Tuesday, December 27, 2011

Apparently girls don't read books, we just model them

This is so f-ed up and aggravating and yet oh so familiar

If ppl dun want to read the link, basically, a girl posts on r/atheism a picture of her holding up a Carl Sagan book to show what her mother got her for Christmas. Of course because she's in the picture, cue talk of raping her, how attractive she is, whether she's of "legal" age, and then when she finds this annoying (and off-topic), it becomes that she ASKED for it b/c obv she put herself in the picture and what an attn-whoring slut she must be. -_-

This inspires infinite anger in me, as you might guess if you've read this blog's archives (or been following back when my archives were not archives yet xD ) and the harassment I've gotten just for being a girl around the internets >_>

The thing is that it's not even being a FEMINIST on the internet. I don't spend my time on battle.net lecturing people on rape statistics, or talking about the "male gaze" or whatever it is feminists do to make us feminists... it's just ... being a woman. I made a satire about anti-vegetarianism that vegetarians took seriously. But they didn't go after my "arguments" as much as they threatened to rape me, called me "cunt" and "bitch" and etc... -_- I was kicked out of my Starcraft clan when somebody revealed I was a rape survivor, and ppl demanded pictures to see if I was pretty enough to rape, and others just jumped to the conclusion I must have made it up. >_<;;; So it isn't even in arguments about gender in gender issue spaces -_- And that's been the exp of a lot of other women online too. >_< But let's just focus on this particular case, and this particular narrative, which is WOMEN EXIST FOR HETERO MEN. It doesn't matter what you do, who you are, or what you look like, or are wearing. WE EXIST FOR HETERO MEN, we exist for hetero men to stare at, lust after, or detest, and we obv must KNOW this, accept this and we must DO it, because after all that's the narrative that's in society and the media. Just look at advertising... whether for men or women, it's about women being attractive, or women wanting to be attractive, women looking sexily at the camera, Special K commercials where women fret about NOT being attractive... look at entertainment, where female heroes are dressed up to be eye candy, pose as such and don't wear suitable armor. (before the "BUT IT HAPPENS TO MEN TOO" pops in...) Escher Girls is basically a tumblr devoted to this... even in comics, women are posed and shaped FOR men... they could be fighting a giant robot, and they're posed in an incredibly inconvenient way for hetero men to gaze at.

I've heard a lot of guys defend assuming women are dressing/existing in a space for them. That geek girls are geek girls only b/c they want to get guys, and they know that they're hot. That women cosplay to get male attn. Women wear athletic clothing in the summer to get male attn (I've gotten that accusation and FFS I'm HOT in the summer when I run), etc etc etc... the thing is... you can't NOT exist and fulfill some hetero male fetish in society. There's a fetish for everything, for girls in glasses, and librarians, and secretaries, punk girls, girls with short hair, girls with tattoos, trans girls, Asian girls, black girls, fat girls, skinny girls... and of course if a girl is IN a subject space, be it atheism, or engineering, or etc, we're in it b/c we know that women are rare in that space and we want attn, because we LET IT BE KNOWN WE'RE WOMEN! After all, why else would you let it be known? >_> Why would you let it be known you're Asian if you didn't want the Asianphiles to know you're a hot Asian chick in their space?

If you take a picture of yourself, you're "asking" for it. If you're wearing a collared shirt, you're trying to play up the "girl next door" look, glasses is trying to do the "geek girl looks", if your breasts are showing, well that's obvious... and FAR BE IT for you to take a picture where somebody might think you're pretty, or in a flattering camera angle (because we know guys NEVER pick the picture they want to put up, they just roll a d20 to decide) because YOU MUST BE DOING IT FOR THEM, CUZ YOU KNOW YOU ARE HOT.

And that's the other thing. One of the comments I HATE seeing in youtube videos, in blog posts where a woman has posted her photo, is that it matters what she looks like, whether it's she's super hot, or super not (to the hetero guy commenting). And they tend to run the same way... either they fawn over you and expect you to reply (in which case if you don't reply you're a stuck up bitch, if you do reply you're a tease unless you had planned to talk more), or they yell at you for being a conceited slut who isn't that pretty neways (sour grapes) or they'll tell you how ugly you are, how fat you are, how you must THINK you're hot, but you're SO FAT or SO ugly... cuz the idea that a woman DID NOT TAKE A PICTURE OF HERSELF OR MAKE A VIDEO BECAUSE SHE WANTED TO SHOW HERSELF OFF is anathema, it's unheard of, it's WTF, to these guys -_-

Every woman that "put herself out there" (i.e. leaves the house or exists online) must know she's hot stuff, or think she is, and that means... either the guy has to put her in her place, or he has to react as if she's actively propositioning him.

And it's a no win once a guy thinks you're in that place. I get this IRL a lot, and I've gotten this online too, where for COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT THINGS (for example, my space space project which is about making a list of shelters and services for trans*, genderqueer and cis male people) I'm told how beautiful I am, and then if I don't respond, or I respond IGNORING that, I'm a stuck up bitch, and if I DO, but I have no intention of continuing it (i.e. I'm being polite and I'm afraid of being seen as a stuck up bitch) I'm a tease. Either way, the ONLY way out is to date them/sleep with them/whatever they want. -_-

And what bugs me is EVERY TIME this happens there will be many many guys who defend it by "you can tell". You can tell she wanted it. You can tell she was trying to get attention. You can tell this that and the other thing. YOU CAN TELL, that the girl jogging wore that top because she knew she was hot stuff. You can tell the girl you consider "fat" was wearing that tight top because she thinks you think she's hot stuff. You can tell the girl who walked into a gaming store did so because she knows it's a guy space and she'll be a relative head cheerleader. You can tell.

