As I love zoology and paleontology (okay: animals, extinct and otherwise), I feel the need to brag about/display a couple of costumes I find clever.

1) My friend Ann’s daughter Aidan insisted on dressing as a piranha.

2) And last year, my fiance dressed as opabinia, a five-eyed vacuum-mouthed creature that was found in the Burgess Shale.

That paper pinned to his chest is a drawing of an opabinia, so people can figure out what he is. Here’s a version:

–

*For the record, I have no objection to sex-ay costumes, though I wish they weren’t de rigeur for girls. I just like weird animal costumes better. Many next year I should get Mike to be a sex-ay opabinia?

Last year after Halloween, I wrote a few limericks about the undead. They’ve just been posted at From the Asylum.

Hope they amuse!

This is the best thing I’ve read in probably a month, and it’s am absolute must-read for anyone who’s ever wondered about the political and theological confluence of events that became the religious right.

It’s 3 years old, but I just read it this afternoon, so it’s new to me. Also, it’s long, but I found myself entertained and interested all the way through.

It is, of course, of special interest to those among us who would like to live by Biblical principles, since there’s a fair amount of talking about just exactly what those principles are.

It’s broken up into 5 parts:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5

The author, bradhicks, is awesome in several other ways as well. It’s worth poking around his LJ, especially for some of his political writing.

PS. This was originally posted at my LiveJournal page, but I decided to repost it here for the general quality of conversation.

This is absolutely shattering.

In short, the situation is that a Florida woman, in order to deal with her 13 year old daughter ‘having sex with older men’, shaves her head and forcibly pierces her genitals, so as to make sex more painful for her daughter. The problem is (or at least, one of many many problem is) that the ‘older man’ she was having sex with was her mother’s 30 year old boyfriend . . . and rather than deal with this as ‘oh god, my boyfriend committed a horrible criminal violation on my daughter,’ she apparently dealt with it as, ‘my slutty daughter is trying to take my man.’

The prosecutor, fairly reasonably (IMHO) pushed for a greater crime than child abuse, and the jury acquitted.

Or, as La Lubu put it in comments:

Shit, damn, motherfucker. Lemme see if I got this straight—

1. Boyfriend rapes 13-year old daughter.
2. Mom does not call police on boyfriend; mom blames daughter.
3. Mom has daughter’s head shaved, in the hopes that boyfriend will find daughter too ugly to fuck.
4. Boyfriend continues to rape daughter. For years.
5. Mom has friend “pierce” daughter’s genitalia, in such a way that it will make it even more painful for the daughter when mom’s boyfriend rapes her again.
6. “Piercing” gets infected.
7. Child protection finally called in.
8. Piercer goes to jail.
9. Mom put on trial for the piercing, but not for allowing the rapes? WTF, Chuck?
10. Mom acquitted.
11. Finally, an arrest warrant is put out for mom’s rapist boyfriend.

Christ, this poor girl. This makes me very angry. My fists are clenching and I am seeing red. I want to break something. As other people mention in coments, possibly the worst part is that now it’s likely that the daughter will be sent back to live with her mother.

Her mother who blamed her for her own rape. Her mother who shaved her head. Her mother who violated her. Her mother who held her down as a needle was pushed through her genitals. Her fucking mother.

A while back, in one of our discussions of Male Circumcision, I made the point that I consider nonconsensual and elective alteration of another person’s genitals is unacceptable, period, whether you’re the parent or not. As chance would have it, at the time, I compared circumcision to piercing your child’s genitals against their will. There were some people who argued that nonconsensually piercing your kid’s genitals is actually no big deal.

I wonder where those people are now, and I hope they’re ashamed.

From Kate Harding at Shakesville:

So, the “Guess The Rotund’s Height and Weight” game gave me an idea. (Oh, and hey, if you want to see a scatter graph of the results, there’s one here now.) I talk a lot about how BMI is bullshit, but we all know talk is cheap. Photos of people who actually fall into each category, however? Say a lot.

