Necessary Reading: "What Kind of Card Is Race?"

Excerpts from Tim Wise's "What Kind of Card Is Race?", via Mandolin at Alas, a Blog:

Asked about the tendency for people of color to play the "race card," I responded as I always do: First, by noting that the regularity with which whites respond to charges of racism by calling said charges a ploy, suggests that the race card is, at best, equivalent to the two of diamonds. In other words, it's not much of a card to play, calling into question why anyone would play it (as if it were really going to get them somewhere). Secondly, I pointed out that white reluctance to acknowledge racism isn't new, and it isn't something that manifests only in situations where the racial aspect of an incident is arguable. Fact is, whites have always doubted claims of racism at the time they were being made, no matter how strong the evidence, as will be seen below. Finally, I concluded by suggesting that whatever "card" claims of racism may prove to be for the black and brown, the denial card is far and away the trump, and whites play it regularly: a subject to which we will return.

...

Nothing, absolutely nothing, has to do with race nowadays, in the eyes of white America writ large. But the obvious question is this: if we have never seen racism as a real problem, contemporary to the time in which the charges are being made, and if in all generations past we were obviously wrong to the point of mass delusion in thinking this way, what should lead us to conclude that now, at long last, we've become any more astute at discerning social reality than we were before? Why should we trust our own perceptions or instincts on the matter, when we have run up such an amazingly bad track record as observers of the world in which we live? In every era, black folks said they were the victims of racism and they were right. In every era, whites have said the problem was exaggerated, and we have been wrong.

Read the whole thing.

A Horrifying Tale of Parental Notification Laws

Read the whole thing. Please.

Saturday Sesame Street: Birthday Edition

For John, because unlike Bert, it is his birthday:



Happy birthday, John!

Also, a virtual cake for you:
(Stolen from Cake Wrecks)

I also highly recommend checking out John's project, Operation Backlog Slog, Days 1-5, 6, 7-9, 10-16, 17-27, 28-30, 31-33, & (so far) 24-43. Check out his explanation for liking Lady Gaga on that last one. It makes me fully embrace my own love for her music, and feel more secure in my decision to not be embarrassed about it.

Monday Reading List

Insurance Company Revokes Depressed Woman's Benefits Over Facebook Photos:

When it comes to disability, able-bodied people tend to have an idea of what disability “looks like.” This results in proclamations about who is really disabled and who is really faking it (presumably, for all of the awesome government benefits that are inadequate to live on, and the fun social stigma). And for the person being proclaimed a faker, that frequently means not only the hurt of having their identity and lived experience dismissed, but also the denial of accommodations that they need.

Great, now Demi Moore's Torso Is Missing:

In all of the chatter surrounding the Demi Moore W cover controversy, many people have insisted that her vanished hip is part of a perfectly natural pose. They were correct. The photo shows the natural standing pose... of a runway model in her mid-twenties. It appears that Moore's head, legs, and arms were superimposed on the hips and torso of model Anja Rubik.

Why Anti-Feminism is Illogical, Unnecessary, Evil, and Incredibly Unsexy (quote taken from second page):

The point of feminism is not to alienate men, but for women to focus on our own concerns and needs, to establish our own values. These may or may not coincide with the already established values of our dominant culture, just as our concerns and needs may or may not fold neatly into a relationship. The point is to work on making decisions based on choices that are really choices instead of following a script--in other words, it means learning to laugh at what we find funny instead of just following along with the laugh track and to make trouble when trouble is necessary.

And, because I absolutely adore Hillary Clinton,
Her Brilliant Career:

She is a rock star. Students camped out in line for hours to get tickets to the event, which sold out in minutes. When she first appeared onstage the audience leaped to their feet, and the applause was deafening. "They weren't cheering Bob Gates," said a fellow in uniform sitting next to me. And despite the gravity of the occasion, a young woman bellowed at the top of her lungs, "I love you, Hilllllary!!!!," as if she were at a Lady Gaga concert. Seeming to acknowledge her superstar status, Clinton made a crack at the very end of the proceedings, saying that Gates had served most of his 43 years in public service "in secret" (referring to his CIA days). "And I have no secrets." The crowd roared with laughter.

On princesses, Ruthie-style (who is, actually, pretty much an accurate representation of one of my little sisters):

Monday Reading List

Hugo's “Penetrate” v. “Engulf” and the multiple meanings of the “f” word: a note on feminist language:

In every women’s studies class I’ve taught here at PCC, and in many guest lectures about feminism I’ve given elsewhere, I use the “penetrate” versus “engulf” image to illustrate a basic point about the way in which our language constructs and maintains male aggression and female passivity. Even those who haven’t had heterosexual intercourse can, with only a small degree of imagination required, see how “envelop” might be just as accurate as “enter”.

Sady Doyle's The Edward Cullen Underpants Conundrum:

I mean, consider: Edward Cullen has no characteristics, as a person, other than wanting to “protect” Bella and being beautiful and gorgeous and perfect all the time. (And also an insufferable asshole, but that seems more like a mistake than a purposeful effort to give him a personality.) He has no goals in life other than being with Bella. He is over a hundred years old, and he’s never had sex with another person. He’s never wanted to have sex with another person. There is not and will never be a person or a thing or an event that is more important to him than (eventually) having sex with Bella. He is an object designed for the gratification of female desire. He’s the most ridiculous person who’s so amazing at everything, and he’s so beautiful you creamed yourself. And that’s it. And we’re used to dudes writing ladies this way, we’re even used to dudes writing ladies this way and passing it off as “literature,” but the idea of a female author writing a male character in this way, for the pleasure of other ladies, is profoundly disconcerting. Even to me! Because it’s backwards.

Filthy Grandeur's Presentations of violence and gender in the Twilight Novels:

Though all of the Cullens are stunningly attractive, there's a clear gendered difference in their appearances. The men are large, and strong, while the women are small and graceful. Though the women are also impeccably strong, they do not look it.

EAMD is an Angry White Girl:

First of all, I actually have no idea what, if any, of my university's admissions criteria involve race in any way. True, then I should not be arguing about them, but on the other hand, that is precisely the point--not a single goddamn one of those columns actually states how exactly race plays a role in admissions. My guess is because the writers and speculators on this campus don't actually have the slightest idea if or how race impacts admissions. They just use the assumption that it gives minority students a concrete advantage to spew unfounded bullshit about how "qualified white students" are being denied admission to make room for all the darkies who definitely wouldn't get in otherwise.

