Why reading about Polanski sucks for me, in particular.

The phrase "child rapist" is being used a lot lately, and it's starting to really get to me (and not just because its current ubiquity in the feminist blogosphere is getting to be kinda triggery for me). Roman Polanski is, obviously, a convicted rapist who would very likely be years out of prison, had he served his sentence instead of fleeing the country and using his wealth and fame to evade justice. His choices are clearly despicable and it is pretty sad to me that so many public figures are leaping to his defense.

Unfortunately, though, I can understand a little bit of where that's coming from. See, my younger brother is currently incarcerated for a similar crime.

When I first heard of the accusations against my brother, I didn't want to believe them. My brother is certainly no angel, but I just couldn't wrap my head around the possibility that he would rape a thirteen year old. Lie about tons of shit, steal, cheat, get involved with drugs or fistfights with his wife....I can see all that. But to rape a girl who's only barely a teenager? I had trouble even calling it rape at the time, and it's still hard now.

Ironic, actually, since you'd think my own personal experience with childhood rape would make it pretty fucking black and white.

And yeah, it does in some ways...I know that what my brother did, regardless of the level of violence or "consent" or whatever allegedly mitigating circumstances exist, will unquestionably mess with how that girl relates to sex and men and power dynamics and intimacy and a whole host of other seemingly unrelated things. I am consistently surprised by how often I have to face yet another shadow of The Ordeal, even now, more than ten years after I started actively acknowledging it and working on healing some of the damage (and well over twenty years after the actual incident). I have no doubts that my brother's actions have done incredible harm to that little girl - not to mention the present and future impacts to his two young daughters, his (now ex-) wife, and his family and friends (plus, you know, the way he's pretty much fucked his own future prospects).

When I finally got to a place where I accepted that he'd actually done it...I lost the ability to sort out how I felt about him and what he'd done. No, that's not true - I condemn what he did with every fiber of my being, and when I think about it, it makes me so angry I want to hurt him. I want to hurt him for what he's done himself, and in proxy for the sonuvabuitch who did it to me, and in proxy for all of the motherfuckers that do shit like this to people, who have such unconscionable blindness to the way their instantly gratified urges wreak havoc and pain and misery on others. It makes me furious.

But this is my brother. I know he's imperfect, and that he has many flaws....but I love him anyway. We have almost the same face. I spent most of my childhood getting in trouble for shit he started, like happens with little brothers. He can be incredibly sweet and surprisingly smart and genuinely accepting and kind. For as many times as he's hurt me directly, and done things I find despicable, and used me or our family members...I can't not love him. I don't know how to stop that.

And that's maybe what I'm most angry about. If he were anyone else, I wouldn't have a problem condemning him and his actions and not wasting another iota of my energy on it. But I love him, and I believe that what he's going through in prison is awful and inhumane in many ways (since I believe that the whole prison-industrial complex is inherently awful and inhumane, for lots of people besides my brother). I can't just write him off, and so I have a lot of trouble reconciling my love for my brother and my hatred of what he's done. So much trouble, in fact, that I have spoken to him only twice in the two years he's been locked up, and still agonize over whether and how to maintain our connection. It's easier to avoid thinking about it, to get lost in my own life stuff and pretend that I'm not the sister of a rapist.

I'm not even going to get into the fact that he, by all accounts, still doesn't think he's done anything wrong.

So, yeah, I guess I can understand why so many people are jumping to Polanski's defense...it's really tough to grapple with the idea that a person you love has done something so categorically wrong, has left behind a devastated human being who will likely spend the rest of her life trying to overcome the aftereffects, has committed a heinous crime. The difference I see between my brother and Roman Polanski? My brother's in jail, going through rehab, and suffering the consequences of his prosecution. I'm not saying it makes him the better man, I'm saying it makes him the one who's serving justice.

And now I am going to do my best to stop reading about Polanski.

ETA: All good intentions set aside, I am really not interested in getting feedback on how I have chosen to deal with my brother's circumstances. This post is more about acknowledging the complexities of rape, and how it affects victims, perpetrators, and the people close to them.

Today, in things that are fucked up...

Holy crap, I can't even believe this bullshit: Bill Gates has solved Africa!

Well, okay, he's figured out how to fix that whole problem they have of, like, starving all the time over there. They just need geneticaly modified seeds and lots and lots of agrichemicals (i.e., petrochemical fertilizer!). You know, so they can kick out bumper crops like farmers over here in the States do! 'Cause it's not like there are any negative consequences to that approach, especially not when rich corporations bring it to the tropics. Jeebus, Bill Gates, what is your deal?! Is it not bad enough that you sell buttloads of imperfect operating systems that bring blue screens and frustration* to people around the world....do you have to export crappy (environment-destroying) industrial farming, too?! (P.S. While it may be historically accurate, don't you think you could've found a better way to talk about the increase in crop yield due to petroleum-based mono-crop industrial agriculture than "Green Revolution"? 'Cause I dunno 'bout you, Bill, but I'm interested in a whole 'nother kinda Green Revolution these days...Plus, what the hell? USA, China, India, Africa: one of these things is not like the other.)

In fairness, though, this sentence in Bill's letter is spot fucking on:

It is interesting how often the impact of climate change is illustrated by talking about the problems the polar bears will face rather than the much greater number of poor people who will die unless significant investments are made to help them.

I totally agree, Bill. I'm not sure, though, that expanding industrial farming techniques to countries that don't use them now will actually help this situation. In fact, I'm pretty darn sure it won't. Now, organic and permaculture resources? Whole different story.

In other news of the wackadoo, apparently someone's printing out the Shared Items from their Google Reader, and calling it a newspaper?? I saw one on the el this morning, and literally turned to my roomie and said, "I think they missed the point." Don't get me wrong, I love the tactile experience of printed media; I will probably always keep a magazine subscription or two, and you'll pry my books from my cold, dead hands. But. It makes zero sense to me to compile a bunch of blogs and print it out like a newspaper. Also? STOP NEEDLESSLY KILLING TREES, YOU THOUGHTLESS FUCKS! Read it on your damn laptop!

Another thing fueling my rage today: TreeHugger's "Vegetarians We Love," which is a list of *dudes* who don't eat meat. 'Cause, apparently, it is totally girly to not eat meat. Don't get me wrong, TreeHugger, I get that y'all are trying to show other dudes that not-eating-meat can totally be manly, since Joaquin Phoenix is totally a vegan and all....but excellent work ignoring the fact that food choices (should) have FUCK ALL to do with gender. And that guys need some kind of extra special prize for not guzzling steak at three meals a day.

