It's a Comet!

NOOooo, not that kind. I meant the CAR; the lovely Mercury Comet, produced by Ford.

I took these photos of a beautiful old Comet (seemingly in mint condition) that I unexpectedly encountered in metro Atlanta. I'm gonna guess: 1965?

Any takers?



It's been awhile since I posted some old cars. (((waves at car-photo lurkers!))) As always, you can click to enlarge.

~*~

Its been boring in Blogdonia, except for my periodic political brawls with the kids on Tumblr. Most seem to have been born last Wednesday. They actually think a Walkman is an antique. (NOTE: I still use mine, yall.) They enthusiastically trash unfashionable, old stuff (ewww!) faster than you can say planned obsolescence. They talk a good game, but still seem unaware that Asian sweatshop children are manufacturing all of their gadgetry and clothing for pennies. In short, words like FAIR TRADE are notably missing from their vocabularies. And any discussion of Palestinian rights sends them into the proverbial tailspin.

They think they are radical, but when you ask them what they do in their communities? (((crickets)))

That probably shouldn't bother me so much, but see, I think the Tea Partiers and the Right Wingers and the conservatives ARE doing something in their communities. In fact, they are doing A LOT. And at breakneck pace. That is how we ended up with Nikki Haley. (More about which in due course, as William F Buckley liked to say.) This is how Eric Cantor lost the Senate. The Left is busily contemplating its collective navel as the Right Wing happily skips along, winning elections.

For example, the Men's Rights fellas are organizing. They had a real conference, which is more than feminists seem to be able to do these days.

(sigh)

~*~

Speaking of Men's Rights, I am linking the blog Toy Soldier, which I think might be classified as a Men's Rights blog? (Not sure how he categorizes himself.) In any event, TS deserves to be linked for this.

Marion Zimmer Bradley was a child molester. Holy shit, is all you can say. Holy. Shit.

I am relieved I was never a big fan and was never emotionally invested in her work... but it still pains me as a feminist, to learn of a famous feminist pedophile. And no, lets not start nonsense claiming "if she was a pedophile, she wasn't really a feminist" as if to say no feminist can EVER be one, just because. Bullshit. If priests who have sworn an oath to God Almighty can be pedophiles, so can feminists. So can anyone. In fact, that's the point: no demographic is immune.

Didn't feminists preach that, once upon a time?

And have you heard this story, of Marion Zimmer Bradley, defending her husband the NAMBLA member, even molesting her own three-year-old daughter? Nightmarish in the extreme. I came across the Guardian story almost by accident. Are any feminists discussing this? (Yes, some are.) On Tumblr, the legion of "radfems" certainly has downplayed this, hardly mentioning it at all. Bradley was a very influential and award-winning author, even the co-founder of The Society for Creative Anachronism, the named coined by her. Her work has directly influenced much of modern-day fantasy writing, both by men and women.

And she was a child molester.

Is this "bent" obvious (or implicit) in her work? I didn't follow it much, so I don't know. But I expect critics to tell me; I expect a full-on SEXUAL POLITICS-type of academic criticism, informing us if this trait is evident in her work, as we know misogyny is evident in Norman Mailer's work. Will it be up to men to do this? (THIS is the kind of thing the men's rights guys could be doing, not studying Miley Cyrus' selfies. See TIME article above.)

I am greatly disappointed at the resounding silence I see from so many feminists on the subject of Bradley's disgusting activities...it is certainly no match for the excited hubbub when The Mists of Avalon finally made it to TV.

(sigh)

~*~

Also--

Remember I told you Governor Nikki Haley was putting off ROAD REPAIR until the election, so us hapless South Carolina residents have been consigned to driving on horrible concrete ruts all the time? (Woodruff Road is a particular upstate blight, as is Highway 291, where I dodged potholes yesterday.)

Haley recently talked about a mythical "money tree" to pay for the roads--which has brought endless mirth to the Deadhead household, as my spouse and I promise to pay for various things with the MONEY TREE we are going to plant on the patio.

I think we need to call her GOVERNOR POTHOLE, which I hope to name a post soon.

~*~

Our local fundie-U, awful Bob Jones University, has a brand new president, Stephen D. Pettit. Appointed right before the summer break, he is the first president of BJU who is not a member of the Jones family, so its pretty amazing.

After the honeymoon and quick pick-me-up from this charismatic new prez and his flashy Colgate smile, the BJU-cult will inevitably reassert its primacy. Will New Prez leave when the Jones boys start bossing him around? Or are they paying him a lot to put up with it? I guess we'll be finding out.

And that should be fun!

Welcome, Reverend Steve. You will be hearing about ME soon enough. :)

Odds and Sods - Tanya and Nancy 20th-Anniversary edition

At left: Tonya Harding talks to Geraldo. (Ohhh, she talked to everybody.)





Like every dedicated, connoisseur-level scandalmonger, I was knee deep in the whole Tanya Harding/Nancy Kerrigan Olympics foofaraw, back in 1994. ESPN has aired a timely Winter Olympics documentary titled "The Price of Gold"--which every good Harding/Kerrigan scandalmonger and sports groupie will certainly enjoy!

Other 20-year reminiscences about our favorite figure skater-gals:

ESPN revisits the Tonya Harding-Nancy Kerrigan scandal of 1994 (New York Daily News)

Tonya Harding Reflects on 20-Year Anniversary of Nancy Kerrigan Attack: "Get Over It" (E-Online)

Tonya, Nancy reflect on 'the Whack heard round the world' (USA Today)

And the most comprehensive, blow-by-blow account, for you true-crime hounds:

Harding-Kerrigan 20 Years Later: Remembering the Stunning, Life-Changing Attack (Bleacher Report)

~*~

At left: my daughter's cat, Napoleon.







I know there are people (waves at PETA) who think there can be vegetarian cats, but I think you are all insane. Sorry. That's the word for today: insane. Or maybe you don't really care about animals as much as you say you do?

Predatory animals eat PREY, you dolts.

But the legions of hard-core vegans continue to protest. A fellow named James Peden has even written a book, aptly titled Vegetarian Cats and Dogs. OMG, that is horrible. Dogs, maybe. Cats, no. This is plain old Appalachian folk wisdom speaking. CATS EAT MEAT, you deluded fools! They are not orangutans.

From Scientific American:

Unlike dogs and other omnivores, cats are true (so-called “obligate”) carnivores: They meet their nutritional needs by consuming other animals and have a higher protein requirement than many other mammals. Cats get certain key nutrients from meat—including taurine, arachidonic acid, vitamin A and vitamin B12—that can’t be sufficiently obtained from plant-based foods. Without a steady supply of these nutrients, cats can suffer from liver and heart problems, not to mention skin irritation and hearing loss.

As such, a cat’s ideal diet is made up mainly of protein and fats derived from small prey such as rodents, birds and small reptiles and amphibians. Some cats munch on grass or other plants, but most biologists agree that such roughage serves only as a digestive aid and provides limited if any nutritional value.

So there.

Still, even this article tries to have it both ways, and suggests that some companies (and whaddaya know, James Peden works for one of them! Imagine that!) have figured out the cat-related dietary issues and manufacture "imitation meats" with appropriate nutritive content, crafted especially for felines. I am skeptical, and will remain that way.

Unfortunately (and I say this as a serious vegetarian of many years duration), nothing lights up kitty's eyes like the sudden appearance of a mouse or moth, or a bird fluttering across the patio. If you have ever heard that little agitated "chirping" noise cat's make, then you know what I mean: Bloodlust. No other word for it.

We have chosen to live with predatory animals. How "animal-centric" or animal-rights-oriented is it, to expect them to be like humans? They are FELINES and we like them for being felines. Their lovely eyes and quirky independent behavior are that of HUNTERS, not pet cockatoos.

