Shared posts

22 Apr 23:45

January 1: Ecce Foreskin

by davenoon

According to Christian tradition, January 1 marks the eighth day of Jesus’ life. Among other things, it is the day on which — following Jewish custom — the Son of Man would have been circumcised. And while the rest of his body would presumably have ascended to heaven on the third day after his gruesome execution, early followers believed it quite possible that he had neglected to retrieve his long-excised foreskin before taking a seat at his father’s right hand.

For medieval and early modern Christians, Jesus’ foreskin remained an object of peculiar veneration, with as many as eighteen different reliquary nubs of flesh competing for attention and honor. Charlemagne allegedly offered one to Pope Leo III as a gesture of gratitude for being crowned emperor in 800. Another, purchased from a vendor in Jerusalem at the end of the 11th century, was brought back to Antwerp as a souvenir from the first Crusade.

Nearly 300 years later, St. Catherine of Siena purported to wear the foreskin as a ring, while the 13th century Austrian mystic Agnes Blannbekin had an even more unusual relationship with the sacred relic. By Agnes’ own account, she tasted the carne vera sancta — the “true and holy meat” — numerous times during communion. As she revealed to an anonymous Franciscan scribe, she had long pondered the whereabouts of Christ’s foreskin until she experienced a revelation one year on the Feast of the Circumcision.

And behold, soon she felt with the greatest sweetness on her tongue a little piece of skin alike the skin in an egg, which she swallowed. After she had swallowed it, she again felt the little skin on her tongue with sweetness as before, and again she swallowed it. And this happened to her about a hundred times . . . . And so great was the sweetness of tasting that little skin that she felt in all limbs and parts of the limbs a sweet transformation. 

Similarly graphic, often erotic accounts helped assure that Agnes’ Life and Revelations would remain unpublished until the 20th century.

Like most Catholic relics, the Holy Prepuce was believed to possess extraordinary powers, including (not surprisingly) the enhancement of fertility and sexuality. And so in 1421, the English King Henry V retrieved one of the rumored foreskins from the French village of Coulombs to aid his wife, Catherine of Valois, in the delivery of their first son. Alas, while the relic may have helped bring the future King Henry VI into the world, it did his father little enduring good. The king died less than a year later, felled by dysentery.

The Reformation helped to undermine Catholic traditions of all kinds, including its centuries of speculation on the provenance and status of Christ’s foreskin. In 1900, the Church issued an edict than any discussion of the Holy Prepuce would result in excommunication and shunning; since the Vatican II reforms of the 1960s, Roman Catholics have not officially recognized the Feast of the Circumcision, though it continues to be observed in some Anglican and most Lutheran churches. The last public appearance of one of Jesus’ alleged foreskins took place in the Italian village of Calcata, which had hosted the tip of the Redeemer’s penis since 1557. Residents of Calcata and Catholic pilgrims continued to celebrate the Feast of the Circumcision until 1983, when thieves absconded with the foreskin and the jewel-encrusted box that contained it. Neither it nor any other alleged foreskins have ever turned up.


    






28 Feb 09:08

If the NRA and Gun Owners of America truly care about the Second Amendment

by Grung_e_Gene
then, they need to grant me membership, acknowledge and advocate for my views on the Second Amendment without me paying any Dues.
Every gun owner should be an active member of the NRA. Every gun owner should be sure that every member of his or her family is an active member. - Wayne LaPierre, Feb 2013
Of course, Larry Pratt's Gun Loons and Insane Wayne's National Firearm Fondlers Association don't actually care about the Second Amendment or Americans for that matter and are not in business to protect the rights of Gun Owners.

Their job is to be a Lobbyist Group for Gun Makers and as such their member dues are used to buy political favors and clout and work towards making Guns ubiquitous in society while making gun laws extinct.
When the NRA spends money on political advertising, we have to raise those funds from you—$20, $50, $250, or $1,000 at a time. - again Wayne LaPierre
The NRA and Gun Makers are involved in an incestuous relationship as detailed by the Violence Policy Center Report, BloodMoney II: How Gun Industry Dollars Fund the NRA.

The Freedom Group and Smith & Wesson both have donated at least $1 million to the NRA, and both are members of the NRAs Golden Ring of Freedom. 6 other Gun Industry related Corporations are in the Golden Ring of Freedom having donated at least One Million.

So besides their accomplishment of rolling back laws, making the Country demonstrably less safe and not giving a shit how many people are sacrificed upon the Holy Altar of the Firearm, the NRA and Firearm Manufacturers are feeding the money made off the deaths of thousands back into the political machine to make deaths by guns more likely.

As for the Gun Owners of America, it would be easy to attack Larry Pratt personally especially after his American Blacks need to be happy like blacks in Africa. The level of ignorance from a man whose most assuredly never been to Africa and whose only trips overseas have been to argue that Protestant Irishmen should be armed to kill Catholic Irishmen is astonishing but, let's demolish his argument that Gun Free Zones are to blame for Gun Deaths.

If that was the case no Police Officer in America would ever be killed because at every interaction with a suspect, witness, victim or bystander there is a gun present and most times very visible. Yet, LEOs are, in fact, still killed by perps.

Additionally, these Firearm Fetishizers dream about encountering an active shooter and then placing two rounds center-mass and one to the head and being lauded a hero. This doesn't happen.

Unlike, the Death Wish movies where the writer literally shows you who the bad guys are and 1st Person Shooter games where a floating red circle indicates enemy and green circle indicates ally, in the chaos of shooting how do you distinguish between friend and foe?

The retort, from Pratt and numerous gun loons, has often been that if more people, especially teachers or concerned parents, were concealed carrying at the school a gunman would think twice about going there because he won't know who will and who will not be packing. This argument is undercut by the fact that after every school shooting, Firearm Fondlers declare the gunman crazed or insane. An insane person by his very nature or illness can not logically be deterred by rational arguments. He's not engaged in a cost-benefit analysis of the outcome of his attack or fear of encountering armed resistance.

And if the situation is one ala the D.C. Naval Yard shooting or the infamous LA Bank Heist shootout, where the shooter(s) can be seen from a distance, I don't fancy your odds with a Glock vs. a semi-automatic rifle.

The massive number of arms, broad appeals to ignorance, obliterated social safety net, mistaken or malevolent laws, and cowardly or craven politicians are leading us down a dangerous path. A path which, sometimes, results in the fragmentation or destruction of a Nation.

But, the NRA and Gun Owners of America do not care. All they care about is making sure the cycle of money keeps flowing and the cycle of gun violence and blood which flows from it?
28 Feb 09:06

A Duke Energy Toxic Spill threatens the lives of thousands of Americans

by Grung_e_Gene
"Once is chance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action," attributed to Ian Fleming, creator of Bond, James Bond...
A corporation would never, ever do anything wrong, immoral or illegal just to boost profits because of the principle of enlightened self interest they axiomatically look out for the welfare of consumers.

Once again we have a toxic spill a magnitude which if attributed to Tear-A-Wrists would necessitate a full on invasion of an unconnected oil-rich Nation and the Impeachment of President Obama

Yet because it's due to the rampant negligence of a "Romney Person" (i.e. a Corporation) no punishment will occur and no prison time will ever be served.

Late Monday Feb. 03, Duke Energy dumped 82,000 tons of coal ash and 27 million gallons of contaminated water into the Dan River in North Carolina. Like petcoke, coal ash is a toxic mixture of heavy metals and corrosive poisons, but in this case the by-products of coal-fired power plants. (Read the follow-up Ecowatch articles about the levels of Arsenic in the Dan River.)

Duke Energy, of course, waited more than a day to alert the authorities because Fuck the EPA and all regulations!

The town of Danville, VA draws drinking water just 6 miles downstream from the site of the spill.

Duke Energy has been spewing forth the coal sludge and flouting regulations from all its' 14 coal fired power plants for years because Fuck the EPA and all regulations! The site of the Dan River spill has been closed since 2012 but the toxic retention pond hadn't been properly disposed off and even basic maintenance has obviously been neglected. But, it's North Carolina Duke runs the State.

So, once again we are faced with a Corporate Monstrosity which could not care less about people in North Carolina because fuck the poor and Fuck the EPA and all regulations! No Corporation will ever self-regulate. 

Enlightened Self Interest is a myth like the invisible hand and free markets. It has never existed and will never exist but, it's tool to keep people voting themselves into bondage while Corporations exert more and more control over Government until the day when Americans awake to find themselves re-enslaved and it's only too ironic that Duke Energy whose entire existence and fortune were built from Slave Labor will once more be a Slave Master.
09 Feb 21:11

nonexistentially: *SHOTS FIRED* A feminist just changed your...





nonexistentially:

*SHOTS FIRED*

A feminist just changed your crappy joke into a much better one.

09 Feb 08:05

That Was the Week That Was (#406)

by Maggie McNeill

The movement of sex workers has become successful because they have learned to recognise themselves as workers.  -  Samarjit Jana

R.I.P. Gloria Leonard

Gloria LeonardPorn star and men’s magazine publisher Gloria Leonard died on February 3rd after suffering a stroke at her Hawaii home on the night of January 31st; she was 73, but had been in good health.  Like me, she was already over 30 when she began sex work and had already had a previous career (in her case, as a stockbroker).  She was hired as publisher of High Society in 1977 and still continued to star in and direct movies for several years afterward; she also pioneered one of the first phone sex lines in 1983.  During the feminist “porn wars” she became an outspoken advocate of sex work, and served as president of the Free Speech Coalition from 1998-2001.

Juxtaposition

Compare and contrast this:

Notified by The Street of its investigation that revealed that escort services were using Twitter, Rep. Chris Smith…urged that Congress investigate…to initiate a crackdown on Twitter, Backpage, Craigslist and other social media “that are the conduit for this terrible exploitation of women”…

And this:

Saudi Arabia’s feared religious police authority has decided to launch a war against what it described as vice and sorcery accounts on Twitter…The Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice said it had formed special teams to track those accounts and arrest those who are behind them…[for] “spreading vice and witchcraft…we are determined to eliminate these accounts before they become widespread and out of control”…

Oops

[Indian] police have [difficulty] acting on tip-offs about prostitution activity…[because] moral boundaries are changing at different rates and what some call illicit sex is…[to] others…usual dating practice…In September…18 couples…in “compromising positions” were  rounded up from rooms in a hotel in…Ludhiana and detained under the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act.  Dharampal Singh…who led the raid, [said]…“Every couple says that they are there by consent or are dating [secretly]”…which is not uncommon in a society where families still arrange marriages and frown on premarital sex…

Well, At Least They’re Consistent

A [Virginia] state law that makes it a crime to have sex outside of marriage remains on the books after an effort to decriminalize it failed…Lawmakers…had concerns over potential loopholes the change would make in relation to incest and other sex crimes…[bill sponsor] Mark Sickles…[said] members want to make sure the bill is redrafted correctly and sent to the state Crime Commission for review before it is taken up again.  Eight people were convicted of fornication last year…

Surplus Women

[In 2007] Bonnie Barrett…was murdered by [Derek Brown]…who police believe was imitating Jack the Ripper…Bonnie worked as a…sex worker in Whitechapel…and…Jackie [Summerford] believes better policing could have prevented her…death.  She is one of several women who are today launchingRobert Richard Fraser a campaign on the Change.org petition website to change the way police interact with those in the sex trade.  She says… “They deserve to be protected, not ignored by police”…

Meanwhile, “Police have arrested a man [for]…the murder of…Maria Duque-Tunjano [last week]…Robert Richard Fraser…[is also suspected in]…an attack on another sex worker on January 18…

Imaginary Lines (November Updates)

The Gibson guitar company, having had its federally seized wood returned to it, is celebrating with the release of a new product made from that very wood:  the Les Paul Government II Series…available in one color:  “Government Tan.”

Where Are the Protests?

I guess rugs just aren’t as sexy as whores:

…researchers documented more than 3,000 cases of forced labor in India’s handmade carpet sector…factories and shacks where workers toil 10 to 12 hours a day for six to seven days a week were “cramped, filthy, unbearably hot and humid, imperiled with stray electrical wires and rusty nails…and contaminated with grime and mold”…Workers were subjected to frequent beatings and abuse and…suffered from…long-term health issues because of the grueling nature of the work.  Many…suffered from eye disease or loss of vision due to insufficient light.  Some developed spinal deformation…The average adult worker was paid between 21 and 24 cents an hour, while children were paid less…These carpets are sold in a number of major retail chains including, Macy’s, Neiman Marcus, Bloomingdale’s, Target, Sears, Crate & Barrel, Williams-Sonoma, Pottery Barn, Ethan Allen, IKEA and others…

Neither Addiction Nor Epidemic

Brigham Young University wants young Mormons to “rescue” their friends from the scourge of wanking by ratting on them to religious “authorities”:

Presents, Presents, Presents!

Thank you to new reader Xavier Naff for Vampyres, a lesbian vampire movie I first read about over 20 years ago but have never actually seen.  I’m told it’s very interesting on several levels.

Above the Law

Chicago police strip-searched three people on the street, and forced the woman to discard her bloody tampon while five male officers watched and made jokes about her body…Caprice Halley, Tevin Ford, and Willie Douglas…sued the City of Chicago and its Officers Wherfel, E. Doughtery, A. Granat, D. Balesteri, B. Rodekohr, J. Reckard, R. Federici, and T. Conlon…In May 2013, Halley and Ford were passengers in Douglas’ car, when they were confronted by police in an unmarked car driving toward them the wrong way down a one-way street…

Beside the vaginal probing of the woman, these uniformed molesters also shackled Douglas to a house’s burglar bars, pulled down his pants and spread his buttocks.  “Wherfel [then] took a small bag of heroin from her own sock and falsely claimed she had found it in Halley’s waistband”…

An Example to the West DMSC logo

A six-day conference of sex workers began [in Kolkata]…discussions [include] issues concerning their well-being as well as those relating to trafficking of minors and pension to old sex workers…

Hall of Shame

Your periodic reminder that Dennis Hof is a revolting excuse for a human being:

…Denis Hof…started pondering an expansion north of the border after he heard about the Supreme Court striking down prostitution laws in this country…“The smart residents will understand that it’s going to stop the sex trafficking that’s going on now. You got a huge sex trafficking problem…Our way would slow that down substantially”…

Yes, he’s spreading “sex trafficking” lies in Canada in hopes of lining his own pockets at independent sex workers’ expense.

The Public Eye

Here’s a short interview with Melissa Gira Grant in New York Magazine about her new book, Playing the Whore; in it she discusses Nick Kristof, Gloria Steinem, Jill Filipovic and other prohibitionists who claim they want to “rescue” us from our own choices.lurid sex trafficking (so-called) art

Profit from Panic (TW3 #40)

California State University, Stanislaus…senior Hannah Noonan took a proactive approach to educate her peers…through the creation of…“Crate Human Awareness,” a graphic installation displayed in a heavily traversed area of the campus…“My desire is to educate others that humans are being kidnapped and sold into slavery, prostitution, pornography, and organ harvesting”…humans are typically smuggled in crates of this type…according to Noonan…

A 22-year-old art major said it, so it must be true!