Finally, to round out the sad state of the good, green earth and some of her fucked up peoples, it seems that Americans don't really buy this whole "climate change" business, and that if those of us who do buy it and give a damn are going to convince them to change, we're gonna have to dumb it down a bit, 'cause all that science talk is just confusing, or something. I know not everybody wants to pore over charts and data and read scientific studies which are, admittedly, often a little on the dry side...but the evidence is ubiquitous enough these days that we've already boiled it down to stuff like the penguins will all die and global warming is irreversible....I dunno how much less "science-y" it gets than those really plain statements, but apparently Jane Six-Pack still somehow thinks that's not a big deal. Ugh.

Le sigh. Okay, some good stuff to get the brain churning a bit: BFP & Jess' collab called (re)Thinking Walking, which is really interesting food for thought; a manifesto from Jeremy Schlosberg at Fingertips, who I find one of the smartest, fairest and most ethical music bloggers on the web; also, this bit about racism in SF&F is delightfully blunt.

The world is a complicated place, and I rarely find enough time to wrap my brain around even a small piece of it. But I keep trying.

_____________________________
* Note: I detest Microsoft only marginally less than I detest anything Apple-related. Just in case you were thinking I was a Mac person or something. *shudder*

Other people's words.

I'm still reacclimating to being back at work after a week off. I don't really have brilliant, insightful, inspiring, or thought-provoking things to say today. Luckily, other people do:

Hillary Clinton's opening remarks during the hearings confirming her as the next Secretary of State:

Too often, we see the ills that plague us more clearly than the possibilities in front of us, but it is the real possibility of progress, of that better life free from fear and want and discord, that offers our most compelling message to the rest of the world.

Lesley at Fatshionista writes about lines and stuff, which is way more brilliant than my crap description makes it seem:

I was hurt by fatphobia. I was injured by dieting. It’s taken me years - and I am still working on it - to begin to recover; to begin to have a healthy concept of food and eating; to begin to love my body for being mine no matter its size; to learn to see myself reflected in a mirror, or a shop window, or in a photograph, and not cringe; to survive in a culture that stereotypes me as lazy, stupid, disgusting, immoral, out of control, and so forth. I was bent by all this, and am very fortunate I never broke. If I draw lines, it’s because I don’t want anyone else - my friends, my family, even total fucking strangers - to have to go through that shit, to hate themselves for it. I don’t want to get sucked back down into that vortex myself.

Blackspot / ReThinking Capitalism talks about reframing music labels:

Basically, the business aspect needs to be put much lower on the priority list in the music business.  If all labels followed this theory, there wouldn’t be a need to emphasize the money-making aspect - it would come naturally out of the talent they have nurtured and promoted instead of the One-Hit-Wonders they have used and abused.

Ryan Adams (an artist I dig on several levels) muses about stepping away from music:

that is not love. love is being accepted for who you are. love is taking care of yourself and caring for others and dreaming out loud when it matters. not chasing rainbows. not hoping for some eventual collective sigh of approval which will never come. how did i ever think in those terms? i always knew better. thank goodness i know now how to be honest with myself.

International Transgender Day of Remembrance

Today, it's the International Transgender Day of Remembrance (click the link for a list of events around the world), and I'm thinking about Duanna Johnson and Lateisha Green and Angie Zapata. I've been thinking about gender as a social construct, and my own past gender complexities, and Prop 8, and my inability to really understand people who maintain hatred based on someone else's sex life or sex organs.

Some of my thinking was sparked by this commentary via Media Matters, from Minneapolis radio host Chris Baker. Baker said, in part (I'm only quoting this much - go to Media Matters if you want more of his drivel):

"I would say a majority of the blame does not lie with the nitwit that shot him, other than the fact that he's a nitwit and a guy who should have been in prison in my opinion, who shot him. But to me, this is the -- this is an example of how, by enabling people and trying to push this false reality, leads to horrible crimes like this."

Now, firstly, Baker is clearly a douchebag: murderers are not nitwits, they're people who have committed the ultimate act of violence, and the fact that their victims have lost their lives deserves a little fucking gravity - certainly more than the term "nitwit" encompasses. On top of this, Baker is employing a variation on the "she was asking for it" victim-blaming technique of putting the responsibility for preventing violence onto the person who suffered from it. That's plenty asstastic, but Baker's equally wankeriffic larger premise is that the media's acceptance of a person's chosen gender and its attendant pronouns...makes trans folk bold and confident enough to "go anywhere" and "walk into any party." Because walking into any party is obviously provocation enough to justify murder. Obviously, this is total bullshit.

I believe that anyone, regardless of birth sex or perceived gender presentation, should be able to go anywhere without fear of harassment or violence. Assholes like Chris Baker don't share that belief, and if nothing else illustrates the cultural divide I see in America these days, that fucking does. Here's a hint, Chris: if you're offended by the sight of someone who was born with a penis presenting as someone who doesn't have a penis, that would be YOUR problem. A trans woman getting comfy in her skin? Only bothers people who aren't comfortable in theirs. Or that's my amateur pop-psych theory, anyway.

I personally have experienced gender to be a pretty fucking fluid and slippery thing, and my own feelings and preferences and beliefs about my gender change based on circumstance and mood and a bazillion other conscious and unconscious factors. And at the end of the day, do I think it should really matter? No. Regardless of what genitalia I'm carrying around in my pants, or what I want to do with that genitalia and in whose company I want to do it, or the way I dress or think or behave....I'm still a human being worthy of respect. The fact that I do identify as a woman, and was born into a female body, is just dumb fucking luck, as I see it - and shouldn't get me any special treatment (though, hey, fair treatment I would totally love).

All the trappings of all genders ought to be accessible to anyone interested in enjoying them. Makeup and frilly dresses? Not just for chicks. Ditto for having babies, nurturing, getting emotional, and high heels. Power tools and guzzling beer? Not just for dudes. Ditto for pants and athletic prowess and math and running for President. None of the opportunities in life should be predicated on fitting into gender "norms" or even acknowledging them. The "reality" that Baker's talking about above is not one where trans people are so broadly accepted that they dare to walk around the world unafraid - I'm not trans and I know that ain't the world I'm living in.

