"We Are Better Than That"

Hillary Clinton broke her silence on the protest in Ferguson after Rev. Al Sharpton called out Clinton and other possible 2016 presidential candidates, Chris Christie and Jeb Bush, in a speech last week at Mike Brown's funeral. Clinton's comments were ultimately "safe," but it's exceedingly rare for a white politician to speak extemporaneously -- and smartly -- about race.

Some of the pundits I follow on Twitter had mixed feelings about her comments, or whether she should be obligated to say anything at all, but for a probable presidential candidate who has pretty large share of African-American supporters, particularly those in poor and working-class areas, I agree with Sharpton. Overdue.

No, I don't have to respect your opinion

Within most of the areas of the internet I haunt, this goes without saying. If you're opinion is misogynistic, cissexist, racist, ableist, homophobic, etc. -- I don't. And I think most people agree with me that no one is under any obligation to be "nice." These days, It's usually when I venture into more mainstream places that am I confronted with it.

I also hate "agreeing to disagree."

This is why I can no longer watch CNN or read the comments on my local paper's blog. The fight to be bipartisan or nonpartisan leaves too much room for bigotry disguised as "opinion." (The same way that playing "devil's advocate" does.)

I'm not saying the SJ blog world is entirely free of this (though, by nature, it should be, or it should be striving its hardest to be), but on most political or news sites that profess to be nonpartisan, the "every viewpoint is a worthy one" practice promotes a lot of viewpoints that are damaging

Barney Frank Comes Out As An Atheist on Real Time

From the Examiner:

"When asked if he felt more liberated being out of congress, Frank responded that he absolutely did. Maher then pointed out that the former congressman was in a fairly safe district and did have to worry about coming on a show like Maher’s. Maher described himself as a “pot smoking atheist.” 

Then Frank really opened up. He started by joking asking which pot smoking atheist Maher was referring, implying that he too was a pot smoking atheist."

This is news to me, as I thought he was openly atheist (at least since his retirement), but look at the stats: "The religious makeup of the Congress sworn in January 3 is virtually unchanged from the infamously gridlocked 112th Congress. There are 482 Christians, 33 Jews, 3 Buddhists, 2 Muslims, 1 Hindu, 1 Unitarian Universalist, and 1 open religiously unaffiliated member." Pete Stark, the only openly atheist member of congress, lost his reelection bid. Kyrsten Sinema, a democrat from Arizona, lists her religion as "none."

Margaret Thatcher, R.I.P.

Melissa McEwan from Shakesville wrote a great post about former British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, who died yesterday at age 87:

"Margaret Thatcher was a radical conservative, and I don't have anything kind to say about her politics. She would not have had anything kind to say about mine. She was the ultimate Exceptional Woman, and, irrespective of one's opinion about her choice to play that role, it was central to her attainment of the prime ministership. She was not the first, nor would she be the last, woman to understand that many glass ceilings, especially in politics and business, are broken by conservative women who make much about being just one of the guys, but also being a traditional wife and mother—just not like those other simpering, foolish, womanly wives and mothers."

"So why don't you move?"

Over at Flyover Feminism , Kristen answered the question that many progressives (blue dots) living in conservative parts of the U.S. (red states) have had to confront: why don't you leave? She does a great job of defending her choice to stay in the south, which, if you're continuing to do good work and supporting candidates who actually work toward creating equality, I don't think you should have to, but I think the whole "blue dot in a red state" argument is lacks nuance.

I've written about it before, and maybe my situation is a little different because I live in a blue-ish city in an otherwise red state, but because of the people I choose to surround myself with, I'm as ensconced in a liberal bubble as someone who lives in a more progressive part of the country. I still have to answer to state law, but I think it's fair to point out that living in a red state doesn't always mean small town, evangelical, or rural.

Granted, I should point out I'm still privileged on quite a few axes. But would I move? I would. Except for my family, there's nothing that's really binding me here. Had I the resources, I probably would have moved ages ago, but I'm comfortable here, and my family is here, and I think that's reason enough. Or at least, it should be.

Girls, Dealbreakers, and Writing Difference

I had high hopes for season two of Girls, due in no small part to my anticipation of Lena Dunham's handling of the criticism that her show lacked diversity (true), and presented the experiences of middle-class, white twenty-somethings as universal. (Also true, though I think it was spurred by the media more than anything else. Despite the "voice of her generation" tag, I really don't believe Dunham intended her show to be just that.)

