We the People, the White House's new website dedicated to "[providing] a new way to petition the Obama Administration to take action on a range of important issues facing our country," has been around long enough now to actually send out responses to many of the initial petitions set up on the site - 26 official responses have been uploaded to the site and emailed to the signers of the petitions they were replying to.
And they have, to a one, been useless, campaign-speak restatements of the Administration's official positions on the issues the petitions covered. Not a single one has actually offered commitment to action. All they have done is reaffirm the Administration's positions on things and offer detailed justification for why they hold the positions they hold.
For example, the response to the petitions which asked for removal of the phrase "In God We Trust" from the currency and removal of "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, we (I had signed both of these, go figure) received a patronizing restatement of the Obama campaign's usual "God is in the mix" platitudes, echoing right-wing talking points about how such "generic" (HA!) references to religion are simply recognizing the "important role religion plays" in this country and therefore, fuck you, we don't really care what you think. The petition to retain 6-day mail delivery from the USPS received an in-depth explanation (and possibly spin job, I don't know this issue well enough to gauge the accuracy of the statements they make), titled "A Balanced Approach to Reforming the Postal Service" (oh, goody, more artificial "balance", gods know we don't get enough of that in the President's usual speeches), of how insolvent the USPS apparently is and exactly how they'll be transitioning down to 5-day delivery in 2013, because fuck you, we don't really care what you think. And just a few days ago I received by email the Administration's response to a petition to abolish the TSA and spend their budget on homeland security measures that *actually work*, citing their 70% undercover-test failure rate and its Constitutional abuses of American citizens; it was a long, useless bullet-pointed list that could be summarized as, in essence, "BUT THE TERRORISTS WOULD WIN!", because fuck your Constitutional rights, we don't care what you think. Check out the "responses" page for more useless replies (each links back to its originating petition(s) at the bottom of the response as well) if you want to have some frustrating fun with it.
Allow me to go on a personal tangent here. For about five months while I was living in Tennessee, my then-girlfriend got me a job working with her at an inbound call center. It was a shitty job, but the reason this silliness with the We the People site is bringing it to mind is because it absolutely epitomized the cold, sanitized, vaguely-ironic feeling of Corporate Cares (or rather, wants its automatons to think it cares) so well. There was the monthly "employee appreciation day" for those of us in the call center, which you would think was a nice thing, right? Except it consisted of the designated HR drone pushing a cart up and down the aisles of cubicles, giving each of us some cheap plastic trinket - keychains or some other nonsense - and allowing us to pick a piece of candy from the bowl on the cart. We all rolled our eyes about it, and one day she - who was studying industrial-organizational psychology in college at the time, and who would often explain to me the principles of her classes as applied to our shared workplace - explained to me how shitty token rewards like that, as opposed to gaining even a meager token amount of loyalty from the employees in return, actually do more harm than good. Because calling something a "reward" or "bonus", then having the reward in question be something painfully token, is not only insufficient as a reward, it's insulting, because it's basically rubbing their nose in how little you think of them.
The We the People website? Is a cheap mass-produced plastic sandal on a keyring and a stale miniature Twix. It makes grand claims and promises about the First Amendment and the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances, saying "We created We the People because we want to hear from you." But when you actually try to participate, they send you away with a patronizing pat on the head and a "There, there, dear, run along now." Which is worse than if they'd never made the offer of petitioning and being heard, offering us a reward that turns out to be no reward at all.
I'm not the only one who's noticed, either. One of the newest petitions on the site is a petition to "Remove the word "petition" from this website as it is misleading and untruthful. Instead, use, "Request an Explanation.""
If you happen to be in the US, I highly recommend signing it. We all know what the response will be, but I think it would be deliciously meta to have their "response" to this particular "petition" be yet another explanation.
12.16.2011
B for Brouhaha
Dear Obama Campaign: Why do you keep sending me emails requesting my support, while making it exceedingly clear that you are not interested in or willing to support me in turn? Remember my outrage at your "women for Obama" message a few weeks ago, and how frustrated I was at being appealed to "as a woman" even as women's health issues had taken a backseat/been actively thrown under the bus by this administration multiple high-profile times in the past three years?
Consider that frustration cranked up to 11, after the HHS overrode the FDA's decision to allow Plan B to be purchased without restriction, out on store shelves, and you explicitly supported the move, even to the point of using your daughters as justification for a blatantly political election-year ploy. Remember when you promised that the decisions of your administration would be based on sound science, evidence, and fact - with the implied comparison to ideologically-driven right-wingers? I certainly do. So do these Senators. And I'm genuinely curious what bullshit y'all are going to pull out of your ass to justify your decision to go against what the experts decided based on actual science and research.
Much has been said about The Eleven-Year-Old, and the use of this fear-and-emotion-based appeal has been thoroughly deconstructed already, so I won't say much - only that if you would rather see a child forced to bear a child than allow her a modicum of control over her circumstances, your priorities are seriously fucked up. Actual abortion or bearing a child at that age are both far more physically difficult/dangerous than a medication which studies have shown to be quite safe, anyway.
The thing is, this overruling doesn't just affect The Eleven-Year-Old. It also affects teens as old as fifteen, sixteen, and seventeen. Are you seriously telling me that a sixteen-year-old is mature enough to drive a car - hundreds of pounds of metal moving at high speed, quite capable of killing and maiming if misused or mistakes are made! - but not mature enough to take a medication properly, whether it's because of a broken condom or to protect themself after being raped? What the fuck kind of logic is that?
And then there's the much-less-mentioned half of the overruling. The part that would have moved Plan B out from behind the pharmacy counter and onto the shelves.
Allow me to rephrase that: it would have moved Plan B out from behind the gatekeeping of pharmacists, many of whom are anti-choice, and, in some places, legally protected in their choice to deny people access to certain medications because it upsets their delicate fee-fees. A grown-ass person can be in need of emergency contraception and still be told "No" simply because the pharmacist doesn't like it - and depending on where they are, there may not be a damn thing to be done about it. Allowing Plan B to be stocked on regular shelves with other medications would have removed this (gigantic, horrible) barrier between grown people and the medication they need, much less teens or children. That's the other thing y'all chose to block. You not only told young people "We don't think you should be allowed to control your reproduction without the okay of the adults around you", you also told pregnancy-capable people everywhere "We don't think your need to access emergency contraception is important enough to make it available to you without going through a gatekeeper."