The "real" reality I see is that gender is way more complex than human nature's need to fit everything in neat little boxes can handle. I think brains and bodies and spirits and identities come together in lots of variations, not just "male" or "female," and I think it's willfully ignorant to insist that every person sort into one of those two categories, based on how the sex hormones in their mother's womb sorted out their gonads before they were born.

So, today, I am remembering those lost to ignorance and hatred, and I am holding a bright hope for a future where all people of all genders can live peaceably in a world without fear.

I am plumb out of rage today.

Amazingly, I have exhausted the supply of rage that I had heretofore believed endless. The excesses of veep candidates and economic/political shenanigans and fucking bigots and rude people on the el and the epidemic of bad grammar have left me sputtering so frequently lately that when this latest horse hockey hit my brain this morning, all I could do was sigh. I want to take it down with incandescent eloquence....but I got nothin'.

This would be making me furious, if I had any anger in stock. The framing of these various efforts being made to convince the body that it's not being starved....is scary to me. There's a quote talking about how nobody wants to completely change their lifestyle, and this "tinkering" with appetite via modified (read: undigestible) foods will let them "indulge" again. Note to fuckhead scientists: EATING IS NOT INDULGENCE, IT'S A BIOLOGICAL NECESSITY.

Also, the bit about "anorexics or female adolescents" kind of boggles the mind....maybe that statement tells us a little something about diet culture, hmmm?

It's possible I haven't *quite* exhausted my supplies....

FUotD: the State of Alabama! (DIS-honorable mention to Business Week's Philip Rawls)

When I lived in Atlanta and spent many months driving I-20 into Anniston, Alabama to visit my sister while she was in Basic Training at Ft. McClellan, I heard this joke a lot:

Q: What's the only good thing to come out of Alabama?

A: I-20!

Today, there's this bullshit (via Shakesville):

Alabama, pushed to second in national obesity rankings by deep-fried Southern favorites, is cracking down on state workers who are too fat.

The state has given its 37,527 employees a year to start getting fit -- or they'll pay $25 a month for insurance that otherwise is free.

Let's start with the complete non-starter about "deep-fried Southern favorites." Skinny people eat fried foods all the time without getting fat (ummmm, Michael Phelps, anyone?)...and not eating fried foods doesn't make people skinny. ('Cause seriously, I hate me some fried foods.)

What bugs me about this is that this is, essentially, an employer gathering personal and private information about its workers, and then using this to affect the benefits some workers receive along with their paychecks (and let's not forget that we're talking about Alabama, one of the lowest-ranked states in terms of median income - hmmmm, the poverty-fatness combo again; wonder if there's a connection?). And what personal data will they be using to determine who pays and who doesn't? Our old friend, the BMI!

The board will apply the obesity charge to anyone with a body mass index of 35 or higher who is not making progress. A person 5 feet 6 inches tall weighing 220 pounds, for example, would have a BMI of 35.5. A BMI of 30 is considered the threshold for obesity.

The board has not yet determined how much progress a person would have to show and is uncertain how many people might be affected because everyone could avoid the charge by working to lose weight.

So, we know the BMI is crap...but I particularly love the part where there not sure how to measure progress. (Maybe that's because diets don't work, or something.) My fave part is that "everyone could avoid the charge" by "working to lose weight." I wonder if anybody's ever considered that maybe the fatties have tried (and are probably still trying) to lose weight a few times before. Jackholes!

Here's the piece that will inevitably be overlooked:

A recent study suggested that about half of overweight people and nearly a third of obese people have normal blood pressure and cholesterol levels, while about a quarter of people considered to be normal weight suffer from the ills associated with obesity.

...because the State of Alabama can't pocket $300 a year per fat person if they recognize that health cannot be regulated, or at least that fat is not the same thing as unhealthy.

I also love that they quote the state employees' union as not being upset:

Mac McArthur, executive director of Alabama State Employees Association, said the plan is not designed to punish employees.

"It's a positive," he said.

Riiiight. Not designed to punish employees. Only take some of their money. Those are totally different things.

Honestly, this program is similar to a "wellness" program at my company; if I joined the program, got a "health coach" and followed whatever steps they told me I should, I would save $20 a month on my premiums. But you know what? My weight is none of my employer's fucking business, and $20 a month is something I can afford to spend to preserve my privacy. Is it right, though? Is it fair that I basically pay a premium to be fat and insured? Hell, no. It's total crap.

The part that sucks hardest is that the people (substantially women, I bet) with the least financial resources are probably also the ones who'll be stuck finding a way to budget in an extra $25 a month because they don't have time, money, or the resources it takes to force their bodies to lose weight. I smell eating disorders and starvation - if they aren't already there.

So, yeah, State of Alabama: FUCK YOU!

Awesome video re: "America the Beautiful"

Have I mentioned before that I freakin' love this documentary?!

Check out this piece on CNN. If you have the chance to see this film, please do. It deserves massive support!

I am composed primarily of spleen.

So, my suck fatigue is ongoing, and my attempted media fast and bullshit vacation....well, it's harder to bury my head in sand than I expected it to be. Apparently my radar just doesn't like to go down without a fight. I keep stumbling into new things to get pissed about - like this "shocking" finding that - gasp! - body size isn't necessarily a good indicator of health, or this bullshit from the George W. "I Hate Animals and the Environment" Bush and his cronies, or this nonsense about corporations not paying taxes (Chuh. Big surprise there.), or this ridiculous jackholery where the Olympics told a seven year old girl she was too fat and ugly to be seen performing in their opening ceremony....and don't even get me started on the John Edwards affair thing.

Yeah, not really unplugged the way I want to be. I tried working my ass off (bathroom: painted! kitchen table: arrangements made! apartment: totally cleaned!), hacking my hair off, distracting myself with musical pursuits and good books, and letting myself get a little obsessive over a dude (which may or may not have been or indeed *be* productive)....yeah, none of that worked either. Le sigh.

This is all aggravated for me by various life circumstances that have inserted themselves into my head and reminded me that no matter how much work I do on myself, my history never leaves me. Shitty life circumstances can be ameliorated to some degree, but even the very best tools can only shift things so much. Sure, I can make choices that help, I can try to stop reactive behaviors, I can breathe and recognize the line dividing what I can and cannot change and have compassion for myself and the people around me....but that's cold comfort sometimes. I want my issues to come with an off switch, dammit.

