Talk is cheap, but Brad Pitt is not. From the Los Angeles Times via Steve Rothaus:
Brad Pitt announced Wednesday that he's donating $100,000 to fight California's Proposition 8, a November ballot initiative that would eliminate same-sex couples' right to marry.It's nice to know we're not in this fight alone.
"Because no one has the right to deny another their life, even though they disagree with it, because everyone has the right to live the life they so desire if it doesn't harm another and because discrimination has no place in America, my vote will be for equality and against Proposition 8," the actor said in a statement.
Pitt's donation marks the largest thus far to the anti-Prop. 8 campaign by an A-list celebrity.
"My dad is probably one of the handsomest guys ever. I was making a joke and I said, 'If I was a chick, I'd fuck you.' He was like, 'You can't say that! Shut your mouth!'"—Josh Brolin, son of Mr. Barbra Streisand, aka James Brolin.
I like how he clarified that he was "making a joke." Uh, thanks. I still want to plunge dull butter knives into every orifice in my face, though.
Sometimes people randomly leave comments on old posts, where the original comments threads have disappeared since we replaced Haloscan with Disqus. Mostly, I don't notice them, but occasionally I happen to spot them in the "Recent Comments" widget in the sidebar.
In July of 2006, I posted a graphic I'd created featuring the lyrics to Imperfection, by The Tears:
That was the whole post, except for a note about what had inspired it—a post I'd written about being an "odd piece," one of many posts in the sort of outsider oeuvre that have graced Shakesville over the years, about existing on the margins or being shy or different or somehow flawed.
Earlier today, someone left the following comment on the "Imperfection" post:
Priceless.
Naturally, this is to be incorporated into the Shakes Lexicon, effective immediately.
No wonder Asshat One abandoned yesterday's planned speech on the "sound" economy. Now the FDIC needs help:
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., whose insurance fund has slipped below the minimum target level set by Congress, could be forced to tap tax dollars through a Treasury Department loan if Washington Mutual Inc., the nation's largest thrift, or another struggling rival fails, economists and industry analysts said Tuesday. [...]If banks would have to pay a higher premium to help out the FDIC, you can bet your bippy those higher premiums will be passed directly to the account holders (i.e. us). Guess we can call that one a taxpayer bailout as well.
FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair has not ruled out the possibility of going to the Treasury for a short-term loan at some point. But she has said she does not expect the FDIC to take the more drastic action of using a separate $30 billion credit line with Treasury — something that has never been done.
The FDIC's fund is currently below the minimum set by Congress in a 2006 law. The failure of IndyMac Bank in July cost $8.9 billion.
Next month, Bair plans to propose increasing the premiums paid by banks and thrifts to replenish the fund.
And throughout all this, poor Dana Perino has to actually get up on a podium and tell everyone that the economy is a "mixed picture." Ah, the art of nuance. Praise FSM that we have so many words in our language to choose from for the sake of softening the blow.
This is totally making my day:
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has canceled an appearance at a New York rally next week after organizers blindsided her by inviting Republican vice presidential candidate and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, aides to the senator said Tuesday.Oh, snap!
…That would have set up a closely scrutinized and potentially explosive pairing in the midst of a presidential campaign, one in which the New York senator is campaigning for Democratic nominee Barack Obama while Palin actively courts disappointed Clinton supporters.
Clinton aides were furious. They first learned of the plan to have both Clinton and Palin appear when informed by reporters.
"Her attendance was news to us, and this was never billed to us as a partisan political event," said Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines. "Sen. Clinton will therefore not be attending."
I just totally love that Clinton doesn't give a rat's ass what people think about her bailing (as well she shouldn't); all she knows is that she isn't going to make an appearance with Sarah Palin and give the media even the merest hint of the catfight they've been slavering for. Brill.
Last night, before bed…
Iain: That's a cute rear ye've got there.
Liss: Rear? Ha ha ha! Rear?
Iain: [laughing] What's wrong wif rear?
Liss: Nothing's wrong with it—it's just funny because it's kind of old-fashioned and proper. It's like using…BM or something.
Iain: BM? What the fook is BM?
Liss: Bowel movement…? Don't you use that in Scotland?
Iain: Noo. We say, "I've gotta take a shite, mate."
Liss: [laughing] But what if you had to say it in a proper way? Like maybe to a doctor or something?
Iain: Dinnay. Probably…I'm having problems wif my constitutionals.