Thus, I have created the Illustrated BMI Categories Project, to demonstrate just what “normal” and “overweight” and “morbidly obese” really look like. I’ll continue to add photos until people stop sending them — if you’d like to participate, please send a (worksafe) photo along with your true height and weight to katesblog at gmail dot com. I may not use all the ones I get, but I appreciate the courage of anyone willing to send one. (Oh, and I’m also creating a general Shapely Prose Readers photostream, so let me know if you want to be in that.)

It’s really awesome.

TRIGGER WARNING: However, please keep in mind that it features photos of people of different body types along with their weights. As Mandolin writes in comments, “I really appreciate this project, but you might want to put a trigger warning in the post. Weights are listed with the photographs and that can be problematic for people who are still dealing with vestiges of a disordered mindset.”

(Thanks to Sailorman for the tip.)

I’ve added an “Immigrant Rights” section to the “Alas” blogroll. Here are the blogs currently listed:

• ¡Para Justicia y Libertad!
• Brownfemipower
• Citizen Orange
• Immigrants and Politics Blog
• Immigrants In USA Blog
• Immigration Equality Blog
• Immigration News Blog
• Immigration Prof Blog
• Latina Lista
• Latino Politico
• Migra Matters
• Migration Debate
• Standing FIRM
• The Mex Files
• The State of Opportunity
• The Unapologetic Mexican
• Working Immigrants

Check ‘em out.

From The Observer:

In the words of one soldier: ‘The truth? When there is chaos, I like it. That’s when I enjoy it. It’s like a drug. If I don’t go into Rafah, and if there isn’t some kind of riot once in some weeks, I go nuts.’

Another explained: ‘The most important thing is that it removes the burden of the law from you. You feel that you are the law. You are the law. You are the one who decides… As though from the moment you leave the place that is called Eretz Yisrael [the Land of Israel] and go through the Erez checkpoint into the Gaza Strip, you are the law. You are God.’

The soldiers described dozens of incidents of extreme violence. One recalled an incident when a Palestinian was shot for no reason and left on the street. ‘We were in a weapons carrier when this guy, around 25, passed by in the street and, just like that, for no reason - he didn’t throw a stone, did nothing - bang, a bullet in the stomach, he shot him in the stomach and the guy is dying on the pavement and we keep going, apathetic. No one gave him a second look,’ he said.

The soldiers developed a mentality in which they would use physical violence to deter Palestinians from abusing them. One described beating women. ‘With women I have no problem. With women, one threw a clog at me and I kicked her here [pointing to the crotch], I broke everything there. She can’t have children. Next time she won’t throw clogs at me. When one of them [a woman] spat at me, I gave her the rifle butt in the face. She doesn’t have what to spit with any more.’

Yishai-Karin found that the soldiers were exposed to violence against Palestinians from as early as their first weeks of basic training. On one occasion, the soldiers were escorting some arrested Palestinians. The arrested men were made to sit on the floor of the bus. They had been taken from their beds and were barely clothed, even though the temperature was below zero. The new recruits trampled on the Palestinians and then proceeded to beat them for the whole of the journey. They opened the bus windows and poured water on the arrested men.

Curtsy: Informed Consent.

Dear feminist writers of fiction and poetry,

I’m putting together an article on how feminist writers deal with sexism and racism when it comes up in workshop environments. I’d like to gather as many answers as possible.

Many workshops are voluntary, so one can choose to leave when racist or sexist material comes up — but only if one is willing to deprive oneself of the feedback. Some workshops are compulsory, however, particularly when one has signed up for a class. Voluntary or compulsory, workshops are always a unique combination of work and play. On the one hand, one is usually friend with ones workshop peers, but on the other, for working writers a workshop can also be a functional and essential part of how one prepares one’s work.

Workshops can also become hotbeds for emotional turmoil, since the material in question is so personal.

If you’re planning to stay in a workshop, you have to create a business relationship with the other people involved. So what do you do when one of them writes a story with blatant racist or sexist content? I think this has happened to all of us; certainly, it happens in the workshops I’m in.

