very least it was surely an abuse of a position of power.

I do not excuse Jefferson that  error, but I must point out he is hardly the first or last human ever to succumb to something that was a common practice of his time.  And I don’t see why he is singled out so very heartily for it.  George Washington was a slave owner as well, as were MOST of the southern colonies representatives and I highly doubt Jefferson was the only slave holder to ever have sexual relations or offspring with a slave.  (Ask Mrs. Obama about that, ok?)

However, there were good reasons that Jefferson did not, as is often the cry, free his slaves.   First of all, for a long time in Virginia (Jefferson’s home) it was ILLEGAL.  Only in 1791 did the “Virginia Manumission Act” legalize the freeing of slaves and even then, it was very difficult…requiring a fee for each freed slave to be paid AND demanding proof they would have employment.  Jefferson was many things, good with money he was not.  He was continuously in debt and broke — died in such debt that upon his death his estate was sold to pay debts, his family was left without even their home. He could not have afforded to free his slaves as an individual.

Furthermore, those who DID manumit slaves, like another Virginian Founding Father — Robert Carter, faced a calamitous result.  Threats of violence from his slave owning neighbors led to his abandonment of his property and fleeing the state never to return.  He lost all his livelihood and property.  Also, by 1806, Virginia had passed a law refusing any such freed slaves permission to live in any urban area — where jobs for skilled labor could be found, as well as a caveat added to the Manumission Act — that all freed slaves must leave the state within a year or be liable to re-enslavement.  Facing such dire circumstances, it might actually have been the more humane choice to KEEP one’s slaves.  In any case, Jefferson was too cash poor to manage the manumission requirements his state demanded.

Jefferson actually sought, repeatedly, to eliminate the legality of keeping slaves.  His language in the Declaration of Independence originally would have abolished slavery — our other Founding Fathers stripped this from his creation.  He tried in a court case in Virginia, in the Virginia Legislature and in the General Assembly as well; he was not successful in his efforts.

Furthermore, and this is the “white” part, ok?  Lest any Northern reader be getting on a high moral horse?  Abolitionists were whipped from several Northern cities.  Freed blacks were seen as a dire threat to employment amongst poor whites.  And even most abolitionists did not want former slaves to STAY in America—the preferred ideal was to send them back to Africa, even those born on these shores for generations.

The country of Liberia was actually founded to be “home” to freed slaves who were descendants of Africans from all over the continent.  It was not a happy solution.  Dropping people on a distant continent where they have no way of even communicating with semi-dispossed natives?  Brilliant, right?

Americans are taught the simple sound-bite history and none of the horrid complexities.  White Americans are guilt-tripped even if they never had slave owners in their families (I can not escape that guilt; I had family on both sides in the Civil War), black Americans are told to feel victimized.  Neither of these ‘black and white” solutions is really the best in recognizing a hideous ‘shades of gray’ set of circumstances.  It denies the humanity of BOTH sides of the equation.

After all, another thing not taught often — slaves were ENSLAVED by other Africans, as well as by Arabs and Portuguese.  And not only blacks were enslaved.  If you follow history’s tangled skein, you find MOST of Europe had slaves of the WHITE variety.  The Scandinavians enslaved captives from all over — especially Ireland.  In Ancient Greece, slavery was common and not at all color coded, Sparta was infamous for even enslaving brother Hellenes!  Rome had slave markets for every taste as well.  So, my fellow humans?  We have all had slavery in our past SOMEwhere.  All of us have been both victims and (possibly savage) victors at some point in our histories.

And slavery of many types still exists.  We might consider that, we might attack that (even if you must gloss the fight in religion?) instead of the both brilliant and flawed man who wrote the break-up letter to King George, was our third President, and  the man who bought the entire central plains area of our nation for THREE CENTS per acre.  Oh, and that debt when he died?  A goodly portion of that was most likely the loans he took PERSONALLY to pay for the building and establishment of the University of Virginia.

So, rant as you will about the faults of Thomas Jefferson.  For this house?  One of its treasures, its heirlooms, is a fountain pen made from the wood of a tree Thomas Jefferson planted with his own hands…which my husband and son were fortunate enough to see before it was felled for safety concerns.  He was a man, complete in his glory and his shame — a human, not a god with feet of clay, such as modern politics seems to demand.  And that is good enough for me.


Filed under: Life, Politics, Religious Nuts & Bolts Tagged: black history month, education, history, Jefferson, slavery
27 Feb 20:43

Listen To Your Heart: Your Body says Yes, but your Brain says No

by astraltravler

When your body says yes,

but your brain says no,

listen to your heart.

If your mouth says yes,

but your heart says no

listen to your heart.

If your heart says yes,

your body will follow.

Follow your heart.

It cannot rationalize.

It doesn’t reason,

and is heedless

of excuses.

Your heart will give you strength

when your body is weak.

Your heart does not need to fear.

Follow your heart.

If your heart says no,

trust your feelings.

The heart understands

what the mind

can never comprehend.

Trust your heart

to be your compass.

Your heart knows the way

even when your brain gets lost.

Be good to your heart.

Your Heart Loves You

even when it seems

like no one else does.

Your heart will teach you

how to love yourself

in order to be able

to love another

completely and unselfishly

and without reservation.

When you Love Yourself

the others will follow.

Trust your heart.

Listen to your heart.

Follow your heart.

Every time it breaks

it gets a little bigger,

and gets a little stronger,

and you become more fearless.

Open up your heart.

Your heart will set you free.

If your heart says Yes….

Follow your heart

Always.


27 Feb 19:46

The end of the obesity epidemic

by Paul Campos

I have a piece in TNR on the new JAMA study finding no statistical change in obesity rates over the past decade in either adults or children. (The finding that got the most headlines was a 40% drop in “childhood obesity” among 2-5 year olds, but for reasons I explain in the article this finding is probably not very meaningful in and of itself).

On a related note, here is a review of Michael Gard’s important book The End of the Obesity Epidemic (A version of this review appears in Critical Public Health):

In recent years, medical researchers and public health authorities from all across the world have issued a series of alarming statements and predictions about the supposedly devastating health consequences of increasing body mass. These included claims that higher than average weight was the direct cause of hundreds of thousands of annual deaths in the United States alone; that within a few decades the entire populations of some developed countries would be overweight and obese; that, as a consequence of increasing weight, today’s children would have shorter life spans than their parents; and that the so-called obesity epidemic was a greater threat to societies than global warming.

Such statements have been picked up by politicians, who have characterized the situation as a public policy crisis, and who have called for intensive public health interventions. For example, Michelle Obama, the wife of American president Barack Obama, has made childhood obesity her signature issue, while heading a campaign with the explicit (and, scientifically speaking, preposterous) goal of “ending childhood obesity within a generation.”

Michael Gard’s The End of the Obesity Epidemic is, among other things, a thoroughgoing critique of the claims of those who could be called “obesity believers” (my term, not his). Gard is a self-described obesity skeptic, who sums up his own view of the matter thus:

I think we can now call the bluff of obesity science. The studies pointing to the ambiguous relationship between body weight, health, and mortality are piling up. Of course it is not healthy to be extremely fat, but the most important reason why there never was, nor will be, an obesity health crisis in the foreseeable future is because overweight and moderate obesity, in and of themselves, are neither diseases, nor particularly bad for one’s health. (p. 169)

Indeed, Gard emphasizes that each of what he calls “the four viral sound-bites” at the core of the panic over fat – the supposed massive death toll attributable to obesity, the exponential pattern of the “epidemic,” the shortened life spans of the next generation, and the parallel to the threat posed by anthropogenic climate change – “has been sustained by scarcely a whiff of scientific evidence.” Critical inquiry reveals that each of these claims is “an empty rhetorical shell . . . designed not to make a scientific case, but to create the impression of one.” (pp. 35-6).

But Gard’s book is not concerned primarily with debunking obesity alarmism. Building on arguments made in his earlier book with Jan Wright, The Obesity Epidemic, Gard’s new book considers many of the central claims of obesity believers to be so poorly supported that he sees no need to belabor the point. For example, he notes that the most significant aspect of predictions regarding future changes in average body mass “is that they are not based on any theoretical model or rationale.” Rather, “for obesity experts, the future must always be nothing more than a pale imitation of an arbitrarily chose moment in the past. This is much more folk superstition that it is science.” (p. 32).

Gard is focused instead on two inter-related aims: to undertake a kind of meta-critique of the various claims made by obesity believers and obesity skeptics, and to chronicle what he calls “the end of the obesity epidemic.” In regard to the first goal, Gard strives, in this context, to remain above the fray, emphasizing that, while he has his own views on these matters, what he wishes to emphasize here is the high level of uncertainty that still surrounds all sorts of basic questions touching on the relation between body weight and health, and in particular the tendency of both obesity believers and skeptics to deny this uncertainty.

Gard argues that researchers have not yet determined, even roughly speaking, the answers to a host of questions that one would think would have to be answered with tolerable certainty before undertaking the sorts of intrusive and expensive public health interventions recommended by obesity believers. Among these are:

*At what point, if any, does body mass and/or adiposity become a significant independent cause of mortality and morbidity? Is this point, assuming it exists, fairly consistent among individuals within the same cultural context, or across such contexts?

*Would making fat people significantly thinner improve their health, and is there any way of producing such a result through public health intermediation?

*Why did the populations of developed countries become heavier over the last quarter of the twentieth century, and why has this trend apparently stalled or even reversed in the years since? For instance, what were the relative contributions of increased caloric intake and decreased activity levels to increasing weight around the world, and what contribution have decreased or at least no longer increasing caloric intake, and/or increased or no longer decreasing activity levels, played in what Gard calls the end of the obesity epidemic?

The book’s caveats that the answers to these questions remain unknown are well taken, especially given that the central claims of obesity believers – claims which, as Gard chronicles, have taken on the status of received truths among many policy makers – depend on the assumption that we do in fact know the answers.

Gard’s most acerbic and amusing observations are aimed at obesity researchers who equate rising obesity rates to global warming, and who argue that, as in the case of climate change, the threat posed by the phenomenon is so serious that drastic ameliorative steps should be taken even, in the words of Harvard Medical School professor David Ludwig, “before all the scientific evidence is in.” Gard points out that there is no reason to believe that obesity researchers have any particular expertise in making judgments about how bad of a problem climate change actually is. Furthermore, he notes that even the most pessimistic experts on the topic agree that “predictions about the planet’s future climate are subject to a wide margin of error” — a circumstance which makes the analogy between global warming and obesity even more awkward and ironic, given the remarkably confident assertions obesity researchers make regarding both the seriousness and the likely future consequences of their pet problem. (p. 20)

Gard’s point here is not, I think, to call into question the seriousness of climate change as a public policy problem, but rather to emphasize how scientists and policy makers are prone, in their eagerness to bring attention to whatever purported crisis they are publicizing, to draw highly dubious analogies between very dissimilar subjects.

The book also devotes a chapter, co-authored by Gard and Carolyn Vander Schee, to demolishing the faith policy makers have, or at least claim to have, that the “obesity epidemic” can be solved, like so many other social problems and pseudo-problems, by having schoolteachers instill desirable habits in their students. Given the overwhelming evidence that such interventions do not work, Gard and Vander Schee suggest that the outsourcing of the “obesity crisis” to schools may indicate that many policy makers do not, in fact, take this supposed crisis very seriously after all.

The book’s thoroughgoing skepticism is not limited to the scientifically shaky claims of obesity believers. Gard devotes two chapters to critiquing the claims of various obesity skeptics. He divides dissenters from the public health orthodoxy regarding fat into what he calls empirical and ideological skeptics. Roughly speaking, this typology is based on his judgment that the former critics largely accept the standard scientific empirical frame in which arguments about obesity usually take place, and merely differ in their interpretation of the relevant data, while the latter critics undertake a more radical ideological critique of the whole idea of knowledge and truth as these concepts are understood in modern science in general, and contemporary medicine in particular.

Gard’s discussion of these issues is nuanced, and, as one of the “empirical skeptics” whose work he discusses in some detail, I found his critique thought-provoking, and some of his criticisms well-taken. A decade has passed since I wrote The Obesity Myth, and, if I were to write a similar book today, I would be less confident than I was then that we understand, for example, how much independent health benefit is derived from avoiding a sedentary lifestyle, or that, as I wrote then, “Americans are too sedentary” and eat too much “junk food.” Gard’s argument, in short, is that the empirical skeptics have not been skeptical enough regarding their own claims about the very complex relationships between weight, lifestyle, and health, and that their versions of obesity skepticism are prone to fall into the sort of “healthism” criticized by Robert Crawford and others, who emphasize what Gard characterizes as ideological skepticism. With the benefit of hindsight, I believe this is, at least in the case of my own work, a fair criticism.

The book’s most striking argument is that which gives the text its title. Gard assembles a host of data from several countries to demonstrate that, since around the turn of the century, rates of overweight and obesity have been flat or even declining, among both adults and children, across the developed world. The significance of this fact for the “war” on obesity can hardly be overstated. As Gard emphasizes, the dire predictions made by obesity researchers and the policy makers they influence about the calamitous future health effects of a fat population have been based on the assumption that obesity rates would continue to climb. After all, given that life expectancy is at an all-time high and measures of overall health are, as even most obesity believers will concede, better than ever in those nations where the “obesity epidemic” has been most prevalent, predictions of a public health disaster caused by higher weight have by necessity turned on the assumption that this disaster would manifest itself in the future, when, as some bold employers of statistical extrapolation have proposed, everyone would be fat.