If you want dogs or cockatoos, then by all means, get them and feed them corn flakes or whatever... but CATS are special creatures and have always lived by their own cat rules. This is why we love them.

Don't starve your cat or make them miserable. If you want to buy them veggie cat food (because you understandably do not want to support the pet-food industry itself), just supplement this with a little tuna or fish.

But I would never EVER give my cats only vegetarian food on a daily basis.

~*~



For my fellow old hippies who, like me, unaccountably find ourselves sifting through the endless fulminating that is Tumblr, scratching our heads in abject confusion: I have BROUGHT YOU THE STONE TABLETS!

This brilliant and fascinating article is titled The Rise of the Post-New Left Political Vocabulary and it even comes with a handy-dandy chart for comparison of the Old Left vs New Left lexicon. (A million thanks to wonderful, astute John Powers for the link! I linked this on my own Tumblr and added a few comments.)

Sadly, some of my special favorite Tumblr-terms have not been mentioned, such as "othered"--and let's not forget "shaming" tacked onto the end of everything: slut-shaming, fat-shaming, food-shaming, etc. (I have repeatedly asked how one can be "shamed" without the consent of the shamed, but no replies have been forthcoming. Totally unhip question! Albert Ellis, call your office.) I once made fun of some MRA-dude on a blog, talking about "chicks"--and in old 70s-feminist style, I replied to him as if he had said "chickens"--one of our old jokes, which I STILL think is lots nicer (and hence, more effective) than screaming "you misogynist douchebag!" at him. He wrote "the chicks say..." and I replied, "If you have talking chickens, I think you need to contact the Nobel committee posthaste! WOW!" I also told him that he should not EAT the talking chickens, and maybe house them at some distance from the non-talking chickens, just to be sure they aren't accidentally slaughtered with the rest. Because those are some EXPENSIVE chickens, man! Guard them with your life!

Then again, if they are housed separately, it might keep the other chickens from learning how to talk.

Yes, I did go on at some length, until he stopped referring to women as animals. But it made him furious! (I told him, well, I've made an honest mistake! You are the one talking about poultry.)

Anyway, at this notable juncture, the MRAs promptly accused me of "language-shaming" this poor man with the talking chickens. Huh? What? I corrected them: No, I am MAKING FUN OF HIM and his antiquated pseudo-biker talk. Fuck this "shaming" bullshit.

Where do they get this stuff? Maybe screaming "douchebag!" at men who call women "chicks"--is what I should be doing instead?

Do you believe these people? They excoriate other leftists endlessly; they are deliberately cruel, nasty and vicious at every opportunity... but hey, no SHAMING anyone, because that makes you a puritan!

Whether they destroy people's self esteeem ANYway, without the "shaming"?

Well, who cares, right?

~*~

Other stuff:

:: Last week's celebrated Wednesday edition of the Occupy the Microphone radio show, Does music contribute to a culture of violence?--produced by Traci Fant, was exemplary. All of us connected with the show are exceptionally proud. Part of the show featuring Traci interviewing Cayson Logicc, has been made into a YouTube video for Blakfokused Filmz. Check it out, peeps! GREAT STUFF!

:: Can you say "arrogance"?: The Company Behind West Virginia's Chemical Spill Skips Congressional Hearing Well, what did you expect them to do, show up and take actual responsibility for trying to poison 1/6th of the state?

CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- The company that owns the facility that leaked 10,000 gallons of chemicals into the water supply of hundreds of thousands of West Virginians last month was a no-show at a congressional hearing on the spill Monday.

Freedom Industries, which owns the storage facility that leaked chemicals into the Elk River, did not have any representatives at a hearing of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee held in the state capital Monday morning. The company's president, Gary Southern, had been invited to testify.

"He chose not to be here today to answer for what his company has done to the people of West Virginia. And I find that extremely telling," said Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.). "Freedom Industries' decision not to testify today compounds its gross misconduct, and is an absolute affront to every person impacted by its spill."

"The one empty seat ... belongs to the one entity at the epicenter of all this," said Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.), "the one who totally blew it."

"There is an odor coming from Freedom Industries, and it's not licorice," said Rahall, referring to the anise-like smell that residents have reported coming from their tap water following the spill.

:: From the New York Times--Speaking of the Olympics, here is "what it's like to be Fourth" (and just miss a medal).

:: I went to an Imbolc ceremony, which satisfied my primal need to honor Groundhog Day. It was wonderful!

It is so great to finally find my spiritual community!


~*~

And now, time to batten down the hatches for the upcoming ice storm. I just want the electricity to stay on, and if it does, I will count that as a win. (Ice storms inevitably bring about downed power-lines on a massive scale.) About 8 yrs ago, we lost power for 4 entire days, and it was traumatic. Remember, when you lose electricity, so has everyone else, so it's not like you can just bebop into a Best Western for a quickie hot shower, donut and hot coffee to get you through. The rooms are already booked up long before you even considered that. Nothing to do but wait it out, when it happens. Nightmarish. Just pray it isn't too bad.

I did not move down south to freeze my ass off. (growf!)

Stay warm, everyone, and watch out for the ever-treacherous black ice. Don't forget to check on outside-dwelling animals, and consider letting them into basements, sheds, inside-porches or sun-rooms during the storm.

Stop the violence

Photo collage at left by Traci Fant. I am behind Gregg in the upper right photo.





Thursday's radio show, with activist Traci Fant, was so intense, I honestly didn't know how to write about it.

I felt that we were finally doing the important work, telling the crucial stories that need to be told. I heartily recommend the show, which is downloadable at the link, above.

Our show was titled "Stopping Violence in upstate South Carolina" and I was deeply honored to be included. Our guests included anti-violence activists Al Harris and Taurice Bussey, as well as Karl Daniel of our local Empowerment Zone, which hosts the upstate's landmark Voices Against Violence event every year. As I said, very intense, very personal.

And today, we hear that another violent episode has happened, another school shooting in Roswell, NM. Middle school, this time.

I began today's radio show by asking, what is happening?

It seems to be the boys who have no role models, no one to care about them.

~*~

I would like to ask the Men's Rights Activists to stop fussing at feminists and posting their endless quarrels online, and put their money where their mouth is: find a young male without a role model and take him under your wing. Teach him what you know. Instead of MRAs getting all worked up over females, how about doing something for the males?

Obviously, they need you.

To the Christians: do as Karl Daniel is doing, and reach out to the youth who need a father-figure. Leave the politics alone, and worry about the boys instead.

Share your money, power and privilege. Try to make a difference in their lives.

To the Republicans: stop obsessing over guns, and instead, start obsessing over why these young men feel they need to act out in this way.

Do SOMETHING instead of blaming others.

~*~

PS: Shout out to our new sponsor YELLOW MAMA MUSIC! (Whilst shopping for musical instruments at Yellow Mama, you can also pick up a copy of radio-show guest author David Kouvek's book THE PENDULUM.)

*More photos of our participants at my Flickr page.

Day of the Dead links

At left: I celebrated Samhain with the pagan community at Greenville Unitarian-Universalist Fellowship (known as GUUF). It was wonderful!



I always loved the Christian rituals at this time of year, so its nice to know I can find working alternatives.

Hope your Halloween was fun. (PS: here are my adorable grandbabies in costume!)

~*~








Occupy the Microphone:

Our Wednesday radio show was probably the best one this week, featuring Mary Olsen of Nuclear Information Resource Service. Have a listen!

Thursday's show: Senator Lindsey Graham's stock takes a nose dive in polls

Friday's show: Did the US government know before or after the Israelis attacked Syria?

Remember, you can listen to us on livestream every weekday, LIVE AT FIVE! (And if you'd like to donate your spare change to us, please go HERE.)

~*~

Random Links:

:: 11 signs you might be an MRA (Men's Rights Advocate). Although this was posted earlier this year, I just came across it... and this certainly rings true for all of my online brawling.

