#ididnotreport

If you have a twitter account please go to #ididnotreport. There is also a sister hashtag #ididreport that kind of explains why there are so many stories on #ididnotreport. I have to say there is a strong TRIGGER WARNING for sexual assault, harassment, abuse and domestic violence. These are women giving reasons why they did not report their assaults. It can be overwhelming and devastating. I, myself, have given over 25 #ididnotreports. It's both cathartic and depressing for me how easily it flows from me.

People are also keeping an archive of it here for those of you without a twitter account. It hasn't been updated tonight, but I'm sure they'll get on that when they awaken.

NOW's media Hall of Shame

What sexism? Visit the Hall of Shame here.

Some of my favourites that I missed this campaign season:

Andrew Sullivan from The Atlantic:

“The second bout of public tears just before a crucial primary vote - after no evidence that Senator Hillary Clinton has a history of tearing up in front of the cameras - provokes the unavoidable question: should feminists actively vote against Clinton to defend the cause of female equality?”

WHAT. THE. FUCK. How does one imply the other? What does that have to do with female equality? I'm actually speechless on this one.

Charlotte Allen in the Washington Post

“Women ‘are only children of a larger growth,’ wrote the 18th-century Earl of Chesterfield. Could he have been right? … By all measures, Hillary Clinton has run one of the worst – and, yes, stupidest – presidential races in recent history, marred by every stereotypical flaw of the female sex… . What is it about us women? Why do we always fall for the hysterical, the superficial and the gooily sentimental? … I don’t understand why more women don’t relax, enjoy the innate abilities most of us possess (as well as the ones fewer of us possess) and revel in the things most important to life at which nearly all of us excel: tenderness toward children and men and the weak and the ability to make a house a home… . Then we could shriek and swoon and gossip and read chick lit to our hearts’ content and not mind the fact that way down deep, we are … kind of dim.”

Internalized sexism anyone? Yes let's reinforce the entirely false stereotypes of femininity and womanhood. These are complete lies about what women are capable of that were created by this patriarchal society and do nothing but continue to reinforce women's oppression. Yes some women may choose to do these things, but to say that it is innate behaviour is on par with saying that blacks are naturally inferior to whites. It just. ain't. true. and is a lie propagated by the white male patriarchy to justify oppression of all non-white and non-male people. (Not to mention the laundry list of other oppressions of people who deviate from what the powers that be define as "normal," i.e. people with disAbilities, homosexuals, etc.) Yes please set us back to Victorian notions of women as weak, stupid creatures that can do nothing more then tend to the home. (Though of course this only applied to women of some means, and ones who were white at that.)

By the way, according to her I am not a woman, which by her definition is just fine by me. And my partner makes a much better househusband then I make a housewife. He's the one who cleans the house (I don't scrub the kitchen floor on my hands and knees/clean good enough), he irons his shirts (what? people still do that?), he cooks all the time (by choice fyi), and doesn't like my style of throw everything into the washing machine without separating (I do it when he's not around though). So is he less of a man?

As for that last sentence, do I really have to name all of the accomplishments of women or the fact that there are an amazing amount of smart women out there, the fact that we are graduating college at higher rates then men. Women have always been overlooked for their intelligence. For instance from the letters between them it has been revealed that Mileva Marić, Einstein's first wife, contributed equally to the theory of Special Relativity so much so that he gave all his Nobel Prize money to her. This line of thinking almost kept Elizabeth Blackwell, who was let into medical school b/c they thought her application was a practical joke, from becoming the first modern female doctor who then set up a practice in the slums of New York City (because she was denied by all other practices in the city because of her sex), trained nurses to help during the Civil War and went on to inspire and teach women to become doctors themselves.

It is this kind of reasoning that was used to justify denying us the vote. It was this kind of reasoning to deny women from entering universities and male professions. It is this reasoning that keeps us from earning the same amount as men do, that keeps women from being offered tenure track positions at the same rate men are, etc, etc. But somehow we weren't so dim and weak (swoony) during WWII when they needed us in the factories, or again when you are working class or working poor you are apparently not a woman since you are working and a lot of times in crappy labor intensive jobs (a few of my old factory jobs come to mind *shudder*)

Yeah, well, FUCK YOU.

Friday afternoon political blogging

Before I disappear into the delightful world of my friend Jhayne in Vancouver. Trust me, it's unlike the rest of Vancouver. You lose track of time, days, everything. I'm so glad school is over. Summer of knitting, trying to squeak by on SSI-D (I have enough yarn to last a lifetime so I'm good with that and a few odd jobs-mowing a lawn for 2 weeks possibly more depending on their vacation, weeding which is in jeopardy b/c they are having money problems too and selling plasma, wheeeeeeeeeee! I'm gonna try and use my ticket to work from SSA, but employers aren't really keen on someone who has a lot of health related issues that may or may not be able to come into work regularly. Awesome. Any ideas?)

Anyhow, back to some thoughts that were brought up by pocochina's post highlighted below.




Highlights from pocochina at Hillary1000's Post Primary Thoughts

I’m pissed at the classism of this campaign. It’s not even that the Democratic Party is taking the working class for granted any more - no, according to Donna Brazile, we don’t want the working class any more. Sending out Harry & Louise flyers, ignoring the rural poor, giving up on true universal health care. A party that turns its back on the sick and the poor is a party that does not deserve power. We’ve been saying that about Republicans for years. We have met that enemy, and it is now ourselves.

...