Anyway, since I'm not having much luck keeping my head down, I've decided to shift from a Media Fast into a Bliss Blitz, a la Rob Brezsny:

In response to our culture's ever-rising levels of noise and frenzy, rites
of purification have become more popular. Many people now recognize
the value of taking periodic retreats. Withdrawing from their usual
compulsions, they go on fasts, avoid mass media, practice celibacy, or
even abstain from speaking. While we applaud cleansing ceremonies like
this, we recommend balancing them with periodic outbreaks of an equal
and opposite custom: the Bliss Blitz.

During this celebration, you tune out the numbing banality of the daily
grind. But instead of shrinking into asceticism, you indulge in uninhibited
explorations of joy, release, and expansion. Turning away from the mildly
stimulating distractions you seek out when you're bored or worried, you
become inexhaustibly resourceful as you search for unsurpassable sources
of cathartic pleasure. Try it for a day or a week: the Bliss Blitz.

This weekend, I am headed home to see the family, drink some beers, eat some pig, and spend some quality time (hopefully) in a hammock under an apple tree (please, weather gods, let the sun shine on me, and tell the bugs to go to hell, yeah?). When I get back, I plan to embrace indulgence in as many ways as possible: a trip to Lush, a mani-pedi excursion, a massage, a picnic dinner on a blanket to the tune of Holst's The Planets, maybe a trip to The Art Institute to see that Benin exhibit I've seen ads for, maybe I'll coat myself in DEET and brave the insect-filled insanity of the backyard (and potential rude assholes) and treat myself to a couple nights of playing music to the plants....we'll see. All I know is, if I can't turn off my awareness of the world's sucktasticness, then maybe I can turn up my awareness of the world's delightfulness.

Here's hoping.

Briefly...

*Apparently, some people don't know how awesome sex is. I can't think of any other reason for taking action that endangers ready access to contraception. (Well, I guess there's that old chesnut about keeping women barefoot-and-pregnant...) Big yays, however, to my favorite former presidential candidate, for not fucking around and letting this go by without calling out the Bush administration and their obvious fucking agenda (click that link to sign the petition!).

* Speaking of turning back the clock on social progress...apparently a state-recognized legally binding marriage isn't good enough for the Census Bureau. Hey, anybody want to go in with me on getting them some calendars dated more recently than 1950?

* Government fucks people over, gets away with it as usual. Myanmar's junta is apparently going to get a pass on holding up aid, an act that probably directly resulted in death and suffering (we'll never know, because the questions aren't being acknowledged by those in a position to press for answers). Good thing the junta has now promised to uphold human rights and democracy and stuff.

* Brain food: a 1986 speechification on feminism from author Ursula LeGuin (h/t to Chelidon); a transcript of Al Gore's appearance on Meet the Press yesterday (the one week I don't watch; GAH!); a really interesting piece on the evolution of our culture from the industrial to...whatever comes after that.

Little things.

So, today I'm shopping.

I bought a new mp3 player (my old one is falling apart, and runs on AAA batteries that I'm tired of buying*, so I went for something USB rechargeable), and got one of these skins for it (because I do my research, and they come highly recommended). I was totally stoked, until I read the helpful hints in the order confirmation, which includes this bit:

Tell your parents, wife or girlfriend about Best Skins Ever before your order arrives. They think the word Skin means pr0n and will throw it out before you ever see it.

Setting aside the ridiculous use of "pr0n" (Uh, hello? Are you a business or a twelve-year-old?), how freakin' hard would it be to swap the gendered language there for "spouse" or "partner" or even "roommate" instead? They're entirely excluding straight women and gay men (not to mention possibly lots of trans or genderqueer people) with this wording, and while that may be in line with their demographics, it still pissed me off. Not to mention the assumption that all of these people (apparently parents of teenagers [?], or those daffy women) "think the word Skin means" pornography. Plus, all women (or parents) would throw "pr0n" out without even looking at it? Say what? I mean, if I thought something was porn, I would probably at least give it a look to see if it was something I could parlay into a good story or a feminist rant!

I had a similar reaction in an entirely different situation earlier. I was shopping on Etsy this morning, looking for wrist cuffs. (I'm trying to motivate myself to get the tattoo I've been chickening out of for several years now. I can't help it, they fucking HURT.) Anyway, I'm checking out all these cute steampunk pieces with lace and hardware and all kinds of interesting little doodads. I opened one up to read about the construction, and in the description was this: "Fits a normal wrist."

Okay, not to pick on the Etsy artisan that created the lovely wrist cuff I was browsing....but what the fuck is a "normal wrist"? More importantly, how does being "normal" or not indicate anything about how the wrist cuff would fit? I recognize that people who don't have 9 inch wrists (or anything else sized out of mass manufactured - or apparently even handmade - goods) might not recognize that using the term "normal" as a size actually makes anything outside of that size range, logically speaking, NOT normal. Which, while it may be true from a purely statistical perspective, carries some pretty intense cultural baggage. Beyond that, saying something fits a "normal wrist" just communicates ZERO useful information (I mean, seriously, most craftspeople measure this kind of thing *anyway* so why not post some numbers and leave the adjectives for the trim?).

I know these are little things, but it seems like these little things are a big part of the daily onslaught that could actually be changed without nearly as much pain and work as, say, the ERA or federally sanctioned gay marriage. It seems like little linguistic shifts wouldn't kill whoever typed up the copy for situations like this.

Since it seems few are willing to give it a try, though, maybe it's not such a little thing.

* At one time, I rocked some rechargeable AAAs. One day, as I'm waiting for a train, one of the batteries literally melted down in my purse. I'm shocked it didn't burn me, it was so hot. I still don't know what the fuck caused it to go nuclear like that, but I swore I'd never touch another rechargeable battery (of that sort, obviously) again, and I have - and will - not.

A different perspective.

Every now and then, I like to pick up a news weekly. I used to subscribe to TIME Magazine, but dropped it because I was feeling guilty over the mass amounts of non-recycled glossy paper stacking up in my house. It was like I could hear the trees screaming.

I do like magazines, though, for more in-depth looks at current events than I usually pick up from the wires or the average internet crawl. So, yeah, sometimes I pick up TIME or Newsweek or USNews. Sometimes I like to get The Economist for a more global, less America-centric perspective (The Economist is based in the UK). This week, that's exactly what I did. I hadn't flipped through an issue in probably a year, and so I thought I'd broaden my view a bit.

