Audra Williams has a really great question“:

I said at a Mediawatch board meeting this weekend that I feel like it’s impossible to get upset with young girls dressing in revealing clothing without also signing onto the notion that it’s possible to dress as if you are sexually available. I would like to talk about this, because I feel like most people disagree with me but I can’t find a way to separate those two streams of thought.

What I mean is, I feel like people around the table believed that girls were dressing as if they are sexually available, and I don’t think it’s POSSIBLE to dress as if you are sexually available.

I don’t understand how the same feminist women who fought for the idea that the way someone dresses is NEVER a green light for sex can now say that teenage girls are “dressing like skanks” or use terms like “prosti-tots”?

I think the point she’s making is a really good one. It’s one thing to talk about the range of clothing available to girls, it is quite another to make any sort of comment about the girls that wear them.

But I actually want to take this off in a slightly different direction. One of the comments on my recent post about the Buffy comic books talked about the artist ’sexualising’ Willow. I really object to that language. The character of Willow was sexual - she once spent an entire episode in bed (and not in a bad way like Buffy and Riley). Giving someone larger breasts and an impractical garment doesn’t sexualise them - it objectifies them, and being sexual and being an object of desire are not the same thing.

Of course this conflation is hardly rare. There are many, many different ways women are taught that for us being sexual is being desired, rather than desiring. It is very hard to shake this idea off entirely. Women who do not fit the conventional idea of what is desirable have no way to be sexual.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to be wanted, and I imagine most people find being found sexually attractive a turn on. The problem is that women’s sexuality is reduced to our desirability, and the extent to which we conform to a code of desireability, defines whether or not we’re seuxal.

Women can’t fight this by changing what we look like and particularly not by criticising what other women look like. Instead we need to reject any analysis which buys into the idea that women’s sexuality and appearance are one and the same and to talk about women’s desires and sexual agency, so that the next generation of girls knows that what they want matters.

What’s at stake here isn’t just two cool jobs for two damned good people. Amanda and Melissa are both so bursting with talent and drive that it fairly bursts out of every available orifice. It would suck if they were fired over this, but they’d both land on their feet in the long run.

Nor is it just about our right to say bad words, like “cunt” and “fuck,” on our own private website without becoming unemployable. Although that does matter, and it’s an important part of free speech.

Nor is it just a test of John Edward’s spine. That’s part of what’s at stake here, and an important part, but it’s not the whole thing.

What the right is doing here is attempting to shift the Overton Window of Political Possibilities. The “window”¹ is the space of acceptable ideas for political discourse. So, for instance, right now being either pro-choice or pro-life falls inside the window; it is mainstream and acceptable to hold either view. But being (say) pro-Nazi falls outside that window; being pro-Nazi means that you’ll get fired from political campaigns, because your views are that far outside of the window of accepted political views.

Should criticizing (and even making fun of) the political positions of the Catholic church, the Pope, and the conservative Christian movement be “within the window” of acceptable views? Or should criticizing the Pope — even on perfectly true grounds, such as pointing out that he supports pro-life and anti-gay policies — be outside the window of what it’s politically acceptable to say and to criticize?²

If John Edwards gives up on Amanda and Melissa, he won’t just be ceding two great employees, and he won’t just be ceding his credibility among left-wing activists. He’ll be ceding the most important fight of all; the fight over what views can be discussed in mainstream political debate, and what views are automatically out of bounds. Controlling the Overton Window is how the right kept views opposing the invasion of Iraq out of the public debate in 2003; it’s how the right for decades has kept equal rights for queers off the public agenda; it’s how single-payer health care remains unspeakable in American politics, even though its supported by a significant number of ordinary American voters. This is the fight that all our other fights are won or lost on.

If we give up on the idea that it’s acceptable to criticize conservative Christians for their misogynistic, anti-gay views, the consequences of that loss will stay with us for decades. Let’s hope that John Edwards can see that there’s a lot more at stake here than short-term heat on him from an article in the Times.

That’s it, I’m done. But let me repeat: Please go to John Edwards’ site and send them a brief message of support for Amanda and Melissa. (And go visit Culture Kitchen for a huge list of feminist bloggers posting about this issue.)

