From the White House to Whites-Only: Footnote.

To build on Jeff Fecke’s last post, I wanted to point out that Katon Dawson, current chair of the South Carolina Republican Party and, more importantly, candidate for the chairmanship of the RNC, belonged to a whites-only country club for 12 years, resigning his membership just 4 months ago, when he realized that it just might become an issue.

I kind of hope he takes the chairmanship, actually. As Steve Benen put it:

The symbolism in 2009 would be pretty powerful wouldn’t it? We could have as chairman of the RNC a former member of a country club that would exclude the president of the United States.

So we may actually have the most recent Republican President moving to a recently whites-only subdivision and the chair of the RNC only recently resigning from a whites-only country club?

Gosh, I just can’t fathom why African Americans generally vote Democratic.

Don’t comment unless you accept the basic dignity, equality, and inherent worth of all people.

Posted in Race, racism and related issues | 6 Comments

From the White House to Whites-Only

When George W. Bush leaves the White House, he won’t be going back to his beloved Crawford ranch. I mean, come on, like he’s going back to his Potemkin farm to clear brush! No, Dubya’s moving into an exclusive Dallas neighborhood. How exclusive? Well, they once didn’t allow non-whites to live there (unless they were the help). But heck, that was long, long ago — they changed that covenant all the way back in 2000:

Until 2000, the neighborhood association’s covenant said only white people were allowed to live there, though an exception was made for servants.

Enacted in 1956, part of the original document reads: “Said property shall be used and occupied by white persons except those shall not prevent occupancy by domestic servants of different race or nationality in the employ of a tenant.”

Classy, huh? I suppose we’re being unfair; I mean, the community changed its covenants eight whole years ago. That’s so far back that some chucklehead named George W. Bush was Governor of Texas! Ancient history, right?

It is interesting symbolism, to say the least. As our nation prepares to inaugurate the first African-American president in our nation’s history, our current president is preparing to move to a neighborhood that wouldn’t allow Barack Obama to live there — save as a servant — within the last decade. Although that isn’t keeping the riff-raff out — I mean, an alcoholic loser is moving in, right next door, in just a month or so.

Seems to me they all deserve each other.

(Via Pam)

Posted in Race, racism and related issues | 12 Comments

Gentrification and Community Organizing

Jack blogs:

This Friday I’m heading to Medgar Evers College in Brooklyn for the premiere screening of Some Place Like Home: The Fight Against Gentrification in Downtown Brooklyn, a documentary by Families United for Racial and Economic Equality. FUREE, a community organization lead by and comprised primarily of low-income women of color, has been rallying the community in a fight against the rampant development that’s going down in Downtown Brooklyn and the surrounding area. While developers, big business, and politicians alike claim they are only trying to improve the community, the development is being conducted with little care or concern for the residents and small business owners who are already there. Some Place Like Home documents the struggle of FUREE, the neighborhoods’ residents, and small businesses against the forces that are trying to push and bulldoze them out. Check out the trailer below.

Posted in Syndicated feeds | 5 Comments

XKCD FTW

friends.png

I have a deep and abiding love for XKCD, as do all right-thinking people. And so I’m pleased to point you over to the latest installment, which has the most brutally correct take on Nice Guys™ that I’ve ever had the pleasure of reading. The punch line is too good to spoil, though people familiar with the Nice Guy™ can probably guess.

Posted in Cartooning & comics, Feminism, sexism, etc | 61 Comments

The Family Place To MRAs: "Instead of bashing women’s organizations, stand up and help somebody yourself."

[This is the third post in a series, criticizing the recent campaign by anti-feminist Glenn Sacks against The Family Place. I’d like to remind readers that “Alas, a Blog” will match any contributions you make to The Family Place this week (up to $800 total), so please donate, and then let me know in comments or by using the form!]

(Links to the posts in this series: One Two Three.)

This post continues the interview with Paige Flink, the executive director of The Family Place. The Family Place, a Dallas-based group providing shelter and services to victims of domestic violence, was the subject of a recent campaign by men’s rights activists, led by Glenn Sacks.

Once again, thanks to Ms. Flink for being nice enough to talk with me.

Did Glenn Sacks, or any other men’s rights activist, contact you about these ads prior to beginning their campaign?

No. They started blasting before I ever heard from him.

Did Glenn Sacks directly call or write you once his campaign had begun?