Except, you know, IRL AND online, women are saying NO WE AREN'T DOING IT FOR YOU, NO THIS IS NOT THE CASE, I AM NOT DOING THIS FOR MALE ATTENTION. And of course rather than maybe reconsidering if you CAN "tell", it's "you're lying" "you're delusional" "women know not what they think."

You know, if I ran around punching guys in the face because they were shirtless and guys told me that no, they aren't consenting to a boxing match, no they aren't interested in boxing, and hey even if they MIGHT be interested one day, it isn't today, and it isn't with me, I MIGHT THINK MAYBE I CAN'T "TELL" WHAT I THOUGHT I COULD!

Instead it's our fault. -_- It's on us to mind read, it's on us to beware our powers, and it's on us to realize that EVERY SINGLE THING we do fits some individual guys fetish, and therefore he thinks we're doing it at them, and we better put our money where our mouth is. >_< >_>

So on that note, in the grand tradition of steering into the swerve here's a picture of me holding one of my favourite books in solidarity :)



Edit: My friend Smurasaki has posted a picture of zir holding a book to show solidarity :3

I encourage all people (of any gender) to do the same because I think regardless of ideology, we all agree that people should not be harassed or put down because they happened to include themselves in a picture with a book :3

(I have apparently started a thing)





Monday, December 19, 2011

The ultimate bad bet: gambling your faith on a football game

This is an amazing piece by Dirk Hayhurst (former Toronto Blue Jay, career minor-league baseball player, best selling author of The Bullpen Gospels which every baseball fan should read :3 ) It reminds me yet again why he's one of the few professional athletes I like as a person and respect. :] Also he's funny and snarky and his humour is like me and my friends'! :D He invented the Garfoose which is like this giraffe/moose thing that guards the tree of baseballs (if I remember it right xD )

Anyways that is his piece on Tim Tebow and the problem with evangelical Christians in America idolizing him because of his success (actually it's his team's success >_> I notice that after the Broncos lost today, everybody was blaming the team and saying the Broncos lost, but when the team wins, it's "Tebow wins" -_- ) It is rly awesome and says so many of the things that have been getting me annoyed about the pedestalization of Tim Tebow and ppl trying to use him as proof of God or etc... -_-

If you’re a Christian, you might look upon what Tim Tebow is up to and praise God for it. And go ahead if you want to—a fellow believer is out there in the public eye telling the world that God is responsible for all of his success. How on earth, you ask, is this a bad thing?

But that’s just it. Tim’s message is so inherently linked to celebrity success and the platform that it brings, that they are not hearing an objective message about faith. They are hearing that God is the way to get to the same celebrity threshold if they make similar religious choice. It’s really no different than a faith and prosperity preacher saying that the path to riches is through his or her teachings, except that a religious preacher’s message made him popular. A sport’s star’s messages is almost always related to his on field production.

Sadly, these facts are not what most evangelicals hear. In fact, I’m willing to bet that right now, as they are reading this, they’re already thinking of scriptures to rebuke me with. I concede that Tim using his platform to spread the word of God is good, but for far to many, that word is only relevant because Tim is an icon.

Think about it. Think about walking down the street of your local town, and there on a street corner is a guy telling you things like, “God told me ______.” You’d think he was nuts. You’d tell him get help. You’d say to your buddy at church on Sunday, “why do people think that ambushing folks with the word of God is way to evangelize. Don’t they realize that stuff just makes people think we’re all crazy?”

Oh, but you protest and say, “The wisdom of God seems foolish to those who do not know Him.” No, what is foolish is, if you put that same street corner wacko in a sports uniform, under bright lights, muscles, and career high stats—tada— he’s a prophet. He’s an icon, a regular religious super hero.

Exactly. Why does him being a superstar athlete mean that his words now mean more? It shouldn't matter any more or less what he looks like, or how successful he is at his occupation, or what occupation that is. -_-

I don’t want this to be a true statement for Christians because it means a lot more negative things than positive. For starters, it means that those Christians who are not super stars are some how less impactful for the kingdom of God. It means that though we say we are not of this world, we obviously care about the same things the world does enough to dictate our faith based values.

Then, there is the fickleness of fame and fans. Tim is winning now. What happens when he does not? Did God leave him? Is God fickle? Is he only as relevant as a sports hero’s production? Lord I hope not. I haven’t done much in my career in the last couple of years and I’d certainly like to think that Jesus still loves me just as much as he ever did. Is Tim one arm injury from evangelical impotence?

Again, bang on. Like, he just lost today. Does God like Tom Brady more? Did Tim do something wicked between Week 14 and Week 15? Where was the fourth quarter miracle comeback? The biggest problem isn't even that they've put all this on the shoulders of Tim Tebow's performance, cuz the success of the Broncos have never really been about his performance (which has ranged from sub-par to mediocre) but on the rest of the team's (now known as the Denver Tebows), the biggest problem is that they've put it all on whether his team wins or loses. Period. Irrelevant of his performance.