Meloukhia's Transgender Day of Remembrance:

Some people think that days of remembrance are a waste of time. Or they say that people should be thinking about this “all the time.”

Well, I do.

Every. Single. Day.

I think about it. I think about the people I haven’t known and never will know, now, because they are dead.

And I’d like you to do the same.

Because the thing about a day of remembrance is that it allows us to take a moment, together, as a collective, to acknowledge something.

From See Emily Blog, there's Books Critiquing America Series: Rethinking Thin:

Not too long ago, I thought that anyone who was overweight chose to be overweight, and that if they really wanted to be thin, they could. Many people still think this about the overweight and obese- why can’t they just eat less and exercise more? What’s keeping them from getting control of their lives? Well, according to Kolata’s book, this is a question that has been puzzling scientists for decades. And, spoiler alert, it’s rarely the obese person who is to blame for their weight.

And, because my first car handled exactly this way on ice (and snow, and sometimes rain...) a Zits comic:

Monday Reading List

Not The Man I Know by Cara:

This is the danger of making statements about what “the man I know” would and wouldn’t do. It places our own experiences with a person above those of a person with whom they have been violent. And it erases the fact that violence against women exists, that it is being committed right now as I write this, and that it’s being committed by men who we’ve gone to school with, been to dinner parties with, played on the playground with, by men who have been non-violent towards us, who have helped us, who have been nice to us.

Belonging Review: Dollhouse 2.04 from Maia:

Belonging wasn’t the fantasy of killing a rapist, there was a body and it traumatised Priya even more. The fight was messy, Priya had a normal person’s strength and was lucky. Although I’m sure I wasn’t the only one who shouted at the screen “Topher couldn’t you have helped by providing her with Kung Fu skills. But it wouldn’t have worked if he had. And after there was blood, a body, and very few options. There were still fantasy elements – Boyd arrived on cue with body disposal skills, but it was the reality, not the fantasy that we were left with. The scene, or story, didn’t end with her stabbing him.

How I Found Out I Was Politically Correct, a post only slightly marred by the misnaming Joss Whedon as Josh Whedon:

The next time someone complains about “political correctness”, listen close. Chances are they’re either talking about someone not knowing their place, or someone having the gall to tell the listener to act like a decent human being. “What‘s this chick robot doing in my show about walking dude robots? TOKENISM! Chew with my mouth closed? POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE WILD!” These folks are under the impression that they’re “edgy”. After all, what is more rare and groundbreaking than straight white dudes ragging on things? Sometimes I can go an entire day without hearing that! Assuming I don’t watch television or listen to radio or go on the internet, and also spend the entire day in the woods.

Only Those With Power Can Participate In Racism:

...if you're black, say, and engage in prejudiced opinions and behavior against white people, you are not participating in a power structure that systematically oppresses white people, because no such power structure exists. You are engaging in a singular act of prejudice that does not, in the end, change, effect, or even play into the balance of power.

Amanda's Looking at Releasing Dirty Pictures As A Form Of Sexual Assault:

Understanding that this kind of thing is a form of sexual assault also helps us understand how it’s victim-blaming to suggest that the girls deserve all this because they were foolish enough to take these pictures. Whether or not it’s wise to do this doesn’t diminish one bit the fact that it’s wrong to use these kinds of pictures to hurt and control young women. Indeed, the only reason that taking these kinds of pictures is reckless is because there’s so many wannabe sexual assailants out there, and they know that they won’t be held responsible if they perform their assaults by leaking these pictures. Just as rape creates a general loss of freedom for women, who have to control their associations and movements out of fear that it will happen, this form of sexual assault also creates a loss of freedom. In all cases, men should consider how this loss of freedom is wrong not just because it hurts women, but also because it hurts them. When women know that some assholes are out there, waiting to punish and humiliate you if you express yourself a little bit, you don’t express yourself. And the men who might be the beneficiaries of your enthusiastic, consensual self-expression don’t get that. In this case, every use of dirty pictures to punish and humiliate women results in more women deciding that they will never, ever take and send such pictures.

From Garfield Minus Garfield:

Monday Reading List

Girls Can Be Wild Things Too! by Lauren O. My favorite line is:

I was reading this month's issue of Spin, a magazine I will continue to receive long after I get even more bored with it than I already am because one of those door-to-door magazine-subscription salesman guilted me into it, and I am more susceptible to guilt-based pitches than anything else in the world because I was raised Christian.

But the more salient point is probably this one:

The fact is that when you live in a society that constantly portrays women as curious passive accessories to real humans, you're going to absorb that message to some extent, no matter how smart you are, and no matter how much time you spend studying and defending women's rights (not that that is something Steve Kandell probably does very often). I'm not going to pretend like I haven't been guilty of this, and I'm sure I'll catch myself doing it again in the future, thinking of white men as default humans and of the rest of us as deviations from the norm.

You Can Take Your "Just Joking" and Shove It by Andrea. Because I really, really hate it when someone says something wickedly offensive or insensitive, and when called out on it goes with the "just joking" defense instead of being an adult and actually apologizing for hir own myopic meanness.

Being Transgender Is Dishonest from silver unicorn at the Community at Feministing:

Transgender people don't fit into these ideas of gender, so we are dishonest always. I can't say I am female without being accused of lying about what my assigned biological sex. And I can't say I'm male, because that isn't my gender identity nor is how I'm usually perceived, so that of cause would make me dishonest as well. And I certainly couldn't say my gender identity is anything other than female or male, because those options don't even exist in a lot of people's eyes.

It's Been A Year Since Obama Ended Racism in America, and isn't that just great? My favorite part in it all is this:

Whenever a homeless white person asks me for change, I always sneer at him and say: “You can’t be serious. You’re white. Look at Bill Gates. Why don’t you go invent an operating system instead of trying to freeload off of society you lazy white man.”

Oh wait, I never say that. Because that would make me a giant prick.

But, again, well worth the read. Especially the part about how Obama is a giant dork. Cuz, yeah.