He did call me later, kinda the way I remember it happening, our bus ads had been up for about three weeks, the Dallas news ran an article about it. He [talked about the ads] on a Sunday radio show, and then on Monday DART was deluged with emails. Then I got a call from him the following week. He called saying, and I’m paraphrasing, “I have a way for you to get yourself out of this mess you’ve gotten yourself into.” I did not return his phone call. ((Glenn, on his own blog and in “Alas” comments, recalls his voicemail message differently: “in my voice mail I did commend her for the good work that her organization does on behalf of abused women.”))

Why didn’t you return his call?

Well, I didn’t return his call.. at that point, we were being attacked. It wasn’t a conversation I had started, and I didn’t feel like my point of view would make any difference.

Does The Family Place provide services to male victims of domestic violence?

Yes we do. We do. Of course, there’s a huge difference in the number. On an average year we’ll shelter between 700 and 900 women and children, and we’ll council 8-20 men who are victims.

We do not shelter men in the facility, but we do provide hotel vouchers. We have a suite we can use. Most of the men who have come to us have been men in same-sex relationships, so we work with the Dallas Resource Center, which provides services for gays and lesbians. And when they come with kids we help them too; we have sheltered men with children.

Would you consider bus ads designed to reach out to male victims of violence?

We would certainly consider it. This was our 30th anniversary and we had been saving money for a campaign, and we targeted women specifically because our experience has been that when women think about what their children are witnessing, they are more likely to take action. We are ultimately trying to prevent murders, and women are the most likely victims of murder in these situations.

It was a small campaign, but we wanted it to be memorable.

Would you have been open to, for example, the idea of Glenn and his audience raising funds to help pay for an ad campaign reaching out to abused men?

Sure. My experience has not been that with these father’s rights groups, but if a father’s rights group had contacted us and said we want to help raise money to provide counseling services and to provide shelter, that would have been incredible. But that’s never happened.

How would you respond to a men’s rights activist who said “men aren’t using the services because there hasn’t been enough outreach to men”?

I would talk about the reality of the person who seems harmed the most, and with limited funds, we have to serve the people who are in the most danger. The lethality in family violence of a women who’s being harmed by a man is greater. We don’t have unlimited funds, and the most vulnerable are the women who have children. The women in our shelter usually come because their children have become a target. That is the very specific response we were targeting in our campaign.

We weren’t trying to make a big point about “sexism” and all of those other things — that wasn’t the point. We had a very specific point we were trying to make: There is a cycle of violence. We want to reach the people who most need our help. We want to reach them before they get murdered.

What advice would you give a men’s rights activist who is sincerely concerned about male victims of domestic violence?

I would say, get together another group of men and raise the money to provide the services for the people you say are needing them. And go out there and say “we are the new men’s shelter, and we are here to serve men who have been victims of family violence and sexual violence in their homes.” Do it just the way the women’s shelters stared 30 years ago.

Then show when you open the doors — when The Family Place opened the doors in 1978, it was full, because so many people needed help. Then show the numbers, go back to your donors, and say “I had to turn away 100 men because I lacked the funding.” Everything that happened with shelters for women, happened because of the demand.

Don’t put me down because I’m trying to help somebody. Go out there and help somebody.

Instead of bashing women’s organizations, stand up and help somebody yourself. That’s what I’d say.

(Links to the posts in this series: One Two Three.)

Posted in Anti-feminists and their pals, Rape, intimate violence, & related issues | 84 Comments

BFP's new blog: Flip Flopping Joy

Flip Flopping Joy. Get bookmarkin’, folks.

(Just one thing, BFP: How about a full-text RSS feed? Pretty-please?)

Posted in Links | Comments Off on BFP's new blog: Flip Flopping Joy

Of Supreme Court Cases, Citizenship, and Uncle Tom

So the news that Clarence Thomas has asked the Supreme Court to consider whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama’s U.S. citizenship has hit the airwaves. This story is running all over the blogosphere and much as I hate to agree with Clarence Thomas he’s actually not selling out Obama by putting this case up for consideration. Instead he’s cutting the feet out from under it being filed AGAIN by having the court examine it and refuse to hear it. Just saying, before people get up in arms they might want to really examine what it means for one of the justices to distribute a case to the other members of the Court.

Look, as made clear by the 807 e-mail forwards devoted to tearing down Barack Obama’s candidacy a lot of people are willing to spend big bucks on trying to prove he’s not fit to lead even if they have to try to pull out obscure technicalities, conspiracy theories, and just make some stuff up. Better to let the air be cleared now and get all of these challenges out of the way than to waste any time over the next four years dealing with this mess. So, examine his birth certificate, argue over whether his mother’s age at birth affects his citizenship, and bring all of the “He’s a Muslim, a fascist, a terrorist, the Anti-Christ” stuff on out into the light. Do it now and get it over with because in 6 weeks? He’s going to be busy trying to fix the hot mess that is our economy and I’d rather he be able to focus on that mess than on replying to this nonsense. For once Clarence Thomas is absolutely doing the right thing. Give him some credit for it instead of calling him names.