The Leading Players in the Field, Not (TW3 #44)

Gloria Steinem continues her journey into irrelevance:

Feminist icon Gloria Steinem today described prostitution as “commercial rape” and said it was wrong to term prostitutes as sex workers.  “Prostitution involves body invasion and so it is not like any other work.  So how can you call it sex work?  Prostitution is the only word you should use”…

That “body invasion” nonsense says almost all you need to know.

Above the Law (TW3 #313)

A New Jersey State [prison guard is going to]…prison for…[threatening] four prostitutes into having free or cut-rate sex with him…Juan R. Stevens pleaded guilty to official misconduct in return for…five years in prison…two before he’s eligible for parole…[he] also forfeits his state job and is permanently barred from public employment in New Jersey…

The End of the Beginning

A New Hampshire house committee has just passed a bill 18-1 (!!!) that would prohibit the establishment or existence of sex offender residency restrictions in that state.  This…is completely unheard of.  It’s one thing to simply not pass residency restriction bills, but it’s quite another to pass a law that explicitly prohibits them…[the bill’s sponsor] argued that restricting housing for sex offenders pushes them “underground,” in campgrounds, under bridges and to other places the police cannot monitor…

Guest Columnist:  Sarah Woolley (TW3 #324)

Cathy Reisenwitz in Daily CallerAmnesty International logo

It just couldn’t be clearer.  “Amnesty International is opposed to the criminalization or punishment of activities related to the buying or selling of consensual sex between adults.”  Thus begins a recently leaked document from the famed human rights organization calling for an end to prohibitions on sex work…Amnesty…defines sex work as work, making a clear delineation between employment and slavery…As Maggie McNeill details, anti-prostitution campaigners paint the typical sex worker as a child slave, while governments use anti-trafficking laws to restrict migration.  And that ill-intended confusion muddies the entire debate…as Amnesty International points out, “Criminalizing or otherwise punishing people for their choices in selling or buying consensual sex in any way fails to address these structural inequalities, and rather serves to further disempower individuals”…

A Broker in Pillage (TW3 #330)

The federal government must pay nearly $40,000 to cover the legal fees of a California woman who successfully sued to reclaim more than $1 million of her money [stolen by police] during a Nebraska traffic stop…Tara Mishra…[earned] the money…as an exotic dancer…and…[gave it to friends] to invest in a New Jersey nightclub…The government’s claim that the money was tainted with drug residue was of little value, the judge said, as…nearly all cash in circulation is drug-tainted…

Little Tin Gods

The Jefferson Davis Parish sheriff’s office claims that eight survival sex workers there were murdered by a serial killer.  However, all the women knew one another well; several were related to one another, and every one of them was a drug informant to a sheriff’s office which is notoriously corrupt even by Louisiana standards.  Read this long, thorough investigative report on the murders, and I suspect you’ll come to the same conclusion I did the very first time I heard about the case.

Number Puzzle (TW3 #350)

Alice Schwarzer…accused news magazine Spiegel…of trying to damage her reputation by reporting on her [paying]…‘a six-figure sum’…in back taxes [for]…her Swiss bank account…she…accused Spiegel of acting in the interest of [prostitutes]…

Catastrophic Consequences

Edinburgh City Council has scrapped the licensing of saunas and massage parlours…but it [does] not mean the saunas [will] close…Scot-Pep…said…”With Police Scotland persisting in its policy of using condoms as evidence of sex work against the explicit recommendations of the World Health Organisation, workers will fear to keep large quantities of condoms on their premises, as this could be used to criminalise women.”

Here’s a more surprising reaction to the news:

Edinburgh University Students’ Association (EUSA) has voted to publicly support the rights of sex workers…approximately 70 students…voted overwhelmingly in support of the motion…[which] stipulates that EUSA officially advocate the decriminalisation of sex work, offer its support to sex workers who are students at the University of Edinburgh, as well as endorsing sex workers’ rights organisations, “such as SCOT-PEP and Sex Workers’ Open University”…

The More the Better (TW3 #404)

Franck Ribery and…Karim Benzema were acquitted on charges of soliciting an underage prostitute…the…judge ruled there wasn’t enough proof the men were aware that…Zahia Dehar…was a minor at the time…

O, Canada! (TW3 #405)

More on the Canadian sex worker intimidation scheme; note they are only just realizing now that most escorts advertise online:

[Halifax, NS] police who worked in a recent nationwide sex-trade operation are seeing a shift toward online communicating…A joint news release issued by a number of Canadian sex-work support groups said the operation uses deception and intimidation…male officers posed as clients to book appointments, but then had several officers arrive…and demand entry.  They…[interrogate] her…demand to see her identification and search her premises and possessions…Fiona Traynor…of Stepping Stone…criticized the police news release for saying the sex workers were under some level of control.  “There’s no [evidence] of…that,” she said…


09 Feb 02:50

YES.  This is why I hate when defenses against criticism of a...



YES.  This is why I hate when defenses against criticism of a film act like we’re making the fictional characters feel bad, or we’re saying they’re bad people and should lose their jobs or something.

09 Feb 02:50

fozmeadows: Every time I see someone make the argument that representation in fiction isn’t a big...

fozmeadows:

Every time I see someone make the argument that representation in fiction isn’t a big issue, and that advocating for diversity is just a waste of time because audiences can identify with anyone, and anyway, trying to include a wide range of backgrounds is just tokenism, I have the overwhelming urge to grab them by the shoulders and hiss, If you really believe that representation doesn’t matter, then why the fuck are you threatened by it? If not seeing yourself depicted in stories has no negative psychological impact - if the breakdown of who we see on screen has no bearing on wider social issues - then what would it matter if nine stories out of ten were suddenly all about queer brown women? No big, right? It wouldn’t change anything important; just a few superficial details. Because YOU can identify with ANYONE.

"So I guess the problem is that you just don’t want to. Because deep down, you think it’ll make stories worse. And why is that? Oh, yeah: because it means they wouldn’t all be about YOU.

Yup.  When white people are like “stop seeing race!  I don’t care if the character is white, I can associate with characters of any race!” it’s a trick to try to position being okay with the status quo as a morally superior viewpoint.  It’s trying to present a viewpoint in a vacuum, and say “see this is ideally how people should be” ignoring how imbalanced things are.  It’s to trick us into backing off for fear that we’ll prove ourselves to be greedy, selfish, and superficial in their narrative, instead of going “It’s great you feel that way, but I don’t.  So since you don’t care, I can have what I want, and you can be fine associating with all  of the non-white chars in fiction.”

When white people say representation doesn’t matter, it’s like a rich person saying money doesn’t matter, so stop asking him for some.

09 Feb 02:49

A dude friend demanded I "name one" female superhero who could head her own movie. I gave him a list. He said he hadn't heard of any, so they couldn't be A-listers. I said Captain Marvel, Black Widow, She-Hulk are solo titles. He said they still "couldn't handle" a solo movie. I gave up. (btw he also made several factual errors that, if he'd been a girl, the other dudes would've crucified him for, but they didn't say anything.) What are we supposed to do?

Kill him and eat him in front of the others.  It’s the only way they learn. 

09 Feb 02:48

News-Reworder SlashGear Turns Expert Into Criminal Defendant

by Ken White

Dr. Nicholas Weaver is an expert on network security issues. The media frequently seeks him out for input on stories involving the intersection of criminal justice and computer security, like Silk Road and leak investigations. Fair disclosure: he's also an online friend and an expert on one of my cases.

SlashGear is an also-ran tech site that rewrites stories badly.

Case in point: SlashGear took this story from Krebs On Security about criminal charges against Bitcoin traders in Florida. Dr. Weaver was quoted as an expert in that story:

Nicholas Weaver, a researcher at the International Computer Science Institute (ICSI) and at the University of California, Berkeley and keen follower of Bitcoin-related news, said he is unaware of another case in which state law has been used against a Bitcoin vendor. According to Weaver, the Florida case is significant because localbitcoins.com is among the last remaining places that Americans can use to purchase Bitcoins anonymously.

“The biggest problem that Bitcoin faces is actually self-imposed, because it’s always hard to buy Bitcoins,” Weaver said. “The reason is that Bitcoin transactions are irreversible, and therefore any purchase of Bitcoins must be made with something irreversible — namely cash. And that means you either have to wait several days for the wire transfer or bank transfer to go through, or if you want to buy them quickly you pay with cash through a site like localbitcoins.com.”

But when Bittany Hillen penned an awkwardly-worded and uninformative summary of the story for SlashGear, she turned Dr. Weaver from a quoted expert to a criminal defendant:

Yesterday, Florida law enforcement announced the arrests and criminal charges against three individuals under anti-money laundering laws: Michell Abner Espinoza, Pascal Reid, and Nicholas Weaver.

Dr. Weaver captured a screenshot in case SlashGear tries to memory-hole this. He should feel happy he didn't give a quote about the Woody Allen case, I guess.

Dr. Weaver isn't the suing type. But, hypothetically, could he sue for defamation? Sure.

In California the elements of defamation — that is, the things that a defamation plaintiff must prove — are these:

publication of a statement of fact
that is false,
unprivileged,
has a natural tendency to injure or which causes "special damage," and
the defendant's fault in publishing the statement amounted to at least negligence.

Here, SlashGear and Hillen published a false statement of fact about Dr. Weaver — that he had been charged with a crime. The publication was unprivileged, meaning that it was not immunized from liability by statute (for instance, things you say as a witness in court, or in pleadings filed in court, are generally privileged from liability). Accusing some of being charged with a crime is the sort of thing that has a natural tendency to injure, which is why it is often categorizes as "libel per se" — which merely means that the plaintiff doesn't have to prove that he or she suffered damage to reputation, and gets at least nominal damages without such proof.5 Dr. Weaver probably couldn't prove actual or special damages to his reputation — it's doubtful that anyone gives a shit what a clumsy SlashGear rewrite says. But he could get at least nominal damages because of the nature of the accusation.

That leaves us with the question of fault. As I explained in the context of the Crystal Cox case, at least if the issue being discussed is a public one, a defamation claim always requires proof of some level of fault on the part of the defendant. The level of fault depends on whether the plaintiff is a mere private figure (in which case the plaintiff may only need to prove that the defendant got the story wrong out of negligence) or a public figure (in which case the plaintiff would need to prove actual malice, meaning knowledge that the story was false or reckless disregard to its truth or falsity.) There are complexities and gradations; people can be public figures for limited purposes.

Here, the transformation of Dr. Weaver from respected expert to criminal defendant is a result of an incompetent rewrite of a news story. That's at least negligence. If Dr. Weaver is treated as a private figure he would prevail. But since he's frequently quoted in the news on stories like this, he may well be treated as a limited purpose public figure in the context of coverage of network security issues in the news. So the question is probably whether an incompetent rewrite of a story rises to the level of reckless disregard of the truth as required by the actual malice standard. The answer is almost certainly not. "Reckless disregard" requires more than incompetence; it requires conscious disregard of doubt. Here there's no indication that anyone consciously regarded or disregarded anything.

So: Dr. Weaver probably can't prove the requisite fault against SlashGear and Hillen, even if he wanted to. They live to promote shitty rewrites another day. Fortunately for Dr. Weaver it's difficult to imagine anyone taking SlashGear seriously enough for their incompetence to hurt his reputation.

Remember: just because something is written in a "story" by a "journalist" on a well-trafficked website, that doesn't mean it's anything other than incompetent drivel.

Edited to add SlashGear corrected the story to remove the reference to Dr. Weaver as a defendant, but as of this writing has not offered any retraction or apology. Classy.

News-Reworder SlashGear Turns Expert Into Criminal Defendant © 2007-2013 by the authors of Popehat. This feed is for personal, non-commercial use only. Using this feed on any other site is a copyright violation. No scraping.

09 Feb 02:46

Anti-Shakesville site hates on me by association re NOMAS incident

by emigrl

Last August, I was invited to be part of Forging Justice conference, which was co-organized by feminist anti-violence organization HAVEN and our supposed male ally group, National Organization for Men Against Sexism.

To be honest, I didn’t have a very high expectation of men of NOMAS based on my previous experiences dealing with male feminist “leaders” (as opposed to ordinary men who happened to be feminists), but what happened at the conference was much worse than I had imagined. Later, I wrote about all that transpired at the conference, and had it posted on Shakesville, a popular feminist blog. Here are related posts on Shakesville:

After these articles were posted, NOMAS did post a formal response on its website. Ever since, I have been thinking about writing about how the statement is very inadequate and disappointing, but I could not gather enough strength to once again focus my energy on bunch of (overwhelmingly) white men who just don’t get it.

It seemed like the whole incident had been forgotten after five months on inaction, but somehow it was picked up this past week by a Tumblr page “Drink the Shaker Kool-Aid” (shakesvillekoolaid), which appears to be an anti-Shakesville site. I don’t know (or even care) what issues the writer of the anti-Shakesville site has against Shakesville or Melissa. But what it says about me and my work seems completely off-base.

shakesvillekoolaid quotes part of my article that described my presentation at Forging Justice:

[it] focused on how the mainstream anti-trafficking discourse promotes further surveillance and criminalization of already marginalized communities as the primary and often only solution to the problem of violence and exploitation experienced by youth and adults in the sex trade. I argued how such an approach ignores realities of people who are actually in the sex trade (due to any combination of choice, circumstances, or coercion), and harm the very people they are intended to help. At minimum, I believe, an intersectional analysis would require us to start from the acknowledgement that the state is a problematic institution, a source of violence against women of color and many others, that cannot be intrinsically relied on.

To this, shakesvillekoolaid comments:

Now, here’s the first point that should be noted. This pretty much directly contradicts the findings of the DOJ, various organizations dedicated to helping sex workers, and other, you know….experts.

shakesvillekoolaid does not refute anything I state, or provide any counter-evidences; they simply state that my view “contradicts findings of the DOJ, various organizations dedicated to helping sex workers,” and others. Of course it does: I am criticizing them. It makes no sense to rely on DOJ’s words when the question is whether or not some actions of DOJ and others aligned with it are harmful to people in the sex trade. shakesvillekoolaid is, of course, free to side with the DOJ over grass-roots activists like myself if they choose to do so, but the evidence has to come from somewhere other than the DOJ itself.

At the very best, Koyama’s thesis, that the men who pimp underage girls are not necessarily predators, but “often friends, partners, mentors, family members, photographers, drivers, bodyguards, and others who do not control the person trading sex in any way” is….controversial.

This is a distortion of my actual thesis, and it is inexcusable for shakesvillekoolaid to interpret my writing this way, because in my Shakesville article I directly and specifically refuted this characterization. In response to NOMAS co-founder Robert Brannon’s comment that I claimed “pimps are not controlling abusers, but friends, mentors, partners, and protectors,” I wrote:

And Brannon clearly distorted my argument when he claimed that I consider pimps “friends, mentors, partners, and protectors”: what I have actually written was that friends and others close to people who trade sex are often targeted by the law enforcement as “pimps,” leading to further isolation, which of course make us more vulnerable to abuse and exploitation.