All of Tebow's supporters have been arguing for weeks with Tebow skeptics like Bomani Jones that it doesn't matter whether or not Tebow plays well, only that "he" wins, and that you blackbox the process basically. It doesn't matter how the sausage is made, just that you get a sausage at the end. So then you can't claim "well Tebow played well" in today's loss to the Patriots because whether or not God favours Tebow never apparently had nething to do with how WELL he played, but on whether the Broncos wound up winning. They lost. And like Dirk says, that's the danger. Does that mean God abandoned Tebow? Does that mean Denver is about to be struck down by fire from the sky? Is the Broncos gatorade going to turn into blood? (That'd be hilarious)

That's the reason that Tebow has frustrated a lot of people (both non-Christians and Christians who don't buy into the Tebow thing). It's not "haters will hate" like his supporters have claimed. It's not that atheists hate Tim's message and want him to lose. It's not really about Tim. It's about what Tim has become to evangelical Christians. He's their Golden Calf (I thought God warned against idols) and "his" wins are presented as proof. It doesn't just annoy non-Christians, it annoys football fans! It annoys me as a fan of sports that actual ANALYSIS of the games are being thrown out because HEY THE TEAM WON THEREFORE THE QUARTERBACK IS A LUCKY PENNY! -_- It's going BACKWARDS. Forget religion vs science. This is religion vs sports analysis. How does one position, where the guy doesn't even play defense, get ALL the credit? -_- (and now that he's lost, his team is getting the blame...)

I don't think people wanted him to lose because they hate Christians, I think people wanted probability to finally catch up with the problematic way he plays and to snap people out of the delusion that this is "God's will" or magic tricks from above -_- It's kinda like how a cold summer doesn't mean global warming doesn't exist. It's just something that happened that people read meaning into. A hot winter doesn't prove that global warming DOES exist either, but if you PUT your belief into the fact that a cold summer disproves global warming, then you open yourself up that a hot winter disproves your theory.

It's the same way with Tebow. If you hinge your belief on his wins, your belief is disproven when he loses. It's a bad way to operate (also if you LIKE Tim Tebow and/or the Broncos, you should stop doing this too, because people will dislike him simply because of what you've claimed his team' wins represent).

Some might say that God is using Tim. I would say absolutely, but not more so than he uses any of us. Tim simply has a large platform to work on. A ridiculously, over hyped, over valued, over relevant platform that, at anytime could pop like the 2008 housing bubble and leave people so disenchanted with the faith they’ll rue the day Tebow ever claimed Jesus as his own.

Finally, ask yourself: what if Tim was Muslim? Then what kind of reaction would you have to all of this my dear evangelical friend? Would he suddenly be a vessel of the devil? Would this terrify the country? Would his success give credence to the radical agenda? Would Focus On The Family start an, in *love of course, slandering add campaign?

God does not favor the popular. He does not give preferential treatment to the celebrity. If he did, he would not be the God is today. He humbles the proud, he lifts up the meek, and he loves us all, sinner, saint, and sports hero the same—yesterday, today, and forever. That is why he is an awesome God, not because Tim Tebow throws touchdowns for Him.

There are people with a heart for the Lord, just like Tim’s, around us every day. And there are people who are quiet and meek and content with thankless service as well.

Yes. Exactly. If you are a Christian, this is how you should see not just this case, but life in general. Famous Christians are not "better" Christians or more important Christians or more "representative" of God than any OTHER Christian! Nor do what they do = God's will. (Except Christ, but he's a special case XD ) And as stated above, it's dangerous to start playing that game.

One more thing. I wonder if the super bowl ad where the Tebow narrative was created, the one where his mother talked about how doctors had tried to convince her to have an abortion and she didn't and Tim was the result, has anything to do with a lot of ppl's need to make him into a player of destiny. Even after the loss today, there were people on the radio talking about what players you need, or what defense you need, or etc ways to protect Tim Tebow and allow him to continue playing even if he can't play well. WHY? WHY not find a better mediocre quarterback to take his place? If the Broncos release him will there be a clamor for SOME team to sign him? Does he have some sort of human right to play professional football? -_-

It's the stuff I heard on the radio today, people TRYING to make this work, that makes me wonder... b/c he's the chosen child, "saved" from abortion, is his career in the NFL not just a vehicle that people are pinning their proof of God hopes on but also this idea that he's a "chosen one" and therefore it's his destiny, one way or another, to be a great QB? :\

I have no opinion on Tim Tebow as a person. I don't know him. I disagree with the stances of his I know of (anti-abortion), but whether he wins or loses doesn't bug me. I don't WANT him to fail because of his faith. But it's the WAY that he's being used, the way the narrative is being twisted to obscure the truth (what happened in the game, how he played, how many missed passes he threw) in order to further an agenda. As Dirk pointed out, even if you're a huge evangelical Christian you should hate how this is being done because if Tebow flames out... where's your messiah now?

People rightfully think that it'd be foolish to put your entire life savings on the outcome of a football game. Why would you gamble your faith on one?

Sunday, December 18, 2011

Ami rates the Toronto Star's editorial and publishing decisions :3

The Toronto Star is having their yearly "You Be The Editor" thingie where they ask you your opinion on controversial editorial decisions they've made throughout the year (photo choices, word choices, etc). I find these things interesting, and I felt like making my personal choices public this year and explaining why I think what I think for each :3

Also, a couple of them I'm a little confused as to why they might be problematic, so if nebody knows a good reason why let me know :3 I have speculation in some cases, but it isn't obvious to me. :]

Let's start! (some of them have pictures attached, so go to the link if you want to see those :] )

1. A Living columnist expressing her thoughts about winter fashion challenges writes that we shuffle through February "like overmedicated mental patients." Do you publish this?