But what if this assumption turns out to wrong? Gard draws what ought to be an obvious conclusion:

If the phenomenon of flattening, and, in some cases, falling rates of overweight and obesity are a real finding, there is an inescapable conclusion: almost all past predictions about future rates of overweight and obesity, future costs of treating obesity-related diseases and the future impact of overweight and obesity on Western life expectancy must now be discounted. (p. 68)

In other words, the book’s title has a double meaning. The obesity epidemic may be ending, not merely in the sense that national populations in at least the developed world are apparently no longer getting heavier, but in the more profound sense that the recent epidemic of scientifically dubious claims built around the assumption that rates of overweight and obesity would continue to climb should recede. As the evidence continues to build that higher body weight has at best a tenuous correlation with increased risk of death and disease, and that body mass is not inexorably increasing in the modern world, the moral panic over fat ought to continue to lose both its academic supporters, and its cultural and political influence.


    






27 Feb 00:34

"I Don't Think We Accept These," Says TSA Agent, Peering at D.C. License [Update]

by Kevin

Logo by Rhys Gibson, posted by Bruce SchneierTurns out they do, so that was good news for Ashley Brandt, who was therefore allowed to fly back from Phoenix to her home in the District of Columbia.

Which, as some of you may know, is part of the United States.

In fact, it's the capital of the United States.

These were apparently facts unknown to the TSA agent who checked Brandt's ID last week on her way back from a visit to the Grand Canyon (also in the United States) over the Presidents' (of the United States) Day weekend. According to the Washington (D.C., America) Post, Brandt said that in the security line at the Phoenix (close to but not in Mexico) airport, the agent was puzzled by her D.C. license:

[She] began to shake her head. "I don't know if we can accept these," Brandt recalled the agent saying. "Do you have a U.S. passport?"

She did not, probably because she had at no time traveled outside the U.S. during this trip and was betting on the fact that our nation's crack security forces would know which places are part of the nation they're supposed to be securing and which places aren't. Well, evidently some TSA employees are aware of such things. They get promoted to supervisor:

Brandt says the agent yelled out to a supervisor, working in [an] adjacent security line. Are D.C. licenses valid identification?

Brandt says she could hear the response, "Yeah, we accept those."

"She didn't seem to know that it was basically the same as a state ID," said Brandt.... "D.C. is obviously not a state, but I didn't ever imagine it would be a problem—I mean, the whole population of D.C. has to use these."

Hold on—D.C. not a state? Nope. Turns out it's a federal district that was created from land donated by Maryland and Virginia (both states). Virginia got its part back in 1846 (not that it was grateful; see War, Civil), but the other part is the location of the nation's (America) capital to this very day. But it is not, in fact, a "state."

It is, though, a part of the "United States." For example, federal law defines "permanent seat of government of the United States" as "[a]ll that part of the territory of the United States included within the present [as of 1947] limits of the District of Columbia...." If that territory hadn't already been considered part of the "United States," that wouldn't make any sense and so the country would have no permanent seat of government. Maybe it doesn't. Also, people born in the District of Columbia are U.S. citizens—in fact, Title 8 defines D.C. and the four incorporated organized territories as U.S. "states" for this purpose. It'd be a little weird to make such people citizens of a country of which their birthplace was not a part, wouldn't it? Of course, maybe I'm reading these incorrectly, or MAYBE THE TSA SHOULD MAKE SURE ALL ITS PEOPLE KNOW WHAT THE "UNITED STATES" IS. Keeping an open mind here.

A TSA spokesthing directed inquiries to the agency's website, which lists 14 different kinds of acceptable IDs, including "Driver's [l]icenses or other state photo identity cards," though I guess that wouldn't help an agent puzzling over what a "District of Columbia" might be. I notice that the list also includes foreign passports and driver's licenses issued in Canada, which technically speaking and from a U.S. perspective is also a foreign country. If foreign IDs are acceptable, where exactly did the agent think this person was from?

It's disappointing that after all the money it spent on pizza-box-top advertising, the TSA still doesn't seem to be able to attract top candidates. Maybe it should advertise on a better class of pizza?

Update: Above I described the four relevant territories (Guam, Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands and the Northern Marianas) as "incorporated," which was ... not entirely right. D.W. writes, "I'm pretty sure you mean 'the four organized territories'..... the only incorporated territory is Palmyra Atoll, which is uninhabited." He's right. This is a complicated area, but one that I researched to some extent for my book chapter on the Guano Islands Act of 1856, so I should have known the answer. Here's a summary at the Department of the Interior's website.

Short version: If a jurisdiction isn't a state or a federal district, it's an "insular area." There are different kinds of these. If the Constitution applies in full there, it's an "incorporated territory." If Congress has enacted a body of laws for that territory, it's also called an "organized territory." Looks like both those terms technically apply to the four listed above, but they would usually be referred to as "organized." The only incorporated territory that hasn't been organized is Palmyra Island, but nobody cares too much because nobody lives there.

26 Feb 22:21

"When I was seventeen and preparing to leave for university, my mother’s only brother saw fit to give..."

When I was seventeen and preparing to leave for university, my mother’s only brother saw fit to give me some advice.
“Just don’t be an idiot, kid,” he told me, “and don’t ever forget that boys and girls can never just be friends.”
I laughed and answered, “I’m not too worried. And I don’t really think all guys are like that.”

When I was eighteen and the third annual advent of the common cold was rolling through residence like a pestilent fog, a friend texted me asking if there was anything he could do to help.
I told him that if he could bring me up some vitamin water that would be great, if it wasn’t too much trouble.
That semester I learned that human skin cells replace themselves every three to five weeks. I hoped that in a month, maybe I’d stop feeling the echoes of his touch; maybe my new skin would feel cleaner.
It didn’t. But I stood by what I said. Not all guys are like that.

When I was nineteen and my roommate decided the only way to celebrate the end of midterms was to get wasted at a club, I humoured her.
Four drinks, countless leers and five hands up my skirt later, I informed her I was ready to leave.
“I get why you’re upset,” she told me on the walk home, “but you have to tolerate that sort of thing if you want to have any fun. And really, not all guys are like that.”

(Age nineteen also saw me propositioned for casual sex by no fewer than three different male friends, and while I still believe that guys and girls can indeed be just friends, I was beginning to see my uncle’s point.)

When I was twenty and a stranger that started chatting to me in my usual cafe asked if he could walk with me (since we were going the same way and all), I accepted.
Before we’d even made it three blocks he was pulling me into an alleyway and trying to put his hands up my shirt. “You were staring,” he laughed when I asked what the fuck he was doing (I wasn’t), “I’m just taking pity.”
But not all guys are like that.

I am twenty one and a few days ago a friend and I were walking down the street. A car drove by with the windows down, and a young man stuck his head out and whistled as they passed. I ignored it, carrying on with the conversation.
My friend did not. “Did you know those people?” He asked.
“Not at all,” I answered.
Later when we sat down to eat he got this thoughtful look on his face. When I asked what was wrong he said, “You know not all guys do that kind of thing, right? We’re not all like that.”
As if he were imparting some great profound truth I’d never realized before. My entire life has been turned around, because now I’ve been enlightened: not all guys are like that.

No. Not all guys are. But enough are. Enough that I am uncomfortable when a man sits next to me on the bus. Enough that I will cross to the other side of the street if I see a pack of guys coming my way. Enough that even fleeting eye contact with a male stranger makes my insides crawl with unease. Enough that I cannot feel safe alone in a room with some of my male friends, even ones I’ve known for years. Enough that when I go out past dark for chips or milk or toilet paper, I carry a knife, I wear a coat that obscures my figure, I mimic a man’s gait. Enough that three years later I keep the story of that day to myself, when the only thing that saved me from being raped was a right hook to the jaw and a threat to scream in a crowded dorm, because I know what the response will be.

I live my life with the everburning anxiety that someone is going to put their hands on me regardless of my feelings on the matter, and I’m not going to be able to stop them. I live with the knowledge that statistically one in three women have experienced a sexual assault, but even a number like that can’t be trusted when we are harassed into silence. I live with the learned instinct, the ingrained compulsion to keep my mouth shut to jeers and catcalls, to swallow my anger at lewd suggestions and crude gestures, to put up my walls against insults and threats. I live in an environment that necessitates armouring myself against it just to get through a day peacefully, and I now view that as normal. I have adapted to extreme circumstances and am told to treat it as baseline. I carry this fear close to my heart, rooted into my bones, and I do so to keep myself unharmed.

So you can tell me that not all guys are like that, and you’d even be right, but that isn’t the issue anymore. My problem is not that I’m unaware of the fact that some guys are perfectly civil, decent, kind—my problem is simply this:

In a world where this cynical overcaution is the only thing that ensures my safety, I’m no longer willing to take the risk.



-

— r.d. (via elferinge)

Yes.  This.  All of this.

It’s what I tried to explain in my post about being afraid of cis people, and this is also how I feel about interactions with men too.  People who don’t get it keep looking at it from the wrong angle.  They look at it from the angle of the privileged group.  When they hear a woman talk about harassment, or sexism, or assault they’ve experienced, they go “not all men are like that”, and they think, as long as it’s not ALL of the men that are like that, then it’s okay.  As long as there are men who don’t have experiences of assaulting women, harassing us, or being sexist assholes, then there’s not a problem.  As long as there are cis people who don’t have experiences of misgendering trans people, then there’s no problem.  They don’t look at it from our perspective, which is that each time this happens to us, it scars us.  WE have to deal with each incident, and the effects on us.  WE have to deal with each time this happens, not knowing what’s going to happen, or in what condition we’ll be in when the incident is over.  This adds up.  It’s like telling somebody who gets slashed with a knife every so often whenever they go out, “oh not all knife wielders are like that”, and they want us to not be paranoid about knife wielders.  When you’ve been hurt over and over again, seemingly randomly, and you don’t know when the next person you meet is going to do it again, you get scared.  You get damned scared because you don’t want to get cut again, you don’t want another scar, you don’t want to have to heal again.  You don’t want to get hurt.  And it doesn’t fucking matter how many people are like that as long as it regularly keeps happening to us, and the culture keeps excusing it and creating an environment where it keeps happening!

Not all men are like that.

That’s irrelevant.

Almost all women have had an experience with a man who is like that.

That isn’t.

26 Feb 22:15

Transitions

by syrbal-labrys

photo-6I’ve had pet ferrets since about 1996, it began with merely buying one.  And then another to keep the first one company.  And then a little girl, because we didn’t have any girls.  And then, once veterinarians and others knew you had ferrets?  Well, then you got phone calls.  So, while we had often rescued dogs and cats — this was an entirely new sort of creature for us.

A ferret was found wandering in a gutter in town.  A ferret came in through a cat-door and scared a householder silly.  A box of ferrets was left on a vet’s doorstep.  So, before I quite knew it, I had a lot of ferrets.  My Winnie-the-Pooh loving family called them “woozles” and all the dogs were “heffalumps” at once.  At one time, we had thirteen who had all been integrated to live together in one cage.

We called them the “horde” and playtime daily was a riot.  ThomasWoozles_webAll were similar ages, which made getting them used to each other much simpler.  They ran up and down hallways and stashed toys in the bathroom towel drawers.  They had “Worldwide Woozle Wrestling” in a papa-san chair, running round the edges and falling into the center to pop like pop-corn in wild abandon.

At last, the last of that old horde died.  I was finally down to only two pair of rescued woozles that were never integrated: the Mean Girls, Ursula and Helen., and Taz and Teddi.  The owner of the Mean Girls loved them, had to give them up due to divorce; but he had raised them a bit poorly.  Drunk pals at parties had played too roughly, and even though they gentled in my care, I had to be careful who was allowed to handle them.  Teddi was brought to me nearly dead of starvation, and she certainly couldn’t live with the Mean Girls!

Taz died of insulinoma, Teddi stopped eating and nothing could stop her weight loss.  I finally sent her on her way, weeping at the vet’s office, and she may have had cardiomyopathy as well, because in the final moment, the needle to her anesthetized little heart came back full of fluid.  I was too grief-stupid to order a necropsy.  And too broke from the vet bills of the past months.

Helen lost her pal Ursula to bone cancer in 2011, and I fought to keep her eating and alive.  Then I was given Farley and Candy — it would have been two years ago this spring.  Farley was faltering — fat and dragging a megaspleen around.  Candy was the picture of ferret health and bounce.  Yet Farley, endures, post-splenectomy and Candy died in December  and we hacked the frozen earth to bury her as I wept again.

gracieFarley and Helen live in a divided cage that occupies an entire 3′ x 3′ corner of my small space here.  The grieving Farley finds new outlet and companionship in recently rescued Gracie the Gray.   I am strangely grateful that  Gracie has no claws, it lessens the chance of injury for Farley as they play.  Ferrets do not have retractible claws; their sharp little talon-toenails are attached to their very bones.    So, this morning, checking those toenails that have left so many marks as they skitter up my shoulder, I observed something sad and odd.

In all the years of sheltering and loving ferrets, I could always tell who was the boss-woozle.  Regardless of age or gender, the ferret with the longest toenails was the leader of the woozle pack.  Later, even if in different cages, there was always one whose sharp little claws grew the fastest and defied bi-monthly trimming.  For the last four years, that ferret has been Helen.  But this morning, picking up Farley, I found that his were long curving little scimitars — even on his hind feet!

Helen is at least nine years old this March, possibly older… this is an ancient ferret. She has been more reluctant than usual to eat her softened and warmed food lately and won’t have anything to do with hard food.  She has even been less of a menace to the cat — ignoring Gracie rather than chasing her relentlessly as she does with most interlopers.  And her nails were short this morning, not in need of a trim at all.  A kind of torch has been passed.  And I know I must prepare myself.

Helen will pause, midway across a carpet, as if trying to remember why she was going there — just like little old human ladies sometimes do.  I pick her up and snuggle her, and sometimes it seems to take her a few minutes to remember who I am.  She hasn’t been quite herself since her trip to the vet for teeth-cleaning.  Since I feared a sore tooth was the ultimate cause of Candy’s demise, I have been flipping out on dental care.  But, suddenly, it seems I cannot win — Helen’s decline began UPON institution of dental care!

