- Tiger Beatdown › The Percentages: A Biography of Class A lengthy post about class with a big dose of autobiography. One of the best posts I’ve read all year long.
- Time for a Tobin tax
- The Moral Authority of Occupy Wall Street
- Rick Perry’s Stirring Progressive Defense Of Higher Education For Undocumented Children. Rick Perry was right about higher education for the children of undocumented immigrants.
- IMF: Income inequality is bad for economic growth. Cutting the deficit, on the other hand, barely helps at all.
- In defense of the passive voice
- Suffer the little children: Alabama’s new anti-immigrant law is a disgusting attack on human beings, including children.
- Full of Whoa! responds to all the arguments saying that sexist depictions of female superheroes don’t matter. This is where the awesome illustration at the top of this post comes from.
- The Efficient, Egalitarian, Libertarian, Utilitarian Way to Double World GDP, Bryan Caplan Basically, open the borders to all workers.
- “illegal immigrant” versus “undocumented immigrant”: The Impossibility Of Neutral Language
- “Huachuca City, Arizona has approved an ordinance banning registered sex offenders from all public facilities, including schools, parks, libraries, pools, gymnasiums and sports facilities.” The blogger is one I often disagree with, but in this case he’s pissed off and I fully agree.
- Congratulations, Television! You Are Even Worse At Masculinity Than Femininity
- An Illustrated Guide to the Science of Global Warming Impacts: How We Know Inaction Is the Gravest Threat Humanity Faces | ThinkProgress
- The Volokh Conspiracy » The Decline of Conscription. Good news for freedom in general, and especially good news for those concerned about men’s rights.
- The problem with D.C. isn’t that politicians can be bribed; it’s that they function within a gift economy.
- Rep. Buck McKeon: No Defense Bill Unless It Bans Same-Sex Marriages By Military Chaplains. Now there’s a man with priorities.
- Why female breastplates shouldn’t have molded boobs. “This becomes a serious problem when the armor has to deal with a powerful upwards thrust; the presence of the channel would tend to direct the thrust towards the middle of the chest and up beneath whatever throat protection the wearer had at the time…”
- Steven Pinker talks about the historic, international reduction in violence rates.
Edited to add: John Gray pushes back against Pinker’s argument. - This basically translates into: “Precious Jewish Daughter, please move to the side when a man approaches.”
- The Yale Law Journal Online – Before (and After) Roe v. Wade: New Questions About Backlash
- “Sunrise, Sunset” creator writes new lyrics for same-sex weddings
- Brutal Tips On Breaking Into Comics
- Community Health Centers Funding Cut. Aaargh.
- With Deaths of Forests, a Loss of Crucial Climate Protectors – NYTimes.com
- Anarchy, State and the Squidger* § Unqualified Offerings A former libertarian who realized that he might really need Social Security someday.
- 10 Things to Know About Wall Street’s Rapacious Attack on America
- ESPN The Magazine: Bodies We Want 2011 Photo Gallery I wish they had gone for a more diverse group of athletic bodies, and some of the female athletes are posed to look like bland, generic t&a rather than emphasizing their athleticism. Still, there’s some cool photos here of both women and men. They’re pretty much all nekkid, so it might not be sfw.
- Octopi Wall Street!: A gallery of historic political cartoons using the image of an evil giant octopus. Very neat!
Oh! #20! awesome.
Here’s a podcast interview with the authors of that paper, they discuss the book they wrote on the same topic:
http://cs.law.yale.edu/blogs/podcasts/archive/2011/02/02/before-roe-v-wade-voices-that-shaped-the-abortion-debate-before-the-supreme-court-s-ruling.aspx
@3 – I found much to agree with in this. I especially liked:
The Obama administration is no exception. The Solyndra scandal is one example – the Federal government, supposedly to help generate “green” jobs, pumped half a billion $ or more into this company in loans. President Obama even appeared at the company’s HQ publicizing this. Then the company went bust. Who got the money? Why, it turns out that they were major contributors to President Obama and the Democrats. And they’re not the only ones that have profited from “green initiatives” and other such things. Where’s the protest?