      

Posted in Race, racism and related issues, Syndicated feeds | Comments Off on Of Supreme Court Cases, Citizenship, and Uncle Tom

In Minnesota, a New Hero Will Rise

Let’s face it, things are not going very well for right-wing radio these days. Rush Limbaugh has been reduced to a national laughingstock, while Sean Hannity is best known for simply repeating talking points handed to him by the RNC. Where is the innovation? The fight? The good ol’-fashioned hatred that will sustain the righties into a new era?

baker.jpgWell, my fellow Minnesotans can puff our chests up with pride, because we’ve got a budding right-wing radio superstar right here in our own backyard, broadcasting daily at KTLK-FM.

Minnesotans know KTLK as the radio station that made the head-scratching decision to abandon reasonable talk and go to an all-right-wing-nonsense-all-the-time format right before the collapse of the Republican party. With the aforementioned Limbaugh and Hannity, along with Jason “North Carolina is Infinitely Superior to Minnesota, What With its Low Taxes and Family Values, Which is Why I’m Getting the Hell Out of There and Coming Back to the Cities” Lewis, KTLK is the sort of radio dinosaur that would have been really popular in 1994, but now languishes down with KOOL-108 (the oldies station) in the ratings.

But Chris Baker aims to change all that. The new morning drive host and Texas import is making a name for himself nationally, and doing it the old-fashioned way: by saying crazy crap.

You may remember Baker from his previous assertion that basketball legend Earvin “Magic” Johnson had faked testing positive for HIV, because as everyone remembers, in the early 1990s nothing was cooler than pretending to have AIDS. Now, most radio hosts would kill to have just one crazy statement like that, driving the ratings and whipping up conservative resentment of multimillionaire basketball players who have spent their retirement building up the poorer areas of Los Angeles through investment. But not Chris! No, he’s just getting started.

According to the George Soros-controlled Media Matters, in his brief time in Minneapolis Baker has:

  • Said that the murder of transwoman Latiesha Green was the media’s fault, saying, “I believe the media and the rest of the enablers out there, they have this guy’s [sic] blood on their hands because they create this false sense of reality and they enable people who need serious psychological counseling.” Because nothing says Liberal Media Conspiracy like the argument that people should be able to live their lives without being shot.
  • Said, “I don’t think homeless people should vote. Frankly. In fact, I have to be very honest. I’m not that excited about women voting, to be honest.” Honestly!
  • Suggested his gal Sarah Palin “shoulda had a little cleavage going” during her debate with Joe Biden. (Thank goodness she didn’t, it could have killed Rich Lowry.) Baker continued to show the kind of not-sexism that the GOP showered upon their veep, saying “[S]how your stuff, you know what I’m saying? Use all your assets….By the way, I noticed a panty line on her. … When they turned to walk to the podium, I saw a panty line.”
  • Said of Code Pink protesters, “I’ll tell you, though, in the speech — the best part of the speech was when those Code Pink nuts — another bunch that ought to have all their tubes tied. All right? I can’t stand these Code Pink broads.”
  • Called Thomas Beatie, the transman who has become pregnant twice, a “mutilated lesbian.”
  • And while he didn’t say it himself, he promoted a video of a pastor who called Barack Obama’s mother “trash” for having a child with a black man.

Heckuva guy, huh? He also, just for the record, argued for the use of ax handles and machine guns against RNC protesters who, as far as I can tell, broke a window at Macy’s and…well, that’s it. Misogynistic, transphobic, racist — I assume homophobic, since it really is part and parcel of that worldview.

Of course, Baker is hardly alone in using sexism and hate to sell his agenda — it’s pretty much expected on the right. But for a guy to do so much in such a short time…well, it’s inspiring to all the hatchet men and haters on the right. Baker has set a high bar for his fellow wingnuts to clear. And I shudder to think what he’ll do next. Because while I suspect Baker doesn’t believe half the stuff that comes out of his mouth, we all know that a lot of his listeners do — and Baker has given the thumbs-up to violence against women and transpeople, given the green light to attacking liberal protesters. He’s opened the door to a lot of hate and evil. But that’s what the best right-wing talkers do, now, isn’t it?

