Plum Crazy

Now I Know How Joan of Arc Felt

Something about the latest blogwar has reminded me of this:

Pulling something else from Mozza, I thought you could all use some flowers. (In a Wildean gesture, he sometimes kept flowers in his pocket.)

Again with the Stupid "Free Speech!!!!111!!1!" "Defense"

Over at Shakesville, Melissa posted about comments made by one "Homeless Charlie" about Condi Rice and Laura Bush on the Opie and Anthony Show. She and others then suggested writing their sponsors to get their show pulled from the air. Unsurprisingly, several assholes then showed up in her comments to defend Opie and Anthony BECAUSE OF TEH FREE SPEECH!!1111!

Listen up, moronic assholes. Free speech doesn't mean you can say anything you want with no negative consequences. No, it does not. Really. Don't believe me? Try this as a little experiment. Walk up to your boss and say "I'd like to fuck you to death." When your ass is then hauled down to HR and fired, try using this as a defense: "Hey, I've got freedom of speech! I can say anything I like!"

What? You're not going to try that? Of course you're not. Because everyone knows perfectly well that freedom of speech doesn't protect you from being fired for insulting or threatening your boss. It's not protection against any and all negative consequences. It's protection against being arrested for publicly stating your opinion. Not against negative consequences in the private sphere. Advertisers still get to make decisions about whom they wish to sponsor. Businesses still get to make decisions about whom they wish to employ. We still get to make decisions about whom we wish to associate with.

So please, stop saying shit that has no basis in reality.

What's Harder To Catch?

“The glitter, the makeup and the curls in our hair make cheerleading so deceiving,” Smith said. “We look like pretty little things. Well, most athletes throw balls around. We throw other cheerleaders around. What’s harder? What’s harder to catch?”

Cheerleaders. Most of us envision thin girls in skimpy outfits jumping about. That's what it was when I was a cheerleader in 1978. Well, the girls are still thin and the outfits have gotten even skimpier. But the jumping about? Not so much anymore. These days on high school and college squads, it's pretty hard-core gymnastics.

Cheerleaders can be tossed 20 feet in the air to do aerial gymnastics before being caught by their fellow cheerleaders. And the pyramids? Cheerleaders are hoisting and holding each other on their shoulders. The girls at the base of the pyramid are holding the weight of two cheerleaders on their shoulders. These girls are strong. How many male athletes, outside of body builders, are dealing with that kind of weight on a regular basis?

Cheerleaders are doing all this physically difficult work requiring a lot of strength, and they're paying the price for it in terms of injuries. Life-threatening, paralyzing injuries. But we don't think of them as athletes. We think of them as sex objects. We don't care about what they can do. We only care about how they look.

Shame on us. These girls are athletes. Many of them are gymnasts who go into cheerleading because schools don't want to take on the liability of gymnastic teams. The liability of football teams, of course, is fine. But girls gymnastics? Oh no, not that. So they go into cheerleading to do what they love, because being treated as sex objects is the only way they can get funding for their athletic ability.

Sad commentary on our society.

Decency and Compassion?

George W. Bush speaking about the immigration raid in New Bedford, MA:

"That's not the way America operates. We're a decent, compassionate country. Those are the kind of things we do not do. We believe in families, and we'll treat people with dignity."

Hmm. Sounds nice. And yet? Not so much of the truth.

Watch the video that Brownfemipower posted here. Babies were separated from their mothers. People were refused enough water. A woman who fainted was just ignored while she lay on the floor.

Decency? Compassion? That was not at all in evidence.

What can you do? You can donate money and/or materials to the families. You can write to your Senators and Representative. If you're in the Boston area, you can get directly involved. You can blog about it, because most people probably don't know about this. In fact, it seems like every other day, I get to see more and more what a privileged, sheltered life I lead. Most of my readers probably live one too. This happened two weeks ago, and I'm ashamed I haven't heard about it until now. Apathy and silence are all it takes for things like this to continue.

Via Ilyka.

See also:
Black Amazon

The Silence of our Friends
Plain(s) Feminist
Pandagon
Zuky

Dead Celebrity Finally Laid to Rest

The story behind the burial delay is a lurid one of legal disputes and paternity claims.

No, I'm not talking about Anna Nicole Smith. I'm talking about James Brown. Did you know he wasn't buried for 76 days? I don't recall the non-stop coverage of the delays. I don't recall television coverage of the trials.

What? You say he wasn't an attractive white woman? Oh, I'm sure that's just a coincidence. Right?