There will be screaming and tears, for she has been my “cagemate” here in the Haven that was my exile for year one, my Haven for year two, and now … in the third year, a House of Healing for both me and the Minotaur.  Without Helen, it will feel empty, in spite of Farley, Jack, and the new Gracie.  My heartstrings are knotted and frayed with the thought…I want to curl myself in my bed with Helen in my arms and defy the inevitable.  I feel the screams swelling in my chest…and want to throw inkwells at Death.


Tagged: death, grief, pets
26 Feb 03:00

This Ain’t Typhoid Mary, XXX

by Kitty Stryker
Nude woman in beaked plague doctor mask
Art by Nicole Dement

I had to think for a hot second about whether it made sense for me to write about the topic or porn stars escorting and how that related to health and safety on my personal blog, because I’ve been a porn star who also escorted, or on the consent culture blog, because it reflects a social and cultural judgment around physical autonomy, consent, and agency. I decided that ultimately it made sense to cross post it, because I feel strongly enough about the topic of stigma and how it affects self care, personal health, and financial stability. So please bear with me if you follow both blogs and see it twice.

The Salon article “When porn stars become escorts: Lucrative new trend could also be risky” came to my attention via XBiz, actually. As I haven’t been a mainstream porn performer, or ever had a taste for LA, most of the news of XBiz doesn’t usually snag me but when it comes to sex workers spanning multiple areas of the business, I tend to perk up my ears a bit more.

I’ve certainly heard fellow porn performers question whether they should supplement their income with other types of work, considering porn jobs aren’t consistent and the industry can be feast or famine. Stripping is a classic choice for many, though the hours can be long, the shoes killer and the stage fees often exorbitant. Others might choose private cam shows if they have a space available, though at least in my experience with camming a lot of time is spent being politely flirtatious to men who don’t want to pay for your time but want to try to get you naked anyway.  Some become sex coaches, which can also offer another type of dvd opportunity and in-person work that can be particularly helpful when you no longer want to work in porn itself. And some become escorts, because at the end of the day, sex for money is sex for money. I figured this article was going to talk to a few performers about the pros and cons about that decision making process, probably discuss the various disease transmission cases that had happened over the past few years, and maybe ask the question if porn stars who escorted were, actually, a greater risk than those who didn’t.

But no, that’s not really what I found. Instead, I found it to be pretty problematic, and likely something that’s going to get picked up and waved around by people who want to show that porn stars are, in fact, reckless secret sexual lepers who will end up infecting us all.

The issues I have with the premise of this article are countless. First, this is not a new trend. Porn performers have supplemented their income with other types of sex work, including “working private”, as long as porn has existed. In fact, if I recall correctly, many of the original pornographic performers in the first films were prostitutes- I mean hell, the WORD itself was coined to mean a depiction of a prostitute or of prostitution, even if that’s not the popular usage today. So porn performers escorting or escorts performing in porn, not really a new thing. Being open about escorting? I don’t know, maybe that is new compared to, say, fifteen years ago. But I think that more likely, the ability to Google such information to find out if a performer escorts, or to trace a photo, means that it’s a hell of a lot easier to find out if a porn star is escorting now than when most adult ads were in print. I think it’s as common as it ever was, but like with everything else, we hear more about it now, because we hear more about everything now.

Actually, on that point, I think it’s also worth mentioning that because of that access to so much intimate information (which you have to provide, because it’s marketing when your body is your business), it’s also pretty impossible to erase a porn career once you’ve had one, which means that you might not have many other options if the porn jobs aren’t paying what they used to. I just saw a story about a guy being refused to perform boylesque because he worked in porn (I mean are you fucking kidding???) never mind the ongoing stories of kids being kicked out of school, women losing their jobs, their kids, their families, their lives, etc. I mean, newsflash, we are living in some damn hard economic times. But that’s not really what this blog post is about. ::deep breath::

I have a problem with the people they spoke to, particularly the two prominent voices in the article- Michael Whiteacre (I can only find direct links to him, which I refuse to do) and Mike South, both men who pen their own porn “news”/gossip sites and both of whom have, at various times, been actively emotionally abusive to sex workers. Why on earth Salon would consider these two men authorities on this topic, I have no fucking idea, but it really pisses me off. Whiteacre is the sort of man who finds it perfectly acceptable to post private conversation screencaps to gaslight abused women, and South’s attitude of “better for you to confess your sins to me before I expose you” is no better than the assholes the two of them fought to hard to shut down years ago, Porn WikiLeaks. I’m really disappointed at the laziness of this research and the overwhelming potential for harm it can do, particularly when these two men make their careers off of fostering gossip, fear, and shame.

Additionally, I want to confront this idea right now that porn stars who escort are greater health and safety risks. I have not seen any data to support this claim, and as far as I can tell, none of the porn moratoriums were sparked because of a porn performer escorting on the side. As far as I know, Mr. Marcus? Not an escort. Cameron Bay? Got it with her lover. Derrick Burts? Got it on set. So I’m confused (and if you have some info, please comment below, I’m happy to update this!).

I mean… there is risk inherent in having sex. I get that. And yes, I think that a porn set should be a safe workplace- frankly if I had my way, the way the mainstream would work is that porn performers would feel free to ask for whatever safer sex supplies they wanted to use on set, and everyone would get an STI panel paid for by the company, rather than out of pocket, because I think pay-to-work models are shitty. But it sounds like, as far as I am aware, people are not actually in real life being infected because of porn star escorts.

Though, I mean, we all know how prostitutes never use safer sex or get tested and are totally reckless while people having sex for reasons that aren’t direct cash exchange are always monogamous couples who are sober and using all the safer sex techniques all the time properly 100%. /sarcasm

To be fair, Salon does link to this article on Forbes where Susannah Breslin breaks down what porn performers do when the porn industry shuts down, which I think actually details many more voices and is in many ways more informative. Adahlia says it perfectly:

“In my escorting work, I have always felt much safer and protected because I am able to choose what kinds of safer sex practices I wish to utilize, and I don’t lose business by choosing to be safe.”

I think she speaks to a greater issue – losing business by choosing to be safe. Let’s be real, money is fucking TIGHT, especially for people on the edges who are already struggling. Shit, I’m barely scraping by, I just found out our rent is going up another $50, and there is not a job to be found. I want to acknowledge that when financial stress is high, this is often survival sex we’re talking about here. So compromises get made that wouldn’t otherwise get made- faking an STI report, working with a company that doesn’t have as stringent policies, doing types of sex acts you’re not comfortable with, doing bareback escorting, whatever it might be. Because rent has to be paid, food needs to be bought, the car needs to keep running and god help you if you have any medical bills or debt.

But ultimately, even that desperation and those choices-that-aren’t-really-choices are not really about the porn industry. That’s working under capitalistic patriarchy (an argument I actually make here in the New Internationalist).

And what I saw resonating throughout that article was “this is why we need better worker representation, and why we need sex worker rights”.

Basically, I don’t want porn performers to read that damn article and freak out that they aren’t booking enough shoots and they were considering other types of sex work but maybe they’d be shunned for life or instantly drop dead. It is OK to do what you need to do. That mainstream porn industry is floundering because it’s not adaptable, it’s scared of change. But us sex workers? We’re chameleons, baby. We’re survivors. We’re fierce.

And Salon, next time, can you at least try to talk to current sex workers about sex worker issues?

This article was brought to you by my kind sponsors – sign up and help make “Consent Culture: the Anthology” a reality! 

The post This Ain’t Typhoid Mary, XXX appeared first on Consent Culture.

26 Feb 02:55

A Religion I Could Back…

by syrbal-labrys

545237…and yes, I know, I know it is popular to bitch about Thomas Jefferson as a slave owner who fathered children on a slave.  Well, George Washington owned slaves, too.  But Thomas Jefferson was, like most humans, made of both awesome and awful.  And not in equal parts; he was an inspired example of a the man of his age.  I find myself rather happily amused by an excerpt from something he wrote regarding religious matters:

Were I to be founder of a new sect, I would call them Apiarians, and, after the example of the bee, advise them to extract the honey of every sect.  My fundamental principle would be…that we are to be saved by our good works which are within our power, and not by our faith which is not within our power.”

Being a syncretic sort myself, that “honey of every sect” bit seriously appeals to me! (Quote from papers preserved here.)

 


Tagged: beekeeping, bees, Jefferson, religion
26 Feb 02:54

Rest in Peace, Betty’s Mom

by Betty Cracker

My mom died a few hours ago. I’m an atheist, and I don’t believe in an afterlife, but if there is one, Mom is probably pissed at me for putting her personal business out on the Internet, even if I don’t use her actual name or mine. “Why?” she’d ask. “What the hell is the point?”

But I want to tell you about her, because she was a character. I almost completely fucked up her life by being conceived when she was in high school and becoming the proximate cause of a shotgun wedding between two wildly ill-suited mates. By the time she was 18, Mom had two pain-in-the-ass daughters, a failing marriage and no money.

But she had an escape plan: When she was in her early 20s, she left my father and moved herself and us kids to the nearest sizable town and worked her way through nursing school. She became a cardiac care nurse, a teacher and a leader, but always someone who pushed back against what she perceived as the stupidity of institutional thinking.

For example, when some of the “suits” at her hospital pushed the staff to come up with snappy acronyms for processes, she made sure hers were near-profanities such as “TERD” and “SHYT.” She was 100% serious about patient care, but she had a strict no-bullshit policy about schemes hatched by administrators.

She would eventually try marriage again, but it wouldn’t last. She got a son out of the deal, though, so she considered the relationship a qualified success. Her boy grew up loved, harassed and scolded by a mom and two older sisters. And while matrimony never quite took with my fiercely independent mom, motherhood sure did. She loved each of us ferociously.

Mom was a witty woman, with a tendency toward sarcasm and irony. My sister followed in Mom’s footsteps and became a nurse. When she graduated from nursing school, she went for a job up in Savannah. So Mom, sis, little brother and I made a family trip of it to take my sister to her first real job interview.

After the interview, we were in our crappy little hotel near the waterfront (a “fleabag,” Mom called it), watching the local news. The announcer mentioned that a Coast Guard cutter was docking at the waterfront that evening. Without missing a beat, Mom reached into her purse, handed my sister and me five dollars apiece and said, “If you can’t drink all night on that you’re no daughters of mine.” And we did. And we are.

Some years later, after my sister had returned to Florida, my little brother decided to steal the family van at age 14, sell baseball cards along the way for gas money and go look up a girl in Virginia whom he’d met at the beach. He and a friend got as far as Savannah when they ran out of gas and could find no takers for their baseball card collections.

Naturally, Mom was frantic about the missing son and vehicle. She’d contacted my brother’s friend’s parents, and they figured the boys were somewhere together in the van, but since they’d left in the middle of the night, no one knew how far they’d gone. My brother finally broke down and called Mom. He said, “Mom, I’m in Savannah.” Mom said, “Savannah better be a girl, you little shit!”

Mom and the other boy’s father rode up together to fetch the miscreants. On the way home in the van, Mom played the soundtrack of “Cats” on an endless loop at high volume to punish my brother. Twenty years later, he still can’t hear it without involuntary retching.

The women in my family tend to live long enough to seriously flirt with or surpass the century mark. Mom’s own mother is alive and in tolerably good health for a very old lady, though I suspect the news of Mom’s death will kill her. We dread telling her tomorrow, but we must.

Given what we thought were fortunate genes, we used to jokingly conjecture that Mom, my sister and I would end up living together again someday as three cranky old ladies, and that our much-younger brother would be obliged to have a stiff drink before visiting us each week to clean the cat box and pluck our chin hairs.

But as it turns out, Mom, the cardiac nurse with a fiercely loving heart, was born with a bad aortic valve. And that’s what took her from us decades too soon.

All during the last month that was consumed by her health crisis, I kept finding myself wanting to text her or call her to tell her about some stupid thing someone did or said that would have amused her. I miss her so much already, and this mom-shaped hole will be in my heart for the rest of my life.

Goddamn it, it’s not fair, I keep thinking. There was so much more fun to be had, more trouble to get into. But life’s not fair, as Mom often reminded us. You get to be alive, and then you’re gone, so make it count, she would have said. And demonstrated.

25 Feb 05:54

Rationalization – That Word Doesn’t Mean Rational

by syrbal-labrys

1bonus checkI’ve caught myself pinching the space between my eyebrows for the last half a week or so; this is something I do when it feels like the inmates are taking charge of the asylum again.  Arizona is currently in the lead for “most crazy” and of course they are dressing it up in religion.

Because oh what tender, fragile little flowers these devoted homophobes and wussies Christians are, dear readers!  First, they were just incapable of giving those foxy sluts women birth control pills and thus enabling their illicit sexy lifestyles free of shaming pregnancies.  Now, oh my dear and fluffy lord, they will die a martyr’s death if they have to sell flowers, bake cakes, or take pictures of same sex weddings?  Holy shit, Jesus is face-palming it in his cream-cheese smeared heaven, because you guys find martyrdom ANYWHERE, don’t you?  I mean, hey, this ain’t exactly being fed to the fucking lions, is it?  (I’m pretty sure any self-respecting lion would find you hate-filled, fear-driven assholes too BORING to eat.)  I mean, your Christ hung on a cross — I betcha you wussie asshats would die of a fucking paper cut.

Cause damn it, if this “logic” is what passes for “rational religion” in your fantasy world?  WAKE UP!  You are using a rationalization, NOT any brand of rational thought…nor, if you ask me, real religious thought, either.  A rationalization is a shitty excuse dressed up in allegedly logical drag. Hey, watch OUT, drag might be contagious — you could wake up in your mom’s panty-hose next; cause hey, the ‘logic’ you use about gay marriage destroying the ‘normal’ kind?  That suggests an infectious quality, doncha think?  And as for this excuse of yours being about religion?