I give this example not to tear down the Obama administration specifically. I’m sure that you could find examples of this in the Bush administration or the Clinton administration or back as far as you want to go. The only difference is that for some it would be green initiatives and others it would be defense contracts. No, what gets me is that people just keep voting for these politicians. We have information resources about candidates and politicians that even 10 years ago would be unheard of, yet people just keep listening to the same empty promises and voting for the same crowd. Here in Illinois it’s not even worth talking about “Democrats” or “Republicans”. It’s all the Combine, and they’ll cross party lines to support each other rather than let the game get broken up.
@7
This, OTOH, is a mess. For example, the article states:
But in fact it does no such thing. Here is the actual text of the law. It forbids racial profiling. Cops are only allowed to inquire regarding someone’s immigration status if they’ve pulled them over for a violation of some other statute, not just on the suspicion that they’re here illegally. And should someone get pulled over for a violation, a valid Alabama license (which they should have anyway if they’re driving) stops that process right there.
Of course, there’s the inherent bias of using “anti-immigrant” as an all-encompassing term when the law does not penalize immigrant citizens or alien immigrants who are here legally (i.e., resident aliens). Immigrant != illegal alien, it equals everyone who was not born here regardless of their immigration status.
I’ve noticed this with articles about the Arizona law as well. Opponents make claims about what’s in the law that are simply not at all true, and then expect to be credible when they talk about it or anything else.
There was a palindromic time this afternoon at 2011-10-11 1:02 (am or pm, it didn’t happen if you use the 24 hour clock).
Aw, I’m sorry I missed that. Palindronic times are so cool.
Enough politics. Cease your navigation, take another station, and let’s talk about important stuff — Teen dating etiquette. This is a perennial topic in my household now. To what extent do we extend the norms of marriage to teen dating? How important is exclusivity (“monogamy”), for example? What rituals do you observe for pairing up, and breaking up? What roles should mutual friends play? Etc.
Here’s the latest: My daughter (Dee) is distraught and – wonder of wonders – she tells me about it(!) She’s working on a school project with the boyfriend (Bruce) of her best friend (Gayle). (Uh oh, I know where this is headed….) Their relationship reached a state of sufficient intimacy that Bruce finally felt free to tell Dee what he’s been wanting to say to her for all this time. (Here we go….) He’s gay. (Yup, just like I … say what?)
So now Dee feels conflicted. Should she say something to Gayle?
Is Bruce’s sexual orientation relevant to teen dating? Admittedly, the answer to that question may require refining the concept of “dating” to a degree that – well, suffice it to say, that line of questioning went dry.
What exactly is the problem that Dee feels the need to fix? If Gayle is happy with Bruce as things are, is Gayle being in any sense “defrauded”? Does the fact that Dee feels the inclination to share this news with Gayle mean that Dee is capitulating to heteronormative expectations? Or did Bruce, by agreeing to “go steady” with Gayle, actively imply a false heterosexual attraction – that is, did Bruce engage in a kind of fraud that Dee should warn Gayle about? (Apparently Gayle has a sincere sexual attraction to Bruce.)
Or does the need to transcend heteronormality only apply to public settings — not to intimate relationships, when a partner’s sexual orientation is a perfectly relevant thing to consider? But if that’s the case, how “intimate” is a teen dating experience? Here’s another line of questioning that reached an abrupt dead end.
How will Gayle feel when she learns that Bruce is gay (which seems pretty likely)? How will she feel when she learns that everyone else knows that Bruce is gay (which seems somewhat likely)? How will she feel when she learns that Dee knew that Bruce is gay (which seems not unlikely)? Given these dynamics, what should Dee do about it?
And what about the feelings of Bruce, who entrusted Dee with this secret?
If the parties involved were adults, would I feel differently? If they were pondering marriage, would I feel differently? I suspect I would. So, does the fact that the parties are highschoolers really change things? Am I patronizing my daughter and her friends?
Well, I’m not patronizing them too much, because I didn’t say much. I relied on my tried and true method of avoiding face-to-face relationship discussions at almost any cost. But that may also explain why Dee has best friends – and I have, well, you guys. Ignorance, studied obliviousness and terror are not strong foundations from which to advise, let alone patronize.