Blog Against Sexism Day

For explanations of last four, see as follows:

AutoAdmit
The Words Pussy and Cunt As Insults
Snarky Comments on Threads about Sexism (read the first two comments)
"Non-Partisan" Law Professors

Ann Coulter - Victim

I know I've always said that the worst part about the "old Soviet Union" was that when you said something they didn't like, they'd circulate petitions asking private groups that hold conferences not to voluntarily invite you back to speak. After, of course, you were given press time to explain your remarks.

That is what the old Soviet Union used to do, isn't it?

Speaking of Hating on the Women

Somerby points out that her Royal Highness Mo of Do also loves to insult male Democrats by referring to them as women.

As I commented over at LGM:

Every time I read something on Times Select and am faced with an ad to Read! The! Best! Of! Maureen! Dowd!*, I feel nauseated. And perplexed, because they're using some new definition of the word "Best" with which I was previously unfamiliar.

*This is pretty much every time. They're pushing her big right now.

Via LGM

Hmm, Looks Like Some Conservatives Have No Problem with Ann Coulter's Remarks

There's been a pretty decent turn-out of conservative bloggers calling on CPAC to never invite Ann Coulter back as a speaker. However, one right-wing blogger who called out Ann's comments got a lot of e-mails the bulk of which were along the lines of "What's your beef with Ann?" Barnett pulls one out as being "typically thoughtful" of the responses:

Ann Coulter hit the nail on the head. John Edwards is a pussified a**hole and faggot. That's right, I wrote it and will say it in public. I don't mean it in the classic sense either. Edwards is an effeminate, back-stabbing, hide-behind-the-law, ambulance chaser who couldn't handle himself in a one-on-one fist fight. So, get your perfume out and go join him. Evidently, you aren't man enough to tell the truth either. You're just another neo-con hack who isn't worth his weight in dogs**t! Stop blogging because you're just making it worse.

Huh. See, this guy doesn't mean that Edwards is a faggot in that he's gay. No, he means it in that he's like a woman! Which, as we know, is a horrible thing. Oh well, that's soooo much better. /sarcasm

Just goes to show ya that Twisty and others are right when they say that the roots of homophobia are in misogyny.

Via Andrew Sullivan

"Civility" vs Civility

So some guy has posted up a calculation of how often profane words are used on blogs. The measure of profanity was George Carlin's infamous 7 words. The result of this exercise was to prove that left-wing blogs use profanity more often than right-wing blogs. [Apparently there's a challenge to his results.]

In the meantime, a featured speaker at the Conservative Political Action Committee annual conference refers to Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards as a "faggot."

I'll take cursing over outright hate-mongering any day.

Obama: Can't Win for Losing

What's the matter with Barack Obama? According to Fox News personalities, it's a couple of things:

He went to a madrassa. Except, you know, he didn't. After being faced with their complete lack of anything resembling fact-checking, Fox News kind of withdrew the claim. Kind of, because Doocy basically said "Obama says it's not true, so we're just putting that out there." Not quite a resounding "We were wrong." "Fair and balanced" doesn't mean "presenting two sides of the story, even when one side is demonstrably false." This is, of course, now an old story, but I reiterate it, because it shows the kind of crap Obama is up against.

Now the ongoing story is how Obama belongs to a "black separatist" church. One that may not even be really, truly Christian! At least not an acceptable sect of Christianity. What's all the brouhaha* about? The Black Value System the church adheres to. So, what are these values? A sampling (you can read them in their entirety at the link provided):

Commitment to the Black Family
The Black family circle must generate strength, stability, and love despite the uncertainty of externals, because these characteristics are required if the developing person is to withstand warping by our racist competitive society. Those Blacks who are blessed with membership in a strong family unit must reach out and expand that blessing to the less fortunate, especially to the children.

Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
We must forswear anti-intellectualism. Continued survival demands that each Black Person be developed to the utmost of his/her mental potential despite the inadequacies of the formal education process. “Real education” fosters understanding of ourselves as well as every aspect of our environment. Also it develops within us the ability to fashion concepts and tools for better utilization of our resources, and more effective solutions to our problems. Since the majority of Blacks have been denied such learning, Black Education must include elements that provide high school graduates with marketable skills, a trade or qualifications for apprenticeships, or proper preparation for college.