No. Or at least I get the columnist to edit it out. It's ablist and plays into all sorts of negative and historical stereotypes of the mentally ill.

2. Author Myrna Dey's debut novel is the reader's choice nominee for the Scotiabank Giller Prize. The first sentence of the story refers to Dey, 69, as a "Saskatchewan grandmother." Do you publish this headline: "Granny's debut novel makes Giller Prize longlist"?

Yes. I'm confused why you wouldn't? I guess the complaint would be that her status as a grandmother, or her age is being played up and you wouldn't focus on skin colour or sexuality for a winner? But I've never thought it as unusual or offensive to say "Mother of four does XYZ".

3. A news story reports that police have laid 57 charges against two Toronto residents in connection with break-ins in the Beach. Do you publish this headline: "Beach bandits face break-and-enter charges."

Is the problem here the nickname or that it's presuming guilt by calling them "beach bandits"? I dunno the journalistic etiquette or rules for this. I don't see a problem w/ the nickname. o:

4. Toronto Mayor Rob Ford attends a media event to mark the start of construction of the Eglinton-Crosstown line. A Star photographer takes several photos. Do you publish this shot of the mayor eating a Jamaican patty from a lunch truck?

Yes. I know that Ford and his supporters believe that the Star is involved in a conspiracy to destroy him, and he's refused to talk to the Toronto Star period now... but I don't see anything really problematic about the picture. His supporters claims it makes him look bad. It would be problematic if we felt the media could only publish pictures that a politician felt were flattering.

5. The Toronto Maple Leafs organization releases little information to the public after goalie James Reimer is sidelined by a head injury. A reporter phones the family home and his mother talks about her son's condition. Do you run the story?

This one I have very strong opinions on because there was such an outcry from the Leaf fans that supported the MLSE line and were all "when the Leafs want to tell you information, they will!" and "the poor woman! She's not media trained!". FFS, Mrs. Reimer is an adult, she can make her own decisions and she knew what she was doing when she talked to the press. And she wasn't even pushed into it, she WANTED to because she had serious concerns about her son's concussion, his concussion history and how the Leafs were handling it. This is news. She's not a child, and she shouldn't need her son, or her son's employer's permission to talk.

6. Near the end of regular season play, a reporter is assigned to interview Leafs fans about the team's futile hopes of making the playoffs. One angry fan tells the reporter: "I hope their plane crashes tonight. Does that sum it up?" Do you publish this?

No, because a KHL team just died tragically in a horrific plane crash. Unless the point of the article is "Leaf fans are callous and ignorant." (I can't wait for the other Canadian team fans to show up now and say "YEAH YOU ARE!" xD ), all that serves is to show a quote in bad taste that might rub salt on some still very raw wounds. There are plenty of other over-the-top angry Leaf fan comments that you can show without stepping on fresh graves.

7. A reporter interviews homeowners opposed to a controversial proposal to create a natural burial cemetery in which corpses are allowed to decompose without the use of chemicals. One angry resident tells the reporter: "What happens if someone has AIDS and that gets in the water?" Do you publish this?

Yes, because it shows the views of the people in opposition, and an example of the reasons why they are. Unless that comment was so out of line with the rest, I would publish it.


8. An article about family-friendly dinners published on the Star's parenting website, parentcentral.ca, includes links to recipes on other blogs. A salmon cakes recipe published on a mothering blog begins with the author's comment, "I can't f***ing wait" with the profanity spelled out in full. Do you link to this blog entry?

I'd put a profanity warning next to the link.

9. Following his first appearance in court, authorities release this handout photo of the man accused of the attempted assassination of U.S. congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. Do you publish this mug shot on Page 1, above the fold?

Yes. The mug shot and identity of an attempted assassin is front page material. There's nothing graphic or gruesome about it, except I suppose how some people might choose to interpret his expression (I suspect that's the "controversial" part of this e_e).

10. The shootings in Tucson, Arizona touched off a politicized debate about blame. Many pointed the finger at Sarah Palin for an ad that showed Gifford's Democratic constituency framed in the crosshairs of a rifle. Do you publish this editorial cartoon?

As long as that's an editorial stance you support, yes. I don't find anything wrong with this cartoon.

11. The Star is investigating allegations of high school "credit mills" where fees are paid for credits given for little work. Do you assign a reporter to go undercover and pose as a student at summer school?

Yes. Again... I dun rly see the issue here. o_O It's a story of interest, and it's part of investigative reporting isn't it?

12. When a law student who formerly worked in the sex trade dies suddenly, a reporter learns that the woman once corrected a law professor for referring to "prostitutes" instead of "sex workers." In the story and headline about her life and death do you refer to her as an "ex-prostitute?"

Absolutely no. You should always use "sex worker" in the first place. In this case, it's esp egregious because the deceased SPECIFICALLY had expressed an opposition to the term "prostitute".

13. In the last moments before a York Regional police constable dies on duty he calls his dispatcher for help over the police radio while pinned beneath a minivan. Do you publish the transcript of this last call for help?

Unless he made a personal confession or revealed an embarrassing private moment or something, I don't see why you wouldn't if it's relevant to the story.