Donald Glover , aka Childish Gambino, was brought in to be Hannah's new love interest, Sandy. I hope he stays on for at least a few more episodes, because last Sunday's was disappointing. I don't know if Duhnam qua Hannah is hyper-aware, trotting out the "I don't see color" trope because it is usually the first defense for progressive white people when their racism is being called out, or she is completely unaware. (Where Dunham ends and the character Hannah begins gets pretty blurry.) I'm hoping it's the former because there could have been a greater discussion on race and privilege during Hannah and Sandy's breakup, but Sandy's character was clumsily handled from the start. It's painfully apparent that Sandy was inserted into the cast with nothing more than a wink toward diversity. Hopefully he sticks around because I'd really like to see how his character develops.

Roxane Gay wrote a great post on representing difference, not explicitly targeted toward Girls, but it's certainly applicable here (and it's good advice for any writer):

"So how do we represent difference? The simple answer is, “I don’t know,” and the complicated answer is, “I don’t know.” When writing characters who are different from me (and this would be every character I’m writing as it’s called fiction for a reason), I start with the experiences and emotions people have in common. I tend to believe we are more alike than we are different. We get so stuck on this question of difference as if we’re from different planets. Don’t believe the hype. We all love and lust and want and know joy and darkness. We are all imperfect. And then I think, how would a given identity shape these common experiences and emotions? How would a given identity shape a person’s imperfections? From there, I try to write difference. I try to do research—what is life like in inner city Baltimore? What is life like in rural Michigan? What is life like in Los Angeles? And then what is life like in those places for a Latina woman? What is life like in those places for a black man? What do I know about these characters who are different? What do I assume? Where am I wrong in my assumptions? What do I need to know? I don’t have the answers but I also don’t think it’s as complicated as we make it. I suspect we try to make it complicated because it’s more flattering to imagine ourselves as unknowable, precious snowflakes."

Sandy's political leanings (he's a Republican) could have shoehorned an interesting discussion about dealbreakers, but we never got to hear his actual views on anything, only Hannah's interpretation of them. And I'm saying this as someone who's pretty quick to judge any member of a party whose tenets are based on a meritocracy that doesn't exist; small government, but not when it comes to women's bodies; and denying civil rights to gays, lesbians, and trans people. Another missed opportunity.

I know I loudly and routinely criticize Girls, but I actually do like the show -- which makes it all the more frustrating. That it always seems to be just scratching at the surface does nothing but lend to my disappointment.

My City is the 15th Gayest City in America

.. and I'm actually a little stunned.

The Advocate's list of 2013's "15 Gayest US Cities" has my hometown, St. Louis, barely squeaking in at number 15.

15. St. Louis (pop. 318,069) What was founded in 1764 as a fur-trading outpost has become an LGBT beacon in the Midwest. The city proudly proclaims a ton of neighborhoods as gay-friendly, including the queer epicenter along Manchester Avenue in the Grove, site of leather bars, the LGBT center, and the trendy Just John (JustJohnClub.com) bar; Tennessee Williams’s old haunt, the Central West End, with its architectural sights, hotels, and galleries; the South Grand hood, site of PrideFest and MoKaBe’s (MoKaBes.com) coffeehouse; Soulard and Cherokee Street, home to Clementine’s, St. Louis’s oldest gay bar, founded in 1978; and the stately Lafayette Square, for wine bars and B&Bs.

National recognition for something other than STDs or crap Todd Akin says is great, but the fact remains that the state as a whole fails when it comes to LGBT rights. Missouri still doesn't recognize same sex marriage. In a 2012 public opinion poll, only 36% of Missouri voters supported the legalization of same-sex marriage, while just over half opposed it. (source ) And gender identity and sexual orientation has yet to be addressed under the state's non-discrimination laws. (source)

I think I understand what the Advocate is doing by recognizing a handful of medium-sized, and smaller towns. St. Louis itself has a great LGBT community, but coffeehouses and Pottery Barn don't make up for the larger issue of civil rights.

The NRA wants an "active national database" of people with mental illness

There were many WTF? moments during Friday's press conference, but calling for an "active national database" of people with mental illness is inexcusable. Like Jill , I wonder how exactly the NRA would define mentally ill: anyone who sought treatment, be it through therapy or medication, or only those deemed "dangerous?"Do we just disregard HIPPA rules now ? It's been widely reported that people with mental illness are more likely to be victims of violent crimes rather than commit them, and not all spree shooters are "mentally ill." This has, sadly, become the dominant narrative after tragic mass shootings like the one in Connecticut because we need to tell ourselves that the shooter is completely divorced from reality, and "not like us."

