Looks like I'm pretty much over the traditional blog model. I'm pretty sure anything interesting I have to say about any subject can probably be distilled into any one of the ubiquitous pictures of butts available over at Tumblr. So if you care at all about library science, copyright, intellectual property, and butts you can find me here: http://transformativetidbits.tumblr.com.
Thursday, June 20, 2013
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Breastfeeding Doll Fuels Creepy Fox News Discussion
Today in "doodz co-opting female bodies and defining their parts," we have this icky guy on Fox News. In a segment introducing a doll that simulates breastfeeding, the special guest "expert" becomes quite adamant that such a doll is inappropriately sexual for young girls, which is exactly right...if you are a guy who, in middle age, still has trouble understanding that female body parts do more than just provide visual and tactile stimulation for men. However, if you're an actual mother, or even just a thinking person who can understand that breasts are multifunctional, like the "mommy blogger" in this segment, a breastfeeding doll isn't all that big of a deal.
Of course, he also mistakes her point about his inadvertent sexualization of a young girl for being called a pedophile, which is completely off base. Projecting your own limited emotional and intellectual understanding of a grown woman's body onto a child doesn't necessarily make you a pedophile. It does, however, make you an arrogant douche. Segment below:
Of course, he also mistakes her point about his inadvertent sexualization of a young girl for being called a pedophile, which is completely off base. Projecting your own limited emotional and intellectual understanding of a grown woman's body onto a child doesn't necessarily make you a pedophile. It does, however, make you an arrogant douche. Segment below:
Monday, July 11, 2011
Asshole Alert
Look. I'm the first one to admit that the religious tradition I still participate in is fraught with stupid remnants of its damaging patriarchal past (indeed, some might argue foundation). This post isn't about why I believe it's important to effect change within or my feeling that the Church remains redeemable and that this is a worthy goal. For the record, I do.
It is, however, about how patriarchy and glaringly blind male privilege reach across cultural lines. It's not something that simply comes from or is found within various religious traditions. It's so embedded in our collective psyche that it rears its ugly head in unexpected places. Like a convention dedicated to reasoned and logical thought about the world around us, with at least a minimum of egalitarian allowance for wherever that reasoned thought originates.
While I'm stating things for the record, let me just say: Fuck you, Richard Dawkins. Now, just as I expect reasonable thinking individuals to approach men and women of the cloth with the courtesy of individual, rather than institutional, consideration for their thoughts, words, and actions, I am not inclined to make any sweeping statement or assumption about other Dawkins theories or even the atheist community as a whole. But I will say that the woman's presentation (as described in Meyer's post above the asshat Dawkins comment) makes a convincing case for there being just as strong a line of Mansplaining in this community as you'll find in other communities that claim to understand How to Think About the World.
Patriarchy hurts men, too. Schrodinger's Rapist is the best exploration of this phenomenon, though there are many other examples that I don't have time to outline here. Dawkins is so classically using privilege he can't even admit he has in order to discredit the very real experiences of a woman in his own intellectual community. Tacit knowledge reaches beyond the capabilities of language and this is exactly the sort of knowledge that women use to navigate whatever culture they inhabit, be it in sub-Saharan Africa, Ireland, Saudi Arabia, or even the US.
I appreciate PZ Meyer's willingness to rise above the mansplaining and lay out the inconsistencies and strange non-logic of his colleague's response to this woman's post. But nobody is immune to this crap and it's interesting to see it play out in communities of seemingly opposite lines of thought.
It is, however, about how patriarchy and glaringly blind male privilege reach across cultural lines. It's not something that simply comes from or is found within various religious traditions. It's so embedded in our collective psyche that it rears its ugly head in unexpected places. Like a convention dedicated to reasoned and logical thought about the world around us, with at least a minimum of egalitarian allowance for wherever that reasoned thought originates.
While I'm stating things for the record, let me just say: Fuck you, Richard Dawkins. Now, just as I expect reasonable thinking individuals to approach men and women of the cloth with the courtesy of individual, rather than institutional, consideration for their thoughts, words, and actions, I am not inclined to make any sweeping statement or assumption about other Dawkins theories or even the atheist community as a whole. But I will say that the woman's presentation (as described in Meyer's post above the asshat Dawkins comment) makes a convincing case for there being just as strong a line of Mansplaining in this community as you'll find in other communities that claim to understand How to Think About the World.