Liss: Well, here we say BM, so get with the program, buddy.
Iain: You Americans and yer fookin' acronyms. [puts on an American accent] FYI, I've got tae have a BM ASAP. Got any TP? BRB! [back to fading Scottish accent] Honestly, the lot of ya!
Liss: That's because we're the USA! [chants] USA! USA! USA!
Iain: Oh-Emm-Gee.
by Shaker Anna. My blog is Trouble Is A State Of Mind, and I'm a Canadian who is a full-time feminist, full-time student, and full-time night-shift worker. I am not a full-time sleeper. :)
Michael Seitzman would like you to know that he's the expert on sexism, and anyone who argues with him has no sense of humour.
In his September 11 column, Seitzman was ripping apart anyone who thought the Palin interview was good, but not before he wanted us all to know how incredibly heterosexual he is.
And, three, she really is kinda hot. Basically, I want to have sex with her on my Barack Obama sheets while my wife reads aloud from the Constitution. (My wife is cool with this if I promise to "first wipe off Palin's tranny makeup." I married well.)Apparently, when mocking a woman's intelligence (or lack thereof), it's very important to point out how fuckable you find her. But! Mr Seitzman tells us: That's not sexist! It's funny! It's satire! It's irony! It's not sexist, and anyone who tells you otherwise shouldn't be listened to. (It certainly isn't transphobic! If it were, I'm sure Mr Seitzman would tell us so.)
Seitzman goes on to explain why he's the expert in sexism (and people like us here at Shakes totally aren't):
• His dictionary-definition of sexism means that bringing up a woman's fuckability and her make up isn't discriminating against her based on her gender;
• He totally deserves a break anyway because he never wrote about Senator Clinton's gender during the primaries. Obviously since he is such a reliable narrator I shall take his word on this. I know no other people in the blogosphere bashed Senator Clinton for being a woman, just ask them;
• He wrote a movie on sexual harassment! He's studied it. Who are you gonna trust—women who react to discussions of another woman's fuckability and appearance, or a totally-neutral-on-the-subject man who has written a movie?
Then he randomly compares her to a contestant on The Bachelor.
Would we be sexist if we commented on her looks? Of course not. Sorry if you don't like it, but in my mind, there's not much that separates Sarah Palin from the attractive yet vapid winner of a reality show. As far as I'm concerned, she IS the attractive yet vapid winner of a reality show.Mr Seitzman, it is so easy to criticize Sarah Palin while focusing on the issues. One can write about her seeming unprepared for the realities of the job of Vice President, let alone President. One can look into the allegations around Trooper-gate. One can exam her support (or lack thereof) to funding "special needs" classrooms. One can examine her record and come away with the decision that this isn't the person you want as Assistant Leader Of The Free World.
Commenting on her appearance and how much you find her attractive? ISN'T RELEVANT. That's what makes it sexist, Mr Seitzman. Her fuckability, or lack thereof, should never be part of the political discourse.
But, of course, no fauxgressive rant against the silly wimminz and their weird desire to not have female politicians brought down based on appearance is complete without:
And one of those things is a padlock on your uterus. Now let's talk about sexism.Roe! ROE!!!
I don't know about y'all, but I'm going for a drink.
[Sarah Palin Sexism Watch: Parts One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen, Fourteen. We defend Sarah Palin against misogynist smears not because we endorse her or her politics, but because that's how feminism works.]
[Transcript below.]
This campaign spot [via] will begin running nationally today, especially in battleground states. It's untraditional in the sense that it's simply two minutes of Barack Obama talking to the viewer about the economy—no graphics, no music, no flashiness of any kind. It's just straightforward, and—dare I say it?—a political ad for adults.
I love it. I love the tone of it, I love the content (aside from the "outworn ideas of the Left" bit, which still sets my teeth on edge), and I love that it's actual evidence of that change we've been promised. This isn't campaigning as usual. This is better. And, particularly compared to the outrageous, mendacious dogwank John McCain's been putting out the past couple of weeks, this is like a breath of fresh air in what has been a truly hideous election.
I don't know if it will work—but I respect the hell out of Obama for giving it a chance, for assuming the best in voters for a change, instead of the worst.
And, personally, I've never considered nor found the high road to be a bad strategy.
In the past few weeks, Wall Street's been rocked as banks closed and markets tumbled. But for many of you -- the people I've met in town halls, backyards and diners across America -- our troubled economy isn't news. 600,000 Americans have lost their jobs since January. Paychecks are flat and home values are falling. It's hard to pay for gas and groceries and if you put it on a credit card they've probably raised your rates. You're paying more than ever for health insurance that covers less and less.