I definitely call bullshit on that crap.  First off, if your precious God gave humans free will, who the hell do you think you are to take it away?  You don’t get to control the lives of others NOT of your religion, Stupid.  Sure, you WANT to, but that is just asshattery.  I mean, do YOU want Mormons to control your use of coffee, tea, smokes, and booze?  Do you want someone to take away your bacon?  See, you don’t like it when OTHER religions might impose on YOUR life; the real logical result of that is that you return the fucking favor, dickweed!  If you don’t believe in something, don’t DO it.  But you do not get to control the actions of others based on your belief.

Me, a very untypical, unorthodox pagan?  I believe stupidity should be painful and nigh fatal.  Do you REALLY want to make my attitude a protected legal definition of freedom of religion?  ’Cause I gotta say…pleeease, pleeease, make my day!

:::goes off to strop an edge on her axe::::


Filed under: Politics, Religious Nuts & Bolts, Snark Tagged: bullshit, gop lies, hate, homophobia, religious nuts
25 Feb 04:25

To Noam Chomsky and Everyone Else: Richard Nixon Was Not a Liberal

by Erik Loomis

Oh Noam:

Three Democrats have held the position of commander-in-chief since the Richard Nixon era, but if you ask philosopher Noam Chomsky, it was the 37th president and infamous Watergate casualty who was truly the last liberal to preside in the Oval Office.

During a discussion on HuffPost Live, Chomsky weighed in on the minimum wage debate, blaming neo-liberals for keeping talk of wage increases off the table until now.

“It’s a shame that it’s taken so long to even be a discussion,” Chomsky said. “As for support, we may recall the last major program for helping families at the level of survival was under Richard Nixon. In many respects Nixon was the last liberal president.”

Sigh. Perhaps some images will help here. This is a liberal.

This is not a liberal.

I see this argument about Nixon all the time and it drives me crazy. It is deployed by progressives to express their frustration at the current political climate. Richard Nixon did this and that, say progressives. He signed all this environmental legislation. He amended the FLSA, says Chomsky. What has Carter, Clinton, or Obama done!

Richard Nixon was a liberal in no way. Richard Nixon was however a very shrewd politician operating in the time of the postwar liberal consensus. Nixon didn’t like signing those bills. He would have LOVED to rule in the 1980s when he could slash the welfare state, kill Central American commies, ignore the AIDS crisis, and undermine environmental regulations. But he couldn’t do that between 1969 and 1974. Nixon really wanted two things–to fight the Vietnam War and look like a world leader. He didn’t care much about domestic policy one way or another. Sure, if he had his druthers, he would have ruled conservatively. As it was, he wanted to build support for the war by signing relatively liberal legislation.

Perhaps some concrete examples will help. Nixon signed a spate of environmental legislation, ranging from the National Environmental Policy Act to the Occupational Safety and Health Act to extending the Clean Air Act to Marine Mammal Protection Act. But as Brooks Flippen has shown in his book analyzing Nixon’s environmental record, Nixon’s was completely indifferent to anything usually considered the natural world. You weren’t going to see Richard Nixon out hiking. He received no joy from nature at all. He weakened this legislation where he could. But Nixon recognized environmentalists for the political power it was. He thought that if he could sell himself as an environmental president, greens would then support his efforts in southeast Asia, or at least vote for his reelection. Beginning in 1972, when he didn’t need their help anymore, he indeed did begin vetoing legislation, such as the Clean Water Act of 1972. Because he hated the whole idea of it. Moreover, he knew that much of this legislation was passed with veto-proof majorities. He wasn’t going to burn political capital he needed in foreign policy on a useless veto for principle’s sake. He was a conservative in a time when he could not rule like a conservative.

What’s happening today is that even smart progressives are using Nixon as a uncontextualized figure to compare to everything they dislike about today. But this gives the presidency way too much power and essentially fetishizes the power of the presidency at the cost of a meaningful analysis of how political change is made in the United States. Unfortunately, if a law gets passed, the entire credit or demerit for it rests in the popular mind on that president and not on Congress or the millions of Americans who wanted it. This is a mistake.


The framing of this sums up the problem.
Richard Nixon didn’t do these good things for the environment, or at least certainly not by himself. Congress and the American people did. Nixon was making a shrewd political calculation by signing this legislation. He was more scared of environmentalists than business. Environmentalists held more legislative power than business in the early 1970s. It wasn’t until after the Powell Memo in 1971 that corporations got in gear and began pushing back. That coincided with the economic troubles and oil crises of the 1970s and the decline of the liberal consensus, opening the door for decades of conservative counterrevolution that continues today.

By thinking of our past and present entirely in terms of presidential politics, we make enormous mistakes in understanding how change occurs. No president is ever going to create the change we want. Only through organizing for policy changes does this happen. It’s not Barack Obama that is making gay rights a reality. It’s millions of gays and lesbians and their supporters demanding equality. Such was the same with civil rights and Johnson or New Deal policies and FDR. Electing the right president is important, but if you have enough power to scare politicians, they are likely to do more of what you want them to do than your enemies want them to do. That’s why Richard Nixon signed that environmental and economic legislation.

So I’d not only argue this Nixon as liberal construction is wrong, I’d argue it is dangerous because it distracts us from creating the change we want.


    






25 Feb 04:19

On the Significance of Man Cave Signs

by TBridges

Screen shot 2014-02-24 at 9.39.15 AMThe market for man cave paraphernalia is probably a small niche.  But, many people I’ve talked to spend an inordinate amount of money on an odd array of trinkets and tchotchkes that help them symbolically authenticate these spaces.  Most of the people I contact to ask about their man caves, man dens, or whatever they call them talk with me or write with me first about the sign outside of the room.  Literally hundreds of these signs are for sale.  Some can be customized with names, but most are not.  And some men produce their own signs or have signs produced for them by others.  Not every man cave has a sign.  In fact, the ones with signs often feel a lot less authentic than those without.  But, signs are a feature of a “type” of cave, to be sure.

berenstain-bears-No-Girls-AllowedThe signs remind me of images we culturally associate with boys’ bedroom doors.  The “Keep Out!” sign with a skull and cross bones.  Indeed, this is where the signs are placed.  They’re not in the man cave, they are a designation of the space that stands just outside.  They symbolically welcome some and exclude others—similar to the “no girls allowed” signs we think of as characteristic of boys’ clubhouses (or Calvin and Hobbes’ tree house).  When I started this man cave project, I wasn’t initially all that interested in what exactly was in the caves.  calvingrossI’m collecting photographs of some, documenting the objects and considering room setup, décor, and the placement of different kinds of objects within the rooms.  But, I was and am much more interested in the ways these spaces fit into the relationships of the people in whose homes the caves reside.  But, now that the project is underway, the stuff has captured my attention as well.  And these signs are just one very small piece.

A psychologist who studies stuff (literally)—Sam Gosling—has come up with some interesting science and a language to help address what we can learn about people from the stuff they have and how they arrange it, or how it arranges them as might more often be the case.  Gosling’s interested in what we can learn about people’s personalities from the things they have and what he refers to as the “behavioral residue” left by their routine actions in spaces they occupy.  One of the ways that we attempt to make spaces our own is to adorn them with what Gosling refers to as “identity claims.”  These are various things that make symbolic statements (sometimes just to ourselves, often to others) about who we understand ourselves to be.

Gosling distinguishes between two kinds: “self-directed” and “other-directed” identity claims (here).  The distinction lies in a consideration of the intended audience of such claims.  A self-directed identity claim might be something like an inspirational quote I keep up on the inside of my medicine cabinet.  It’s not something others regularly see (unless they’re snooping).  Rather, it’s something I put there to help me think about myself in a certain light.  The same quote posted on Facebook might qualify as an other-directed identity claim.  Classic other-directed identity claims are things like bumper stickers.  I don’t often look at the bumper of my car, but the people driving behind me are forced to.  Leaving something there to make a public statement about my identity might say something powerful about who I am, but it definitely says something powerful about who I want others to think I am.

Screen shot 2014-02-24 at 9.38.47 AMWithin the various spaces people occupy, some spots are prime locations for other-directed identity claims—like car bumpers, the backs of t-shirts, or the doors outside offices, bedrooms, or dorm rooms.  Man cave signs are a wonderful example of such a claim.  The signs work to designate the spaces as “men’s spaces” within the home.  But, they’re doing more work than that.  The signs are a way of symbolically designating the space as “manly” by symbolically denying access to women and – often – jokinglyScreen shot 2014-02-24 at 9.37.55 AM insinuating the kinds of behavior that occur in these rooms when the door is closed (or those behaviors not welcome).  What’s interesting about man cave signs is that they often exist–in my experience so far–in caves that lack other behavioral residue corroborating the claims on the signs (sometimes implicit, sometimes explicit).  For instance, many of the signs borrow symbols from construction and road work signs, connecting these rooms (symbolically) with “masculine” labor and dangerous activity.  Many also list rules about authorized behavior in the cave as well as behaviors, topics, people, and things “off limits” in the cave.

Screen shot 2014-02-24 at 9.38.58 AMYet, I’d wager that few people who actually follow all of these “rules” post signs outside their man caves.  Rather, I think these signs are probably often deceptive other-directed identity claims.  By this I mean that they exist as a public claim to participate in certain kinds of masculinizing behavior.  They also might, for men in heterosexual relationships, serve as symbolically claiming to have “the kind of wife who’s okay with something like this.”  So, it’s a claim about the relationships of people living in the home as well.  Whether or not it’s accurate is an entirely different question.

Screen shot 2014-02-24 at 9.38.25 AMSome people’s homes have gender-segregated spaces because the people who live there have such different interests or participate in such different activities that they require their own space.  So, for instance, my aunt and uncle are interested in very different leisure activities.  And they’re both passionate about their pastimes: she quilts, he fishes.  They’ve both been doing each activity long enough and are sufficiently intense about them that they’ve likely acquired a lot of stuff associated with each activity.  I haven’t been to their home in years.  But I bet she’s got a quilting room and that there’s a room in the basement or on the side of a garage that’s filled with fishing tools and paraphernalia.  These are spaces that become gender-segregated over time in ways that might feel less intentional as the activities slowly begin to require more space.  But, man cave signs are associated with spaces gender-segregated by design.  This is a distinction I’m playing with right now and it feels like a meaningful one, though I’m still in the process of articulating all of the reasons why I feel this to be the case.  And the signs are really just one piece of it.

mancave

[Thanks to http://www.mysafetysign.com/ for use of their signs in this post]


24 Feb 00:39

On Activism

by Brooke

Today I engaged in what can only be called a heated email exchange with another sex work activist. In said exchange I was told in no uncertain terms to "stand aside" and clear the way, that I should have been "called out" for my behaviour ages ago, with rather threatening overtones to "don't let me catch you" getting in the way of progress. It's not the first time such things have been said to or about me recently, with apparently my politics being bad for the movement and my presence "muddying" things.

Anyway, this dovetails with something I've been chewing over for a while now.

I try to be a straighforward person. I do not seek membership of clubs that don't want me (which is my main beef with identifying as a feminist) and do not like getting involved with drama-laced situations. There's enough drama in my life right now that I have no control over. Battling the antis is something I can handle. But battling the people on the same side, I have no stomach for.

Especially not when it's a cause where the message is so much more important than the personalities.

Also, and a probably more important point, I feel current sex workers should have a bigger place at the table than I do. My experience of sex work in London was a long time ago now - almost 10 years. Back then indies weren't as numerous and visible. New Zealand hadn't happened. A lot has changed. I can just about keep up with the broad brushstrokes with regards to the human rights and political issues, but really should not be the prominent voice when it comes to what people doing the work, right now, need in order to stay safe and have access to human rights.

The platform I have, whether deserved or not, exists. I have been trying to pass on what work I can in terms of media visibility for some time but my list of trusted contacts is small. There need to be more voices representing the diversity of current sex workers out there, not fewer.

Obviously I will always be an ex-sex worker, but increasingly feel my own contribution is better left to writing and other projects, to getting on with living my life. With moving on. It will always be there, but it's long past time some other people became the public "face" of this and fought those battles.

Back circa when I wrote The Sex Myth I thought getting the facts out there was the best use of my voice. Now I'm not so sure I'm the right person for doing things that way. I am and have always been a writer first and activist a distant second.

And watching what goes on, well, it's not pretty what happens when people cling on beyond all reason. Older activists insulated by their increasing removal from the situations they used to have an authentic connection to becoming more and more fossilised in their static opinions while the world moves on. Clinging on to their columns or what have you, fighting old battles to death, above-the-line trolling for clicks. Does it achieve much? There's a whole lot of "how not to" out there, I don't want to be a part of that. 

If you are a producer or similar looking for other sex workers to comment on the industry for your project, there are contact details for some very good people on the Bio and News & Events pages.

24 Feb 00:38

Jason Collins Signs With Brooklyn Nets, Becomes NBA’s First Openly Gay Player

by Mey
Jason Collins has signed a 10-Day contract with the Brooklyn Nets, making his the first openly gay NBA player and after tonight, the first out athlete to play in one of the USA's four major professional leagues.
18 Feb 09:53

The Pie Lady’s Manifesto

by Kate Lebo

1.

My time in that Seattle apartment, like lipstick and book hangovers and sugar and jouissance, was fleeting. The month before I lost the place, I moved the kitchen into the living room and made a movie. I called it Bliss.

The film tells two stories simultaneously. The first narrative is visual. A woman makes strawberry pie with an antique copy of Katherine Mansfield’s Bliss mixed into the filling and woven in the crust. In post-production, the editor saturated our colors so the red of the woman’s nails and the bruised blue of the book cover look electric, edible. He also heightened the sound quality of chopping strawberries, squeezing lemons, tearing paper. There’s a light high teeth-setting screech as her butcher knife saws through the bookspine, and a lovely plump whoosh as she dumps flour into a bowl. The loudest sounds are her heels striking the floor at the beginning and the sunny ding! of the timer at the end.

