Being Amber Rhea

Now that it’s been a few days since the election, I want to mention a couple things that disappointed me. I didn’t want to go negative right away and kill the “OMG Obama awesome!!!!” buzz (which still lingers some for me; hell, ever since Wednesday my Tumblr has been mostly Obama pictures).

I was disappointed that California’s Prop 8 passed and San Francisco’s Prop K did not pass. Some of the news pundits were blaming black voters in California for passage of Prop 8, but I think that’s BS; my inclination is to think it has to do with low voter turnout in certain areas of the state.

One reason that amendments “defining marriage” are so disturbing to me is that you’re then using a state’s Constitution to restrict freedom of its citizens, rather than expand/protect their freedom.

Good posts about the outcome of Prop 8:

BlackGayBlogger: Finding the Words

The media would have you believe that the blame of the proposition’s passing lies squarely on the backs of Black Californians, which I find to not only be silly, but statistically impossible. I’m not sure of the exact number of Black voters who voted yes on Prop 8, but I can bet that there weren’t enough to make it a majority vote of just that ethnic group.

Sugarbutch Chronicles: post-election: on love

Despite that I do understand what people say about the threat of gay marriage, I don’t really understand. I just don’t. Why? Why why why are we so threatening? On bad days - like this one, when literally millions of people voted against my very personal right, my very personal decision to get married - my heart fills up with emotion and I feel like a little kid after another kid yells, “I HATE YOU!” My eyes well up. I didn’t do anything to you. Just - why?

As for Prop K, while I’m disappointed and frustrated that it didn’t pass, I am encouraged by the fact that it got 42% of the vote - not insignificant. But in the wake of Prop K not passing, Ren’s open letter is a must-read.

And what has your no vote done? Well, people: women, men, boys, girls, of all colors, of all sexual orientations, of all ages, cis and transgender, will still be involved in prostitution. In homes, in hotels, in cars, in massage parlors, in alleys, in clubs, everywhere. The sex trade will continue on, just as it always has. Whether there by choice, or by force, or because there are no other options, people of all kinds will still be selling sex, and people will still be buying it. You know it, and I know it. However, thanks to you, when a young woman is raped, when a young man is beaten, when any of these people get cut up, sodomized, violated, abused, mutilated, harassed, tortured or robbed, they will still have no where to go. They will still fear the law; they will still carry, along with the stigma of being a whore, the stigma of being a criminal. Their murders will still be written up with the tag NHI (No Humans Involved). You have not helped these people, why yes, real live human beings with thoughts, dreams and emotions just like you, at all. You’ve only hurt and marginalized them further.

Bound, Not Gagged also has a wealth of coverage, including this video from Margaret Prescod:

Most important take-away quote from the video, in my opinion: “Criminalization empowers pimp. I really want you to remember that.”

That’s probably all I’ll write about the election results for a while… I’ve got three other posts percolating, about 1) body image, 2) the value of blogging, and 3) pole dancing.

I can’t believe it’s actually election day.

Here’s what I wrote on election day four years ago:

I can’t take the stress. I just can’t stand it! I’m getting really tired, so I’m going to have to go to bed, but… aaauuuuggggh!!! I’m hoping I won’t be plagued by nightmares of 4 more years of Bush. Actually, nightmares won’t be a problem — as long as they don’t come true.

So, I’m heading to bed, because I must. Jenny (as if you ever read this!), I hope you’re not still answering phones at the Kerry campaign office; you need your sleep too. You’re a trooper! Kira and Sara, if you’re at the rally at Copley, congrats on being part of history… although I wouldn’t blame you for sitting home with various types of alcohol.

Just a parting thought as my eyes droop… WHO are these PEOPLE who are voting for BUSH??? I’m going to cry……

And once again, four years later, Jenny is a trooper - and working for a much better candidate this time around. :)

Rusty and I are going to the DPG party at the Hyatt tonight (not sure how late we’ll stay; it’s a school night after all). I don’t think I’ll be bringing a laptop. I’m looking forward to it, and obviously hoping things go well. Honestly, I’m glad that four years ago I was in my apartment, alone. I don’t think being around people that night would’ve been a good idea. :P

Here’s some of what I wrote the day after the election four years ago:

I know the final election results aren’t in yet, and probably won’t be for a few days. But CNN is showing the popular vote (the portion that has currently been reported, that is) as 51% Bush, 48% Kerry. (And 1% Nader… I am really starting [ok, not starting... I started a while ago] to dislike him. I voted for him in 2000, but this year is a different story. F*ck Nader!) I guess it’s encouraging that it’s so close… but still, not looking good at this point, even though I am trying to remain optimistic — the Democratic party, and more importantly, the country, needs our continued optimism. However, that said, I am really and truly scared for the future of America. I feel like this nation is just teetering on a pinhead… or wait, here’s a different analogy; it’s like in the movies when a bus or car is hanging partially over the side of a cliff, and any small movement could possibly send it crashing into the gorge below. Yeah. That’s how I feel about America right now.