Why It's Awesome To Be a Joss Whedon Fan by pointy. Filled with fairy tale references:

So, were we talking about someone? Oh, yes. That writer. Too many TV writers intoxicate us with the literalized Little Red Riding Hood. Act I: Innocence is victimized. Act II: The hero identifies Evil Incarnate and does battle, as reasons to Kill It Kill It pile up. Act III: The Death Bringer is slain by the hero, and the community is restored to pure wholesome goodness. The good guys live, cuz they’re good! It’s amazing how many people think they’re watching realism when they’re told the latest rehash of this fairy tale, minus all the elements that clue a child in that it’s not real.

Thomas' Reductio:

I don’t think we have a society that is comfortable with women being large or containing multitudes. The survey Lauren links treats “mom” as if it encompasses the whole of the woman, defining her entirely. Women are expected to be one-dimensional, so that if a woman is a professional, and if she is also a mother, any sort of acknowledgement that she’s also a mom is seen as slightly or not-so-slightly inconsistent with her role as a professional.

The Kiva team Stuff You Should Know started has reached $17,700 worth of loans made in just over a month.

And, because I love mustard on my elbow noodles (which really grosses out my mother):

nataliedee.com

Monday Reading List

Lawyer Claims Rapist "Misread the Situation" by Cara. I think the title says it all.

Pussy, Pussy, Come Here! by Echidne.

From the Women Can't Win Files by Pilgrim Soul:

A female colleague of mine at work once remarked that when the elevator doors opened, she would often hear the group inside (if all male) fall silent, as though she had broken up the party. Small cues like that, dudes, are how you tell us you don’t think we get an equal share of the world. If you were making the kind of joke that would make a woman uncomfortable, the problem is not that she interrupted your fun. The problem is that you made the joke in the first place.

There's More To Life Than Marriage by MediaMaven.

Everything You Ever Loved Was Always Horrible, featuring: Short Circuit by Sady Doyle, who wittily and handily explores two movies I have never seen, owing at least in part to my weird-ass childhood where it was the odd thing I saw that wasn't produced by PBS or Jim Henson (and Short Circuit wasn't one of those). And then there's her point, choicely noted:

Because, you know, shit was fucked up. It continues to be fucked-up now, in fact! With any luck, our descendants will look back on our movies and be like, “Jesus, people WATCHED that? And didn’t get how TERRIBLE it was?” Because things will be better for them than they are for us, and they will get to take more for granted, which means we will all seem stupid and somewhat loathsome, which is as it should be.

Blaming the Gang Rape Victim by Tracy Clark-Flory:

She didn't deserve to be raped, but she was raped because she made some stupid mistakes.

It's such a convenient response, because every single day women do all sorts of things that seem reckless, especially after the fact of a crime against them. We leave our houses alone. We use underground parking garages and ride in elevators. We answer the door while we're home alone. We wear makeup. We wear clothing that doesn't hide our breasts and hips. We allow men in our lives, as family, lovers, friends and casual acquaintances. The list goes on and on.

And a comic from Toothpaste for Dinner that describes my life kind of perfectly.

toothpastefordinner.com

Monday Reading List

Thoughtful Masculinities (Theory & Practice) from Walking Vixen. Choice quote:

The frontier of gender, as I see it, is very much in deconstructing and radicalizing masculinities, it’s in really taking to heart the notion that “gender” doesn’t just mean women and trans-identified people.

Traditional Americans by Mustang Bobby, a rebuttal to Pat Buchanan's assertion that 'they' (namely white, middle class Christians) are "losing their country". Bobby's comeback:

You can't lose what you weren't entitled to think was yours alone. And you really can't lose what wasn't yours to take in the first place.

Right on. As an atheist, not having the Christian faith featured prominently in my school system helped give me a piece of My America, in a way my mother didn't have and my father didn't have, in the way my grandfather didn't have and my great-uncle and great-aunts didn't have.

Don't Let A Girl Beat You by Renee. I think the title is self-explanatory, but there is this idea that men are really the sporty ones and girls aren't. Still. And when a girl is really super good at a sport (or many of them), it seems like it is a personal affront to the guys playing against her.

Seven Scenes, For A Reason by Melissa. One of my close friends is what one would consider overweight. She is beautiful, healthy (until she discovered WebMD and began diagnosing herself), and she has a lot of jewelry. I have always thought of my friend as the Fashionista among us, because she always looks so well put-together. I've been envious of her gift since high school. But what occurs to me upon reading this is how she uses jewelry. She has a lot of jewelry; I don't. And now I wonder if what I saw as Fashionistaness, going above and beyond, is really just her spicing up what she can find - being a Fashionista out of necessity.

Things To Remember During the Fall Pledge Drive from Lawyers, Guns and Money. I don't like Ken Rudin. At all. I don't like Ken Rudin at all, and things like this are why. He grates me like very few others, and I much prefer his It's All Politics cohost Ron Elving. In this case, it is because comparing a president's actions to Nixon is kind of like comparing someone's actions to Hitler. Only in extreme circumstances does the comparison come close to illustrating reality, and only in rare moments are those specific hyperbolic statements useful. IE, not here. I'm not a fan of comparisons between Nixon and George W. Bush. I don't think Bush was as amoral as Nixon, I don't think Bush was as talented as Nixon, I don't think Bush was as successful as Nixon, and I think it demeans the truly historic and, frankly, horrific abuse of power and government Nixon perpetrated to drop his name willy nilly.

To whit, Weighing in on White House vs. Fox News: An Apology from Ken Rudin's Political Junkie blog. I still don't like him, but I begrudgingly offer Rudin's apology. If I have to give Rudin something, it is that he didn't go the "sorry if you found what I said/did offensive" route. But he did spend the first couple of paragraphs defending his position on Fox vs Obama Administration.

And, from xkcd:

A Post In Which I Review Dollhouse's "Belonging"

This episode could have been subtitled "What Makes the Nice Guys® So Dangerously Evil". And it was good. The angst, the origin story, the societal implications of demonstrating the horribleness of Nolan, Topher - it was all so good. And, I think it may have had a little something to do with the lack of Echo and the abso-fucking -lutely brilliant performances by Fran Kranz, Enver Gjokaj (of course!), and last but certainly nowhere near least, Dichen Lachman. Oh man. Sierra rocked.