How do you handle it? If you’re interested in contributing to my project of discovering methods, I hope you’ll consider the topic and let me know. Comments are appreciated, or you can drop me a line at rachel dot swirsky at gmail dot com. Anywhere between 200 and 750 words on the topic would be fantastic, although if you want to just write a few lines, that’s fine too. I’m interested in hearing from feminist men and women, and anti-racist whites and non-whites.

Feel free to address the topic in any manner of your choosing, and defining your own questions and agenda. For those of you who’d like a few questions to get you started, here they are:

*When you encounter racist or sexist (or otherwise bigoted) material in a workshop setting, how do you deal with it? Do you ignore it? Do you call it out? How do you decide whether to ignore it or call it out?

*How do you call out racist and sexist material while preserving your relationships in the workshop? What techniques do you use? How do you vary them based on context (power dynamics in the group, your own place in the group, the type of racist or sexist material being presented)?

*Have you ever decided not to call something out? What happened? How did you feel afterward?

*Have you ever regretted calling something out? Why? What happened?

*Have you ever quit a workshop because of racist or sexist material?

*What was the most offensive thing (on the lines of bigotry) you’ve ever encountered in workshop? (Please describe it in generic terms.) How did you react?

*How do other people in workshop situations tend to react when you note offensive material? How does it vary between workshops you’ve been in, and why do you think it varies that way?

*Anecdotes that you can tell without compromising yourself or anyone else (changing names and story subject matter helps) would be quite appreciated.

*Have you ever been in a workshop that was a safe space for race or sex? What was it like? Did it feel limiting or limited?

*How can workshop leaders (or the group in an acephalous workshop) create a positive environment? What environments have worked best for you?

I need responses by this Sunday, November 4th.

I’m a bit late posting these, but what the heck.

If you haven’t already done so, check out the newest Carnival of Feminists up over at Cubically Challenged, which is exceptionally well organized. (I love it when people number things.)

And the 25th Disability Blog Carnival is up at If The World Had Wheels.

From Three Wise Men:

Crazy, racist, hate mongering Congressman Tom Tancredo has announced he will not seek re-election, regardless of the outcome of the race for the Republican presidential nomination. I pretty much can’t think of anyone in the House that’s more clearly a bad human being than him.

I agree. For more on Tancredo, check out these posts at Migra Matters: 1 2 3 4.

From Para Justicia y Libertad!:

Congratulations to Cristina Fernández de Kirchner who has become the first woman to be elected president in Argentina’s history. Kirchner, 54, is the wife of current President of Argentina, Néstor Kirchner and a former senator for Buenos Aires Province. In the Oct, 2007 general election, Mrs. Kirchner, she ran for president of Argentina, representing the ruling Front for Victory party, a center-left Peronist party.

Fernández is the second woman to be elected leader of a South American nation in two years, after Michelle Bachelet, who became Chile’s president last year. [...]

Her election extends the trend of left-leaning elected governments in Latin America, although she is more moderate than the Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez. Mrs Kirchner is expected to maintain her husband’s friendly relations with Chavez.

Fernández has vowed to continue the work of her husband after winning a presidential election widely seen as a referendum on his economic policies. She has fiercely rejected the pro-market policies of the 1990s, which she blames for the 2001 crisis.

Justice delayed is better than none at all, I guess. From Feminist Law Professors:

Today the Georgia Supreme Court ordered the release of Genarlow Wilson.  Wilson was sentenced to 11 years in prison (with a mandatory 10-year sentence) for receiving, at a time when he was 17, oral sex from a 15-year old girl.  The Georgia legislature subsequently changed to 12 months the maximum sentence available in similar cases involving consensual sex acts between teens.

Mr. Wilson’s successful Petition for Writ of Certiorari is here.  A copy of the Court’s decision is here.  For news reports, see here and here.

Mr. Wilson has been in jail for 21 months.

-Bridget Crawford

See also this post on The Debate Link.

Francis Holland calls this “a victory for the afrosphere.” I don’t know enough about the Georgia Supreme Court to know if this is true, but I’d certainly like it to be true.

Meanwhile, conservatives have their own spin on the Wilson case.

(I previously blogged about Wilson’s case here.)