Well, Obama administration, don't say you weren't warned when your core base gets tired of you pulling shenanigans like this and refuses to come out and vote for you next year. When your percentages are dropping among blocs like women and pro-choicers, core Dem constituencies...you have only yourselves to blame.
Consider that frustration cranked up to 11, after the HHS overrode the FDA's decision to allow Plan B to be purchased without restriction, out on store shelves, and you explicitly supported the move, even to the point of using your daughters as justification for a blatantly political election-year ploy. Remember when you promised that the decisions of your administration would be based on sound science, evidence, and fact - with the implied comparison to ideologically-driven right-wingers? I certainly do. So do these Senators. And I'm genuinely curious what bullshit y'all are going to pull out of your ass to justify your decision to go against what the experts decided based on actual science and research.
Much has been said about The Eleven-Year-Old, and the use of this fear-and-emotion-based appeal has been thoroughly deconstructed already, so I won't say much - only that if you would rather see a child forced to bear a child than allow her a modicum of control over her circumstances, your priorities are seriously fucked up. Actual abortion or bearing a child at that age are both far more physically difficult/dangerous than a medication which studies have shown to be quite safe, anyway.
The thing is, this overruling doesn't just affect The Eleven-Year-Old. It also affects teens as old as fifteen, sixteen, and seventeen. Are you seriously telling me that a sixteen-year-old is mature enough to drive a car - hundreds of pounds of metal moving at high speed, quite capable of killing and maiming if misused or mistakes are made! - but not mature enough to take a medication properly, whether it's because of a broken condom or to protect themself after being raped? What the fuck kind of logic is that?
And then there's the much-less-mentioned half of the overruling. The part that would have moved Plan B out from behind the pharmacy counter and onto the shelves.
Allow me to rephrase that: it would have moved Plan B out from behind the gatekeeping of pharmacists, many of whom are anti-choice, and, in some places, legally protected in their choice to deny people access to certain medications because it upsets their delicate fee-fees. A grown-ass person can be in need of emergency contraception and still be told "No" simply because the pharmacist doesn't like it - and depending on where they are, there may not be a damn thing to be done about it. Allowing Plan B to be stocked on regular shelves with other medications would have removed this (gigantic, horrible) barrier between grown people and the medication they need, much less teens or children. That's the other thing y'all chose to block. You not only told young people "We don't think you should be allowed to control your reproduction without the okay of the adults around you", you also told pregnancy-capable people everywhere "We don't think your need to access emergency contraception is important enough to make it available to you without going through a gatekeeper."
Well, Obama administration, don't say you weren't warned when your core base gets tired of you pulling shenanigans like this and refuses to come out and vote for you next year. When your percentages are dropping among blocs like women and pro-choicers, core Dem constituencies...you have only yourselves to blame.
12.15.2011
If you can't beat them, take credit for what they forced you to do!
Via Calitics, it seems Anthem Blue Cross (one of the health-insurance giants) is running an ad touting "100% free annual checkups" that they "offer".
Well, this is awkward. Because those free checkups that they're talking about like it's some kind of magnanimous caring gesture on their part to take care of their customers? It's actually a requirement, part of one of the more popular provisions in Obama's health insurance reform bill that requires insurance companies to cover preventative care with no copay or other upfront cost to the patient. And it's a requirement that the insurance companies, including Blue Cross, fought viciously against.
Which makes it more than a little duplicitous to, once it turns out to be very popular with the unwashed masses, run big ol' ads saying "HEY LOOK HOW NICE WE ARE TO COVER THIS PREVENTATIVE CARE FOR YOU please ignore the fact that we had to be dragged kicking and screaming into doing so".
But I suppose, in this era of Faux News and Tea Party absurdity, it's perfectly logical to attempt to reap public goodwill by pretending it was your idea all along. After all, depending on where people get their news, all they know about "Obamacare" is that it's for commies and something about death panels.
Of course, we all know the "liberal media" won't bother to call them out on it. And thus, the cycle of misinformation continues...
 |
| A full-page ad from a magazine, showing a smiling doctor using a stethoscope on his patient; text reads "Anthem Blue Cross Free Annual Checkups" with further copy below explaining how "annual checkups help keep you healthy and that's why Anthem Blue Cross covers them at 'no extra cost to you'." |
Well, this is awkward. Because those free checkups that they're talking about like it's some kind of magnanimous caring gesture on their part to take care of their customers? It's actually a requirement, part of one of the more popular provisions in Obama's health insurance reform bill that requires insurance companies to cover preventative care with no copay or other upfront cost to the patient. And it's a requirement that the insurance companies, including Blue Cross, fought viciously against.
Which makes it more than a little duplicitous to, once it turns out to be very popular with the unwashed masses, run big ol' ads saying "HEY LOOK HOW NICE WE ARE TO COVER THIS PREVENTATIVE CARE FOR YOU please ignore the fact that we had to be dragged kicking and screaming into doing so".
But I suppose, in this era of Faux News and Tea Party absurdity, it's perfectly logical to attempt to reap public goodwill by pretending it was your idea all along. After all, depending on where people get their news, all they know about "Obamacare" is that it's for commies and something about death panels.
Of course, we all know the "liberal media" won't bother to call them out on it. And thus, the cycle of misinformation continues...
12.09.2011
Apologies for my absence, but LOOK IT'S AN ADORABLE KITTY!