This isn't just a string of bad luck. The truth is that while you've been living up to your responsibilities Washington has not. That's why we need change. Real change.
This is no ordinary time and it shouldn't be an ordinary election. But much of this campaign has been consumed by petty attacks and distractions that have nothing to do with you or how we get America back on track.
Here's what I believe we need to do. Reform our tax system to give a $1,000 tax break to the middle class instead of showering more on oil companies and corporations that outsource our jobs. End the "anything goes" culture on Wall Street with real regulation that protects your investments and pensions. Fast track a plan for energy 'made-in-America' that will free us from our dependence on mid-east oil in 10 years and put millions of Americans to work. Crack down on lobbyists -- once and for all -- so their back-room deal-making no longer drowns out the voices of the middle class and undermines our common interests as Americans. And yes, bring a responsible end to the war in Iraq so we stop spending billions each month rebuilding their country when we should be rebuilding ours.
Doing these things won't be easy. But we're Americans. We've met tough challenges before. And we can again.
I'm Barack Obama. I hope you'll read my economic plan. I approved this message because bitter, partisan fights and outworn ideas of the Left and the Right won't solve the problems we face today. But a new spirit of unity and shared responsibility will.
OMG Look! It's a Brand New Baby News Agency!
| posted by Space Cowboy | Wednesday, September 17, 2008CNN has just given birth to a news report that actually does some fact checking on McCain! Wheee!
(Transcript below the fold)
Who knew that one day the MSM could actually be like this? I know, I know. Wait till it grows up.
RANDI KAYE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Call it what you will, mistruths, half-truths, stretching the truth, telling the truth. Whatever it is, it has both Democrats and Republicans questioning what's going on inside the McCain campaign. Their opponents have gone so far as to say that John McCain and Sarah Palin are lying their way into the White House, claims the campaign brushes off.
TUCKER BOUNDS, MCCAIN CAMPAIGN SPOKESMAN: I think that those who say John McCain and Governor Palin are lying about anything in this campaign need to pay closer attention to our advertisements and the record of the candidate we're running against.
KAYE (on camera): Make no mistake. The Obama campaign has also been accused of mistruths along the way, like telling voters McCain wanted to spend 100 years in Iraq. McCain actually said, troops should stay in non-combat roles for as long as it take, not that he wanted 100 years of war.
(voice-over): But, today, Obama turned up the heat on McCain.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, OBAMA CAMPAIGN AD)
NARRATOR: He's running the sleaziest ads ever, truly vile, dishonest smears.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KAYE: McCain stands by his ads, he told the ladies from "The View."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "THE VIEW")
JOY BEHAR, "THE VIEW": We know that those twos ads are untrue, they're lies. And, yet, you, at the end of it, say, I approve these messages.
Do you really approve them?
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ), PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: Actually, they're not lies. And...
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KAYE: Well, are they or aren't they?
"Keeping Them Honest..."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, MCCAIN CAMPAIGN AD)
NARRATOR: Learning about sex before learning to read?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KAYE: Did Obama want to teach sex education to kindergartners? Not really. The programming question was intended to teach kids how to avoid sexual predators, says the nonpartisan group FactCheck.org.
VIVECA NOVAK, FACTCHECK.ORG: What he wanted to do was increase the range of some -- some sort of sex education, K-12. But the kind of thing he was interested in having kids at a young age learn about was inappropriate sexual advances that might be made against them. KAYE: The campaign's response?
BOUNDS: Our ads are based on honesty and truth and a true reflection of Barack Obama's records.
KAYE: But what about Sarah Palin's records? On the campaign trail, she keeps hammering home one point: "I told Congress, thanks, but no thanks, to that infamous bridge to nowhere."
But that's not true. Congress has already killed that project.
NOVAK: She never said, "No thanks, Congress."
KAYE (on camera): Opposing the bridge plays into a bigger theme of the McCain campaign, that Sarah Palin is the perfect crusader to help McCain rid Washington of its addiction to earmarks and wasteful pork barrel spending.
(voice-over): This is what McCain said on "The View."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "THE VIEW")
MCCAIN: First of all, earmark spending, which she vetoed a half- a-billion dollars worth in the state of Alaska.
(CROSSTALK)
BARBARA WALTERS, CO-HOST: She also took some earmark spending.