Patriarchy hurts men, too. Schrodinger's Rapist is the best exploration of this phenomenon, though there are many other examples that I don't have time to outline here. Dawkins is so classically using privilege he can't even admit he has in order to discredit the very real experiences of a woman in his own intellectual community. Tacit knowledge reaches beyond the capabilities of language and this is exactly the sort of knowledge that women use to navigate whatever culture they inhabit, be it in sub-Saharan Africa, Ireland, Saudi Arabia, or even the US.
I appreciate PZ Meyer's willingness to rise above the mansplaining and lay out the inconsistencies and strange non-logic of his colleague's response to this woman's post. But nobody is immune to this crap and it's interesting to see it play out in communities of seemingly opposite lines of thought.
Friday, May 27, 2011
"Abortion Saved My Life"--a good and though-provoking read at Salon
This is a very moving post by a woman at Salon.com. I think this really gets at the crux of the problem with creating a hard ethical line against any abortion ever. This is also why the "health of the mother" argument often breaks down in practice; sometimes, you have a doctor on call who simply refuses to treat the grown up patient in favor of supposedly "protecting" a future patient that may or may not grow to term. A woman was severely hemorrhaging in front of him and several medical students and they chose a potential person over an actual, living one.
It's a good read: http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/05/26/abortion_saved_my_life/index.html
It's a good read: http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/05/26/abortion_saved_my_life/index.html
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Read this whole transcript of Bill O'Reilly "debating" rapper Common's invitation to the WH with Jon Stewart. Mostly so you can really feel this punchline at the end:
STEWART: Let me tell you something. That's not the only thing you like. I'm like a shot of Levittown right in your ass, like a B-12, boom.
O'REILLY: I think I'm going to commit suicide.
Here's the entire transcript.
STEWART: Let me tell you something. That's not the only thing you like. I'm like a shot of Levittown right in your ass, like a B-12, boom.
O'REILLY: I think I'm going to commit suicide.
Here's the entire transcript.
Friday, April 29, 2011
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Mike Pence is a Giant Douche
Dear Rep. Pence,
I can't say this with complete certainty, but I'm pretty sure you've consistently had health insurance for most of your life. I'm also pretty sure you've never had any of the lady parts your Florida brethren find so offensive. So perhaps it would behoove you to listen to thousands of women with said lady parts, women who, at some point in life, were probably uninsured and in need of affordable health services. Because reproductive health needs don't just stop when you find yourself without insurance.
I was one of those women. I used Planned Parenthood because I literally couldn't afford to see a private gynecologist. And you know what? PP spent 100% of it's time and resources helping me not get pregnant! That's right--they did everything they could to ensure that I wouldn't even need to make a decision about terminating or keeping a pregnancy. Which is a very different experience than the abortion industry making thousands of dollars killing babies that you seem so keen on describing on TV.
So when you run around, squawking like an asshat about what PP does and doesn't do, remember that there are women who have actually used their services. And perhaps shut up for a minute and listen to them about the devastation of losing the only local free/subsidized clinic in their area.
Of course, I know you're not really interested in any of these stories or experiences. Okay, I'll just tell women to stop having sex without being in a committed, upper middle-class marriage. That should take care of the problem post haste.
Abby
I can't say this with complete certainty, but I'm pretty sure you've consistently had health insurance for most of your life. I'm also pretty sure you've never had any of the lady parts your Florida brethren find so offensive. So perhaps it would behoove you to listen to thousands of women with said lady parts, women who, at some point in life, were probably uninsured and in need of affordable health services. Because reproductive health needs don't just stop when you find yourself without insurance.
I was one of those women. I used Planned Parenthood because I literally couldn't afford to see a private gynecologist. And you know what? PP spent 100% of it's time and resources helping me not get pregnant! That's right--they did everything they could to ensure that I wouldn't even need to make a decision about terminating or keeping a pregnancy. Which is a very different experience than the abortion industry making thousands of dollars killing babies that you seem so keen on describing on TV.