Niki, Jenny, and others and I have [semi-]joked that if Bush wins this election, we’re making a run for the border. But in all seriousness, that would not be the best course of action. Running away is not what this country needs us to do right now. For better or for worse, this country is our home and we are its citizens, and as tempting as expatriatism is, our country needs us. It needs the educated, the passionate, the ever-optimistic and idealistic even in the face of huge opposition, the movers and shakers for positive change. It needs us to stay and fight the good fight. Cynicism is tempting… flee to Canada or Europe and leave the U.S. to the gun-toting, Bible-thumping, bomb-loving, gay-bashing masses that sometimes seem to be everywhere, and watch the country drive itself into ruin — or, worse, watch as another fed-up country does it for them.

But that’s not what any of us want. That’s not what I want. I do truly love this country, and I believe that dissent does not equal siding with the terrorists, but rather, a true concern for the fate of our nation and a desire to make it better. To that end, I will not be flocking to cooler climes (why is it that all the countries with a socialized healthcare system are so freakin’ COLD?) — I will be staying here, fighting it out, trying to make my way and dig out my own little piece of a “standard of living” in this increasingly stratified society, and, most importantly, volunteering my ass off.

Hopefully tomorrow morning I’ll be writing something way more upbeat than that!

Finally, here is everything in my blog tagged “2004 election.” (Yes, I went back and tagged old posts. I didn’t have tagging capability four years ago.)

I will be pretty busy at work today so I won’t have a lot of time to check my Twitter stream, read blogs, etc. I’ll see a bunch of y’all tonight at the Hyatt! I’ll be wearing this shirt:

Reposting from the XXBN blog:

You are invited to attend XXBN’s Election Night Coverage.

When: November 4th, from 10 p.m. to Midnight (Eastern)

Where: On XXBN ~ listen live, talk in the chat room, & even be on-air!

Why: There’s this little thing called a presidential election, as well as lots of local elections going on that night and we’ll be bringing you the news, results and (fingers-crossed!) the laughs and sighs of relief. (If not we’ll be crying, ranting, barfing… possibly renting U-Hauls to cross a border…)

Who: Along with you, of course, Gracie Passette & Jill Brenneman will play host to the always fabulous Nina Hartley, Jessie Daniels, and Prop K Proponent, Maxine Doogan ~ as well as a slew of other sex positive & liberal folks.

What: We’ll be talking politics, propositions, and elections ~ on national and local levels.

Please join us ~ no need to RSVP, just be there.

Have something to say, pray, or, if you’re really on a rant, spray? You can even join the show by calling in at 646.200.3136.

Yes, it’s happening way over on the Left Coast, but it’s a pretty historic thing here in the U-S-of-A and has the potential to open up the dialogue about sex workers’ rights for many people who had never thought about it or had heard only one viewpoint.

From Sienna Baskin and Melissa Ditmore at RH Reality Check: “SF’s Proposition K: Changing the Landscape for Sex Workers”:

The assumption that criminalizing prostitution reduces its prevalence, or even more absurdly, helps those engaged in the sex trade, is fundamentally flawed. Prostitution arrests help no one, especially not the people arrested. Not only is arrest itself traumatic and often violent, it drives sex workers into a broken criminal justice system and comes with a host of collateral consequences. Sex workers who have been arrested may face the loss of their mainstream jobs, adverse impacts on their immigration status, eviction from their homes, or even problems retaining custody of their children. All of these factors may force them to return to the trade, if only to be able to pay fines and legal costs, or because their criminal record precludes them from securing other employment. Most people, when asked why they engage in sex work, cite money as the reason. Criminalization and arrests do nothing to address the lack of living wage alternatives to prostitution, which should be the real goal of anyone seeking to reduce its prevalence. In fact, criminalization is expensive, both for those arrested and for the city. One thing about Proposition K is that it gets right to the heart of the matter — the pocketbook — by prohibiting use of public funds to enforce laws against prostitution, it diverts money away from criminalizing and arresting sex workers and makes it available for more effective efforts to keep everyone safe and secure. These are compelling reasons, but the most compelling reason to stop arresting sex workers is to decrease their vulnerability to violence.

From Melissa Gira: “Keeping San Francisco Safe From Prostitutes?”:

A Yes vote on Prop K will not create an “unregulated” industry where sex workers are in more danger than they already face. Remember: the only publicly-funded body regulating the sex trade right now is law enforcement. In a City where 1 in 7 sex workers say that police have forced them to have sex with them to avoid arrest, cops have as much to gain from criminalization as pimps do. Those who should take the lead in regulating the sex industry — sex workers and social service professionals — cannot when they must compete with cops. San Francisco’s Director of STD Control & Prevention supports Prop K for this reason: if cops are using condoms against sex workers as evidence of intention to commit a crime, how does that keep anyone in San Francisco safe?

A Yes vote on Prop K is a vote for human rights. For the last thirty years, regional, national, and international networks of sex workers and sex worker advocacy organizations have been fighting to protect the civil rights of sex workers. This summer, UN Secretary General Ban-Ki Moon joined sex workers in calling for the end to laws that discriminate against us by making us criminals. Prop K is just one step towards achieving that goal.