These verby sound bites punctuate the second story, an audio tale that runs concurrently with the action but does not explain it. The story is true. I spoke it from memory into a microphone while an explosion of flour clouded our set. It goes, briefly, like this:

 When I was five years old, I wrote my first story. In order for it to end, the villain demanded that I eat the story. I tried. I tore the pages into bite-sized pieces and chewed until they were soft enough to swallow. I ate half the story this way. I started to feel sick to my stomach, so I asked my father to take the other half and burn it. This was the only way to save the protagonist. The next night he burned it. That was the end of the story.

As I speak that last line, our parting shot shows the woman carefully lifting a piece of paper-pie and plate it, then stand back. Her offering is a tongue-twister: you can read this pie and eat this book.

 By “eating” I mean how we say “she devoured that book” when she loved it. Or “You are what you eat.” Eyes are “ravenous” when they’re full of lust or hunger. Food is fuel; food is poison. What’s edible isn’t necessarily food. “What feeds you” can be taken literally with a side of ketchup or metaphorically with a bookmark. What you put in your mouth (pie) and what you expel from it (words) are measurements of pleasure and need. One eighth of a pie, ten iambic syllables. Violence can be a sharp blade, a choice, just a tool. It creates shape and context, offers difficulty, invites precision.

 By “reading” I mean the act of interpreting, acknowledging, and allowing food to be a literal and metaphorical substance. Something mundane and something magic; wine that stays wine while we bless it into blood and spirit. The viewer reads this paper-pie the way we “read” fashion and music and body language, which also means we can mis-read them (or be told we’re misreading them). Reading our food connects us to history and culture and demands we participate in the marketplace of each. It is the difference between eating and feeding. It makes us human.

2.

During the first meeting with the man who would become my cookbook editor, I said “I’m not going to write another sweet little book about pie.”

I meant that though I am a published poet, a good teacher, a connected and respected small businesswoman, I worry that all I am is a pie lady. That role attracts the quickest and largest response from everyone, complete strangers to my favorite uncle. It has become my introduction, my summary, my nickname.

I meant I wasn’t going to write a book where the links between pie, Americana, and normative femininity go unremarked, or where the cult of domesticity that haunts and energizes contemporary food writing goes unexamined. I believe food and food writing are powerful conduits for both sexism and feminism. Recently I’d studied a stack of pie cookbooks whose clichés reinforced that belief. Topping the list of most abused words and phrases: home, comfort, grandma’s apron strings, America, the smell of pie baking in a kitchen, “made by hand with love” and “everything that is wholesome and good.”

Wholesome means “suggestive of good health and physical well-being, or promoting moral well-being.” Retro gender roles prefer women to be as wholesome as the food they serve their families. As one of many adjectives you might use to describe women or menu options, it’s fine. As the sole compass of food writing, home cooking, or personal identity, it’s unrealistic, sexist, and boring.

I grew up following “Well behaved women rarely make history” bumper stickers to the grocery store, confused by what might happen if I behaved badly, or worse–and what I preferred–if I continued to behave well. In my life I have been the peace, the harbor, the warmth, the cool girlfriend, the passive aggressive doormat that says “welcome” when she means “get the fuck out.” And lately, the pie lady.

In my experience, a pie lady is someone to go to for comfort–a provider, a mommy blogger, a wife, a grandma–and someone to ogle. She’s a Warrant girl, photoshopped fruit and boobs, kitchen kitsch, sugary spice and everything “nice.”

I do dress the part. I feel at home in the clothing of mid-century housewifery. Eyeliner, big hair and bright prints, matching heels. If clothes are the unspoken lines of every introduction, I try to make mine say I’m ultra-feminine but not girly, smart but approachable, self-aware yet obsessed with prettiness. I wear my makeup like a shield. When Bill Cunningham described fashion as the “armor to survive the reality of everyday life,” I felt the shock of recognition I usually only get from poetry.

cherrycranberryMy pie lady persona exaggerates the connotations of feminine clothing and makeup. It frames the way I display my body while offering dessert. She winks at sex while maintaining a maternal distance. She enjoys attention as long as she’s in control.

It’s lovely to be wanted, and then it isn’t. You start to wonder what they want you for–the audience, the men. If it’s even about you. If all I am, despite my many professional and artistic roles, is a woman who will make you pie. I was starting to understand how the act of channeling a powerful symbol comes with the risk of being annihilated.

Here, in this book, I would calculate my chosen symbol’s risk.

I meant that this book was going to be a feminist book.

I didn’t say feminist.

The man who would be my editor smiled and said, “Subversive. I like that.”

But I meant feminist.

Would he like that?

3.

My friend and I waited for whiskey at a bar where a feminist literary organization was throwing their annual party. They’re famous for counting the number of women and men published in literary magazines and finding that men dominate page counts.  They are criticized for their data collection. They are criticized for their interpretation of that data. Their count answers the classic criticism that shuts down conversations about men and women between them: Prove it.

My friend is a dear man. We’ve been through shit together. That includes cleaning up after a meth addict who broke into and shit in the middle of our office, a sexual harassment complaint (mine) against a boss he too was harassed by, and years and years of struggling to become what we wanted most to be–writers. The kind that command a capital W. The kind people take seriously.

I had an idea for a magazine. A lifestyle/literary mag that capitalized on the little-known mash-up of serious literature and fluffy domestic trivia Ladies’ Home Journal published during the 40s and 50s.  The juxtaposition of one of Sylvia Plath’s first published poems within a saccharine shopping story, framed by Coffeemaker ads printed large and monochrome. The coffee urn was the size of the poem. When I saw that, I jumped out of my chair.

Plath’s work is now so much bigger than an urn, seems so out of place in the LHJ. But that’s the thing. It’s not out of place. Not at all. That’s what’s radical: at the so-called height of the cult of domesticity, Ladies’ Home Journal assumed their ladies wanted to bake the perfect pie and read good poems.

I was trying to explain the ethos of this project to my friend.

I said, “Wholesome is not the whole story.” Has a nice ring to it, right?

He said, “Then why don’t you show some tit?”

“No. That’s not what I mean,” I said, studying whiskey to avoid eye contact.

“Then show them some leg!” He got into the joke.

“No.”

I could feel myself shrink like that woman in the goofy Alice-in-Wonderlandish sexual harassment PSA of the 1990s. Her boss says, “You know, you’re doing a great job, but you’re not using all your assets. With a body like that, you can go places.”

While he talks, she shrinks. Via voiceover we learn, “sexual harassment makes you feel like less of a person.” By now the woman is child-sized. She clutches a file folder to her breast and makes intense eye contact with her boss. Cut to a booklet with STOP stenciled in faux spray-paint above SEXUAL HARASSMENT. Cut back to scene, where the camera perches just behind the woman’s real-sized shoulder in time to catch the boss saying, “Be a little more sexy. We’re talking about your job here.” Then we get a clear angle on the woman’s stern brown eyes. “No,” she says, “we’re talking about sexual harassment here, and I don’t have to take it.” Her voice raises a little on “here” and “don’t,” not like a question, but to throw emphasis on a stiff delivery.

In 1994, “This is sexual harassment and I don’t have to take it!” was the best joke in the history of sixth grade. When a boy ran into you on the tetherball court, that was sexual harassment. When your BF slapped your ass in gym, that was sexual harassment. No one had to take it anymore. I still use it to tease friends, male or female, when the moment seems right for a cheap laugh.

Real workplace sexual harassment has a more sophisticated sense of humor. It mixes power-play with wit, compliments with conditional approval. In my experience, it was impossible to name until it became impossible to bear.

At a staff meeting, my boss told the room, “Kate’s working so hard, I’ve done everything but put her on a mattress on her back in the parking lot.”

I didn’t hear her say it. When everyone laughed, I laughed along, accidentally complicit in my metaphorical prostitution.

This man, the one I’m talking to at the bar, is the man who took me aside after the meeting and asked if I’d heard what our boss actually said. As he repeated the words, I felt them hit me right between my breasts, a tingling like what happens to your hands when you sit on them for too long. Nevermind what I was hearing or what I hadn’t heard. I couldn’t believe what I was seeing:

Myself, naked.  Spread-eagle on a dirty mattress near the wheelchair ramp. Behind our office, in front of my colleagues, ready to fuck, scared to say no.  If I did, I might lose my job.

“That shit’s not cool,” my friend said.

It wasn’t her first crass joke or veiled threat. It was the joke that finally pierced my armor.

I couldn’t work. I made a complaint. I went to therapy. I went back to work. I got a new boss, but I still had to work with my old one for almost a year following the complaint.

I could bear it.  I had allies. My friend was the first. He’s been my ally ever since.

I want to say I love my friend, that we are uniquely aware of each other’s flaws and remain close. I laugh at his jokes.  This joke had poor timing, poor context, poor subtext; all I could do was shrink.

What I could have said was, “Don’t talk to me like that” or just “don’t.”

What I could have said was, “I’m trying to talk to you about a feminist magazine at a feminist event. Can you let up on tits tonight?”

What I said was “no,” and changed the subject.

Did I miss my chance?  Should I have articulated how that joke undermined my idea (and by extension, me) by reducing it to sex? Or how it proved my point–that sexism is real, insidious, casual, and crazy-making? Even allies can be its mouthpiece.

Is “no” enough?

4.

My personal, artistic, and professional lives are tangled most stubbornly where the kitchen table meets the kitchen wall and window. From there I can walk 72 inches to the sink to wash a mug, 48 inches to the stove to heat the percolator. Swivel 180 degrees to retrieve milk from the fridge, go on tiptoe to reach the microwave that heats my milk. Then turn back around and walk 12 inches to the table, pour coffee into milk, tease a skin of scalded protein off the top with a fingernail, and walk 24 inches to my kitchen chair. There I will eat, drink, talk on the phone, look out the window, resist the urge to check Facebook–which requires a 72 inch walk into another room–and write and write.

I have made my life, quite literally and with onions, in this kitchen. If every time I walked the kitchen I left a trail of silk like a spider, I could fall asleep between the stove and the fridge in a homespun hammock.

My neighborhood has become the sort of place Sunset magazine writes articles about, a land where 50% rent hikes are mean, but not crazy. If my landlord and I have one thing in common it’s that we both need to make more money. That’s why in 30 days I must leave this kitchen.

After I lose my apartment, my friend says “THIS is what 30 looks like?” She just lost her job. She’s thinking about moving to New York.

When my mother was 30,  she moved for the fifth time in five years to follow my father to another job. She was pregnant. I was two. That was the year my friend’s mother would move from Mexico City to Miami, where she would divorce her husband and raise two children alone.

 “Apparently.” I make a comparison to help us feel better: “Except for husbands and children, our mothers’ lives looked like this too.”

I have planted a garden. I have harvested rhubarb, herbs and radishes. The rest of my seeds are start-sized, tender.

Here is where I stirred pots, moved pens, read poems, all without boyfriend or husband or children. I was lonely here, happy here, caught between cabin fever and deep peace. Here is where, as my neighbor once said, I was my own man.

5.

lady (n.)  c.1200, lafdi, lavede, from Old English hlæfdige “mistress of a household, wife of a lord,” literally “one who kneads bread,” from hlaf “bread” (see loaf) + -dige “maid,” related to dæge “maker of dough.”

– The Online Etymological Dictionary

(Sylvia) Plath’s early defender, A Alvarez, did not initially recognize the poet he had published because she looked “like a young woman in a cookery advertisement”; he felt that housewifery ‘effaced’ her true self.

– Marsha Bryant, “Ariel’s Kitchen: Plath, Ladies’ Home Journal, and the Domestic Surreal”

Sugar can cure everything, so Kindness says.
Sugar is a necessary fluid,

Its crystals a little poultice.
–Sylvia Plath, “Kindness”

I’m automatically on his side about Sylvia Plath. When I knew her, it was during her most writing-for-Mademoiselle-ish days, and she had bobby socks and totally artificial bright red lips and totally artificial bright blond hair, and I remember her as a made-up creature with no central reality to her at all, always uttering advice like a woman’s magazine advice column. She wrote beautiful words, but there wasn’t anybody inside there.

– A.S. Byatt

I must say that I am not very genteel and I feel that gentility has a stranglehold: the neatness, the wonderful tidiness, which is so evident everywhere in England is perhaps more dangerous than it would appear on the surface.

– Sylvia Plath, 1962 interview with Peter Orr

6.

Sylvia Plath loved to cook. In the A&E biography, Kate Moses tells us, “She out-Martha’d Martha Stewart.” In “Lucent Figs and Suave Veal Chops: Sylvia Plath and Food,” Lynda K Bundtzen writes, “While on their Cape Cod honeymoon in August 1957, [Ted] Hughes writes to his brother that though Plath is ‘the princess of cooks,’ she has cloyed his appetite with her efforts: ‘I have made a pact with Sylvia that when I don’t want cream chiffon pies & all the other fairy palace dishes it’s not because she isn’t an exquisite cook but because she cooks for relaxation while I eat only by necessity.”

My favorite quotes from her journals and interviews are her synesthetic to-do lists: “with Ted. Books & Babies & Beef Stews” or “the hurt and wonder of loving; making in all its forms—children, loaves of bread, paintings, buildings.” The hope and control of making lists to build dreams, how she lets alliteration glue the cross-purposes of her nouns into a collage of roles that did not require a choice. She could be–and was–a mother, a baker, a poet.

crustTo picture Plath as a domestic goddess is to depict an approachable Plath. The woman who can “eat men like air” also baked pies. The woman who groans “somebody’s done for” also checked roast beef for the correct temperature and subscribed to Ladies’ Home Journal like it was a prescription, a paperbound anti-depressant. Picture a Sylvia who loved the drama of the kitchen, the gauntlet of the dining room, the triumph of a well-risen cake.

At last year’s Halloween party, a Sylvia Plath costume won best in show. The woman was dressed in a 1950’s frock, plaid and housewife-y with proper nylon tights and heels, blonde hair curled like Veronica Lake’s. She’d painted the left side of her face with hashmarks so her cheek looked lightly toasted by an oven rack.

