You know your priorities are fucked-up when...

...You decide that it's important to participate in civil disobedience and invite arrests over people's healthcare plans - WHICH THEY PAY INTO, THIS IS NOT FREE STUFF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE - covering birth control, when no major Christian political group has had civil disobedience actions over things like the gutting of the social safety net (Jesus was pretty big on that whole "take care of those in need" thing, IIRC), or unofficial wars and drone strikes (what was that whole "Thou shalt not kill" thing, again?).

...You then invoke the legacy of Dr. King to justify your bullshit: "Just as MLK was arrested for the rights of his fellow men, so we will stand."  Motherfucker, NO.  You are "standing" for the wholly-imagined "right" to control the bodies and healthcare access of other people.  You are not standing for any kind of actual rights or freedom from oppression.  How dare you try to link yourselves to him, as if you had anything in common?

...and you refer to your protest as "[laying] down our lives and our freedom so that future generations will have that freedom, and the liberty to practice their faith."  Your lives are in no danger, you grandstanding shitheads.  If you want to talk about people who are laying down their lives, where are your protests and civil disobedience about the shitty way this country treats veterans, the crap pay active-duty soldiers get that leaves many of them ON FUCKING FOOD STAMPS, the jobs bill specifically to help vets find work after they leave the military that Republicans shot down?

So, ActsFive29, as you begin your publicity stunt this evening, just remember: you are a terrible pack of lying liars who lie, and I'm pretty sure Jesus would be pissed at you for pretending this is what he wanted.

(Btw, does anyone know the source for their claim that they're having to pay a "$1 monthly abortion surcharge"?  Where the fuck are they getting that idea?  I am seriously confused.  I mean I know they're talking out their collective ass as to what the mandate entails anyway - kids, it has NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU PERSONALLY, this is about the insurance companies and what they are required to cover as part of any plan they offer -  but this is a new note of batshittery I haven't yet seen, so I'm wondering where it came from.)

You Don't *Haaaave* To...

Ozz and I have a running joke, when one of us wants to playfully guilt the other into something.  I'll be up and about doing stuff, and he'll ask me to get him a soda, for example.  I'll get mock-exasperated with him, like "Oh, what, it's not enough that I [whatever I was doing at the time], now I have to get you your beverages, too?!"  And he gives me puppy-dog eyes and says "Well, you don't *haaaave* to..." and I roll my eyes and laugh and get him his stupid drink.

And I feel like that's sort of what this asshole is doing, only not cute or funny or playful at all, but spiteful and partisan and leveraging the full power of Catholic Guilt™ for political ends.  You don't *haaaave* to vote Republican...but you'll probably go to hell if you don't.

Because it's apparently far more important to reject policies addressing issues Jesus never saw fit to talk about, like abortion and teh gayz, in a way the Church dislikes, than to reject policies that specifically contradict Jesus' actual message of caring for the poor and helping those in need.

Cool story, bro.

(I hope someone brings action against him for using the power of the pulpit to tell people how to vote, in direct contravention of IRS rules about church tax exemptions.  He says "I'm not telling you how to vote," several times, but there's that whole letter of the law versus spirit of the law thing, and a child could tell that his "I'm not telling you how to vote" schtick is nothing more than a CYA.)

PSA: On "Fluffy"

Do not EVER

EVER

EVER

FUCKING EVER

refer to fat people as "fluffy".

Fluffy is a thing that small poofly dogs and kittens and ducklings are.  

It is sometimes a thing that a person's hair might be, depending on the humidity.

It is NOT

a fucking descriptor

for my goddamn body.

It makes it sound like you think my fat is made of whipped cream or something equally stupid.

And maybe it's just me?

But it's the sort of descriptor that inherently casts fat as negative

by awkwardly being "cutesy" dancing around it

And also it implies

(and again this could just be me)

that my fat is just the "fluff" surrounding my actual body.

Like it's pillow stuffing filling up my skin

and if you took it out I would be skinny.  Like it's that easy.

Newsflash: my body is fucking fat.  Fat is the state of my physical being.  Fat is not this separate thing that rides around with me.  It is part of me.  There is no skinny girl inside me trying to get out.  There is just me.  And I will fucking end you if you imply otherwise.  I have no patience for that shit.

So just be aware that violating the terms of this PSA in my presence will result in immediate evisceration.

Verbal if you're out of reach.

But if you're within reach, I make no promises.