(CROSSTALK)
MCCAIN: No, not as governor, she didn't. She vetoed...
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KAYE: The truth? Governor Palin cut Alaska's earmark requests in half. But, this year alone, the state asked for $197 million.
NOVAK: She says that she vetoed a lot of legislation that would have called for earmarks, but that doesn't get rid of the fact that she actually did ask for earmarks for the state of Alaska.
KAYE: On energy policy, Palin said, Alaska provides 20 percent of the energy produced in the U.S. Is that true? Nope. The U.S. Energy Information Administration says, it's 3.5 percent.
NOVAK: It's big deal because Sarah Palin and John McCain have been claiming that Palin is an expert on energy in the United States, because Alaska has a good bit of oil. But the figures she's citing are simply wrong.
KAYE: And what about Palin's international credentials, the extent of her travels abroad?
BOUNDS: The Alaska National Guard has confirmed, just like we had confirmed at the campaign, that she has traveled abroad. She went to Kuwait. She entered Iraq. She underwent and presided over a -- over a ceremony. So, here we are, trying to bat down something that was completely true, 100 percent accurate.
KAYE: Apparently not. We checked with the Army National Guard. And they told us they are 100 percent sure Palin never made it past the Iraq-Kuwait checkpoint, that she never entered Iraq.
And her trip to Ireland, originally billed by the campaign as a visit to a foreign country, campaign spokeswoman Maria Comella says, it was a refueling stop.
Some Republicans are uneasy. Bush White House strategist Karl Rove, on "FOX News Sunday" criticized both the McCain and Obama campaigns.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "FOX NEWS SUNDAY")
KARL ROVE, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER TO PRESIDENT BUSH: McCain has gone, in -- in some of his ads, similarly gone one step too far in sort of attributing to Obama things that are, you know, beyond -- beyond -- beyond the 100 percent truth test. Both campaigns ought to be careful about -- they ought...
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KAYE: Still, political expert Larry Sabato says, mistruths can work well with the party base, which is conditioned to believe the campaign.
LARRY SABATO, DIRECTOR, UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA CENTER FOR POLITICS: A smear campaign can succeed. If it's completely outrageous, and it's completely contrary to the facts, then, probably the truth will catch up with it before the end of the campaign. But, if the unfairnesses or the mischaracterizations are subtle enough, then the campaign will probably succeed.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KAYE: Now, our expert, Larry Sabato, telling us tonight that, if the McCain campaign can't win pretty, it will try and win ugly.
And, Anderson, you know it's getting pretty ugly on both sides.
[H/T to C&L;]
As the sins of the United States come more into focus for more and more Americans, some feel that individual Americans have lost their rights to point out the sins of other nations. It's the "Shut up and tend to your own house," argument to put it plainly.
Nonetheless, I find this argument fallacious. The saying "Think globally, act locally" is a very solid rule of thumb, but note, it implies thinking still should play a part.
And right now, I'm thinking about cluster bombs, and why they are still being used in conflicts.
From Survivor Corps:
On August 15, 2008, Russia dropped cluster bombs on civilian areas in the neighboring country of Georgia, killing at least 14 civilians and wounding dozens more. This weekend, the Georgian government admitted to having dropped cluster bombs in certain locations between the Roki tunnel and Dzara road. This area links Georgia's South Ossetia with North Ossetia, which is Russian territory. Georgia claims not to have dropped any cluster bombs in civilian areas.I humbly request that you read more about Survivor Corps campaign to ban cluster bombs by clicking here. There you'll find more information on the havoc and destruction that cluster bombs cause, and how you can get involved to make this ban on cluster bombs universal.
Keti Javakhishvili, a twenty-five year-old woman in Gori, Georgia, barely survived a cluster bomb attack. She was walking with neighbors to get bread when the cluster bombs fell. “I heard an explosion and dropped to the ground,” she told Human Rights Watch researchers from her hospital bed. Javakhishvili suffered massive trauma to her liver, stomach, and intestines, as well as shock due to severe blood loss. Also among the civilians killed an injured in the attacks were Dutch journalist Stan Storimans and Israeli journalist Zadok Yehezheli.
