Zuzu opens her stay at Shakesville up with a nice takedown of the continuing calls that Hillary must step aside. Like her, i tend to think that Hillary has the right to stay in, and hell…the earned media isn’t exactly hurting. It would be well and good for both the Democrats to adopt a more positive tone, so that the winner isn’t quite so bloodied up, but they’re not exactly lightweights. As long as McSurgy can’t get a media cycle to save his life, we’re good.

She closes that post with a swipe against McGovern and Eagleton, the former being one of the voices trying to get Hillary out.

She writes this of Eagleton, who was revealed to have had shock therapy for depression. That news helped sink the McGovern ticket.

So not only did Eagleton smear McGovern anonymously during the primary, he then accepted his offer of a VP slot knowing full well he had an explosive and disqualifying secret. Nice, huh?

My emphasis added.


Forget you.

It was an explosive secret. But not a disqualifying one.

There is a difference between being unfit for public office and unelectable.

I suppose FDR never should have ran, eh?

as it was in the beginning…

-sly c




In the last 72 hours, we’ve had the following.

Mysogynist criticism of Shillary for “crying.”

Sexist response from Edwards.

Sexist followup from Obama’s camp.

Racist comebacks from the Clinton campaign.

And as icing, a race denying masterpiece from Gloria Steinem.

A pox on all houses, everywhere….for America has successfully made g!n*ack*m@rism it’s official public policy.

Excuse me all, while i go to my happy place.



There’s a whole lot, lot, lot, going on. Go read it all.

And if you absolutly need to pick on the last detail, come back here.


Hugo doesn’t know Christian history. Or at least, he doesn’t so far as I can tell from reading his work.

they quarreled over whether the kosher purity laws were still in effect. Every time, the popularizers — those who wanted to make Christianity more accessible — won. Every time the “purists” grumbled. They are still grumbling now.

That just ain’t true. The popularizers have lost. Major battles. Universalists of every stripe went down, literally, in flames during the reformation. Synchretists have been shoved out, and many of us read aloud a political document every week…the Nicene Creed which memorializes political clout on Christianity and the exclusion of certain doctrinal viewpoints as legitimate. There is such a thing as a heretic, and for the vast majority of Christian history, being such a person has only been a good idea if you have a lot of men in tin suits with sharp pointy sticks, ready to defend your right to be theologically queer.

Back to his argument for the moment. Maybe he means in America, in the last 200 years. He cites the contrast between Warren and some calvinists, like that was the fight. No major contender in American Protestantism is Calvinist. A few say they are. But a real, honest to goodness double predestination damned for the glory of God Calvinist? They kind of went carrier pigeon some time back, at least as far as the prime time goes. Yes, they exist. But that this is the fight Hugo presents is indictative of bad faith. He doesn’t point to a live contraversy…he points to a very, very dead one. America went Arminian before the Civil War. We’re rehashing this now, why? To show just how out of it BFP and company are?

No. No. No.

Secondly, it’s just not even true. The popularizers got set back many times. After years of social gospel preaching, the evangelical world retreated inwards with Darbyism and pre-millenial dispensationalism. (This is the kind of thinking you know today as the Left Behind series). From changing the world to awaiting the end…the momentum of the evangelical protestant world turned on a dime.

And remember Jesus people?

Was Jerry Falwell a popularizer? Just because he used mass media, and was folksy about wanting to enforce a very specific kind of racial/gender politic?

Or how about the women who preached in the First Great Awakening, only to be silenced by the time of the revolution?

This is not to say these movements didn’t have lasting impact. But the story of American Christianities is one of push and pull. The clear line of progress Hugo wants to paint simply isn’t there.

they quarreled over whether the kosher purity laws were still in effect. Every time, the popularizers — those who wanted to make Christianity more accessible — won. Every time the “purists” grumbled. They are still grumbling now.

But you know what else is lurking around in here?

You guessed.


I owe it to everyone to be really careful about that charge, so listen carefully to what i do and don’t mean. Hugo isn’t making overtly hateful statements about Jews.

He is trading on a really old idea about Christianity and Judiasm that has contributed greatly to historical antisemitism.

And that’s a problem. He’s making BFP, BA, M, and the folks who are raising objections into rhetorical Jews here, just to point out how wrong they are. Against a bold progressive universal spirit Liberal Feminist/Christian, stands the particular, clannish, nit-picking, WoC/Jew.