From Karly Kirchner at Change.org: “Stripping Down Proposition K - Why San Francisco Should Decriminalize Prostitution”:

Supporting Prop K does not mean that you advocate prostitution. Prop K is about supporting the rights and health of all San Francisco residents, including prostitutes. Prop K asks San Franciscans to look past their socially-conditioned attitudes about prostitution to the human lives that are impacted by prohibition.

Prop K decriminalizes the act of exchanging sex for money. Prop K does not hinder the ability of law enforcement to investigate any crime that is related to trafficking, child abuse or sexual assault.

Decriminalization does not mean that there are no regulations. For example, a carpenter is not ‘legalized’ but simply is not a criminal. There are plenty of regulations in place that protect the carpenter as a worker, the community in which the carpenter is working (such as materials, zoning, noise, etc) and a carpenter can apprentice, be trained or join a union. Under decriminalization, sex workers would have similar rights, but also have civil, labor and social guidelines to follow.

From Stacey Swimme at Bound, Not Gagged: “Opponents of Prop K Use Lies and Fear Tactics to Sway Voters”:

Prop K decriminalizes the act of exchanging sex for money between consenting adults. Any law related to sexual assault remains intact. This includes: laws that outlaw forced or coerced sex (rape/sexual assault), forced or coerced sex for money (rape, assault, sexual exploitation), laws that outlaw sex with minors (statutory rape and child sexual exploitation) and laws that outlaw moving an individual from place to place, including across national, county and state borders for the purpose of paid sex (trafficking as defined by TVPRA). Prop K DOES NOT prevent any form of investigation into the crimes mentioned above. In fact, if police were spending less time doing undercover operations to target adults engaging in prostitution privately, they could focus more of their attention on these very real crimes and other violent crimes.

From Existential Hedonist at Bound, Not Gagged: “My response to Farley on Freakonomics- Should prostitution be Decriminalized?”:

I know someone in the US who was trafficked as a runaway teen into a life of sadistic sexual slavery about 5 miles from her house. The ONE thing that kept her from going to the authorities was that she knew that prostitution was illegal, and her captor reassured her every day that if she ever dared to go to the police, she would be arrested and put in jail- which is exactly what happens in far too many cases. Prostitution WAS illegal then, and did her “criminal status” save her? How might things have been different if she knew she wouldn’t be arrested for going to the authorities?

From Rad Geek: “Ending State violence against women in prostitution in San Francisco”:

While I certainly agree that coerced sex trafficking is an evil that needs to be seriously addressed, government officials and government cops like Captain Al Pardini, who claim to be concerned about the welfare of women forced into prostitution, refuse to talk about ways to address the systemic issues that stop trafficked women from being able to come forward and speak out or seek help about what’s been done to them (like, the State’s violence against undocumented immigrants and the threat of deportation; like, the police’s refusal to take women in prostitution seriously or treat them like human beings), and instead they apparently feel perfectly comfortable insisting that their difficulties in investigating sexual slavery somehow justify laws that grant police the power to force any woman suspected of being in prostitution off the street and into police detention, under police scrutiny, to imprison her, to force her to pay punitive fines, to conduct arbitrary police raids to go on fishing expeditions for trafficked women (e.g., at “Asian massage parlors”) based on nothing other than racial profiling, and so forth, and so on, all in the name of facilitating the police’s attempts to investigate a different crime that affects some subset of the women being rousted up, shoved around, arrested, questioned, fined, imprisoned, and so on, and all in order to be able to force trafficked women into the “protection” of the criminal law, with or without their consent. This amounts to nothing more than an argument for ensuring that the State maintains and exercises plenary police state powers over all women suspected of being sex workers, for no reason other than the alleged necessity of protecting some women in the sex industry from violence, while ignoring the many crimes that women in prostitution are never able to report to the police for fear of being arrested, and while ignoring the immense violence against all women in the sex industry that is committed by cops themselves, as part and parcel of this policy of arrest and detention.

From La Libertine: “Morality and Prop K”:

The anti-Prop K argument that the ordinance will ignore abusive pimps and allow organized crime to gain a stronger hold on prostitution is absolutely ridiculous. The latter was used to try and keep the prohibition of alcohol going as well and similarly, this argument can be easily stripped. Legalizing the sale, production and consumption of alcohol didn’t put breweries, bars and saloons into the hands of the Mob; but the criminalization of alcohol most certainly did. Exactly where in the proposition does it say that offenses such as rape, kidnapping, slavery, coercion, theft, blackmail, murder or assault will be legal? Nowhere it does. In fact, because of the criminalization of prostitution, the law has implicitly made such actions legal by the simple fact that when a prostitute suffers violence the police and the courts look the other way. They do not investigate or prosecute violent offenders against prostitutes, therefore they essentially say to said offenders (and anyone thinking about it), “Oh, that’s okay. Carry on.”