Adherence to the Black Work Ethic
“It is becoming harder to find qualified people to work in Chicago” Whether this is true or not, it represents one of the many reasons given by businesses and industries for deserting the Chicago area. We must realize that a location with good facilities, adequate transportation and reputation for producing skilled workers will attract industry. We are in competition with other cities, states, and nations for jobs. High productivity must be a goal of the Black workforce.

Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
To accomplish anything worthwhile requires self-discipline. We must be a community of self-disciplined persons, if we are to actualize and utilize our own human resources instead of perpetually submitting to exploitation by others. Self discipline coupled with a respect for self, will enable each of us to be an instrument of Black Progress, and a model for Black Youth.

Damn, those are some pretty frightening principles! So frightening that they remind me of the advice given to the black community by conservative white columnist Burt Prelutsky.

The real shame should be that millions of black kids are fatherless; that their taste in music is for anything that’s crude, lewd and loud; that their role models are too often basketball players who make more babies than baskets; whose language skills are embarrassingly abysmal; and that, although most of the street punks are peddling drugs for roughly the minimum wage, they regard it as a worthier, more manly pursuit than working at a 7/11 or, God forbid, going to church, school or a library.

While I think the column overall is pretty bad, let's see nonetheless. Fatherlessness. Huh, covered by Commitment to the Black Family, no? "Abysmal language skills"? Covered by Dedication to the Pursuit of Education. "Regarding drug pushing as better than working, going to church, school, or a library?" Adherence to the Black Worth Ethic and Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect. Looks like Obama's church is attempting to take accountability and not rely on whites. You would think this would be applauded by conservatives. Instead, Fox News pulls out the "scary black separatist!" card.

This is racism. Damned if you do. Damned if you don't. If you get criticized no matter what you do, that's driven by privilege. By people who fear that if you actually "pull yourselves up by your bootstraps," they'll lose their privilege and be forced to treat you like an equal. I wish that this surprised me. It doesn't. It should be attacked as the pernicious bull it is, though. Loudly and regularly.

Via Shakes

*Brouhaha? Ha ha ha! Kudos to those who get the reference.

OK, So We're Not A Blogosphere Full of 5-Year-Olds

Apparently we're a blogosphere full of high-school students. There's a whole new dust-up about outing pseudonymous bloggers. (Which is wrong, wrong, wrong!) The whole thing started when HTML Mencken (fka Retardo Montalban) posted a photoshopped picture of Josh Trevino playing with a light saber. Josh claims this photo was taken at his wedding, and he's the only person in a position to know.* He requested that the photo be taken down, as it was intended to be private (it is for this reason I am not linking to the post with the photoshopped picture).

So first. Photoshopping pictures of other bloggers to mock them. Let me be perfectly honest. Yes, I'm as immature as anyone. Sure, it's funny. But it's basically the blogospheric equivalent of photo-copying someone's high school yearbook picture, drawing horns and glasses on it, and pasting it up all over the school. Yes, yes, it is. No one outside the blogosphere knows or cares who that person is. This is not protest speech the way that photoshopping a picture of the President is. It's clique behavior, and cliques are for kids. So when the object of your humiliation requests you take it down, you should take it down. Ostensibly, the political blogosphere is peopled with adults. There is no principal to suspend us from blogging for a week. Our parents aren't going to ground us for being jerks. Because we're adults.

Second, mocking other bloggers for taking anti-anxiety meds and/or being stay-at-home parents. I may never forgive you people for making me defend Jeff Goldstein, but I must. Stop. Now. It's amazingly offensive. Not as offensive as making fun of cancer patients, but is that how we want to be known? "Hey, we're less offensive than people who make fun of cancer patients!" No cookies for that. The fact that being a stay-at-home parent is considered mock-worthy under any circumstance says a hell of a lot about the value put on being a stay-at-home parent. Would Jeff's stance on the war be less mockable if he were an executive at a major corporation or a tenured professor? I'd think not, but apparently lots of people disagree. Which places the value of being a stay-at-home parent (i.e., women's work) below the value of executive or professor (i.e., men's work). Sorry if you don't like it. Own your prejudice. As for his taking anti-anxiety medication, would you mock him if he told you he had to take allergy medication? Of course not. Stigmatizing mental illness, as if there were no biological component to it. You suck.