Posted in Feminism, sexism, etc, Homophobic zaniness/more LGBTQ issues, Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Trans and Queer issues, Media criticism, Transsexual and Transgender related issues | 10 Comments

Domestic Violence Shelter Targeted by Anti-Feminists: "Some of the vile language and verbal abuse we took on the phone was horrific."

[This is the second post in a series, criticizing the recent campaign by anti-feminist Glenn Sacks against The Family Place. I’d like to remind readers that “Alas, a Blog” will match any contributions you make to The Family Place this week (up to $800 total), so please donate, and then let me know in comments or through this form.]

[Links to the posts in this series: One Two Three.]

Prominent right-wingers Glenn Reynolds and Michelle Malkin recently praised Glenn Sacks’ campaign against The Family Place, a domestic violence shelter that provides help to both female and male victims of intimate violence. Reynolds said:

They didn’t try to get anybody fired but they contacted them and asked them, “Did you realize that your money is supporting these ads? Is this what you want to do?”

They made a very big point of being very polite about it and not making any threats. They did get some action and did it without trying to get anybody fired or booted from their jobs or doing anything vicious.

Because there’s nothing vicious about attempting to cut off the funding of a domestic violence shelter.

I suspect that Reynolds learned this from Glenn Sacks’ site, where Glenn claimed this “achievement” for his campaign:

A sub-group of our protesters who I selected called over 50 of The Family Place’s financial contributors to express our concerns about the ads. Most contributors said they sympathized with us, and many told us they thought the ads and the subsequent protest were an embarrassment to The Family Place. Many contacted Family Place Executive Director Paige Flink with their concerns.

Several of The Family Place’s financial contributors withdrew or reduced the financial gifts they planned for the end-of-the-year giving season.

Like Roy Eduso in The Village Voice, and the blogger at Glenn’s Cult (warning: that link makes an annoying noise), I was concerned when I read this; I’d hate for the anti-feminists to succeed in depriving abused women and men of desparately needed support and services.

Fortunately, according to Paige Flink, Glenn vastly exaggerated the effects of his campaign. Unfortunately, contrary to what Glenn Reynolds (and, probably, Glenn Sacks himself) believes, the calls made to The Family Place’s volunteers and donors due to Glenn’s campaign were anything but polite.

Ms. Flink was kind enough to talk to me on the phone. Glenn Sacks declined to make any “on the record” comments to me.

Can you tell me how long you’ve been at The Family Place?

I have been on staff at The Family Place for seventeen years, and I was a volunteer for three years prior to that.

Is it a difficult job?

It is hard work, but when you see success… It’s unbelievable the families that we help. Even if they’re only in the shelter for 45 days, the difference is incredible. If we help them get a job, or go to school, it really improves their life for years to come. It’s awesome.

Plus I see bad things happen to women and it just makes me mad. The oppression is true, it’s real.

Glenn Sacks claimed his activists convinced some regular Family Place supporters to withhold donations. Have you seen any evidence of that from your end?

The only thing I know for sure is I got an email from a man who said he’d never give again, because of this. He once gave $25, in 2003.

It’s possible that [Sacks] convinced somebody besides that one donor.

Have you heard from any of your donors who had been contacted by Glenn’s campaign?

Yes. They were horrified.

What were they horrified about?

They were horrified that they were contacted. Not about the ad campaign. Horrified that someone from outside the state of Texas would call and say “don’t give money to The Family Place.” There was one of my board members who received 25 calls from the same woman.

What did the people calling them say?

It was… they were paraphrasing, so I don’t know exactly. They were told that you should not support The Family Place. This is a terrible campaign, they’re not a good organization, you should not support The Family Place, and we’re asking you to stop donating to The Family Place.

Some of the vile language and verbal abuse we took on the phone was horrific. The kinds of things they said to our staff about what they’re going to do to them was awful. I’ve had some “you’re going to go to hell, you’re a fat lesbian luring women into those shelters so you can prey on them.”

If I reply back to a victim I really am cautious in how I speak to her, because how do I know it’s a victim? We screen our clients on the phone, but…

I didn’t know there was this atmosphere out there of people who would say… horrible things to people they don’t know. They’d write in all caps like they were screaming and yelling. This is not a world that I’m used to. And the people would would say verbatim what he had said, like they’d drank the kool-aid… It was just amazing. It lasted a very short window of time. It was not much more than 10 days and then it fell off.

Did the campaign succeed in doing damage to The Family Place?