So when you run around, squawking like an asshat about what PP does and doesn't do, remember that there are women who have actually used their services. And perhaps shut up for a minute and listen to them about the devastation of losing the only local free/subsidized clinic in their area.
Of course, I know you're not really interested in any of these stories or experiences. Okay, I'll just tell women to stop having sex without being in a committed, upper middle-class marriage. That should take care of the problem post haste.
Abby
Friday, April 1, 2011
Paradoxical Uteri
File this one under LOLZ: Florida state legislatures--specifically, the GOP leadership doodz--are a bit squeamish when it comes to biologically correct names for internal organs. Well, just the lady part ones, the knowledge of which might corrupt young, impressionable teen ears.
Scott Randolph (D-Orlando) made what, in my humble opinion, is a damn good point (and LOLSOB funny remark) about the glaring double standard of Republican lawmakers when it comes to government regulation:
Scott Randolph (D-Orlando) made what, in my humble opinion, is a damn good point (and LOLSOB funny remark) about the glaring double standard of Republican lawmakers when it comes to government regulation:
"At one point Randolph suggested that his wife 'incorporate her uterus' to stop Republicans from pushing measures that would restrict abortions. Republicans, after all, wouldn't want to further regulate a Florida business."
GOP leadership then "voiced concern about young pages hearing the word uterus," even though I'm fairly certain that those pages actually equipped with said organ are hardly scandalized by hearing it's scientifically correct name (as Randolph pointed out, "it's not like I used slang"), and the unequipped--read: teenaged boys--generally don't sit around fantasizing about all those sexy uteri.* In fact, if any one fetishizes the uterus, it's GOP lawmakers who insist on weeping crocodile tears over what I choose to do with my lady parts. If you listen to them, my uterus is at once sullied and sacred. Sweet! I never thought I'd have a paradox for an internal organ!
But through the funny, let's not forget that he has a pretty good point. Many of the same Republicans who champion free market deregulation at all costs (in true Greenspan form**) will turn around and, in the same breath, strip a woman of her sexual and reproductive agency and call for invasive and unnecessary laws that stand in the way of decisions best kept between doctors and patients (and priests and family members, if the patient so chooses).
Randolph admits that his wife is the one who originally came up with the one liner about incorporating her uterus. While explaining the joke to the press, he made what is perhaps the best point about this whole debate:
"And I always say their [GOP] philosophy is small government for the big guy and big government for the little guy."
Yep.
---------------------------------------------------
*I could be wrong about this, so if anyone out there is or once was a teen boy, please let me know if I'm way off base.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Douchebag Dilbert Creator Explains "Emotional Distortion" of Feminist Readers
First, a spot of history: Dilbert creator Scott Adams has a blog and lots of menfolk seem to enjoy reading it. Some of those menfolk asked him what he thinks about "Men's Rights" and he wrote a beyond-condescending post which can be summed us as "suck it up and pretend you care about the 'emotional realities' of other people so the bitches will shut up already and leave you alone except when you want to screw them." In a true moment of intellectual responsibility, Adams deleted it after it drew criticism. Of course, this is the Internet (Google Cache is a thing) and people who dislike misogyny in all forms--even cleverly disguised in the "it's common sense!" format--took exception to this especially crappy moment of asshattery. In fact, a post by Feministe guest blogger (and, interestingly, male person) David Futrelle actually warranted a response from Adams himself.*
You can read the comment response here, but the shorter Scott Adams is: "blah blah blah context blah blah blah misinterpretation blah blah blah you're all acting like children with no reading comprehension skillz." Because the best way to respond to feminist critique of your sexist crap pile of a post is to call them all irrational womenfolk with a bad case of "emotional distortion."
My problem with this whole exchange has less to do with the blatant misogyny of the post--it's hardly a revelation that there are sexist asshats on the Internet--and a lot more to do with his disingenuous charge of "misinterpretation" when people bothered to actually read between the lines of his post. It is intellectually dishonest to say that a "man's best strategy for dealing with each group [children and the mentally handicapped] is disturbingly similar" to dealing with women, all in the same breath as trying to claim that you are not comparing women to children and the mentally disturbed. Because, despite Adams' propensity to "not care about 90% of what's happening around [him]," other well-rounded humans, male and female, actually acknowledge that emotional AND intellectual responsiveness is key to a fully useful and successful method of societal interaction.