Further reading:

A National Database of the Mentally Ill (Freethought Blogs)
An Observation About Mental Illness (Shakesville)
Wayne LaPierre and the NRA: so defensive it was downright offensive (The Guardian)

Election Day Musings

* I feel like I should be writing some sort of "get out and vote" missive, but I'm sure most of you US residents are voting today, or already have. I'm so envious of those of you who live in states that allow early voting. I live in a red state -- albeit in a blue dot in a red state -- and in an urban area where the polling place was changed before the August election, and that caused some confusion, no doubt. (Although, this  shouldn't be happening, not anywhere and not in 2012.)

* I still have my crappy cell phone picture from the 2008 presidential election:

* My neighbors actually have a Todd Aiken sign on their front lawn. I'm too embarrassed for them to feel any rage.

* Persephone magazine has a handy guide to some statewide issues that got a little lost in the shuffle this election season. Check it out.

Shelving: What's the Matter With White People? by Joan Walsh

When I voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic Primary, I told no one. To some progressives, a vote for Clinton meant you were a prole, and if you were a woman, it meant you were tethered to your mother's brand of feminism and guilty of voting with your uterus. To others, it meant you represented the worst of white, working-class racism.

I think that may have been my first real taste of progressive classism. In certain liberal circles, classism is not only acceptable, it's encouraged. I'm thankful Joan Walsh's book, What's the Matter With White People , brings classism and the chasm between college educated and working-class democrats into the open, but she kind of stops short. Instead, what she's written is her own personal, political narrative, which is fine, but the title is a little misleading. The bad? Tt's a little too self-congratulatory at times (even the cheekily titled chapter, "All My Best Presidents Are Black," felt a slightly less than ironic.) Plus I think she makes the mistake of too-often confusing white privilege with white economic privilege.

Still, there's a lot that's worthwhile, particularly her first-hand account of the Nixon and Reagan-era, and her on-air relationship with her "sparring partner" Pat Buchanan (whom I thought she treated a bit too nicely). But if you're looking for a dry academic tome about working-class ideology, this isn't it.

Lena Dunham's "First Time" Video

Chris Hayes had a good discussion on his show  yesterday about the appropriateness of Lena Dunham's "first time" voting video. I know conservatives are having a field day with this, so I'm hesitant to criticize it (and I'm fighting making a joke about my own "first time" with Bill Clinton), but I actually like its cheeky humor. Granted, it's playing to a very specific audience, who most likely appreciates the cheeky humor also, but on the other hand, it's more fodder for conservative pundits.

Tina Fey on Conservative Politicians and "Legitimate Rape"

Truth be told, I haven't always been the biggest Tina Fey fan, but when she's on, she's on. Here she is in a speech at the Center for Reproductive Rights gala Wednesday taking on the deluge of conservative male politicians and their attempt to take control over women's bodies and redefine rape:

“I wish we could have an honest and respectful dialogue about these complicated issues, but it seems like we can’t right now. And if I have to listen to one more gray-faced man with a two-dollar haircut explain to me what rape is, I’m gonna lose my mind." (source )

Easier being Latino? Mitt Romney thinks so.

Mitt Romney's comment that getting elected president would be easier had he been born Latino kind of got lost in the uproar over his 47% one. (Damn those freeloaders!) The always awesome Rosie Perez has something to say about that.

Austraila's PM Julia Gillard on opposition's sexism and misogyny

This has been making the rounds of the feminist blogosphere, but so rarely, so righteously, and so publicly does a woman in power call out sexism it's impossible to ignore:

"I will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny by this man, I will not. And the government will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny by this man. Not now, not ever. The leader of the opposition says that people who hold sexist views and who are misogynists are not appropriate for high office. Well, I hope the leader of the opposition has got a piece of paper and he is writing out his resignation. Because if he wants to know what misogyny looks like in modern Australia, he doesn't need a motion in the house of representatives, he needs a mirror."