Megan McArdle writes:

I don’t know why Matt should find this remarkable:

Still, the main psychological point remains that there’s a remarkable tendency to equate advocating that others engage in risky acts of physical violence with the idea of possessing courage and strength as personal characteristics.

After all, we’ve already internalized the notion that advocating taxing other people in order to give their money to someone else is somehow morally akin to charity.

I find the “taxing other people” argument — which conservatives and libertarians use frequently — bewildering. “I think people, but not me, should go to Iraq and risk death,” just ain’t analogous to “I think all taxpayers, me included, should pay for a generous safety net.”

In a followup post, Megan implies that liberals only favor using wealthy people’s money to pay for social programs. Poppycock.¹ I’m hardly high-income, but I pay taxes. So do most liberals and leftists. And although liberals and leftists² favor raising taxes on the wealthy, not all rich people are republican.³

Note also that SCHIPP, which is paid for from cigarette taxes, has received enthusiastic support from lefties — even though smokers are not an especially wealthy group.

Yet the idiotic “liberals want to spend other people’s money” idea is commonplace among conservatives .

1. The word “poppycock” “is actually American in origin, first turning up there about 1865. The OED is silent on its origin, but most modern dictionaries know well where it comes from: the Dutch word pappekak for soft faeces.” (back)
2. ”L&L” — the newest sequel to Dungeons & Dragons! (back)
3. Incidentally, the overall tax structure in the US is flattish — the vast majority of Americans pay about 16% of their income in taxes, give or take a couple of percent. (back)

Read the rest of this entry »

Charles has posted the 18th Erase Racism Carnival over at Kill Bigotry! As usual we have great submissions.

Here is the schedule for the next 3 months. January is still open if anyone is interested in hosting. For more information about the carnival, check out the carnival’s home page at Ally Work.

November 2007 @ Eric Stoller
December 2007 @ Present Progressive Mood
January 2008 @ open

Feminism is for atheists. Feminism is for Jews, both ethnic and religious. Feminism is for Muslims. Feminism is for pagans. Feminism is for Baha’i feminists. Feminism is for Mormons. Feminism is for Unitarian Universalists. Feminism is for Quakers and Buddhist-Quakers. Feminism is for the anti-religious, and for the anti-atheistic too. Feminism is for evangelicals.

Feminism is for black people. Feminism is for white people. Feminism is for Boricuas. Feminism is for chicanas. Feminism is for desi people. Feminism is for Asian people. Feminism is for people with a mixed race identity.

Feminism is not the top 3 blogs on your blogroll.

Feminism is for men. Feminism is for women. Feminism is even for white men.

Feminism is for environmental activists. Feminism is for animal rights activists, and those who prioritize people. Feminism is for anti-racists, but we certainly have our racist moments. Feminism is for the transsexual and genderfluid, but we also have our moments of gender essentialism and transphobic screeds.

Feminism is for trans men, even when they halt transition. Feminism is for trans women. Feminism is for cissexuals. Feminism is for people whose gender identity formation is ambiguous.

Feminism is a constellation.

Feminism is for mothers. Feminism is for the childfree. Feminism is for mothers who stay at home with their children, and mothers who work outside the home, and those who homeschool. Feminism is for fathers: gay, straight, partnered, and unparterned. Feminism is for fathers of boys and girls. Feminism is for stay at home dads.

Feminism is for heterosexual couples raising children, gay parents raising children, polyamorous people raising children, single parents raising children, and people who prefer to help raise the children of friends and family.

Feminism is for lesbians. Feminism is for gay men. Feminism is for bisexuals. Feminism is for people who like to look at men. Feminism is for asexuals. Feminism is for polyamorous women and polyamorous men. Feminism is for the monogamous. Feminism is for those creating unusual families.

Feminism is not just Shulamith Firestone and Andrea Dworkin. Feminism is not just Bell Hooks and Angela Davis. Feminism is not just “do-me feminism.” It is not just “choice feminism.” It is not just suffragettes, third wave, or second wave.

Feminism is for psychiatrists. Feminism is for the anti-psychiatry. Feminism is for people with PTSD, cyclothymia, narcissistic personality disorder.