:: How the religious right won: Birth of the fundamentalists, in our modern times (Salon) is excerpted from Molly Worthen's upcoming book, titled Apostles of Reason: The Crisis of Authority in American Evangelicalism. Excellent history and analysis, highly recommended, and I am hoping to read the entire book soon.

From the piece:

The decisive battles over the meaning and role of the Bible in modern society [in the 70s and 80s] did not, primarily, unfold in the form of dueling proof texts or Sunday pulpit ripostes, but in skirmishes for control of the machinery of intellectual authority: seminaries, missions boards, denominational presses, and authorized church history. The personal magnetism of gurus was not sufficient to stanch the secularist tide. Just as thousands of volunteers at Billy Graham’s crusades worked to settle new converts into local churches before their enthusiasm could evaporate, conservative activists knew that the fervor wandering sages left in their wake would fizzle unless channeled into institutions and sustained by an infrastructure built to teach and train future generations.

Worthen provides an in-depth account of exactly how the fundies took over the various Protestant denominations from within. And it's some fascinating history:

Historically, Southern Baptists have opposed the idea of creeds: formal statements of doctrine to which all members of a church must subscribe. Every Baptist is expected to articulate his beliefs for himself. The principle of “soul liberty” or “soul competency” means that each believer is accountable to no one but God. Few principles, however, are absolute in reality. Early Baptists approved confessions that reflected consensus and set boundaries for acceptable beliefs, although they did not recite them in worship. Southern Baptists, alarmed by Darwinism’s challenge to traditional interpretations of the Bible, adopted a “Faith and Message” in 1925 declaring their belief that God created man “as recorded in Genesis.” The convention elaborated on this statement in 1963 after seminary professor Ralph Elliott roiled Southern Baptists by advocating a nonliteral reading of the creation story in his book The Message of Genesis. The [Southern Baptist Convention] emphasized the “proper balance between academic freedom and academic responsibility” in Christian education, but reiterated the fallible nature of any doctrinal statement, the possibility for future revision, and the importance of soul competency.

Conservatives began to suspect that the historic Baptist resistance to creeds provided cover for heterodox interpretation of essential doctrines. They pushed for traditionalist revisions and more rigorous enforcement of statements of faith at the denomination’s seminaries and colleges, and even agitated for emendation of the Baptist Faith and Message. Creeds, far from threatening the Baptist way, were the only way to preserve it.

If you are interested in the history of Christianity (and specifically, how the biblical-literalists took over everything), this is a great read.

And it explains so much.

:: Check out Paul Krugman's New York Times column titled, A War on the Poor:

John Kasich, the Republican governor of Ohio, has done some surprising things lately. First, he did an end run around his state’s Legislature — controlled by his own party — to proceed with the federally funded expansion of Medicaid that is an important piece of Obamacare. Then, defending his action, he let loose on his political allies, declaring, “I’m concerned about the fact there seems to be a war on the poor. That, if you’re poor, somehow you’re shiftless and lazy.”

Obviously Mr. Kasich isn’t the first to make this observation. But the fact that it’s coming from a Republican in good standing (although maybe not anymore), indeed someone who used to be known as a conservative firebrand, is telling. Republican hostility toward the poor and unfortunate has now reached such a fever pitch that the party doesn’t really stand for anything else — and only willfully blind observers can fail to see that reality.

Read it all.

:: Jonathan Chait explains Why Letting Everyone Keep Their Health-Care Plan Is a Terrible Idea. (New York magazine)

:: Your Day of the Dead dose of cute comes from sweet Harley, all dressed up in a Hello Kitty costume. Adorable!

:: Your spiritual-reading assignment: A Journey from Humiliation to Humility, by Corrado Pensa:

Humiliation is not auto­­matically present; it gets fabri­cated by the ego. We have a choice. We can get into the old habit of fab­ri­cating suffering, or we can stop and watch. Can we lit­erally sit still in the tiny con­traction that we ex­perience, in face of that person who never smiles back at us? ‘Never’ means ‘every time’. ‘Every time’ means ‘a number of opportunities’. Are we going to use those opportunities? Or are we going to consider them irrelevant, minor?

Maybe it is the end of a long day. We are tired and our feet hurt. Can we focus on this fact instead of drifting into wanting and aversion? Can we be gently aware of the range of physical sensations as well as the range of reactions? This is such a wise use of time. But it can just slip through our fingers. We can con­stantly think that we have something more important to do.

~*~

I took some artsy photos in a car wash and I also updated my Flickr page, so yall come over and see my purty pics.

Have a great Day of the Dead/All Souls Day.

Correction and coming attractions

Without further ado, let me add a necessary and timely correction concerning the loony tune Elvis impersonator I mentioned in my last post. He turned out to be totally innocent and all charges were dropped. Nah, go on... you mean law enforcement can MAKE MISTAKES? (((shock)))

From the Chicago Tribune:

U.S. prosecutors dropped charges on Tuesday against a Mississippi man accused of sending ricin-laced letters to President Barack Obama, a U.S. senator and a state judge, according to court documents.

The surprise decision came hours after Paul Kevin Curtis was released from a Mississippi jail on bond.

Prosecutors said the "ongoing investigation has revealed new information," but provided no additional details, according to the court order dismissing the charges.

Curtis told reporters he respected Obama. "I would never do anything to pose a threat to him or any other U.S. official," he said. "I love this country."

He said he had no idea what ricin was. "I thought they said 'rice,' I told them I don't eat rice," he said.

Curtis, who is 45 and known in Mississippi as an Elvis impersonator, had been released from jail on bond earlier on Tuesday after a judge indefinitely postponed a court hearing on his detention. The case was later dismissed "without prejudice," meaning the charges could be potentially reinstated if warranted.

Later on Tuesday federal law enforcement officials searched the house of a second Mississippi man, Everett Dutschke, Lee County Sheriff Jim Johnson told Reuters.

It was not clear if the search was related to the ricin case.

A representative for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Oxford, Mississippi, did not return calls for comment.

Dutschke is "cooperating fully" with the FBI, his attorney Lori Nail Basham told the Northeastern Mississippi Daily Journal. Dutschke has not been charged in the ricin case, she said.

Basham said Dutschke and Curtis were acquaintances and believed the two men had known each other for several years.

Deborah Madden, an FBI spokeswoman in Jackson, Mississippi, declined to comment. Phone calls to a number listed for Dutschke and his attorney went unanswered.

In 2007, Dutschke ran unsuccessfully as a Republican candidate against Stephen Holland, an incumbent Democratic state representative from the Tupelo area. Holland's mother, Sadie, is the judge to whom one of the ricin-tainted letters was mailed this month.

During the state campaign Dutschke produced a video titled "The Aliens are Coming," attacking his opponent for being soft on immigration, which stated that Holland was a "friend" of the Sept. 11 hijackers.

LAWYER SAYS CURTIS WAS FRAMED

Christi McCoy, Curtis's attorney, told CNN she believed her client had been framed.

"I do believe that someone who was familiar and is familiar with Kevin just simply took his personal information and did this to him," McCoy told CNN. "It is absolutely horrific that someone would do this."

Curtis was arrested on April 17 at his home in Corinth, Mississippi. He was charged with mailing letters to Obama, Republican U.S. Senator Roger Wicker of Mississippi and Sadie Holland containing a substance that preliminarily tested positive for ricin, a highly lethal poison made from castor beans.

The letters were intercepted by authorities before they reached their destinations. The poison scare put Washington on edge during the same week the Boston Marathon bombing occurred.

Over the weekend, investigators searched Curtis's home, his vehicle and his ex-wife's home, but failed to find any incriminating evidence, McCoy told the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal.

In a statement last week, Curtis's family said they had not been shown any evidence of the charges against him. They said he suffers from a long history of mental illness.

Typewritten on yellow paper, the three letters contained the same eight-line message, according to an affidavit from the FBI and the Secret Service filed in court.