14. Two kittens are found in a dumpster with their right eyes poked out. Do you publish this photo of the kittens following surgery to sew their right eyelids shut?

Yes. First off, that picture is so adorable. Secondly, it's not gross or anything. Thirdly, it actually makes me happy, not sad, because I know they survived and will be okay :)

15. During the federal election campaign a Star columnist writing on the Opinion page states that Stephen Harper's targeting of perceived enemies "verges on the Stalinist." Do you publish this?

Yes. It's an opinion piece, and the word "Stalinist" is generally acceptable use in political commentary to describe problematic ways a government is acting isn't it? Or is that equivalent to comparing people to Hitler? If it is, then I change my opinion. :]

16. The Star reports that a man is charged with the sexual assault of a preteen girl. Months later, when charges are dropped, the man requests that the story reporting the charges be removed from the Star's website so that it disappears from search engines. Do you take down the story?

No. First off, it's a matter of public record. Secondly, you can't pretend history didn't exist and you didn't publish it. Thirdly, it's a bad precedent for newspapers to remove stories from their archive. HOWEVER, you should put a little edit in the archived story with the date of the edit and a link to the story where the charges were dropped (or a note saying that the charges were dropped).

Okay :D So that's about it! This is actually better than usual for the Star. Most years, I disagree with ALL their decisions, and they have ALL sorts of racist, ablist, transphobic, homophobic, etc issues that they defend up down back forth and sideways and I go RAWR! This year, a lot of them seemed very tame to me, and a couple I don't understand why they might be an issue. (again, this could be because I'm unfamiliar with how certain terms are regarded in popular meaning, or because it's a journalistic rule that I'm not aware of... so if one or the other is true, let me know :3 )

(Yet another) good article about male privilege in geekdom :3

http://kotaku.com/5868595/nerds-and-male-privilege

I remember once I was involved in a thing in a MUD where I had been the subject of insults because somebody found out I'm bi. Me and other friends (all women and known to be women) complained but people kept making excuses. I then switched to a male alt (where people knew him as being male IRL too) and made the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT, laid it out just the same, and everybody nodded and I actually changed policy, b/c after that the community made a "no gay bashing" rule and people told me how logical male me was compared to how emotional female me was.

I've had plenty of exps (as ppl who read this blog knows) of harassment in game (like being kicked out of my Starcraft clan because ppl found out I was a rape survivor and victim-blamed me and accused me of lying, and etc), and I've also had the differences of how I'm treated pre-transition (perceived as male) and now, in comic stores, game stores and in geekdom in general (people assume any guy I'm with is the expert in comics, when usually I'm the one showing HIM around). -_- And yus, that article gets it pretty bang on. And I've been complaining about the "you know I want to play a strong female character, or associate with one without feeling like I need to look like a porn star for a while in this blog. -_-

None of this is new, but it is necessary to keep republishing the message sadly, not necessarily to hammer it through the people who don't want to listen, but because there's always new people who haven't heard this before and will be swayed and realize the WTFness :)

Saturday, December 17, 2011

The Shafia Trial, why the Islamaphobia around it pisses me off, and why the fears of "honor killings" are SO off base

The Shafia trial going on up here right now is rly making me angry and conflicted for all sorts of reasons.

For obvious reasons I'm angry that this family thought it could kill four people, including three daughters, and get away with it. I'm double angry that they can lie so obviously in court when all the evidence (including wiretaps) prove them wrong, and obviously, I don't want them to "get away with it" >_< Except, they won't, the evidence is too heavily against them and their own words on wiretaps have hung themselves. And yus, I'm angry at the slut-shaming, at the "daughters must obey me", at the "slutty, sinful women" crap. >:O

I think it's pretty obvious what I'm going to say next. NO THIS IS NOT UNIQUE TO ISLAM. Srsly... first, dealing with religion, Islam isn't the only religion where people have hidden behind to justify misogyny, murder, or other abuses of family members they consider "their property", it's just the one that newspapers like to trumpet (in this case, the Shafia family aren't even using it as a defense in court, the media is essentially constructing it as if they are using it as a defense).

Secondly, putting aside religion, "my child/spouse/etc made me look bad, disrespected me, made a mockery of my authority, took away my honour/pride/reputation/etc etc" thing IS NOT UNIQUE TO ISLAM, or middle eastern people. It's pretty much the self-justification of ALL abusers. I can frame almost all of the abusve relationships I've been around, in or my friends/family have been in around that, because abusers are self-centred, and entitled, and make it all about them. And whether it's religion, or reputation, or personal morals, or anything else, abusers will ALWAYS find something to hide behind.

Thirdly, slut shaming isn't unique to Islamic ppl either. Christians do plenty. People who aren't hiding behind religion do plenty TOO. -_- This blog is filled with me yelling at slut-shaming, misogyny and all abuse/rape apology all over our society, the one we're so scared Islam is going to take over -_-;; It's also filled with examples of me raging about how parents believe children are their property, or parents abusing their children and justifying it b/c their child belongs to them and is a reflection of them. Again, not freaking unique to Islam.

And LIKE EVERY OTHER ETHNIC/RELIGIOUS GROUP IN CANADA, THERE ARE LOTS OF MUSLIMS WHO DO NOT SLUT SHAME OR CONSIDER THEIR CHILDREN PROPERTY TOO.