1. I actually think it’s more like a donut than a window, but that’s a subject for a future post. (back)
2. Similarly, is Catholic doctrine something that no one is ever allowed to criticize or satirize if they want to be employable, or is it a set of ideas that American citizens can freely criticize without becoming pariahs? (back)

The right-wing attacks on Amanda (Pandagon) and Melissa (Shakespeare’s Sister) has busted out of the blogs: Bill Donohue of the Catholic League has called for the Edwards campaign to fire Amanda and Melissa. This has led to articles in The New York Times and AP.

I’m going to go point-by-point through Bill Donohue’s complaints, but first: Please go to John Edwards’ site and send them a brief message of support for Amanda and Melissa. (In addition, you could post a message of support on this open thread at Edwards’ campaign blog, although I think you have to register to post). And second, for many more links on this subject, check out this post at CultureKitchen.

Okay, let’s get to what the “Catholic League” - who by no means represents all Catholics — has to say. It’s basically a collection of quotes by Amanda and Melissa.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue is demanding that presidential hopeful John Edwards fire two recently hired anti-Catholics who have joined his team: Amanda Marcotte as Blogmaster and Melissa McEwan as the Netroots Coordinator. Here’s why:

“Writing on the Pandagon blogsite, December 26, 2006, Amanda Marcotte wrote that ‘the Catholic church is not about to let something like compassion for girls get in the way of using the state as an instrument to force women to bear more tithing Catholics.’

As an argument, the “more tithing Catholics” part of what Amanda wrote may be unfair, because it implies that the Catholic Church’s motive for wanting more Catholics born is greed. It seems plausible to me that the Catholic Church wants as many Catholics as possible for reasons unrelated to greed.

Other than that, though, everything in Amanda’s quote is true. The Catholic church is perfectly open about encouraging Catholics to have children.¹ It’s certainly true that the Catholic church encourages laws which would force pregnant women and girls to give birth against their will; using the state’s powers to force childbirth on pregnant women and girls is what pro-life and anti-emergency-contraception laws literally do. And it’s also true that the Catholic church does not support any exceptions to the anti-abortion, anti-emergency-conception policies they promote based on compassion for pregnant girls.

So what Amanda said was true; the Catholic church promotes laws that would force pregnant women and girls to give birth, and they don’t support compassionate exceptions for pregnant girls. It’s ludicrous to suggest that Amanda should be fired for telling the truth.

Moving on….

On October 9, 2006, she said that ‘the Pope’s gotta tell women who give birth to stillborns that their babies are cast into Satan’s maw.’ On the same day she wrote that ‘it’s going to be bad PR for the church, so you can sort of see why the Pope is dragging ass.’

I fail to see any issue here at all. Amanda is discussing is what happens to the souls of aborted fetuses under Catholic doctrine; do they go to Limbo? The current Pope is widely expected to at some point declare that Limbo doesn’t exist; this means that the common pro-life argument used by some grassroots Catholic activists, that abortion is wrong because it sends unbaptized souls to Limbo, will be taken off the table. So will the new doctrine be that aborted souls go to heaven, or to hell? Amanda is speculating that his dedication to the pro-life cause will make the Pope declare that aborted souls go to hell:

I suspect Pope Ratz will give into the urge eventually to come out and say there’s no limbo and unbaptized babies go straight to hell. He can’t help it; he’s just a dictator like that. Hey, fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly, the Pope’s gotta tell women who give birth to stillborns that their babies are cast into Satan’s maw. The alternative is to let Catholic women who get abortions feel that it’ll all work out in the end, which is just not doable, due to that Jesus-like compassion the Pope is so fond of. Still, it’s going to be bad PR for the church, so you can sort of see why the Pope is dragging ass.

To Amanda’s critics, I say: So what? The Pope is a public figure who is actively involved in secular politics. As such, he’s fair game for criticism, even harsh criticism. Amanda isn’t attacking him for being Catholic; she’s attacking him for being a pro-life politician who wants to use the law to dictate what women do with their own bodies.

Unless one feels that to criticize the Pope for his political views is automatically anti-Catholic — which would be ridiculous — nothing Amanda writes here is outside the bounds of what can legitimately be said about major public figures.

Next, Bill Donohue writes:

And on June 14, 2006, she offered the following Q&A: ‘What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit,’ to which she replied, ‘You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.’