Read all the posts in full and educate yourself about Prop K! And if you live in San Francisco, VOTE YES!

Update: More from Bound, Not Gagged: Wendy Vinagrette, “Decriminalization of Sex Work versus Human Trafficking”:

It is clear that the major argument against Prop K is the idea that the decriminalization of Sex Work would facilitate human trafficking. I have been in Belgrade, Serbia for the past week and a half, where I have met [and] interviewed a couple of different groups dealing with issues of human trafficking and sex work. Their experiences showed that decriminalization of sex work would potentially help minimize human trafficking.

Update #2: From Peridot Ash: “How I Will Vote on PROP K”:

Once again, the onus will be on the sex worker, but this time, rather than being blamed and shamed for our “choices,” we are being given a chance to improve the situation for ourselves as well as for less fortunate sex workers. It will be a huge responsibility to not let decriminalization result in law enforcement turning a blind eye to crimes committed against sex workers. But in the long run I think it will be worth it, so I’m going to vote YES for this, and if it passes, be ready to do my part to help other sex workers become aware of their rights.

Sometimes I wish my grandmother had a blog. If she did, I think it would be a lot like this one (via Blog for Democracy).

Just the other day on the phone Gran said that people who are undecided voters are “imbeciles” and to be undecided at such a late date is a “sign of stupidity.” She also derided Sarah Palin’s hairstyle - which I would not be okay with from basically anybody else, but from her, somehow it’s hilarious. She often remarks that Republicans are “mean and hateful.” Of George W. Bush, she has said, among many other things, “I don’t understand how any man can be so stupid. He had a nice education, you know.”

I love this:

Via Susie Bright, because I am so behind on watching the Daily Show lately.

Libertarians, take note! Interesting thread going on at Ren’s. I’ve left two comments so far…

I’m not a Libertarian, but I know a lot of my views aren’t exactly popular in certain segments of the feminist blogosphere either. All the “you’ve gotta be anti-capitalist,” like that’s the only way to be, pisses me off and strikes of 1) a certain nasty flavor of The P-word (yes, privilege!!) and 2) projection.

Yes, I know what it’s like to feel pissed off at people who appear more financially well-off than you are. BELIEVE ME, I KNOW. But I also know that the anger and assumptions I often made about them were completely unfair and came from a place of my own insecurity, and anger at A SYSTEM, manifested as anger at A PERSON. This is why I HATE HATE HATE when people make assumptions about “so and so is well-off” or “so and so lives a comfortable middle class existence” when in reality they NO (sic) NOTHING ABOUT THEM.

See, this is making me use all caps!

and (starting w/ me quoting a comment by Daisy)…

Ren, I love the common sense attitude the libertarians have, but many here in the south lean to the right and do not count abortion rights in their libertarianism, which I think is odd. (Most DO count drugs, porn and guns)

Most of the Libertarians I know (who are involved w/ the Libertarian Party of Georgia) do support abortion rights, as long as the state does not have to pay for it.

This is one of the many problems I have with Libertarians, but that’s another story.

I went to a breakfast meet-and-greet thing the Libertarian Party of Georgia recently had for bloggers, where there were several candidates present (including those running for PSC, which is actually a very important office but no one [including me, until recently] knows WTF they do). On some issues I felt like raising my fist in solidarity with them - e.g., consumer rights - but then they would veer toward (from my perspective) “crazy” territory - e.g., abolishing the department of education - and I just couldn’t take them seriously.

I could’ve corrected the unfortunate “NO” but 1) why try to rewrite history, when a simple click-through can tell the truth? and 2) I just love any opportunity to use pretentious Latin notations. I think it just goes to show how passionate I was when I was typing. Yes, I admit it, I messed up no/know… it happens to the best of us, right?

I go through phases with blogging. Sometimes I want to pour my heart and soul out, and other times I’m just not feeling it. This past week has been one of the “just not feeling it” times. The only two three posts I’ve done haven’t been remotely personal, and were mostly blockquotes. I’ve been finding myself falling back into some old patterns of not taking care of myself and not speaking my needs, and I’ve been trying to focus on how to make that stop.

—

House-hunting will resume possibly next weekend.

—

A while ago I had a dream that my mom was trying to force me to wear make-up. I was really distressed and started crying and saying that I didn’t want to wear make-up, but she kept insisting. This kind of happened in real life when I was a teenager, though never to such an extreme. And besides, I actually did wear make-up when I was a teenager (most of the time) - I even used glitter eyeshadow! By the time I was in college, though, I’d decided it wasn’t my thing.

—

Next Thursday, I turn 29. I’m trying not to have an existential crisis about it. Not only is that cliché, but I really should save it for when I turn 30. (I already had the requisite “quarter century crisis” when I turned 25.)

I decided that for my birthday, I’m going to do something I’ve been wanting to do for a long time - get professional photos taken. I’m getting déjà vu writing this, but I swear it’s going to happen for real this time (but that’s another story). I’ve paid the deposit, picked out my outfits… and the shoot is set for next Sunday. We’re still working on a location but I have no doubt we’ll find something great; I just hope it’s not too cold.