"Maybe I have your attention now / Even if that means someone must die," the letters read in part, according to the affidavit. The letters ended: "I am KC and I approve this message."

The initials "KC" led law enforcement officials to ask Wicker's staff if they were aware of any constituents with those initials, and the focus of the investigation then turned to Curtis, the affidavit said.

Also on Tuesday, a Pentagon spy agency said tests found no suspicious letters after an alert during a screening of incoming mail at a military base in Washington, D.C.

Earlier on Tuesday, the Defense Intelligence Agency had said security personnel detected a potentially harmful substance during routine screening of incoming mail at Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling in Washington, and initial tests indicated the presence of "possible biological toxins."

We are paying these people millions of dollars to protect us (and the president, too)... and THIS is the best they can do?

Damn pitiful.

~*~



Today on WOLI (Live at Five!), we will be continuing the discussion I started yesterday, which initially began with THIS SCARY ARTICLE (warnings galore) at the always-horrendous, anti-feminist website A Voice For Men. Here is the money quote:

While we’re on the subject of female-perpetuated sexual abuse, most surveys that ask college age women about the sexual abuse they perpetrate find a shocking levels of female-perpetrated sexual abuse. Other surveys find that men who perpetuate sexual abuse are also sexually abused, suggesting a cycle of sexual abuse on college campuses. Perhaps rather than being victims of an indifferent system these silent female rape victims–who are part of a culture of cyclical sexual abuse–fail to come forward to the authorities about their abuse because it would mean admitting that they also are rapists?

Really. It says that. Not making it up.

And it's by ... (ta dahhh!) Typhon Blue, aka Asha James, whom I have mentioned on this blog before (here and here). I am still amazed that a woman who seems to have such open contempt for circumcised men (even once calling their sexuality "crippled"--which is just reprehensible) has somehow ascended the throne as the major female Men's Rights Advocate. (Then again, when you can write a paragraph like the one above, it would seem that MRA-blogging is yours for the taking.) She now blogs at Genderratic, as well as The Good Men's Project (considerably lowering my opinion of the place--no link for you) and of course, the aforementioned A Voice For Men, wherein it seems (considering the name of the blog), that she has been promoted to the status of honorary male. I'm sure that makes her ecstatic. It is not surprising I was once certain she had to be a man... because truthfully, I don't even know any fundamentalist conservative women who suck up to men half as much as she does.

Her views over the years that I have followed her, have not changed in the least, except to become even more conservative and male-identified, if that is possible. Asha's already-advanced Queen Bee Syndrome has flourished and grown by leaps and bounds. She is running the joint, folks. You can just FEEL the preening, all the way through the computer screen.

Here are some of my favorite greatest hits from Asha, from bygone days.

Asha's dating advice:

Men, grow a pair and stop approaching western women entirely. Don’t even bother. It’s what they (obviously) want and the best you’re likely to get from the experience is a night of very bad sex and if you’re really unlucky either a rape accusation or a bill for child support or if you’re really, really unlucky, she’ll rape you herself and then accuse you of rape and/or sue for child support.

As I said, you can't make it up.

Asha has an epiphany:

There’s so much concern for men manipulating women into having sex with them yet there seems to be very little for women manipulating men into long term relationships. (This doesn’t mean I concede the whole ‘women want more long term relationships then men’. In fact I think this is because women tend to go after men who have the most to loose [sic] from marriage and these men are reluctant to get married because… well… they have a lot to loose.[sic])

There’s even a whole vocabulary of shame for men who don’t want to be manipulated in said way.

I wonder what it would be like to live in a world where there’s a whole vocabulary of shaming tactics for manipulating women into doing what men want them to do.

Asha lives is Canada, so maybe she has never heard the words whore, slut, cunt, floozy, strumpet, loose-woman, trollop, harlot, streetwalker, bitch, tramp, nympho, hussy, ho, skank, hooker, pig, harpy, etc etc etc... but I somehow doubt it. (Or are they incredibly moral in Canada? I know they don't own any guns!)

Apparently, she thinks all of these insults come from other women, instead of men trying to control the behavior of women. But hey, check this:

I asked a male friend how many women he’s been with that made an effort to please him physically and he said, out of about 20, he’s been with 2 women that made the effort.

Wow, what bitches!

And in case you aren't sorry enough for the guys:

I read an article about a survey that found men actually become depressed looking at extremely hot models and actresses.

Because they know they can’t have them.

Poor fellas! Such oppression! (((weeps)))

And it just gets better! The Men's Rights Reddit (I DO have limits, and will not link to a sewer) is filled with Bizarro World comments exactly like this. And Asha holds forth as the Queen (Bee) of Men's Rights. So if you wanna go hang out there, you've been warned.

We will be rejoining the rape topic on the air today, so stay tuned.

~*~

EDIT 4/27/13: I have been informed that Typhon Blue/Asha James is no longer writing for The Good Men Project, so please accept my copious apologies (and there is the link to TGMP I did not provide above). Thanks.

EDIT 12/2013: Typhon Blue/Asha James is also known as Alison Tieman, the name she prefers as of late 2013. (Tag has been changed.)

The problem with the Men's Rights movement, continued

A hysterical, silly young feminist at a University of Toronto demonstration was caught on video, shrieking that men's rights guys are "fucking scum" and so on. The prominent Men's Rights blog A Voice For Men has identified her by name, and has commenced harassing her to the point that she has already shut down her Twitter account.

There are 322 comments (as of this writing) applauding the stalking and harassment of this very silly, thoroughly unlucky girl. They are proud of their terrorism and exhorting their readers to go even further.

This kind of thing is why the Southern Poverty Law Center called the Men's Rights Movement (MRM) "a hate movement"--the deliberate and vicious targeting and threatening of feminists who annoy them in some specific (and usually silly) fashion.

Which brings me to another point: As in the whole Rebecca Watson/ELEVATORGATE foofaraw (and that threatens a monster-sized digression all by itself; here is a brief synopsis of the event), these incidents always seem to involve young, thin, attractive women. What's up with that? Are ugly, old or fat women/feminists just not as much fun to harass and rail against? Why not?

It really is rather striking, once you notice it.

For example, on page one of the popular A Voice For Men blog (whom I have criticized here for trashing older, unattractive women, simply for existing) there is a "Featured Offenders" category, of "women bigots" who have said sundry man-hating stuff. Notice every single one of these offenders is very attractive, white, young, and usually blonde. Hm.

Is man-hating somehow more egregious and criminal when coming from young, good-looking gals? I guess so.

The hysterical young woman from Toronto is, you guessed it, quite lovely. Other hysterical girls in the video, not nearly as attractive, did not even get noticed. Somehow, this woman is the one that rates their ire.

I find this a trifle obvious... embarrassingly so. Are they aware of their bias? Are they aware that women are aware of it, and therefore do not take their ire seriously since it seems to be targeting only those gals that make them hot? The ones they especially WANT to behave?

For instance, my own criticism of AVFM did not even rate a reply. (I assume it's because I admitted to being post-menopausal; I have long noticed that criticisms of ageism are not taken seriously by the MRM.) Meanwhile, other critical feminists rate all kinds of extended attention. For instance, they are STILL obsessed with every single thing the aforementioned Rebecca Watson does, while the fat girls remain ignored. (Just like in every other aspect of life.) [1]

NOTE: If you want your movement and criticism of man-hating to be taken seriously, stop focusing only on those criticisms from poster gals you find sexy, okay?

Further, check out the comments in the thread about the hysterical young woman... it only takes TWO (count em, TWO) comments, before they are trashing Marxism and the entire left. Amazing, huh? It is a recurrent theme. I am not sure how Marxism made the young lady crazy and man-hating, but the commies MUST have had something to do with it. [2]

THIS, once again, is why Men's Rights is increasingly regarded as a hate movement, which incidentally, is what the young woman in question was getting so hysterical about: A speech by Men's Rights advocate Warren Farrell. [3] On AVFM, they have written:

[young woman's name] apparently had a twitter account (which comes up on a Google of her name), which has now been shut down. But there appear to be traces of her in multiple net locations. This should be quite enough for our rainbow coalition of agents to do their work.