I'm not through it yet, but already a couple of stories have hit my buttons. First, let's talk about models:

IT'S not often that fashion models are paired with IT workers, except in the lurid fantasies of computer geeks. But because of a decision made back in 1990 they must compete for the same over-subscribed H-1B, a temporary work visa for specialised occupations. Until 2004, when the government lowered the cap on the number of H-1Bs it issued, it didn't matter so much. But now demand has far outstripped the limited number of visas available, and many foreign models are being denied the chance to sashay down America's catwalks.

Oh, the poor, poor models! You can't see this, but right now I'm playing "My Heart Bleeds For You" on the world's smallest violin.

Anthony Weiner, a New York congressman, wants to fix this tragic glitch. He has proposed a bill amending the rules so that the models will be reclassified into their own special immigration category.

...

Steve King, an Iowa congressman, thinks the bill should be called the “Ugly American Act” because it implies there are not enough beautiful people in the United States.

Well, shit, we all know that's true. If there were enough beautiful people in the U.S., our media wouldn't be saturated with ads for expensive crap to make us all prettier. And wow, in a world fraught with natural disasters and systemic oppression and economic disparities on a shocking scale, is the lack of foreign models allowed in the country really something we classify as a tragedy? Is objectification of women a noble enough pursuit that it merits a special category for issuing visas?

My favorite part:

Luckily though, supermodels like Gisele Bündchen are in the clear. They are eligible for O-1 visas, given to those with “extraordinary ability,” like Nobel laureates.

Yes, because supermodels are *just* like Nobel laureates. UGH.

And now, on to genes and clutter:

Are humans, then, hardwired to cling on to their possessions? If so, this primordial instinct joins a lengthening list of maladaptations to modern life. Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) may have suited a nomad, because the itch to wander off led to serendipitous discoveries of food and mates. The ability to store food as fat was handy if food was sometimes scarce.

Wow, is this an international publication tacitly admitting that fatness is genetic? And not controlled by "calories in - calories out"? Really? That's sort of interesting...

The fat, the impulsive and the untidy are genetically normal, but they are equipped for yesteryear. The thin, the focused and the neat are freaks—but they are cut out for success. For modern life disapproves of clutter, almost as much as it scorns obesity and fidgeting.

So, wait...normal people with normal genes are fat, impulsive, untidy, and destined for failure? What the fuck? Who the fuck decided that this is what "modern life" is, and is not? Doesn't sound like anything I'm interested in.

If you want to keep up with fashion, in handbags and iPhones, it is constantly in with the new. Modern life demands that the old should go out at the same time.

Oh, right, I see now. Is this the same "modern life" that's, oh, killing the planet?!

Yet where nature creates a problem, the market provides a solution. What Ritalin is to ADHD, and liposuction is to obesity, the personal-organisation industry can be to clutter. These professionals offer not just order, but also sympathy. America's National Association for Professional Organisers speaks of “Chronic Disorganisation”; hoarders everywhere will take comfort from those capital letters.

Wow. I love that the fucking Container Store is being compared to liposuction. One will sell you a rack to hold all your shoes, the other is a medical procedure that could, I dunno, kill you and stuff. Totally the same kinda thing.

Plus, since when is being a clutterbug a mental disorder (which is how I read a label like "Chronic Disorganization")? Obviously, there are extremes that aren't exactly healthy...but there's a big difference between being untidy, and being a hoarder.

So...The Economist - while providing interesting political insights and information about a much broader range of topics and geographies than many American sources (for example, I found this piece about the challenges faced by Europe's Roma populations really interesting and educational)....seems to miss the boat (for me) outside politics and economics. A perspective that equates a closet organizer with lipo, and a supermodel with a Nobel laureate, isn't really all that different from the mainstream American media.

Hitting a wall.

A lot of activists seem to be hitting a wall this week for some reason. I'm feeling it, too...when I look at the enormity of the injustices in the world, how close the planet is to total oblivion, and how little many people seem to give a damn....it's overwhelming. I get frustrated with what often feels like my own inability to shed the expectations of the culture I grew up in, and engage in more authentic, more sustainable daily habits - not to mention doing stuff beyond the everyday to try make the rest of the world a more equitable place. I forget sometimes, though, just how far outside the "norm" I already am, in many ways. There are plenty of people who consider me obnoxiously radical, even though I feel like there's so much more I could be doing.

That's the context in which I read David Korten's brilliant remarks to the Seattle Green Expo. While part of me thinks the Green Expos are still too driven by commerce and consumerism, I do think they're great baby steps to help spread green ideas and information. Korten's speech, however, was a breath of fresh air - it touched on things I believe but don't always articulate very well - particularly the idea of Empire. Some excerpts:

No more throwaway stuff. No more economic growth for the rich. Our priority must be to grow our well-being rather than our consumption. Invest in peace, education, and health care rather than war. Invest in compact communities rather than suburban sprawl. Invest in local economies and environmental rejuvenation rather than in shipping toys around the world and speculating in the global financial casino. Invest in sidewalks, bicycles, bicycle paths, and public transportation rather than cars and highways. Invest in education for living rather than advertising to get us to consume more. Here is the kicker. We must eliminate exactly those forms of non-essential production and consumption that our economic and political systems are designed to promote.

We might wonder how such injustice could happen in a world governed by democratically elected governments. The answer is simple and alarming. Our world is not governed by democratically elected governments. It is ruled by global financial institutions in the service of financial speculators who exchange trillions of dollars daily in search of instance unearned profits to increase the fortunes — and the power— of the richest people on the planet. They bring down governments that displease them, and buy and sell the largest corporations like commodities. By design and law the defining priority and obligation of these governing institutions is to generate financial profits to make rich people richer, in short to increase inequality in a world in desperate need of greater equity.

Absent the discussions that encouraged the sharing of their true stories, women whose experience failed to conform to the prevailing cultural story held themselves responsible for the failure. They assumed they were simply different, and thus in some way deficient. By breaking the silence to share their stories they ended their isolation and rose above self-doubt as they came to realize that they were in the very good company of a great many other wonderful women. Many then lent their voices to a growing chorus of women engaged in changing the cultural stories by which society had long defined women and their roles.

This bit here strikes me as particularly relevant to social justice movements...it's one reason why fat activism is so important to me, why it's important to share stories that break cultural assumptions about fat bodies and what it means to live in one. Most importantly, this idea of shifting the "failure" from the individual to the cultural construct that defined that failure in privileged terms that excluded the entirely valid experiences of many people.