In May of 2008, more than 107 nations negotiated a treaty banning cluster bombs. It is estimated that 80 percent of cluster bomb victims worldwide are civilians. Each cluster munition releases tens or hundreds of smaller "bomlets" over a wide area, killing indiscriminately. Many of the bomblets do not explode on impact, but instead become defacto landmines that continue to kill and maim civilians and cause economic devastation for years to come. Survivors often suffer long-terms disabilities as a result of their injuries, which lead to economic hardship and social isolation.
Survivor Corps led the charge to include revolutionary provisions in the treaty requiring governments to assist survivors of cluster bombs. “Survivors around the world are united in calling for an end to this blatant disregard for human life. We hope that the tragedy in Georgia and Russia prompts countries to adopt the UN Convention banning cluster munitions," says Ken Rutherford of Survivor Corps. Use of cluster munitions in the current Russia Georgia conflict represents the first known use of the weapon since 2006, when they were used during the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Reactions to that conflict initiated an international movement to ban cluster munitions. The resulting UN treaty, negotiated in May of 2008, will open for signatures in December of this year.
When I read the book "I Will Not Be Broken" by Survivor Corps Founder Jerry White, I was touched not only by his stories and the stories of other, but I was also impressed with White's earnestness and devotion to the cause of helping survivors of all nationalities. Jerry White and Survivor Corps are the real thing.
Sometimes acting locally requires perspective. Because fighting to ban cluster bombs helps our neighbors everywhere.
--WKW
Crossposted at Williamkwolfrum.com
What's the frequency, Shakers?
Recommended Reading:
Jack: Congratulations, Mr. Sulu!
Sweet Machine: McCain's Health Care Plan: Throw Fat People to the Wolves
Louise: Palin Cut AK Special Olympics Funds Before She Promised to be a Special Needs Family Advocate
The Rotund: "Real" Women
Andy: Obama's LA Fundraiser
Dorothy Snarker: Easy, Breezy, Lesbian...
Leave your links in comments...
(Rant Ahead.)
Recently, I read a couple of blog-posts that were very difficult for me. One indicted my entire generation (baby-boomer) as the root of all evil, and another was about a writer who claimed (and reiterated in comments) that second-wave radical feminism really had very little impact on feminism.
*sigh*
When I was coming out as queer in the early-to-mid-70s, and later, when I was blossoming into my feminist identity in the late 70s (yes, I was a radical queer before I was a radical feminist), I remember that I deconstructed my own "radical ancestors" (the flaming drag-queens of Stonewall, the clearly demarked butch/femme couples of the 50s and 60s lesbian scene, and the bra-burning 30- and 40-something erstwhile housewives who were attempting to cast off the chains of the patriarchy).
I talked with other young radical queers and radical feminists about how identifying strictly as butch/femme might hold too many seeds of culturally-defined and stultifying gender and sex roles, how the emulation of very traditional glamor imagery by drag-queens might be counter-revolutionary or even fully anti-feminist, and how my straight feminist sisters might be "sleeping with the enemy".
I discussed this stuff, and plumbed the pros and cons of revolutionary and conscious separatism vs. revolutionary and conscious assimilation.
As with most young people, I had complaints about how my "social ancestors" had performed.
Many complaints.
Sometimes they had not been radical enough for my feisty, fresh-faced self.
Sometimes they had been too radical.
Sometimes I wanted to (and did) blame those who I supposed had handed me this pile of crap they called a society (as if they themselves really had such a different level of choice than I did in the raw materials they were working with) -- a society where most people either outright hated me for being queer, or at best, would "tolerate" me if I kept a low profile and didn't make waves. A society that saw me first as female, and thought nothing of dictating an entirely different set of standards and requirements for me as a result.
During my first year of High School (1970), mini-skirts were still popular (well, mini-skirts or long hippy dresses -- depended on which social group you belonged to). But in any case -- dresses were not optional for school wear.
Not only did girls have to wear dresses to school, regardless of Kansas blizzards and sub-zero temperatures (DorothyC and Broce spoke recently in a comment thread about an experience I remember well -- wearing pants under my skirt to the bus-stop where we stood in the freezing cold until the bus came, and then having to take them off before I could board the drafty, unheated school-bus), but in my freshman year, the principal decided it was time to crack down on all us slutty girls who were wearing our skirts too short.
This crack-down resulted in a new morning routine at the school entry -- as the boys skimmed past us (the principal giving them only a cursory glance to make sure that their hair wasn't "on the collar"), all the girls in my school lined up on the stairs, the queue inching upward slowly, as, one by one, we knelt in front of His Majesty Assholyness at the top of the stairs, to assure that our hems touched the floor. (Of course, we would roll our skirt-tops up later, but only if Mr. Badass was not prowling the halls.)