But, since I consistently end with Topher, I'm going to start with him this week. What makes Topher so fascinating is that we are watching him "wake up". We are watching him make up his own moral system. More than watching those figures with compromised morality - Adelle, Boyd, Ballard - or watching those with an established morality - Echo - watching Topher evolve is a brilliant thing. That is partially because there are so few chances to actually watch someone come to morality. Usually, people we watch on television start with a moral code: they falter, they fall, their code shifts to encapsulate new data. But there has always been a code there. Topher has generally been proud of his lack of code, and was able to maintain that lack of code by a lack of contact. He could think of the Dolls as "hot chicks" or "toys". But once contact has been established, once he is pulled from being Science Guy, following orders to the person who has to think and explore and establish right and wrong for the people under his care, Topher runs right smack into morality. And he runs into seeing the Dolls as people, not simply as objects. When he tells Boyd Echo is the one who brought him the painting, tells Boyd that Echo has always been "mother hen" to Sierra, and Boyd asks pointedly if that is something Topher should look into, it flies right past. Because Topher is no longer thinking of Echo as a thing to be fixed but a person with reasons for acting. He is no longer thinking of Sierra as a potentially malfunctioning Doll but as a person with a problem - a problem he is complicit in continuing and one he is determined to solve.

Topher is as asleep as the Dolls wandering the halls. Topher is as able to "wake up" as the Dolls wandering the halls. And Adele's House mostly depends on both Topher and the Dolls not doing that. It isn't like this House is particularly free of the trials and tribulations of compromised engagements, mostly stemming from Echo. But it most definitely depends on the Dolls not evolving into self-aware entities, or Topher getting ooky about sending these people he now sees as people out on engagements. And Topher is getting ooky specifically because there is no one there to play that ooked out role for him now that Dr. Saunders/Whiskey has exited the building. In her, Topher created a safety net, a person who could have and act upon the moral code he lacked. He did it because, as he said, "If you agreed with everything I said, then we would miss something and someone would get hurt." But also, I think, because it allowed him to continue down his amoral path, unthinking of the consequences of his actions because he made sure someone else would be. The burden of being moral, of being vigilant, of caring, was placed on someone else's shoulders so that Topher wouldn't have to carry the load. With Saunders having now absconded with herself, Topher is alone with morally compromised people or immoral people. When he tries to reach out, to provoke some moral stance from one of his counterparts, he's not given what he needs. Instead, his lack of morality is met with the exact lack of judgement he doesn't need and can't work with or through:

TOPHER: You can't let them do this!
DEWITT: They're not going to do it. We are. And when I say we don't have a choice, know that I mean it.
TOPHER: Aren't we supposed to care for these people? Dr. Saunders would never have allowed...
DEWITT: Which Dr. Saunders would that be? (TOPHER RECOILS) The avuncular physician so brutally cut down not five feet from where you were standing? Or the last woman to whom you gave a permanent imprint? The other wounded flower you restored by offering her a new life? Who apparently found you so unbearable, she had to flee the city. Is it that one?
TOPHER: How can you expect me to do this?
ADELLE: You'll do it because you must. The cold reality is that everyone here was chosen because their morals have been compromised in some way. Everyone... except you. You, Topher, were chosen because you have no morals. You have always thought of people as playthings. This is not a judgement. You always take very good care of your toys. But you're simply going to have to let this one go.

And so he, rustily, having never done it before, starts to develop as the counterweight. And we all know (at least, those of us who watched Epitaph One) exactly how well that works out for him.

After attempting to prod Topher into looking further at Echo's problem-solving, art-interpreting, mother-henning tendencies in this hilarious scene (already discussed from the Topher Angle above):

BOYD: Is that where your hunch came from?
TOPHER: Yeah. It's Sierra's. Echo brought it to me. She was going on about a bad man. He's the blotch here, is what I'm getting.
BOYD: Echo brought it to you.
TOPHER: She's always been Mother Hen about Sierra.
BOYD: Should look into that.
TOPHER: I am! And so far, Echo's given me way more than you have.

Boyd decides to do some investigating himself. What he finds and how he reacts is one of the reasons I like Boyd, and yet don't trust Boyd. Boyd goes the same route of "If I don't do it, I am absolved" in the case of figuring out if the Dolls are beginning to evolve. Sending Topher after the intel wipes Boyd's hands clean if Topher comes back with an evaluation leading to a cleaning of Echo's slate or a more permanent home in the Attic. But if Boyd himself is forced to confront the reality of his former charge becoming more and more nascent, then his moral response shifts. He then responds with something more akin to protectiveness and solidarity, because he is forced to face the Echo he is protective of, the Echo he sees as a person, as extraordinary. Of course, I could be reading Boyd completely wrong and he could be the biggest backstabbing asshole in the world. It's up in the air at this point.

As for Echo, well, her lack of role in this episode made her brief moments kind of enjoyable. She had to do nothing other than be a semi-aware blank slate, so I'm sure that helped. But her evolution and her pushing others to evolve is actually - wait for it! - interesting.

BOYD: Echo, when did you learn how to lie?
ECHO: Am I in trouble?
BOYD: Not from me. But there are people who would be very upset if they knew what you were doing.
ECHO: Reading?
BOYD: You brought the painting to Topher. You're pushing. The Actives, the staff... What you're doing could have consequences you can't predict or control. Some people are not ready to wake up.
ECHO: I don't care. Something bad is coming, like a storm - and I want everyone to survive it. They need to wake up.

Maybe it is because Echo is treading upon familiar territory to Whedonites, the person (woman) pushing the story forward. It isn't exactly new ground, and yet it is familiarly comforting. It is where Whedon and his acolytes tend toward their most righteous, and I tend to agree with them. It is in the idea that we are all existing in Plato's cave, that we have to see the shadows for what they are and deal with the fact that the sun shining in our eyes hurts. Because the opposite is to remain chained to UnReality, and that leads to things like entire planets being decimated in the name of a Greater Good and creating monstrous cannibals or beautiful people being commodified in houses so the rich and powerful can pay to play in their own personal Utopian fantasies. And that? Isn't so great for the poor, unconnected individuals who have to live in that world with those forces.