Sorry I've been away, dearloves! It's a bit of a long story, but the short version is, I enlisted my mom's help to do some massive decluttering and housecleaning, which took a full week of working every day at least half the day, starting the day after Thanksgiving and going through the next weekend (I swear, I think we hauled at least two dozen black trash bags of stuff out of this place, between trash and Goodwill donations!). The reason? Ozz and I decided to get a kitty, talked to our landlord about altering our no-pets lease, and the end result of all this work (the house needed to be made safe for a kitteh; there was far too much clutter and junk in corners that a cat could get into trouble with and which could've hid spiders or other nasties) came home with us Wednesday night:
She's almost a year old but still quite petite, with a purr like a good-sized motor that starts up as soon as you touch her or sometimes even talk to her. She's a snuggler, too:
So! There's my excuse for being gone the past couple weeks. And a very cute little excuse she is, too. As she settles in and my routine re-stabilizes, expect to start hearing from me again - I have Things To Say about Obama's Plan B fuckery, the bullying of a Pagan child by his teachers, and a potential "atheist license plate tax" in Georgia, among other things. Hope everyone's holiday season (if you are celebrating anything this time of year, anyway) is going well thus far!
PS: I am perfectly open to doing regular or semi-regular Doses of Cute, now that I have a subject, but I don't want to spam y'all with cat pictures if you're not interested. Would you be interested? Let me know in comments!
 |
| She-Who-Has-Not-Yet-Been-Named, a mostly-white calico cat w/orange-brown and grey tabby patches, curled up on the bed with her front paws over her tiny little face |
 |
| SWHNYBN laying on her back across my lap, sleeping with her head pillowed on my arm and a paw resting on my laptop while I tried to work around her |
 |
| My fiance Ozz, laying down and smiling at the camera with SWHNYBN draped across his chest looking half-asleep |
PS: I am perfectly open to doing regular or semi-regular Doses of Cute, now that I have a subject, but I don't want to spam y'all with cat pictures if you're not interested. Would you be interested? Let me know in comments!
11.22.2011
USCCB says "Help, help, we're bein' repressed!"
The USCCB = US Conference of Catholic Bishops, meaning a collective of old celibate (unless they're abusing children, that is) men who think Jesus has given them a special license to boss everyone else around, no matter what everyone else believes about Jesus or anything else.
And right now, the USCCB want us to know they are Very Seriously Concerned for religious liberty in this country, because their will is not being implemented on the rest of us speedily enough, which is a violation of their religious liberty to be the boss of everyone. If your beliefs include that you should be in charge, I guess not putting you in charge is a violation of your religious liberty, right? The USCCB thinks so, anyway! Check out the horror show of quotes from them this past week or so...
But what caused this bout of hand-wringing and pearl-clutching, you ask? Well, like all big corporations, the Catholic church is campaigning for a more favorable regulatory environment - that is to say, fewer or no regulations at all. Specifically, they're upset because of the new HHS rule that, as part of the health insurance reform package, would require nearly all employers who offer healthcare plans to employees to cover hormonal contraception without a copay as "preventative care". There is a religious exemption in the rule already - an organization which A: has religious values as its primary purpose, B: primarily employs people who share the religious tenets of the organization, and C: primarily serves people who share the religious tenets of the organization, would be exempt from the rule. Meaning that churches themselves are safe from the horror of being forced to make it easier for their employees to access contraception under the employer-subsidized health-care plan.
The problem, of course, is that Catholic hospitals do NOT primarily serve people who share their religious tenets. In many places, Catholic hospitals are the ONLY hospitals within a reasonable distance, and thus serve the entire general populace of the area, Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Under the new rule, that would disqualify them from a religious exemption, and the health-care plans offered to employees of the hospitals would have to include the option of contraception. That's the option, by the by, not a requirement; no person would be required or even encouraged to use it. It would simply be made available to those who want or need it, free of copay. (I'll remind everyone that even if Catholic hospitals did employ primarily Catholics, Catholic women use hormonal contraception at about the same rate as non-Catholic women, that is to say, almost universally (98%). So it's not like making contraception cheaper to access is really controversial for anyone except the actual church hierarchy.)
The idea that they might have to make it easier for women in their employ to get ahold of hormonal contraceptives, instead of making it harder, is giving them all conniption fits, and they're doing their damndest to lobby President Obama to throw us under the bus again by widening the exemption to suit the USCCB.
Righteous fury at the fact that the President seems to be taking the USCCB's lobbying seriously aside for the moment, I just want to return to one of their ludicrous displays of pretzel-logic about "religious liberty" for a moment, as it's extremely telling of what's really going on here:
Catholic organizations walk a strange line in this country. They (ostensibly) employ and (ostensibly) serve the general public, not only Catholics, but they expect to be able to impose their religious doctrines on those members of the public who rely on their employment or services - and again, remember that in many areas there are no other options for some of the services Catholic organizations provide - and they expect to receive special dispensation from the government to restrict both employees and clientele in ways ordinary businesses aren't allowed to, because, in essence, "Jesus told us so". Especially since they're claiming that their religious doctrine requires them to do certain works, they really are using the kind of argument I facetiously posited in the first paragraphs of the post: If my religion says I have to be in charge of things, not putting me in charge of things is violating my religion!
It follows logically, in the strictest interpretation of the statement, and yet it's clearly and obviously ridiculous to expect such treatment. Why? Because the government's sole purpose is not to protect religious liberty. That is an important part of its duty, but it is still only *part*. The government is of much wider scope, tasked with ensuring the welfare and well-being of all its people, and when push comes to shove and a single organization's doctrinal need to impose their views on other people - like, say, employees and clients - is harming members of the general public, religious liberty must give way to protecting the people. It's called "compelling government interest", and it's why we wouldn't allow a person to go about murdering other people even if it was a legitimate requirement of their religion, because the safety and well-being of others has to come first when the two principles are in conflict.
Yet the USCCB isn't satisfied, and won't be satisfied, until their right to impose their doctrine on everyone within reach is enshrined in law as being of more importance than the needs and safety of the "everyone within reach" they're trying to impose their will on.
And right now, the USCCB want us to know they are Very Seriously Concerned for religious liberty in this country, because their will is not being implemented on the rest of us speedily enough, which is a violation of their religious liberty to be the boss of everyone. If your beliefs include that you should be in charge, I guess not putting you in charge is a violation of your religious liberty, right? The USCCB thinks so, anyway! Check out the horror show of quotes from them this past week or so...
“We see in our culture a drive to neuter religion,” Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan of New York, president of the bishops conference, said in a news conference Monday at the bishops’ annual meeting in Baltimore. He added that “well-financed, well-oiled sectors” were trying “to push religion back into the sacristy.” (via)Oh noes! How dare we try to maintain our separation of church and state by making sure religion remains in the church where it belongs?! Don't we know that's Bad and Wrong and religion belongs in both the sacristy AND the Oval Office?!?! Dirty little heathens be we, I suppose.