The “Q” part of the “Q&A” is (literally speaking) obscene, and it makes fun of Catholic doctrine. But so what? Official Catholic doctrine shouldn’t be immune from being made fun of. Nor is Amanda’s point — which is, as I read it, that those Catholics who support misogynistic policies aren’t forced to do so by Catholicism, but are instead just using Catholicism as a post-hoc rationalization for their own misogyny — in any way anti-Catholic.

I do agree that anti-Catholic bigotry is wrong and should be fought. If Amanda wrote that we could never trust any Catholic in public office because we don’t know what master they’d serve, that would be disgusting bigotry. If she wrote that all Catholics are smelly fish-eaters, that would be disgusting bigotry.

But making fun of beliefs and political positions is not the same thing as bigotry against people; in a nation of free speech, the beliefs and political positions of huge and powerful organizations has to be fair game for both criticism and making fun. This is especially true of a huge and powerful organization like the Catholic Church, which uses its theological beliefs as part of a worldwide campaign to influence the laws passed by secular governments.

Bill then moves from Amanda to Melissa:

“On November 21, 2006, Melissa McEwan said on AlterNet that ’some of Christianity’s most prominent leaders—including the Pope—regularly speak out against gay tolerance.’

Although Bill doesn’t choose to quote it, in the very next sentence of her alternet article Melissa described what she meant by being “against gay tolorance”:

In America, many Christian leaders actively pursue discriminatory legislation, seeking to limit the rights of the LGBT community throughout society.

This is all true. Does Bill think that the Pope has some right to take anti-gay stands — as he has more than once — and not be criticized for it? Is it somehow anti-Catholic to criticize the Pope for the political stands he’s taken?

On November 1, 2006, on her blogspot Shakespeare’s Sister, she referred to President Bush’s ‘wingnut Christofascist base’ when lashing out against religious conservatives.

The language is rude, but no ruder than language commonly used by right-wing bloggers, such as “baby-killer,” “feminazi” and “idiotarian.” So what? In the end, on either side, these words are attacking people for their political beliefs, and that’s fair game.

Some right-wingers will object that “Christofascist” — a variant on the right-wing term “Islamofascist” — is attacking people for their religion. My question to those people is, have you ever publicly objected to the term “Islamofascist” on those grounds?

In any case, “Christofascist” doesn’t refer to Christians in general; it refers specifically to right-wing Christians who support laws forcing non-Christians to follow conservative Christian beliefs (such as sodomy laws and pro-life laws). There’s nothing wrong with criticizing the conservative Christian movement for its politics, and that’s exactly what the term “Christofascist” does.

(And by the way, how is a term that refers to most right-wing Christians — including non-Catholic ones — and excludes all left-wing Christians — including Catholic ones - “anti-Catholic”?)

On February 21, 2006, she attacked religious conservatives again, this time saying, ‘What don’t you lousy motherf—ers understand about keeping your noses out of our britches, our beds, and our families?’

Wow, is this getting weak. Yes, she got mad at religious conservatives for supporting laws that she disagrees with. So what? That conservative Christians should stay out of people’s britches, beds and families is not an opinion that is outside the bounds of reasonable political debate.

Currently, the very first entry under ‘Greatest Hits’ on her website [where she brags about being appointed to Edwards’ campaign] is titled, ‘On C—s’. In her article she boasts that she is the ‘Queen C— of F–k Mountain.’

So wait — Bill is actually calling for someone to be fired from their job because they used the words “cunt” and “fuck” on their own private website? Yikes.

1. Many right-wing Christian pundits and bloggers have argued that being pro-life will bring victory for their policy preferences in the long run, since pro-life Christians will have more babies than pro-choicer liberals. (back)

New Blog: Femchat, from the Institute For Women’s Policy Research

New (to me) Blog: As The Tumor Turns
Cancer-treatment experiences from the writer of the late, lamented blog Granny With a Vibrator. It feels oddly trivializing to call someone’s cancer treatment journal really well-written and funny, but well, it is.

New Blog: The Etch-A-Sketchist
Exactly what it sounds like!

Barbara’s Blog: Why Did Home Depot’s Departing CEO Get A $210 Million Dollar Golden Parachute?
I want get paid millions to lose millions for a major company too!