And we will continue to do ours to bring all of this to the light of public attention, including her listing on Register-her.com.[4]

Doesn't that sound like a gang of men going after one woman? What "work" do they refer to, exactly? (I like how they leave it to your imagination.)

The author of this hit-piece, Paul Elam, once wrote (in a comment addressed to a feminist): "I find you so pernicious and repugnant that the idea of fucking your shit up gives me an erection." [5] (Warren Farrell hasn't said anything that bad, has he?) As I wrote in my first post on AVFM, they believe that all feminists are "termites"--with no exceptions.

My question: Do they think this nasty, bully-behavior is helping men in any way? Really? How?!? Believe me, it doesn't. Even though I am a mere termite, I really would like the positive aspects of this movement to succeed, for many reasons. I do worry about the emotional lives of modern men and boys. I am more worried this week than I have been in a long time.

Which leads me to another crucial point: Do you realize the HARM that this piece will cause, during a week like this? In case you haven't heard: A marginalized man, cut off from mainstream society, had a very violent meltdown and engaged in mass murder... and as a result, all quiet, marginalized men will be looked at with heightened suspicion. YOU ARE MAKING THIS WORSE. YOU ARE PUTTING CERTAIN MEN AT RISK, approving anti-social, stalking behavior and telling them it is good to engage in--actually giving outsiders who want to belong, the cool label of "Rainbow coalition of agents" and calling stalking "work" instead of what it is: stalking.

Let me make it clear: Men will be dragged into interrogation rooms over this. YOU ARE WRONG TO ENCOURAGE THIS SHIT!

Please cease and desist this kind of behavior, gentlemen. This is not men's "rights"--this is about your harassment of an attractive girl who grabbed your attention in a video. (Why her and not the others?) This is about getting even, this is not about asserting rights.

And if you do not cease and desist, please understand that you ARE a hate movement. This is no different than tracking abortion doctors to their homes and taking photographs of their families! This is what a hate movement does.

~*~



[1] One sensible and well-founded complaint from the Men's Movement is that women will not ask men for dates or "approach" men. However, this doesn't refer to fat girls; I was informed by one Men's Rights Advocate that fat girls are the frequent exceptions to this rule, since they often DO approach men... in fact, in many social settings, asking men for dates is considered "fat girl behavior" and even more stigmatized than ever, for this reason. (Who knew?)

In short, they DO NOT want to date the fat girls, so these fat girls' repeated "approaches" don't count... stop bringing them up! (Stop talking about fat girls, goddammit!) They are not talking about you, fat girl, they are talking about this hysterical, pretty, thin girl from Toronto, whom they want to make behave.

Her misbehavior BOTHERS THEM A LOT... yours and mine? Not so much.

[2] The increasing right-wing drift of the MRM is also plenty disturbing, and mostly unacknowledged by its leaders. Although it is notable that many are atheists and active in the atheist movement, which I find interesting.

As a result, there is a growing rift in the atheism/skeptic community, known as "Atheism Plus"--which would be the progressive atheists (i.e. atheism PLUS other social issues). Atheism "by itself" would be the standard old-school, white men's/Richard Dawkins variety.

Needless to say, the MRM is not fond of Atheism Plus, and they largely consider it a dangerous feminist/lefty/queer ideological incursion into the sacred atheist territory of Rationalism and Reason. (You know, the kind of 'Reason' that goes after flakey feminists in Toronto who shriek at demonstrations and are unlucky enough to be pretty and thus rate extended video coverage.)

[3] I exchanged very nice correspondence with Warren Farrell back when I was about 15 years old, after having seen him on the Phil Donahue Show. He was very kind, friendly, positive and encouraging of my feminism. I kept the letter for a long time and thumb-tacked it to my bulletin board, right alongside David Cassidy and Iggy Pop, which is why I remember it. (This would have been 1972 or 73.) Therefore, I have nothing against Farrell. In fact, I left a comment on YouTube, agreeing that "quote-mining" is a negative tactic and needs to end. In that case, I hope these terribly fair-minded Men's Rights fellas will stop quote-mining Andrea Dworkin, too.

Can we make a deal on that?

[4] Register-Her started as a website naming women who make false rape/domestic violence allegations. Apparently, it has expanded to include any women who offend the MRM.

[5] Speaking of quote-mining, I can see why Paul Elam wouldn't be too fond of it.

~*~

EDIT: A Voice for Men has highlighted another shrieking, silly girl at the anti-Warren Farrell rally, so I stand corrected. This one is also named and targeted in the same way as the first silly, shrieking girl:

Additionally, over the next two days, she will be listed on register-her.com as a known bigot, and her image and name will find a place on our display of featured offenders.

And by the way, did I mention? She is also quite beautiful.

I'm sure it's only a coincidence.

Your latest Progressive Blogdonia Brawl

At left: The Five of Wands (strife) from the Rider-Waite tarot deck.









In this corner, we have The Good Men's Project, a 'men's blog' that is not exactly a Men's Rights blog, but is not exactly NOT a Men's Rights blog. Some feminists blogged there... or used to. (Getting ahead of myself.) Last year around this time, there was a notable Twitter squabble among one of the male writers and several well-known feminists, which made the rounds. As a result, from that point onward, GMP was pointedly not known as a feminist blog, even though they did publish the work of feminists and addressed feminist ideas.

Recently, GMP published two very disturbing posts. The first was titled Nice guys commit rape too (really?) by Alyssa Royse, and the second was titled I’d Rather Risk Rape Than Quit Partying by an anonymous male author. The last piece came with a caveat:

Editor’s note: This is a difficult article to read, and to publish. It is a frank, open confession about a certain commonly-accepted form of rape culture, and readers with rape triggers should probably avoid reading it. We at the Good Men Project do not endorse or support the author’s worldview, but it does speak to a very common experience that is often taken for granted and rarely talked about, except in vague and theoretical terms. We thank the author for being willing to speak openly about it, and share his struggle with his own experiences, though we want to make very clear that we do not agree with his conclusions.

And with that, everyone was off to the races.

GMP also offered some follow-up to the hoopla: Giving a Rapist a Public Platform. Alyssa Royse commented further on Facebook about the foofaraw (you knew I would use that word, didn't you?) and was duly quoted on the Yes Means Yes blog. My favorite feminist blogger at GMP (Ozy Frantz) has since departed in disgusted.

The brawl continues. Jill Filipovic at Feministe weighed in, thusly:

The Good Men Project has really stepped in some shit here, with the initial “My friend is a rapist but he’s a good guy because the girl he raped was kind of a slut sending him mixed messages” post by Alyssa Royse. They knew they stepped in shit. Instead of trying to clean it up, they rolled around in it. They doubled down with the follow-up anonymous piece by an admitted rapist with no plans of stopping, and the follow-up to that of the GMP justifying its decision to post the rapists’ piece and the ensuing MRA-fest in the comments.

And yes, I am feeding into it. I seriously considered ignoring it until I saw how many pageviews they get (and I suspect, by the way, that their writers and editors are paid by the pageview, incentivizing this kind of bullshit). Some of their writers and editors are currently complaining that I am “bullying” them and trying to take them down and destroy them. If only I had that kind of power! Just for the record, they get like 10 times the traffic Feministe does. We may have more credibility in the feminist blogosphere because they’ve chosen to repeatedly torch theirs, but we are not the Goliath here. They have an audience of men who think that the GMP is a marginally feminist, progressive site.