In other words, my argument is that people who are targeted by the law enforcement as “pimps” are not necessarily pimps or traffickers, but friends and others who are not doing any harm; I am NOT arguing that actual pimps and traffickers are doing no harm. Perhaps Brannon may have genuinely misunderstood my writing, but shakesvillekoolaid cannot claim honest misunderstanding after having the opportunity to read my refutation.

shakesvillekoolaid further writes:

So, first- this illustrates a huge problem with Lizzie-style feminism- just because Koyama had one type of experience in sex work does not mean that her experience is universal, or that she is an expert. She is an expert on the sex work done by Emi Koyama, not all sex work done by all women and men everywhere.

My experiences are obviously not universal, and nothing I wrote claims to speak for all sex workers. But I am not just one woman speaking about her experiences; I am an organizer, writer, and independent researcher who have worked with other people who have been in the sex trade as well as our allies. After all, that is why HAVEN chose me as the speaker–not just to talk about my own experiences in the sex trade, but to share what I have learned from all of my experiences. shakesvillekoolaid seems to accept DOJ and rescue organizations as “experts” while discounting the expertise of grass-roots activists, which is bizarre and offensive.

Second, I was always informed that comparing things that aren’t rape TO rape was a huge no-no. Apparently there is an exception when comparing, say, a livestream being cut to, you know- rape.

No. I’m not comparing cutting off livestream to rape; I am comparing NOMAS’ initial claim that I had wanted them to cut it off and consented to it with rapists’ typical defense. The analogy was specifically chosen because NOMAS was positioning itself as the “real” feminist fighting violence against women while falsely accusing me of being an apologist for systematic rape, when in reality NOMAS’ behavior is more in line with that of a rapist.

Apparently she tried to have him ejected from the conference but he came back, and the long and the short of it is she packed up and left early because she found his presence triggering.

I did not try to have him ejected; I made no such request, and was only told after the fact that he had been ejected. And his presence wasn’t just “triggering”; when he kept approaching me after he was ejected twice, sneaking around so that he could come near me undetected by HAVEN staff, I was afraid of actual, physical danger. I wrote in my article:

As a survivor, I experience triggers frequently. I know that, most of the time, I feel scared about the situation or people because of something that has happened in the past, and that there usually is not an actual danger to myself. So for the last two days, despite the fact I felt scared and could not stop feeling shaky or sleep for more than two or three hours each night, I kept trying to tell myself that nobody was going to actually harm me.

After the third time Brannon violated boundaries of women like me, Lauren, and others, however, I was no longer certain that my scared feelings were just feelings: women know that someone that angry and out of control is capable of doing the unthinkable. So I decided to pack up and leave the conference hours before I had originally planned to do so.

It should be clear to anyone reading this that I was not just merely “triggered”; I believe that many other women would feel the same way if the same man kept approaching them after being ejected by his peers multiple times. For shakesvillekoolaid to describe this incident as merely “triggering” minimizes Brannon’s abusive behavior and distorts what I clearly wrote.

I have no idea what shakesvillekoolaid’s grievances against Shakesville are, but it appears that they have chosen to hate on me and publicly distort and discredit my work, solely by association to Shakesville, rather than actually engaging with my work and offering honest critiques. That fact led me to lose any interest in finding out what those grievances are.

08 Feb 05:24

Yes I'm afraid of cis people.

I was thinking about “cisphobia” because it’s always this thing that cis people bring out as a GOTCHA REVERSAL thing on trans people.  Like, you’re mean to us, you’re CISPHOBIC!  or what nots.  Piers Morgan just used it today in response to the criticism he’s gotten about the way his show handled trans activist Janet Mock’s interview, and how she was labeled “was a boy until age 18”.

I was thinking because I do fear cis people.  And that fear impacts my life quite a bit.  But here’s the thing.  A phobia is defined as an “irrational fear” of something. I pretty rationally fear cis people.

I fear talking to cis doctors about health concerns because they’ll use it as an excuse to cut back on my hormones.

I fear talking about my abusive father because cis therapists or doctors will use that to explain away & dismiss my being trans.

I fear doing telephone banking because a cis person will accuse me of being a fraud and my account will be suspended.

I fear all interactions with cis police officers because they will hold me and grill me for 20 minutes about “why” I’m trans, and if I get a sexual thrill about it, what’s in my pants, how I have sex, etc…

I fear calling hotlines when I’ve been assaulted because the cis person on the other end might not be trans inclusive, or I’ll have to explain what’s up with my voice first, and me being trans might confuse them.

I fear going to trauma therapy because my cis therapist will not treat me as an actual survivor (neither a male nor female one) and act confused how I could be raped, or if every little detail of my life is “a trans thing”, and refuse offered trans education from other sources because “I want to learn through you.”

I fear any sort of fame because it means the cis media will report on me, and some cis journalist might dig into my life and publicly expose my dead name.  I fear interviews in general because I always have to hope they will honor my request to not mention that I’m trans.

I fear well meaning cis writers not understanding why I don’t want my trans status revealed in their essays when I’m being used in it as an example of fangirl bloggers “performing femininity”.

I fear talking about having an eating disorder because cis people will get hung up that me being trans means I’m a man that thinks in order to be a woman I have to be thin, rather than like cis women, I’m affected by the same narrow beauty standard crap in society that they are.

I fear not revealing to cis dates that I’m trans because they might lash out at me when they find out.

I fear revealing to cis dates that I’m trans because they might lash out at me.

I fear being outed while I’m shopping, having all the cis customers and cis salespeople in a store go to the other side and talk about me. 

I fear being held by a cis security guard and questioned in front of the gawking crowd until I use my voice loud enough that everybody can get a good listen to it, and then let go.  Like a fish they just took a picture of.

I fear cis men in general.  I fear when they look at me closely.  I fear when they get close to me.  I fear that they’ll scream at me “I can see your penis!” and then chase me.  I fear that they will kill me if they catch me.

I fear going to the washroom with cis women.  I fear changing with cis women.  I fear being harassed, or assaulted, or kicked out if anybody knows I’m trans.

I fear being misgendered by cis people whenever I have to just get simple things done.  I fear being called “sir” by cis election officers because I have to correct an incorrect name on my voter ID card.  I fear being called “sir” because I ordered a coffee.

I fear that my struggles as a woman are invalidated by cis feminists I turn to for support because they don’t actually see me as a woman.  I fear “welcome to womanhood” when I talk about being harassed or assaulted.

I fear whenever I interact with the government, justice, legal, medical, mental health, and other systems that the cis people who dominate them, and run them, will take away my hormones, take away my freedom, take away my options for housing, and take away my ability to live my life.

I fear I’ll never be able to live my life not in fear because cis people are everywhere, and this behavior is defended by other cis people.

So yes, I’m afraid of cis people.  I’m also afraid of spiders.  One is a phobia, and one isn’t.   Guess which group has never actually hurt me?

(All the examples above are things that have actually happened to me except the first sentence about media reporting which is fears spawned by Grantland’s article about Dr. V, and the washroom/changeroom part is based on it happening to others, but thankfully not me (yet).  This is also not a comprehensive list, nor the worst things that have happened.)

05 Feb 03:34

Stupor Bowl

by Maggie McNeill

While Scripture forbids us from spreading a false report…sometimes, because of lack of information, we unintentionally pass along false reports in the form of myths and urban legends.  -  Joe Carter of The Gospel Coalition

Super Bowl mythEvery year since I’ve been writing this blog, the “sex trafficking” fanatics have hyped the Super Bowl as “the biggest human trafficking event of the year”, and every year I and other activists have worked to debunk that ridiculous lie.  Though such tall tales had been told about large international events like the Olympics and World Cup since the advent of “trafficking” hysteria in 2004, they first became attached to the Super Bowl in 2008 and didn’t blossom into a full-fledged media circus until 2010, when were told that “tens of thousands of people‘—most of them young girls—[were] sold into the sex trade during Miami’s Super Bowl” (presumably while the halftime show was going on).  Later that year, Texas attorney general Greg Abbot got the propaganda machine running in full force by November, and virtually the only dissenting voice outside the sex worker rights movement was a Village Voice reporter who interviewed me a few weeks before the Dallas game.  In October 2011, however, the venerable Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women released a thorough debunking entitled “What’s the Cost of a Rumour?”, and a few “trafficking” opportunists began to see the writing on the wall.  While the hysteria spun on for the 2012 Indianapolis Super Bowl (the first one which saw the bizarre spectacle of nuns and “trafficking” fetishists harassing hoteliers into accepting creepy bars of “sex trafficking” soap), a few of the wiser rescue industry groups began to distance themselves from it and Snopes officially labeled it an urban legend.

Since then, we’ve begun to see a split in both political and journalistic treatment of the myth.  While New Orleans’ response was even less extreme than Tampa’s in 2009, New Jersey has gone completely off the deep end, New York has horned in on New Jersey’s glory by performing mass arrests of sex workers  in the name of “fighting trafficking”, and Cindy McCain, angry that the hysteria had not started in earnest the last time the game was in Phoenix (2008), has already started trying to hog the spotlight for next year.  While some media outlets published the usual outlandish poppycock, others are trying to hedge their bets:  Jezebel was as credulous as one would expect, but its readers were not (see comment thread), and NBC News took the precaution of inserting a couple of disclaimers in an otherwise-typical “Trafficking Bowl” feature starring SOAP’s Theresa Flores (who was magically “trafficked” out of her suburban home every night for two years without anyone ever noticing).  And like rats deserting a sinking ship, Rachel Lloyd and Polaris are now denying the myth in hopes of keeping the broader “sex trafficking” mythology (and their profits) afloat just a little longer.

Nor is it just a few lonely voices doing the debunking any more, as it was for the past three years.  My article in Reason was quoted and linked in articles on Hot Air, Cracked and The Federalist, and Lenore Skenazy interviewed me for her syndicated newspaper column and Huffington Post.  Susan Shepard of Tits and Sass exploded the myth in Sports on Earth, Tracy Clark-Flory did in Salon, Dr. Marty Klein did on his own blog, and Kate Mogulescu of the Legal Aid Society did in the New York Times; other writers attacked it in The Wire and the National Post.  But the most pleasant surprises for me were two refutations in The Gospel Coalition and Religious Herald; the latter one even quoted Laura Agustín!deflated football  Given all this support to what once felt like tilting at windmills, I think it’s safe to say that the next iteration of the myth (which as mentioned above, Cuckoo Clock McCain has already launched) will be its swan song.  And that will only be one of a series of implosions which will rock the “sex trafficking” cult over the next three years, resulting in the eventual collapse of the whole moral panic.


05 Feb 03:31

Imagining the new Wonder Woman | Toronto Star

Imagining the new Wonder Woman | Toronto Star:

Do: Make Steve Trevor her boyfriend

Better than a workplace romance in the Hall of Justice, hook her up with Steve Trevor, the military major she has been off and on with for 72 years. It’s a solution that avoids an ugly rivalry with Amy Adams, who reprises her role as Lois Lane in the new movie.

“I’m hoping we don’t see women pitted against women fighting over a man,” says Thornhill’s Ami Angelwings, whose Escher Girls Tumblr gets 10,000 to 20,000 hits per day highlighting unrealistic and hypersexualized illustrations of women in comics. “Lois Lane has a lot of power and strength of character in her own right as a professional woman. It’s not just about physical power.”

The article in the Toronto Star I was interviewed for is up. o:  I show up in one section (the one I quoted above).  I think it’s weird.  I didn’t talk about Steve Trevor at all, nor did I say Wonder Woman needed a romance, or that if she didn’t date Superman or Batman she has to date somebody.  I don’t understand the logic that if fans don’t want her to date Superman or Batman, therefore she should be with Steve Trevor.  Why can’t she not date anybody?  Not that it’s bad if she does, it’s just weird that it’s like she has to.  And I’m not particularly happy the quote they used from me is in this section as if this was what I was advocating for. -_o

(I also didn’t mean that Lois’ strength & importance as a character came solely because she was a professional woman.  I don’t remember exactly what I said, but I explained much more than that, and about how I hope Lois Lane’s role isn’t diminished b/c the writers think only one woman can be of any importance in a movie at any time.)

Anyway, I’m posting this here just in case anybody reads it and gets the wrong impression what my quote was about. >_>

It’s cool I’m in the newspaper though. O:  And Escher Girls got a plug. :3

05 Feb 03:22

How Commonwealth’s Attorney Paul B. Ebert Touched People

by Ken White

Paul B. Ebert, Virginia's longest-serving prosecutor, was honored a couple of years ago.

A portrait of Ebert was unveiled at the event that will be hung near his office alongside those of his predecessors. The portrait was done by Wendell Powell Studio in Richmond.

The idea of a portrait came from the many people Ebert has known in his 43 years as a commonwealth’s attorney.

“We see all these nice, distinguished gentlemen hanging [on the walls] around the courthouse,” Prince William area lawyer William Stephens said. “It dawned on me” that Paul Ebert should be one of them. “He has touched so many people.”

Indeed he has.

Justin Wolfe, for instance.

Gideon at the "A Public Defender" blog — who is absolutely essential reading if you care about how America's criminal justice system works — explains how Paul Ebert touched Justin Wolfe.

Wolfe has spent more than a decade in prison, and continues to spend time in prison, on a murder-for-hire charge. He's in prison even though a federal court has found that he has made a showing of actual innocence and even though the prosecution team — through Paul B. Ebert — deliberately suppressed key exculpatory evidence and then attempted to extort a witness.

This opinion by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit tells the tale. Wolfe was a drug dealer. Another drug dealer, Barber, claimed that Wolfe hired him to kill a third drug dealer. Barber was the star witness — in fact, he was the only witness supporting the claim that the murder was for hire (and thus capital murder) or that Wolfe was involved. In exchange Barber got a reduced charge. Barber later recanted and said he made the whole thing up. A federal judge found that the Virginia prosecutors had withheld key evidence about Barber and other elements of the case:

Specifically, the court ruled in the Brady Order that the prosecution had withheld eight items or groups of favorable and material evidence, falling into three broader categories: (1) evidence tending to impeach triggerman Barber; (2) evidence tending to impeach other prosecution witnesses who corroborated Barber's testimony; and (3) evidence suggesting an alternate theory of the Petrole murder. The court also deemed Wolfe to be entitled to relief on his claim that the prosecution knowingly presented false testimony by Barber, in contravention of Wolfe's Fourteenth Amendment due process rights

What did the prosecutors — including Ebert — withhold? They withheld a report showing that they had been the first to mention Wolfe to Barber, and they had told Barber he'd be executed if he didn't flip on Wolfe:

This information is favorable to Wolfe because it documents the fact that detectives first mentioned Wolfe in connection to the murder and presented Barber with the option of execution or life imprisonment in exchange for implicating someone else, well before Barber began cooperating with the Commonwealth or implicating Wolfe in the murder. Prosecutors do not dispute the fact that the report was not provided to [Wolfe]. Furthermore, the report is material because it reflects that Barber had a motive to misrepresent the facts regarding Petrole's death.