However, outing people in response? No, no, no. No. Really. No. You can talk about "natural consequences" all you want. The natural consequence of acting like sexist jerks in your private life is not to have external actions visited on you. Anyone who thinks it is has a fucked up morality. If a person blogs using a pseudonym, that person hasn't agreed to accept certain risks. I don't care what your thoughts are about that lack of agreement; it's not your decision to make. Feel free to mock them for using a pseudonym, but those risks exist. Some people have been stalked online. Some people have had their families terrorized. The right to accept those risks lies only with the person who faces them. If someone does something online for which there should be external consequences, by which I only mean something that can be actioned through the justice system, then there are ways to visit those consequences upon them that don't include making their identity publicly known. Their identity can be revealed to the proper authorities so that legal cases can go forth. Hosting services and ISPs have that data and will release it if requested by warrant. That's your protection, and it's all the protection you need. Anything above and beyond that is just vindictive, extra-judicial, and wrong. Does this mean that sometimes you're going to have to deal with someone humiliating you without your having satisfactory recourse? Yes. Too bad. Humiliation isn't illegal. If that's the worst thing that ever happens to you, your life's pretty damn good.

Feh.

*BTW, why are people questioning in the comments why Josh had a wedding in which he wore khakis? What are you? The wedding police? Not every wedding is a massively formal affair. What's it to you? The man says it's his wedding. Even if you suspect it's not, see my first point.

Why Joe Biden Does Not Deserve A Get Out of Bad Interpretation Free Card

It was inevitable after public discussion on Biden's statement about Obama began. Some people would rise to Biden's defense, claiming it was just a compliment. That it's no big deal. That we should give the man the benefit of the doubt.

Even if this were the first time Biden had ever made a racially charged comment, it's still a big deal. If you've never, ever heard this before, hear it now. Using the words "artictulate" or "well-spoken" to describe an African-American is code for "talks white." That's what it is. If you didn't know that before, you know it now. If, as a white person, you use those terms to describe an African-American, 99% of the time it will be perceived as a racial slur. There's a lot of white people out there who are still surprised to meet a black person after they've only spoken to them on the phone. They're surprised because the person on the phone spoke in Standard English, belying the listener's racist assumptions that only whites can speak Standard English. If you mean to say that a black person's a great public speaker or an excellent orator, use those words, just like you would if you mean to say that about a white person. I don't remember Bill Clinton ever being described as articulate. Charismatic. Excellent orator. Never articulate.

However, this is not the first time Biden has trafficked in racial slurs. Last summer, while speaking with an Indian American political activist at a campaign stop, Biden talked about the high support he had among Delaware's Indian American community. "I've had a great relationship (with Indian Americans). In Delaware, the largest growth in population is Indian-Americans moving from India. You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I'm not joking." Oh ha ha ha, Joe. That's right. Indian Americans work in 7-Elevens and Dunkin' Donuts. They're never doctors or engineers or accountants or lawyers or teachers or...

On a campaign stop in South Carolina a few weeks ago, Biden also made a little "joke" for his majority white audience.

After a club member noted an upcoming event at the state Department of Archives and History included a chance to see the state's original copy of the Articles of Secession, Biden asked: "Where else could I go to a Rotary Club where (for a) Christmas Party the highlight is looking at the Articles?"

Biden noted Delaware was a border state and "a slave state that fought beside the North. That's only because we couldn't figure out how to get to the South - there were a couple of other states in the way."

The crowd roared with laughter.

Oh, nudge, nudge, wink, wink to those "grand old days" of the Confederacy; a time when blacks were still slaves. A little "Oh, we really wanted to be on your side, good ol' boys." Biden knew who his audience was, and he pandered to them at the expense of blacks.

How many racist "gaffes" does Biden have to make before we're all convinced he's racist? He's not going to don a white sheet and burn a cross on someone's lawn. He's unlikely to outright use the n-word. But racism in our society can be far more subtle and insidious than that. It's Biden's kind of racism that's the hardest to fight, because it isn't overt. Whites can (and do) always just look at a specific incident in isolation and say "Oh, well, it wasn't the smartest thing to say, but I'm sure it was just a joke/compliment."

Biden has exhibited a pattern. It's time to stop looking at his remarks as one-off "mistakes." Joe Biden does not deserve to be President. He cannot be trusted to be concerned with the well-being of all Americans.

Everything Isn't Up-To-Date in Kansas City

A year ago, two cops in Kansas City pulled over a pregnant woman for having a fake temp tag taped to her car window. Basically the first words out of the woman's mouth were "I'm 3 months pregnant and bleeding. I wanted to drive to the hospital." What do you think happened next? Full disclosure: The two cops were white. One was male, the other was female. The pregnant woman was black.

If you said they believed her and took her to the hospital for treatment, you're wrong.