One of the things Korten mentions is the Earth Charter, a fairly comprehensive statement of principles related to environmental, social, and economic justice that I like a great deal (although there was a spiritual/moral bent that I would want to shift to make more open to those who follow no spiritual path). It's a little more extensive than the Reclaiming Principles of Unity, but covers a lot of the same ground (although minus the witchy framework). In looking over the people involved with creating the Charter and maintaining its propagation in the world, I see a lot of diversity, but also a lot of powerful people; I'm not entirely certain the egalitarianism I find inherent in the values is also present in the actual operation....but then again, there's a whole thing about decentralized expansion - which breaks down hierarchies....so maybe it's more like Reclaiming than not.

Ahem. Anyway.

Sometimes I worry that I am not doing enough. I have no doubt there's more I can be doing everyday to live within my values.....but I also think it's important to recognize how much I'm already doing. Sure, for every radical action (like, say, catching graywater when I'm washing dishes and using it to water the plants - or growing some of my own food in an urban environment - or daring to be fat and not hate myself), there are multiple not-so-radical, not-so-awesome actions (like dying my hair with horrible chemicals - or sometimes getting frou-frou coffee from Starbucks - or buying a new pair of shoes when I have forty pairs at home already). I work a corporate job, and don't own a car. I use laundry detergent made by Proctor & Gamble, but biodegradable dish soap.

It's a process, working towards a sustainable life. I'm not yet ready to give away everything I own, wear sack-cloth, and sleep on a straw pallet....or pull myself entirely out of the capitalist world in which I was born. I add a little bit every day. I come closer every moment. I am compassionate for the times I don't do as well as I'd like, succumbing to convenience and privilege. I try again.

In summary, from Mr. Korten:

In everything you do, share the story of our human possibility and of our right and responsibility to create for ourselves and for future generations, the world of our shared dream. Our distinctive human capacity for reflection and intentional choice carries a corresponding moral responsibility to care for our Mother Earth and for one another. We must now test the limits of the individual and collective creative potential of our species as we strive to become the change we seek.

Tuesday Ruminations.

I think it is human nature to separate the micro and the macro into nice, cozy separate boxes. I think the blurry lines between individual choices and the inextricably connected Big Picture are frightening on some insitinctual level - it challenges whatever it is in human brains (or maybe just ones bathed in capitalism and patriarchy and Western culture?) that individuates and helps us prioritize the survival of our genes over the survival of those *other* genes that are NOT ours. I think about this kind of paradox a great deal, which is why I feel like I spend a lot of time walking the razor-thin line between, er, "normal" (for lack of a better term) and some kind of Peak Experience. I see this dynamic in religion (a sort-of-like-a-human God v. the entirety of creation and uncreation being one seamless whole living being in all its diverse parts), in politics (individual freedom v. peaceful coexistence), in activism (my individual actions v. the faceless and overwhelming status quo), etc., etc., etc.

I think it's hard for one brain to comprehend the endless complications of even the most seemingly simple idea. A cup of coffee isn't just a cup of coffee - it's a product of an ancient process with millenia of history and context, with impact based on where and how it was grown and harvested and shipped and processed and transported and prepared and how I choose to drink it, not to mention the various social and cultural and economic and environmental factors for all the people involved in all those processes...and then there's the effect it has on my body when I drink it, the cultural implications of drinking coffee, how it affects my appearance and status and how the way I choose to drink that coffee reflects my personality and my lifestyle, the effects on my immediate environment and possibly the regional environment...but even holding an awareness of all those layers of complication, I have trouble not just focusing on the cup of coffee. I can only hold so much thought at one time, and I haven't yet progressed in my enlightenment enough to truly sip coffee with a full awareness of the vast network of inter-related factors tied to this two second moment of my life.

And therein lies, in my opinion, the central challenge humanity wrestles with as a species. Self. Universe. And the mushy middle between, where most of life fits.

I stumbled aboard this train of thought this morning while reading this piece. The writer talks about the idea of food activism and individual choices being a somehow more manageable alternative to massive environmental problems, like global warming or soil contamination or polluted water or deforestation or toxic chemicals in everything. It's an interesting way of looking at the environmental movement as it's become more and more mainstream over the past few years; I find it particularly interesting the way so much activism (especially the kind I hear about in the media) has shifted from nuclear protests and people chaining themselves to redwoods and laying in front of bulldozers....to more capitalist measures - conscious consumerism, as it were. That's a really noteworthy (and sort of disturbing) shift, and it brings up the idea of individual choice in a context of severely harmful systems of being.

((My inner conspiracy theorist says: How much of a shift from groups challenging systems, to individuals changing how they consume...how much of that shift is a total red herring?))

This theme popped up again for me, in reading the comments on this piece from The Guardian. As always with any story about fat people, there was a lot of "just eat less, and move more" (with various levels of courtesy or coherency) and also plenty of "get rid of your cars and bike everywhere" (not to mention "people just need to learn how to eat healthy" - which makes me wonder, what the fuck rock do people think these alleged ignorant people are living under that they don't know how to "eat healthy"? Seriously, I can't crack a newspaper, flip on a TV, listen to a radio, or surf the internet - or have a conversation with most of my friends and family - without having seventeen opinions about what "healthy eating" means shoved right down my throat! If anyone doesn't know how to eat healthy, it's because the only person they ever talk to is painted on a volleyball...) (/end rant). The premise of the article, though, was that there are systemic issues at work, not just individual choices...that food "choices" are less free than people want to think, that economic realities and various other cultural factors have an effect on fatness. Interestingly enough, the bugaboo of fatness leading to a decrease in life expectancy didn't come up in this article (via Common Dreams), which talked about how life expectancy has gone down, but mostly for poor people with little access to proper healthcare...which again begs the question: is it the individual, or is it the bigger picture? Magic Eight Ball says: Answer Not Clear.

I have said before (in answer to many, many questions) that "It's Not That Simple," and I always mean it. It's been my experience that very little in life is ever simple - and if it appears so, there's likely more to it than what's visible. The personal is political, the part affects the whole, as above - so below, all different ways of saying the same thing: what is done in this moment matters, and cannot be disconnected from what was done in the preceding moment or what will be done in the moment following. When we're talking about fighting presidential secrecy, that won't just be done by my writing to the White House and telling the President I think he's an asshole for legislating from the Oval Office and pissing on the Constitution - it will probably also take massive systemic change coming from Congress and broader, collective efforts to reestablish the checks and balances that separate a representative democracy from a fascist oligarchy. When we're talking about ending racism and sexism and sizism and ableism and looksism and other kinds of outdated (and yet, sadly, still present and active and pervasive) discrimination, it can't just be done by calling out some jerk for shitty comments at a press conference...it will probably also take a complete and total reframing of our cultural understanding of gender and race and ethnicity and all the other visible (and not visible) characteristics that mark the tremendous diversity of the human race. Saving the planet won't just happen because I buy local, organic food...it will take global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, massive shifts in food and transportation systems, and an overhaul of what "lifestyle" means in a world on the brink of breakdown.