"There is no religious liberty if we are not free to express our faith in the public square and if we are not free to act on that faith through works of education, health care and charity," [Bishop William E.] Lori said in his first address to the bishops as chairman of the newly formed Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. (via)"If we cannot get government subsidies and contracts to carry out our religious works while still being protected from having to follow the law within our organizations, we are being OPPRESSED I TELL YOU! And we know about oppression. We've been practicing on everyone else for centuries, so that we would recognize this moment when it came."
"For some time now we have viewed with growing alarm the ongoing erosion of religious liberty in our country. Among the challenges we see is a pattern in culture and law to treat religion merely as a private matter between an individual and his or her God,"...This is beyond even my considerable reservoir of snark. I, um...yeah, I'm sorry, I got nothing. When they're talking about "treating religion as a private matter between an individual and their god" like that's horribly, desperately inappropriate and oppressive, what is there to say? Is it Opposite Day again or something?
But what caused this bout of hand-wringing and pearl-clutching, you ask? Well, like all big corporations, the Catholic church is campaigning for a more favorable regulatory environment - that is to say, fewer or no regulations at all. Specifically, they're upset because of the new HHS rule that, as part of the health insurance reform package, would require nearly all employers who offer healthcare plans to employees to cover hormonal contraception without a copay as "preventative care". There is a religious exemption in the rule already - an organization which A: has religious values as its primary purpose, B: primarily employs people who share the religious tenets of the organization, and C: primarily serves people who share the religious tenets of the organization, would be exempt from the rule. Meaning that churches themselves are safe from the horror of being forced to make it easier for their employees to access contraception under the employer-subsidized health-care plan.
The problem, of course, is that Catholic hospitals do NOT primarily serve people who share their religious tenets. In many places, Catholic hospitals are the ONLY hospitals within a reasonable distance, and thus serve the entire general populace of the area, Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Under the new rule, that would disqualify them from a religious exemption, and the health-care plans offered to employees of the hospitals would have to include the option of contraception. That's the option, by the by, not a requirement; no person would be required or even encouraged to use it. It would simply be made available to those who want or need it, free of copay. (I'll remind everyone that even if Catholic hospitals did employ primarily Catholics, Catholic women use hormonal contraception at about the same rate as non-Catholic women, that is to say, almost universally (98%). So it's not like making contraception cheaper to access is really controversial for anyone except the actual church hierarchy.)
The idea that they might have to make it easier for women in their employ to get ahold of hormonal contraceptives, instead of making it harder, is giving them all conniption fits, and they're doing their damndest to lobby President Obama to throw us under the bus again by widening the exemption to suit the USCCB.
Righteous fury at the fact that the President seems to be taking the USCCB's lobbying seriously aside for the moment, I just want to return to one of their ludicrous displays of pretzel-logic about "religious liberty" for a moment, as it's extremely telling of what's really going on here:
There is no religious liberty if we are not free to express our faith in the public square and if we are not free to act on that faith through works of education, health care and charity,Because they are framing the issue so that it sounds like the government is going to force Catholic health care and education organizations to shut down, thus denying them the ability to act on their faith in that manner, when actually the government is in no way impeding their ability to act on their faith "through works of education, health care and charity". It's simply saying that if they want to employ people to do those works, they need to provide those employees with access certain baseline services. Which is a totally different thing.
Catholic organizations walk a strange line in this country. They (ostensibly) employ and (ostensibly) serve the general public, not only Catholics, but they expect to be able to impose their religious doctrines on those members of the public who rely on their employment or services - and again, remember that in many areas there are no other options for some of the services Catholic organizations provide - and they expect to receive special dispensation from the government to restrict both employees and clientele in ways ordinary businesses aren't allowed to, because, in essence, "Jesus told us so". Especially since they're claiming that their religious doctrine requires them to do certain works, they really are using the kind of argument I facetiously posited in the first paragraphs of the post: If my religion says I have to be in charge of things, not putting me in charge of things is violating my religion!
It follows logically, in the strictest interpretation of the statement, and yet it's clearly and obviously ridiculous to expect such treatment. Why? Because the government's sole purpose is not to protect religious liberty. That is an important part of its duty, but it is still only *part*. The government is of much wider scope, tasked with ensuring the welfare and well-being of all its people, and when push comes to shove and a single organization's doctrinal need to impose their views on other people - like, say, employees and clients - is harming members of the general public, religious liberty must give way to protecting the people. It's called "compelling government interest", and it's why we wouldn't allow a person to go about murdering other people even if it was a legitimate requirement of their religion, because the safety and well-being of others has to come first when the two principles are in conflict.
Yet the USCCB isn't satisfied, and won't be satisfied, until their right to impose their doctrine on everyone within reach is enshrined in law as being of more importance than the needs and safety of the "everyone within reach" they're trying to impose their will on.
11.21.2011
Like the Grinch, Only Worse
Because the Grinch *had* a heart, even if it was a tiny shriveled little thing, and it was *able* to grow three sizes that day. Whereas Roger Schlafly, son of the infamous Phyllis "I'm going to make it big and get rich by making a career out of telling other women they shouldn't have careers - oh and getting married means your husband has a right to your body at all times" Schlafly, cannot possibly have even a shred of a heart left in his body at all.
Because if you have a heart, you do not attack mandatory reporting laws designed to protect children from abuse. Period. Much less referring to mandatory reporting as "snitching" and saying that such laws "turn us into a nation of snitches". And you sure as fuck don't claim that mandatory reporting laws are an "attack on the autonomy of the American family".
Cause if your family's "autonomy" includes the right to choose to cover up crimes against children which would be violated by mandatory reporting laws, you do not deserve to have a family, nor do you deserve autonomy at all. Period.
Because if you have a heart, you do not attack mandatory reporting laws designed to protect children from abuse. Period. Much less referring to mandatory reporting as "snitching" and saying that such laws "turn us into a nation of snitches". And you sure as fuck don't claim that mandatory reporting laws are an "attack on the autonomy of the American family".