Have a nice day.

Happy Labor Day (to the upper-middle class white-collar employees who ended up benefiting from the labor movement)

This image crossed my Tumblr dash yesterday, and I reblogged it, because I appreciate the sentiment.

A vintage black-and-white image of a labor rally with a large banner reading "Workers of the world unite"; superimposed text reads "This long holiday weekend has been brought to you by the blood, sweat, and tears of the labor movement."

A bit later, I saw a notification that someone had reblogged it from me, adding their own comment:

hahaha i have to work every fucking day of it

Which reminded me of the reason I generally have stopped wishing retail and service employees with whom I interact "have a good weekend" or variants thereof at the end of our interaction.  Because I remember when I worked retail, and I got one weekend off a month (maybe; LB was big on the belief that the managers, in addition to knowing the store operations stuff, were also the top salespeople and should always be present at high-traffic times, so we had to work most weekends), and well-meaning 9-to-5ers would cheerfully wish me a nice weekend as I handed them their receipt on Friday afternoon.  And I'd smile and return the pleasantry, of course, because that's what you do, but I was always thinking, "Sure, it's a nice weekend for you.  It's just two more workdays for me."

And it occurred to me that there's a lot to be said about how, decades after the main body of the labor movement made the major gains that it did - 40-hour weeks, minimum wage, paid holidays and vacation, etc - the bulk of those rights are going to the well-off white-collar employees, while the low-wage workers who actually formed the original labor rights movement have seen those protections eroded or denied outright.

Anecdotally: about a week or two into working at my current job (I'm the admin/receptionist for a general contractor's office), my boss stopped by my desk and said "Remember to take your breaks, okay?  I see you staying at your desk most of the day, you need to get out more."  I laughed and replied, "Thanks, I will - but honestly, my last job was retail.  This whole job feels like a break to me - I'm getting to sit down for 90% of it!"

At LB, I was one of a dozen part-time employees, with incredibly inconsistent scheduling - I was guaranteed 20-35 hours because I was a manager; the regular associates could get anywhere from 2-12 hours in a week, but rarely more than 15.  And nobody had a consistent schedule of days/times/shifts, it changed every week.  I had no access to health insurance, no paid time off, no sick days or vacations.  Lunches were 30 minutes exactly, and you were responsible for remembering to take your 15-minute breaks and clearing it with the manager on duty (and good luck getting the okay for that if it was busy on the floor).  I made a couple bucks over minimum wage and considered myself lucky for that.  And yes, I was required to work all holidays, including this one.

At Stq, I work 8-5, Monday-Friday.  I will have a good health care plan, with the premium covered 100% for me and 75% for any dependents - meaning I won't have to pay a dime out of my paycheck for it.  I'll accrue 3 hours of PTO per week, which will be retroactive to my beginning to work there (I started as a temp and we're playing paperwork games with getting me transitioned to perm, so I don't have these benefits yet, but it's when, not if).  Lunch is an hour, taken whenever I feel like it so long as I let someone know I'm leaving so they'll know to pick up the phone, nobody will care if I come back a bit late (if they even notice at all), and as I mentioned, my boss will actually remind me to take breaks and get out of the office from time to time.  I'm making about $4 over minimum as a temp, and my wage as a permanent employee will be about 2x minimum wage.  And I'm getting to spend today sitting on my ass in my pajamas fucking around on the internet and writing blog posts about it.

Does that seem fair to you?

So if you want to thank the labor movement for the holiday we some of us are having today, get involved.  Take note of bills eroding worker protections - not just big brouhahas like Wisconsin, but smaller things on the local level, too - and get involved in the fight against them if you can.  Support unions.  It's a fairly unpopular opinion to take in conversations a lot of the time, but it's necessary to push back against the right-wing framing of Those Damn Unions Making Businesses Go Broke (so shut up and let us abuse the workers for better profit margins).  Google around, find a local worker's rights org, and see what they need and what issues they're working on - the AFL-CIO might have something local, and it's a good place to start.

And if anybody has more or better ideas for getting involved, by all means, that's what comments are for!

Today in No Fucking Shit, Captain Obvious

As DIY Abortions Rise, So Does Guesswork and Failure

More women are heading to Mexico to buy abortion-inducing drugs, the New York Times reports, and it's opening them up to failed terminations and other dangers. ... Abortion-rights advocates are concerned that a lack of awareness about clinical options in the United States — as well as a lack of funds — could lead more women to go underground and risk their health in this way.