I don’t want to write more about it right now because I don’t want to jinx anything. But, if this goes well, I might do it again!

—

I am very disturbed by this. I mean, what the fucking hell?

—

Recently while looking for my DVD of Lost In Translation, I found the video I made after completing my senior project in high school. I interned at Flagpole for two weeks, and what I learned was that I didn’t want to be a journalist. I haven’t watched the video since the day I showed it to my class. As I mentioned previously, our VCR died, but fortunately thanks to Twitter I found out Jen has one she doesn’t want, so as soon as I get that from her I can watch the video and digitize it and put it on YouTube. I remember it being pretty good; we’ll see if I still feel that way 10 years later.

—

Last night I was at Barnes and Noble and they had this stupid “Porno for Women” display:

—

I saw chickens in front of an abandoned school on Huff Road:

—

I need to write a full post with my thoughts on this. I love AV Flox’s blog, and if you aren’t reading it, you should be. This is the sort of writing that someone should be getting paid for! It blows me away. One pet peeve about the post in question: Emily Gould did not coin the term “overshare.” Dooce used it in a 2005 interview in Glamour magazine, and that’s just what I know of. Someone else probably used it before that.

—

I’ve been having fun with my Tumblr (I think the actual correct terminology for an individual Tumblr blog is “Tumblog,” but I refuse to say that, because I think it sounds stupid). I should probably warn you that it’s not safe for work, but I hate that whole “NSFW” thing, so… consider this an ass-backwards non-warning, I guess.

—

We should probably do a new episode of Mostly ITP soon. Who should we interview?

—

Tonight on the phone, my grandmother said, “These stupid people who say they haven’t decided who to vote for! How can they be undecided at this late of a date? I think they’re just imbeciles.”

—

Jenny: where are your dispatches from the Obama campaign??

From Octogalore:

So I get more interested in the feminist take-away, for a couple of reasons. First, it’s less covered. There are the self-serving Repub views on it, but very few leftists making the nuanced point that you can disagree with her choice and related views and not support them BUT simultaneously support her right to be discussed in the ways a similarly situated man would be discussed.

Gran: “Did you hear who McCain picked for Vice President… he picked that Canadian woman…”

Me: “You mean Alaskan?”

Gran: “What did I say?”

Me: “You said Canadian. She’s from Alaska.”

Gran: “Oh yes. That’s right. She’s supposed to be some kind of governor…”

My friend/sister (long story!) Crystal, along with the help of Rusty’s Photoshop skills, designed these “I Heart Obama” T-shirts. She had 12 protoype shirts made in Augusta a few weeks ago and gave me one:

Now she has a CafePress store where you can buy them yourself. I told her she needs to make business cards w/ the URL on them, because when I wore the shirt last weekend somebody at Lowe’s asked me where I got it. He asked if I had gotten from the campaign… ha.

This post has been in draft mode for some time now, as a placeholder with just the title, “Capitalism.” I was thinking I might eventually write a long screed about how I don’t think capitalism sucks, and I get annoyed when it’s assumed that because I’m a liberal/progressive/feminist/whatever else, I’m supposed to be anti-capitalist. I think most of the problems we see in this country that people attribute to capitalism are really just a case of Doing It Wrong.

I don’t feel like writing a screed, though, so I’ll just say: Capitalism. I don’t think it sucks.

I do, however, love this Married to the Sea cartoon, the file name of which is capitalism.gif:

(Click to enlarge)

Here’s a list of What I Think about some recent and not-so-recent happenings, designed to illustrate the fact that very few issues are cut and dry, and context matters. To some I might look like a big ol’ contradiction with all this. I’m okay with that.

White progressive bloggers Photoshopping blackface on politicians and claiming it’s satire or “ironic” - Not cool. Totally agree w/ Liza Sabater and many other bloggers who pointed out that, hey, white dude, you don’t get to be the arbiter of what is and isn’t racist. And the more you try to defend your shit with “It’s satire!” the more of an ass you sound like - especially when you go on to tell a woman of color not to “assail [her] betters.” I remember how shocked I was with T-Rex’s behavior when all this went down. Big ol’ FAIL stamp, except, sadly, I didn’t have one of those two years ago.

New Yorker cover - I feel the opposite of above, although I do understand and appreciate the same sentiment at work. I think it is a good example of actual satire; and after all, this is the New Yorker, not the New York Post. Overall, I lean toward Jon Stewart’s “It’s just a fucking cartoon!” but I want to be very very careful about that, because I don’t think “It’s just _____” is or should be a justification for anything. Just look at this, for a particularly timely and unfortunate example. Also, it’s the same kind of rhetoric assholes of various Republicanish-leaning stripes use against progressives, especially feminists: the old “no sense of humor” trope. Hi, here’s a thought: maybe it’s not that we don’t have a sense of humor, maybe it’s that your jokes aren’t funny.