This was not a mistake. This was policy. Ebert's explanation shocked even the notoriously conservative Fourth Circuit:

During Wolfe's evidentiary hearing in the district court, the Commonwealth's Attorney [Ebert] explained that his office does not have an "open-file policy," providing criminal defense counsel access to entire case files. See J.A. 3690. Asked to elaborate, he offered the flabbergasting explanation that he has "found in the past when you have information that is given to certain counsel and certain defendants, they are able to fabricate a defense around what is provided." Id. Additionally, the Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney admitted that he does not produce evidence to a criminal defendant unless he first deems it to be "material[]" and "credib[le]."

Emphasis added; conspiracy to violate civil rights in the original.

The Fourth Circuit professed to be "flabbergasted" by Ebert's excuse that if you turn over exculpatory evidence the defense will just use it to, you know, defend the case. It shouldn't be. As I often say here, the criminal justice system is full of people who believe that its purpose is to deliver convictions and any other result shows a malfunction. Nor is Ebert's belief that he should decide what to turn over to the defense, based on his idea of what is "material" or "credible," unknown. As I discussed in 2012, the ACLU sued the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office for internal policies reflecting the same mindset. This sort of thing is why Ninth Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski recently decried an "epidemic" of prosecutorial violations of the constitutional duty to turn over exculpatory evidence.

But Paul B. Ebert wasn't done yet.

The federal court ordered Virginia to retry Wolfe in 120 days or set him free. A prosecutorial team including Ebert responded by attempting to extort Barber into changing is story again, this time back to how they had extorted him to testify at trial. Gideon, again, has the story. He quotes from Wolfe's petition to the Supreme Court. I will quote from the dissenting judge in the Fourth Circuit:

[T]he pattern of misconduct does not end there: it reached its pinnacle on September 11, 2012, when Detective Newsome and Prince William County prosecutors Richard Conway and Paul Ebert (the "Original Prosecuting Team") visited Barber in jail (the "September 11 jail visit") and attempted to coerce Barber to repeat his 2002 trial testimony upon retrial — the same testimony that the district court found "contained falsities." Wolfe, 819 F.Supp.2d at 571 ("Not only was the Commonwealth in possession of information that would have revealed falsities in Barber's testimony at the time of the trial, it also knew that suppressing that information would result in denying Petitioner an opportunity to craft a defense based on the information.").

This time, however, Barber had enough. The district court explained,

"As Mr. Barber's counsel's testimony indicated during this Court's December 13, 2012 hearing, Mr. Barber, under advice of counsel and in consideration of the Original Prosecuting Team's [Sept. 11, 2012] conversation, has now invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege, which the Prince William County Circuit Judge authorized. As indicated by Barber's counsel, Barber intends to continue to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege at Wolfe's retrial, absent the granting of immunity."

J.A. 527 (citations omitted). Thus, by threatening and intimidating Barber — whose most recent and credited testimony was that Wolfe had nothing to do with Petrole's murder — into invoking the Fifth Amendment, the Commonwealth has once again deprived Wolfe of potentially exculpatory evidence. This is a circumstance that, even if (somehow) the constitutional violations can be remedied upon retrial, is extraordinary enough "such that the holding of a new trial would be unjust." Capps, 13 F.3d at 353.

What that judge is saying is this: Ebert and his investigator (who came out of retirement for that little trip) visited Barber, threatened him with the needle if he didn't change his story back to something the federal court had found was untrue, and (predictably) caused him to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights, so he was no longer able to testify in Wolfe's favor at Wolfe's retrial.

Wolfe asked the federal court to bar Virginia from retrying him based on this misconduct. The issue that will be before the Supreme Court if it accepts the case is whether the federal court has the power to forbid the state to retry Wolfe under such circumstances. The Fourth Circuit has decided that it lacks that power.

I am repulsed. But I am not shocked.

This is the way the system works.

Justin Wolfe is in a cage. Paul B. Ebert is free.

It ought to be the other way around.

Rather than having his portrait on the wall of a Virginia courthouse, Paul B. Ebert should be in federal prison.

But, because he is a prosecutor, the chances that Paul B. Ebert will face any meaningful consequences are vanishingly small. He got that honor — that portrait — well after his withholding of exculpatory evidence in this case was revealed. The honor reflects the belief of the law enforcement community: Paul B. Ebert, by violating constitutional rights, was doing his duty. He was making the system work.

How Commonwealth’s Attorney Paul B. Ebert Touched People © 2007-2013 by the authors of Popehat. This feed is for personal, non-commercial use only. Using this feed on any other site is a copyright violation. No scraping.

05 Feb 03:22

Reusable template for standard moral panic journalism, DEA ceritified edition

by Paul Campos

needle and a spoon

This could come in handy whenever the apogee of a deadline meets the perigee of a hangover. Quotes and statistics can easily fill this out to 750 words.

The [death, hospitalization, arrest, other misfortune] of [celebrity] is fueling renewed concern about a recent upsurge of [bad things], brought on by a new wave of [drug of the moment] users.

[Prominent drug warrior] warns that if [extremely expensive pet initiative featuring no data on potential effectiveness] is not adopted, “we could lose a whole generation” to [drug of the moment] addiction.

Indeed [various authority figures] are sounding the alarm that [drug of the moment], whose use many Americans believe is confined to [socially marginal deviants] is suddenly appearing/making a comeback among upper middle class white kids suburban youth, who are drawn to glamorous portrayals of [drug of the moment] addicts in films, music, and on the Internet.

[Credentialed expert] argues that new strains of [drug of the moment] are far more potent and dangerous than the versions of the drug which were previously available, when [readers of this story] were engaging in youthful experimentation with [drug of the moment], and that rapidly falling prices are making [drug of the moment] a tempting alternative to alcohol, prescription drugs, and even marijuana [ed. note: last three words of previous sentence not suitable for stories about marijuana].


    






04 Feb 03:49

It's Cool That You Like My Hair, But...

postcardsfromspace:

There’s an article—one I’m not going to link to—that’s been going around about how women with short hair are clearly unstable because all straight men prefer women with long hair. And I’ve seen a lot of dudes responding to it with anger, then rebutting it by saying that, it’s okay, ladies, short hair is totally hot.

Dudes, no.

Let me lay this down for you: What makes that article offensive is not that dudebro thinks ladies with short hair are ugly and unbalanced. It’s not even that he’s flagging for a stupid and outdated and artificial beauty standard. It’s that he thinks that ladies whose primary priority isn’t being as attractive as possible to dudes are mentally ill. It’s that he feels entitled to dictate what women can and can’t do with their bodies. 

I’ve seen this play out over, and over, and over; in professional and personal contexts. A lady writes or makes something. A dude comes in and dismisses her opinion on the basis that he thinks she’s ugly. Other dudes then rush in to shout him down and reassure her that she is totally pretty. This is how they “support” her: by continuing to derail discussion of her ideas or accomplishments in favor of arguing over how hot they do or don’t find her, or patronizing her with the idea that what she must be upset over isn’t the total dismissal of what she’s done or said in favor of beauty-pageant judging, but that someone thinks she isn’t pretty.

Dudes, I know your intentions are good. I know you want ladies you care about to think that they are awesome and beautiful. But when you do this, you become part of the problem. Don’t be that guy. Pay attention to context. Respond to context. And instead of rebutting those trolls with “Hell, no! She’s gorgeous!” or “Short hair is totally hot!” try “You don’t get to dictate her choices based on your personal beauty standards.” Try listening and responding to what the women in the conversation are actually saying, and bear in mind that, under some circumstances, a compliment can be every bit as dismissive and dehumanizing as an insult.

ETA: For more on this from other excellent angles, I recommend checking out Laurie Penny’s take over at the New Statesman.

It’s always amazing to me how when some man trashes women for looking/being a certain way and how that’s terrible because it’s unattractive to men and therefore all sorts of other negative qualities are imputed on her, that the defense from other men is NO I FIND THIS HOT.  It’s like dude, this is not about what turns you on okay?  That’s the issue with the original piece, and you’re just doing it from another side.  The solution to how women are objectified and pigeon-holed and judged in society is not that it’s not being done with enough types of women!  It’s that it happens at all.  Saying “well, I think fat women are hot!” or “I like women with penises!” or etc is just taking the shit salad we’re given by society, and putting a different salad dressing on it. 

And more importantly, you’re just reinforcing patriarchy: the idea that men are in charge and it’s their opinions of women’s sexual utility to them that determines whether or not we have worth.  If one man says we’re worthless cuz we’re ugly, and your response is “no she has worth cuz she’s hot” you’re doing 2 things: 1) playing into the idea that who we are is defined by what men think of us, specifically if they are attracted to us  2) that, as a man, it’s important that we know who YOU like, that you can’t let this issue, which is ABOUT WOMEN, go by without letting us know that you’re not like that!  Dude, a whole group of women just got trashed based on their hair cut.  It’s not about you.

This applies to all related discussions about other marginalized groups being stereotyped/maligned/etc and privileged people making it all about them and their enlightened special preferences, and not getting that the issue is not helped by reinforcing the idea that marginalized people only matter if a privileged person likes them.

04 Feb 03:41

Where Mexican-Americans Live

by Erik Loomis

An examination of where Mexican-Americans live in the United States shows they still mostly live in Mexico, or at least what Mexico was before the United States unjustly stole it between 1846-48. When we talk about immigration, we too often forget that Mexicans (along with indigenous peoples) were the rightfully owners of this land and that they did not cross the border, the border crossed them.


    






04 Feb 03:40

To See is to Be Seen

by Remittance Girl

seenApparently I said something deeply offensive when I tweeted that, among the many functions that sex serves, one is to see yourself through the eyes of your lover. When it finally occurred to me why the statement might be offensive to some people, it depressed me. It’s political, of course. Although I realize it is fundamentally impossible to keep politics out of the bedroom, I often feel it does more harm than good there.

We find ourselves at an incredibly narcissistic point in our history and, god knows, I’m not immune to it (witness my last post). But somehow we’ve come to a point where we want to believe – and certainly the commercial entities who sell us things that help ‘define’ us want us to believe – that we make ourselves, and  can completely remake ourselves, that we are the sole authors of our own identities. Or, at the very least, that we have been since we had the agency to stop toddling.

True, the most formative years of our psycho-sexual development occur very young. And having a primary carer who looks upon and touches and interacts with you with the right level of admiration (not too much and not too little) has a tremendous impact on whether you instinctively feel that you deserve to be desired and loved when you grow up. Although the deepest scars to this part of our psyches may be done in early childhood, I still believe that we are not immune or unchanged by later experiences.

The gaze is a paradoxical thing. You cannot see the world without it seeing you back. You cannot gaze into the face of another human being without knowing that you are being gazed at too, and judged. It’s a dangerous thing, because they might not like what they see in you. In gazing, you expose yourself to the gaze of others. And you learn to know you are ‘other’ to them. You learn how to be the object of someone else’s desire. Or worse, you learn that you do not inspire desire in them at all – and you learn to live with that truth.

There is a humanist concept: intersubjectivity. It’s used in a lot of senses, but at its core is the idea of viewing others as fully rounded, complex human beings like you. Affording them the same complexity, the same emotions, the same desires and needs that you afford yourself. It’s a very nice idea and I think it is very possible to do that once you get to know someone well and feel for them. There is an aspirational goal we have been given to be sexually intersubjective as well. I’m not convinced this is possible. I think you can love someone that way, but reality is a string of continuous moments, and I think in the midst of erotic experience, it’s not possible. Or rather, it is possible, but then it feels a lot like you’re fucking yourself, which offers no risk, no jouissance, no peril, no adventure. And nothing feels as revelatory as knowing you are seen, in all your beauty and all your ugliness, by another, and still desired.

I think we really need our ‘other’ to be ‘other’ in those moments. And we need to be ‘other’ to them. To be strangers and strange, to be alien territory. To be in the erotic company of, not a clone, but an other. And hopefully you are very desirable other to them, and you can see that, feel it, know it in their eyes and their touch and their responses. There is an inherent tension in feeling the ‘wrapper’ of the other. You can’t see through their eyes or taste through their tongue or touch with their skin. You are together and yet you are separate. It allows you the erotic luxury of atomizing them. Of reveling in their otherness and of fearing it also. Because at some point, if things are really good, you get that ecstatic moment when, for just for a brilliant, blinding moment, the wrapper of the other dissolves and falls away. But it is only a moment and then gone; it is what you then seek over and over. Usually, coming up to the point of orgasm, or passed it in that flash of yearning that extends into the twilight past it. A good thing too, because it’s far too intense a place to be with all your intellect intact.

It occurs to me that, these days, we spend a lot of time not really seeing. We put labels on the objects of our desire as a way to categorize and peruse them at a superficial level for fear, if we look too long, they will look back at us. It is safe, quick and convenient to classify each other, and the things we desire with meta-tags and 50 years of marketing savvy has taught us how to do it. Look, this is the MILF shelf. Here’s the buff but mature and successful man shelf. Here’s the butch girl shelf. And the sweet but a geek shelf. We classify each other in our minds so we can imagine we know each other without actually seeing, and avoiding being seen. And it’s safer to be one of those labeled objects, too. No one is going to bother judging you in any depth when they can simply classify you. It’s quicker.

We have become cowards. We delude ourselves that we have hermetically sealed ourselves in the impermeable packaging of absolute self-definition. It saves us from encountering the gaze which tells us something we don’t want to know about ourselves. We self-affirm with masturbatory glee.

 

 

 

 

03 Feb 03:01

Mystery signal from a helicopter

by Oona Räisänen

Last night, YouTube suggested a video for me. It was a raw clip from a news helicopter filming a police chase in Kansas City, Missouri. I quickly noticed a weird interference in the audio, especially the left channel, and thought it must be caused by the chopper's engine. I turned up the volume and realized it's not interference at all, but a mysterious digital signal! And off we went again.

The signal sits alone on the left audio channel, so I can completely isolate it. Judging from the spectrogram, the modulation scheme seems to be BFSK, switching the carrier between 1200 and 2200 Hz. I demodulated it by filtering it with a lowpass and highpass sinc in SoX and comparing outputs. Now I had a bitstream at 1200 bps.

[Image: A nondescript oscillogram of the data signal, and below it, the signal after FM demodulation, showing a clear pattern characteristic of binary FSK switching at 1200 bps.]

The bitstream consists of packets of 47 bytes each, synchronized by start and stop bits and separated by repetitions of the byte 0x80. Most bits stay constant during the video, but three distinct groups of bytes contain varying data, marked blue below:

[Image: A time-stamped hex dump of the byte stream, arranged in packets with only a few bytes changing over time.]

What could it be? Location telemetry from the helicopter? Information about the camera direction? Video timestamps?

The first guess seems to be correct. It is supported by the relationship of two of the three byte groups. If the 4 first bits of each byte are ignored, the data forms a smooth gradient of three-digit numbers in base-10. When plotted parametrically, they form an intriguing winding curve. It is very similar to this plot of the car's position (blue, yellow) along with viewing angles from the helicopter (green), derived from the video by magical image analysis (only the first few minutes shown):

[Image: Screenshot from Google Earth, showing time-stamped placemarks tracing the roads of a suburb, accompanied by an X-Y plot of the changing FSK bytes that draws a very similar picture.]