If you said they disbelieved her while she continued to repeat this over and over, asked her "How is that my problem?" said "Yes, it's called a menstrual cycle," then jailed her where she bled so heavily they kept bringing her new pants to change into, you're right. The next morning, after they finally released her, she went to the hospital and delivered a premature baby boy who died immediately.

Watch the police video linked in the article. It's disgusting. The police officers should be fired.

Via Black Amazon.

High Def Porn

HDTV makes poor porn-watching dudes face the fact that porn actresses are real women with cellulite and wrinkles and everything!

It's so sad! I swear, I'm like nearly in tears for their shattered deillusions!

/sarcasm

Via Feministe.

Blogging for Choice

Today is the anniversary of the Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade. It's also been designated as Blog for Choice day. Unfortunately, the word "choice" is too closely entwined with abortion in our nomenclature, and it assumes that all women are able to make the same choices or that all choices are considered equally valid within our society. I thought about blogging for reproductive freedom instead, but I'd rather reclaim the word choice for all possibilities.

I have never been pregnant, so I have no direct experience with pregnancy, abortion, childbirth, or child-rearing. I'm almost at the age where becoming pregnant will be a non-issue anyway. This leaves me with a whole lot of "I don't knows."

I don't know when life begins.
I don't know what I would have done if I had become pregnant.
I don't know how I'd feel if I became pregnant now.
I don't know the experience of raising a child.
I don't know how painful giving birth is (or isn't).
I don't know how I'd feel if I had an abortion.

Most importantly, I don't know why any of that should matter with respect to reproductive choice. It should only matter with respect to what I would do, because I'd be making the decision for myself. For my body. I should never be making that decision for someone else; for someone else's body.

That's what it comes down to. Having the right to make decisions about what we do with our own bodies. For example, no father is required to give a bone marrow transplant to save the life of his child, wanted or unwanted. No one at all is required to do that under any circumstance, even though it will kill the other person. We simply do not have the right to unilaterally use someone else's body to survive. The very idea that a fetus (or if you prefer "unborn child") should be allowed to do so would give them rights far above those the rest of us enjoy. The decision about whether or not we're willing to allow someone else to use our bodies for their survival rests wholly with us. As it should and still would in every other situation should those who wish to outlaw abortion get their way.

Choice goes beyond just abortion, though. We live in a society that stigmatizes and penalizes women of color, poor women, and/or unmarried women for having children. The only "choice" we leave WOC, poor women, and/or single women is the "choice" to not have sex at all. For them, that is the only societally "valid choice." Unmarried women who do dare to have sex are reviled. In other countries, poor women are forcibly sterilized. Welfare "reform" forces parents to abandon their children, a phenomenon that hits black women most. A lack of federal funding for abortion means that poor women who want to have abortions can't afford them. If they are also on welfare, depending on how many other children they already have, this could also mean a reduction in their welfare benefits. To make matters worse, public funding for contraception is poor as well. Add this all up, and it means that only affluent, married, white women have a choice. For everyone else, the only "proper choice" is not to have sex at all. That is no choice.

True choice. Safe, affordable, legal abortion. Public assistance for women who need it, regardless of how many children they have. A federal mandate that contraception, like Viagra, be funded by insurance. An increase in public funds available for contraception (prescription and/or OTC). Birth control pills, like EC, available OTC. Opposition to forcible sterilization programs in other countries. No stigmatization of unmarried women who have sex.

"Tradition-Loving" Brits to Women

"You're unqualified to wear silly red suits* and answer questions from tourists."

My "favorite" of the comments:

The PC madness strikes again and I am absolutely disgusted. Before this, the Tower was a place of magnificant British history, and should have been allowed to continue conveying accurate historical tradition to visitors, that is why tourists choose to visit after all. It should have therefore been protected from the modern PC madess.

Now having Yeo'women' is making it all totally inaccurate and therefore pointless. YeoMEN are vestiges of English history, and anyone knows that a woman would never have been employed as a Yeoman.

This is now no longer part of our accurate history, turning it instead into just a fancy dress parade. I feel extremely angry and disgusted that the PC ranters have won yet again.

- Julia

Oddly, the state education provided to Julia was not part of "accurate" British history. Neither was women being allowed to read newspapers. So where she gets off writing comments on newspaper articles is beyond me. The PC ranters have won yet again!

I also wonder about Julia's feelings on the electric lights and climate control installed in the Tower. Tourists might think that those had been there forever! I guess the AC/DC ranters won too. Damn you, Angus Young!

Via Shakespeare's Sister.