I’m pissed at the blatant misogyny of coverage of the campaign. I’m pissed at people who should know better - who acknowledge other people’s sexism, who can cast an accusing finger at the entire horrible media, but can then turn around, utterly free of irony, and utter, “but he just inspires me,” or some other sufficiently vague, comforting reason to not check one’s own sexism. You know, it feels a bit ridiculous now, with my highly partisan perspective on the campaign, but I did a lot of soul searching to make sure that I wasn’t just voting based on whiteness or femaleness, and I did it relatively frequently - though less so as the campaign went on and only one candidate acted as if she actually wanted my votes. The bottom line was that I trusted her views on government (we have it, so let’s use it, and do so in a way that helps as many people as possible, and then next time let’s do better) more than his (hope!(TM) change!(C)); that her health care plan was better; that while his reproductive rights record was more than satisfactory, hers showed nuance and leadership. And those, in the bottom line, are the reasons I went for Senator Clinton. I am deeply fortunate to have access to the pro-Obama voices of POC who forced me to take that look into myself.

....

I’m pissed at Barack Obama for his misogyny. I can understand - though I do not condone - why he did not apologize for his own fuckups on that score. But he had not one, not two, but three clear opportunities to distance himself from the hate speech of others, and he did not. He could have taken a moment - just a fraction of a breath - in his many condemnations of Rev. Wright - whom he could no more disown than the black community, until of course he did just that - to say “by the way, the personal attacks on my opponent are not worthy of my church, my party, or my country.” He did not. He could have said the same when distancing himself from Father Phlegler. He did not. He was careful to condemn so-called divisive rhetoric which did nothing but tell the truth about the drug war, allegedly un-American comments which would (and, of course, still will, for there is no escaping the Republican Attack Machine) make him look bad, and he could not be bothered to condemn hate speech against a colleague. He could have said the same when he issued his departure from his church and he did not.

Were an observer from Mars to judge the man by his public statements in these moments of crisis, that Martian observer would be quite rational to conclude that his need to see Senator Clinton abused means more to him than his faith. I expect that from Republicans. I expected better from Democrats. I no longer can.

....

I’m pissed at feminists who decided their feminism didn’t extend to That Bitch. I want to be clear, I’m not talking about feminists who, in good faith, decided that they wanted to support Obama, Edwards, Dodd, or whoever else. I am the first to state openly that reasonable people could have come to different decisions on that. I’m talking about feminists who, usually incisive and merciless in their rejection of expected gender roles, uncritically accept the Nasty Harpy narrative about Senator Clinton. I expect feminists to be able to step back and say, “well, knowing what I know about how I, and everyone around me, and in particular the chattering heads paid to tell me what to think about this campaign, have been conditioned in my expectations of female behavior, I am going to be critical of how I process this election.” For a lot of feminists (Edwards and Obama supporters as much as Clinton supporters) that happened; for a lot of them, it didn’t. I saw one feminist blogger say of Clinton’s suspension speech only, “Best speech of her political career.” The best speech of a thirty five year career of one of the most brilliant women in modern public life just so happens to be her concession? We’d be unbelievably suspicious of such an assessment about any other woman’s career - but it was Hillary, so it’s okay. It’s nauseating from a babbling jowl show - it is heartbreaking from a feminist. And the wheel turns, and a woman’s career is at its apex when she submits to a man.

They have drawn race as black and white. This is patently ridiculous. I’m not linking to anyone who makes the claim that - essentially - white women are the only ones who liked HRC, we should just stop whining and suck it up, POC are thrilled about Obama and we are just entitled bitches. It is true that Black Americans overwhelmingly - though far from universally - preferred Obama. But this erases the huge numbers of brown women - Asian-American, Hispanic-American, in huge numbers, at least where the pollsters bothered - and men as well, who knew that they are not invisible to her. Those claims are out there, though. I’m thrilled for African-Americans who see themselves in Senator Obama. But I do not ever condone the erasure of anyone because they are inconvenient to a political agenda. I have been proud to call these women ally and sometimes, presumptively, friend. I’ve talked before about my frustration with this erasure, but with Clinton supporters - neither all white nor all male - so offended by this campaign they have decided the Democratic Party is no longer their home, the erasure has reached fever pitch. I do not begrudge Obama supporters their excitement. I do not understand the need to begrudge us our grief.

I think that non-feminist Obama supporters, and particularly male non-feminist Obama supporters, have this idea that we are just irrationally angry, our feelings are hurt and we should get over it or we’re just silly, don’t we know how bad McCain is, maybe they’ll just tell us one more time. The choice not to support Obama is a long-run rational choice. Right now, there is a party that hates women all the time, and a party that used to humor us, but hates us when it is convenient. It is our job to never, ever let it be convenient again, or there will be no one in government advocating for our rights.

We are not your sweeties, who just need candy and flowers to come around.

We are not your bitches, that is not a leash in your hand. Our bodily integrity is not a choke chain you may use to threaten us. If you think it is, you are no better than the Republicans. And yes, the “But! But! But!” Roe stick is just that - a threat. Politically involved women know exactly where we stand on Roe, and we know the Democrats haven’t been all that bothered to even look like they’re trying to protect it, these last seven years. We know what an anti-choice Supreme Court looks like, because we read Gonzales v. Carhart and our hearts broke in fear for ourselves and our sisters and nieces and daughters.

When you tell us that we’d better get in line and vote for Obama, OR ELSE ROE, you are holding our own bodies hostage against us, as if they were yours to take. You are actively, proudly, literally threatening us with our lives. Is that the change we should believe in?

....

The party’s eagerness to push her out, BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY (particularly in the case of Representative Cohen) was in reaction to this very feeling. They have come to rely on women not expecting any better. They have grown dependent on the Bush Administration’s vile abuse of women, so that their burden of accountability to us is lighter. They were terrified of rank-and-file Dems realizing that there is better out there. And there is, and she still lost, and with her she brought down the pretenses of the party. The bullying we’re all getting now is an unapologetic part of that - baby, you need me, nobody else will love you.