“When she’s faced by some tedious or unpleasant piece of work she escapes into cooking,” wrote Hughes.

In “Ariel’s Kitchen” Marsha Bryant argues that unlike many feminist poets of her day, Plath’s work didn’t transcend the kitchen. Rather, it supposed that “household objects–and housewives–can become marvelous through the quotidian tasks they perform.” She writes, “The surrealist aesthetic removes household objects from the feminized domicile and places them in the transcendent, male-curated gallery.” The task of Plath’s poems was to make “the domicile…an alternative site for aesthetic display.”

In “Morning Song,” a baby’s “bald cry/Took its place among the elements” and “Our voices echo, magnifying your arrival. New statue/In a drafty museum, your nakedness/Shadows our safety. We stand round blankly as walls.” The nakedness of a baby is like the nakedness of David, the new mother like Michelangelo, new motherhood the museum that shelters creation–which feels a bit churchy with its drafty anticipation of a son. The mood is hardly gushy. It’s detached. Unnerving. The baby’s cry isn’t the screech of a helpless thing, but a powerful music that transforms his parents into the institutional walls that frame him. He is revered, untouchable. As awesome as art.

In “Kindness,” Kindness glides through the room like a ghost or vacuum cleaner, flashy with jewels like a Disney sorceress. She’s impenetrably nice, autocratically kind. “The blood jet is poetry,” Plath writes at the end, in a line that feels melodramatic only if you insist on reading the poem through the lens of her biography. Without her suicide, a blood jet is vital, poetry the reddest thing in the room. “There is no stopping it.” Until: “You hand me two children, two roses.” The poem ends in stalemate: children and flowers crowd out blood and poems, but on the next page–another poem. A whole book of them, called Ariel.

Mother/wife/woman-hood vs. Poetry wasn’t a new “versus” when Plath wrote, and it isn’t one she put to rest. In her time, she engaged that conflict by using gloss to attack gloss, by becoming a Madmoiselle-ish beauty who won poetry contests, a housewife who taught at Smith, a mother who won Fulbrights and made fairy palace dishes–and by destroying an appearance of superwomanhood with her suicide. The Ariel poems are subversive because they didn’t leave the home and yet aren’t convenient, easily packaged, sellable, or comforting. Within their kitchen, Plath is priestess and hostess, goddess and mother, cook and child, wretch and witch.

I might call Plath a literary hero, but I don’t call her a role model. I would never wear a “WWSPD” bracelet. For me, a woman hungry for models, this makes the tragedy of her death a personal matter.

“Wintering” is the last poem in the version of Ariel Plath left on her desk before locking her sleeping children in their bedroom and gassing herself in the oven. In 1965, Hughes published a reordered manuscript that portentously ends with “Edge” (“The woman is perfected./Her dead//Body wears the smile of accomplishment”) and “Words” (“Words dry and riderless,/The indefatigable, hoof-taps./While/From the bottom of the pool, fixed stars/govern a life”). The morbid fate implied by this version’s final poems wasn’t the only reason many readers feasted on Plath’s biography at the expense of her artistry, but it didn’t help.

In 2005, the publication of Plath’s version of Ariel gave the poet her final words back:

Winter is for women–
The woman, still at her knitting,
At the cradle of Spanish walnut,
Her body a bulb in the cold and too dumb to think.
Will the hive survive, will the gladiolas
Succeed in banking their fires
To enter another year?
What will they taste of, the Christmas roses?
The bees are flying. They taste the spring.

7.

For me, the real issues of our time are the issues of every time—the hurt and wonder of loving; making in all its forms—children, loaves of bread, paintings, buildings; and the conservation of life of all people in all places.

–Journals, Sylvia Plath

8.

I’m on a bus from Portland to the almost empty Seattle apartment I need to mop, sweep, and lock up for good. A friend has shared his seat with me. We can’t even cross the Columbia River bridge before I tell him everything, my fears. We talk about this essay, my editor, my book. I know what I don’t want to write (that sweet little book).  The delta between subversive and feminist is murky. I say I’m afraid of being “just” a pie lady, a woman whose value is set by what she brings to the party.  He looks at me like he’s about to tell a secret.

“I hate to break it to you Kate, but when I see you, I see you.”

He wants to know what I mean by subversive.

“Besides not sweet?”

“Do you mean, like, dominatrix pie?” he asks.

“No. That’s been done.”

“‘Feminist’ doesn’t necessarily mean ‘subversive,’” he says. Parts of mainstream culture, media, and the marketplace are now feminist. Retro fashions and hip irony make it hard to mistake me for a housewife when I wear a housewife’s dress.  A good thing, we agree, that doesn’t help me define my project.

“Will it be a manifesto?”

“Parts of it, maybe,” I say. “In the end, regardless of whatever I write to frame the recipes, I need to make a cookbook. Something people can use.”

Sylvia Plath used her life and its domestic trappings to raise the stakes of a well-made poem. She used her stove as refuge and exit. My kitchen table was the steady surface that supported all my dinners, all my poems. Sitting day after day at my site of practice, I learned how to be an artist.

And yet. I still wonder about sweetness. Whether art that starts in the kitchen will be taken seriously.

Pie draws its power from domesticity, a realm whose cliches say the spheres of women are nice as, easy as, American as–even though we know it’s much more complicated than that, even though we know better.

When I said I didn’t want to write a sweet little book about pie, I meant that internalized sexism is a cruel editor. It self-sensors in ways we can’t quantify. It allows allies to speak small words with impunity. It warps the desire to please into a muzzle and twists sweetness into weakness.

To make a cookbook is to make something people can use.

People can use something better than what they’ve been getting.

I’m going to give it to them.

Outside our window, bright puffs of scotch broom are blooming on both shoulders of the interstate. Spring was unusually sunny; I’ve never seen them this thick or this yellow.

***

Original photo art by Kate Lebo

Related Posts:

18 Feb 06:36

Matt Miller’s Long War On Social Security

by Scott Lemieux

A journalist is running for Congress in California!

Matt Miller, the host of KCRW’s politics show “Left, Right, and Center,” announced this afternoon that he is running for the Congressional seat vacated by the retirement of Henry Waxman.

Well, there is precedent for this kind of thing:

At any rate, Miller has been making the “liberal [sic]” case for Social Security cuts for time out of mind. (Incidentally, I would like to reiterate that rarely has a public official been more overrated than Daniel Patrick Moynihan.) To celebrate the occasion, however, Miller has a slightly new twist on the “let’s massively cut Social Security while pretending that it’s not really a cut to revert people to a standard of living from decades before” racket. Everyone by now is familiar with the “lets discuss cuts to the single program called MedicareandSocialSecuruty” scam. Well, Miller’s new argument is that the governor of New York proposing cuts to Medicaid* proves the need for cuts to Social Security. He actually uses the phrase “Medicaid Industrial Complex” because if there’s anything we can agree on, it’s that health insurance for poor people is just far too generous. And how exactly do Mediciad cuts, proposed by a state government that has to balance its budget and very likely a horrible idea even so, make the case for cutting a program that is in solid shape at the federal level? I have no idea, because Miller can’t really be bothered to even try to connect the dots of his non-sequiturs.

There is one benefit of his running for Congress, though — at least the other column he consistently writes, “America needs a third party that will be based on everyone coming together and admitting that Matt Miller is right about everything,” will presumably be on hiatus until he loses the primary.

*Also, his claims about Cuomo’s Medicaid policies are not remotely accurate.


    






18 Feb 04:59

Self-Inflicted Wounds

by syrbal-labrys

Keep pouringIt is my eldest son’s birthday today.  I wish I was in a more jolly mood; we gave his present to him early as we knew it’s techno-delightfulness might rob some of the sharp-thing yums from his bride’s gift to him.  And we made cake early, too.  So there is no real celebratory anything happening, and it would be a bit of a forced thing if there was because this weekend sucked.

It began sliding into hand-baskets full of despair as early as Thursday when an attempted pet rescue started to sour.  And then, Valentine’s Day always leaves me rather in a funk all on it’s own, but the morning began with the spectacularly horrid discovery of one of my pet geese — Alba the snowy white egg layer was killed around dawn by some incompetent thing like a raccoon.  A very bad death. Nothing like a funeral to get Valentine’s Day off to a jolly start.  The dogs, Zaya and Jack, thought we were insane burying all that good meat.  If we were starving, yes, I would have butchered the bird.  But I just didn’t have the heart for eating a pet when I am scarcely eating meat at all these days.

The day wore on, and then in the evening when the phone rang a sense of foreboding coursed through me like electricity.  It was my youngest son’s platoon sergeant at Ft. Campbell.  My son was injured, was in a hospital in Tennessee being prepped for surgery.  He had been out hunting with a friend, had tripped while walking in the woods — his shotgun discharged into his feet as he fell.  I am glad it was not worse and that he was not alone.

Calls went back and forth to the civilian hospital he was taken to — they did surgery to clean up the completely blown off right big toe and planned more for Sunday morning.  But they couldn’t stop the blood-seeping from dozens of birdshot pellets.  WTF kind of hospital can’t manage THAT?  So, Saturday, he was put in an ambulance and driven to Ft. Campbell to am Army hospital.  There, they must know more about bleeding and the like, of necessity.

Sunday, an attempt to save the big toe of his left foot meant pinning the scrambled bone together — the civilian surgeon had pretty much planned to amputate without much further ado.  They stopped all the bleeding, too.  My Runaway will heal, live, and have one more reason (aside from PTSD and back injuries) to be medically discharged from the Army.

His wounding was accidental, even if self-inflicted.  My wounding over the cat that surely will eventually come to a sorry end was absolutely in the category of “No good deed goes unpunished.”  Today I will contact the Cat Rescue lady to tell her that little Gracie cannot live here — I’m not sure she can live ANYwhere, since she refuses to use a litter box to pee in as long as there is bedding instead!  Any cat that can and will hold urine over 24 hours to get at a pile of bedding…

I remind myself how competently I am managing to hold it all together as we continue to plan kitchen repairs,  my husband’s retirement (bill paying), and our continued support of my eldest, also medically disabled son, as he searches (thus far fruitlessly) for work.  But right now, it sure all feels like a bloody struggle.  Death and taxes….dead goose, property and income tax both due in the next two months, and insurance, too!  Lions, tigers, and bears!


Filed under: Life, PTSD Journals Tagged: guns, hunting, pets
18 Feb 04:48

“God(s), I Miss The Cold War”

by syrbal-labrys

photoI was a child of the Cold War years, spent childhood practicing crouching in school hallways prepared to “kiss my ass” goodbye if the nuke drill turned for real.  I grew up to be a “cold warrior”, too, and served in walled Berlin at the Field Station with no windows and a “cock and balls” radar array on the roof.  I climbed to the tip top of that red and white tower to look out the top and scrawl initials into the mass at the hatch.

The boogy man under all the beds of my childhood AND adulthood were nuclear.  For years, I hated big windows — my mind’s eye constantly seeing them melting in the blast of a bomb.  Ah, if only the worst things to fear were what could happen if the Russians do NOT “love their children, too.”  Since the “Cold War” was declared more or less concluded and everyone decided the nuclear dragon could be tamed into producing such nice clean energy, but to call their plan for dealing with resultant nuclear waste “unthought out” is being kind.

Now that all things nuclear are in the hands of people making profits instead of people who wanted to survive to a post-war state, I find myself MORE frightened.  People who want to go on making money LIE worse than generals trying not to scare the horses people they serve.  So, while officials in Japan go on saying the mess at Fukushima is really ‘not that bad, and being cleaned up’ — yes I very much doubt their (1)veracity and (2) ability to accurately access risk.

What humanity seems to have no shortage of is hubris, backed by Olympic grade stupidity.  We make toxic garbage and think hiding it in a hole in the ground is sufficient.  So, when holes such as this are near mined out salt domes and there is plentiful water?  You get disasters like the Bayou Corne Sinkhole; still enlarging in spite of the first “Oh, it will stop — it will be self-limiting” predictions.  All KINDS of nasty stuff is bubbling up on the roiled surface of that water.

So, imagine, if something worse than industrial waste was dumped in a hole full of salt?  Say a containment facility for nuclear waste?  And say that in this fragile enough environment, scarce water was sold to use for fracking for oil; that would make the area even more geologically at risk.  Since sinkholes began appearing back in 2009, alarming the people in the small town supported by the Carlsbad Caverns Nat’l Park, it was apparent all was NOT well; and now that everyone is rushing to chorus the eternal “It’s not THAT bad.” I don’t find myself comforted.  Being told “Well, once we know how big it is we can talk about stabilization” — in light of what happened to sinkholes associated with salt domes in Louisiana is not encouraging.  I have to note how carefully distant media management keeps stories of the Carlsbad sinkholes and the nuclear “event” in the near vicinity.

I’m left with the sickening mental picture of Fukushima having eloped with Bayou Corne’s salt dome disaster to produce a very unlovable radioactive child in New Mexico’s “Land of Enchantment.”  And yes, I know some miles separate the storage facility and the sinkholes.  But, as the disingenuous expert talking heads have said they ARE seeking to define the “size and shape of the cavity.”

It feels to me as if we have ignored our decaying infrastructure and been brainless in the pursuit of money, especially oil  money.  It seems that America, faced with a need for more energy, decided ANYthing to get more oil (and thus more money) was acceptable instead of considering a possibly necessary lifestyle change that would enable life to sustainably continue.  Rather like the beleaguered East Coast, running out of places to pile snow, we put our toxic garbage anyplace there were not too many people to scream “Not in MY backyard,” based on the assumption that nothing bad could happen.  (My mind is making bad punnage of that statement since Bayou Corne’s growing disaster is in Assumption Parish.)