At the risk of turning Alas into Ann Landers — any thoughts?
I think your daughter should call Dan Savage and leave a message for his podcast. This seems to be on his beat.
I don’t think Bruce has acted well here — although I’m sure it’s a very confusing and difficult time for him, which makes acting badly excusable. But nonetheless, Bruce was surely aware that Dee and Grace are best friends, and by choosing to come out to Dee before Grace, he’s put Dee in an impossible situation.
It also seems to me to make a difference if everyone in the school knows (other than Grace), or if Dee is really the only person who Bruce has told. If the former, then Bruce has really treated Grace in a humiliating fashion, and Dee would certainly be right to tell Grace. If the latter, though, then I can see Grace deciding — rightly — that it’s up to Bruce to decide when to come out, and Bruce and Grace’s relationship is up to Bruce and Grace, not up to Dee.
I like the idea of kicking this over to Dan Savage, but my gut reaction is that Dee should strongly encourage Bruce to tell Gayle. I don’t know what the kids today are up to, but when I was in high school, certainly the common understanding was that dating involved sexual attraction and some sort of physical intimacy, the degree of which varied between couples. Otherwise, you’re just friends. There also was a fairly strong presumption of monogamy, unless it was a hookup at camp or something. And even then, the presumption was that you were only hooking up with that one person for the week, not hopping from bunk to bunk. And what happens at camp stays at camp! Ahem.
I don’t really see it as an issue of heteronormativity, just one of not deceiving your partner. If Gayle is attracted to Bruce and he consistently rebuffs her advances, she deserves to know that it’s not anything wrong with her. And she deserves to make her own decision about whether she wants to date someone who is primarily attracted to people who are of the sex that she is not.
Bruce may like the emotional aspects of his relationship with Gayle (he may not have boyfriends yet who he is close to.) He may like the safety that Gayle provides, if he’s still in the closet. For all we know, he may think (accurately or not) that Gayle wouldn’t mind, since he presumably is less likely to be super pushy about sex.
Gayle’s interests may conflict. Or they may not–who knows? But high school relationships are generally built on at least some sexual interest, so absent other information it’s pretty unlikely that Gayle would choose to date someone who was gay.
How to resolve this? Well, Bruce and Gayle have conflicting interests. And one of them (if not both) may get hurt. But I still think that the matter should be resolved in favor of honesty.
Dee should take a position like “You knew i was friends with gayle when you told me this, and you knew full well that I can’t keep this from her. I’ll tell Gayle myself, but not until Monday. Tell her yourself over the weekend. She should hear it from you.”
You should also consider the possibility that Bruce WANTS Dee to tell Gayle, so he doesn’t have to do it. I’ve never done it, but it seems that coming out as gay to one’s opposite-sex dating partner would be pretty darn difficult to handle right.
First priority: why is Bruce not out? He’s a minor and presumably living with his parents. His situation could be unsafe or precarious. If it is, you know, the concerns about his dating life could be legitimately put off as less important for now.
Second priority, a.k.a. ideal situation: Get Bruce to tell Gayle. Gently. And understand she’s probably going to be the fuck pissed and not want to hang out with him for a while.
Third priority… well, is going to depend on what the people are like, I guess. How long has the relationship been? How is Gayle looking at it? What are her LGBT politics? How resilient is she?
If your daughter is going to handle this aboveboard–which I strongly recommend–she’s also going to have to be prepared to have someone pissed off at her, which is never fun. I suggest she be honest with Bruce about what she’s going to do rather than telling Gayle in secret and having her break up with him but not say how she found out… these things usually get out, and there will just be more drama later. But it’s hard–especially when you’re a teen–to avoid the drama by being honest in the moment, if honesty opens you up to some pain. (In my experience, generally less pain than what happens after the drama bursts.)