I've seen all of these and can not agree more with her here. The part I bolded about feminists, well, I've been in too many fights about what is and isn't sexist in this campaign that by all accounts would seem sexist happening to anyone else or being done by anyone else. The sweetie comment, not sexist apparently. Told to me by Obama supporters on a feminist board. To be fair, there were Obama supporters who were also saying that it was indeed very sexist and fucked up, but they were ignored by the Obama supporters who were too busy attacking me for calling sexism sexism since it was seen as an attack on their candidate. Well, yes. He was being sexist and I said something. If you have a problem with that you should get him to work on seeing women as people, not "sweeties." Same goes for the "Periodically, when she's feeling down, she launches into attacks." comment. Being a radical feminist I'm used to being told that I'm taking things "too far" or being told I'm "overreacting" or some such bullshit. But this campaign season I am now being told that about everyday sexist abuses that even my own FATHER has spoken out against in our conversations, and he is, for the most part, the opposite of progressive thought. When FOX news (which my dad watches), O'Reilly, and my dad are calling sexism sexism and feminists are calling it overreacting something is supremely wrong in the world.

Of course maybe they'll change their tune now that the misogyny will be aimed at Michelle Obama. As Red Queen asked Did you think it wouldn't happen to you and your candidate?. I may no longer get the NYTimes for free everyday since school is out, but I, along with RQ and the Hillary1000 bloggers will continue to blog against sexism, EVEN sexism against Michelle Obama, because guess what? We're outraged at SEXISM, not just because we support the other candidate. (Waits for people's heads to explode.)

The thing that brought the most joy and most misery and anxiety into my life this season has been the simultaneous rise in consciousness about sexism and the rise in denial about it from people who already called themselves feminists. The second part had me in highly anxious states for long periods of time because I just couldn't understand how people could brush away something so obvious. Forget the stuff coming from Obama, but praising Olbermann, the man who wanted a super-d and Hillary to go into a room together and only HE comes out. The man that gets all foamy mouthed and wild eyed whenever he goes on his WWTSBQ (Why Won't the Stupid Bitch Quit) rants. Praising the network news stations my FATHER became so disgusted with that he stopped watching because of the sexist things that they said about Hillary. I know that even my friends cannot really understand how insane this is to me as I don't really talk about my strict Catholic Republican parents, but MY FATHER WAS TURNED OFF BY THE MSM's SEXISM. MY OWN FATHER!!!! But not a lot of 'feminists.' As pocochina said, it's ok because it was directed towards that woman. But any comment directed at a woman simply because she is woman is directed at ALL WOMEN and the thrashing that Hillary got as a woman was a thrashing of all of us.


If you need to be reminded of the MSM's sexism this season, take a peek at the Women's Media Center video:




Or one of the many videos at Come a Long Way

Women's Media Center Petition against sexism in the media

Sign it!

NBC Protest in Burbank

Pictures can be seen here.


Take your sexist, one sided coverage and shove it NBC.


(I like the punk kid with the "Iron your own shirt" sign.)

The backlash continues

Lynette Long has a new Op-Ed in the Baltimore Sun entitled Painful Lessons

•Women voters are not factored into the decision making of the Democratic National Committee. The DNC is concerned that black voters will protest and stay home if Senator Clinton gets the nomination, even though she is the stronger and more electable candidate. But the DNC doesn't worry that white women, three times larger than the combined black vote, will stay away from the polls if Mrs. Clinton does not get the nomination. They expect the white women of the party to fall in step and vote for Mr. Obama in the general election.

•The rules for women candidates are not the same as the rules for male candidates. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy adamantly supports Mr. Obama, even though Mrs. Clinton won his home state, Massachusetts, by 14 points. Mr. Kennedy has repeatedly called for Mrs. Clinton to pull out of the race, yet when he was running for president in 1980 he took his bid for the Democratic nomination to the convention floor, trying to change the rules to unseat Jimmy Carter, who already had enough delegates to clinch the nomination. And let's not forget that this year Mike Huckabee stayed in the contest for the Republican nomination when he had no chance of winning. He was committed to stay in the race until Sen. John McCain reached the number of delegates needed to win. At the end of the contest he had a total of 267 delegates, more than 900 behind Mr. McCain. No media barrage pushed Mr. Huckabee to withdraw. Barack Obama has not reached the needed number of delegates to win the nomination, yet Mrs. Clinton - who is fewer than 200 delegates behind Obama - is being pressured by commentators and the DNC to withdraw.

People, including some of my friends who are Obama supporters are having a hard time understanding why there are so many of us who won't vote for Obama. (Me, I've never voted party line, in fact I have not been a registered Dem since I registered in NY in 2000 and registered as a Green and I still don't vote exclusively Green in that case anyway though in WA we do not register by party. I signed a paper at the caucus saying that I would not caucus for any other party and I did not, I had a friend who refused to caucus because he thought it meant he would have to vote party line and found that unacceptable.) This is a backlash against the Democratic Party as much as it is a vote of nonconfidence in their selected candidate (if he does indeed get the nomination). I, and I think others like me, feel that the DNC and party leadership made clear who they wanted and since then have tried to push our candidate out of the race unfairly. No other candidate in history has been pushed to step down, to whit:

• In 1988, Jesse Jackson took his hopeless campaign against winner Michael Dukakis all the way to the convention, often to great media praise.

• In 1980, Ted Kennedy carried his run against Jimmy Carter all the way to the convention, even though it was clear he had been routed.

• In 1976, Ronald Reagan contested the “inevitability” of Gerald Ford all the way to the convention. Few, then or since, have ever thought to criticize Reagan’s failure to step aside and let Ford assume the mantle.

• Also in 1976, three candidates — Mo Udall, Jerry Brown, and Frank Church — ran against Jimmy Carter all the way through the final primaries, even though Carter seemed more than likely to be the eventual nominee.