America’s center is not holding.  Chanting “USA, USA!” is not fixing decaying bridges and declining water tables.  Lake Meade is drying up, California may blow away before it can “slide into the ocean” as Republicans once screamed at me should occur.  And pssst….you heard it here (possibly not first), WHEN enough Americans wake up to find there is no coffee, no more oil, no more roads that work, no more jobs, no more drinkable water, no more bountiful supplies of food, not even enough money to buy food for military members tasked with maintaining order? THEN you will find out why the NSA is actually storing meta-data.  It isn’t about foreign terrorists, folks.  The NSA crew must have read Pogo…because they HAVE met the enemy, and it is/will be US.  We have largely distracted ourselves with silly toys while our world invisibly burns.  Maybe we should ALL take up violin, because hey, that Roman bastard Nero shouldn’t be the only one making music for those-about-to-be-screwed, eh?


Filed under: Life, PTSD Journals, War on Women Tagged: corporate thuggery, disaster, environment, military life, nuclear waste, water
17 Feb 10:13

Public Conversation

by Maggie McNeill

That which chiefly causes the failure of a dinner-party, is the running short—not of meat, nor yet of drink, but of conversation.  -  Lewis Carroll, Sylvie and Bruno Concluded

mountain of paperAs I’ve explained on a number of occasions, I’ve been slowly decreasing my workload over time so as to make room for other projects like Ladies of the Night, my Cato Unbound essays  from December and my Reason article of January 26th (not to mention public appearances and private life).  One of the sacrifices I’ve had to make is the time devoted to correspondence; as I explained in “Inspiration”:

…I still read every single comment y’all post and every single email y’all send, but all too often I find myself so busy that I put off replying until later, and then I can never catch up.  And when those comments contain praise and/or good wishes, I feel rather ungrateful and rude for not replying…like a lazy bride who can’t be bothered to do her thank-you notes.  So though I’m still going to spend as much time giving personal responses as I possibly can…please don’t take it personally if I don’t reply directly to your comment, or if I take a few days to respond to your email; it just means that I’m tied up with work or circumstances.  I sincerely appreciate every single reader who takes the time to send me kind words or encouragement, even when I don’t reply…

The latest modifications (made as we entered this new year) should allow me to answer emails a little more quickly, within a week rather than taking several weeks as it did for most of last year.  When I can answer an email with a quick sentence or two you may get a reply very quickly, but when a long letter is needed it may take until the following Sunday (or in some cases, longer).

For a while now, though, I’ve noticed something: some readers will write me emails commenting on specific columns instead of just directly commenting on the columns themselves; I’d like to ask those of you who do that to try to start commenting on the blog instead.  One of the reasons is, as I explained above, the time delay in answering emails; even if you’re a new contributor, once your comment gets through moderation you’ll at least know that I read it even if I don’t reply right away (or at all).  Another reason is that if you have a question about something in that post, one of the other readers may be able to answer it for you long before I have the opportunity.  If you have a disagreement or gripe about something I wrote, putting it in public will allow others to agree or disagree with you, setting up a lively discussion which, I feel, adds to the blog.  I understand that some people are more in the habit of emailing than commenting, while others dread the awfulness that characterizes the comment sections of most websites.Never Read the Comments  But I truly feel as though I have the best commentariat on the web today, and that’s not just blowing sunshine up anybody’s arse; I have an unusually-high fraction of intelligent, thoughtful, knowledgeable and even erudite commenters, and though the discussions may get warm they rarely stray outside the bounds of civil discourse.  If you’ve never commented before, please don’t be afraid to; getting started is easy, and though your first comment is automatically held for moderation by WordPress until I see and approve it (usually within a few hours), your subsequent ones will post as soon as you make them (barring some kind of technical glitch).  Though I do have a few house rules, they’re mostly common sense; if you’re the combative or trollish sort you may wish to consult “How Not To Get Your Comments Posted” before wasting your time, but if you’re like 99.9% of the folks who come here you don’t really need to (though it may amuse you to do so).

Of course, if you have a private question, want to send me a link, etc, your emails are still completely welcome; that’s why I have the links in the right-hand column, after all.  But if what you have to say might be of interest to other readers as well, please consider a comment; for the reasons I’ve explained here, that will probably work out better for everyone.


17 Feb 10:11

Where Nothing Bad Can Happen

by Monica Drake

There was a winter when I was obsessed with a certain green sweater. Love is too big a word, but I was deeply interested from a distance, the way it’s easy to be intrigued by a stranger. The sweater was in a catalogue. I carried the catalogue in an old leather bag, along with paintbrushes, rags, oil paints, and a hardback copy of The Mandarins by Simone de Beauvoir, which I’d found at the Goodwill for fifty cents.

That’s how I shopped: used, cheap. Books.

It was 1985. The Mandarins was forty years old. If you don’t know it, it’s a novel with a Marxist view, filled with serious, dramatic sentences, like this: “Eating to live, living to eat—that had been the nightmare of my adolescence. If it meant going back to that, it would be just as well to turn on the gas at once.”

Reagan was president, the rich/poor split creaked open; my home state, Oregon, was deep in a recession, and I didn’t believe in conspicuous consumption. To not shop was political: buying new petroleum-based clothes was about buying into the whole Military Industrial Complex. Selling the hours of your life to a job to pay for the trinkets of your life was a consumer trap. So I was broke, but I had conceptual, theoretical, sociopolitical reasons for opting out of a financial world I had never really entered. I was into painting, and friends. I wanted time to hang out and paint. My master plan: if you don’t earn much, don’t spend much.

But the catalogue migrated around my apartment, with the pages turned open to one thing: a photo of a woman walking beside a man down a country road in what I guessed was a New England fall. A New England fall was essentially as foreign to me as de Beauvoir’s post-war Paris. In Oregon, leaves turn brown and soggy as raisin bran with the first fall rain. In the catalogue, the woman frolicked in red and yellow leaves, wearing the green sweater. A stack of five other colors, charcoal to cherry, were displayed fanned out in an insert.

How much time did I give over to looking at that damn sweater? I studied it until I came to feel the generous thickness and weight of that wool in my hands. The sweater would be only scratchy enough to show its natural fiber integrity. Mostly, it would be soft. It could be called moderately priced by somebody else. For me, it was a fortune. Bottom line: I was twenty years old and broke, with oil-paint-stained cuticles, crawling my way through a dark Northwestern winter. Mostly, I was freezing.

I had one sweater from St. Vincent DePaul, a men’s V-neck, with three buttons down low and two shallow pockets, grandpa-style. The rest of my clothes came out of free boxes that showed up in apartment basements: rhinestone necklaces, old silk dresses, perfectly broken-in 501s. People leave things when their lives change—when they move, gain weight, break up. I was rail thin and didn’t mind baggy clothes, so I made a perfect candidate for cast-offs. And I liked a fashion risk, a good joke, an ironic, moth-chewed dead mink coat so tattered it had turned itself into an anti-fur commentary. I wasn’t invested in getting dressed.

The catalogue had shown up curled in the dark of my little aluminum mailbox down the hall. The sweater looked practical, thick, warm, and plain. It was a straightforward, conservative sweater! To buy that sweater, in the politically informed, punk-rock heyday of Portland, would be as out of step as dating a conservative Christian, a young Republican. It wasn’t my thing. So why did I keep looking at it, assessing the value, the price, the possibility?

I was involved with a man, a philosopher, fifteen years older than I was, but other than a gray hair in his insane pile of dark curls, the age difference didn’t register in the slightest. We rode bikes, everywhere. We wore black coats, black turtlenecks, old jeans. I had more going on in the way of work than he did—there were places around town where gallery owners liked me and let me step in. Sometimes my shift in an art gallery lasted only as long as the owner’s lunch. Other times, it might run all day.

He and I were both enrolled at Portland State University. He hovered between undergraduate status (one course short of graduating?), a master’s degree (enrolled), and a PhD (also enrolled). He took classes out of state, registered for two schools at once. He’d forged himself a liminal academic no-man’s land, free of linear progression. Who needs a graduation date? Why should learning end?

With my random paychecks, I rented the first apartment I ever had with a bathroom actually in the apartment. I didn’t have to keep shampoo and soap in a basket, to carry down the hall. I could step out of a shower without wrapping myself in a robe, didn’t need to dress to cut through communal spaces lined with junkies, runaways, poker players, anorexics, pizza chefs, and punks.

See the kind of rented rooms I’d come from? I was proud of my apartment. These were the things I wanted: a good sweater, and a bathroom of my own.

My rooms were on the ground floor, where windows opened over an empty lot I called a yard. In that lot, whole parties would spring up—early morning poets, crews out counting their cans, homeless loners sleeping off a binge.

One night, in a heavy rain, an older a woman I worked for gave me and my six-dollar coaster bike a ride home. It was a good bike, with only one bent crank, and the truth is I got it for free. My brother paid the six dollars, because it was his bike for a while first. As I got out of my employer’s car, she leaned to peer through her window and up the front steps of the building. The bare bulb of the entry afforded a welcoming glare. It illuminated raindrops, granting each drop a halo, a downpour of cheap jewels.

My boss pushed her glasses back on her nose and cleared her throat. “Dear,” she said, “do you feel safe here?”

It was a brick building, freestanding and solid.

She was hesitant to leave.

My apartment door had a lock that was more secure than the front door of the house I grew up in. The building’s main entry had a buzzer system. My key was already in my hand. Inside, the manager would be wandering our grease-scented halls, smoking, adjusting her wig, always rubbing lotion over the terrible eczema that bothered her arms. Her two little dogs would grunt and scoot their bottoms on the worn carpet runner. In the empty lot, the shadows and silhouettes of people in thick coats, and what looked like a few doubled-up stocking caps, shuffled through the bushes. Not all neighbors have houses.

“Of course,” I said. I was fine. I thanked her, wiped rain off my forehead, then closed the door of the warm car and moved to hoist my dear old bent bike out from her spacious trunk.

On a Sunday morning just after that, waking up, I pulled back the curtain in my tiny kitchen, and there was a man with a compound bow outside. It was a complicated sort of power bow. The sky was grey and heavy. He wore a camouflage-print rain slicker. It was like he’d crawled out of the woods, or been dropped from another planet, or maybe he’d just come from a shopping spree at Andy and Bax, Portland’s military surplus store. He drew back an arm, released, let an arrow fly. Thunk. There was a solid sound when the arrow hit a hay bale he’d clearly carted in for that purpose.

I don’t know if he was trying to threaten somebody, in particular. The important detail is, he shot parallel to the windows that lined my rooms, not toward the building. That’s a huge distinction, one I was willing to give him credit for; on my part, it was the difference between witnessing a spectacle and sure death. He hit a hay bale! That was all. People have hobbies. In a city, it takes tolerance to live side by side.

I dropped the curtain and ran water in an old pan I’d found in the basement, then put in on the tiny gas stove, to boil for coffee. Beside me, on a narrow tile counter, the woman in the green wool sweater laughed, kicked her way through leaves, and lightly held her boyfriend’s arm. Her boyfriend had fabulous teeth. Actually, they had matching teeth! Sun dappled her hair. She was happy. It didn’t look like the sweater was scratchy. Looking at that catalogue was like looking out a window, maybe my own window, only into a tidier sort of world. I reached for a chipped china coffee cup, a Goodwill special, and put a stained drip cone on top.

Thunk. A second arrow hit, I spilled the hot water, scalded my wrist, and swore that whatever came next, today or any day, I wouldn’t jump again.

***

The man I was seeing had two sisters, identical twins. They were gorgeous, dark-haired and busty, and moved in a cloud of Nordstrom: perfume, leather, new clothes, lip gloss, hair spray, formaldehyde, nylon, urea, petrochemicals, arsenic, lead, and cadmium, if cadmium has a smell.

Their brother and me? We weren’t smokers, but we hung out with people who were; we ate cheap gyros and drank dollar pitchers of beers. I’m sure we smelled all too often like a tavern.

One of the twins married the kind of man whose name you’d see high over the city, on the side of major construction projects. The other married into possibly more suspect sources of money, though I didn’t ask and so don’t know. Don’t take my word on any of that.

One was straight-up Nordstrom, the other a little more Nordstrom Rack. Both looked stunning, all the time. When I think of them now, I see them with their Nordstrom’s bags. Always, with those bags.

Breakfast at Tiffany'sAlong with The Mandarins, I had a battered paperback of Breakfast at Tiffany’s, another book from the mid-1950s that I’d rescued at a garage sale. While de Beauvoir, in France, was busy being a serious and sometimes gloomy theoretical Marxist, Truman Capote, in that very American way, mainlined the as-of-yet-unnamed existential angst of retail therapy.

The character Holly Golightly begins her story resisting ownership of anything, even a stray cat. She says, “I don’t want to own anything until I know I’ve found the place where me and things belong together. I’m not quite sure where that is just yet.” I understood. I wasn’t sure, either. I was making my way.

But she describes her love of Tiffany’s as fending off despair:

The blues are because you’re getting fat or maybe it’s been raining too long. You’re sad, that’s all. But the mean reds are horrible. You’re afraid and you sweat like hell, but you don’t know what you’re afraid of. Except something bad is going to happen, only you don’t know what it is….What I’ve found does the most good is to get into a taxi and go to Tiffany’s. It calms me down right away, the quietness and the proud look of it; nothing very bad could happen to you there, not with those kind of men in their nice suits, and that lovely smell of silver and alligator wallets.

Some say the psychological source of compulsive shopping is rooted in a lack of love. Maybe it’s true. Holly Golightly, a young woman on her own, is a portrait of a compulsive shopper ready to launch.

As I saw the two twin sisters, with their Nordstrom bags, I wondered if they felt the mean reds, the soothing sense of commerce, Nordies as a place where nothing very bad can happen. I wondered if they felt a lack of love.

Their mother plucked her eyebrows like a 1940s starlet into high, thin arches. She curled her lashes, put mascara on, and painted her lips coral. She set her hair in pin curls, and kept her blinds closed. In all the years I knew her, I saw her leave the house exactly once. I never saw her put a foot into the tended yard.