The stripper cartoon referenced in the above graf - I don’t think it’s racist. I’m trying to just chill out and appreciate where/how some other folks whom I respect do think that, but I admit to feeling a little exasperated with it. But, I don’t think I have to say there’s about a million things wrong with that cartoon anyway. I just wonder why the focus has to shift away from the obvious central message, which is that strippers are too stupid and deluded to make their own decisions and it doesn’t matter what they think anyway.

Toby Keith lyrics (not satire) - This hadn’t even been on my radar; let’s just say I’ve had more pressing things to deal with. Then I saw Griftdrift had a post about it. I didn’t read the Huffington Post article because I didn’t care enough; I did go read the lyrics to the song out of curiosity, though. At Manuel’s I was telling Griftdrift that I can see how you could interpret the lyrics as being about racist lynching, and he started to get all up in my face about it (right after I’d told that story about the guy on the plane who could’ve been in first class but ended up in jail, with his name on the no-fly list!) but I kept talking so I could finish my sentence, which was something like, “But it’s pretty flimsy.” I definitely agree about self-identified progressives having preconceived notions about the South, and being big fat fucking hypocrites. Anyway, about the song, mostly I don’t care. It’s Toby Keith for fuck’s sake.

Cliff Bostock’s column about political correctness and a 1967 essay that uses the N-word - I agree with Cliff’s main point that flying off the handle about any usage of the N-word without considering context is a bit much. I think there are some good points to be made here, but he weakens his entire argument by resorting to the “lack a sense of humor” thing. Come on, Cliff, you can do better than that. Why go for the low-hanging (not to mention totally irrelevant) fruit?

John Kerry says “tar baby” (and Tony Snow said it a while back, too; also not satire) - Not racist. Sorry, sticking to that one (oh, ha!). I get that the term “tar baby” has also been used as a racial slur. But that’s not the case here. Here’s what it actually means. And I hate that saying this lumps me in with people like Daily Kos denizens (or Firedoglake!), but there you go.

—

Consider this yet another attempt at writing as if no one is reading. I’m nervous about hitting Publish, but I might as well get some practice in. And besides, as Joseph reminded me via email today (thanks, Joseph!) it’s not like I haven’t dealt with a whole hell of a lot of shit on my blog already.

*sigh* Oh well.

Juliana asked:

I’ve riffed on this before, but feel compelled in the midst of so much political activity to challenge this group again - in what way are you inciting revolution, or “change” if you must?

And I answered:

I think the biggest way in which I’m “inciting revolution” is by constantly challenging people’s assumptions and stereotypes wrt sex work, sex workers, and sex workers’ rights. Believe me, this is damn near a full-time job, as the ignorance runs rampant and unabashed. Unless there’s a real impediment to me doing so, I call out bullshit on this issue whenever I see/hear it, no matter who its from. Friends, acquaintances, superiors, family members, allies - anyone. Somehow I am brazen and steadfast on calling out BS on this issue in a way that I’m not yet (but aspire to be) on others.

Tiny revolutions, on a one-on-one level. I can do those.

What about you? Post your answer on the BfD thread!

Seriously. What the hell, people.

On that increasingly headdesk-inducing thread - where the word “strawman” would be applicable, but I loathe that word, so I’m refraining from using it for now - I said (double blockquotes are me quoting someone else):

Feminism is about standing up for women, all women, I agree. I do struggle with standing up for a woman who as First Lady would be part of implementing anti-women policies, but gotta do it anyway. Pretty far down on my list though. Really far down. Somewhere below “check out Laura Bush’s chili recipe” and “what is Phyllis Schlafly up to these days?”

I think you’re still missing the point. I didn’t read this post as a defense of Cindy McCain, or really anything specific to her at all - she was an example, of which there are countless others. The point I got was, it’s not okay to vilify women based on some perceived stereotypical external traits that we really know jack shit about. If we talk shit about a woman for being blonde and thin, we’re no better than the assholes we call out for talking shit about a woman being the opposite.

and:

But even if we DID prove that her policies were not egalitarian, which to me is unclear at this point, it STILL doesn’t give us license to call her a Barbie or “stupid hair” or Stepford.

And this is REALLY Feminism 101. How many of us have lamented the seeming inability of men to argue with us based on our views, and not bring our looks into it? Surely we’ve all noticed that attacks on a woman’s looks are de rigeur when one disagrees with her. We need to lead by example. You can absolutely HATE a woman’s position on certain issues, hell, her entire philosophy on LIFE - but that does not give you license to attack her looks. I cannot stand Ann Coulter - I think she’s a hateful person. But you’ll never hear me making cracks about her looks. Unfortunately the same can’t be said for other self-identified progressives. (”Man Coulter,” anyone?)

and:

But what does that boil down to, dismissing? Is it dismissive to not write laudatory blog posts about CMcC? Is it ok if I simply ignore her?