Gee, it's not like we've been fucking saying this FOR YEARS NOW or anything.  No, this is a totally unforeseen development!  Utterly unexpected!  Shocking!  Provocative!  Unbelievable!  ...whoops, sarcasm reserve ran out.  Been using a lot of it up on Tumblr lately, sorry.

On The Third Attempt to Pass Egg-as-Person Legislation in Colorado, Former Supporters Shy Away

[T]he political ramifications of the personhood amendment should continue to be a key part of the coverage. The amendment, which would ban all abortions and some common forms of birth control, is clearly of interest to women, in particular, and women are a key voters in Colorado elections.

You mean to tell me 51% of the population are a key voting bloc in elections?  My god, will the revelations never end?  Fetch me pearls to clutch and a fainting couch on which to delicately fall!

 My kingdom for a liberal media that's actually liberal and doesn't act like these things called "women" are mysterious creatures whose issues can only be observed from afar.  >.<

Why Do We Celebrate This?

A few years ago, when I was still living out in Tennessee, I brought my first girlfriend home to visit family for the holidays.  She had never been to NorCal before.  The architecture here tends to be heavily Spanish-villa/mission influenced; I remember as we were driving somewhere, and we were talking about a particularly spectacular example of it (a country club out in Napa, IIRC), she got quiet for a moment, then asked, "Why?"

"Why what?" I replied.

"The mission-style architecture.  Why is that still such a thing?  Why model buildings after a period of colonization, where the purpose of the original buildings you're inspired by was to forcibly take over and convert the Native populations?"

I was at a loss.  "Because it's our history?" I offered, knowing what a weak excuse that was.

That conversation was brought to mind today by this post over on Calitics, a California-specific politics blog where I get most of my local- and state-level political news.  Fort Ross, an old Russian outpost and historic site on the northern coast of California that was one of the first European settlements on the west coast, turned 200 yesterday.  The post was a simple enough quick-recap of the history of it and a "happy birthday", but it got me wondering.

Why do we celebrate this?

Especially since the subhead was about it being one of the first European settlements in the area, like that was the salient point and major accomplishment we were celebrating?

What we're "celebrating" is a new phase in the invasion and colonization of the Americas.  An event which ended in the deaths of many, and the near or total obliteration of hundreds of unique cultures, simply because they were here first and white people wanted the land for them(our)selves, and which has left a legacy of racism, poverty, and appropriation that continues today.

Do we have these bicentennials (or really, far-more-centennials) for enduring Native settlements?  LOLno.  Both because most were destroyed by colonizers and the people forcibly moved away, and because even if they hadn't been this wouldn't be a priority for the general public.

And that disparity in and of itself should tell you that this is not the innocuous "yay history" it seems at first glance.

We should not be uncritically celebrating this.

Rep. Mike Kelly Thinks No-Copay BC Is Like Pearl Harbor and 9/11

From the "I couldn't make this shit up if I tried" files, via RHRC, this fucking stunner of a quote from Rep. Mike Kelly (R-eprehensible):

"I know in your mind, you can think of the times America was attacked," he said at a press conference on Capitol Hill. "One is Dec. 7, that's Pearl Harbor Day. The other is Sept. 11, and that's the day the terrorists attacked. I want you to remember Aug. 1, 2012, the attack on our religious freedom. That is a day that will live in infamy, along with those other dates."

Day.
That will live.
In infamy.
Like Pearl Harbor
And 9/11
Days when hundreds of people were violently killed
And wars were begun from those attacks that killed thousands more.

The ability of people who have health insurance to access hormonal birth control without paying anything out-of-pocket for it is equivalent to MILITARY ATTACKS THAT STARTED WARS?

Go
Drink
Motor oil
and hydrochloric acid
you miserable
insufferable
PRICK.

I suggest we tell him exactly how we feel about this bullshit.  Drop him an email here (use zip code 16002-3805 to bypass the "only in my district" crap), and this page has the phone and fax numbers for all his offices.  Oh, also here's his Twitter (though it hasn't been used in months, it seems) and his Facebook, where the conversation is rather more lively regarding his absurd remarks.

Fly, my pretties.

Dear Self: You know better. DON'T. READ. THE FUCKING COMMENTS.