And now, Sierra. A while ago, Emily at See Emily Blog wrote about George Sondini, and Kate Harding's No More Mr. Nice Guy article. Why am I bringing this up? Because one of the first scenes in Belonging is:

NOLAN: Sneaking out?
PRIYA: I was just looking for you to say goodbye.
NOLAN: Why are you so eager to leave? I mean, everyone is here to adore you.
PRIYA: Enjoy the painting, Nolan.
NOLAN: Come on, come on. Stay a little longer, Priya.
PRIYA: The painting's yours. My job here is done. I'm going now.
NOLAN: Why? So you can give it up to some guy you just met?
...
NOLAN: I've pulled out all the stops. I mean, this is our big night. We've, we've, we've -
PRIYA: No, this isn't our night.
NOLAN: We've planned for this.
PRIYA: There's no we.
NOLAN: No, look, I have - I've offered you everything. What else do you want?
PRIYA: I want to walk out the damn door.
NOLAN (stopping her from walking out the damn door): Hey. What did you expect, huh? Day after day, just dangling it in front of my face, seducing me.
PRIYA: Seducing? You're crazy, Nolan. It's all in your head. Get off me!
NOLAN: I'm sorry. I'm not going to take no for an answer. Alright? I'll do anything.
PRIYA: Stop it! You disgust me. Nothing in this world could ever make me love you.

And the tension I felt, sitting on my couch, just praying (figuratively, of course) Priya wouldn't be quite so wonderfully assertive, wouldn't be quite so open and honest with her very own Nice Guy®, stems from what Emily writes, namely

In the times I’ve been alone, I definitely don’t want to risk making the man angry, or having him come after me in any way. I’m sure few, if any, of these men were capable of violence, but it wasn’t a risk I was willing to take, even if some of them deserved a firm “leave me alone right now.”

Being assertive, being unwilling to smile demurely and go along with the uncomfortable levels of attention and uncalled for expectations of ownership, sometimes takes a horrific turn. Not that every girl ends up pumped full of anti-psychotics and then mind-wiped and brain-washed, but the threat of violence, of retaliation and retribution for something you haven't done is very real. And it is there. And every time a guy goes to the equivalent of, "But I did X,Y, & Z, so why didn't she fall into my bed?" it demonstrates the idea that women can be bought, can be controlled, and can be persuaded to stay, to love, and to give a lot of sex to people they Just. Aren't. Attracted. To.

But what I like about this is, well, how clearly it lays out the whole Nice Guy® thing. Becoming makes it absolutely clear Nolan is someone who, actually, doesn't like women very much. And that's highlighted by the Confrontation Scene:

PRIYA: I'm not your lab rat any more, Nolan. I'm free, clear-headed. It feels good.
NOLAN: What, and you uh, came here to get revenge for a year of loving every minute of it?
PRIYA: Did I love it? Must not have been very memorable. I remember you poisoning me, locking me up, but I have not a single memory of the year where I apparently liked you.
NOLAN: Oh, we-we had some good times.
PRIYA: Mmm, I got filled in on all the details. Brainwashing. Talk about desperate. You know, they even programmed me to think it was endearing how quick you were.
NOLAN: You were mine.
PRIYA: I'm sorry. I don't think I was faithful to you.
NOLAN: Yeah, I let them whore you out to anyone.
PRIYA: No, it's something else. It's someone uh, someone I trust. He helps me. He thrills me
NOLAN: Yeah, I know, see, it worked. You told me that you love me a hundred times. I changed you.
PRIYA: No, it's not you. I managed to fall for someone else.
NOLAN: You think this is cute?
PRIYA: It's absurd. I don't remember meeting him or even spending a moment with him. But I can feel it stronger than anything. I'm crazy about him! I love him so much more than I hate you.

The vitriol Nolan spews at Priya when he says, "Yeah, I let them whore you out to anyone" is not the typical statement of someone who loves women, or even a specific woman. It is someone who thinks you can dirty a woman by making her have a lot of sex. It is someone who thinks that victimizing a woman somehow demeans and delegitimatizes her. It is someone who is very clearly not a nice guy; instead, he's just a guy who is willing to spend a lot of money on objects for someone he considers his own object. Kind of like buying outfits and accessories for your Build-A-Bear. He - and those Nice Guys® like him - fancy that they are bringing some pleasure to this person they want, that the pleasure they supply somehow gives them power and control over that person, and that if the person rejects the gifts or rejects the man after accepting the gifts, she has not followed protocol and deserves to be punished. Because, obviously, the very act of lusting after a woman means that she (a) intended you to, and (b) you have an implicit right to her - her attention and her body. That person? Is the epitome of not a nice guy. And watching Priya, being made to see the world and story through Priya, makes it clear exactly how not nice a guy, how creepy, that guy really is.

Things of Note:

• Dichen Lachman is incredible. Going from Priya to Wiped Sierra, there was palpable change on screen. I'm still on the "Yay Ra-Ra Enver Gjokaj" team, but Dichen is quickly creeping up on the Whoa Factor.
• What in the hell was Priya thinking, in the whole not tying Nolan up first before confronting him?
• "We gotta run. We gotta run. We've gotta get out of here." Was Topher preparing to run completely away with Priya? If Boyd hadn't shown up, would there be three members of the Dollhouse "going rogue" (sorry, I couldn't help myself) this season?
• Topher on telling Adelle about Priya: "We gotta tell her. She's gonna flip her biscuits. Unless she already knows..." In the beginning, Topher declared you couldn't have a conspiracy theory while in the employe of the conspiracy (per the unaired episode). I guess those days are gone.
• So many backward references! Awesome!
• Sierra and Victor's love! Aw!
• I'm impressed if anyone made it this far into the post.

And, done.

Grade: A+

Quote(s) of the Episode:

PRIYA: Am I allowed to have beer in here? Or is this my last one?
TOPHER: No, you're allowed. On special occasions.

Happiness and Women

From Judith Warner, When We're Equal, We'll Be Happy, about the (un)happiness studies done lately finding that women are less happy today than they have been in the past:

The wage gap persists, particularly for mothers, who now earn 73 cents for every
man’s dollar. Our workforce and education system is still sex-segregated,
operating along generations-old stereotypes that steer most women into low-paid,
low-status, low-security professions. Women pay more for health insurance than
men, have more extensive health needs than men, and suffer unique forms of
discrimination in their coverage. (Women may be denied coverage because they had
a Caesarean delivery or were victims of domestic violence — both “preexisting
conditions.”) Regardless of the number of hours they work, they continue to do
far more caretaking and housekeeping work at home than do their husbands. And
discrimination against mothers (but not fathers) in the workplace is all but
ubiquitous.