By assuming that women are to be "dealt with" in the same way a Rational Man might approach the inherently irrational and underdeveloped child or mentally handicapped person, Adams has made the comparison whether he wants to or not. No amount of saying "but that's not what I meant!" changes the fact that readers are individuals who make decisions about meaning and interpretation independent of authorial intent and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it. Now other readers can swoop in and make a case for the opposition, but Adams' opinion is hardly more or less relevant than the readers'. And brandishing the double-edged sword of authorial and male privilege is the most intellectually irresponsible response I can imagine to the blowback from a douchey MRA post.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that Scott Adams is more interested in "having [his] way with the Queen" than actually caring about what she thinks or needs.
*I'll let you unpack the politics of Adams taking time to respond to exactly one posting on this matter, the one that just so happens to be written by a dude.
You can read the comment response here, but the shorter Scott Adams is: "blah blah blah context blah blah blah misinterpretation blah blah blah you're all acting like children with no reading comprehension skillz." Because the best way to respond to feminist critique of your sexist crap pile of a post is to call them all irrational womenfolk with a bad case of "emotional distortion."
My problem with this whole exchange has less to do with the blatant misogyny of the post--it's hardly a revelation that there are sexist asshats on the Internet--and a lot more to do with his disingenuous charge of "misinterpretation" when people bothered to actually read between the lines of his post. It is intellectually dishonest to say that a "man's best strategy for dealing with each group [children and the mentally handicapped] is disturbingly similar" to dealing with women, all in the same breath as trying to claim that you are not comparing women to children and the mentally disturbed. Because, despite Adams' propensity to "not care about 90% of what's happening around [him]," other well-rounded humans, male and female, actually acknowledge that emotional AND intellectual responsiveness is key to a fully useful and successful method of societal interaction.
By assuming that women are to be "dealt with" in the same way a Rational Man might approach the inherently irrational and underdeveloped child or mentally handicapped person, Adams has made the comparison whether he wants to or not. No amount of saying "but that's not what I meant!" changes the fact that readers are individuals who make decisions about meaning and interpretation independent of authorial intent and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it. Now other readers can swoop in and make a case for the opposition, but Adams' opinion is hardly more or less relevant than the readers'. And brandishing the double-edged sword of authorial and male privilege is the most intellectually irresponsible response I can imagine to the blowback from a douchey MRA post.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that Scott Adams is more interested in "having [his] way with the Queen" than actually caring about what she thinks or needs.
*I'll let you unpack the politics of Adams taking time to respond to exactly one posting on this matter, the one that just so happens to be written by a dude.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Amanda Marcotte: GOP War on Women's Health
I've enjoyed Amanda Marcotte's work at Pandagon for years now, but especially her work on tracking reproductive rights around the US and her constant emphasis on how this debate is ultimately rooted in misogyny. The Pandagon archives are a great resource for anyone wanting to move beyond Feminism 101 and into the complex issues of the intersection of sex/class/race/gender.
Marcotte has a direct but still fairly comprehensive article on recent GOP assaults on reproductive rights in the midst of a whole host of economic and foreign policy crises:
Marcotte has a direct but still fairly comprehensive article on recent GOP assaults on reproductive rights in the midst of a whole host of economic and foreign policy crises:
Amanda Marcotte
Salon, March 27, 2011
I especially like this observation:
"For the right, rolling back reproductive rights is considered a worthy goal in its own right, since the issue could also provoke a budget showdown that could result in a government shutdown, it's also a useful tool in their effort to force Democrats to blink. As with their push to bust unions at the state level, Republicans stand to gain electorally by wreaking havoc on the pro-choice movement and undermining its ability to get out the vote for Democrats."
"For the right, rolling back reproductive rights is considered a worthy goal in its own right, since the issue could also provoke a budget showdown that could result in a government shutdown, it's also a useful tool in their effort to force Democrats to blink. As with their push to bust unions at the state level, Republicans stand to gain electorally by wreaking havoc on the pro-choice movement and undermining its ability to get out the vote for Democrats."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)