*Fetch the comfy chair!

Women, "Good Judgment", and Rape

I'm going to move a discussion over from Feministe to Plum Crazy in order to help it to drop at Feministe. You can read the background there, but if you wish to comment on the subject I'm going to move over, please do so here. Please make no comments over there about the comments that generated this broader topic, as per zuzu's request. I want to continue the general topic, because I think it's an important one.

To try to summarize a rather lengthy back-and-forth, one commenter told another commenter that she was worried about the safety of his sex partner because of some arguments the other commenter had made. The second commenter took this not just as an insult to himself (rightfully), but also an insult to his girlfriend as not having sufficient self-esteem or good judgment to choose a good partner. I took issue with this because I think there's an underlying assumption that unwittingly plays right into rape culture. Following is the meat of my response, somewhat edited to keep the names out of it:

I'm going to say this loud and clear - Women who have good sense and good judgment are raped by men they trust. While you didn't explicitly say they don't, it is an implication of one of your grievances against the first commenter. She NEVER insulted your girlfriend. She did insult you. However, suggesting that YOU might be an untrustworthy sex partner is not an insult to your girlfriend. Having good sense, good judgment, and self-esteem does NOT render a woman invulnerable against an untrustworthy man. You can have all those things and still make a mistake. Making mistakes does not mean someone lacks self-esteem or judgment. And it comes dangerously close to suggesting that if only a woman had had good judgment and self-esteem, she couldn't be raped by a man she trusted. Is that a road you really want to travel down?

From a follow-up to my initial response:

I really don't want to let up on that, because the implication is that only women who lack good judgment and self-esteem get raped by men they trust, which just rankles. It's a very bad premise. It's a tautology, and it puts another unfair layer of responsibility on victims of date rape (not having had good judgment and self-esteem).

So there it is, if anyone is still interested in discussing the topic.

Spot the Misrepresentation

Ace of Spades in a post regarding Senator Tim Johnson's medical prognosis:

I can't help but notice that Johnson's minor interaction with the world is enough to keep him in the Senate, but such wasn't enough to keep Terry Schiavo alive.

Now, no one's claiming Johnson is brain-dead, of course. But still, the Democrats seem to have a newfound respect for an occasional opening of the eyes.

Despite the fact that this is clearly snark (and totally irrelevant by his own admission that no one is saying that Johnson is brain-dead), the underlying assumption as to why people supported pulling the feeding tube in the Schiavo case is breathtaking in its utter incorrectness. Oddly, people did not support it based on some underlying belief that all brain-dead people should be euthanized. As I recall, the argument was along the lines of (1) people have the right to refuse life-saving medical care, including feeding tubes, (2) absent a clear written document expressing their desires, the nearest family member has the right to make a decision regarding what that person would have wanted in those circumstances, and (3) a spouse (e.g., Michael Schiavo) is the nearest family member. Therefore, if Tim Johnson were brain-dead and Barbara Johnson wanted him kept on life-support, it would thoroughly consistent for someone who supported Michael Schiavo's right to determine what should happen to Terri Schiavo to also support Barbara Johnson's right to determine what should happen to Tim Johnson. Even if Michael Schiavo and Barbara Johnson hypothetically wanted different outcomes. But why let that get in the way of an assumption of bad faith?

Via Lawyers, Guns, and Money.

Spot The Rape Apologies

Last week, Amanda at Pandagon posted a column by Dan Savage in the Village Voice. A woman had written into Dan asking him whether or not she should forgive her ex-boyfriend for ignoring her explicit "No" regarding anal sex.

Go read the entire column before continuing.

Are you done? OK, if you like, now go read the comment thread at Pandagon. If you would prefer not to, we can still play "Spot the Rape Apologies!"

The woman and her boyfriend were stupid. She was stupid, because apparently despite having told him not just once, but several times that she never wanted to have anal sex, she should have known that some day he would force it on her when she was tied up. Therefore, she should have established a safeword, even though they had never said that the word "No" wasn't the signal to stop. That way, even if she suffered massive blood loss, he would be super-specially sure that she really didn't want to have anal sex. He was stupid for also not having established a safeword so he couldn't somehow miss the fact that she was bleeding profusely and continue anally raping her until he reached his orgasm.