When the received curve is overlaid with the car's location trace, we see that 100 steps on the curve scale corresponds to exactly 1 minute of arc on the map!

Using this relative information, and the fact that the helicopter circled around the police station in the end, we can plot all the received data points in Google Earth to see the location trace of the helicopter:

[Image: Coordinates from the whole data signal plotted on top of a Google Earth satellite photo several miles across, with a lot of circling around.]

Update: Apparently the video downlink to ground was transmitted using a transmitter similar to Nucomm Skymaster TX that is able to send live GPS coordinates. And this is how they seem to do it.

Update 2: Yes, it's 7-bit Bell 202 ASCII. I tried decoding it as 7-bit data earlier, ignoring parity, but must have gotten the bit order wrong! So I just chose a roundabout way and kept looking at the hex. When fully decoded, the stream says:

#L N390386 W09434208YJ
#L N390386 W09434208YJ
#L N390384 W09434208YJ
#L N390384 W09434208YJ
#L N390381 W09434198YJ
#L N390381 W09434198YJ
#L N390379 W09434188YJ

These are the full lat/lon pairs of coordinates (39° 3.86′ N, 94° 34.20′ W). Nucomm says the system enables viewing the helicopter "on a moving map system". Also, it could enable the receiving antenna to be locked onto the helicopter's position, to allow uninterrupted video downlink.

Thanks to all the readers for additional hints!

01 Feb 11:47

This was originally going to be a reblog, but my friend suggested I make it it’s own...

This was originally going to be a reblog, but my friend suggested I make it it’s own post.

It’s my thoughts after reading this post and it’s reblog tree.

I think it’s really important to expand our knowledge of the diversity of people who participated in “history”.  That just because something is not widely recorded, or “known”, that it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.  That just because we don’t grow up absorbing from our casual understanding of history or watching movies that women or people of color participated in famous wars, or in various aspects of “western” society, it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, or is “unrealistic” to think about or write about.

However, I also  hate how to get people to accept this stuff you need to convince them that it happened in real life.  These creators and fans do not think about whether it happened in real life or not when white dudes are cast in things.  If you have white dudes saving ancient Japan or something, these same people don’t go “hey what a second, is that likely/realistic?”  White dudes make the argument all the time that anime and manga are filled with white people (b/c the style makes the characters “look white” to them) and they don’t go “well that’s unrealistic!  Japan’s not filled with white people!  Ancient Japan wasn’t filled with white people!”  They actually will argue that NO NO NO ALL THESE CHARACTERS ARE WHITE.  They don’t complain about it being unrealistic that bible story movies are filled with European white people.

It’s not about whether it’s realistic or not to these people.  That’s something they’ll throw out just to make an “objective” reason why we shouldn’t have PoCs or women in film.  They just want a reason they can claim is not about them and their biases.  Hey this is just about REALISM, it’s not ME, it’s FACTS.  Ignoring that they’re completely ignorant about history, they never seem to care about facts for anything else.  When they make or watch stuff involving white people in the past they don’t go to the history books to find out if it’s likely those white people would look like that, be in that situation, be even in that region of the planet, or anything.  They just do it.  So this idea that everything is done with them thinking about history in mind, is BS.  It’s not just that they’re ignorant about THIS aspect of history, it’s that they don’t CARE about history or realism at all.  It’s an excuse to justify their own distaste and disinterest of having their white male fantasies ruined by non white men doing anything other than being background supporting characters or some sort of exotic or sexualized trope.

01 Feb 11:46

Police interrogations: "I don't…" / "I would…" / "It's simple…"

by Clark

In the comments to the previous post, many people were a bit confused by why an innocent man would falsely confess to a crime. Lots of advice and commentary appeared in the reader responses: "I don't…", "I would…", "It's simple…".

In my opinion all of these responses were utterly misguided…except for one guy who got it dead on right:

@Dick Taylor:

Don't talk to the police without a lawyer. Ever. Then it doesn't matter if they lie to you. Cases like this are more proof that if it's just you against the police, you will lose every time. After two days of interrogation in that kind of an environment, I doubt that he was processing anything well enough to defend his own interests. Nobody would.

Even aside from the general advice that one should never talk to the cops (a video well known to most of us here, but I was still happy that Doctor X presented another link), there's a specific bit in Dick Taylor's comment that deserves to be presented in a 70 point font made out of glowing red neon letters:

I doubt that he was processing anything well enough to defend his own interests

I have never been handcuffed, taken down to the police station, or put in a room with a one way mirror.

…but I was once, years ago, ruthlessly grilled by two cops on the sidewalk in a situation where I was not free to leave. I am a very strong willed individual who knew deep in my bones that I was right, they were wrong, and that I should not say anything to them. So, of course, I didn't say anything to them, and the whole thing resolved itself.

But the point I want to make is even a very strong willed individual who is mentally prepared for a confrontation with the cops and has rehearsed what he will (or rather, won't) say still experiences a level of psychological pressure that is hard to describe. This was in a neutral settings, in an encounter that lasted less than an hour, on an average day. I can not imagine the psychological pressure one would feel after 12 hours of interrogation, in a locked room far from home, while wearing handcuffs, after a family member had died.

Barracks lawyers asserting "I don't…", "I would…", "It's simple…", etc. do not, I suggest, have a feeling for what it feels like to actually be in the kinds of situations they are talking about.

I strongly recommend reading “Only the Guilty Would Confess to Crimes”
: Understanding the Mystery of False Confessions by Douglas L. Keene and Rita R. Handrich.

It's about 10,000 words, so it will take 10 to 15 minutes…but it's 10 to 15 minutes well spent.

Police interrogations: "I don't…" / "I would…" / "It's simple…" © 2007-2013 by the authors of Popehat. This feed is for personal, non-commercial use only. Using this feed on any other site is a copyright violation. No scraping.

01 Feb 11:46

On Strike, and Other Grumblings

by Dave Brockington

As I’ve written about, universities in the UK have offered us a 1% pay increase, which they implemented in December, backdating to August. My union went on strike twice last term, once in October and again once in December. Those representing support / professional services, as well as further education lecturers (who only received a 0.7% increase if my memory serves me correct) have periodically supported these actions.

The 1% increase is a joke, for two reasons, neither of which are at all unique to our industry. First, by my union’s own calculation, indexed against inflation, our pay has declined 13% since 2009. Second, Vice Chancellors (university presidents in the UK) have received large pay increases (8.1% according to the BBC) in the past year both down here and in Scotland, and the union’s own analysis suggests an average 5.1% increase (neither inclusive of bonuses nor pension contributions).

As the two one day strikes did not cause any movement on the part of management, the union has changed tack — now we’ve scheduled three two hour strikes over the next month. At least 11 universities have adopted a blunt intimidation approach: they’re essentially locking their employees out for the entire day, arguing that if they participate in the two hour strike they surrender the day’s wage. Curiously, they’re arguing that this decreases the disruption for our students:

A spokesman for Ucea insisted universities are entitled to withhold a full day’s pay if staff do not work normally as it would constitute “partial performance”.

“Higher education institutions do not accept partial performance and many will be deducting a full day’s pay in order to limit the impact on their students,”

“Higher education institutions are dismayed that this form of industrial action has been designed to damage students’ education but will do their very best to protect their students”

My university is only docking us two hours of pay today, unlike the up to 25 who attempt to intimidate, and the backlash to the above in the past 48 hours has seen at least two institutions back off that stand of questionable legality.

That said, at my own university, there are larger issues afoot. The Sociology Department, among whom I count friends and colleagues, is in the process of being gutted, and a new round of “divestment” was initiated on Monday. Tuesday we received an email from the union which in part said the following:

“Some of you may now have received, or know of, the proposals that management has put forward to cut particular posts as part of Academic and Research Review 2015.

We write to inform you that UCU has sent a clear message to management that it opposes compulsory redundancies. UCU will be firmly challenging the pools identified at risk and is seeking an urgent meeting with management to discuss the pool selection process.”

I neither received a letter (email, office post, home post, and it would have gone to all three), nor have heard any information as to those who have, but it does appear to have happened. I’m a little surprised, as my particular unit (the Politics half of P&IR) has always been at risk: we had a round of compulsory redundancies in 2005-06, our major was dropped in 2006, relaunched in 2009, dropped in 2010, and relaunched again in 2013. Needless to say, Monday was not a calm and relaxing day for me.

We had an EGM of the local branch two Fridays ago where this was discussed. To my mind, striking over a 1% pay increase is worthy; however, to make it pay off for me now at the margins the universities would need to between double and triple their offer. I doubt that will happen. However, if there ever was a reason to be in a union, it’s protesting against the annual re-allocation of “investment”, shifting business models, and seeing my institution and “redundancies” in the media every year between 2008 and 2013. I’d happily screw a two hour strike (designed in part to save us money), and walk out indefinitely if it would get my institution to stop sacking people every year. Whatever it would take to save those jobs.

The branch leadership brought this up, and suggested that if we were unified, and if we did all march to the Chancellery, we would probably be successful.

However, we face two problems, both immediately recognisable to Mancur Olson. One, participation in strike action is voluntary, not compulsory. (I voted against these ongoing strike actions, but I’ll be damned if I’m ever crossing a picket line). Leadership implied that we would not be successful in such an action. Attendance at EGMs is illustrative. Immediately before redundancy letters go out, attendance is high. After? it declines. If it’s not a direct threat to one’s livelihood, why should people risk income and the displeasure of management in order to save the jobs of others?

Well, for starters, it might be your own job some day.

The second problem that we face is we operate in an open shop. I don’t have to be a union member at all, let alone support the strike action. If I was a free-rider, imagine all the money I would save; any benefits accrued through improved contracts (such as the one we received between 2006 and 2009) that others sacrificed time and treasure for, I’d still gain. Likewise, Olson’s selective benefits simply do not add up to what I pay monthly in union dues, nor what I’ve sacrificed through the strike actions this academic year.

Today was always going to be a work from home day. I’ve been doing a lot of grading I have to catch up on, there’s a new lecture to write for tomorrow, and time allowing, an initiative for the School of Government that I’m working on. I have a much better computer here, and considerably more comfort, than my janitor’s closet of an office affords. In short, I’m more productive. But rest assured, between 11 and 1, I’ve downed tools. Next Tuesday, we’re scheduled to strike for two hours between 2 and 4. I have lectures from 1 until 2, and 2 until 3. Next week will be a bit more interesting.

Now that I’ve finished this post, I think I’ll have lunch and catch up on a little binge viewing.


    






01 Feb 11:46

True Freedom is Keeping Proprietary Chemicals From Regulators

by Erik Loomis

If you wanted to develop a corporation that personified evil, you couldn’t do better than Freedom Industries:

Federal and state officials were scrambling today following the surprise disclosure on Tuesday about an additional chemical that was in the tank the spilled “Crude MCHM” into the Elk River two weeks ago.

Freedom Industries disclosed the information to state and federal regulators on Tuesday morning, but health impacts of the chemical remain unclear, and Freedom Industries has claimed the exact identity of the substance is “proprietary.”

In an email to state officials Tuesday night and a press statement this morning, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control noted that data about the potential health effects of the chemical “PPH” are — like the information on Crude MCHM — “very limited.”

The EPA could do something about this:

Denison wondered if the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency would exercise its rarely used authority under the Toxic Substances Control Act to compel disclosure of the exact identity of PPH.

Terri White, an EPA spokeswoman, did not respond to requests for comment.

We’ll see if they do. This should be a clear call for an Obama EPA.


    






01 Feb 11:46

Frequency’s value

by djw

Kurt Raschke pushes back against the notion (which I suggested yesterday) that real time arrival data can serve as a substitute for frequency:

Telling people to plan their lives around a transit app just isn’t a good way to lure them out of their cars or endear them to transit. It’s much more compelling (and leads to a much more usable transit system) when we can simply tell people “show up at a stop, and there’ll be a bus in 10 minutes or less”. It’s also not a problem app developers can solve alone; as the cliché goes, when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Providing reliable real-time passenger information is a good first step towards improving the usability of a transit network, and one that is often far less expensive than actually increasing frequency of service. But that doesn’t mean our work is done once the app goes live; on the contrary, we’ve only just begun.

I would add that one of the reasons I find real time data more valuable than marginal frequency increases is that I rarely have specific times I absolutely need to be somewhere. Exceptions might include an early morning meeting at work or going to a movie (when I’m scheduled to teach a morning class, I generally aim to be on campus about an hour before that). These make up a relatively small portion of my trips. If I a) had kids who needed to be places at certain times and/or b) had a job in which clocking in exactly on time was important, I might feel differently. He also spends quite a bit of time pointing out that the apps have to work well, and he’s right about that. (OBA has some quirks, but once you learn them it generally works well enough to be useful).

That said, it seems to me it’s an empirical question what people value more, and I haven’t seen any research on the subject yet. To me it’s marginal–as with the real example of the 15 local/D line, 20 minute headway + OBA was rather clearly better than 15 minute headways and no OBA. If the gap were much greater, maybe not. But it’s also worth noting that on really busy lines in which the buses share lanes with traffic, no amount of low headways can eliminate occasional long gaps. Even when the Metro routes like the 44 and the 8 was supposed to run every 8-10 minutes apart, bus bunching was notoriously and maddeningly common. There are known steps that can be taken to eliminate bunching, but they are not always politically available. So while I don’t disagree with mantra that “frequency is freedom” under some conditions no amount of scheduling frequency can eliminate frustratingly large gaps, but OBA and similar technologies can eliminate

The frequency uber alles approach to transit of Walker, Raschke, and others is based on a sound theory, but the notion that real time data has no potential palliative value for lower frequency seems like an empirical question to me. It depends on the decision matrices of actual riders (or would be riders) and can’t be determined a priori. Since the data is relatively new, and empirical work has not, to my knowledge, been done, I think this should be treated as an open question.  Our attitude toward frequency shouldn’t become dogma.


    






01 Feb 11:46

“There will be a lot of rats”

by davenoon

This story is fantastic in every possible way:

A ghost ship carrying nothing but disease-ridden rats could be about to make land on Britain’s shore, experts have warned. 

The Lyubov Orlova cruise liner has been drifting across the north Atlantic for the better part of a year, and salvage hunters say there is a strong chance it is heading this way….

Experts say the ship, which is likely to still contain hundreds of rats that have been eating each other to survive, must still be out there somewhere because not all of its lifeboat emergency beacons have been set off.

Two signals were picked up on the 12 and 23 March last year, presumably from lifeboats which fell away and hit the water, showing the vessel had made it two-thirds of the way across the Atlantic and was heading east.

A week later, an unidentified object of about the right size was spotted on radar just off the coast of Scotland – but search planes never verified the find.

Pim de Rhoodes, a Belgian salvage hunter who is among a number looking for the Lyubov Orlova off the UK coastline, told The Sun: “She is floating around out there somewhere.”