These are not happy-making developments. And they’re not
failures of feminism. They are instead indicators of all the ways in which
society has failed women, most importantly — and this comes up time and time
again, in every section of the report — by failing to address the needs of
working families.

I haven't been interested in writing about the happiness gap simply because the response to it was so mind-numbingly expected ("feminism makes women unhappy!") that it was just an eye-rolling subject that other bloggers more than deftly handled. But Warner's contribution is the non-snarky antidote to the misplaced concern these types of surveys brought to the surface. I highly recommend reading the whole thing.

Monday Reading List

From coffeeyogurt, health reform from a provider's perspective.

Emily's doing a series about domestic violence, stemming from her volunteering at a DV shelter and because it's Domestic Violence Awareness month. So, Domestic Violence Awareness Month: Overview & "Why Do They Stay?" and Domestic Violence Awareness Month: Children's Issues.

At Unapologetically Mundane, there is a hilarious post about Terror on the Elevator. The elevator is one of my weird, slightly-more-rational-fears (the irrational ones being about mummies and mannequins), not because of the small space but because it is a small space other people get into and a small space from which you can't get out until it gets to your (or, more precisely, a) designated floor.

From Feministe: Jon Stewart takes on GOP opposition to the Franken anti-rape legislation. Because Jon Stewart rocks. Like, a lot.

And from What Tami Said, there is this: Dispatches from Nappyville: What Is "Good Hair", Anyway? Plus, a continuation of the theme with Newsweek Attacks Black Toddler , Calls Her Hair a Hot Mess - Leave Zaraha ALONE from What About Our Daughters?

Monday Reading List

"My Tits Are Real; So Is My Penis" by Rebecca. I like the internal debate being waged over whether to be out as a trans woman all the time, or if she can some days just be, just pass and not have to be on guard for the questions or comments (or violence) that may come. Me, I'm in support of having a day off, of having the ability to say, "I am not in the necessary place to fight this battle today", of having the ability to say, "This is not a safe space for me to have this discussion, to acknowledge my difference". Galina of Oh, You're a Feminist?! comes to this internal tension from a different perspective, and discusses her own decision to 'out' herself via her tattoos (as well as just ruminating about her tattoos) over at Female Impersonator.

Cacophonies ponders the Micro vs. Macro divide in talking about feminism and breaking down of privilege.

Echnide's post on Sleeping Beauty is one I like a lot, because I was fairly well obsessed with fairy tales as a kid. Not Hans Christian Anderson, because his were generally friggin' scary as all get out. But the Brothers Grimm fairy tales, those I loved.

Rape Culture 101 by Melissa McEwan, with a whole host of links, is one of the most comprehensive readings on exactly what Rape Culture is. Its definition isn't about feminists denying women agency, and it isn't about feminists making men the singular horrific thing in our universe. It isn't about all men being rapists; it isn't about all women being victims of rape. It is about a cultural norm surrounding sexual violence - and how we react to that sexual violence when it is presented to us. Some are more engrained in it than others; those people who love Tucker Max? More entrenched. Those of us who live on rom-coms and can get through most of them without retching (*waves*)? Pretty well entrenched. What's often missing from discussions like this is the balance between the agency of the individual and the influence of society/culture. The reason for that seems to be pretty clear to me; that break down is on an individual level, and can change rapidly depending upon the subject within the overall discussion. That discussion is about how the micro interacts with the macro, and that is - in many cases - a discussion that is deeply personal.

Schrödinger’s Rapist kind of follows the above. I like the idea of Schrödinger’s Rapist being how we discuss rape and how we talk to women about rape; I like the article linked a lot as well, even though it does have some problems. But I think that this is an implication often lost when discussing rape. When feminists talk about how every man is a potential rapist, there is an (oftentimes erroneous) implication that what feminists mean is that every man could rape you at any given moment and that no man is to be trusted not to rape. But I don't think that is the correct reading. The idea isn't that every man would rape given the chance or that every man has the potential to rape; it is that because women are often given the responsibility to prevent themselves from being raped, and because there are no helpful signs clearly labeling rapists (like, stickies that say "RAPIST: STAY AWAY!!"), then every man you meet may be the guy who rapes. It isn't that every guy is a rapist or has raped; it is that it is impossible to tell - like it is (theoretically) impossible to tell whether the cat in Schrödinger’s box is alive or dead. So, Schrödinger's Rapist is all about not being able to crack open that box.

Racialicious Loves OK Cupid... and Of OKCupid and Denials of Racism break down the data from the internet dating site and discuss what it means in terms of race and gender.

And, because the fall is my favorite season, Autumn is Beautiful (stolen from Coffee Shop Philosophy's Sunday Links).

PWDTICTJOOOTSBTAJWBKOAB

I'm a member of the political action group "People Who Don’t Think It’s Cool For Criminals To Just Opt Out Of Their Sentencing Because They’re Afraid Jail Would Be Kind Of A Bummer (PWDTICTJOOOTSBTAJWBKOAB, for short)". Our leader is Sady from Tiger Beatdown. Read the rest of her piece, because it is, as usual, HIlarious.

All Things Equal...

A long while ago, my friend posted a link in the comments section of this post, saying, "I think men and women are equally likely to be harassed. And women are only slightly more likely to be stalked." And he may be correct, in the definition of harassment the report he cited used. But I was talking about street harassment, the kind I detailed before, and the kind that has seemingly ignited a firestorm of posts from places like Racialicious and Feministe and The Angry Black Woman (twice) and Blog of Champions, as well as those that were linked in my previous piece. What I'm saying is, street harassment, otherwise known as cat calling, is a problem. And it is a problem that isn't unique to women (in that it can and does happen to men as well) but its effects are unique to women. What I'm saying here is that even if the amount of cat calling was theoretically 50/50 - if that was completely equal - the issue would still present a unique problem for women men don't typically face.