I've been spending some spare time lately fucking around on Experience Project, a social networking site designed around connecting people not by geographical location, or demographics, but by shared experiences.  You join groups that are all titled "I have [$EXPERIENCE]" - "gotten divorced" or "gone skydiving" or something like that - and you always know that within the group you're talking about something you all know.  It's interesting.

Well, EP has a "questions" section, where people post random questions and other people answer them, vote for their favorite answers, reply to other answers, etc.  It's slightly above the level of YouTube comments.  Most of the time.  I'm developing a reputation as a feminist killjoy* because I slap down bullshit with glee and don't let people get away with shit when they're arguing with me.  This pleases me greatly.  ^_^

Today, I was browsing around, and came across the question "How do you define a 'real lady'?"

Oh, shit.  So I waded right in.

My initial reply: "Do you identify as a woman?" "Yes" "Are you okay with being called a lady?" "Yes" - there you go, that's how you define a real lady.  I'm not a lady, because I fcking HATE that term (considering its history of being used to judge and restrict "appropriate" standards of female behavior) and will vehemently correct anyone who tries to call me a lady, real or otherwise.  Tautology it may be, but a "real lady" is simply a person who identifies as a lady. 

Another reply: "A female with self-control, who is quick to hold her tongue.  She delights in everything lovely and feminine and she isn't afraid to speak her mind when needed.  Compassion and passion are two of her best qualities, along with nurturing, serving others, unselfishness and poise.  She is passionate about her beliefs and she accomplishes anything she puts her mind to.  Her peers respect her for being truly female." with my next comment nested underneath as a response: "...ew.  Thank you for reinforcing that I am NOT, and do not EVER want to be, a "lady".  Notice how it basically requires you to STFU, put yourself last, and treat yourself as if you matter less than other people?  Yeah no.  If it means hewing to ancient, restrictive, patriarchal stereotypes of "appropriate" womanhood...all aboard the Nope Train to Fuck-that-ville."  and another response saying "Well said", although since EP only nests to a single level, it's unclear whether they're commending the OP or my response to it.

There is not enough EW in the world for that OP.  I notice that "speak her mind" is qualified with "when needed", which is in the passive voice, raising the question, who decides when it's needed?  (Hint: it's never the woman doing the speaking.)  We then get three different synonyms for "Put other people's needs ahead of your own at all times, you come last," and end with gender policing.  I think I need a shower.

Another comment: "Treats others and expects to be treated with respect, compassion, has strength and dignity, humor."

See, this is not a bad definition.  I'm still never going to back it myself, because it still involves an arbitrary definition against which a person can be measured and "disqualified", but it's at least closer to just a measure of a good person than archaic gender roles.

Another comment: "Feminine, charming, romantic, sentimental, motherly, refrains from gossip, independent when the need arises, smart and willing to please her man in bed."

Oh, gross, another one.  "Feminine" - how are we defining that?  It's one of those arbitrary things that, like "when needed", is never judged by the person performing the action, but always judged by the male opinions around her.  "Motherly" - oh goody, here we go with the biological essentialism and reducing women to their uteruses (whether they have them or not, etc).  "Refrains from gossip" - so uh, men get to gossip without restriction or something?  Ooh look, "when needed" rears its head again!  And then the kicker, "willing to please her man in bed."  Heteronormative, assumes active sexuality and dating, places female sexuality subordinated in service to male sexual desires, and I notice there's nothing about eager to receive reciprocal pleasure...Guess men don't need to please their ladies in bed.  Gods, I'm glad I not a lady!  More orgasms for me!

Like I said - slightly above the level of YouTube comments sections.  Between this one and the "ZOMG OBESITYZZZ" and "TEH GAYZZ IN MILITARY" questions I've also been playing whack-a-dumbfuck with, I'm about tapped out for the day.

Feminist killjoy, out.

*I actually just ordered this necklace today.  I'm so excited for it!  I also ordered a literal flying fuck.

"Pre-Pregnant" Goes a Step Further

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

"Too equal" and Nikki Haley's Contempt for Rape Victims

I reblogged a post the other day about Nikki Haley's line-veto of the entire budget for the South Carolina Department of Health's network of rape crisis centers, with a quote of her truly reprehensible "justfication" for doing so:

The problem is it's like when you give something to a child. They're always going to figure out how they can get away with a little more ... [the rape crisis funding/centers] distract from the agency’s broader mission of protecting South Carolina’s public health.