Chloe Angyal wrote a wonderfully nuanced piece for the Guardian that sums up why it is so rare that a woman in power often choses to, if not fully ignore, then downplay discussions of gender:

"Gillard usually sidesteps discussions of gender politics, a modus operandi for many women in power in traditionally masculine environments. This was some long overdue brazenness on her part, no doubt prompted in part by last week's portrayal of Abbott as a "feminist". And yes, it's quite something to see the most powerful woman in the country say what so many of us have been thinking, pulling no punches as she does so. But Gillard, for all her fiery anti-sexism rhetoric, isn't quite the stuff of feminist fantasies. She has, for example, repeatedly refused to advance the cause of marriage equality in Australia. If only she could see that misogyny, which she finds so abhorrent in Abbott, also lies at the heart of homophobia. Perhaps then she'd realise that her accusations of hypocrisy are a little, well, hypocritical."

Links & Bits: Presidential Debate Edition

For those of you tired of watching that clip of Chris Matthews losing his shit, I rounded up some of the better posts and discussions about the first Presidential debate of 2012.

(Warning: I'm not non-partisan. Big Bird is totally safe around these parts.)

Post debate poderfication -- the good, the bad, and the reasons some of y'all need to calm the fuck down  (AngryBlackBitch)

Shade, Smirks, and Zingers  (The Crunk Feminist Collective)

Post-debate reflections: Big Bird is now a partisan issue (Feministing)

At Last Nights Debate: Romney Told 27 Myths in 38 Minutes (ThinkProgress)

Near Silence on Poverty in the Presidential Debate (Colorlines)

Post-Debate Wrap-Up (Shakesville)

"Todd Akin makes Michele Bachmann look like a hippy."

This is how senator Claire McCaskill described her Republican challenger, the now infamous Todd Akin, yesterday on MSNBC's Morning Joe.

It was a clever sound bite, and let's face it, Akin has been, as comedian Kathy Griffin might say, "A gift from baby Jesus." His "gaffes" (read: rape apologia ) have now become the stuff of legends, and he's quickly becoming the public face of the Republican Party's extreme right wing. Now, in an interview the Kansas City Star, he's claiming that in last week's debate McCaskill's seemed "too aggressive," and unladylike:

"I think we have a very clear path to victory, and apparently Claire McCaskill thinks we do, too, because she was very aggressive at the debate, which was quite different than it was when she ran against Jim Talent," Akin said. "She had a confidence and was much more ladylike [in 2006], but in the debate on Friday she came out swinging, and I think that's because she feels threatened."

It's easy for outsiders to laugh this off as one wingnut who'd never be taken seriously enough by anyone, even the most right wing faction of the Republican party, to win an election, but I know this state too well, and it scares me that he might actually pull it off. It also bears repeating that these are not isolated incidents. Jill Filipovic in The Guardian says:

"Akin's problems aren't limited to his own backwards views on women, or even the repeated slip-ups that reveal the depth of those views. A look at his past comments and at his voting record shows that Akin fundamentally doesn't trust women, and he definitely doesn't trust rape victims. Akin doesn't just have a far-right anti-abortion voting record; he praises rightwing militias with ties to radical anti-abortion action. He opposed the creation of a sex offender registry. (Tracking rapists is too aggressive and unladylike, perhaps?) When voting for legislation that would have finally made it possible to prosecute husbands for raping their wives, Akin supported the bill but worried that the legislation might be used "in a real messy divorce as a tool and a legal weapon to beat up on the husband". He co-sponsored the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, which changed the definition of rape by specifying that government-sponsored healthcare dollars would only pay for abortion if a pregnancy was caused by "forcible" rape, instead of just regular old rape." 

 If there's anything good to come of this, at least we're talking about the legislation surround rape, abortion, or even what it means to call your competition "unladylike," but in 2012, we shouldn't have to revisit the same old battles we've been fighting for decades.

Links & Bits: 9/28/12

Alyx Vesey from Feminist Music Geek  wrote a great post about RuPaul's Drag Race.

Feministe's Jill asks, "Should blasphemy be criminalized under international law?" (Short answer = no.)

This woman is awesome.

As is this woman.

Reaching and Teaching

Eve wrote a great post  for Feministe about leaving one's "bubble" and how to reach those for whom that bubble represents their core belief system, no matter how flawed. She asks:

How do we talk to the people who were educated incorrectly– who have Religion or Religious-based textbooks to support the wrong facts, who vote and behave accordingly– without putting them on the immediate defense? How do we encourage curiosity and welcome questions that may hurt/annoy/enrage us? How much intolerance are we willing to tolerate while we attempt to progress the conversation? How do we differentiate between hateful intolerance and ignorant intolerance, or does that differentiation matter? Is the element of religion too large to combat with information, exposure and conversation? Will this gap in our society eventually close on its own, as we are on the “right side of history,” or is it up to us to actively bring the conversation to the rest of the world’s population?