Cause if your family's "autonomy" includes the right to choose to cover up crimes against children which would be violated by mandatory reporting laws, you do not deserve to have a family, nor do you deserve autonomy at all. Period.
Women for Obama? Not This Woman.
Apparently the campaign season has reached the point where it's time to start specific outreach, for I had an email land in my inbox last week that frankly took my breath away with its audacity:
With all due respect, y'all can go fuck yourselves with something spiky.
This whole letter rubs me the wrong way, from the sisterhood-y tone to the "that's what women do, persevere (but without complaining because to be a woman is to work and be silent and consigned to the shadows while your labor keeps everyone going apparently)" to centering the message about "FOR THE CHILDREN BECAUSE ALL WOMEN ARE MOTHERS OR AT THE VERY LEAST MATERNALLY-INCLINED TO PROTECT TEH PRESHUS CHILDRENZ".
Pointing to the Lily Ledbetter Act wins you no points, given that it's been said by those involved that it was pretty much a done deal already before Obama took office, and it doesn't even do what the administration is always claiming it does, and yet it's always proudly trotted out as the main show pony in these appeals to women as a voting bloc. Help for students is good, definitely, and there will be women among those students benefiting, but the tone of it has that FOR THE CHILDRENZ feel that's really turning me off about all this. And touting the healthcare insurance reform, in which the administration started in the middle and compromised to the right, including ceding ground on the issue of federal funding for abortions for people on Medicaid by issuing an executive order reinforcing the Hyde Amendment to appease DINOs in exchange for their votes on the legislation, in a letter appealing to women to throw their support to the administration's campaigns, is a whole new level of audacity.
We're talking about a President who has repeatedly deliberately used right-wing framing in talking about reproductive choice, whose Equality Day Proclamation had not even the tiniest mention of reproductive freedom, who traded away poor women's reproductive freedom in order to get his precious healthcare insurance reform, who staffed his administration with known misogynist fuckwits, whose PR rep couldn't even manage a simple statement on the Republican war on women at the state level without epic mansplaining and dancing around the topic, who even when his administration does actually work to protect freedom of choice remains absolutely silent about it as if wanting to keep things hushed up, and who is even now openly considering caving to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and allowing them to discriminate against women in their employ at Catholic hospitals and schools the nation over because they've got their shorts in a wad about "insufficient" conscience protections that will require that the insurance they offer to employees cover contraception care among other preventative services.*
And after all of this, you have the unmitigated temerity to appeal to me not simply as a voter, but specifically as a woman?
I do not even remotely begin to have enough middle fingers with which to salute in response.
When y'all are ready to actually stand with us beyond LILLYLEDBETTERLILLYLEDBETTERLILLYLEDBETTER, let me know and we'll talk. Until then, keep your patronizing schtick to yourselves.
*I realize the bulk of my links in this paragraph all go to various posts on the same blog; I also realize that some people will take that to mean I didn't have any other sources and can be disregarded on these claims. I use these links for three reasons: one, because I know the blog and its tags well enough that I could find the information I was after fairly quickly; two, because all the posts are well-written and well-sourced with further links you can read for more information; and three, because I love Shakesville and am always happy to send people over there. Please don't mistake this choice for a lack of supporting data elsewhere, I simply pull from the places I know well and have access to.
As I have traveled across the country, I have had the privilege of meeting incredible women from all walks of life. From young women paying their own way through college, to moms working the extra shift to keep food on the table, to women struggling to make ends meet during retirement.How. DARE. You. An administration that has used my rights as a bargaining chip, willingly trading away protections for the most vulnerable among us in order to pander to Blue Dog Democrats, and stood silently by, watching, without so much as a quiet cough of discomfort or awkwardness as a tidal wave of anti-choice legislation swept this country, now wants to approach me as a woman and ask me to sign on to campaign for them?
We talk about their bills, their children -- how they're constantly striving to strike that balance between work and family. And no matter what kind of challenges they're facing, they don't complain. They just work harder.
This is what we do as women. We persevere. Because no matter our ages, backgrounds, or stations in life, we are determined to leave a better world for our children and give them opportunities we never even dreamed of.
Women have always been the heart of the Obama organization. We make up nearly half of the American workforce and are the majority of students in America's colleges and universities. We're the primary caregivers for our children and seniors. We're the heads of households and workplaces across the country.
And right now, it's time for us all to dig deep, step up, and keep building this campaign together: person by person, discussion by discussion.
Today, we are officially launching Women for Obama -- and I am incredibly honored to be serving as its chair. This is a special group dedicated to growing this campaign from the ground up. Because we know better than anyone that movements for real and lasting change have got to start at the grassroots -- and they're sustained by the relationships we develop with one another. Together, that's what we're going to do -- build relationships with supporters, new and old, and grow this campaign -- one woman at a time.
I wanted to ask you myself if you'll sign on to join us.
The stories of the incredible women I meet serve as a constant reminder of why we're all here: because American families all around the country are facing very real problems. They're balancing mortgage payments and utilities bills with full-time jobs and raising children. They're struggling to make ends meet while still trying to put money aside to send their kids to college one day.
Barack understands these issues because he's lived them. He was raised by a single mother who struggled to put herself through school and pay the bills. When she needed help, Barack's grandmother stepped in, waking up every morning before dawn to take a bus to her job at a bank. And even though she worked hard and was good at what she did, she ultimately hit a glass ceiling and was passed over for promotions time and again because she was a woman.
So Barack knows what it means when a family struggles. He knows what it means when someone doesn't have a chance to fulfill their potential. And today, as a father, he knows what it means to want your daughters to grow up with no limits on their dreams.
That's why, since taking office, he's worked tirelessly to make sure every child and every family gets a fair shake.
The historic health reform he passed is making sure every American family gets the quality and affordable care they need to stay healthy. The crucial investments he's made in our students and workers -- raising the standards in our public schools and building out job-training programs at community colleges -- are investments in our country's economic future. And the very first bill he signed into law -- the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act -- will help make it easier for women to get equal pay for equal work, because he knows that women's success in this economy is the key to families' success in this economy.