At the time, I didn't really understand what I was feeling -- I didn't know that the crumbling, compressed sense of tinyness that I experienced at the beginning of every school-day that year was. . . . . humiliation. Humiliation that I had somehow earned -- because I was female.
I also did not understand that this ritual was meant to enforce that humiliation -- to burn upon my consciousness the fact that I would be obedient and compliant and kneel and face the crotch of my overlord every day as if it were the most usual thing in the world -- because it was a most reasonable request, after all -- because it was done for my own safety, so that my slutty short skirt didn't get me into "trouble".
My intellect didn't understand all of the nasty nooks and crannies of this ritual, but my psyche sensed it.
At that time, the thought of rebellion -- of refusing to cooperate in my own humiliation was, literally, unthinkable to me -- even the tiny rebellion of rolling my skirt up after felt incredibly transgressive.
Four years later, by the time I graduated High School, I was wearing tattered and patched overalls to school every day. A move to a larger town and school was part of this, but even in my old hometown, the dresses- and skirts-only requirement had been dropped at my previous school by the time I graduated.
I believe that radical feminists made that possible.
When I was a freshman in High School, I had known I was queer for two years, ever since I saw the definition in a health-department sex-ed brochure for teens (believe me, the definition wasn't favorable, but, however much I didn't want to identify with it, I knew that --"a sexual perversion in which a person is attracted to another member of their own sex" -- described me, even at age 12, because I was madly in love with my best friend, and wanted nothing more than to kiss her on the mouth).
By the time I was a senior in HS (many unrequited loves later), and my friends and I were perusing a copy of "Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex But Were Afraid to Ask", which Karen had stolen from her parent's bedroom, I still knew enough to "ewww" along with everyone else when we got to the icky homo parts.
But less than two years after this, I was quite happily, if nervously, coming out to a gay man in my theater department, and finding -- not repulsion (even though he had never met a lesbian before -- or so he thought) -- but a welcoming -- into a community of closeted gay men who adopted me as their token lesbian mascot . . . . . or something . . . . (still not entirely clear about all that).
Two years more, and I was coming out to my parents and marching in Gay Pride parades.
I believe that radical queers made that possible.
Sure -- later, more "mainstream" activists made headway as well, but without those pushy bra-burning feminists, and those flamboyant screaming queens, there would have been no pocket of acceptability for those moderate activists to inhabit.
I believe that with my whole. entire. brain.
Later in my life, when the late 80s stirred up the Fundie Right and they began organizing state ballot initiatives to curtail hard-won rights that queer and feminist activist had carved out of an oppressive landscape, there were new radicals: Act Up! was full of fresh, young, angry faces, and I stood by in horror as more assimilated, mainstream queer organizers attempted to marginalize the Act Up! groups, asking them to refrain from attending certain rallies, asking them to curtail their activities and edit their press releases because "we" didn't want to "scare off" straight "allies" who found certain types of queers acceptable, but who could not stomach the "radical element".
It was amazing to me, really, that gay men and lesbians whose success and freedom could be traced back to some outrageous fucking queens in 60s New York would even consider asking Bi queers to shut up (because it screwed with the "I was born that way" meme), asking trans-people to shut up (because it just "wasn't time yet"), asking leathermen and women to disappear from gatherings (because it hurts our "we're just like you" political slogans), and asking Act Up!ers (who were only responding to the outrageous discrimination that was killing thousands of their friends and lovers with predictable anger) to "stop sounding so strident".
It was amazing to me that I was asked to refrain from singing a song about lesbians having sex at a night-time Dyke-Pride event because it wasn't "family friendly". Actually, I wasn't even asked not to sing a specific song, but rather, not to sing "that song".
I countered with: "Well, whether you believe it or not, the real objection that the Right Wingers have with us is that we . . . you know . . . have SEX with each other -- I mean, isn't that what makes me a lesbian?"
The organizers replied with: "Yes, WE know that, but we don't want to upset 'them'."
Joy.
It was at that moment that I truly began to appreciate my radical ancestors.