• Even in 1960, Lyndon Johnson and Adlai Stevenson fought the “certain” nomination of John F. Kennedy all the way to the convention floor.

Hillary's closer to Obama then any of them were and no one was screaming at them to step down "for the good of the party." Why? I have my theory. She's not in the penis club, and I think that many other people feel the exact same way about this as I do. If we hold our nose, again, and vote for someone we don't really like just because he's better then the other guy, again, it's worse this time. This time we have been knocked about by the media, the party, everyone. We have seen just what they think of women. They have told us what they think about the working class and the Reagan or lunch bucket democrats. But the backlash is coming strongest from the women. The democrats tell us they are the party that will stand up for us, for our rights. The Dems have not fought for abortion, for womens' rights, for anything that would actually help women, in a long, long time. Abortion's pretty much already illegal. The Dems in Congress rolled over on Alito and Roberts and now my right to choose is being held over my head. If the Dems I elected (though my Senators stood up and said no) can't grow a fucking spine and stand up for my rights why the hell should I keep voting for them? And why should I reward them by voting for someone I don't even trust?

And now they lie there, complicit as we are insulted daily, hourly. Insults flung at Hillary that are flung at her because she is a woman are flung at all of us. And we've had enough. We're saying no more. To roll over yet again and reward a party that has done nothing but pay lip service to women's issues for years (finally people get this) means that we are telling the Democratic Party that they never have to take us into account again, and that, my friends, is unacceptable.

EDIT: A Commenter at The Confluence said it best:

Jeralyn said tonite that “It’s about putting a Democrat in the WH” or words to that effect. Not true: it is about putting someone who shares your values in the WH. Some may argue that requires a Democrat, but I would rather suffer 4 more years of Republican presidency than give up my ideals of what the Democratic party stands for (like, f’rinstance, ANYTHING) forever for some short term gain.

NOTE: If you are an Obamaphile who cannot be arsed to READ THE POST (especially the part about people taking things to the convention) then you will most assuredly not get published. If I can mark it off on my Bingo Card just keep it to yourself. Now excuse me I need to go wash my dentures, polish my walker, and hump my cousin.

I just had to share this

I’m hardly a feminist but I’ve been aghast at the attacks Senator Clinton has been subject to. I’m not sure I can vote for obama come November.

If enough women stand up and don’t vote for Obama, maybe the Democratic Party will recognize that their largest voting bloc isn’t going to just stand by and be ignored any more. This is not just about soccer moms. Every woman was diminished by the treatment of Clinton during this election, and there was no outrage, not even a hint of recognition by those in power. It was made quite clear that racism was unacceptable, even if it was so vague that it had to be explained to people, while overt sexism was an acceptable method of attack. Every time someone dismissed “old school feminists”, I cringed, not because I am part of that group (I’m in my early 40’s), but because I know that I owe my job and my home to those women. They broke down the barriers. I just walked through. But there are barriers yet. I run into them every day. And we need to address this. I’m adding this to the reasons I’m not voting for Obama.

from donna darko

Want my vote?

One thing you can do to make the Dems listen

I wrote my Rep today, short, to the point letter.

Dear X
I do not need to remind you that this is an election year. I voted for you last time, but I will only vote for you again if you do one of two things:

1) Publicly denounce the sexism that has been rampant during this primary season. It is an atrocity and an affront to the largest voting block of the Democratic party. You, along with the rest of the party have stood idly by and in your silence have made it perfectly clear how you feel about women. If you do not feel this way you need to say it and you need to say it now.
or
2) Take back your endorsement of Obama and endorse Hillary Clinton before June 3rd.

You may choose either of the above, but you must do something or else you will not have my vote come Novemeber.

Sincerely,
me

The local, state, and national parties may not be listening, but if the pols who need to get elected get enough of these you bet your ass they'll be listening.

NOTE: This is not to say that all Obama supporters are sexist (though if you are not speaking out, especially about his demeaning behaviour towards women (see sweetie comment, PA kiss comments, etc) you are in my book) I just threw that in, though I'm about 99.8% sure he won't.

I'm going to scream

Anti-white racism?

Who has the power? Really? Don't give me some specific scenario. In society who has the power?

It's called discrimination and if one more person calls it "racism" or "reverse racism" or "anti-white racism" I'm going to start breaking things.

You, as a white person, are given privilege in our society because you were born with the colour skin you were born with. Look at congress. How many people of colour are there? Hmmmmm? CEO's of companies? Think of positions of power and think of how many of these positions are filled by a person of colour. Who controls the power. Guess what? It's people who look like you, and because of that you directly benefit from it. You ARE part of the power structure.


By the way, replace "person of colour" with "woman" and "racism" with "sexism" and the argument is the same one I would make, because that argument's bullshit too. Prejudice a woman has against a man is not sexism.

Don't believe me? Ask yourself these questions:

-Does my prejudice against you suddenly create a culture in which you will be likely to experience violence from an intimate partner?
-Does it devalue your work so that you are making less money then women for equal work?
-Are you suddenly the victim of racial profiling since it is known that white people commit all sorts of crimes?
-Are you now going to see people of your own race depicted in the media less often?

Um, no, no, no, and, well looky here, NO.

Why we won't quit.

Hillary Clinton raised $10 million in 24 hours

There is a post from the pro-Obama Huffington Post about The top 10 weaknesses Obama has against McCain in the GE

6. Barack Obama hasn't won a single major industrial state that historically constitute the key "battleground" states for both parties, i.e., the states in the last three or four presidential elections have switched back and forth between the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates.

As I said previously Clinton carried the regions of PA composed of Reagan Democrats by an average of 34 points. These are voters just as likely to vote Republican as Democrat. If you don't believe me, just think back to the '88 election when PA broke for Bush I. There are just as many of these same voters in OH counties where Clinton also won.