The Republic of T: Homophobia = Apartheid
If you follow the same-sex marriage debate, you know that the mainstream media publishes many articles highlighting black leaders who oppose lesbian and gay rights. So this post - pro-queer-rights quotes from Bishop Tutu, Julian Bonds, Al Sharpton and Leonard Pitts (whose quote is especially wonderful) — is a good reminder of what those articles are leaving out. Thanks to Bean for the tip.

The Onion: Teenage Boys Helpfully Point Out Fat Girl’s Shortcomings

Junk Food Science: Why Prisons Are Spending Tax Dollars On L. Ron Hubbard’s Pseudo-Scientific Claptrap

The Reality-Based Community: Scientific Research Into Mystical Experiences From ‘Shrooms

…The Supreme Court recently held (Gonzales v. O Centro) that the use of hallucinogens in religious ceremonies is protected under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and must be permitted unless there is a particularized showing of harm. It is well-established fact that psilocybin is neither addictive nor physically toxic, though it is not without psychological and behavioral risks, especially when used haphazardly.

If taking a dose of psilocybin under controlled conditions has a better-than-even chance of occasioning a full-blown mystical experience, it seems fairly hard to argue that forbidding such use doesn’t interfere with the free exercise of religion. How the courts will deal with those who want to seek out primary religious experience on an individual rather than a congregational basis remains to be seen.

Junkfood Science: When Schools Grade Kids’ Looks

Junkfood science: More Bad Science About Fat Kids

Women of Color Blog: Statement On The Brutal Murder of Dominique Samuels

Orcinus: Letter From Soledad Prison
A letter from a prisoner (the blogger’s brother) about the various ways the Prison sqeezes money out of prisoners. The library book cart scam is particularly striking for it’s catch-22 logic.

YouTube: Lara Logan, reporter in Iraq, gets eloquently pissed at criticisms of Iraq reporting

The Street Light: How Republicans Lie About Deficit Forcasts

Drawn! : Giant Puppet Girl In London
Soooo cool! And yet, kind of creepyish. Includes a link to documentary materials and a YouTube video.

Crooked Timber: Extremely Interesting Discussion Of The Moral Case For And Against Secession

Photography Touch-Ups Of Women: Before And Afters

The Debate Link: On The So-Called Sexism Of Ruth Bader Ginsberg

The Anti Essentialist Conundrum: Mayor Brings 100 Homeless People To Screening Of “The Pursuit of Happyness”
Ugh. Ugh. Ugh. Ugh.

The Anti-Essentialist Conundrum: Clarifying McIntosh’s Discussion Of Privilege

The Agonist: Link-filled post about the growing attempts to justify a war against Iran
Curtsy: The Arabist. Particularly striking was this quote from Josh Marshall:

I’ve said this before. But perhaps it seems like hyperbole. So I’ll say it again. The president’s interests are now radically disjoined from the country’s. We can handle a setback like Iraq. It really is a big disaster. But America will certainly surive it. President Bush — in the sense of his legacy and historical record — won’t. It’s all Iraq for him. And Iraq is all disaster. So, from his perspective (that is to say, through the prism of his interests rather than the country’s — which he probably can’t separate) reckless gambits aimed at breaking out of this ever-tightening box make sense.

Alternet: Marijuana Is Not A Gateway Drug

Geena Davis: Good Speech About Gender In Media (mostly children’s media)
Curtsy: Faux Real.

The Agonist: Congress Finally Investigates Credit Card Industry

Tiny Cat Pants: On White Congressmen Who Want To Join The Congressional Black Caucus

Paul Krugman: Assessment of Milton Friedman’s Career And Impact
Shorter Krugman: Friedman was a great technical economist; shame he was also a sloppy polemicist. Curtsy: The Sideshow.

YouTube: Juggling with five balls, a suitcase, a cane, and a hat.
I saw this juggler years ago, and was very impressed by his grace and creativity.

Orcinus: The New Racism: Beyond Rush

Feminist Law Profs: Even If Found “Not Guilty,” The Duke Lacrosse Players Aren’t Total Innocents
She’s right. But it does appear likely that the three accused men are innocent of the rape they’ve been accused of, which is a more than technical point.

YouTube: A daily photo of one dude for eight years
I’ve seen a few of these “photo a day for years” video projects, but this one is the one I enjoyed the most, probably because of the major changes in hair and beard over the years.