Now, I've done some difficult things in my life:
After Measure 8 passed in 1988 in Oregon (an event which "re-radicalized" me after a lazy hiatus in assimilationville circa 1982-88), I swore that I would never take another job where I couldn't be completely out of the closet (this, after ten years of being a social worker who was partially-mostly closeted). In an interview for the job that I both wanted and needed, I told the panel of ten interviewers (all over 65 -- it was a job with an Area Agency on Aging): "I need to let you know that I'm an out lesbian, and if that's going to be any kind of a problem for you, you should not hire me." (I got the job, btw, and all ten of the interviewers gave me private words of encouragement after the interview.)
I've stood in a parking lot collecting signatures for a petition for equal rights for queers, while a huge man screamed: "Pervert! Queer! Faggot! You should be killed! God hates you!" from less than 12 inches away. Close enough for his spit to hit my face, and for me to pray his fists wouldn't follow.
I've walked out of the funeral of a friend who died of AIDS where the preacher (authorized by my friend's parents) gave a 20 minute homily which basically boiled down to "he deserved it".
I've come out to my all-straight-all-the-time midwestern family-of-origin and mustered up the courage to invite my fundamentalist sister and brother-in-law to my "wedding" (such as it was -- and they attended).
I've marched in protests and participated in actions where I stood a chance of being arrested or tear-gassed, but I was fleet (and lucky).
I've tended the bruises and lacerations of friends who were queer-bashed, and stood up to three men who wanted to queer-bash me and my girlfriend outside a dyke bar.
I've intervened on the street between a man who was nearly two feet taller than I was, and the girlfriend he was threatening to hit.
I've volunteered in domestic violence shelters, and stood at the window while someone's ex screamed from the street, while wondering if he was organized enough to plan to a) bomb the place or b) burn it down, or just drunk and enraged at his sudden opportunity to feel what it is to not be the one in power.
I've had the conversation with my parents where I revealed the abuse that I experienced as a child at the hands of their trusted friend.
These things were difficult for me.
But the truth is, I would have done none of them if my radical ancestors had not done things that were much, much more difficult.
And to those who think those radicals were nothing more than a flash in the pan -- to those who think that such radicalism has nothing to do with them, I want to say:
There was a time when being "out" at all (much less considering legal marriage) was not really a choice for any queer -- but some radicals made that choice anyway. They chose to be out, even when this might, and probably would, mean complete ostracization by society, severance from their families, and beatings on the street. Or worse.
There was a time when shaving your legs or not shaving your legs, wearing a bra or not wearing a bra, wearing pants or not wearing pants, leaving your abusive spouse or not leaving your abusive spouse -- was not really a choice for any woman -- but some radicals made that choice anyway. They chose to do things that they knew might, and probably would, mean they would be judged and criticized and fired and expelled and divorced and disowned and beaten. Or worse.
Perhaps those radicals weren't thinking about you when they did these things -- maybe they were only thinking about themselves and what they could stand in that moment -- what they felt they must do for themselves in order to make life bearable (actually, in a way, I hope they were) -- but I know -- I absolutely know -- that I walked into a future where I was more free to choose because of what they chose.
They were my bridge to a more liberated future. They stretched the boundaries so that I had a larger place to live in.
Because of them, I had choices that they could barely conceive of -- without them, I would not live as I do.
So --
Honor your fucking radical ancestors, already.
=============
(note: This rant could apply to any number of movements to stop oppression, and the radical ancestors in them. I wrote about queers and feminism because these are things I have first-hand knowledge of. This rant will also probably apply to you someday -- if you just keep breathing in and out, and pushing the envelope on oppression -- you too can become an old fart who greatly benefited future generations -- who will come to think of you as irrelevant -- until they reach their own old fartedness -- when they will wish they had thanked you more when they had the chance. Not that this describes me in any way. ;) )
[cross-posted at Teh Portly Dyke]
Since California legalized same-sex marriage, as LizardOC just mentioned in her guest post, the state has been issuing gender-neutral marriage licenses reading "Party A" and "Party B." Seems a perfectly reasonable way to accommodate both couples of opposite sexes and couples of the same sex (and, frankly, Iain and I can't be the only straight couple who thinks "bride" and "groom" are such loaded terms that they feel antiquated and vaguely oppressive). Anyway…
Naturally it doesn't matter how perfectly reasonable this minor adjustment to the California marriage license is—because if straight people only have their precious shiny heterosexuality honored on their engagement announcements, on their wedding invitations, at their wedding, at their reception, and everywhere else for the rest of their lives but not on their marriage license, then it's totally discriminatory and someone's gotta cause a stink."We are traditionalists – we just want to be called bride and groom," said [Rachel Bird], 25, who works part time for her father's church. "Those words have been used for generations and now they just changed them."