No, as a matter of fact, what he did was make us even more visible, in venues where we wouldn’t necessarily have been visible. We are not an AM radio organization. So even though some of it was negative… For example, he was on one of the radio stations here, and a huge organization, a very conservative group, emailed the radio station saying we support The Family Place. So just the name of The Family Place being out there might, in a perverse way, help, because we might reach someone who needs our services.

So I’m still thinking the campaign was very successful. When Glenn went on CNN, we got so many positive phone calls to our hotline that night, saying go for it, don’t back down, don’t let him do that to you.

I want to make sure it’s clear that we had a 60 day contract on those buses. It is not true that we took down our ads down. That’s not true. It was always going to end on November 30 — that was all the money we had.

I feel very strongly that the donors in this community understand what we’re doing in the family place. We have a lot of credibility. So I feel like our donors are going to stand beside us. It’s a shame that we’ve had to take anything away from the mission of this organization to even waste time in defending what we’re doing. It’s been a drain on time … it isn’t productive.

How much time did you have to spend dealing with this controversy?

I don’t know… hours, I had to spend hours. Thinking about the right strategy and how to respond and how to stay true to the message of The Family Place. If it’s five hours then it’s five hours too many.

We have a page on our website that we did make gender-neutral in response.

I’d like to thank Ms. Flink for talking with me.

My next post in this series will feature more from my interview with Paige Flink, including her advice to men’s rights activists who want to help male victims of violence. In the meanwhile, don’t forget to donate to The Family Place! Even very low donations are worthwhile, and remember, this week they’ll be doubled.

[Links to the posts in this series: One Two Three.]

Posted in Anti-feminists and their pals, Rape, intimate violence, & related issues | 33 Comments

The dance scene in "Get Smart": When you’re starving, McBurgers taste like steak

In this scene from the movie “Get Smart“, Steve Carrel, playing Maxwell Smart, asks a fat woman to dance. The audience presumably expects a routine making fun of how clumsy a fat woman dancing is; the twist is that she dances wonderfully.

(In “Get Smart,” there are also a few brief fat suit gags — flashbacks to Steve Carrel’s character before he lost weight. Those uninspired gags, where were another instance of The Absent Fatso, aren’t the subject of this post.)

The fat woman is played by the wonderful Lindsay Hollister, an actress with a fat-positive attitude who I’m always glad to see in a role. Hollister enjoyed the part:

Especially being, obviously, a big girl and a character actress, these kinds of roles don’t come up often, especially in such a huge film.

To have it be fun and positive and not degrading was like a dream come true.

I was thrilled by the scene the first time I watched it. But, on rewatching, I began to wonder.

Much as I liked seeing Hollister, she’s not a dancer. (She moves through the choreography, but she doesn’t shine in it.) There are fat women dancers who have spent years working at dancing (I’ve seen fat dancing troupes a few times), who would have been physically much more impressive in the role. ((Of course, could those women have handled the acting parts as well as Hollister did? Almost certainly not.)) Combined with the reliance on special effects to provide the big lift at the end of the dance, the scene seems to me to be saying “look, fat people can dance,” but at the same time saying “only in a movie, which is why this is funny, this could never happen in real life.”

There are also a couple of fat gags in the scene — the big sight gag of Max lifting the fat woman over his head, and the two men rushing in from the side to push her up from the dip. I’m not sure what I think of this, either. The anti-fat humor that bothers me most, is anti-fat humor that says “fat people are disgusting” or “fat people are slobs” or “fat people are gluttons” — humor that seems to me to be based on unfair stereotypes.

(I also had very mixed feelings about the weight loss discussion the characters have as they dance, but I’ll leave unpacking that for another day.)

I’m more comfortable with fat gags which say “fat people are heavy” or “fat people are physically wider,” because these premises are true. We should be able to laugh at genuine differences — if the gags aren’t meanspirited. But their gratuitous inclusion here does seem a bit meanspirited, maybe. seems meanspirited.

In the end, I’m starving for positive images of fat people — and even more, for positive images of fat people’s bodies. I enjoy this scene, despite its flaws, because it is so physical. I love that they put Hollister in a sleeveless dress. And I loved that, in a current, crass comedy, there was a fat character gag that wasn’t based on degrading the character or finding her gross. But in a saner, fat-positive culture, I wouldn’t be starved for good fat representation, and this scene would taste repulsive.

(Added in 2022:) I’ve come to think of this sort of it’s-bad-representation-but-not-100%-bad-so-I-love-seeing-it representation as “shit sandwich representation.”

Posted in Fat, fat and more fat | 5 Comments