But we have so much more to do. And, as women and supporters of this campaign, we need to keep showing up -- and we need to keep fighting the good fight.
So I'm asking you to join me, and women all across the country who support this movement. I'm asking you to say you're ready to work.
Join Women for Obama, and help us grow this organization:
http://my.barackobama.com/Women-for-Obama
Thank you for being a part of this,
Michelle
With all due respect, y'all can go fuck yourselves with something spiky.
This whole letter rubs me the wrong way, from the sisterhood-y tone to the "that's what women do, persevere (but without complaining because to be a woman is to work and be silent and consigned to the shadows while your labor keeps everyone going apparently)" to centering the message about "FOR THE CHILDREN BECAUSE ALL WOMEN ARE MOTHERS OR AT THE VERY LEAST MATERNALLY-INCLINED TO PROTECT TEH PRESHUS CHILDRENZ".
Pointing to the Lily Ledbetter Act wins you no points, given that it's been said by those involved that it was pretty much a done deal already before Obama took office, and it doesn't even do what the administration is always claiming it does, and yet it's always proudly trotted out as the main show pony in these appeals to women as a voting bloc. Help for students is good, definitely, and there will be women among those students benefiting, but the tone of it has that FOR THE CHILDRENZ feel that's really turning me off about all this. And touting the health
We're talking about a President who has repeatedly deliberately used right-wing framing in talking about reproductive choice, whose Equality Day Proclamation had not even the tiniest mention of reproductive freedom, who traded away poor women's reproductive freedom in order to get his precious health
And after all of this, you have the unmitigated temerity to appeal to me not simply as a voter, but specifically as a woman?
I do not even remotely begin to have enough middle fingers with which to salute in response.
When y'all are ready to actually stand with us beyond LILLYLEDBETTERLILLYLEDBETTERLILLYLEDBETTER, let me know and we'll talk. Until then, keep your patronizing schtick to yourselves.
*I realize the bulk of my links in this paragraph all go to various posts on the same blog; I also realize that some people will take that to mean I didn't have any other sources and can be disregarded on these claims. I use these links for three reasons: one, because I know the blog and its tags well enough that I could find the information I was after fairly quickly; two, because all the posts are well-written and well-sourced with further links you can read for more information; and three, because I love Shakesville and am always happy to send people over there. Please don't mistake this choice for a lack of supporting data elsewhere, I simply pull from the places I know well and have access to.
11.16.2011
(Partial) Credit Where (Partial) Credit Is Due: Susan G Komen's Response to Raise A Stink
It's no secret around these parts that I am vehemently not a fan of Susan G Komen for the Cure. So when Think Before You Pink (a most excellent org dedicated to exposing pinkwashing and calling companies to account for their pinkwashing ways) launched their campaign Raise a Stink!, asking Komen to recall and reformulate their Promise Me perfume so that it no longer contains galaxolide and toluene, two toxins that have been shown to increase risk of breast cancer (irony FTL?), I was all over that. I sent off the email to Komen, not really expecting to hear back, or expecting to receive a news update from TBYP at a later date. To my surprise, however, the following email landed in my inbox this afternoon:
...Hmmm. Well, good and not good, in spades.
Thank you for your email to Susan G. Komen for the Cure® about the Promise Me fragrance. The fragrance was designed especially for Susan G. Komen for the Cure by TPR Holdings, which is donating $1 million to Komen annually for breast cancer research, education, screening, and treatment programs. The funds raised through the sale of the perfume will be put to good use in the pursuit of that goal.
Our first concern is always the safety and well-being of women and men facing this disease. To that end, our partners’ products are subject to review by our Medical and Scientific Affairs team, which evaluated the perfume’s ingredients, the latest research, and guidelines from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
According to our research, the ingredients found in Promise Me are within fragrance and cosmetic industry standards, and at these levels have not been shown to elevate breast cancer risk in people. At Susan G. Komen for the Cure, we support evidence-based medicine, that is, decisions based on current facts and knowledge. In addition, we make this information available to our constituents, respecting that they are intelligent consumers who make informed decisions about the use of products based on evidence. As new research and new findings are published, we will certainly take them into account.Nevertheless, at Komen’s request and to be sensitive to these concerns, the manufacturer agreed to reformulate the perfume. The last batch of the perfume was manufactured in May of this year; we expect manufacturing and sale of the reformulated product to begin in early 2012. We do not intend to ask the manufacturer to recall or remove unsold products.
Komen has always believed that ending cancer requires research about how it begins and how it might be prevented, which is why Komen has invested more than $65 million to prevention research and an additional $7 million supporting 18 projects investigating environmental estrogens, pesticides, steroid hormones, and nitrites/nitrates and their relation to breast cancer.We’re also taking action for clarity and consensus around the direction that environmental research should take in the future, which is why we requested – and are funding – a $1 million study by the Institute of Medicine to answer that question. We expect IOM’s recommendations in December, along with IOM’s assessment of evidence-based strategies for individuals to reduce their risk of breast cancer.
Komen is strongly committed to addressing breast cancer through science, advocacy and community and global outreach to achieve our mission to end breast cancer, forever.
- -1 for excessive use of PR-speak padding "HEY THEY'RE GIVING US A MILLION BUCKS AND WE'RE GOING TO DO STUFF WITH IT" which contains the inevitable undertone of "it's for a good cause so you shouldn't discourage it!" (and we all know how well that goes over with me)
- -1 for "industry standards" and the little dig about "evidence-based medicine" which implies that those of us who are unhappy about this are just being alarmists. I would think that an org dedicated to "ending breast cancer forever" might want to be a bit more strict about the use of even potentially risk-increasing chemicals than "industry standards" allow. "Industry" as a whole is about making money, not being safe, and we've all seen what happens when those two goals come into conflict, haven't we? So yes, I do expect better from a dedicated cause org like Komen than a cop-out about "industry standards".