Seems like you’re arguing against an argument Octo (nor anyone else on this thread) did not actually make. It’s not about whether or not you like Cindy McCain. It’s about using sexist language to refer to her (or any other woman). That’s NOT OKAY no matter who the woman is. You can hate her guts, but if you start taking jabs at her looks or calling her a cunt or what-have-you, you’ve crossed a line into unacceptable territory.

and lastly:

Calling someone a Stepford isn’t so much an insult as naming her oppression.

Nope, what it’s doing is taking away her agency, much in the same way as this bullshit.

I do not see why this is a difficult concept.

You can hate Cindy McCain, but you cannot substitute critiques of her *looks* for critiques of her *political views* and expect the argument that sexist language is unacceptable to hold a whole hell of a lot of water elsewhere.

As I mentioned on Twitter yesterday, I am totally feeling Kim’s sentiment in this post. I could barely read the whole thing without breaking down in tears.

I didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton in the primary (I voted for Obama) but it wasn’t because I actively disliked her. No matter what kind of irrational vitriol people spewed about her, I’ve always had a fondness for her. And it isn’t “just because she’s a woman” (which pisses me off that that’s dismissed with a just so much of the time) - I mean take a look at the nice round-up Octo has of HRC’s (can’t type that without thinking Human Rights Campaign) policies and such - a lot of which is stuff she did FOR WOMEN, which yes, matters to me a whole hell of a lot and I will not allow that to be trivialized. (But we’re so used to putting our needs last, as women… why should this be any different?)

I will vote for Obama in the general election, of course; and I cannot comprehend the faulty logic of Democrats/progressives/non-Republicans/whatever who say they will vote for McCain as a protest against Hillary not getting the nomination.

BUT.

It will be hard - impossible, I’m sure - to forget all the bullshit that went down in this primary season. The blatant sexism on display with hardly anyone calling it out - and those who did dare to call it out getting ridiculed and shouted down.

Same as it ever was, right talking heads?

It will be very, very hard to ignore the way this all burned inside of me such that I didn’t even want to blog about it, because it felt, as so many things that never make their way to this blog do, too raw. Not coincidentally, that’s the same word Kim used.

And all this, coming from me, who typically feels disinterested in electoral politics! (Although I always vote, of course.) This whole brouhaha has reaffirmed for me why I don’t get heavily involved in political stuff or watch cable “news.”* It’s not just because I find it utterly boring to speculate on who will get what nomination and blah blah blah.

Side note re: cable “news:” To quote something Rusty said the other night as we watched Jon Stewart interview Scott McClellan… “Can you imagine what it would be like if the actual media asked the hard questions Jon Stewart asks?” To which I replied, “I think he can only get away with it because he can use the defense of being a comedy show, not real news. That’s how fucked up we’ve gotten with the media and our concept of news.”

Anyway.

Pre-emptive note, btw, to commenters… I don’t need anyone to lecture me about why BHO is a better candidate than HRC, why HRC sucks, or any of it. That’s not what this post is about, and such comments will be deleted. I think they both would have made great candidates - great Presidents, I should say - and I think they both have their pros and cons in terms of policies and politics.

But that’s never what it’s been about, of course. And accordingly that’s not what this post is about.

All I can end with is, well… the same thing I started with… *sigh*.

Excellent video:

Please repost!

(Via Derek.)

I don’t subscribe to Shakesville (or any other “big” blog, because I can’t handle the pressure of a constantly overflowing RSS reader), so I’m just now seeing this, even though it’s over a month old. It’s well worth reposting, though. Hence:

Feminism is an integral part of progressivism.

If you’re not a feminist, you’re not a progressive.

No matter how much you hate Bush.

No matter how much you hate the Iraq war.

No matter how much you hate our current torture policy.

No matter how much you want to restore habeas corpus.

No matter how much you’re totally going to vote for the Democrat in November.

If you’re not a feminist, you’re not a progressive.

You’re a fauxgressive.

End of story.

Hell yeah.

And I hate that this is even something that has to be said, but it does, and there it is. It’s part of why I have such disdain/disinterest/reluctance/irritability surrounding partisan-type politics… I just can’t get worked up about debates, or so-and-so’s campaign signs, or all the other gossip. Frankly I don’t understand how so many people can, but since a lot of ‘em are people I consider friends, I just have to shrug my shoulders and say “To each their own.” (And yet if there’s an election returns watching party in November, I’ll be there; because, I’ll be honest, to me it’s all an excuse to socialize. And it’s not that I don’t care on any level. I vote, after all.)

But if you dismiss feminism as a “special interest” (hello, Kos!), all bets are off, and it’s “fuck you” time. You are on notice, or perhaps even dead to me.

I mean believe it or not, Melissa even had to post an update, because apparently (and I wish I could say I was surprised) a lot of people had trouble getting this rather simple concept through their thick skulls. If she had a FAIL stamp, I bet the inkpad would be dry by now.

You see? This is why I just do not have the patience to be some kind of Bringer of the Progressive Message, unless it’s on a one-on-one or very small group basis.

Reposting this press release from Bound, Not Gagged until I have time to finish the other Palfrey post (not to mention the “why feminism needs to focus on women” post) that have been in draft mode for several days now.