And if you wanna get into "BUT LOOK WHAT THE QURAN SAYS" about women, then you'd also have to get into what other things say, not just other holy books, but stuff like... Maxim magazine, or other things that people can say "hey that's adding to the objectifcation of women" "hey that implies date rape!" etc... and that's not to say btw that this stuff ISN'T problematic and shouldn't be discussed... it's that.... again... not unique to Islam... misogyny should be opposed everywhere... and there's plenty of misogyny in our own society too (and in the bible and Christian communities).

But all of that really doesn't apply because most importantly about this case that angers me is... okay Islamaphobes, xenophobes and other phobes... PAY FREAKING ATTENTION:

THEY ARE NOT CLAIMING JUSTIFICATION

That's why to me the whole fear and debate of "honour killings" is completely irrelevant to this trial, because the family is not claiming that they DID it, they're denying (and lying) that they committed murder and still claiming that the daughter drove the car with the other people into the water.

They're not saying "we killed them but Islam allows it". Therefore, there's nothing to fear FFS. There isn't going to be new law made no matter what happens. If they're found "not guilty", it doesn't allow for anybody to kill in the name of Islam, and if they're found "guilty" it doesn't STOP anybody from doing it either, because murder is already a crime, and if people feel justified and that they can get away with it, they'll still do it.

Also the "but it's their ATTITUDE that made them think it's okay". They didn't think it's okay. If they felt it was okay, they wouldn't have planned it, made it look like an accident, had their stories prepared, had a fake alibi planned, etc etc etc... they CLEARLY KNEW IT WAS ILLEGAL and they did it neways >_> "It's illegal but I feel justified" isn't exactly unique to just these accused.

The point I want to make is... FFS, this trial is not about Islam... they aren't even "hiding" behind it because they haven't made it a justification, and they are denying the murders. And it really makes me angry that people are acting like this case PROVES that Islam is evil (while other cases don't prove that Christianity is evil, or our society is evil, or hates women, or etc) and that everybody is obsessing over "honour killings" and fearing that this trial might justify it and etc etc and just UGH

UGH UGH UGH

I feel so disgusted that 4 peoples lives were just wiped off of the Earth, and the more details I hear the angrier I get at their entitlement, and their disregard for their OWN DAUGHTERS and the slut-shaming and everything else (and how they're coercing their kids to lie for them) and how they can sit on the stand and bald-faced lie like that, BUT... I hate that this thing is being twisted as a reason to force apologies out of the Toronto Muslim community, where they have to keep writing over and over again "no srsly we don't hate women" and how so many commenters in newspaper articles and such are all using it as a reason to perpetuate hatred, xenophobia and stereotypes. >:|

F EVERYTHING

srsly >:|

Friday, December 16, 2011

Ami calls out those pussy-teasing baristas and their slutty antlers

Http://local.yahoo.com/info-11592150-dragon-s-den-poughkeepsie



(there's more, cuz she responds, and he accuses her of lying and says that HE KNOWS WHAT LONG SULTRY GAZES LOOK LIKE xD )

Neways, I honestly shouldn't mock him because I understand, b/c something similar happened to me when I was out at Starbucks today.

Today at Starbucks, the barista (who was a pretty decent looking guy to start with) was wearing these super cute reindeer antler things xD Like green and red festive with bells. And I told him how cute they were and he was rly nice to me and stuff. But he's nice to OTHER customers too! *GASP* TEASE! THOSE ANTLERS ARE JUST TO ATTRACT GIRLS WHO LIKE CUTE THINGS! I'm gonna go and ask him out tomorrow and if he says no, I'll have PROVED what a teasing antler slut he is!

Isn't that AWFUL!? WHAT A F-ING ANTLER TEASE! HE WAS NICE TO OTHER CUSTOMERS! AS IF THOSE ANTLERS WEREN'T JUST FOR ME!

And you know what's worse than that?

I told the above to my fellow beta female, Trish and she pointed out something even MORE heinous and deceptive that he did! He pretended to be a deer, and he's obviously not one, but he LED ME ON TO BELIEVE HE WAS! I should follow him home and shoot him like the deer he pretended to be. He asked for it. Don't wear deer antlers if you don't want to be treated like a deer.

F-ing entitled antler-wearing men, they want all the rights to wear antlers and no responsibilities.

Thursday, December 15, 2011

Guest Post: Open Challenge to Samantha Berg: Put your money where your hate-spewing bigoted mouth is

The following is a guest post (the first of many I hope :3 ) by the great and glorious Zhinxy. This isn't exactly the debut we had planned but she was angry, and well... this is the place for rants! :D That guest post at Feminist Law Professors that she's ranting about is a total sex-worker hating piece of crap btw >:| It's thinly disguised hatred pretending to be caring about the harassment female bloggers get online. It's absolutely disgusting and I 100% support Zhinxy's anger in this matter. By Berg's logic by the way, shouldn't she already be giving scads of money to sex workers? She just spent an entire post attacking and degrading them.

Also, as one of my other friends, Holly Pervocracy said: If you perpetuate the idea that sex work means "if you do one thing for money, you'll do ANYTHING for money," then you're part of the reason sex workers get assaulted.