- -1 for "make this information available and let you decide" as a brush-off. Part of the point was that independent lab testing found these chemicals, and they were not listed on the label as ingredients. So no, that's not making information available. Even if it was, do you really think it's fair to expect your constituents to have at their fingertips the information about chemistry and the research on these particular chemicals to know what they do or their hazards? If that were the case, why have FDA restrictions on cosmetics and fragrances at all? Put whatever you want in there, as long as it's on the label so consumers can "make informed decisions based on evidence", right? The point of standards at the manufacturing level is so that your average person doesn't have to have a degree in cosmetic science to understand what they're putting on their skin. Since you commissioned the perfume, upholding that standard is your responsibility, and as I said, "industry standards" is not an acceptable cop-out here.
- +1 for requesting that it be reformulated. Yay! That was the first part of what we were trying to do, so awesome!
- -1 for not asking the manufacturer to even so much as pull unsold stock. Even if you don't want to go to the trouble of a recall, don't sell any more of it, FFS.
- -1 for even MORE defensive PR-speak and swinging their Mighty Fundraising And Money-Spending Dick around for everyone to see. Do I give a shit about what else you've invested and how much? Not particularly, no. I was contacting you to address a particular issue, to which you've devoted a single small paragraph out of several so far. Stick to the point, please.
- -10 for absolutely no hint of apology anywhere, not even a Politician's Nonpology of "we're sorry if it bothered you" or anything. If you're willing to back down enough to have the product reformulated, shouldn't you be willing to apologize for it? Of course, given the context of defensive PR and reformulating without pulling unsold stock of the old formulation, I'd bet the decision to reformulate is, in essence, a token "shut the activists up" concession. In which case, no, they're not going to apologize, because they're not sorry, they just want people to shut up and will do the absolute minimum required to make that happen.
11.15.2011
Postsecret Strikes Again: Gendering the Desire for Marriage
I read PostSecret, as I believe I've mentioned before here. Sometimes they're banal, sometimes they're annoyingly common - this week included "I don't shave my legs in the wintertime"; who the hell does if you don't absolutely have to, honestly? - many are less "secrets" and more just statements, and there are usually...hopefully...a few that touch a subtle nerve in you, striking up the feelings of poignancy and human connection for which this project became famous.
Of course, reading PostSecret - consuming any kind of media, really - becomes a lot more complicated and interesting once you've "taken the red pill", so to speak. Things your average person would find funny or scroll past without pausing catch the eye and poke at you. Like the "I always bring fat customers extra helpings of breadsticks" secret from a few weeks ago, or the few over the years that have admitted to covert feelings of racism, or the cissexist assumptions made about whether or not lesbian couples could ever become pregnant without outside assistance from a couple months back (here is a good roundup of several of the worst offenders). This week's Sunday Secrets included the following postcard:
Pop culture in this country makes endless jokes about a presumed male reluctance to commit in relationships with women, and with marriage being the biggest commitment to a relationship one can make, of course men are skittish, amirite? We understand - and teach young girls - that women long for marriage, that marriage is the pinnacle achievement of Relationship Rewards Points; we're expected to dream about The Big Day when we get to be the princess in the white dress with the church and the wedding cake, to have notebooks filled with pictures of the dream dress, etc. But we refer to a man's wife as a "ball and chain", bachelor parties are a last-gasp-of-freedom usually involving alcohol and nude women before you lose your freedom forever to your marriage, etc. Marriage, and weddings in particular, are constructed as a thing women desperately desire and men equally-desperately run from.
And that's what makes this secret a powerful enough thing to have shown up on PostSecret. A man is keeping his longing for a wedding (or marriage; it's hard to tell if it's the wedding part or the marriage part he's talking about from the image) a secret because fantasizing about weddings is a girly thing. And of course, in a culture where masculinity is defined and constructed as not-femininity, the worst thing a man can do to damage his masculinity, and thus his identity as A Man, is admit to being feminine in any way. For a man to have this girly desire for his wedding day is shameful, emasculating, and thus best kept secret.
I found this fascinating on a personal level, as well as a sociological level, because after being engaged my senior year of high school (and coming to my senses shortly thereafter, thank the gods), then coming to my "feminist awakening" in college, I decided I wasn't all that interested in marriage. I maintained that position for years, and probably would have been quite satisfied to remain unwed the rest of my life, whether partnered or not - yet I'm engaged now, and looking forward to the day when we can make it legal (we haven't yet, because I refuse to take advantage of a privilege of access gained purely by chance because we happen to have different gender markers on our driver's licenses, and he agrees and supports that choice). Yet when we got together, and our relationship turned deeply serious, he was the one who asked me to consider marrying him. Not just in the "he proposed, of course, because the man always does the asking (but it's for show and form, the decision is usually all but made ahead of time)" sense, no. He knew my feelings on marriage. And we had a serious discussion wherein he made it clear he would respect that if I said no, but he also explained that he strongly did want to get married. As in, it was a long-held wish of his, in the way that we teach women they should wish for marriage. So he was the driving force behind our engagement, out of genuine desire for marriage. (I've since warmed to the idea quite a bit, although the complexities of the vast war machine that is the wedding-industrial complex still make me want to run screaming into the night.) So to me, this secret provokes a "So what? I wouldn't even be engaged if not for the fact that my fiance feels similarly to this guy. This is a *secret*?"
But I understand why. It's our gendered expectations of what is an "acceptable" desire re: marriage and weddings that make this statement "I'm a guy who fantasizes about his wedding day" so taboo as to be a Secret one can only tell to an anonymous secret-gathering art project. I wonder if I could send in a complementary secret, confessing my disinterest in weddings and outright hate for "traditional" wedding gowns, and have it been seen as equally confessional-ish because I'm a woman...?
Of course, reading PostSecret - consuming any kind of media, really - becomes a lot more complicated and interesting once you've "taken the red pill", so to speak. Things your average person would find funny or scroll past without pausing catch the eye and poke at you. Like the "I always bring fat customers extra helpings of breadsticks" secret from a few weeks ago, or the few over the years that have admitted to covert feelings of racism, or the cissexist assumptions made about whether or not lesbian couples could ever become pregnant without outside assistance from a couple months back (here is a good roundup of several of the worst offenders). This week's Sunday Secrets included the following postcard:
 |
| A postcard depicting a black-and-white image of a man and woman in traditional Western wedding dress/tux holding each other and smiling in front of a church. Red text overlaying the image reads "This is what I fantasize about...I'm a guy." |
And that's what makes this secret a powerful enough thing to have shown up on PostSecret. A man is keeping his longing for a wedding (or marriage; it's hard to tell if it's the wedding part or the marriage part he's talking about from the image) a secret because fantasizing about weddings is a girly thing. And of course, in a culture where masculinity is defined and constructed as not-femininity, the worst thing a man can do to damage his masculinity, and thus his identity as A Man, is admit to being feminine in any way. For a man to have this girly desire for his wedding day is shameful, emasculating, and thus best kept secret.