This is one of those object lessons where you quickly realize the problem of living in the house…the rhetorical frames, the backgrounded ideas, the assumptions of your worldview…

…are compltely toxic.

It’s historically wrong. It’s rhetorically irresponsible.

It’s Hugo, out for a day at the park.

Kyrie eleison.


BA wrote a really cool post, and by cool, I mean hot.

Hawt, even.

I’ve been kicking myself to start writing again, and with a subject like this…how could I resist.

BA is right.

my thought is that sexual care fits into self care because it is an admission of yourself and the right to live as that self…

There’s a world beyond the sunset…where the playing out of what we need in private doesn’t always have to refer back to the troubled world outside. But the correct answer is not to stop fucking the mean time. “Ain’t this what you revolutionaries are supposed to be dying for?”

A good fuck has rarely cured the world, but since when did we ask that of everything we do? Recently, i think in commentary on Sudy’s awesome video, some folks talked about how the phrase complicity is usually a good sign that we’re doing some good old fashioned self-examination that has the big raging problem of assuming that collective individual action is what’s required. As you know, opposed to just plain collective, break the damn mold action.

Which is why so much of the continual sex wars bullshit is just that. Power intersects with the sex I have. But as R Mildred aptly points out…

Yes, and?

The world and we are dying every day. And practices of self-denial feel like something we can do about it…a tangible, feels good in a feel bad sort of way.

We are a nation on converts and backsliders, dependent on rituals of lapse and redemption.

What BA points to, is the richness of sexual imagination and what it means to actually take it to heart. There is nothing wrong with being the

oral fixated hand on her chocha, big titted bitch in me.

And there’s nothing contradictory about that statement and still being a virgin.

I had a sexual identity long before I had sexual partners. Some parts of that identity have come to expression, others found compromises, some have evolved, some I have hopes for, others I treasure memories of.

The SO and I were at brunch in her hometown, catching up with a friend. Apparently, he asked while i was away from the table…”Does he miss the cock?”

She replied, and incorrectly.

It means nothing. I had and have no plans of leaving her, going outside the relationship, or even directing my imagination in ways that detract from the relationship.

But it means everything. I do miss it. That desire and urge, even if never acted upon, remains with me, helping me to understand who I am in the summation of things.

I desire.

I desire things, people, feelings, comfort, pain, experience, growth, shelter, and new horizons. I desire, and the naming of my desires is important, not a list to be abridged at the whim of others.

I am a person who desires, for desire is that which a person does. A pawn, a stand in, a cardboard cutout…a stereotype….could not do so.

They might have a fixation, or a fetish, the animating purpose of such a caricature, But it is in fact, they that are the fetish, the toy of a lazy imagination.

I am, one who desires, who names what I desire in all the contradiction and complexity that I can muster, knowing that it comes down to this.

Who I am is not what I name myself as. There is no end result, only the striving.

Who am I?

The one who names myself.

This is what i need and i wont accept anything else nor


PEtit imagine what movement full of people thinking like that loosk


PS: Links go where they came from, all block quotes are from Black Amazon. Video embed from Ms. Sylvia/M.

The Discrimination Bunny!

Don’t you worry, it won’t stop.

Off of the gross story where a dude has bought his 15 minutes of sexist fame by suing a woman who won’t sleep with him for agism

We get a reprise of the disabled people and sex workers story:

“First of all, autism does make you not the same as people without autism. That’s a fact. That’s why there’s a special name for it.”

Oh. Snap. I almost forgot that some people are “special.”

Now, autism and Asperger’s hurt the ability to learn *social skills*.

Am I an anti-Aspie bigot because I’d rather lose my virginity in a loving relationship than with some guy who can’t even be my friend let alone my lover?

Meanwhile, will George feel entitled to a taxi-driving job if he loses his eyesight too?


Uh…ablist says whaaaaat?

Oh, it’s on.

Mina, you’re not an an anti-Aspie bigot because you’d “rather lose [your] virginity in a loving relationship than with some guy who can’t even be my friend let alone my lover”. You’re an anti-Aspie bigot for believing that Asperger’s makes it impossible for a person to be a real friend. It is challenging for Aspies to build friendships not because we don’t truly care about and love other people but because we communicate in different ways from neurotypicals and neurotypicals, smug and secure in your notion that we are diseased and challenged, refuse to meet us half way.