9. Barack Obama is currently in a dead heat with John McCain, according to a recent respected poll, in Massachusetts (actually, the results were McCain 46% and Obama 44%), while Senator Clinton leads in Massachusetts by 15%. The last time a Democrat did not win Massachusetts by a substantial margin was 1980, when Ronald Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter. Even in the historic landslide election of Richard Nixon in 1972, when he won 49 states, only Massachusetts supported Senator McGovern. Senator Obama currently runs considerably behind Senator McCain in Florida and Ohio, while Senator Clinton is ahead in both of those key battleground states.

I think the above quote speaks for itself. I mean, MCGOVERN for christ's sake! He ONLY won MA and that's saying something. Speaking of whom, The New Republic is asking is Obama The Next McGovern?

Obama goes and sticks his foot in his mouth again by dissing working class people yet again.

Former president says in North Carolina:
“Today her opponent’s campaign strategist said, ‘Well we don’t really need these working class people to win, half the time they vote for Republicans anyways.’ And I will tell you something, America needs you to win and therefore Hillary wants your support….”
Apparent response to earlier remark to NPR from David Axelrod: “The white working class has gone to the Republican nominee for many elections, going back even to the Clinton years.”

While at the same time saying that he needs to do better with blue collar, older voters. Ummm, anyone else seeing a problem here?

MyDD has a great post about DNC rules and how they apply to FL and MI. DNC rules say that while they can punish the states through their delegates, if their votes are certified, which they were in both states, then they stand and should be counted therefore Hillary is ahead in the popular vote

People talk about how wonderful it was that he gained 10 points from being down 20 to being down 10. But those were some damn expensive votes. He spent $10.63/vote to her $2.40/vote, and he still lost.

If you're still thinking that Obama should get it, because of the will of the people, the tide is turning my friends. People are deciding against Obama and independents who previously favoured him are now favouring McCain.


Over at my lj, a friend of mine keeps crying that if Obama doesn't get the nod then we will disenfranchise the AA community. What about women? What about the blue collar workers? This campaign has been so misogynistic and so sexist (I just found out that Shakespeare's Sister has been keeping a Hillary Sexism Watch.) and as I have said many times, if you don't speak up against oppressive behaviours you are guilty by implicitly agreeing with the statements by not objecting to them. (I have made this known to the Obama campaign, the DNC, and the local and state parties.) All the women I keep hearing from are getting angry about this and in no way are going to stand behind the Democratic party if they allow this to continue. There's even talk of forming a new opposition party for the Repubs. (Especially if Obama keeps shooting himself in the foot and losing ground he will lose and the Dems may as well declare themselves dead.)

EDIT: Chelsea talking about her mom's stances on women's issues

Sit down, shut up, and behave

EDIT: I have been calling people reminding them to go vote tomorrow and to go vote for Hillary. You should too.

Now back to your regularly scheduled post.

In the past several days, two distinct things have happened that, while I should not be surprised, are disheartening nonetheless.

I belong to a (kick ass) knitting website Ravelry, and there are of course topic boards for people to come together and talk. Someone came onto ours and made a comment and then went back to the Obama board and made a comment about someone "being off her meds." As a disability/mental health rights activist I had something to say about this.

OK, I don’t know or care who you are talking about, but making fun and using a mental health issue/disability as a slur is deeply offensive. It is just as bad as using a sexist or homophobic slur.

It implies that what someone who has mental health issue or disability has to say is somehow unimportant or not as important as “normal” folks. It is offensive to me personally as a mental health/disability rights activist.

I know that most people do not think of this, and I ask you to please not use mental health as a way to insult people as it is offensive and demeaning to people with disabilities.

I was replied to with this:

Sigh. Ok. First of all: I realize you do not know me at all, and therefore have no way of understanding the irony of the charges you have leveled against me, but seriously…you’re way out of line. There is such a thing as being overly sensitive.

But more importantly: I was not referring to you.
....
But that said, I will remove the offending post, although I do want to make it clear (since the post will be removed) that I did not actually mention anyone by name or make any sort of indication who I was referring to. (unless more can be deduced from this post, which is possible.)

Apparently because it was not directed at me and because it was a "harmless" ableist slur I should just shut up and sit down. I was also accused of making a stink about this oppressive remark because it was made by an Obama supporter and told that if I knew anything about the person making it then I would know that I was out of line. So I should not speak up when she does this? How about sexist or racist or homophobic slurs? Should I just let those lie as well since I support a different candidate which apparently makes it impossible for me to want to end oppressive and marginalizing behaviour? I would also like to add that Obama supporters on her own forum were chiming in saying that they agreed that those sorts of comments were out of line.

Apparently I should, because in another forum on the same site someone pointed to this Salon article called Hey Obama boys: Back off already! (A preview, for those who haven't read it:)

I am a loud feminist and a longtime Clinton skeptic who was suddenly feeling that I needed to rationalize, apologize for, or even just stay quiet about my increasing unease with the way Clinton was being discussed. Meanwhile, I was getting e-mails from men I didn't know well who approached me as a go-to feminist to whom they could express their hatred of Hillary and their anger at her staying in the race -- an anger that seemed to build with every one of her victories. One of my closest girlfriends, an Obama voter, told me of a drink she'd had with a politically progressive man who made a series of legitimate complaints about Clinton's policies before adding that when he hears the senator's voice, he's overcome by an urge to punch her in the face.

The discussion turned to the rampant sexism of the campaign and someone brought up Obama's comment “I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she’s feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal.” So the discussion turned into how any sign of emotion in President Senator Clinton is seen as a weakness because women are painted as being too emotional, especially too emotional to do anything as silly as run a country *cough*Thatcher*cough*.