She let someone untrustworthy tie her up, did she not? So, he was untrustworthy because he raped her. He raped her because he was untrustworthy. This is known as "begging the question." Apparently, she was also supposed to have special mind-reading powers or powers of precognition that would have allowed her to know that despite having previously listened to her when she said "No," he wouldn't this time. After all, women shouldn't actually trust that men can comprehend simple concepts like "No" and "Never," or shouldn't trust that men will respect them. Again, I have to point out the irony that it's feminists who get accused of believing that all men are rapists, even though we really do think that men are capable of understanding basic words and of respecting women's wishes.

No, you'd know that she believed she had made it clear it [anal sex] was not an option. One of two possibilities here. Either the woman was lying about the sequence of events, in which case we are faced with the old "women lie about rape" canard. Or we're supposed to believe that words like "No" and "Never" aren't clear to men, so women have to develop new and improved super-specific ways of conveying those concepts to them. That last one sounds a lot like "No doesn't really mean no," doesn't it?

Well, that's enough "Spot the Rape Apologies!" for now, kids. Enjoy the New Year!

The Horror!

The UK is considering passing a law that would stipulate that a woman who had a certain level of alcohol in her blood would be deemed too drunk to consent. Since this actually puts the onus for preventing rape where it belongs - on men, rather than on women - you can imagine the outcry. The comments section is chockful of people bemoaning this "horrible" development.

The comments generally fall along two lines. One is the ever-present fear of false accusation! Yes, you know, because someone might falsely accuse someone of a crime, we shouldn't legislate against that crime. Oh wait, no. Apparently that only applies to rape. I have yet to see anyone argue that we shouldn't have a law against burglary since someone might falsely accuse someone else of robbing their house. And never mind that it actually has to be proven that the woman was too drunk to consent.

The other is that somehow men are going to be held responsible for their actions, but women are not. Oh heavens, where's Teh Equality? I think the action women are supposed to be held responsible for in these comments is drinking. A lot of the comments suggest that women shouldn't be getting drunk if they don't want to risk "involuntary sex or rape" (an actual phrase from one of the comments). This implies that an appropriate consequence of women drinking is having men rape us. Whereas for men, the appropriate consequence of drinking is having a hangover or vomiting. If some guy got so drunk he couldn't figure out what was happening to him, and another man raped him, who would think to question what he was doing getting that drunk in the first place? I mean, maybe he consented. He just doesn't remember, right? Why isn't someone holding him responsible for his actions! /snark. That is exactly what would not happen. Here's an entire article about a rapist who strikes men where not one word is said about how dangerous it is for men to be walking alone at night or any of the usual cautionary warnings given in articles about rapists who prey on women.

This also implies that somehow deciding to have some drinks is on the same level of badness as deciding to "have sex" with someone who isn't in any frame of mind to comprehend what is happening around them. I know, it's a terrible thing to imagine that men might have to be more aware of their sex partners. That those who don't might have to actually give a damn about their partner's desires and mental state. Clearly it's much more important that drunk men have sex whenever they want to than it is to protect women.

In ending, I'm going to quote this case as why these kinds of laws are necessary (emphasis mine):

Case study: Ryairi Dougal was cleared of rape in a landmark case last year because his alleged victim was too drunk to recall events.

The security guard had sex with the student while she was lying drunk and unconscious in a corridor outside her flat in Aberystwyth University.

The case hinged on whether the 21-year-old he was accused of assaulting had consented to sex.

Swansea Crown Court was told by the woman there was "no way" she would have agreed, but when questioned by the defence, she acknowledged she could not remember anything and therefore could not definitively say if she had consented or not.

Even though 20-year-old Mr Dougal was a stranger to the woman, the judge told the jury to bring in a not guilty verdict because she could not remember whether she had given consent.

She was unconscious. How many unconscious people can remember anything? How many unconscious people are capable of consenting to anything? She was lying drunk and unconscious in a corridor when a man she didn't know raped her. Yet, because she couldn't remember anything, he gets off. This is the kind of situation we're supposed to allow to continue in order to protect a few men against false accusations. No secret where our priorities are.

No Killing in the Name of God - Just Killing

Right. OK. This is just a video game, and I'm not really going to get all worked up about it. However, this is possibly the stupidest statement I've read all day (the day is young, though!).

"The reality is that our game perpetuates prayer and worship and that there is no killing in the name of God.

"There is killing of course, it is a video game. But the basis of the game is spiritual welfare," said Troy Lyndon, CEO of Left Behind Games Inc.

Hmm. Let's go to the gamemaker's website, and see what they have to say about the game.