Was George’s comment indicative of some degree of male privilege? It’s hard for me to judge since I can’t access the link (thanks to China’ Great Firewall) for context, but statements such as his often are. However, I really wish that feminists could refrain from making these sort of gross, inaccurate generalizations about those of us on the autistic spectrum. Please educate yourself and stop making autistic women feel as out of place in feminist space as we often do in Aspie space.

That’s from ekswitaj. She pretty much has this mina character dead to rights. It’s just plan sloppy ass thinking going on here, but she seems willing to give mina some level of reasonable doubt.

Not I. I’ve got a bad feeling on this one, and i think you’ll agree.

Mina’s response…

I don’t believe Asperger’s makes everyone with it impossible for a person to be a real friend. Remember, “some guy” doesn’t mean “everyone with [insert name of condition].” 😉

So she wasn’t slurring everyone on the autism spectrum, just *most* of them. Oh, well in that case…that’s awesome. Smilies!

I’m sorry this was so quote heavy, but it’s the best sad laugh i’ve had all week. How many different ways can a person express their contempt for people unlike themselves in the space of a feministing discussion thread?

Keep counting, because folks like mina rarely stop.


Edit: She didn’t stop. Apparently, those damn immigrants who speak different need to know their place too. Wow.

It also reminded me of the way my mother assumed not sharing a native language with me was a substitute for actually getting the words right when she wanted me to do chores (for example, as if I should have raked the leaves and done the dishes when she told me “sweep the floors”).

Am I slurring all or most ESL speakers if I’d rather get clear instructions at work than have some boss who wants me to do something and can’t pick the right words for that something?

Remember, “clear instructions at work” doesn’t exclude all instructions from ESL-speaking managers and “some boss who wants me to do something and can’t pick the right words for that something” doesn’t include all ESL-speaking managers. It’s the same way “a loving relationship” doesn’t exclude all relationships with Aspies 🙂 and “some guy who can’t even be my friend let alone my lover” doesn’t include all Aspies.

The challenge, however, rests in persuading people that their grandparents, parents and they themselves have harmed their daughters. Moreover, advocates must convince a skeptical public that men will marry a woman who has not undergone the procedure and that circumcision is not necessary to preserve family honor. It is a challenge to get men to give up some of their control over women.

This, by the way, is the difficult and real work of reducing harm and eroding the support of a practice like FGM. It will not be stopped by the shallow and callous bravery of armchair neo-colonialists who demonstrate their commitment by signing a petition.

Legal bans mean little. The force of law does not immediate encompass the power of worldview. This is the long haul. This is the real task. It seems to be taking shape here in community organizing, sexual education, and the recruitment of allies. Now, undoubtedly, there may be some criticisms to be made here, and some might be impatient with this kind of gradualist approach.* But how many genital mutilations have you successfully stopped lately?

Last time out, I took some unholy flak for being some kind of moral weakling, unable to face up to just how wrong FGM is. My point is that my personal opinion matters very little. The ways in which we choose to deal with cultural change do matter. And the simplistic and colonial fantasy of a objective solution has only made things worse.

That’s not irony. It’s our moral culpability.


*For one, the article notes how reformers have to reassure folks that circumcision is not necessary to prevent homosexuality. I’m not entirely willing to bracket my communities right to exist, but I’m at least willing to discuss the relative levels of harm involved. I’d rather see the beginning of a more comprehensive sexual education model than find a sticking point. There is no obligation to view the currently effective as the long term goal.

I could go an quote the whole thing, but really.

The link is at http://blog.canigetawhatwhat.com/2007/09/01/antifeministwatch-2007-ana-marie-cox/ if you care to follow it, I’m sure you’re all bright enough to blame the correct parties and change that one around. I’d do a ref no follow, but i forgot how to turn off trackbacks, and i don’t care to get half of twistydom rolling in here like I got last time. The stats are good for my ego and bad for my soul.

It’s funny, I tell you. Not only funny, but feminist. It is liberating to women to mock a woman for doing “empowerful” things like flirting with a camera.

This is because if a woman ever acts in a congruity with perceived stereotypes, that is “fun feminism.” And Fun Feminism is wrong. Very wrong. So wrong, in fact, that it is entirely justified to cast them deeper into the pit from which they came.

But Twisty is a serious feminist. Who just happens to be funny, not fun.

Also, Wonkette is an ass slut and an enemy to the revolution.

Twisty Faster Is A Serious Feminst.  This is a serious post.


Next Page »