Earlier, she used Todd Akin's recent comments about rape and abortion as an example. As a fellow Missourian who's watched this become the center of everything that's wrong with Republican politic,  I don't think his is a case of sheer ignorance, but privilege combined with ignorance. Being a man, he benefits from a belief system that denies women agency, and I'm sure he's reluctant to give up that privilege, even if he's never questioned what that means.

I was taught, in a Missouri school no less, the same lie that pregnancy rarely occurs in rape -- that somehow a woman's reproductive system "shuts down." Why don't I believe that now? For one thing, I had parents that taught me to question the antediluvian "rules" I learned in school. (I was also naturally curious and fairly stubborn.) So how do we reach those who were (I'm kind of hesitant to use this choice of words because of its classist implications) "educated incorrectly?" who didn't have the benefit of parents or someone else to show them that what they're being taught is not only flawed but hurtful? I don't know. No, I really don't, because it's too easy put someone on the defensive, like, "Who are you to tell me I am wrong?." Using the vocabulary of the social justice world doesn't help much either when most people outside it aren't familiar with it. I still feel like I'm trying to write in a foreign language I'm only just beginning to learn. (Try explaining privilege to someone; the average person usually doesn't think it extends beyond economic privilege.)



Bill Nye (the science guy!) recently posted this video on why creationism is not appropriate for children. I wanted to post this even though it doesn't really fit with the dialogue surrounding the misinformation in Todd Akin's comments, but it's part of the same system that places religion above science.

So Todd Akin Stays in the Missouri Senate Race

So despite calls from Mitt Romney and his running mate, Paul Ryan, to drop out of Missouri's Senate race, Todd Akin is still on the ballot. Nearly every pundit is calling this an easy win for McCaskill now, but what if it's not? What if, despite the inanity of his comments that a woman's body can somehow "shut down" a "legitimate" rape, he still becomes senator? If anything positive is to come out of this mess, it's that the anti-choice stance of the Republican party is coming under fire in a way it hasn't in a long time.

To the chagrin of many Republicans, the controversy has set off a firestorm over abortion and other social issues that distracts from the jobs-oriented economic message Romney and his vice presidential running mate, Representative Paul Ryan, want to send to relatively moderate independent voters. (Reuters)

Not that the Republican position on abortion, or for that matter, LGBT rights or gun control issyes should come as a shock unless you've been living under a rock for the last thirty years, but the current Republican platform is the most conservative in modern history. From Think Progress:

No abortion in cases of rape or incest 

A salute to mandatory ultrasounds 

No legal recognition of same-sex couples 

Arizona-style immigration laws 

Audit the Federal Reserve 

No women in combat 

No statehood, but more guns for Washington D.C. 

One thing that's consistently bothered me about this election cycle is the division between the "real" issues (the economy, unemployment) and social issues (women's rights, LGBT rights), the latter deemed "fringe" or of less consequence than former. When those "fringe" issues directly affect your life, yeah, they matter.

A few words on Todd Akin and Rape Apologia

I hate when outright misogyny and rape apologia is portrayed as "controversy," let alone gaffes and misspeak, and as a Missouri resident, and one who is frequently outvoted, I have a quite a lot to say about Republican nominee, Todd Akin's comments that "legitimate" rape victims have some sort of magical vagina powers that prevent pregnancy (where have I heard this lie before? Oh yeah,  in jr. high sex-ed class -- in Missouri!). If you've tuned into any news outlet in the past couple days, you probably know the story. If not, here's a refresher via NPR: 

During a Sunday TV interview, Akin said by way of explaining his opposition to abortion, even in instances of rape: 

"If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down." Not surprisingly, that unscientific comment resulted in outrage at the Missouri congressman.

He then said "“Let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work, or something [...] “I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.” (source)

But what really bothers me is that this being treated as an isolated incident when in fact it's part of a bigger culture of, as President Obama said when asked at a press conference yesterday, "parsing and slicing" rape: who is a "proper" rape victim, and who is not. And part of a bigger culture of Republican politics controlling what women do with their own bodies.