Owen Harries: How To Win Arguments And Influence Debate
Not a joke, just straightforward advice.

Obsidian Wings: Another Reason The Bush Administration Makes Me Ashamed To Be American

These men were captured by bounty hunters nearly five years ago. They are in all likelihood innocent of any crime, and of any act against the United States; they have certainly never been tried and convicted of any. We have held them in captivity since then, away from their wives and families. If they returned home now, their children probably wouldn’t recognize them — and as those of you who have kids will surely recognize, those are some of the saddest words there are.

And now, for some unfathomable reason, we have decided to lock them up in solitary, where we are driving them insane. Even if they were guilty, this would be wrong: having your mind and your spirit broken apart should not be the penalty for any crime. Our government is doing it to the innocent.

This is one of those stories I could not make up. Here’s a quote from the Lactivist:

Yep, you read that right. The Lactivist is being threatened with a lawsuit.

Why? Because I was selling a shirt that said “the other white milk.”

First, a little background if you’re new to the site. The Lactivist is a blog about breastfeeding and human milk banking. It’s mostly a gathering place for breastfeeding moms to come and share their thoughts and experiences and to keep up to date on the latest issues in the fight for the rights of a child to eat in public. To help fund the site (and to raise money for the non-profit milk banks) I have a CafePress store that sells t-shirts with funny pro-breastfeeding slogans. Things like “Milk on Tap” and “That’s my baby’s lunch you’re staring at.”

Thus…the shirt that read “the other white milk.”

I received a letter this morning from Jennifer Daniel Collins, an attorney at Faegre & Benson that represents The National Pork Board. It stated, for the most part, that my use of the phrase “the other white milk” violates their trademark on the phrase “the other white meat.” As such, they’ve demanded that I remove the shirt, demanded that the image of the shirt be removed from any site I know of, demanded that I destroy any shirts that exist with the logo and demand that I not at any point in the future use the phrase in a commercially profitable way.

This makes me want to give up bacon and ham, and pork is damn near my favorite meat.

Please read the entire post, and the subsequent post, which seems a little more optimistic. The Lactivist is getting an apology, but they are still trying to “work through the issues.” Go over and show your support!! This is one of the most ridiculous threatened lawsuits I’ve ever heard about.

Thanks to The Anti-essentialist Conundrum for the heads up.

I’d like to apologize about the amount I seem to be writing about the Buffy Season 8 comic book. Yes, I’m an obsessed fangirl, but it’s mostly because comics are a new medium to me. I find the sexism in comics new and kind of shocking, so I will be writing more about it than anyone wants to know.

So this is the cover of the third Buffy comic book:

That’s supposed to be Willow - who has grown a foot, had breast implants and stole Buffy’s pants. She has also apparently spent the years since we saw her last searching out the single most impractical garment ever made to wear as a top.

Bah - I was so excited about season 8, but I’m not sure I can take it if every female character is drawn for men.

I’m trying to revamp the moderation over at my site, Rachel’s Tavern. As I frequently mention, I get many racism apologists, unorganized white supremacists, organized white supremacists, and colorblind racists stopping through my site. Once they are combined with the random misogynists and general bigots, I have about a million haters.

I was thinking about doing the same thing as Amp does with threads that are open only to feminist and feminist friendly posters only applying it to race instead. Maybe I could do threads open only to anti-racists or anti-racist friendly posters. I realize that many regular commenters get frustrated and scared away when too many of these racism apologists/white supremacists/colorblind racists start coming around. It is frustrating because that is the desired effect of these haters–to shut this site down and scare people away. I am happy that at this point I have a bunch of spunky commenters who take these people on, especially since I can’t be sitting around at every moment responding to all of them.

But what do you think?

Certainly, one of the problems I’m going to face is that nobody ever thinks that they are a racism apologist/white supremacist/color blind racist, so I might have to change the wording. Any suggestions?

I’m also curious how well people think the feminist only/profeminists threads work here at Alas. Do you think it works?

I should note that I am not making any suggestions for changing Alas. This is for my site Rachel’s Tavern, but I feel it would be nice to see what others think about how this has worked over here at Alas.