Some *ahem* argued that it was a harmless statement to which I pointed out that it is loaded with sexism when used to talk about women. To which I was told to "stop it right the hell now" and that I have "no critical thinking skills" am "regurgitating what the patriarchy and media tells me" (since I had said that if we had no critical thinking skills that's what we would be doing and we weren't, natch) and "playing the victim." Because there is no logical or factual basis for our response that the "feeling down" comment was sexist. Then same person, and this is were it gets really good said "If feminists can’t allow for more than one interpretation of a comment..." HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA Because I guess that only applies to you, eh? The plethora of people who disagree, Clinton AND Obama supporters alike, are not allowed their own interpretation? We're just dumb people who can't think for ourselves and must be told what to do! I see! (Sound familiar to anyone else? Now I really want to move out of this country. These people fucking scare me.)

So lets recap shall we?
1) No matter how many oppressive slurs people use, especially against the differently abled and women, as long as they are Obama fans they are somehow above reproach. We should just lie back and think of England, because apparently if you ignore (dis)ableism and sexism they will just go away. (But not racism. We must call everyone on everything that can be considered racist, which I agree with, but it MUST ALSO be applied to all other oppressions. Including heterosexism *cough* Obama equal marriage rights *cough*)

2) If you do dare to see sexism (which is punching you in the face every time you turn on the TV or open a paper) you are somehow wrong. Just sit back and let the Obama people tell you how you are supposed to interpret these things. Remember, sexism is not a big-T Truth, but a little-t truth and can only be correctly interpreted by people smart enough to love Obama.

3) Any comments about oppressive remarks made to an Obama supporter are not valid if made by a Clinton supporter. EVER. Even when an Obama supporter agrees, if a Clinton supporter ever says something about an oppressive remark it somehow overrules what the Obama supporter says and thus invalidates the objection.

Everyone clear? If we all just sit back and behave (i.e. let them tell us what to do), maybe we'll get a cookie.

Here's where I ask you to do something

In my previous post I chided the democratic party and the Obama camp for not doing anything to publicly denounce the misogyny being flung at Hillary during this campaign. So I did something about it, because unless they publicly say something, they will lose me, and hopefully all other people who do not feel that it is ok to be silently complicit in allowing this blatant sexism to continue whether it's coming from the campaign staff, the pundits, or the media. Please join me to tell the party that we need this party to be the liberal one, the one that not only talks about change and equality for women, but actually walks the walk.

It doesn't matter who you support. This is supposedly the party that represents us, but you know that it won't until we make them.

Call or email the DNC and tell them to publicly denounce the sexism being bandied about so openly during this campaign.
Phone: 202-863-8000
To email: Go here and under issue select Election 2008.

Ask the Obama to make sure his campaign keeps in line. I know if he wants my vote in November (if he is the nominee) he has to take a stand against sexism.
Campaign HQ Phone: (866) 675-2008
Email: Go here.

Contact your state and local democratic parties. If you feel confident enough in this decision, tell them you will withdraw from the party. (I will, but I know that not everyone is OK with being party-less/3rd party.)

The more pressure, the more likely they are to publicly condemn the sexist overtones. When there have been racist remarks there has been public outcry from everyone all the way down to the feminist blogosphere. When there are sexist remarks, it is *only* the feminist blogosphere, since they are perpetuated by everyone above us. If it's ok on this scale they are saying it's ok everywhere. Tell them it's not. Make them make this a better country and a better party for women.

Also, as a sidenote, if you are upset and/or feel that the voters in MI/FL were treated unfairly, you can sign a petition here. There are examples of letters talking about the dienfranchisement of voters (and yes, sexism) that people have sent here

Maya Angelou likes Hillary

State Package for Hillary Clinton
Written for Hillary by Maya Angelou

You may write me down in history

With your bitter, twisted lies,

You may tread me in the very dirt

But still, like dust, I’ll rise.

This is not the first time you have seen Hillary Clinton seemingly at her wits’ end, but she has always risen, always risen, don’t forget she has always risen, much to the dismay of her adversaries and the delight of her friends.

Hillary Clinton will not give up on you and all she asks of you is that you do not give up on her.

There is a world of difference between being a woman and being an old female. If you’re born a girl, grow up, and live long enough, you can become an old female. But to become a woman is a serious matter. A woman takes responsibility for the time she takes up and the space she occupies. Hillary Clinton is a woman. She has been there and done that and has still risen. She is in this race for the long haul. She intends to make a difference in our country. Hillary Clinton intends to help our country to be what it can become.

She declares she wants to see more smiles in the family, more courtesies between men and women, more honesty in the marketplace. She is the prayer of every woman and man who longs for fair play, healthy families, good schools, and a balanced economy.

She means to rise.

Don’t give up on Hillary. In fact, if you help her to rise, you will rise with her and help her make this country the wonderful, wonderful place where every man and every woman can live freely without sanctimonious piety and without crippling fear.

Rise, Hillary.

Rise.

How it works from xkcd

*sigh*

OH OH OH, socially concious hip hop!

Here's the blurb that accompanies the video:
Check out my full album: http://www.mrjmedeiros.com/
Visit the NON-PROFIT website inspired by this video: http://www.iamconstance.org/

Constance is a story about a girl in the Philipines victiminzed by Human Trafficking. It was created by Sam Sanchez of Stick Productions in 2006. Also special thanks to Nakeism Labs. It has spread like wildfire via YouTube, and has inspried an international human rights movement called the "Constance Campaign." Mr. J spearheaded the movement, And has partnered with Non-Profit's like IamComing.org, XXXChurch, and HumanTrafficking.org. In May 2007, Constance was featured on CBS Evening News in an expose' on internet pornography

Full Frontal Feminism: a review

Lets put aside the naked woman on the cover for the time being. Obviously it makes me angry that a thin white naked woman is pictured on the front of a book about feminism.