Zhinxy's paypal button below is real by the way, and she created it just for this. And she's being honest about it. Comment calling her a name and donate to a good cause. :)


It's late. It's the morning. I'm on one hour of solid sleep. I had to get my kid off to school, and my cat was scared by a dog, and all the rest of it. But I couldn't help but see this absolute piece of utter, vile swill by professional Sex Worker Hater Samantha Berg...

http://www.feministlawprofessors.com/2011/12/internet-swear-jar-guest-post-samantha-berg/

TRIGGER WARNING. TRIGGER WARNING FOR ANTI-SEX WORKER HATE AND I AM NOT KIDDING (and NO trigger warning on the post itself! Hmmm!)

And dear god, is there a lot to say about it.

I gotta sleep. I got a lot to say about this, and please let them know at the formerly-respected-by-me Feminist Law Professors blog that this was not acceptable.

But I can't sleep until I say this!

OKAY SAMANTHA! OKAY! I TAKE YOU UP ON YOUR OFFER

SEE THE PAYPAL BUTTON BELOW?






You (any of you, not just Samantha) can call me ANY MISOGYNISTIC, DEGRADING, OR HUMOROUS NAME YOU WANT! Just pay at least 10 cents to the swear jar. That's it. Go for it.

No, really.

go for it. Call me ANY NAME YOU WANT.

for 10 CENTS IN THE PAYPAL BUTTON JAR.

Call it a swear jar, if you want.

Do it. Go for it. Knock your bad self out.

it's only 10 CENTS. See, if Samantha's correct, that's what sex work is all about. Being insulted for money... or... something.
And we allies, or "funfems" or whatever the fuck she wants to call us, would never ever do it.

Well, the reason we aren't doing it is because it's a stupid suggestion that has nothing to do with sex work or.. Anything, as far as I can tell. Or that was the reason. Cause I'm doing it now. INSULT ME FOR MONEY!w!!!!

I'm serious. Ten Cent Insult Special.

I will donate any funds recieved to Sex Worker's Rights Organizations, and that's my promise. (to be determined in conference with sex workers after I sleep!) So bring on the hate, insult away, click the button. If you want to donate more, perhaps for the right to a particularly vile insult, please do.

CLICK! CALL ME A WORTHLESS CUNTBURGER ICKYFACE!

Okay Samantha, how's that?

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Nobody has the right to tell an abuse survivor what they should have done, or hold them responsible for the actions of their abuser

F U Pat Hickey

In an article that appeared in the Gazette and other newspapers Tuesday, Pat Hickey called out Fleury for saying Canada’s justice system didn’t do enough to keep James behind bars. Fleury cited James’ pardon after being convicted of sexual assault in 1997 against three players, including another former National Hockey League player, Sheldon Kennedy. James was sentenced to 3 1/2 years in prison and given a pardon in 2007.

But Hickey wrote in his column that Fleury only went public with his allegations against James more than a decade later in his autobiography, Playing With Fire.

Hickey said it was “hypocritical that Fleury can blast the justice system for giving James two months of freedom when he provided his former coach with years.”

A website for Fleury posted a statement — under the headline “This is why no one comes forward” — that called on the public to “demand” from the Gazette that “Pat Hickey be fired immediately.”

“We find it very distressing to hear anyone, much less a columnist for a major newspaper, take the side of a known convicted rapist by calling Theo Fleury an enabler,” said the statement.

Hickey used the term “enabler” when recounting how Fleury was a business partner of James — Fleury was a co-owner of the junior hockey team the Calgary Hitmen while James was coach — when Kennedy’s allegations became public.

“Here was someone who had suffered abuse at the hands of Graham James,” Hickey wrote. “Here was someone who knew that James had abused other players. Here was someone who was exposing other children to the same sexual predator.

“Fleury has been through enough counselling to know there’s a word for someone who acts in this fashion — enabler.”

Fleury is right. This type of finger-pointing, holding victims responsible for their abuser is one of the things that keeps abuse victims (or rape victims) from wanting to come forward, especially if time has passed, because then people question why you didn't, call you a coward, etc, etc... If you continue associating with your abuser or rapist (which HAPPENS, especially if the survivor is in denial, or was a child when it happened, and/or the abuser is a friend, family member, community icon, etc etc) then that's held against you too.

This is absolutely bullshit.

I can give a billion reasons to explain or speculate about why Theoren Fleury didn't come forward earlier, but I don't think it's respectful to speculate on the thought process of an abuse survivor. I think most people reading this already know the many many many reasons why survivors don't come forward (if you don't, there's plenty of sites you can google that will tell you why) or continue to associate with their abuser, especially if they were abused/raped as a child.

It's absolutely disgusting that Hickey would hold Fleury responsible for the crimes of his rapist. I absolutely HATE this type of victim blaming because it's SO unfair, and I see it used a lot by people who have no interest in actually helping victims as much as they want to dismiss the "victimhood" of a survivor. This comes up a lot with rape apologists too, when they say that if a rape survivor is afraid of going to the police (or afraid of coming forward because of victim blaming, or not being believed, or being accused of lying, or being ostracized from the community, etc) then he, she or zie are responsible for future victims of the rapist. No, the RAPIST is responsible for that. It is not for nebody else to judge what the mindset of a rape/abuse survivor SHOULD be, or what they SHOULD have done, or how they SHOULD react, because everybody deals with trauma differently, and everybody has their own fears and concerns and it's not on us to say "just suck it up" to somebody who is the ONLY PERSON IN THE WORLD who has to deal w/ the trauma and understands how hard it is.