A major aspect of this problem is the echo chamber that develops on successful, contemporary 'big blogs'...which seems to happen inevitably, regardless of the particular blog-focus. Christian blogs do not allow atheist input, or at least greet the atheists with condescension and censorship. Atheist blogs belittle and insult the Christians. There is no dialogue. Feminist blogs prize agreement and empathy, banning the Men's Rights Advocates in short order; debate is hardly possible, or even desired. Feminists who dare to comment on Men's Rights Blogs (raises a bloody hand in witness) can get called stupid hags and bitches, and summarily driven off. There is no dialogue.

GMP tried to have the dialogue. They tried to bring the various schools-of-thought together, and it got dicey. In the end, we see which side has prevailed, but I doubt this situation would have happened if they were not trying to have it both (all) ways. Then again, I understand why they wanted the big numbers, the huge readership; this is the way one establishes oneself as a Major Blog to be Reckoned With. Undoubtedly, internet-stardom beckoned, and they saw pundit-gigs for themselves at MSNBC, dancing in their heads.

Too much, too soon.

Some are calling for a boycott of the site (there goes MSNBC!)... others are seriously deconstructing the pieces in question. From The Belle Jar, come these astute observations about the anonymous post:

I want to be thoughtful about this. I know that I should be. I should say that this man clearly has addiction issues and needs help. I should offer him my support, because he is also a rape victim. I should be kind, forgiving, generous. But I can’t. I can’t do any of those things to someone who is an unapologetic rapist, someone who is clear on the fact that he will rape again. Someone who views rape as a “trade-off” for having a good time.

Rape is not something inevitable that happens because you’re partying too hard, because you drink to excess, or because you’re having too much fun. Rape is a choice that this man makes. This man knows that his drinking and partying will lead to having sex with a partner who cannot consent, and yet continues to do so. This man is an unapologetic rapist.

And that is just plain ugly. There is no getting around it. But GMP continues to try to do just that, in decidedly unpleasant ways. The head-perps at GMP appear patently unable to learn from this debacle.

In addition, they do not seem to want to consider the long-term ramifications of their musings, as anti-violence blogger Roger Canaff sternly warned:

I’m sorry, but the issues at work here are far less complicated than you are attempting to make them. And forgive me, but when you attempt to make them more complicated you are putting more women (and some men) in danger. That’s right- that’s my contention. What you’re doing here is creating an elaborate cocktail party conversation with many willing participants about a highly misunderstood and controversial issue. But instead of clearing the air, you’re darkening it. In so doing, you are in fact being an apologist for the relatively few but highly prolific rapists out there who depend on a well-intended but foolish obfuscation of their crystal-clear intent. Please refrain.

~*~

At the same time, it's worth asking: how can we have exciting big blogs that do not turn into boring, repetitive echo chambers? Eventually, they always drive off the people who disagree, and then paint themselves into just this kind of ideological corner... or end up printing something extreme, offensive, and/or ridiculous that becomes known as just A STUNT. (I am thinking also of PZ Myers' deliberate desecration of the Eucharist, and his proud "I'm a bad, bad boy!" post about it, which sounded borderline-deranged.) Were these posts intended simply to get attention and shock, in the same way? LOOK AT US, WE ARE THE BRAVE FRINGE! Punk rock's been done, yall. (Even the Marquis de Sade desecrated the host already, and you might be able to imagine the creative ways he thought up, to do that.) It's all been done already, and lots better.

I keep wondering if these stunts are due to the siphoning-off of blog hits; the fact that blogs might be winding down in importance due to the rise of social media. As I have written before, people want comfy social media, or BIG blogs with lots of high-profile, superstar bloggers, brainstorming and accompanying hoopla. The GMP is possibly now collapsing under this weight. Subtle ideas and thoughtful opinions about social issues and collective change, are pretty boring in these days of Fox News and school-shootings. Those of us toiling in the trenches are not the big story.

And that's too bad, isn't it? Since I always thought we were.

My problem with "Men's Rights Advocates"

I try to read the Men's Rights Activists... I really do. I try to see their point of view. I have spent hours arguing with the ones who are willing to argue.

And... I... well, I hardly know what to say. Because I usually can't get past the first paragraphs of what the MRAs write. I can't even get to the heart of their arguments, assuming they have any.

For example, take this blog post from earlier this year (recently emailed to me), titled I am Schrodinger's Rapist. This piece was based on a popular, widely-circulated feminist essay titled Schrodinger's Rapist, which was about women's fear of strange men. And just like in hip-hop, a witty "reply post" was inevitably required.

Although I had read the original, I had never read the "reply"--which is why my correspondent just HAD to email it to me. It is definitive!--he promised.

Really? Oh, dear God.

This is my ongoing dilemma with the men intent on improving what we here at DEAD AIR call, The Male Dilemma. I can't read beyond the sarcastic intro-paragraphs of their blog posts.

From the above link:

Hello, average looking, aging, perimenopausal female hipster. Yes, you with the horn rim glasses.

Translation: She's old, and therefore unattractive.

Ageism is a given with many of the MRAs, of course. I've been insulted with "You're old!" more times than I can count. Now, just why this is supposed to be automatically bad is never explained in depth. It just IS, grandma! (When I fully admit that I am old, it means they do not have to reply to me, since I cease to exist.)

An old and/or unattractive woman is not worth taking seriously. She is dowdy, and thus unimportant. She has mousy glasses.

Not that men only judge women by their appearance, you understand! In MRA-universe, this is a SEXIST thing to say; you are a man-hater if you suggest that! Therefore the MRAs can still attack women's appearance with impunity, while trashing you as a man-hater for suggesting they shouldn't do it. Good work if you can get it.

What's wrong with being an average-looking, aging, perimenopausal (us awful post-menopausal women are not even important enough to address AT ALL) hipster? Is it supposed to be self-evident that such a person is simply bad, just from the description? We certainly need LOTS MORE of them here in upstate South Carolina/Bob Jones University-land!

Wait, I think this means the writer of this piece comes from a cool place on the coasts with lots of these people. But don't you DARE call him privileged, you anti-male feminist, you!

Yes those frames which were chic-retro back in the 90′s

OH MY GOD! An unfashionable woman! How horrible!

But as stated above, no anti-male comments about how men judge women purely on appearances, that is SEXIST AGAINST MEN! Man-hater!

Besides, you aren't fashionable enough to have an opinion.

- yes, you, the one drinking soy-milk latte and clutching a purse-sized single-use can of pepper spray in a white-knuckled grip behind your pant-leg. Yes, hello: I’m Schrodinger’s rapist.

Now soy-milk latte is bad, too? Can I ask why? Is this another self-evident thing on the coasts? (For the record, here in upstate SC, we can hardly find a place around here to buy one!)

Oh I get it: she is too unattractive to be raped, so its funny that she has a can of pepper spray! HAHA!

That MRA humor! Ain't they just a HOOT?!

Now I know you’re neurotic and probably taking mood stabilizing drugs, so you might be a little confused. I’m not an actual rapist–well, I might be–but what I mean to say is, I’m a man, and therefore, only a rapist in potential, since I haven’t – you know, raped anyone – that you know of.

Ah, so she is CRAZY, too! So she is DOUBLY ridiculous... or should I say triple, quadruple? Let's tally it up: old, unattractive, unfashionable, drinking the wrong thing... now she is ON SOME LOONEY MEDS, so that makes her quintuply uncool, doesn't it?

Insult after insult after insult... and look at the kind of insults they are.

If you thought I would read that last part of your paragraph and take it seriously after all the insults (assuming I got that far)... why would you think that? You are too busy assuring me how superior you are. I am not GOOD ENOUGH to read your post, obviously!

And after all, I’m a rather bland looking fellow, even though on the daytime TV you’ve allowed to shape so much of your concept of reality, they always seem to have an average looking actor playing the sexual predator role don’t they? Your fear sells more nail polish, Paxil and granola bars than your confidence does.