If this doesn’t end in some sort of horrific tornado of cannibalistic zombie-rats overwhelming Great Britain–erm, sorry, Brockington–would someone please develop a film in which it does?

DB: According to the local paper down here, if I play my cards right I could land a walk on part in the film. I’ll keep you posted. Could be the best thing to happen to this town since the blitz.


    






01 Feb 11:46

Republican Outreach to Women

by Erik Loomis

The Republican Party’s message to women has really improved. So much evidence.

Exhibit A:

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) said that the government shouldn’t help women who can’t control their “libido or their reproductive system” by providing co-pay-free birth control and that Democrats are encouraging women to be “victims of their gender.”

Huckabee made the comments during a speech at the Republican National Committee’s winter meeting on Thursday.

“If the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of government then so be it! Let us take that discussion all across America because women are far more than the Democrats have played them to be,” Huckabee said.

Huckabee argued that Democrats “think that women are nothing more than helpless and hopeless creatures whose only goal in life is to have the government provide for them birth control medication.”

Huckabee also argued that his party is not waging a war on women.

“The fact is the Republicans don’t have a war on women, they have a war for women, to empower them to be something other than victims of their gender,” Huckabee said.

Exhibit B:

A Republican congressman published a memoir last month in which he expresses his belief that “the wife is to submit to the husband,” The Washington Post reported on Wednesday.

Rep. Steve Pearce (R-N.M.), a Vietnam veteran, explains in his book that families, like the military command, need a leadership structure in which every person has a role. He says the wife’s role, according to the Bible, is to be obedient to her husband.

“The wife is to voluntarily submit, just as the husband is to lovingly lead and sacrifice,” he writes. “The husband’s part is to show up during the times of deep stress, take the leadership role and be accountable for the outcome, blaming no one else.”

Pearce goes on to write that the wife should have a say in important family decisions and that her submission does mean the husband should have “authoritarian control” or be considered superior.

“The wife’s submission is not a matter of superior versus inferior; rather, it is self-imposed as a matter of obedience to the Lord and of love for her husband,” he writes.

Exhibit C:

A Kentucky lawmaker is attempting to tack an anti-abortion amendment on to a state domestic violence bill, claiming that abortion is “the most brutal form of domestic violence.”

Kentucky State Rep. Joe Fischer (R-Fort Thomas) amended the bill, which expands domestic violence protections to include dating couples, to include a ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

“The most brutal form of domestic violence is the violence against unborn children. And, this particular bill would prohibit abortions after the fetus feels pain, which is 20 weeks and older,” Fischer said of his amendment, according to WFPL.

Exhibit D:

After taking a drubbing in last year’s state elections, Virginia Republicans are debating whether their party has come to be defined by its extremists. But in a congressional district in Northern Virginia, one of the state’s main instigators of culture warfare, state Sen. Richard H. “Dick” Black, is running in the Republican primary to replace longtime GOP moderate Rep. Frank Wolf, who is retiring. And he’s guaranteed to ignite wedge-issue passion. Exhibit A: As a state legislator, Black opposed making spousal rape a crime, citing the impossibility of convicting a husband accused of raping his wife “when they’re living together, sleeping in the same bed, she’s in a nightie, and so forth.”

Black has referred to emergency contraception, which does not cause abortions, as “baby pesticide.” Black also fought to block a statue of Abraham Lincoln at a former Confederate site in Richmond. He wasn’t sure, he explained at the time, that statues of Lincoln belonged in Virginia. He has argued that abortion is a worse evil than slavery. And once, to demonstrate why libraries should block pornography on their computers, Black invited a TV reporter to film him using a library terminal to watch violent rape porn.

I could go on. And on. And on.


    






01 Feb 11:46

Unsolicited, Indeed: A Letter From Professor Patti Adler

by Mistress Matisse

Wow, did I get a weird email today. 

First, quick backstory: Professor Patti Adler is a professor of sociology at University of Colorado Boulder. Last year, a class she teaches about prostitution came under fire. There were conflicting reports about her being fired or leaving voluntarily, but it seemed she had left. Then, she came back. (Or maybe she never really left, it’s unclear to me.)

Adler, who called the class "the highlight of the semester in my signature course," described what goes on during the prostitution lecture: Professor Adler has some of her teaching assistants (who are undergraduates) dress up as various kinds of prostitutes -- she named as categories "slave whores, crack whores, bar whores, streetwalkers, brothel workers and escort services." They work with Adler on scripts in which they describe their lives as these types of prostitutes.

During the lecture, Adler talks with them (meaning: the teaching assistants, in character) about such issues as their backgrounds, "how they got into the business," how much they charge, the services they perform, and the risks they face of violence, arrest and AIDS. The class is a mix of lecture and discussion, just like most classes, she said.

So basically she has student dress up in sexy outfits and stand up in front of the class and recite stories she teaches them about sex work. Presumably the students can also ask questions, which the students-pretending-to-be-sexworkers will answer, based on the information Professor Adler has taught them.

My impression, based on reading the stories about it, was that this was really not cool. Professor Adler’s list of sex worker social groups sounds extremely dated at best, and hardly academic at all. Her repetition of the word whore is offensive. And having student dress up in costumes and talk about what types of sex their character has is clearly a titillating feature that has no place in a classroom. 

But the real point is: there are real sex workers who could speak about their lives, but are not permitted to. I myself have visited college classes and talked about being a sex worker. Having a guest come and speak to a class on this subject is very much a thing that can be done – if the professor wishes it. Professor Adler apparently does not want actual sex workers to speak in her class, she only wishes to have her students say what she tells them to say. 

I guarantee you that a lot of sex workers have had to sit in that class and watch all that. I myself have sat in college classroom and seethed as professors lectured the most arrant nonsense about my life. I cannot imagine how I’d feel if I had to watch a bunch of not-sex-workers dress up and play-act little skits about being me, and see that be represented as a college-level of education about sex work. I was glad she wasn’t going to teach it any more.

So that’s backstory. Today, out of nowhere, I got this email. And wow, do I have a lot of thoughts about this. I’m framing them, but in the meantime, feel free to reply to me on Twitter. 



Mistress Matisse,
Leonard says you might be open to giving me some help with my skit this semester. I’ve only gotten a 1-semester reprieve, and then I have to go, but I’d like to be more sensitive than I might have been and make sure I don’t insult or misrepresent anybody. I can’t have people come to my class because the class is really not about prostitution, it’s about deviant subcultures, and I use the example of prostitution to illustrate a stratification hierarchy. Many college students have only one image when they think about prostitutes and that’s probably a streetwalker, but I used a dozen people to come down and be interviewed by me starting with the slave role, the crack-addicted role, the streetwalker (male/female/pimp), women who frequent bars to pick up customers, brothels, and escort services. With that many people I can only give about 3 minutes to each and I ask most people the same basic things:
What’s your family background, your educational background, how did you get into what you’re doing now, what do you do and how much do you charge, what’s your risk of violence/arrest/disease, and what are your future prospects.
Might you be willing to give me some feedback on a particular stratum or two? Can you tell me what your area of expertise is?
Respectfully yours,
Patti Adler

From: Leonard Fahrni [mailto:ldfahrni@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 9:04 PM
To: adler@spot.colorado.edu
Subject: some unsolicited advice
Hello Dr. Adler
I am a CU alum and I teach Math and Science classes at Metro State in Denver. I followed with some interest your brief notoriety and I am glad to see that you have been reinstated. I wrote a letter of support to president Benson and I'm sure my effort did very little to tip the scales in your favor. I was just so outraged at what looked like an attempt to censor your academic freedom that I had to vent. In full disclosure, Bronson Hilliard and I played on the same team in the CU trivia bowl in the 90s and I got him to help me direct my letter.
My unsolicited advice comes from my reading of an unusual group of authors on Twitter. I'm sure @mistressmatisse and @Maggie_McNeill don't represent the opinions of the entire sex worker community, but they both criticized you based on the assumption that people who are actual sex-workers need to have a voice in any discussion of them. I think that point has some validity. I also think either of them would be glad to share their experiences and knowledge with you. I am almost certain that a letter from you would totally floor them, so it might be worth a look just for that. Maggie mentions you in her blog here http://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com/2014/01/23/ and can be contacted at maggiemcneill@earthlink.net; You can take a look at my contentious discussion with Mistress Matisse on Twitter on last December 16
here's an excerpt, where I claimed you were fired for the content of your class (Bronson and Phil DiStephano both said you weren't "fired" and I guess you weren't after all) I suggested that it would have been cool if she had been a guest in your class and she agreed with me there.
mistressmatisse ‏@mistressmatisse Dec 16 @LeonardFahrni I've been to lot of college classes where I talked about being a sex worker, and no one got fired. Because everyone involved was respectful.
Leonard Fahrni ‏@LeonardFahrni Dec 16 @mistressmatisse This one did, no matter what the administration claims. Too bad, she should invite you to speak.
mistressmatisse ‏@mistressmatisse Dec 16 @LeonardFahrni I would have. But there are lots of cool, smart sex workers in Denver. Some of them may have been students in those classes.
She can apparently be contacted at Mistressmatisse@gmail.com
Thanks for taking the time to look at this mess. I admire the fact that you are able to generate such long term interest for your class. I mostly teach service classes like Business Calculus or classes for Education majors. In the latter, I am always doing anything to get them to show a little independent thought. I tell them to question authority and it is always a disappointment that more of them don't see the irony in that statement coming from a person in my position.
Have a great semester
Leonard Fahrni
CU class of 77, 79, 88, 97, 05 and 10 (so far)



01 Feb 11:46

The Misfortunes That Befall Men Who Sleep With Goddesses

by Sarah

Sex. Birds do it. Bees do it. Some claim it’s a biological imperative, or that it should only take place in certain contexts (between a woman and a man, or within the bounds of marriage, or if you are in luuuve). Others just want to get their rocks off—Wham! Bam! Thank you Ma’am! (Or, uh, Sir. Or both.)

Even Greek gods and Goddesses aren’t immune to physical passions. Duh. We all know about Zeus’ exploits with mortal women. As a god. As a swan. As a bull. Dude gets around. (And has a funny way of luring the ladies, but let’s not get into that. Keep it consensual, people!).

But today I want to talk about Aphrodite, the queen bee of love. In the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite, the goddess is a bit of a trickster who compels the gods to mingle with mortals. To get even, Zeus gives her a taste of her own medicine, making her fall for the carefree, guitar-playing Anchises, a cattle herder in Troy. To make a long story short, there’s lust, and subterfuge, and an awkward day after.

So what’s so interesting about all this? Two things: One, in order to snag Anchises, Aphrodite has to hide her goddess-ness. Two: Sleeping with a goddess can get you into some real trouble.

When Anchises first meets Aphrodite, he thinks she’s a goddess. But Aphrodite, who has shrunk herself down to the size of a mortal, denies this and tells some cockamamie story about being a simple girl who was stolen by Hermes and brought to Anchises. This being ancient Greece, Anchises accepts this perfectly plausible explanation, and basically says he needs to have sex with her ASAP. (Though he does so in a very poetic way. Take note, fellas.)

Having left his cows in the pasture, he whisks Aphrodite to his home. Some steamy—yet questionable!—stuff ensues. I’ll share it with you:

οἳ δ᾽ ἐπεὶ οὖν λεχέων εὐποιήτων ἐπέβησαν,
κόσμον μέν οἱ πρῶτον ἀπὸ χροὸς εἷλε φαεινόν,
πόρπας τε γναμπτάς θ᾽ ἕλικας κάλυκάς τε καὶ ὅρμους.
λῦσε δέ οἱ ζώνην ἰδὲ εἵματα σιγαλόεντα
ἔκδυε καὶ κατέθηκεν ἐπὶ θρόνου ἀργυροήλου
Ἀγχίσης: ὃ δ᾽ ἔπειτα θεῶν ἰότητι καὶ αἴσῃ
ἀθανάτῃ παρέλεκτο θεᾷ βροτός, οὐ σάφα εἰδώς.

And when they went to his well-appointed bed, he took first from her body the shining jewelry—the curved broaches and the twisted flower-buds and her necklaces. And he loosened her girdle and stripped off her shining garments. And Anchises placed them upon the silver-studded chair. And then he, by the will of the gods and by immortal decree, laid beside the goddess as a mortal…he was not seeing clearly.

Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite, 161-167 (Translation mine)

Damn, that’s hot! Also—Duhn! Duhn! Duhn!—Anchises mistakenly slept with a goddess. If he had seen clearly, the passage implies, he would have known better.

But Anchises knows ignorance is bliss and passes into a deep sleep. Dude sleeps all afternoon while the other herdsmen are working. Who knows what happened to his cows. Maybe they ran away. Maybe they didn’t. The poem doesn’t tell us much with regards to this. What we do know is that—Duhn! Duhn! Duhn!—Aphrodite’s mortal shape wears off and she becomes a giant goddess again. At this point, she wakes up Anchises and demands to know if he thinks she’s fat. Ok, well, not exactly. But sort of. She inquires if she looks like the same kind of person he is. Spoiler alert: She doesn’t.

And Anchises knows he’s in trouble.

Here’s the deal: Dudes who sleep with goddesses don’t fare well. Whereas the women who consort with gods give birth to heroes, the men who bed goddesses meet with misfortune. And Anchises totally knows this. This is what he says:

αὐτίκα σ᾽ ὡς τὰ πρῶτα, θεά, ἴδον ὀφθαλμοῖσιν,
ἔγνων ὡς θεὸς ἦσθα: σὺ δ᾽ οὐ νημερτὲς ἔειπες.
ἀλλά σε πρὸς Ζηνὸς γουνάζομαι αἰγιόχοιο,
μή με ζῶντ᾽ ἀμενηνὸν ἐν ἀνθρώποισιν ἐάσῃς
ναίειν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐλέαιρ᾽: ἐπεὶ οὐ βιοθάλμιος ἀνὴρ
γίγνεται, ὅς τε θεαῖς εὐνάζεται ἀθανάτῃσι.

Immediately, from the first moments that I saw you with my eyes, Goddess, I recognized that you were a god—but you did not speak truly! But I entreat you, in the name of aegis-bearing Zeus, may you not allow me to live feebly among men, but take pity on me, since a man does not become strong who makes love with the immortal goddesses.

Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite, 185-190 (Translation mine)

Beyond Anchises anxiety, we also see here a distinct gendering of sexuality. In a note to this passage, Nicholas Richardson observes a handful of cases where the men who mate with immortal women meet with doom. Those who do so are stuck with impotence, or even death. Richardson observes that Odysseus fears he will lack, uh, vitality if he sleeps with Circe. And we have hints of that here, with the reference to physical strength and weakness. Impotence is bad enough, but there’s also the threat of death. Orion (who slept with Dawn) and Iasion (who bedded Demeter) are two examples of this latter consequence. As Richardson observes, “The idea that those who openly marry goddesses do not have a long or happy life is expressed by Calypso [in the Odyssey] in the complaint at the jealousy of the gods, who begrudge men such fortune” (243). In general, the gods get to sleep with whomever they want; the goddesses, however, spread woe when they hunker down with a human. The distinction is obviously cut along the line of gender.