Feminism is for the fat, the thin, and those with eating disorders. It is for real women, with and without curves.

Feminism is for people who I admire, people who piss me off, and people who I admire who piss me off.

Feminism is about safe spaces, or constructing safe spaces for groups that aren’t always centered in feminist discourse, or feeling frustrated with the pitfalls of constructing safe spaces, or criticizing the implementation of safe spaces.

Feminism is for those who adopt or foster, and those who use IVF, and those who’ve given birth to many children. Feminism is for the married, the divorced, the unmarried, the several times divorced (and happily remarried), those who are in interracial marriages, those who are in cross-generational relationships, those whose hard-won joyful marriages anger many Americans, and those who are unfairly barred from marriage.

Feminism is for the disabled and the abled and the parents of the disabled, and again feminism has its problematic moments.

Feminism has many definitions. Sometimes, it has none.

Feminism is for people who are pro-sex, and people who believe that pornography is irredeemable, and for sex workers. Feminism is for people who believe that values must sometimes be compromised from necessity, and those who believe that actions must be consistent with beliefs.

Feminism is for people who live at the intersection of many axes of oppression.

Feminism is for Americans in New York, California, North Dakota, Missouri, Tennessee, and Texas. It’s for people in Australia, New Zealand, Egypt, Syria (by way of Iraq), India both “>group and singly, South Africa, and people who are pan-Africans — and that is only a sampling of blogs and not of activists on the ground.

Feminism is for people who practice BDSM, and people who think BDSM is oppressive, but probably not for many Goreans.

Feminism is for those who believe in litmus tests, and those who eschew them.

Feminism is for Republicans. Feminism is for fiscal conservatives. Feminism is for libertarians. Feminism is for anarchists and Marxists. Feminism is for Democrats. Feminism is for people in the Green party and people who think all American alternatives are far too conservative and people who are looking at American politics from the outside.

Sometimes, feminism is made of straw. Sometimes, someone really made the arguments that are often used as straw.

Feminism is for those who believe in reproductive rights — whether that means focusing on birth rape, on making sure that women of color have real choices, believing abortion is a moral good, disapproving of abortion but approving of choice, struggling for a principled feminist pro-life stance, educating people about masturbation, attacking domestic violence, or building up childcare options.

Feminism is not represented by this list, any more than it’s represented by any other single perspective on the whole.

Feminism is academic, or emotional. It is filled with rants and careful logical arguments.

Feminism is for lawyers (lots and lots of lawyers), writers (lots and lots of them too), scientists, engineers, recording artists, professors, students, quite a few sex workers, stay at home parents, veterans, ballerinas, and veterans who are also ballerinas. Feminists live on government assistance. They are poor, and middle class, and the kind of people who know the difference between OKOP and NOKOP.

Feminism is not about reaffirming every part of your identity, or of mine. Feminism is not about burning these things away, either. Privilege exists within discourses of feminism, but that does not invalidate the privileged or the underprivileged’s claim to feminism.

Feminism is not what I believe. Feminism is not what you believe. Feminism is Feminisms, many and varied.

I’m having trouble reading the discussion of this post as more than “someone somewhere once said something in the name of feminism I disagree with, so I’ll call that Feminism, and distance myself from it rather than acknowledging that there are huge disagreements within feminism and re-envisioning my own place within that. And by association, I’ll suggest that anyone who does claim the label Feminist is anti-mother, anti-children, anti-religious, and anti-puppies.”

Really, the initial post didn’t strike me that way so much, but the discussion did.

Oh, and also, meanie atheists are beating up all the nice, polite Christian folk, who aren’t in a position of power at all. Plus, STALIN.

–

UPDATE: It occurs to me that it’s mean to have put in the “must check feminist” box on this post. I didn’t mean it the way it must look; I was just trying to keep out our regular anti-feminists. I’m going to take it off — everyone who’s commenting at feministe, no matter my annoyance at their individual position, is fine and feminist with me, big F or little.

However, anti-feminists and MRAs should pretend there’s still a check-box here, and stay out of the thread. Thanks.