—

New York, NY - The activists at Sex Workers Action New York (SWANK), Sex Workers Outreach Project New York (SWOP-NYC), Prostitutes of New York (PONY) and the nationally-based Desiree Alliance are saddened that Deborah Jeane Palfrey, also known as the D.C. Madam, passed away on May 1st in an apparent suicide. We - prostitutes, strippers, pro-dommes, porn stars, sex experts, and allies - extend our sympathies to all of those hurt by this most recent chapter of the “Pink Scare,” in which oppressive legislation and social stigma partner to generate hysteria around what, for us, can prove to be simply a decent way to make a living.

The circumstances surrounding Ms. Palfrey’s death suggest that Americans reconsider the current state and federal policies that govern sex work, as well as the stigmatization and sensational treatment of those who participate in this industry. From New York to California, daily reports of Pink Scare-fueled police busts, e-stings and raids, even at legal venues like strip clubs and dungeons, have reached a fever pitch. These oppressive patterns regularly marginalize and terrorize our communities, with barely a headline to show for the mass arrests. In contrast, coverage of high-profile cases include yellow journalism exposés published at the expense of sex workers’ privacy, dignity and livelihood. In an interview with Lori Price, it was Ms. Palfrey who said, “Without question in my mind, escort and adult service businesses. . . are being used as the new weapon of choice in American politics.” The public figures implicated in this type of case often receive little more than a slap on the wrist and a second chance from a forgiving public. Ironically, among the exposed we regularly find the very same lawmakers and other insiders who claim to protect people from vice through moralizing legislation. Former State Department official Randall L. Tobias was a Palfrey patron, though he implemented the abstinence earmark in programs such as the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and, with it, the “Anti-Prostitution Pledge” that has resulted in diminished funding for sex worker-run organizations. Annually, our government spends millions in taxpayer money to apprehend and prosecute participants in the sex trade, while more effective policies like harm reduction-based approaches, including the multiplication of living wage alternatives, are dramatically under-utilized.

In both the highly-publicized scandals and under-documented daily struggles, many sex workers now face financial ruin, emotional hardship and social opprobrium at the hands of the Pink Scare simply because their work, though it takes place between consenting adults, may be illegal and, to some, may be offensive. In two instances associated with Palfrey’s case, Ms. Palfrey and her former employee, Ms. Britton, oppressive laws and stigma cost the implicated their very lives. Why did Ms. Palfrey die? In response to this question, an activist with the International Union of Sex Workers wrote, “Whether she died by her own hand or her suicide is a cover for murder, she has been killed by the state.” Given the highly political nature of these events, SWANK, SWOP-NYC, PONY and the Desiree Alliance call for an independent investigation of the circumstances surrounding Ms. Palfrey’s untimely death. Furthermore, we, as activists and advocates, would like to stress in this instance that the criminalization of sex workers and our labor only drives us further underground, making us and our dependents more vulnerable to client and police violence, and even death, as we are further isolated. The unfortunate events of the D.C. scandal bring many of these broader issues into sharper focus. It is high time that we challenge the morals and laws that harm so many, so deeply, with so few gains and so many lives destroyed.

All I have time for today are blockquote posts, but here’s another one everyone should read, from Elizabeth at Sex in the Public Square:

I no longer think that the exposing of clients is going to be the source of any great reduction in the stigma attached to sex work. Why? Because they always apologize.

They apologize by admitting their “sins” a la David Vitter or they apologize and resign their posts, a la Eliot Spitzer, but they always apologize, and by doing so they reinforce the impression that consciously and explicitly exchanging sex for money is wrong, and they reinforce the stigma. In fact they often refer to that stigma when they include in their apologies their regret for bringing shame on their families.

Note that they do not apologize for any mistreatment of the workers. They apologize for being clients in the first place.

So my new call on Labor Day is a call to the clients and not a call to the workers. Clients of the sex workers of the world: stand up for the people whose work you are paying for. Treat those workers respectfully and protect their safety and don’t apologize for paying for their services.

Yes, you may have much to apologize for:

Apologize if you have actively worked to keep the services you pay for criminalized.

Apologize if you have said insulting, demeaning or paternalistic things about sex workers.

Apologize if you have contributed to the shaming of sex workers.

Apologize if you have jeopardized the health of a sex worker.

Apologize if you have committed violence against a sex worker.

And by all means apologize if you have lied to your partner about sex you are having with other people.

But for being a client of a sex worker?

Please, no more apologies. We can’t afford them.

Last night, after spending several hours watching TV (My Name Is Earl, The Office, and several Daily Shows from last week), Rusty and I got in bed and talked for a little while about Deborah Jeane Palfrey’s death, and the whole situation, and what to do when things make us lose faith in humanity. There were no answers to be found, but at least talking about it can do some personal good.

After Rusty went to sleep, I quietly cried myself to sleep.

Some of what I said last night was…
Read the full post »

Via Jen at Blog for Democracy:

This gets the opposite of the FAIL stamp.