This is why I HATE narrative of "courage" about these things in the mainstream consciousness. While I DO think telling your story, or coming forward is incredibly difficult, and can take incredible strength, or courage, the problem is our societal narratives LOVE having either/or black or white scenarios... which means that if somebody who comes forward is STRONG, then somebody who doesn't is WEAK. -_- And obviously, that what they're both dealing with must be EXACTLY the same, and therefore we can make objective, quantitative value judgements, because that's the kind of simple, cut and dried equation we like dealing with in our lives.

Except rape, abuse, and PTSD is NOT simple, or cut and dried, and how a survivor reacts to that, or lives with it, or how long it takes for them to heal, or how scared they are, whether they come forward, etc is NOT for anybody to judge and it is NOT right for ANYBODY to be finger pointing and placing blame for what the RAPIST/ABUSER did on the survivor.

Period. End of story.

Pat Hickey should be ashamed of himself, and he should either apologize or his employers should fire him. This type of victim blaming is absolutely unacceptable.

Sunday, December 11, 2011

The perfect woman is a corpse

So that's why I suddenly got new followers recently :3

In both the comments on my original post and in her own forum post here, Ami Angelwings brought up another heartbreaking conclusion that can be drawn from the interest of girls in images that suggest their own deaths:

A dead girl's corpse is perfect. It's not going to get old, or get fat, or eat too much, or sleep with too many people, or the wrong people, or cheat, or be gossipy, or sinful, or talk back, or the million other things society demonizes about women and our passions, desires and appetites. We're just beautiful and nothing more, just like a woman should be. To be the perfect woman, you have to be dead.

She shares her experience as someone who has recovered from anorexia, but who used to struggle not only to reach a certain beauty ideal, but who rarely forgot that, once reached, that sense of perfection would only have to be maintained. Certainly that exact experience isn’t universal to all girls, but do you think it’s something that teenage girls in particular might be able to relate to?

Yay! I was quoted :3

I'll add the bit I added on in the forum too that she alludes to :3

To elaborate on what I said at the beginning, even tho I haven't been suicidal since transition, sometimes, during an esp bad ED day or week (this was esp true 2 years ago when I was running 4 hours every day and eating almost nothing), I'd think that it'd just be easier to leave a pretty corpse, because otherwise, it'll never end... my body will always require food, my body will always gain weight if I eat too much, or indulge in too much tasty food, or stop exercising, my metabolism will slow down as I age, the whole reality of an ALIVE BODY will never go away... and that means my exercising and restricting and denying myself any happiness when it comes to food will never end... it'll go on forever... (keep in mind this is my ED thoughts... I'm just articulating the mindset)... there's no end goal... there's no "finish line" where I can say "I did it! I kept up my exercise compulsion and not eating all this time and now it's over!"... a premature death would at least mean that I reached some sort of finish line having kept this up the whole time... that there'd be a point to it....

And that's btw, not me saying this is necessarily the reason, or the ONLY reason that there's a fascination in some mediums with dead girl's bodies, or why some girls are fascinated by planning their own death, or that depression and mental illness isn't a real thing or a big deal or nething like that.

As I said above (and as the author in the original post stated about her and her friends fantasies as teens), this is not necessarily the same as actual suicidal thoughts, or suicide, but about just "wishing" or fantasizing about one's death and controlling that death. If we're talking about what's so appealing about dying young and leaving a pretty corpse, I think for some women, the idea of an end "finish line" to diets, freaking out about aging, worrying about being fat, exercising, etc etc, is there... :\

Friday, December 02, 2011

On Intent

Today I got criticized on my Tumblr for saying "both genders" which implies there's only two. I try to catch that every time, but this time it slipped past. The criticism presumed that I didn't know, educated me about genderqueer people, and told me about the marginalization of genderqueer, gender variant, etc people. My first reaction was "WTF I'm trans, I KNOW THIS", along with various degrees of "isn't this person overreacting? It's just a small slip up!" "I've blogged a lot about this" and "I have plenty of genderqueer friends, and I work with agencies to be more trans inclusive, do they not realize I know this s- and it was just a mistake!?"

And then I realized... no... no they don't. They have no idea who I am, who my friends are, or what I do for work. All they know is I said "both genders" and they educated me in case I didn't know so I would know WHY I should fix it. It's not an accusation, and if they HADN'T done it and I was genuinely ignorant, I would go "but there ARE only two genders, so wtfm8?" It still hurt though, so I had to take a deep breath, rant to some friends, calm down... and then fixed it. And thanked the person for letting me know I made an error. It's hard, and I GET that in the moment, esp if anti-oppression is important to you, it feels personal. But it's not. The other person doesn't know you, they don't know that it's a mistake or what your intent is, all they know is you did something that they felt was problematic, and they wanted to let you know and that maybe you should fix it.

Now, maybe I DON'T think I did anything wrong and I don't WANT to fix it. That's fine too, but I'd do it with the understanding that I can't control how it will be read. Maybe they'll think bad things of me, and maybe they won't. Just as they can't read my mind, I can't (and shouldn't presume to) read theirs. I have no idea WHAT they thought of me (or IF they thought of me) when they wrote their complaint, and I shouldn't assume it's necessarily bad, or worry whether it is or not, because intent (on my part, AND theirs) doesn't matter. I made a mistake that I, in a better mindset, would have gone "oh I f-ed up, I'll fix that", and that's what matters, and what has to be fixed :)