While I understand that Jessica Valenti wants to reach out to women who shy away from the word feminist, she really doesn't know how to represent it right. Yes she makes really good points and her book is accesible to a wide audience, but the way she goes about trying to sell young women and girls on feminism is to try and make it "sexy."

The second chapter in the book is all about how being a feminist leads to better sex. The opening sentence is this: I'm better in bed then you are. And I have feminism to thank for it. Now, feminists having better sex is true, but really the second chapter? Aren't there more important things to talk about instead of expounding about what great sex you're having now that you're a feminist? Sure it's a happy consequence, but it shouldn't be the reason that someone becomes a feminist. Sex is not the be all end all of life. Sure it's great, I myself really enjoy it, but it's ridiculous to make that the first thing you present in your book. I mean is Cosmo somehow now feminist because it has tons of articles about how to have great sex? (But keep in mind most of those are of the "how to please your man in bed" category.) The way to get women and girls interested in feminism should be by accesibly written books, like this one, talking honestly about the problems we face in a patriarchal society. Women and girls should choose to be feminists for the fact that there are so many things that are anti-women in society. Are you going to be a real feminist if the only reason you call yourself one is to have great sex? I think not.

Also, one of the reasons she cites for women not becoming feminists is that when they hear the word feminism they think we're hairy. She goes on to explain how sexy and fun today's feminists are. What's not sexy about being hairy? I've been hairy since I was 17 and no one has ever been turned off by it. Well a few, but obviously they were idiot frat boy types that I wouldn't want to be with anyone, since who wants to date moronic sexist assholes? Not I.

In her third chapter, Pop Culture Gone Wild, she critiques the media system and talks about how women's sexuality has been commodified and pornified. Yet in her blog, feministing, she talks about the sex industry like it is just good old sexy fun. She never invites radical feminists, many of us who have actual first hand experience of working in the sex industry and who speak out about the horrors and abuses we suffered in that "sexy good fun" industry. But this follows from the focus of the book on how "sexy" feminism is. It's such a shame and a horrible effect of many people in the so-called "third wave" accept porn's humiliation, exploitation, and abuse of women as fun because it has the appearance of being sexy, unlike hairy legged prudes like me. ;)

Obviously what bugged me about this book is how it is shaped around selling feminism the way we sell everything: with the promise of sex and sexiness. Should we really be mimicing the current media landscape that is unquestionably racist and misogynistic and uses sex to sell everything? I would hope not, but that is exactly what Valenti does in her book. She does make great points about the media and the beauty myth, she then goes on to talk about how today's feminist wear lipstick, heels, and sexy clothes. Us hairy legged feminists never tell women they can't do these things, all we ask is that people examine why they do wear these patriarchal beauty standards. I wear them sometimes too, but I am fully aware of how society views this. I admit that now I do it more for fun now, because I feel free to do so since I realised that I previously wore them because society told me that's what women do. Yeah it's fun to wear fun makeup (it's always very extravagant, which is what I see the point of makeup is) and I certainly do appreciate a well made shoe, heel or no.

Another thing that really rubbed me the wrong way is when she went on The Stephen Colbert Show, one which, like The Daily Show, makes light of things light pornography and exploitation of women, she gave him a shirt that said "Feminist Chicks Dig Me." It's bullshit. Chicks on a feminist shirt to describe women? It's bullshit as I do not feel that being compared to a baby chicken is particularly empowering. I've always found the shirt to be bullshit, but the new "spokeswoman" of feminism condoning it on national television? Yep, there's nothing more empowering then being compared to an animal. And not just an animal, but a BABY animal. GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR Bah humbug.

In light of recent trolling from Xchan

Porn again, porn again

This was in the anti-porn LJ community, and I thought I'd pass it on.

'm not requesting to join the community because I don't feel I possess the right attitude for it, but, I did find an article in this month's issue of FHM in England (of all things!) about why one man had given up porn, and I typed up most of it because I thought you and/or the members might be interested in reading it. (Were my scanner capable of scanning magazines without blurring the text to buggery, I'd have scanned rather than typed, but there you go):


[just skipping to the main bits of interest, really]

Then the internet arrived. Designed to be a force for good and to share the knowledge of the world, it was immediately used, of course, to spread images of people having sex. The filth travelled around the glove like those ocean-going barges stacked high with rotting garbage. Only this was muck that everybody wanted, that found a welcoming port in every corner. In mine too.




Along with most other red-blooded males, I gleefully downloaded the photos, saw the pussies of Pamela, Paris and Abi. I cruised the sites and eyed up thousands of girls from every nation and in every position. When broadband arrived, I thought, "This is it, Utopia, a constantly refreshed supply of beautiful women, naked and performing for our pleasure." Now we are all sultans.

(Some talk about his nephew and how his nephew'll never have to buy a porn magazine from a shop because it's just a click away on the internet. Also mentions that the nephew in question is 13)

But slowly it has become clear to me that I'm the lucky one after all, not him. In fact, I regard anyone who watches porn these days as being incredibly unfortunate. Why? Because it's going to poison your mind, mess up your relationships and ruin your sex life.

That may seem like a sweeping statement, but I know it's true because it actually happened to me. Nothing I'm about to confess is based on bland statistics or boring surveys or government research - it's based on the fact that, in bed with a woman one night, I did something which caused her to feel fear and pain. I practically became a sex offender. And porn was to blame.

My transformation from nice guy to near-rapist began when I got into the habit of kicking off each working day by watching a bit of hardcore. I thought of it as my equivalent to a cup of coffee. A pick-me-up. Five minutes of online ogling before settling down to the grind of earning a living.