Their father, her husband, the patriarch, owned buildings downtown. He’d buy, sell, and trade over breakfast with the guys. Shopping—dealing—on a big scale, was his business. His motto: Get a Brooks Brothers. Put on a good suit, go out with the guys, and the money would come.

Once, he moved the family into the most expensive house in Portland’s real-estate market, at the foot of the West Hills. The family showed me a fragile, yellowed newspaper clipping, their names, the address, the price. By the time I saw it, the girls had moved out, with families of their own. The father had moved in with his mistress. The big house had long been sold. He stayed married to his first wife, though, and bought her a modest ranch home tucked further back in the quiet, empty, curving streets in the hills.

In my apartment, my old, curved refrigerator quit working. I asked the manager for help. She offered a new one, though it’d be a while. A very long while. Months. After that, my guy and I rode our bikes across town, from one side of the river to the other, every evening. We rode miles, through the city, just to eat cheap Vietnamese food. And we got thinner, and thinner, and we were happy.

The only time I knew his mother to leave her house, the ranch house, was after the new fridge was finally in. She came to my apartment for dinner. I cleaned the apartment. I moved an easel and put a few freaky paintings out of the way. I roasted a fat chicken that barely fit in my tiny, enameled oven. I made a salad. If I’d bought the green sweater, I would’ve worn it. I looked at the catalogue, touched the image, chided myself for not having something reasonable to wear in a drafty apartment on a cold, dark night. I put on a little stained silk dress, and turned up the heat.

When she came over, her grown son, her rock-and-roller, her long-haired anarchist, her anti-corporate man-boy, came in at her side, and went for a beer. She clutched her clutch purse in both hands, as though somebody had threatened to take it away. She lifted the stiff material of a sallow rolling-blind to look out one window over the dark side yard, turning her head one way then the other, and asked, “Do you feel safe here?”

“Completely!” I said, and put a little quiet jazz station on the old stereo, hoping she’d relax. “Wine?”

Her body language gave me all cues that she was terrified, but of what? Germs? Maybe. Neighbors, crime. I could only guess. She was an aging Holly Golightly: “You’re afraid and you sweat like hell, but you don’t know what you’re afraid of. Except something bad is going to happen, only you don’t know what it is…”

Nothing bad would happen! I’ve always been a good cook. My guest sat uneasily on one salvaged wooden chair. I put dinner dishes on a rickety table, then brought out the roasted chicken. My catalogue was on the couch. The New England woman and boyfriend, in their sweaters, with their matching teeth, were practically having dinner with us, laughing and having a good time. It was a party. “I’m so glad you could be here—” I started to say.

And then we heard a sound: pop, pop, pop. Three rounds, in quick succession. It was almost a party sound, like champagne corks popping, and almost blended in with the jazz playing, except almost isn’t close enough, and we all knew what it was—a gun—and ducked. I moved fast, looked out over the edge of the window in time to see a bottle fly, glass break, a car drive away.

There, in two spotlights angled to light up the welcome sign for a retirement facility, was a man on the ground. He moaned, then hollered, swearing. I recognized his voice. I knew him through the local bar scene. I called 911. When I went out, two friends were with him. He was bleeding from his calf. We were only a handful of blocks from a major hospital, there in the heart of the city. An ambulance, squad car, and fire truck all showed up at once, crowding our narrow street.

I gave the police my version of events, and used the man’s name. Let’s say his name was Craig Schmeg. Let’s say it was Joey Poey. Looney Balloony. I won’t use his real—or real-ish—name here, but the name I gave the cops? It was a simple, silly rhyme.

The man I was involved with, at my side, out in the street, said, skeptically, “Really? That’s his name?”

I nodded yes, it was true. The police wrote the name down.

We stepped away together, aside from the cops, and my man asked, quietly, “What did his parents speak, Pig Latin?” More seriously, he whispered, “That’s not a real name.” Maybe it wasn’t. I’d never given it thought. It was a street name.

We went back to my apartment, where the woman who would never actually be my mother-in-law raised her fine eyebrows. Together the two of us told her the story—that we knew the man, that he’d be fine, that nobody got the license plate, but it was some kind of drive-by. It was random. The victim threw a bottle after he was shot. We finished each other’s sentences, told the story, in unison. We’d been helpful, we’d called the police, we’d done things right.

She held on to her clutch. I saw, in the way her eyes met mine, all disappointment, judgment, and fear. What I saw mostly was blame: I was somehow responsible for all of this.

I shouldn’t have said I knew the victim. That didn’t go over. I shouldn’t have told her the neighborhood was safe. But it was! With the blinds up now, as the flickering light of emergency vehicles played over our faces, she said, “I think I should go.”

“We haven’t had dinner,” I said.

She asked her son to see her out. That was fine, he’d be back. He’d be around a good long time.

I poured myself more wine, and watched through the window. She climbed back in her car, drove up the hill, off to a place where she could lock her own door, where nothing very bad would ever happen. Maybe it wouldn’t, didn’t. What did I know? I was twenty. Then it was just me and the catalogue, alone with a big dinner. There was the smell of roast chicken along with a whiff of turpentine in the air, from the paintings put aside.

I tore the page out of the catalogue. What did I see in that sweater? It was a basic cable knit. Looking back now, I can imagine I saw an easier life in the pretty photo, but I don’t think that’s quite it. If I really ever thought that sweater could improve my existence, I would’ve ordered it. It was the plainest, most sensible sweater in the world. It was practically dull! It was a thing beyond judgment. Who could be judged, draped in such a practical sweater? It was a justifying sweater, the reasonable thing. It would work as a costume, to say that I, the owner of such a sweater, made solid choices.

The truth is, everything I did, all the choices I made, invited easy criticism: I wore the same clothes days in a row. I wore free clothes. I dated an older man, an unemployed man, and I didn’t let that bother me. I could make my own money. I wasn’t looking for marriage. I went out to the bars too often, knew the drinkers, the hoodlums, the locals. I accepted whatever people told me in the way of their own name. I lived in a funky old building and liked it. I was so skinny that once even a homeless drunk with unsavory stains on his pants, lying at the curb, felt entitled to shout out, “Gain some weight!” as I cruised past on that same six-dollar bike. There was always somebody encouraging me to get in deeper with food, cars, clothes—with corporate America.

Fifteen years after Breakfast at Tiffany’s, the Chicago Tribune reported, “We’ve become a nation measuring out our lives in shopping bags and nursing our psychic ills through retail therapy.” Of course, retail therapy isn’t therapeutic any more than drinking is medicinal—maybe less so. Some call it “promiscuous spending,” a term designed to link shopping and sex, a carelessness to it, and a feminization. Capote saw that coming. There’s a reason he made Holly a call girl, an escort, a powder-room whore. We’re all supposed to buy into the system, but buy in too much, and you’re judged there, too.

At the end of Breakfast at Tiffany’s, Holly Golightly shops:

…she acquired a stag-at-bay hunting tapestry and, from the William Randolph Hearst estate, a gloomy pair of Gothic “easy” chairs; she bought the complete Modern Library, shelves of classical records, innumerable Metropolitan Museum reproductions (including a statue of a Chinese cat that her own cat hated and hissed at and ultimately broke), a Waring mixer and a pressure cooker and a library of cook books. She spent whole hausfrau afternoons slopping about in the sweatbox of her midget kitchen…

I had that midget kitchen.

Holly says she doesn’t get the mean reds very often anymore, “except sometimes, and even then they’re not so hideola that I gulp Seconal or have to haul myself to Tiffany’s: I take his suit to the cleaner or stuff some mushrooms, and I feel fine, just great.”

She’s given in.

It turns out that even Simone deBeauvoir, that Marxist, was a serious shopper. It’s in her memoirs. She spent her book advances on nylons and furs, chocolate, oranges, and everything or anything else she wanted. Sartre was having affairs, she was having affairs, and she was shopping. Was that a lack of love, too?

Shopping is strange terrain. The act of desire is both soothing and agitating, what looks distant can be brought close, and money rides shotgun to consumer lust. The nation’s “consumer confidence index”—the confidence, and willingness, to spend instead of save—is so psychologically misguided: we’ve all learned by now that overspending is an indicator of consumer despair, not confidence. It’s the “consumptive” aspect of the economy. Consumptive—could that sound any more like an illness?

I’m still not an easy shopper. I avoid big-box stores like mad—the despair of the hot, sprawling parking lots alone makes me want to stop for a drink halfway across. But I have a house and a family, and even with the brakes on, somehow our house grows crowded with things.

My old apartment stands across town. Once in a while, I drive past it and nod. That place and I, we went through a lot together. I think about how spare it was, and how many people came through. I’m not in touch with that man, or his family. It’s a part of my life that’s gone in a freebox, somewhere.

I never ordered the sweater. Owning that sweater wouldn’t have made my ragged, lovely life any more explicable to people who made other choices—people who prioritized jobs, real yards, dry cleaning, savvy career moves, and chasing big bucks. Owning that sweater wouldn’t have gentrified the neighborhood. It wouldn’t have changed anything. In my heart, I didn’t really want it to.

Related Posts:

17 Feb 09:00

Pet play, or why does the kitty always have to bottom?

by stabbity

At Westcoast Bound I went to a workshop called Pet Play 101 by Ponygirl Bixy, and she said something that really resonated with me. She described pet play as (for some people) being a release from human responsibilities. For example, someone who was nervous about meeting new people and making small talk might have a much easier time of it if they were in pet gear (such as a muzzle and paws) that made it clear they couldn’t talk or shake hands.

Sometimes, I really don’t feel like talking (really, a shy introvert doesn’t always leap at the chance to hear her own voice? What are the odds?). It would be awesome to have a socially acceptable way of signalling that it’s not that I don’t like you, I just don’t fucking want to talk right now.

Aside from not always feeling particularly social, depending on the headspace I get into in a scene, I may feel even less vocal than usual. I think it would be really fun to do a scene where any expectation of  me talking was completely off the table. Given my lack of interest in bottoming some of you are probably very confused right now, which brings me to my next point.

Why is the pet in a pet play scene always the bottom? I know in a lot of ways it’s convenient to have the pet bottom, but come on, have you people never met a cat? I love cats, but even I fully acknowledge that they’re often adorable, furry little assholes. Other animals might not lend themselves as well to topping, but with all that presenting their fuzzy tummies to be rubbed, then savaging your hand when you fall for their trick, cats are clearly sadists.

As for assuming the human is always the one in control, I can’t imagine that ‘in control’ is how anyone locked in a cage with a lion would feel. Or the bottom could be chained up as a sacrifice for beast in the woods, or suddenly pounced by a particularly large house cat, or hunted through the play party, or …

Instead of making it the mute pet’s responsibility to make themselves understood, why not make it the human bottom’s problem to figure out what the big scary kitty wants and how to get out with (most of) his skin intact?

16 Feb 21:57

Pete Camarata, RIP

by Erik Loomis

The Teamsters reformer who was beaten by goons at the 1976 Teamsters convention after challenging IBT president Frank Fitzsimmons and proposing a rule that any Teamster who took a bribe from an employer be kicked out of the unions has passed away.


    






16 Feb 21:56

The Deserving Rich

by Erik Loomis

Finally, someone at New York Times shows the courage and bravery to fight back the Holocaust against the 1% known as asking them to pay slightly more in taxes and perhaps be liable for their illegal actions. Greg Mankiw leads this brave charge of talking about how the rich deserve their wealth. He starts the article by knocking over a strong man argument nobody is making–how dare we criticize the actors and athletes who get paid well, since clearly Occupy Wall Street was critiquing the salary of Robert Downey, Jr. and George Clooney. Then he goes to those who really matter, those under an attack unknown in human history since the defeat of Nazi Germany–CEO’s and financial gurus:

A similar case is the finance industry, where many hefty compensation packages can be found. There is no doubt that this sector plays a crucial economic role. Those who work in banking, venture capital and other financial firms are in charge of allocating the economy’s investment resources. They decide, in a decentralized and competitive way, which companies and industries will shrink and which will grow. It makes sense that a nation would allocate many of its most talented and thus highly compensated individuals to the task.

In addition, recent research establishes that those working in finance face particularly risky incomes. Greater risk requires greater reward.

So, by delivering extraordinary performances in hit films, top stars may do more than entertain millions of moviegoers and make themselves rich in the process. They may also contribute many millions in federal taxes, and other millions in state taxes. And those millions help fund schools, police departments and national defense for the rest of us.

Unlike the superheroes of “The Avengers,” the richest 1 percent aren’t motivated by an altruistic desire to advance the public good. But, in most cases, that is precisely their effect.

Thank you Greg Mankiw, thank you. Finally, someone gives voice to the oppressed. From here on out, my posts will consist of nothing but heartfelt thanks to the plutocracy for all the good they do in society. Jay Gould and Andrew Carnegie could not have asked for a better hack to present their viewpoints during the first Gilded Age.

….See Dean Baker for a definitive takedown of Mankiw.


    






16 Feb 21:50

Hateful Cranks, CanCon Edition

by Scott Lemieux

Most of you probably haven’t heard of Margaret Wente, who I think Canadian journalism received in exchange for Charles Krauthammer and a hack to be named later.  Anyway, I’m afraid it would take someone with much greater wisdom than I to determine which of these columns is more revolting: “there are too many transgender kids nowadays, please eliminate as many as possible, I am not a crackpot” or “Philip Seymour Hoffman is an asshole who had it coming.” And wait, it gets better — she’s being paid to write these atrocious columns despite being uncovered as a serial plagiarist, so she’s sort of a cross between Jonah Goldberg and Jonah Lehrer.

How Fred Hiatt let her get away, I’ll never know…

 


    






16 Feb 21:43

DRAWING DAILY SUNDAY EDITION: SUNDAY CRISPS

by Steven Kraan

03_02_13_saturday_crisps_small_rumpus 72

Related Posts:

  • No related posts…