Daytime TV? Ah, a dimwitted hausfrau! It is simply assumed that she is home watching the dreaded dumbass DAYTIME TV! Dumb bitch!

But don't you call him a sexist, since it is sexist of you to say that.

And the references to nail polish (superficial old biddy) and Paxil (crazy old biddy) and granola (just plain OLD biddy, and likely a hippie too) finish her off.

If the author included a good point in there about TV-casting, and I think he did, I was too busy noticing the insults to catch it.

Remember, I’m not a real man, I’m a probabilistic man. I’m a cloud of possibilities. So here’s another possibility to consider: I’m a peaceful, loving, compassionate human being, and I’m an adult. And despite being subjected to more than a decade of physical, emotional and sexual abuse as a child, I am now totally repulsed by the prospect of violence and abuse – even your hypothetical, probabilistic speculations of violence and abuse.

Repulsed!

Now, since you have alerted me that I am a ridiculous stereotype not to be taken seriously, and likely a crazy, drugged-up hippie who is drinking THE WRONG THING... why would I ever think this about you?

You have just engaged in ageism, stereotyping, cultural superiority and prejudice... and now you want me to know you are peaceful, loving and compassionate? Are you serious?

Why do you judge women negatively based on their advanced age, what they drink, their uncool glasses, their viewing habits and if they might have depression... and then claim to be a compassionate guy?

Do you understand how funny that is?

Do you understand that I have already stopped reading?

Yes, you, Miss LonelyHearts, you who have declared yourself my humble instructor – and who have given to my kindness to children and animals, and to my donations to charity, your approval.

First though, what part of appointing yourself my instructor and judge lead to you also declare yourself humble? What combination of diazapam, seraquel, lorazapam, trazadone and the four Grey Goose martinis you had at lunch led you to imagine your approval or your disapproval was of even slight interest to anyone?

More ableist insults of people who use meds... and by now, I think it's plenty obvious this author is in Canada, since nobody in the USA can afford all of that unless they live on Park Avenue.

But really, this is the kind of nastiness one continually reads on MRA websites. This particular writer recently called all feminists "termites" (and he specified he meant ALL OF US--no exceptions!) on his radio broadcast, and I had actually been listening with interest to some of his economic points (about unemployment) up to that point.

But hey, TERMITES? Really? That was that. Click, off went the broadcast. I guess I never will know the rest of his ideas. Just like I will never read the rest of his post.

I don't think postmenopausal southern termites (that can't find a decent soy-latte anywhere) are his intended audience, anyway.

I do worry about the folks who are, though.

What does "post-feminist" mean anyway?

Is sexism a thing of the past? Are women still discriminated against? What does "post-feminist" mean anyway?

Unless you're drinking late in some biker bar, it can be hard to prove that sexism still exists these days, what with Nancy Pelosi and Sarah Palin and Oprah running the joint. So, I am after some clear-cut examples that can't be dismissed (other than the usual economic stats, which I think speak for themselves, but many Men's Rights bloggers ignore as biased).

~*~

I was getting ready to link to Questioning Transphobia when, damn, wouldn't ya know? I've been banned from that blog too, by Lisa Harney.[1] (Yeah, I know... the youngsters really hate grandma these days!) I think QT is an important blog, so not de-linking in return, unless they make a point of asking me to.

In any event, I do love Queen Emily and her writing. She linked the following on Questioning Transphobia (link in sidebar, not linking in post... they probably wouldn't want me to anyway): Transgender Academics and Sexism. Check it out!

I am always fascinated when transgendered people describe (witness!) the sexism they have encountered, and chronicle the differences in the ways they are treated after transitioning to man/woman. I don't think any better witnesses concerning the realities of sexism can be found, since they really have experienced it from both sides of the gender spectrum.

And they offer concrete examples.

Lucy Miller provides the tale of two Stanford biology professors, Joan Roughgarden and Ben Barres:

While living as a woman, Ben described the various ways in which his intelligence and opinions were devalued, including having a professor say “You must have had your boyfriend solve it” after correctly solving a particularly difficult computer problem in a class at MIT. After transitioning, Ben found that people now treat him with more respect; “I can even complete a whole sentence without being interrupted by a man.”

Joan’s experience was, not surprisingly, almost the exact opposite. As a young male professor, “it felt as though tracks had been laid down; all Roughgarden had to do was stick to the tracks, and the high expectations that others had of the young biologist would do the rest.” After publishing a paper challenging the traditional view of the role of tide pools, she received harsh reviews but her “ideas were taken seriously.” After transitioning, Joan “said she no longer feels she has ‘the right to be wrong.’” She found the reception to be very different when she challenged Darwin’s theory of sexual selection. Instead of engaging with her about her theory, many scientists would yell at her and be physically intimidating. “At a meeting of the Ecological Society of America in Minneapolis, Joan said, a prominent expert jumped up on the stage after her talk and started shouting at her.” When asked about interpersonal changes after transitioning, Joan said that “‘You get interrupted when you are talking, you can’t command attention, but above all you can’t frame the issues.’”[2]

FRAME THE ISSUES!

I am writing that down, for my own ongoing edification: FRAME. THE. ISSUES.

Why are women unable to frame the issues? This is a HEAVY question, and until we answer it... well, we won't be able to frame the issues.

And this is the crux of the matter: who is doing the framing? For instance, in my comments on this thread, I was not able to make my point very well, since I didn't have the language. Now I do!: Women do not frame the issues. (Thank you Dr Roughgarden!)

Danny writes, on being a man:

What I think the hard part of this is going to be is how to get men to realize that we don’t have to suffer in silence and getting the rest of society to basically shut the hell up and let us talk. Now I know to some of you that last part may sound weird. It probably sounds weird because in your mind men don’t need help speaking up because of male privilege (and if you think male privilege mitigates away our harms and pain then to the devil with you). Well let me ask you something. If men are so privileged then why do people proceed to flip the fuck out when we say something that is real but not politically correct? If I talk about how attractive Julianna Margulies and Vivica Fox are and one bats an eye but if I start to go into how I was picked on by girls in school and people think something is wrong with me.

Does anybody think anything is wrong with Danny? I don't. Nobody I know would say that. (?) Who and what is he talking about?

I replied:

getting the rest of society to basically shut the hell up and let us talk.

(((blinks in amazement)))

Okay, results of random experiment. I just flipped the channels on my TV, about 30-40 channels. (I stopped at OXYGEN, Oprah’s network.) I saw: Men talking, talking, talking. Andy Cohen, Larry King, Dr Phil, Chris Matthews, Sean Hannity, hip-hop stars I don’t know the names of, athletes I don’t know the names of, country and western stars I don’t know the names of, various politicians, Barack Obama, some guy on the BBC, Charlie Rose, Rahm Emmanuel, Anderson Cooper, et. al.

I saw: Women acting, singing, posing, selling cleaning fluids and nylons, bitching to Dr Phil, but men are the ones doing the talking about the important stuff that runs the world and makes the bucks.

The only women I found voicing actual independent opinions were 1) Joy Behar and 2) The Real Housewives of D.C. (In another hour, Rachel Maddow will get re-broadcast, but this is a RANDOM experiment!)

So, when you make a statement like the one above? Most women just shake their heads and move on. My first reaction: Danny, are you kidding?!?

How do you account for the difference in what you have said vs the results of my random media experiment? I could repeat it at virtually any hour of the day, and still get the same basic results.

So I am unsure of what you are talking about.

And a minor brawl ensues henceforth.

April comments that Danny should have said "let us emote" rather than "let us talk"... but see, I am not sure that is what he means. I think men often use TALKING as a way to AVOID emoting.

I think the problem is that women can not frame the issues, not that we need to be Anderson Cooper, et. al.

Comments welcome, particularly if you can say any of this better than I can!