(explanation that 'hardcore' in this case wasn't referring to anything underage or illegal, so it's not as though he was watching 'the shit with animals and torture and dungeons', but the regular stuff often watched online)

The participants seemed to be clean and willing, and their activities appeared innocent enough. Certainly, I never felt I was being perverted by them, especially as my favourite one, called "Her Sweet Hand", was entirely devoted to women giving hand-jobs. In my view this was only "second base" and therefore hardly pornographic at all.

If you'd asked me back then if watching these clips was affecting my sex life, I'd have said, "Yes, but in a good way." The way I saw it, my libido was getting charged up like a car battery, so when I pulled a girl I would be raring to go. She'd get better sex, and I'd get a chance to act out some of the scenes I'd watched. Everyone's a winner.

After a while, however, I noticed I was getting much more dominant in bed. Previously, I had been a pretty democratic lover, happy to share the workload in the three classic positions, but now I found I was doing a lot more doggy style. I would do it harder, too, and while I did it I would pull the girl's hair and think, "Yeah, you're getting it now, you dirty little bitch." If sufficiently emboldened by drink, I would actually say those words, and plenty more besides. Then, after showering her who was boss for half-an-hour or so, perhaps pinning her down by the wrists for variety, I'd climax. But whereas in the old days, I was happy to come into my Durex or on her tits, now it had to be all over her face and neck like a white volcano.

(the segment preceding this is mostly just reiterating what's been said before and not that interesting)

I can only guess how far down that track I'd have gone if I hadn't been snapped out of it. But luckily - for me, anyway - I pulled a girl at a party and then went too far. Far too far. We got pissed, cabbed it back to my place and then I gave her the full Beast of Hammersmith treatment. I remember talking filth, going at her like a merciless jackhammer, when she first asked me to stop.

I didn't stop. In fact - and this is the hard bit to confess - I gave it to her even harder. One... two... three strokes, riding the wave as she squirmed underneath me. I was engorged with power, my cock a weapon. But then she wrenched away from me, and I could see by the look on her face that A Bad Thing had happened.

It took a lot of fast talking and soothing hugs to calm her down. At one stage, I thought she might actually report me. When she left, I shivered under the duvet, shocked at what I'd done.

What had I become? And why? I had never acted like this before, so I deduced that it might be due to the internet porn I'd been feasting on. The next day, I visited some of the sites I'd used regularly. And slowly, just as a secret image used to emerge if you stared at those old fractal pictures long enough, the truth became clear.

Modern porn... it's not about sex at all. It's about cruelty to women. Almost all of it, especially the most popular "gonzo" king, is built on their humiliation. Again, let me stress that I'm not talking about the extreme stuff here, I'm talking about the mainstream. Your basic, entry level porn.

The problem stems from the fact that porn gets stale very quickly. There are only so many ways a man and woman can make love, so the adult-video makers have to up the ante constantly to maintain sales. Once, you never saw penetration. Then anal sex was a taboo. Now it's pretty common to see triple anal penetration. As one porn director put it, "People want more. They want to know how many dicks you can shove up an ass. It's like Fear Factor meets Jackass."

Precisely. It is like Jackass. Painful and demeaning things - like getting cornhold or throat-fucked - are happening for our pleasure. And the discomfort shows on the women's faces. They get hurt while we whack off. Looking back at my favourites with fresh eyes, I saw it clearly. Even in the "innocent" hand-job one, they worked without being pleasured themselves. They ended up been coated with spunk. They were, quite literally, sex objects.

You want to know the really worrying thing? Porn is a multi-billion dollar industry, famously bigger than Hollywood, and if the sight of women experiencing discomfort or humiliation was distasteful to the mass audience, it would have been edited out. Market forces would insist upon a correction. So the only conclusion to draw is that normal guys - not a tiny minority of perverts and weirdos, but you, your pals, your brothers, your colleagues - actually like seeing it.

Well, not me. Not any more. I've seen what they're selling and I don't want to buy it. And I warn you, everytime you watch a gonzo clip from "Meatholes" or "Exploited Babysitters" your subconscious is being bombarded with the same message. You won't so much get brainwashed as braindirtied. And then - like it or not - there's a chance you'll bring what you've viewed into your real-life relationships. Monkey see, monkey do.

Personally, I'm now only going to use the computer for e-mails and poker. If I want porn, I'll stick to the older kind where everyone appeared to be having fun. Say what you like about '80s porn movies, at least I know I'm never going to end up like the blokes who starred in them. Mainly because I hate moustaches...

(emphasis mine)

First off I'd like to point out that he's a rapist. No matter how many hugs or whatever he gave her and even though she didn't report him does not in fact mean that it wasn't rape. He admitted to continuing after she said no. He admitted that he thought she would report him. He is a rapist.

While he doesn't realise that all porn is dehumanising and degrading to women, he does come to a very real conclusion. Time and time again men tell the same story, but do we (usually) hear it in media other then feminist magazines or in forums other then the feminist blogosphere? A resounding NO. Many of the people Pamela Paul interviewed for Pornified said the same things, and about how they were no longer to sustain erections with a woman unless they envisioned the degrading images of pornography. However mush they want to sweep this shit under the rug, there are always people willing to tell their stories, be they women who escaped the industry (like me) or men who have come to the realisation that porn turns them into sadistic assholes. While I disagree with him continuing to look at porn, bravo for him for publishing this in a lads mag that glorifies the pornification of women. Hopefully more men will be brave enought to stand up to this.

*sigh*

About BB

I know this particular person and clique don't represent feminism and aren't even worth the time of day. But I think we need to be aware of what some of our theory lends itself to. I think the sane, thoughtful anti-porners need to wrestle with this, struggle with it, understand why the people on the other side fear inducing sexual shame.

Yes because feminists can't possibly be anti-porn. *screams*