I found this fascinating on a personal level, as well as a sociological level, because after being engaged my senior year of high school (and coming to my senses shortly thereafter, thank the gods), then coming to my "feminist awakening" in college, I decided I wasn't all that interested in marriage. I maintained that position for years, and probably would have been quite satisfied to remain unwed the rest of my life, whether partnered or not - yet I'm engaged now, and looking forward to the day when we can make it legal (we haven't yet, because I refuse to take advantage of a privilege of access gained purely by chance because we happen to have different gender markers on our driver's licenses, and he agrees and supports that choice). Yet when we got together, and our relationship turned deeply serious, he was the one who asked me to consider marrying him. Not just in the "he proposed, of course, because the man always does the asking (but it's for show and form, the decision is usually all but made ahead of time)" sense, no. He knew my feelings on marriage. And we had a serious discussion wherein he made it clear he would respect that if I said no, but he also explained that he strongly did want to get married. As in, it was a long-held wish of his, in the way that we teach women they should wish for marriage. So he was the driving force behind our engagement, out of genuine desire for marriage. (I've since warmed to the idea quite a bit, although the complexities of the vast war machine that is the wedding-industrial complex still make me want to run screaming into the night.) So to me, this secret provokes a "So what? I wouldn't even be engaged if not for the fact that my fiance feels similarly to this guy. This is a *secret*?"
But I understand why. It's our gendered expectations of what is an "acceptable" desire re: marriage and weddings that make this statement "I'm a guy who fantasizes about his wedding day" so taboo as to be a Secret one can only tell to an anonymous secret-gathering art project. I wonder if I could send in a complementary secret, confessing my disinterest in weddings and outright hate for "traditional" wedding gowns, and have it been seen as equally confessional-ish because I'm a woman...?
11.14.2011
The Blame Game and #OccupyOakland
I had heard last night that there was a(nother) planned eviction of Occupy Oakland set for this morning. Nothing much to do but hope and pray that the cops wouldn't turn violent again. Reading this morning's news, it seems that things were indeed relatively peaceful - legal observers and press observers were permitted to be in the camp unharassed by police, and while the encampment is gone again and there were 32 people arrested - mostly clergy and religious personnel from what I've heard, good job, I'm sure handcuffing priests is absolutely vital to the security of the nation - it did happen without the police brutality that has been the hallmark of these repeated attempts to quash the Occupy movement.
But this morning, in perusing my Twitter feed to catch up on the news, I came across this tweet from my local news channel, @abc7newsBayArea:
This unfortunately follows the usual pattern of Mayor Quan's faux-populism attacks on #OO: point to various bad things in the city that are harming the people of Oakland, then blame the effects on #OO whether they're related or not. When there was a shooting near the camp that ended with one man dead, even though neither the victim nor the shooter(s) were affiliated or involved with #OO, Quan used it to call for the encampent to disband because "violence is unacceptable". It's Oakland, for fuck's sake! One of the most violent cities in the Bay Area! Shootings like the one that took place near #OO happen tragically often in Oakland, and statistically speaking it was just a matter of time before one happened in proximity to #OO. Even OPD declared it unrelated, but Quan tried to make out like it was Occupy's fault and used it to justify evicting the encampment today
And now, this tweet this morning, which holds the not-so-subtle implication that it's #OO's fault that the police are spending time harassing #OO and were thus unable to respond to other calls. Mayor Quan, you know there's a simple solution to that, right? Leave Occupy the fuck alone. All the cops have done around Occupy is stir up more trouble and escalate tensions. YOU are the one choosing to devote so many police resources - and spending $2.4 million the city could ill afford to cover the costs of evicting #OO this morning, too - to Occupy and thus depriving your other constituents of what little protection or help they might have gained from the cops this past week when those calls were going unanswered. Don't blame this on Occupy. Take responsibility for your own actions and your own choices and what they are costing the people of your city, all because you're feeling threatened by some peaceful but very visible protests.
But this morning, in perusing my Twitter feed to catch up on the news, I came across this tweet from my local news channel, @abc7newsBayArea:
 |
| Screenshot of a tweet from @abc7newsBayArea reading "Mayor @JeanQuan said over 175 911 calls were not answered this past week because of police attention to #OccupyOakland" |
This unfortunately follows the usual pattern of Mayor Quan's faux-populism attacks on #OO: point to various bad things in the city that are harming the people of Oakland, then blame the effects on #OO whether they're related or not. When there was a shooting near the camp that ended with one man dead, even though neither the victim nor the shooter(s) were affiliated or involved with #OO, Quan used it to call for the encampent to disband because "violence is unacceptable". It's Oakland, for fuck's sake! One of the most violent cities in the Bay Area! Shootings like the one that took place near #OO happen tragically often in Oakland, and statistically speaking it was just a matter of time before one happened in proximity to #OO. Even OPD declared it unrelated, but Quan tried to make out like it was Occupy's fault and used it to justify evicting the encampment today
And now, this tweet this morning, which holds the not-so-subtle implication that it's #OO's fault that the police are spending time harassing #OO and were thus unable to respond to other calls. Mayor Quan, you know there's a simple solution to that, right? Leave Occupy the fuck alone. All the cops have done around Occupy is stir up more trouble and escalate tensions. YOU are the one choosing to devote so many police resources - and spending $2.4 million the city could ill afford to cover the costs of evicting #OO this morning, too - to Occupy and thus depriving your other constituents of what little protection or help they might have gained from the cops this past week when those calls were going unanswered. Don't blame this on Occupy. Take responsibility for your own actions and your own choices and what they are costing the people of your city, all because you're feeling threatened by some peaceful but very visible protests.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