Brownfemipower has a really interesting post about the governer of Texas’s decision to make the HPV vaccine compulsory for all girls sixth grade or above. This would also make the vaccine available for free for those who were uninsured or whose insurance doesn’t cover the vaccine:

I’m really conflicted about the news that the governor of texas just wrote into law the requirement that all girls get vaccinated for HPV virus (the same one that causes cancer).

Unlike a lot of Texans who oppose the shot, I don’t for a minute think that this shot is going to cause girls to run out and screw anything that moves. But as a parent who has had to make the decision to vaccinate my child (or refuse to, depending) for anything from ear infections to polio–I’m really wondering if this governor is writing this requirement into law because he’s some big lover of women (as a lot of the leftist blogosphere seems to be thinking), or if he’s just gotten himself some pretty pocket money from the drug companies who make this vaccination (according to the article, at least 6000$ in campaign donations).

In New Zealand there is an immunisation schedule, and immunisations on the schedule are free (see we still have some tatters of a socialised medicine system left). However, there is no requirement for parents to get their child immunised, either before starting school, or at any other time. I am a strong supporter of the HPV vaccine going on the immunisation schedule, because I believe all women have the right to protect themselves from cancer. But here, we don’t have to make any trade-offs.

As I understand it the only way a vaccine can be available to all, and publicly funded in America is if it is compulsory before a child can attend school (there are exemptions available to parents for conscience reasons). I can understand the public health argument which says that a kid must be immunised from certain infectious diseases before they start school (I don’t necessarily agree with it, but I understand it), disease can travel very quickly among unorganised children at school and this can cause an epidemic. But this logic does not apply to the HPV vaccine, HPV is a lot harder to contract than measles, so it isn’t going to spread round a school in the same way (it is clear that the vaccine is as important for later in life as it is for 6th grade, unlike other vaccines) and any genuine worry about the disease spreading would require both boys and girls to be immunised. There appears to be two reasons to support compulsory vaccination, either because your in the pay of the drug company, or you believe that it’s important that poor women get access to the vaccine (or both). Neither of these are based on genuine health concerns, which would be solved by making the vaccine compulsory.

This puts feminists in an impossible position. I’ll leave it for American feminists to discuss how they deal with this problem; I’ll just be glad that I don’t have to choose between access and choice.

I was sad to read that Joss Whedon was no longer going to write/direct Wonder Women. Not because I particularly care about Wonder Woman, in fact all I know about Wonder Women is her outfit, but because I’m enough of a fangirl that any Joss is good Joss (here’s hoping someone leaks the script on-line sometime soon - links welcome). Although what I actually want is for Joss to go back to television. I enjoyed Serenity, but I’d rather have had that story over a season of TV than a couple of hours of movie (and I think it probably would have cost about the same).

But Joss did an interview with MTV about the Buffy Season 8 Comic book, and I’ve officially become excited:

And speaking of Sunnydale, did anyone really think no one would ever notice if an entire town was destroyed? Now the army is involved, deeming Buffy’s squads terrorist cells. “They got power, they got resources and they got a hard-line ideology that does not jibe with American interests,” one general rants. So in addition to her regular crew of monsters and vamps, Buffy’s got a new battle coming her way.

Be still me heart - Buffy fights against the ‘war on terror’ - what could be better than that?

Amy at Feminist Reprise has a really interesting post about shopping while fat when she was trying to buy clothes for an interview. Even with the help of readers she couldn’t get anything suitable for less than $300:

Add to that the cost of my time (and Rebecca’s, and Heidi’s, and Pony’s) to do all this research. That’s for one outfit, for one interview. All of you who, if you had to, could trot down to Ross Dress for Less, TJ Maxx, Old Navy, The Gap, or best of all, a Goodwill in a ritzy neighborhood**, and find clothes in your size that would tell an employer that you’re a responsible, socially acceptable, employable adult–how much do you think you’d spend on an interview outfit? Anything close to $300? No? That’s thin privilege.

I think Amy has misnamed the problem. I’ve written in different ways why I find the term thin privilege problematic. But actually it’s not the way Amy uses privilege I disagree with as much as the ‘thin’ part.

Being able to easily buy clothes (and even more so op-shops) is something that many people take for granted. I can wear clothes from enough mainstream stores to make shopping for clothes reasonably easy, but there are lots of places I know I shouldn’t even bother looking in, and so I understand how much harder life would be if I was just a bit larger.