This same friend brought up the emerging market of sexually objectifying men on posters and in advertisements our junior year of college, and I argued my point - with various pictures of Johnny Depp and Orlando Bloom and my poster of Josh Hartnett (I never said I wasn't hypocritical) - that just because women are starting to do it too in greater numbers doesn't mean that it's right. That it is equally wrong to do turn men into sexual objects as it is to turn women into sexual objects. But right there? I missed my winning argument completely (even if it wouldn't have been the argument that won him over), the argument I would have felt strong and confident in making, because what I should have said is that men and women aren't treated equally, aren't seen as equals, aren't valued in the same ways in the same spaces. And yes, men shouldn't be reduced to muscular arms and flat, tan stomachs and shouldn't begin to enter the world of debasement women have been living in for such a long time, that reaching equality at the lowest common denominator is no way to reach equality. But that men - white men, I should specify - are still generally seen first and foremost as people. Therefore, being reduced to an object is still a terrible thing, but its cultural impact is not the same if the same image is with a woman. Because, as much as I wish all things were equal, women are still primarily seen as bodies first. It is a function of not being seen or treated as equals, the differing levels of impact. A ubiquitousness of semi-nude guys on posters is a problem, partially because it turns the guy into an object and partially because it creates a negative body image for many men and can lead to eating disorders, which is never good. But women are still generally reduced to objects for consumption. The most important thing isn't whether or not the woman in question is good at X,Y or Z. It is whether or not she is attractive. Take, for instance, Jessica Lange - who's arms are too flabby for the San Francisco Chronicle. This isn't something that was said of, say, Philip Seymour Hoffman, was it? I don't think so. Meanwhile, Peter Bart of Variety compares two female directors by saying,

Jane Campion, 55, made a quintessentially romantic picture in “Bright Star,” but in person she is cerebral, somewhat severe, leans toward post-hippie attire and seems perplexed by the rigors of the award circuit. Kathryn Bigelow, 57, is tall, model thin, a one-time art student whose gracious manner belies her proclivity for tense, even violent films – “The Hurt Locker” is her contender.

As Melissa Silverstein of Women & Hollywood (who gets a h/t for this) asks, "Would anyone EVER think to write this about a male director?" I'm guessing, "no". I'm guessing, and it may be a stretch, that when the nominated (or in the running for being nominated) male directors are compared, their looks and attire aren't really given much thought and weight. And that's where the big deal lies. Because although the trite phrase is "clothes make the man", clothes - and looks - define the woman. Are there men whose looks (and weight) are criticized? Yes. Are there women who are generally left alone about their looks? I don't know of any off of the top of my head, but I'm sure there must be. However. The exception of a few men who have to deal with this shit and the few women who don't doesn't disprove the rule. And the rule is, women have to deal with more shit when it comes to people policing their bodies.

Which brings us back to street harassment. My friend's report seems to be looking at conventional harassment - like what I do when I constantly pull him out of the line up to spark a huge blog post. It probably gets to the point of harassment at times. Street harassment is the little "hey baby"s women get throughout the day. The wolf whistles, the "Where's your boyfriend at?"s the "Smile"s, and on and on and on. Cat calling. I read the report, and didn't see any indication this kind of "low level" harassment is included in the numbers. But. Suppose it were. Suppose men have to deal with women groping their crotches on the subway and asking where their girlfriends are on the street, or shouting out, "Damn, honey, you're looking good" when they're wearing their grimiest clothing because they're just running out to pick up a pizza. Even with that being equal, men still have more power, both physical and in terms of their place in society. Thea Lim explains it incredibly well in the comments on the Racialicious piece I linked above, saying,

It’s like any number of racial slurs that white folks call POCs – there is no racial slur for white folks that is an equivalent. Because white folks are the dominant culture, and the point of a slur is to “put people in their place.” If your place is top of the food chain, nothing that a person below you says can cause the same hurt, as you can cause to them.
On its most basic level, what street harassment from men to women does is remind women of their place. It reminds them that – as Ndidi so eloquently pointed out – you can be an accomplished, intelligent and complex person, but to the world at large women are only valued based on their eff-ability.
I teach freshmen and had a problem with a student who persisted in making approving comments of the way I dressed. I spoke to several different people about this, and almost all the men I spoke to said something along the lines of “Tell him it’s flattering but inappropriate.”
They all assumed that any woman must be flattered to be told she is attractive.
It is NOT flattering. It is dehumanising and – whether or not the men realise it – it is profoundly deflating. You are reminded over and over and you have absolutely no value to the world – beyond the sexual pleasure you might bring to a man.
There’s no quick quip, no reversal of this situation that can establish that.
Think of it this way: could you make a movie that would show white folks how it feels to be a man of colour facing racism, simply by portraying a universe where white folks don’t have power?
I don’t think you can – as long as we live in a world where skin colour and gender is a determinant of power, you could make 100 films flipping the binary and it wouldn’t illustrate anything to anyone – who didn’t already get it.

That's really the problem. Men are starting from a place where their worth is, for the most part, established. Their place on the chain of deciding who is fuckable and who is not is not is not suspect. Their control of the public space is tantamount. And yes, cat calling may seem like it is at times just delivering complements - at high volume - to women walking down the street. But the question becomes why did the cat caller think s/he had the right (or responsibility) to give his approval to the callee in question in the first place? It is because his/her perceived right to the callee's attention is more important than the callee's right to be left the hell alone and to be treated as a human being and not a fuckable body. The fact that the cat caller's right ever supersedes the callee's right to exist without being called out to is a problem in and of itself. The fact that it is not recognized as a problem, and that it is a large scale one facing a multitude of women, is even more troubling.

For men, street harassment may be prevalent, and it should be fought against for the same reason treating men as sex objects on posters and magazines should be fought against - because equality in negative treatment isn't the equality we're fighting to achieve. But street harassment for men doesn't carry with it the same "private sphere - public sphere" baggage, doesn't carry the same weight that being consistently being seen as a sexual (or sexualized) object does for women. And again, there are women for whom cat calling doesn't happen. There are women who are barred from the sexualized object camp. And there are men who are treated as such often and who are perceived to be more sexual plaything than human being. But for the most part, even if the rate of cat calling is equal (and I really don't believe that it is), the fact that the rest of society is not equal means there is disparate impact amongst men and women. And that needs to be acknowledged if we want a fuller, more nuanced look at what happens and why.

Also, for your viewing pleasure, two videos about street harassment:

I love them both.

Another Must Read

This post is incredible:

So we learn the rules will protect us. We learn that, when we step out of line, somebody around us might very well turn crazy. Might hurt us. And we won’t be defended by onlookers, who think we’ve provoked the crazy somehow. So, having your ass grabbed at the bus stop, having to go out to dinner with a guy you fucking can’t stand, maybe even having to fuck him once or twice, it’s a small sacrifice to avoid being ostracized, insulted, verbally abused, and possibly physically assaulted.