We saw this portrayal of the murderous (and sexy!) woman earlier with regards to prostitutes, poisons and the patrons who love them. This depiction is further borne out by these tales of the goddesses and their relations with men. It is interesting to note that Anchises additionally is deceived in this story; he loses his agency to the temptation of a duplicitous woman. Like similar ancient portrayals, ladies will do nothing but lie to you and bring you trouble. Even the ones who are goddesses.

Women, they can’t get a break even when they’re superior beings!

Anyway, no wonder Anchises is concerned. Lucky for our cattle-herder, Aphrodite assures him that he won’t suffer because of their liaison. She promises to bear him a most-heroic child, and then leaves. Sort of. She says he’ll be struck with lightning if he tells anyone who the mother of his child is. In other versions of this story, that is exactly what happens:  he is struck by lightning, made lame, or even killed for his afternoon with a goddess (Richardson 243). But here everything works out fine.

The Homeric poems date to around 700 BCE, and thus are among the earlier examples of Greek literature that we have. It is interesting to see such constructions of gender and sexuality embedded in these early works. What’s more, it is interesting to see these negative connotations of female sexuality applied even to those who transcend human parameters—the goddesses themselves. Mortal women may not have gotten a fair shake from the Greeks, but neither did the goddesses. That goddesses specifically bring misfortune to men through the act of sexual intercourse, suggests a negative view of women’s sexuality, one that is tied to tragedy, deception, and the threat of impotence or death for the men who sleep with them.

Source:
“Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite”. Ed. Nicholas Richardson. Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics. 2010.

Photo by Novowyr.


Filed under: Ancient, Feminist Theory, Greek
01 Feb 11:45

I Read Things

by cerberustheasexual

(FOREWARD: This is a rambling mess of a post. I wrote it raw and will probably not edit it before I hit publish. I may from time to time put up raw reactions like this simply to let things out that would have no place on my regular blog at Sadly, No! But that means I will not spend the amount of time or care on these works that I would something I was putting there.

So don’t say I didn’t warn you if it turns out to be a half-coherent slog.)

In the course of my day, I read things, usually a few silly things, like webcomics or a few snark sites in order to begin my day. And in the course of reading such things, I sometimes encounter things that just sort of needle under my skin.

I mean, they aren’t badto be exact. I mean, the authors who write them are sometimes people whose work I usually respect (as is the case this time) and let’s be frank, in my usual blog I frequently encounter way worse.

But it’s annoying in its own respect, because these small little annoyances. These things that aren’t so bad, nonetheless can be as illustrative as the great big examples the modern right gives us on the socio-political landscape that we call home.

So I dust off the musty covers of this old journal and allow it some small use in covering something that I would never in a million years use for a post on the main site.

And it’s quite probable that this won’t be the last post to revive this dead journal.

Today’s post is about a tumblr post. This tumblr post, to be exact,, which is part of a tumblr blog I like called Shittiest Editorial Cartoon of the Moment that usually rips into hacktacular editorial cartoons. Which yeah, small target, easily glossed over, completely forgettable.

But it needles and so we are here.

One piece of context in the brewing of this piece has to be that it is on tumblr and tumblr blogs have a reputation that echoes its way across our great internets. A reputation I’ve often felt ill at ease about.

Cause see, tumblr is seen as the den of “crazy lefty activists”, the “unreasonable” ones who spout “far-out” theories and demand absolute perfection in allies. It’s cited as a prime example of how liberals are frustrating and how activists are their own worst enemy. It’s battle cry is “check your privilege” and it’s everything that one hates about an anti-war protest if you know what I mean, hint hint…

And that bugs me quite a bit, because the usual examples they cite to show this is that tumblr posts are often very focused on trans* activism and mental health activism (specifically about depression and lowering discrimination against that) often with an aggressive nature that refuses to accept bullshit, babysit people’s education, and so on.

Which 1) yeah, it’s kind of awkward when my human rights as a trans* person and being treated with full respect is seen as some “out there” thing that is completely unreasonable.

And 2) “out there” people are critical for any activist movement. A movement without radicals pushing the bounds and demanding the impossible is a movement that is not going anywhere or is often going backwards. Movements that have silenced the “radicals” demanding the impossible often find themselves losing ground on the politically acceptable, simply because there is not the push towards something more in order to remind the gazelle-like moderates that your moderate request really is something small.

“Radicals” being unreasonable are also often the beginning of things that become no duhs. The first abolitionists, the first people to argue that women had the right to vote, the first people to speculate about a world without rape, or the first people to argue that gay people should not just hope to one day not be beaten and murdered but to actually live open lives with those they love and be connected with them with all the legal protections of anyone else.

These did not just “poof” into place, they were fought for, by people viewed as irrational and unhelpful.

And 3) The “take no prisoners” model of activism isn’t actually worse than the “nice educator”. People learn in different ways. Some people need a helping hand to babysit them through their ignorance. Others need someone who will simply assume the world as they’d like it to be who will remind them that it is your job to educate yourself and to learn about their world.

It’s much like fuckups in daily life. Some people need massive tact to avoid stupid defensiveness and be able to hear what their loved ones are saying. Others just need to be called on their shit and made to realize that they’ve hurt someone they care about.

Activism is no different.

But anyways, our post du jour opens with an expansion of a theory.

Last week I raised the point that true revolutionaries work to create a world that won’t need them, while many vocal activists seem more motivated with just making sure everyone knows how moral and committed to high ideals they are.

A stupid theory.

Cause, see, here’s the thing. Such a posit of revolution and activism is one that is only true of being an ally activist. When one is an ally of a population needing a human right, then the final world they create will not need them. If you are a white ally of the black right to vote, then eventually you may create a world where you are no longer needed because everyone agrees with you and it is not questioned (though even with this example, we see that its a fiction as white allies are still needed to this day to help protect the right of people of color to vote as its still even decades after legalization, still under attack).

But though that’s hardly true for even that, it’s definitely not true for the populations who actually make up the majority of the activism. My role as a trans* activist is not to make a world where I am not needed. It’s to make a world where I can live. Where I, as a trans* person, can be myself out and free without drifting to thoughts of those just like me, killed in cities inches away from me for being just like me, a mere handful of years ago (as in less than 5). Where younger versions of me will not have to suffer the discrimination I did. Where I can trust that people will know more about the basics of my life than they do hateful myths about how I am a dangerous thing and a satanic deceiver. Where me being a teacher is not viewed as a form of recruitment of someone’s kids that must be prevented with force.

Where I can live, as cis people do without being afraid and feeling like a freak all the fucking time.

We in these communities fighting for rights and for human treatment by others are not trying to create a world where we can go home, thinking we did a good job, but one in which we can simply be ourselves and stop receiving buckets of trauma.

And ignoring that and positing the ally experience of being able to go home “after the fight” as the “real” activism, means he can slyly include those who are actually affected by laws into the “bad” category of those who just want to feel superior to poor widdle privileged wannabe allies instead of accomplish anything “real”.

And this is probably not an intentional framing, but it is one that is demanded simply because our society treats as default those who are from dominant privileged groups and so it is easy for those in those groups to be blind to what their arguments actually say as the only experience they have personally is that of being dominant in our society.

In short (too late), one can essentially stumble into assuming a really twisted view of reality and create really insulting framings (and then use these bad framings to assume bad faith on the part of those criticizing you) without at all intending to.

In short, this is the problem with privilege, yo. And why many minority populations tend to have short fuses with this crap.

I mean, for fuck’s sake, asshole is setting up a “my allyship is real activism and you just think you’re better than me” pseudo-intellectualism based in straight up ignoring the lives of those most central to all forms of activism. That’s the type of behavior that needles and puts minority populations on edge and makes them less likely to be kind to “good allies who just want to be better” in the future.

Sometimes this takes long-term things, such as the American Right’s deathless fascination with communism, and sometimes change actually happens, such as the tidal wave of LGBT equality going on right now.

Yeah, funny that. Right-wing arguments tend to be decade-long counter-revolutions standing athwart history yelling stop, where as left-wing activism is dynamic and actually changes things that are then accepted as not nearly as big of a deal as they seemed to be at the time, as just… normal.

And left-wing activism is also dynamic in that it responds to what is true. I mean, where’s the left-wing version of the “always repeating McCarthy”? Well, most of those died or might as well be dead. There is not much social support for “positive” eugenics, trans-exclusionary radical feminism, lesbian separatism, back to africa movements, or waiting for the communist revolution to magically fix everything.

And the reason being that those movements were fucking stupid and so the social support moved to other branches towards the eventual goal that were more inclusive, less problematic, etc… and they got that way through internal debate, argument, and the growth of other movements that informed activists more.

I mean, this is worth pointing out, because the author of the post is setting up a mythology of liberal activists as inflexible and more interested in being the “lone wolf activist who is righter than everyone else” over the reality of liberal activists as people who care and who try and who have been demonstrated by history to often be the people shifting to better arguments and better tactics as evidence has demanded.

Which is why even as he seeks to condemn liberal activists, he can only manage to use a right-wing example of inflexibility to demonstrate it.

But I notice that as gay and lesbian rights become more common and the fight isn’t as… sexy as it once was, other struggles are being taken up. The most obvious is the fight for trans-equality,

Fuck you.

No seriously, fuck this horseshit. Trans* rights are not taking off because gay and lesbian rights are “no longer as sexy”, but because it is a natural evolution. I mean, for fuck’s sake, trans* people and activists were literally told by dominant gay and lesbian groups to put our shit on hold until the very public fights for gay marriage, the right to serve, and non-discrimination were largely won. And now, voila, they are all going in a really good direction and so yeah, a lot of the people who were asked to shut up and wait are taking about their life experiences and trying to get all those people who have been able to see the humanity in gay and lesbian people to also see the humanity in the other people in the community, such as trans* people.

And it’s all amounts of dismissing and grating to hear of how a slight increase in visibility and recognition by cis people on how trans* people suffer and die every day is supposedly only occurring, because it’s “fashionable” and other fights aren’t “sexy”. I guess all the trans* people who went before me should have tried to be “sexier” if they wanted to be viewed as a fad by privileged hipster douchebags.

which, almost overnight it seems, has given rise to the usage of the term ‘cisgender.’

Cisgender has been in use for decades within the trans* community. It is pretty much as old as transgender and is so very well established in community that there is next-to-no debate about it, which given the greater trans* community is an astonishing thing to say the least.

Which kinda disproves the entire whine he is trying to make.

I mean, cisgender is new to him. He thinks it has been invented overnight because it is his first experience with it.

And that means that these angry trans* activists “jumping on a bandwagon” are not as he maintains, counterproductive in their aims, but wholly successful. Here was a term, crucial to the understanding of trans* people that was wholly alien to him, as must of been, much of the life experiences of trans* people and those angry activists educated him of it, educated him of the lives of trans* people, made him aware he needed to understand it and care about the inner-lives of such people.

That “in your face” activism, therefore, worked in its aim, better than any “go slow and don’t spook anyone” attempt he would argue as “better”.

Which means his entire post is disproved by the very defensive reason he tries to proffer in his defense. As it is every time a privileged dominant group member puffs up a whine about the “in your faceness” of minority group member activism.

And that’s sort of the reason why privileged so-called ally defensive posts of this sort are taken with such a strong spoonful of salt when they are presented as obvious truths being ignored by people who are “clearly just wanting to think they are better than me” (which its worth noting that such phrasing could be more simply put as “uppity” without losing any of its accidental intent).

I fully support trans-equality,

A viewpoint I have no doubt you would not have nor even remotely understand what it means to do so if it were not for mean activists being vocal and upfront and making sure education on trans* terminologies and experiences were disseminated far and wide.

But enough of that reality, let’s see your but.

but going back to what I’ve said about activism as motivated by a ‘holier than thou’ mindset, as the term ‘cisgender’ has become more commonplace in areas like Tumblr there’s also been a concurrent rise in the expectation that everyone should already know what the term means and be up to date on all the travesties transgendered people have suffered and the legal and institutional burdens or barriers to equality in place.

Or for those in the community, it’s been the case where it is common knowledge and one can feel awkward re-explaining the basics. I mean, I’ve noticed it myself in my writing. I’ll use a bunch of LGBT terminology without stopping to define all of it in case of newbies, simply because I’m used to these terms a lot in my daily life and I forget to stop and educate every two feet.

And sometimes my readers actually appreciate that, because it helps maintain a casual tone and they can then go look up the term and come back, having learned something new without it seeming like a big new thing.

This mindset is often expressed in the phrase “It’s not my job to educate you,” as in “You should already know this,” or “You should already know how to learn about this topic yourself.”

Uh… no it’s not.

I mean, not to interrupt your little martyr dance, but that’s not actually what that phrase means.

“It’s not my job to educate you” is not an expression of disbelief at ignorance, it’s an expression of exhaustion. Cause, see, that’s the thing about being an activist. It is fucking exhausting. It is tiring beyond belief to debate your very existence with people who are often hostile and when they aren’t, are often panicky and looking for an excuse to run back to the comforts of ignorance to regain a sense of accustomed power for being lucky enough to be born privileged. Explaining for the nintieth time why it’s not really cool to be treated as a slave to an inanimate object or why you don’t deserve to be killed in the street like dogs or why you are not the violent murdering animal TV sells you to someone who may very well be another bad faith bigot is one of those things that burns activists out and makes you feel like everything is futile and painful.

So yeah, sometimes, when the demand to educate on some basic aspect of humanity is raised, especially as an intrusion to an already existing conversation, we say to do your own fucking homework.

And it’s not because we are mean, but because it really isn’t our job. We are not being paid to educate you on our lives or how to be less of a bigot. It is volunteered freely and thus we have a right to be tired or just not feel like doing it this time.

And yeah, it’s worth noting here that privileged groups really do have boundary control with regards to minority group member time and energy. Often viewing it as the minority group members sole duty to drop everything and answer all manner of invasive or insulting question to their satisfaction without at all making them feel insecure or ill-at-ease. And if one does not feel like undergoing that often futile and painful task, it is our fault and proof that we don’t care about our minority group members because this disrespectful, boundary-abusing asshole was totally going to become the bestest ally ever (even though all he seemed to want was credit for being an ally without doing any work or showing any respect) but now is going to be a bigot and its all our fault.

And the part that always baffles us is why we’re supposed to believe your heart was ever in the education and being an ally when you took the first excuse you could to retain the more comfortable bigotries.

And there’s a lot I hate about that phrase and the mentality behind it, but for now I’d like to just mention that I think a significant cause for that mentality is the conscious or otherwise understanding that you can only be the forerunner of a social movement in the beginning. People advocating for political or social issues are, presumably, attempting to bring more attention to their issue for the express purpose of getting more people to fight for it.

Yes. This is true.

When one is doing activism at the beginning of movements, it is often about education, bringing attention to an issue, and educating on how to be a good ally and so on.