~*~


[1] Lisa said "I'm banning you from my blog"--I had thought it was a group blog, but I guess it actually belongs to Lisa? I didn't realize this, since I rarely read her posts and usually just skip to Queen Emily's.

[2] Speaking of concrete examples, Danny's post about gender differences among kids being exhorted to fight (by their parents), is also good.

For the Record

The Blogger known as Heart, aka Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff on SEX-TV, with two of her eleven children.

~*~

The blogger known as Heart, Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff, appears to be having an emotional meltdown. I don't really care too awful much, except that she has gone after ME now... accusing me of some pretty weird stuff.

This is an official statement, as they say in Washington.

I am sorry Heart is losing her shit (well okay, not really), but this is apparently because she is a guru without a group, a leader without sheep. Her former droogs are in the process of abandoning her in droves, for insider-reasons of their own. For someone who has been a self-described "leader of women" her whole life, I think this is likely traumatic. As far back as I can remember, clear back to the Ms magazine boards in the early years of this decade, Heart has been the leader of a sizable feminist faction/cult of personality, calling the shots. Now that this faction is finally examining/questioning Heart's Queenship? Not good news for Heart.

Today, I get an email telling me I am accused of bringing Heart's board down during last year's attack by "Anonymous"... how lil ole me can do such a thing is... well... if I knew how to do stuff like that, I'd do it to people IRL that I have grudges against! I have barely figured out basic blogging html skills; I do not work with computers on my job. (?) Strange Days have found us.

One of Heart's many sockpuppets (their names are legion) also accuses me of hurting someone named BB. I assume this is a reference to Biting Beaver, author of a blog I am not sure I have even read! I did not know she was still blogging. I have no idea of the URL of BB's blog and I have never linked her here on my blog a single time. (?) All of these accusations come waaaaay out of left field, to put it mildly.

This is what "Sis" wrote:

Consent does come into play here. BB was a prostituted woman, and her posts are about recovery. The post DD took to hand to A*non was about recovery. She didn’t give consent to any of the rapes and torture she endured as a child, young woman. She didn’t give consent for the rape of her words by another woman who set in motion despicable destruction in BBs REAL life.

I didn't "hand anything" to "anonymous"--as I said, I can't recall if I've even read BB. I only got fast-access internet in June of 2007, the month I started my blog. I do not have internet access at work, period. Meaning, I don't squander my internet time; I use it wisely.

Has she lost her mind?

Last month, Heart actually came here claiming to be her own son. (See last few comments in second link, above.) She asked me to take down the SEX-TV photo (above), which is still available on the porn-site SEX-TV--where I just found it. (Why it's okay to pimp her kids on SEX-TV but I am not supposed to reproduce SEX-TV's own photo of her family, distributed while she was running for President, is anyone's guess.) I find it very bizarre to pretend to be your (terribly precocious and well-spoken) son, to try and manipulate someone. Then again, we know that Heart learned at the knee of Dr Dobson and has a scary fundamentalist history; the fundies are nothing if not well-versed in emotional manipulation, accusations and shaming... all of which were done to Heart. And now, she spreads the poison. (This is the whole evil of fundamentalism--it never really goes away.)

On her blog today, Heart writes:

I didn’t know until a couple of months ago that it was Daisy Deadhead who was initially responsible for the the circus that ended up this way. [insert links about 'anon' attacks on her website]

I don’t know who DD is, really. I do know whoever this person is, s/he is capable of some really sick things.

I like how she snuck in that "s/he"--didya catch that?

I did not do anything to Heart, except write about her here. When someone claims they speak for feminism and actually RUN FOR PRESIDENT as the radical feminist candidate, I consider them fair game. I wrote about the MAJORITY of presidential and vice-presidential candidates during the last election. Am I supposed to go easy on Heart because---? If she didn't want political attacks, don't run for office. When you set yourself up as the official face of radical feminism, then you are representing me, as Lindsey Graham also claims to do. I take him on, and I will take her on, too. Because they DO NOT speak for me. Lindsey Graham does not represent me, and neither does Heart.

She "doesn't know" who I am? Well, at the Ms magazine bulletin board, we exchanged messages several times, when I was using the name "China Cat Sunflower." She defended me against a particularly obnoxious MRA (Men's Rights Advocate) named Rich, who attacked me repeatedly (she called him a "horror") and I thanked her for that. And then later I find out (I got a few friends, too, Heart!) she lets this OBNOXIOUS MRA post at her supposedly separatist bulletin board! Believe me, that sets off alarm bells of my own. What is he doing there, and why? Is he another sock puppet? (If not, why allow an acknowledged, proud MRA to have unbridled access to your inner sanctum?)

And you know, I am right here. She doesn't know who I am? Why doesn't she read my words and find out? I have written of my radical history at length; I have named my copious associates and associations. I have posted my photo and the photos of my friends. I have done everything but give her my name, which is what she obviously wants. She has recently been agitating for feminists to "name themselves"--and not be anonymous, yet simultaneously cautions us that the rapists and misogynists will track us down and kill us. (Can you say "mixed signals"?)

I decided that Heart was having a meltdown when she actually compared herself to Jesus Christ Crucified, in THIS POST, which I found genuinely disturbing.

I hope I don't have to point out, that she IS NOT Jesus Christ, and IS NOT being crucified or sacrificed. But Christianity lends itself to fantasies of persecution, and I say this as a dissident Catholic.

This is not a good or healthy development.

More from Heart's comments:

I’m reading comments all over talking about this daisy deadhead person and the attack on BB. People sound afraid, disturbed, and then there are folks who don’t care. I think that piece is what scares me most…. we never care, until it happens to us.

I love how they reduce women they dislike to "this daisy deadhead person"--I do not even get the benefit of capitalization! Take that, bitch.

Anyway, I assume this is Heart's call to arms, and I expect my site to get taken out next. Unless... unless... she doesn't realize that the troops have deserted her? And they aren't paying any attention?

And then there is this exchange between Polly Styrene (love the name! rock on!) and Heart:

Polly: Whatever Daisy Deadhead has done, or not done in the past, which I will reiterate I have NO evidence of, is past. Not publishing her comments on my blog will not change that.

Heart: What an odd thing to say. Whatever obvious trolls or males who advocate rape have said, they said in the past as well. In fact, once you’ve approved a comment, “it’s in the past.” Are you saying no matter what someone has ever posted, if it’s in the past, you’ll give them another shot?

Hoo boy, I'm being compared to rapists now.

But speaking of trolls, why is Ms-board troll RICH being given refuge in Heart's private space? If Rich-the-rape-apologist can be your buddy, what is the issue, exactly?

Heart: That’s it so far as this subject goes though. I do not want these folks’ names on my blog beyond this point, neither do I want to hear what they are saying, doing, whatever.

Then why are you starting this?

Finally Heart says:

Polly, why don’t you just ask DD whether it’s true?

To borrow a line from Mary McCarthy: Every word is a lie, including the AND and the THE.

Aletha:

Polly, you might try asking because DD is probably damn proud of what she did.

Every word is a lie, including the AND and the THE. I have not done anything to Heart, except write about her here, on Polly's blog, on Ren's blog, etc. I have not directed large numbers of trolls to her website to attack her blog. (And why would they listen to ME?) I did not encourage "anon" to attack Heart, although I didn't lose any sleep over it either.

I hope that is clear enough even for a fundamentalist having a meltdown to understand.

Unfortunately, she is getting so few hits now, she has to come sucking around HERE, to my tiny-ass blog, for readers. She knew I'd have to address her sockpuppet delusions...and all that sockpuppetry appears to be fragmenting her personality in dangerous ways. I miss the old Heart who used to argue on the MS boards and put the misogynist trolls in their place. Now, she invites them in and then accuses other feminists of being rapists.

Holy Bizarro Universe, Batman. As Helena Kallianiotes would say (see my post from this morning): Crap and more crap and more crap.