It’s a rude fucking awakening when a woman gets raped, and follows the rules she has been taught her whole life — doesn’t refuse to talk, doesn’t refuse to flirt, doesn’t walk away ignoring him, doesn’t hit, doesn’t scream, doesn’t fight, doesn’t raise her voice, doesn’t deny she liked kissing — and finds out after that she is now to blame for the rape. She followed the rules. The rules that were supposed to keep the rape from happening. The rules that would keep her from being fair game for verbal and physical abuse. Breaking the rules is supposed to result in punishment, not following them. For every time she lowered her voice, let go of a boundary, didn’t move away, let her needs be conveniently misinterpreted, and was given positive reinforcement and a place in society, she is now being told that all that was wrong, this one time, and she should have known that, duh.

Well worth the time it takes to read.

"Better Check That Calendar On The Fridge To Find Out If Its YOUR Birthday!"

It has been a long time since I posted a Sarah Haskins video. I'm a terrible person. But here's the latest one, which I (of course) love:


Crankosaur had a great post about this very thing a long while ago, and I think that between the two, both she and Sarah Haskins sum just about everything up.

How Awesome Is This?

NPR has made available free 12 song samplers for each of the two music festivals taking up residence in Newport, Rhode Island (which may or may not have changed its name recently from the long, cumbersome, and obscure "State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations" to the more well-known and shorter "Rhode Island").

If you have iTunes, I highly recommend downloading them. If you don't have iTunes, I highly recommend getting iTunes and then downloading them.

Two Cool Posts

I was thinking about starting a Sunday Links post, like all the cool blogs do - but then I got lazy and didn't compile a list of links and didn't post the links I did think to mark, and then it was no longer Sunday but Monday and I gave up on the whole thing.

I also, maybe, might have consumed too much coffee today, because I'm still fairly hyper.

That being said, there are two posts that I wanted to highlight.

Reflections on a Gold Bikini, about Princess Leia and the lust that one particular outfit generates (excerpt):

And therein lies the crux of the fanboy lust issue for me. For all that so many of them say they love Leia for her strength, the fantasy focuses on the 10 minutes out of three films when she is forced into submission. The iconic image of sexy Return of the Jedi Leia is one of subjugation and powerlessness. In focusing their desire and fantasy on the gold bikini, the fanboys are identifying not with Han, who loves and desires Leia as a complete and autonomous person, but with Jabba, who sees her as a possession and a decorative object.

I'm sure that a lot of the lust directed at Leia in that moment is due to the massive amount of skin Carrie Fisher was exposing in that scene, and the fact that Fisher wasn't almost naked in any other part of the trilogy. But I do think that the reason why she was almost naked is almost as important. It may not be a conscious choice to be Jabba instead of Han when evaluating the hotness of Leia, but I think the point Melusine makes regarding Leia's autonomy - or lack of it - in choosing that particular outfit makes the reverence that gold bikini generates more than a little squicky is well worth considering.

Then there is a post from Sady regarding Megan Fox, called Megan Fox: Sex Symbol, Mouthy Slut, Or Something Else Entirely (excerpt):

This is what we do to women: tell them to be hot, sexy, sexual. We consistently define women’s worth around their bodies, around how attractive they are. Then, when a woman actually goes for it, and makes bank with her sexuality or her looks, we tell her that she can never be anything else. That she should have been a “good girl” all along. That, having played the game, she can never express an opinion about it: We like you better with your mouth shut.

What’s most disheartening about the Megan Fox coverage is that a lot of the harshest statements seem to come from women, and often, as in the case of Zelda Lily, in the name of “feminism.” It’s hard to tell exactly what feminism means these days, but I’m pretty sure telling women that they should be seen and not heard – saying that they can be “good,” non-sexual girls who are allowed to think, or sex objects who remain passive, vacant, and acquiescent – ain’t it.

I have to admit that I am not a Megan Fox lover - or hater. I've seen her in exactly two things, the first Transformers and an episode of the Amanda Bynes show What I Like About You, in which she had a bit part and where I recognized her only due to previously watching Transformers.

That being said, when I first read about the remark Fox made to Entertainment Weekly, that being:

I mean, I can’t s— on this movie [Transformers] because it did give me a career and open all these doors for me. But I don’t want to blow smoke up people’s a–. People are well aware that this is not a movie about acting.

I was genuinely surprised that it could (or would) create that much of an uproar. It seemed like a pretty duh statement. Transformers, whatever else it might be, is not an actors' film. It is about the coolness of giant robots (while forgetting to give them actual parts, because that might make it a film that needs a bit of acting), and things blowing up. It is an adrenaline ride. I haven't seen the second one yet, but that's what the first one was and that is what most Michael Bay films are. And that's not really a problem, because those movies are fun for what they are. But apparently, pointing that out is a hate-worthy offense.

A Must Read

This post about rape jokes:

So when rape is not depicted as a serious act, something that affects real people, something that women live with for the rest of their lives (because women aren’t real people), of course it’s not considered a serious topic. The stereotypical representation of rape is as serious as a fat waddling Southern man with a belt the size of a hula hoop. So when we trot out rape a a topic, unless the audience has personal experience with rape, we are all thinking of the Lifetime channel, or some hot hot scene from a movie, or angry-faced women on the news marching down the street all frumpy and queer. Of course it generates nervous giggles, and “edgy” humor, and is allowable conversation for not-so-secret misogynists — that’s what the cultural depiction of rape is meant to do. Humor that is degrading or offensive to oppressed populations has always operated as a pressure release valve for the things we know we are not “supposed” to say or think anymore. You might not be able to say you really don’t think 1 in 4 women are actually being raped, and if they are, they probably deserved it, and there are some circumstances where rape is okay – but you can sure as shit make a joke about it! And if somebody objects, well, here’s the built-in beauty of an oppressive system: that somebody is probably going to be a member of the oppressed class you are mocking. And it’s very easy to dismiss the opinions of oppressed populations. If we valued the thoughts, feelings, and desires of oppressed populations, we wouldn’t be able to rationalize and minimize the rape, torture, and murder of them.

It is an engrossing. long, incredible piece.