Asexuality is a great example of a movement that is solidly in the education phase, where even those who will soon be supportive are just starting to learn what it’s about and how to help with the discrimination and abuse occurring in the “benign vacuum” where there isn’t an active campaign against the group yet, but there is passive discrimination and abuse.

But here’s the thing.

1) That doesn’t mean that asexuality activists should be seen as derelict if they are interacting with someone who wants to debate if asexuals even exist or arguing that asexuals couldn’t be under threat for things like rape or who thinks Dan Savage is correct about asexual lives and decides, no fuck that. Or even, if they are tired and have a mythical good ally waiting to happen and decide no, just don’t have it or even if they are in a shitty mood and are short with someone. Activists and minorities are people and do not owe ignorant people free educational services.

And 2) I’ll note here he used the example of trans* rights before, not I. And here’s the thing. Trans* rights are in no way shape or form in the “beginning” of their movement. There are prominent out trans* people popping up everywhere. There are established departments worth of academy researching their lives. There are go-to books about the experience that are well-liked by the community. There are celebrity activists. There are actual political victories and the beginning of national conversations that aren’t just ignorance. Furthermore, and most importantly, there are dedicated movements against trans* people and for their discrimination and treatment as a hated population with enough understanding to be strongly vocal.

So yeah, acting like this is some “beginning movement” that has to be extra careful not to be shirty with anyone because allies might be few and far between is some rich ass bullshit.

When even the wingnuts doing their damndest to live in a hole understand the issue enough to know that it is a thing they hate for being different, you no longer have an excuse as a left-leaning politically minded person for being aggressively ignorant of even the basic terminology.

And that is kind of important to note, because he seems to be under the impression that these trans* people and activists suddenly “sprang up” to “be trendy” and invented a whole bunch of terms last tuesday and acting all hipster cool about how only they know what they mean and the reality is that trans* activism has been established for decades and is starting the push for real global acceptance (i.e. the big nightmarish slog up the hill to where gay rights currently reside).

And yeah, him being late to the party, doesn’t mean that it’s too indie for anyone to be aware of.

And that would dilute the specialness of having taken up the issue, wouldn’t it?

Fuck this bullshit.

Even people who are not X minority group who fight for X minority group rights face a large amount of blowback for doing so. Look at the treatment of White Freedom Bus Riders during the 60s, current male allies of feminism, straight gay rights allies who have faced homophobic bullying and discrimination, or, to use a rather personal example, my girlfriend having a random guy yell verbal abuse at her for wearing a shirt supportive of asexuals.

It is not a pleasant action and even with the separation and pseudonymity of the internet, that shit can still take an emotional toll.

So this, oh, you’re just trying to be cool when you call me out on my ignorance or privilege crap is actually just a tired version of an old counter-activism technique. Which is diminishing activism in order to reduce its impact. Look at right-wing arguments against anti-war protestors or the Occupy movement, arguing that the people facing down militarized police were just bored kids looking for something to do on a Saturday night. It’s a handy tool for dismissing activists and activism as existing less or being less impactful than the actions because “reasons”.

And fuck that noise, especially when disappearing into privilege is one of the laziest actions on the planet.

I mean, for fuck’s sake, what he’s defending is this: “Ungh, I totally want to support those equal rights for that group, but ungh, the group won’t sit me down and educate me on everything and listen to all my possibly offensive questions. Instead they expect me, ALL BY MYSELF, to drag my poor finger all the way to the google bar and type something in, possibly spending upwards of a minute in searching and then READ something myself! Who has time for that?!? So, fuck that group, ignorance forever.”

And we’re supposed to think its the activists who are acting lazy and entitled?

Fuck that.

So instead of more often seeing people argue for limited but vital reform for this or that issue, taking pride in the baby steps, it’s easier to call for the most wide-reaching, pie-in-the-sky total transformation of society and the world possible.

Yes, that’s how activism works. That’s how movements begin.

If in the imagining stage, the stage of activists on the ground, of just people and ideas, accept only what is viable from an immediate political perspective, then you have no hope of changing anything.

If you’re, as people, not elected congresspeople, saying that we can only talk about and think about what could pass as a bill today, then there is no audacity or pressure to push things and by the time any activism built to the level of putting pressure on congress, then the political class will probably have already passed the law.

It’d be like delaying even the thought of arguing for gay marriage or thinking about the possibility of gay marriage until automagically we had arrived at this level of support.

Such actions would not have seen the rapid gain of support that gay marriage gained.

Instead, they needed people to be audacious and dream big. To go, in the midst of the AIDS crisis when politicians were literally cackling about how they loved to see gay people wither and die, our love should be treated as equal and real and we have as much right to be married as anyone else. Only then, by building it at that ludicrous level has it made it to the point of being a “no duh” that is inevitable.

And it’s same with anything else. Feminists in the 70s who first started talking about rape and ending rape culture were seen as nutjobs. Hell, are still used as go-to examples of the “worst of feminism” and women who “went too far”, but it’s done wonders in starting national conversations about rape and consent and building better models for sexual interactions and getting help to survivors. Abolitionists in the 1700s began the conversation that ended that atrocious constitutionally-protected affair in the 1800s. And those in Lincoln’s era who dared dream of a right to vote for women worked hard to make that a reality in the 1900s.

All these movements, these no-duhs, these things we are better for having, began as an audacious thought that flew in the face of everything.

And I’ll even throw the moderate cheerleaders a bone and note that if all one has is radicals, that is no good either. One needs more “moderate” and those willing to compromise, especially in one’s political class in order to gain important legal protections in the meantime we all have to live in while the radicals push us socially to where we should all be. The deal-maker can also build coalitions who can share in the activism and bring your concerns to larger audiences.

But you need both, the bomb-thrower and the deal-maker, the sell-out and the audacious dreamer in order to get anywhere and shutting out the radical because it threatens those from dominant groups (when you are a dominant group member) is just fucking stupid and cowardly and only ensures a code of laws that is just for some and injust for others.

Knowing that you’ll never lose the moral superiority you’ve built for yourself in your head.

A great example of the last rant would actually be the state of trans* rights in this country. See, trans* people have been with the overall queer community for forever. Trans* people were among the principle fighters at Stonewall, have been members in high standing in early queer groups. Trans* people were instrumental in building founding notions of the queer community such as drag shows and Pride and helped create some of the breakout cultural landmarks that gay groups used to propel rights for gays and lesbians.

But trans* people were pushed out of the conversation. They were seen as too “weird” and too threatening to the more “accessible” gay rights and many positions of power in the queer movement ended up falling to gay male members who shaped it more in their favor. As such, trans* rights, which began in a very similar time, is about 20 years or so behind the rest of the queer movement and a lot of those queer activists who literally left them behind to sprint ahead are now needing to prove their bonafides in coming back for the people they tripped or simply become a force for the next round of bigotry.

So yeah, fuck the whole “moral superiority” bullshit in criticizing those trying to do right where a great wrong has occurred.

And the issue of trans-equality is just one example.

Yes. One very illustrative example of how much privileged whines like this are full of shit.

I can remember when Brave came out and a vocal group got outraged over the lack of non-Caucasian characters – and aren’t they doing the same thing with Frozen? – because everybody knows that these predominantly white European countries have had minority populations for hundreds of years and the people at Pixar and Disney must have intentionally excluded any POC characters because that’s how racist they are.

So… the argument is that because (bold text) everybody knows that European countries have always been lily white (until recent immigrants started running it over, donchaknow) largely because media depictions have shown it that way, no one should criticize that cinematic language still being used that way?

I mean, maybe I’m wrong and what he’s citing is a bunch of hipster stereotypes going “I knew Europe wasn’t always super white back before it was cool”. I mean, there are, after all, zero links in this section.

But in the more likely case that people are bringing in the fact that Europe wasn’t 100% white to criticize movies aiding disinformation by continuously depicting it as such, then yeah, people should bring that up and possibly angrily as people are going to be defensive and assume that that can’t be true simply because media depictions shape a lot of what we view about the world.

And it’s also worth noting, seeing as how he’s already demonstrated his unreliable narrator role with trying to pretend that “cisgender” is some new gotcha, that what he’s probably responding to is more people noting how Disney movies still are about close to 100% white stories that do not reflect our actual society nor the societies they depict within the movies.

But hey, I guess people were just trying to be cool about it.

And I’m thinking: I’ve never considered when non-white populations came to Europe, but it’s not unreasonable to think of Scotland or Norway as being predominantly white to the point that the limited cast of each film could be Caucasian without raising an eyebrow. It’s not like when a story set in modern-day Los Angeles has no Hispanic characters.

So, he has an inaccurate belief because of media depiction and even after encountering people en masse educating him otherwise, he still clings to his idea that these countries were 100% white simply because he is used to that media depiction and thus defends more media depictions like that.

And this isn’t a good example of exactly what the people were trying to criticize and make note of (as well as a good argument for noting it loudly and dramatically in order to break through this inertia), because…?

Oh right, you as a white person are not negatively impacted from the social perception that stories are your stories by default and that non-white Europeans are to be treated as foreigners or at best, recent immigrants.

While I don’t want to make the issue of “tone” more important than it is

Heh. Some education has definitely taken root, seeing as how he’s aware that he’s making a tone troll argument and that is a deep amount of bullshit.

(anger has its place, certainly), there’s a lot to be said for having patience with people who don’t understand your experience or don’t have the knowledge you do. That is, if your goal is to actually educate and effect change.

Hey, anger can be educable, too and tone trolling is bullshit, but let me tone troll you anyways.

Fuck, this is especially galling, because I’ve had recent brutal education on the fact that not only can anger be a good education tool along with softly explaining things, but that just as anger can sometimes backfire, so can being gentle.

When I came out to my parents and told them of being trans* I took the mentality of going soft and gentle with them. I didn’t go out of my way to be aggressively out or rush them to adopt a new name and in general, took each piece very slowly.

And it blew up. The gentle approach allowed them to slip into denialism and act like my transition wasn’t happening and then use my trepidation and calm statements as proof that I was deluded and couldn’t really be genuine. They pretended that I didn’t come out when I did and their early support never happened and exploited my kindness to try and “tough love” me to change as they saw fit. Bigots also exploited the time by letting their passion against me sway my parents into thinking that that was the more correct response (I mean, if I’m begging and being forgiving and a bigot is being forceful and clear, then clearly they have the more investment and accuracy, right?)

I wasted a large part of my life with them to end up somewhere worse than if I had been as forceful and take no shit as I am online.

Worst of all, the trauma of all that has robbed me of my edge, because it all seems too big and too painful to fix or invest in fixing.

If all you want to do is scream at everyone online who doesn’t share 100% of your views, striking a “more socially evolved than you” pose and wailing over how horrible everyone else for not being as conscientious as you are, then you can ignore this.

Because trying to create change isn’t what’s motivating you, is it?

Oh hey, Farmer Joe, whatcha doin’ with yer strawman?

Oh… I see. Um, let me just give you a moment and I’ll come back later.

But seriously, fuck this sort of privileged whine fest about having to encounter people trying to push the envelope forward on a group that it is currently “safe to hate”.

Anger and forcefulness is a successful method of educating and frankly, can often be more successful than other methods, especially when one is working mostly with strangers (such as online).

And the defensive bitching about how hipster activists are thinking they are better for going out of their way to educate shows that its having a major impact in unsettling the inertia of privilege and the damage that does to society.

Cause as we’ve seen in examples such as the Grantland writer who drove a trans* woman to suicide because of his own aggressive ignorance and unchecked bigotry, it’s not a neutral state of affairs.

01 Feb 11:45

Superbowl A Magnet for Sex Trafficking? Super Nonsense

by Marty Klein, Ph.D.

Sex trafficking—the real thing, not the political consumer product or object of sloganeering—involves kidnapping or manipulating someone out of their community, forcing them to engage in sex acts somewhere else, and not allowing them to leave at will.

It’s horrendous.

It’s not simply prostitution, not even underage prostitution (which is, of course, illegal and awful). It’s not making porn films, even under onerous conditions. It’s not stripping or being an escort.

An increasing number of groups are intent on persuading Americans that we have a terrible and growing problem with sex trafficking. Their data is virtually non-existent, elided with words like “experts agree” and “shameful epidemic.” The new phrase is “youth at risk of being trafficked”—which is, tellingly, ALL youth.

The media reports anti-trafficking conferences and gigantic, grisly estimates; politicians grimly respond with vows of stricter laws, and the wildly unusual victim is trotted out as proof of some enormous underground industry.

The favorite ploy of anti-trafficking groups is to claim that major sporting events are a central focus of this evil. In 2011, Texas attorney general Greg Abbot said “The Super Bowl is one of the biggest human-trafficking events in the United States”—without any data. He strengthened a unit to pursue those involved with child prostitution (not the same thing as trafficking, of course). The result—at the Dallas Superbowl there were 113 arrests for adult prostitution, and none for trafficking.

The same is true for the three Superbowls before that: grim predictions of upcoming trafficking disasters, and none materializing. Says Robert Casey Jr., special agent in charge of the FBI’s Dallas office, “The Super Bowl does not create a spike in those crimes.” The absence of such time-specific trafficking is perfectly logical: it makes no sense to spend all that money dragging victims across the country for a single weekend of illicit income.

Nevertheless, promoters of SexPanic are at it again this year. Congressmember Ed Royce (R-CA), citing no data whatsoever, announced this week that “any high-profile sports event that brings a large influx of visitors to a new locale can also create circumstances conducive to human trafficking and sexual exploitation,” and of course introduced a bill increasing penalties on traffickers.

Every year, the NFL has to deny that they’re the center of an odious international sex slavery ring. NFL spokesperson Brian McCarthy says the super bowl sex slave story is a simply an urban legend.

But that doesn’t stop those who are feeding—and feeding off of—America’s latest Sex Panic. One week before hosting the 2014 Superbowl, for example, Indiana’s legislature unanimously passed a law that makes recruiting, transporting or harboring anyone younger than 16 for prostitution a felony punishable by 20 to 50 years in prison. The law was passed without a single documented case of sex trafficking in the state. You now get less jail time in Indiana for murdering a teen than for pimping her.

The dozens of groups “fighting” trafficking rarely report actual successful interventions, which shows exactly how pointless most of what they’re doing is. “Raising awareness” would be harmless if it didn’t cost money, encourage fear and anger, or spread misinformation.

Unfortunately, that’s exactly why “raising awareness” about sex trafficking in America ISN’T harmless—it’s diverting money, time, and attention to a barely-existing problem, encouraging politicians and the public to ignore more important issues—like unintended pregnancy, domestic violence, and a lack of prenatal medical care for poor teens.

Calling prostitutes of any age victims of trafficking is an insult to those who really are kidnapped or tricked into sexual slavery. And lying about the Superbowl’s magnetism for the worst kind of criminality—when the numbers clearly show otherwise—is a disservice to every parent, every teen, and every taxpayer. It’s the latest example of the Sexual Disaster Industry expanding its product line.

To repeat, real human trafficking is horrendous. We should be grateful that with all of America’s problems, sex trafficking victimizes such a tiny number of people.