 I set that post to push to Twitter as well, figuring that Haley's gross disrespect for survivors deserved to be as widely disseminated as possible.  A follower RT'd it, adding "Clarity in party for people vs. cash improves".

At the time they said it, I had a hard time parsing it (obviously I've been off twitter too much of late), but I've eventually understood it as a comment on the GOP's priorities of people versus profit, and how a move like this makes that ever more blatantly clear.  Rape victims are a "distraction" because it's a nice tidy half-mil line item to cut from the budget, which is far more important than actually caring for people who need it.

Relatedly, I was sitting in on a meeting at work the other day, about a jobsite that's just getting started.  I was involved in the hiring process for the half dozen employees we have out there, three of whom are PoC, including one WoC.  The job superintendent (who is a gigantic dumbfuck we have to patiently, carefully lead by the nose into understanding anything the company needs to do or needs him to be in compliance with) was saying there was a guy he knows that he wanted to hire on as well, and he offered as a selling point that this guy is black, which would add to our EEO numbers.  (Projects by a government entity, which comprise the bulk of what we do, have minority participation targets - usually that I've seen, 16.9% non-white and 9% female.)

Tracy, the general manager for our office, shook his head.  "No," he said, "We've already made our target numbers for this job.  We don't want to go over those numbers."

I raised an eyebrow at him from my corner of the table, not quite pushy enough to speak up but wanting an explanation.  They're used to my being a bit behind on industry-specific stuff, by now, and mostly don't mind explaining things like EEO jobsite quotas, or submittals, or whatever.  He explained for my benefit (and Ron's, too, I think, as he's an older guy who probably hasn't had to worry too much about this sort of thing for most of his career), "We have to try to meet those numbers, but we don't want to go over them if we can avoid it, because they might raise the target number for next time if we do and then we have to scramble even more to try to make it."  He added, "I don't personally care if this guy is black, blue, or purple, but we don't want to overdo our EEO numbers."  (Yes, the "purple people" made an appearance; I narrowly managed to avoid rolling my eyes or snorting in disdain, though I'm not sure I kept "you have got to be fucking kidding me" off my face.)

You wouldn't necessarily think this is related to a philosophy of government that prizes profits (or low expenditures) over people.  And yet as I went back to my desk after the meeting, shaking my head at that little revelation, it seemed to me that it did.

See, why do we care about minimizing the need to make EEO targets when it comes time for hiring for a jobsite?  Because it takes longer and is more work on our part to find qualified people belonging to an underrepresented minority in the field, as opposed to scooping up the first half-dozen white guys who walk in the door.  That's more time and work and, in the end, money that we spend trying to meet this quota.  The bid process for getting government contracts is actually pretty competitive (at least at the levels we're working at; this isn't Halliburton here), and it comes down to who can shave the most off their final bid amount.  Who can bring in the lowest number?  We lost a bid two weeks ago by a mere $1300, for example.

So when we have this EEO target to meet, if it goes up and we have to spend more time and effort or delay starting a job in order to make our target number, we have to either take it out of our bottom line, or raise our price a bit and risk getting fewer or no bids at all because of it.  The government has a limited budget and wants to spend as little as possible, and it's up to the contractors to give them the cheapest possible route.  The system is intended to save the government money, not to do the best for the people being hired with the government's money.  Thus contractors have an incentive to do the bare minimum and deliberately do no more than that.  It becomes an incentive for tokenism, rather than an incentive for inclusion.

I'm not saying I'm against the idea of EEO targets and such - quite the opposite.  I'd like to see a better system than crude number quotas, perhaps, but I don't know that any such exists at present, and something is better than nothing.  I'm just noticing that this system is rigged to fail, in a very profits-versus-people manner.  If we made EEO a priority instead of an legally-obliged afterthought - if we committed to spending a bit more specifically on hiring and training personnel beyond the average white-and-male demographic at the government level, thus taking the burden off the individual contractors, who knows?  We might have a situation where actual employment diversity is encouraged and achieved, rather than "encouraged" on paper but discouraged in practice.

But the Republicans have been so absurdly successful in shifting the discourse to be about OUR TAX DOLLARS and GOVERNMENT WASTE and INEFFICIENCY and PORK, rather than centering it on how to best help the people they govern, that a Republican governor can wipe out a budget for helping rape victims without batting an eyelash, and companies seeking government contracts deliberately restrict the number of PoC and/or women they hire, all in the service of the almighty dollar.

"Fuck the people.  We just want money."
  - the GOP