I recognize that I have some pretty radical ideas, in general. I sometimes want to give away everything I own and go walkabout in a veggie-powered RV, fer chrissakes (holy cows, I'm not the only one!). A lot of that has to do with wanting to distance myself from People. You know, Them. They are stupid and ignorant and different and intolerant and judgmental and whatever other adjectives apply. They are faceless and there are way more of Them than there ever are of Us. Part of my desire to go a-wand'ring is tied to my chronic boho hiraeth, but it's also part of how I manifest my own personal need to draw a line around myself and clarify that I Am Not Them. I separate myself from the Whole, because it makes it easier for me to simplify the messy chaos of life - it makes it harder for me to get hamstrung by the heartbreak that would inevitably haunt me if I really could see the impact of every moment I am alive.

But the harder I work to become more aware of my impacts on the world around me, the more I recognize that that line between me and the world around me is a creation in my head and doesn't really exist. And there has to be a way to apply this concept to all the systemic injustice and degradation in the world. I'm still working on that.

It ain't over.

I got a memo from Hillary Clinton this morning. She's reminding those of us who've supported her campaign (yeah, I forked over some cash to elect the first female president; yer goddamn right I did) that it's not over yet. And as much as I'm sure the DNC and the mass media and maybe even most of the country would love it if Hillary would shut the fuck up and go away...I think she's right not to end the process prematurely. I don't love her recent comments equating "hard-working" and "white" - and I'm pissed and disappointed that she hasn't made a strong statement correcting an implication I truly hope she didn't intend - but this race is not over yet. The superdelegates are up in the air, the popular vote is still pretty freakin' close, and the convention hasn't happened yet.

Just like I maintained in 2000 when it was Al Gore, I don't think it's time yet to roll over and give up. I think this is still an open contest, and I'm really glad to see Hillary sticking with it.

And while I have tremendous appreciation for my senator, and will support him whole-heartedly if he's nominated, it's really galling that the gender politics are being completely ignored in this contest. It is unbelievable to me how unremarked this trend has been; people talking about how much they "hate" Hillary Clinton, not because they know her, but because she's "such a bitch" or because she's "playing politics" and "slinging mud" and whatever other horrible crimes have earned not just the usual level of distaste many reasonable people have for political creatures, but out and out hatred. This column from Marie Cocco really hit the nail on the head, in terms of pointing out just how completely acceptable misogyny really is in our culture. It's so unconscious that we don't even notice it, and when it's so pervasive in that way....how could it possibly not be part of a Presidential race involving the first truly viable female candidate? (Furthermore, how fucking pathetic is it that it's taken this long for there to BE a viable female candidate? Not to mention that she's only the second female candidate to even grace a major party presidential ticket...EVER.)

Misogyny is real. It happens every day. It happens when decent, well-meaning men presume that their wives are taking de facto responsibility for taking care of the house and the kids. It happens when I get an e-mail from my company's "Working Women's Group" inviting me to a seminar titled "The Role of Image and Presence in the Workplace," that promotes itself thus: "we will address getting the maximum from the visual and vocal factors that have an impact on your image and presence while minimizing distracting behaviors"...because goodness knows that women's visual and vocal factors don't have the same freedom that men's do. Misogyny happens when I (yeah, me) insult my male friends by calling them girls ("Dude, are you a *girl*? Stop whining!") (I am working on this, obviously.). It's everywhere, it's pervasive, and it's not fucking okay.

And, in this presidential race, as much as people want to call Hillary slimy and grasping and talk about how she and Bill are soulless power-junkies, as much as people want to say she's shady and a liar and accuse her of pandering and murder (Vince Foster!!) and all manner of scandal, as much as people throw names like "bitch" and "ball-buster" and "Harpy" and use words like "shrill" and "hysterical" and as much as they want to compare Hillary to fictional characters and such...I think maybe these people have stopped seeing Hillary as a person, as a woman who's worked very hard - who's scrambled the same way ALL politicians scramble (and yes, Mr. Obama, my darling Senator who I love and adore and voted for and will surely do again, you *are* a politician and you play the same twisted games as other politicians do, deny it all you want!) - who's done what she felt had to be done to serve the good of the people. She's no worse than any other politician...and I think she has a chance to be much better, even if only because she's following the worst President in history and total shit would be an improvement.

The truth I see is that the underlying message (whether or not the people spouting this misogynistic rhetoric realize it) is: "You are a girl. This is a Man's Job. Stop trying to do What Men Do, and get back in the fucking kitchen, bitch."

I'm with you, Hillary, in spirit and in pocketbook. This isn't a fucking hissy fit, it's the goddamned most important Presidential Race in recent history. Fuck anybody who implies that standing up for your beliefs until it's truly over is akin to terrorism. The good of the "party," the good of the country, is best served by the right person in the job, and until every voter has a chance to say otherwise, that person's last name is Rodham-Clinton.

"America the Beautiful" Premieres in Chicago!!

Chicagoans rejoice: "America the Beautiful" premieres May 6th!!

The film premieres at 8 p.m. next Tuesday, at AMC River East theater downtown. Free tickets can be had (here). I will totally be there!!

After the premiere, the movie will be playing at the Landmark Century Center Cinema (near Clark & Diversey); movie times haven't been published yet....but the more people who can get out and see the movie the first weekend (May 9-11), the better chances for a wider release. This flick is so powerful, and contains such an important message - I want it to have a chance to get that message to as many people as possible. So, if you're not local, but know someone who is - send them this info! If you're not local, maybe take a weekend trip to Chicago and go see this flick! If you are local...well, I can't imagine any reason you wouldn't want to see this film yourself - but tell everyone you know, too!

Fuck You of the Day: John McCain

Hey, John McCain: FUCK YOU!

More about Hillary...

Sorry to keep banging a drum here, but I just stumbled onto this really well written piece by former Vermont governor Madeleine M. Kunin. It lays out some really articulate points about why Clinton is such a great nominee, and - contrary to spin! - that she's not the "conservative" candidate.