Yeah, well, they haven't been. There's no "right to have your heterosexuality publicly recognized."
…"We just feel that our rights have been violated," she said.
Bird and her "groom" Gideon Codding feel like their rights have been violated because they can't distinguish between "rights" and "privilege." Their right to get married is wholly intact; their privilege of being conferred that right while it is denied to others based on sexual orientation is gone. What "feels" like a loss of "rights" is actually just a desperapte insecurity about their super-special relationship losing the shimmering, golden glow that only denying marriage equality to same-sex couples conveys upon their gloriously gilded union.
Marriage really is just a contract after all. Boo hoo.
And now that it's a contract into which all couples can enter, Bird and Codding want no part of it.Bird and Codding have refused to complete the new forms, a stand that has already cost them. Because their marriage is not registered with the state, Bird cannot sign up for Codding's medical benefits or legally take his name. They are now exploring their options, she said.
Yeah, this is the time to stand up and be heard. Not when we started dropping bombs on a country that hadn't attacked us or planned to, not when we started torturing people, not when the economic policies of this administration started leaving millions of people with food insecurity, not when the government let an entire American city drown—but when California started calling the two people entering into a marriage contract "Party A" and "Party B." ¡Viva la Revolución!
Bird's father, Doug Bird, pastor of Roseville's Abundant Life Fellowship, said he is urging couples not to sign the new marriage forms, and that he is getting some support from congregants and colleagues at local churches.
"I would encourage you to refuse to sign marriage licenses with 'Party A' and 'Party B,' " he wrote in a letter that he sent to them. "If ever there was a time for the people of the United States to stand up and let their voices be heard – this is that time."
In a just world, this would put paid the lie that it's gays who are after the "special rights."
[H/T to Shaker ScottRS, who got it from PZ.]
Teaspoons for Californiaby Shaker LizardOC
California's Supreme Court, as Shakers probably know, gave a tremendous boost to the cause of LGBT equality with its May ruling legalizing same-sex marriage. Predictably, the backlash came swiftly, in the form of 1.2 million signatures that guaranteed Proposition 8—which, if passed, would add the words "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California" to the state's constitution—a place on the November ballot.
Below are a few resources for anyone who wants to be more involved with, or informed about, the fight against Proposition 8. There is, of course, plenty of room to debate the desirability of the state-by-state approach to marriage equality, and there are thousands of causes that need our time and our funds; the purpose of this post is not to prioritize this issue above any other. But it's crucial that we not allow this vile bit of bigotry to become law—and there's good reason to believe that a resounding defeat of this proposition would have positive repercussions nationwide.
At this moment, the polls look cautiously promising for the pro-equality forces, but the opposition is amassing funds and planning to ratchet up its barrage of anti-gay scaremongering in the weeks ahead. If you're a local, follow the links below, and carve out a few hours to staff a phone bank, write a Letter to the Editor, or attend a rally or event. If you're not, pass these resources to anyone you know who lives here, and consider sending a donation to one of the organizations working around the clock to ensure that Californians don't enshrine inequality in their constitution.
Selected organizations working to defeat Proposition 8:
• No on Prop. 8 is a coalition of dozens of diverse pro-equality organizations. Their downloadable FAQ from the Los Angeles Times is a particularly useful guide to the legalities and logistics of same-sex marriage and of the proposed amendment.
• Equality California is one of the state's largest organizations dedicated to defeating the amendment, and one of the most complete sources of information about legislation—beyond Prop 8—that affects LGBT people.
• Let California Ring has produced dozens of videos, print ads, and other materials designed to speak to a broad audience and help start conversations about marriage equality. Many of their resources are available in Spanish, and they've created print ads in English, Spanish, Korean, Mandarin, and Cantonese.
• California Faith for Equality works with churches, synagogues, and other places of worship to support and encourage LGBT-friendly clergy and congregations. On their website, you'll find two new videos featuring religious leaders speaking about how their faith has informed their positions against Proposition 8.
Quick links:
• Buy "No on Prop. 8" signs, buttons, and other merchandise.
• Download a "No on Prop. 8: Equality for All" sign, sticker, or website widget.
• Download a "Civil Marriage is a Civil Right" sign (courtesy of the Unitarians).
If you're running low on syrup of Ipecac, watch this revolting video from our opposition and get a taste of what we're up against.
Thanks for your support, in whatever shape it takes.