Game description

Wage a war of apocalyptic proportions in LEFT BEHIND: Eternal Forces - a real-time strategy game based upon the best-selling LEFT BEHIND book series created by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins. Join the ultimate fight of Good against Evil, commanding Tribulation Forces or the Global Community Peacekeepers, and uncover the truth about the worldwide disappearances!

• Lead the Tribulation Force from the book series , including Rayford, Chloe, Buck and Bruce against Nicolae Carpathia - the AntiChrist.

• Conduct physical & spiritual warfare : using the power of prayer to strengthen your troops in combat and wield modern military weaponry throughout the game world.

• Recover ancient scriptures and witness spectacular Angelic and Demonic activity as a direct consequence of your choices.

• Command your forces through intense battles across a breathtaking, authentic depiction of New York City .

• Control more than 30 units types - from Prayer Warrior and Hellraiser to Spies, Special Forces and Battle Tanks!

• Enjoy a robust single player experience across dozens of New York City maps in Story Mode - fighting in China Town , SoHo , Uptown and more!

• Play multiplayer games as Tribulation Force or the AntiChrist's Global Community Peacekeepers with up to eight players via LAN or over the internet!

Wow, that second bullet must be a typo, right? Instead of saying "physical and spiritual warfare", it should say "physical and spiritual welfare". Surely, Mr. Lyndon, that must be so, if the basis of the game is spiritual welfare.

BS. You don't "wage a war of apocalyptic proportions" when you're simply trying to teach kids about spiritual welfare. You're "using the power of prayer to strengthen your troops in combat", even (emphasis mine). It's clearly a game about war. War in the name of Christianity. You'd have been way better off saying what the manufacturers of games like "Vice City" have to say about their games - "It's not real." The fact that you're promoting this game as an alternative to games like "Vice City" concerns me far more than the content of the game. You're pretending that this game isn't exactly what it is. That raises the question, "Why?" Who are you trying to fool? Parents into thinking this game is better than other warfare games, or the rest of us into thinking it's not really about warfare in the name of Christianity?

As for the idiotic "There is killing of course, it is a video game," not all video games have violence and killing. Take, for example, this new game - The Shiva. It's a game about a rabbi who solves a murder. It's a puzzle game. There are puzzle games out there. They just don't tend to do as well as the violent games (except for things like Myst, but games of that caliber are few and far between). So, fine. You want a successful video game that will sell to teenagers. Stop packaging it as "spiritual welfare".

What We Need To Learn

Via Black Amazon, I found this entry on The Art of Defending Racism. If we are honest with ourselves and honest about wanting to end racism, we will admit the truth that this is what we do and watch our behavior for signs of our doing it.

Michael Richards' non-apology and the sickening defenses of his actions are all covered on this list.

Richards' non-apology - Covered under "Dismissal! Under my definition - it's not racist." Of course, under any real definition of racist, he was racist. However, he magically decides that he's just angry, not racist, and we're all supposed to buy the BS.

Defense #1 "What's the big deal, he just called a couple of hecklers some names?" - Covered under "It's not that serious. It's not a big deal because..."

Defense #2 "Yeah, but blacks call each other 'nigger' too. Look at Chris Rock or Dave Chappelle!" - Covered under "But! POC do XYZ to themselves too."

Defense #3 "Well, what else would you call a black person who acts rudely?" - Covered under "It's not that serious. You're too sensitive." Also under "Dismissal! Under my definition - it's not racist."

Defense #4 "Some blacks don't have a problem with what he said." - Covered under "But! One POC says it's cool."

This is precisely the same sort of crap we witness nearly every time a white person gets called on their racism and privilege. When white feminists get called on our racism and privilege, we also get "Yeah, but sexism!" As if somehow the existence of sexism and its impact on our lives excuses or mitigates our racism. We would never accept that the existence of racism and its impact on the lives of men of color excuses or mitigates their sexism.

Is it uncomfortable to admit our racism? Is it uncomfortable to give up our privileges? Sure. If it weren't, eradicating racism (and sexism) would be easy. So what, though? It's no one's job to make it easy for us to give up that which we never had a right to in the first place. If someone stole something from us, we would never expect to have to make it easy for them to return it to us. Even if someone's grandparents stole it from our grandparents, we would expect it simply to be returned to us. If it were something very meaningful that damaged our lives by its lack and enriched their lives by its possession, we would be very angry at those that refused to restore it to us. We would suspect them of believing they deserved more than we did. We would suspect them of willingness to profit at our expense. We would suspect them of not really giving a damn about us. We would hear their defenses and know how meaningless and self-serving they were.

We'd be right.