Also a really great read, talking about the "beer-drinking-buddy" effect with male voters: this piece from Salon (sorry, I know there's an ad thing if you're not a member - but it's worth reading!).

Some thoughts on a woman in the White House.

I know a lot of people who support Barack Obama because "there's just something about Hillary they don't like." Being kind of an asshole about these things, my response has often been, "Is it the fact that she has a vagina?"

For some reason people seem offended when I bring that up. Most of the folks I know get their knickers in a twist when it's suggested that they might possibly be a little sexist (especially since some of them are women). But when I ask what it is that they specifically object to, I get a lot of sound and fury (signifying nothing, I probably need not add):

* "She's moved towards the center."
Riiiight. Which is why there are almost ZERO differences in her platform and voting record, and that of my junior senator. People accuse her of this because they've heard it so often in the media, and nobody's bothered to actually look and see that it's, uh, NOT ACTUALLY TRUE. Hillary's positions on healthcare, education, taxes and the budget, foreign policy, etc., have been consistent since she became a senator.

* "There's something fishy about her. Whitewater, and that thing with the airfare, that dirty fundraiser she took money from, lobbyists, and Vince Foster, blah blah blah."
Uh huh. Was she found guilty of any wrongdoing in any of these situations? No? Why is this still an issue? I mean, Obama has shaken dirty hands, too....doesn't mean he's doen anything wrong. Same goes for Hillary. Plus, she's not pretending that lobbyists are going anywhere (unlike other candidates that keep beating the "special interests are running the show, but they won't buy me" drum....which I find unconvincing and have yet to see an actual plan for reform around), and frankly - that takes guts to be honest about.

* She's a Washington insider - he's a fresh faced outsider!
Okay, repeat after me: Washington Outsiders do not speak the keynote at Democratic National Conventions during presidential elections. Chicago Politicians are NOT fresh faced.

* She's too hawkish!
This one cracks me up. Hillary has consistently stood behind her original vote giving the President the leeway to go to the UN with the threat of unilateral military action behind him. She has stated since that she is eager to end the war and bring our troops home, but - like many politicians on both sides of the aisle - she has said she wants to do it cautiously and keeping the troops' safety foremost. (Remind me again how this is different from Obama's plan, in principle?) Furthermore, when Obama was asked if he would unilaterally send troops into Pakistan if we had reliable intelligence putting Al Qaeda operatives there, and were unable to get Pakistani support...he said yes. Doesn't that seem slightly more hawkish than her "NO" in answer to that question?

In addition to this horseshit, there's the constant drumbeat of how "she's throwing a fit" or "overreacting" or whatever. The standard "just calm down and be reasonable" misogyny that has been infuriating women since they stopped letting men run the whole show. Every pundit, every talking head is tossing around this sort of tongue-in-cheek, head-patting sexism that is really shocking in its blatant nature.

Do I think people in general are scared of strong, independent, intelligent women? Yes, I do (it's certainly been my experience in the dating world). Do I think some of that "something about her" stems from the fact that she hasn't hidden her strength, or apologized for her choices, or run on her husband's coattails (they disagree on NAFTA!), or any of the other myriad facets of her person and personality and platform and politics that rub certain people the wrong way because no woman has ever held such a powerful position in this country (and yes, that fucking includes Oprah!), and that is really frightening on some visceral level? Hell yes.

I'm just ranting at this point, because I'm annoyed, but there's information to be had that's slightly more objective: Obama's political positions (via Wikipedia) and Clinton's political positions (also via Wikipedia). One thing you'll notice: she has a longer track record to be judged by. I think that's a good thing.

Disclaimer: I like Barack. He's my senator, and I voted for him! and if he gets the Democratic nomination, I'll set aside my ire and happily pull the lever in his favor. But I still think Hillary is the better candidate, and not just because she's a woman. Though I'd be lying if I didn't say that was part of it!

Flashback week, or something.

So, as I tool through my old diary and bring over old entries (so I don't have to maintain the old one to keep all that damn history!), I got the second "vintage" newspaper article showcasing anti-feminist crap of the week. (The first is recounted here.)

This one talks about hiring women for work in transit companies during the '40s, and is slightly less patronizing than the first, which makes sense since it's verifiably an actual article and not maybe-possibly-couldbe. But still:

Retain a physician to give each woman you hire a special physical examination - one covering female conditions. This step not only protects the property against the possibilities of lawsuit but also reveals whether the employee-to-be has any female weaknesses which would make her mentally or physically unfit for the job. Transit companies that follow this practice report a surprising number of women turned down for nervous disorders.

and

Women are inclined to be nervous and they're happier with change.

and

A girl has more confidence and consequently is more efficient if she can keep
her hair tidied, apply fresh lipstick and wash her hands several times a day.

This last one is probably the one I'm most bitter about. For the most part, I think there are way fewer "nervous disorders" tied to "female weaknesses" these days...but between Madison Avenue and Hollywood, I suspect the tidy hair and lipstick bits are all too true to this day.

There were a couple that amused the hell out of me, though.

Be reasonably considerate about using strong language around women.

and

...general experience indicates that "husky" girls - those who are just a little on the heavy side - are likely to be more even-tempered and efficient than their underweight sisters.

The first is hilarious, since I am at least as big a pottymouth as most dudes I've met.

As for the second one, it just cracks me up because it's so in contrast to the way fat girls are viewed in stereotype these days; I feel like it used to be that fatties were, you know, "jolly," while I think it's shifted over the years so that now fat people - especially women - are viewed as negative and bitchy and bitter. Pretty sad when fat women used to be preferred, back when women were forced to have a pelvic before they could be hired, and wouldn't even be hired if they had any "female weaknesses."

Hey, now that I think about it, maybe that's not so funny.

I begin to wonder...

...if maybe sometimes I am that humorless activist who takes things too seriously.

Someone e-mailed me that infamous "real 1950s Good Housekeeping article," filled with such gems as

his topics of conversation are more important than yours

and

catering for his comfort will provide you with immense personal
satisfaction

and

you have no right to question him

...basically the kind of stuff that vaporizes any hair that's too close to the steam boiling out of my ears.

I don't find it funny. I find it really fucking sad, because there are a lot of people in the world still living by those sorts of beliefs. It's not an adorable anachronism when so much of it is still held true by so many people.

There are times when I see why people want to laugh at this kind of thing. Laughing sometimes makes it easier not to just cry at the state of injustice in the world. But it's not funny to me. Not even fucking close.