But my friend Betsy, she has real problems buying clothes. She’s small, and her body is an unusual shape. When she had an office job finding appropriate clothes was an expensive nightmare. She couldn’t buy a single pair of work quality trousers, she had to get them made up (luckily WINZ paid¹ ). She never found a suitable pair of formal work shoes — they probably don’t exist, and couldn’t be made. Despite this, despite the effort and expense, her manager told her several times that she needed a more professional image. Presumably it never occurred to the manager that this actually involved more than popping down to a ridiculously expensive store and buying more clothes. It never occurred to this manager that the standards she preached wouldn’t be available.

The experience of being able to find clothes that fit reasonably easily and affordably is something that many people take for granted.² To call this ability ‘thin privilege’ ignores the other reasons clothes don’t fit people’s bodies. I think it is really unproductive to divide these experiences — so if Amy is writing the story the reader can buy clothes because of thin privilege, whereas if Betsy was writing the clothes the reader can buy clothes because of able-bodied privilege.

I think it’s really important to name our problems right - and there are plenty of thin people who can’t find clothes that fit them. Those people (and their supporters) should demand that clothes are made for the people who wear them, rather than for profit,³ and we can all demand that our ability to do work is not judged by an appearance standard that some people will never be able to meet.

1. New Zealand’s social welfare system offers grants to people who are entering employment to buy suitable clothes. (back)
2. Of course there are other people who could theoretically buy clothes at mainstream stores or op-shops but can’t afford to buy clothes at all. (back)
3. My banner at that protest would all be about cup-sized shirts and togs. (back)

This is kind of fun… a painless way for me to try and doodle around with color (I’ve always been scared of color, but now I’m trying to get over it). This site (which I found via the very well-drawn blog Watch Me Draw!) allows you to create animations showing how a drawing was made. I’ve made a couple of the animations, which are below the fold…

Read the rest of this entry »

While Amp is busy fixing his basement, I figured I’d take over the link farm duties. As a rule I generally post bunch-o-links only on Rachel’s Tavern because y’all will never come over and visit my site unless I have some unique content. Plus, I can’t possible compete with Amp’s link farms; my man manages to get like 1,000 good posts in each link farm. Of course, it should not come as a surprise to anybody that my links are heavy on racism content with a little gender and human equality content thrown in for good measure. Admittedly, when it comes to progressive/liberal politics, y’all won’t find too many links here, but feel free to add you favorite links of the week in the comment section.

1. Donna has a really good post about American Indians and taxes.

2. How to Suppress a Discussion of Transracial Adoption by Harlow’s Monkey

3. Bomani gets hate mail from whites angry about two Black coaches being in the Super Bowl.

4. Terrence Says has one of the more interesting posts on the Isiah Washington F-Word controversy. For the record, I think Washington was wrong and I won’t defend his wording, but I think Terrence makes a couple good points.

5. Uh-ohh, this is really going to stir up some controversy!!!. I found this post on a site dedicated to Bollywood films (Indian films for those who don’t know. In order to understand why this is so ironic you need to have been following the coverage of the British version of Big Brother. Here’s a brief summary: Well known Inidan actress Shilpa Shetty was a contestant on the show, and she was the subject of racial taunts from a group of white women contestants. There was a huge uproar in India and in Britain over her treatment. Now, lo and behold, what do we see? Shilpa Shetty from a 2004 broadcast where the hosts are lampooning a guy in blackface, and Shetty appears to be laughing (of course, I don’t know if it’s uncomfortable laugh or what; you can’t tell from the picture.). Go figure!! This is a great example of why I don’t go for that people of color can’t be racist argument.

6. Brownfemipower has been blogging about her experience at the National Advocates for Pregnant Women Conference. She does a good job talking about how we need to refocus away from abortion and on to the reproductive rights/women’s and children’s rights. Amanda is also hosting presenters from the conference on her site.

7. I also had to give a shout out to Amanda on this post comparing anti-abortion activists and animal rights activists.

8. Racialicious Has there own list of the biggest racial trends on 2006: 1-3 here, 7-4 here, 10-8 here.

9. Ballastexistenz put up this post a while ago, and I forgot to put it in my last Bunch-O-Links. It’s a video she made about personhood that she dedicates to Ashley X.