I guess at this point, I might suggest that if your daughter can’t get Bruce to tell Gayle directly, that it would behoove her to set aside time to sit down with Bruce to let him know she’s uncomfortable. I would advise her to write out a plan in advance of what points she wants to cover so she can consider language that is calm and compassionate. For instance, she might write down something like:
Bruce, I’m worried about both you and Gayle. I don’t want either of you to get hurt. You both mean a lot to me. I wish you would tell her because she’s falling for you. She’s got feelings that need to be treated with respect, too, you know? If you can’t tell her, I think I have to, but I wanted to talk to you about that in advance. I feel like it’s only fair for you to know what I’m going to do.
With some potential follow-up questions, like, why don’t you want to tell her? What if you broke up with her, but didn’t say why? (Although if Bruce does, then your daughter has to be prepared in case Gayle later finds out what the reason was and that your daughter knew, which could make her feel betrayed. Though your daughter could–legitimately, I think–respond to that, “I’m so sorry I couldn’t tell you. I care about you both and I didn’t want either of you to get hurt. It seemed like the best way to protect you, but also respect his needs and let him be in control of how he comes out.”) Etc.
And then that can, hopefully, start a dialogue.
Or depending on the personalities involved, maybe start Bruce yelling and stomping off. But a situation like this is probably not going to be resolved smoothly no matter what happens, and it’s probably better to deal with the pain now, rather than wait for it to fester with secrets.
To clarify, in the event that Bruce feels he’s in some kind of danger at home, physical or otherwise, I think it’s legitimate for your daughter to let that take precendence over the dating issues, and trust that Gayle will understand when she needs to (or if she doesn’t understand when she needs to, that that’s regrettable, but it doesn’t change the need for safety to be the first priority.)
Amp:
Is the hereville sequel out yet? I feel like you mentioned it, but I can’t find it on my library page.
G&W: It’s still being composed.
I’m guessing that Bruce, knowing full well the relationship between the two girls, told Dee hoping that she’ll can’t keep the secret and tell Gayle and spare him having to actually look Gayle in the eye and tell her himself. As others have stated, Dee needs to tell Bruce to gird up his loins and tell Gayle himself. She can’t add “… or I will!” because that may be exactly what he wants.
With regard to threats, etc. – I’m wondering if Bruce is using Gayle as his beard to project an image of heterosexuality in order to head off either real or imagined threats. Or just ostracism.
Question;
What’s wrong with doing what Bruce wants, so long as the result is OK and so long as Dee is fine with it? Seems ideal to me, if it works for them. “Get a friend to tell someone” or “find out if your friend thinks ___” is SOP for high school.
I agree that if Bruce would be in physical danger if he were outed, that would take priority. But in such a case, Bruce would be acting like an asshole, since telling Dee has put her in an untenable position. (Of all the people to come out to with a “don’t tell anyone I’m gay or I’ll be beaten” statement, the best friend of your girlfriend is a horrible choice.) In that situation Dee should keep her silence, but would be perfectly entitled to dump Bruce as a friend.
Also: How well does Dee know Bruce? If they’re NOT really good friends, he’s probably told other people. It’s worth digging a bit on this, for various reasons: Dee may be more comfortable knowing that she’s not the only secret keeper, so that she won’t be blamed if someone else tells. And if other people know that Bruce is gay, it makes even less sense to keep it from Gayle.
Sometimes scared kids don’t make the best choices, especially about secrets.
It’s all well and good to care about Bruce. He seems like he’s in a shitty spot. But he at least had some agency here, and made a decision (bad or otherwise.) Dee, OTOH, is also in a shitty spot. Unlike Bruce, though, Dee is there because Bruce dumped the mess in her lap.
I think it’s inappropriate to place much of a burden on Dee as a result. From a feminist perspective, it’s also worth noting that this sort of emotional-dump-in-lap stuff tends to happen more to girls. Why on earth should Bruce be able to make HIS problems into DEE’S problems, just by coming out to Dee? Why should he be able to demand her silence? To demand that she risk her friendship? She’s not his priest.
I’m imagining my daughter as Dee. Which is why my understanding extends to asking Dee to keep the secret only if there’s a serious safety concern. That would require Dee to suck it up, even if it shouldn’t be her job and even if she risks seriously damaging another friendship that she cares about.
But that would require a serious safety concern (what does Bruce say?,) not just a generalized assumption that Bruce will get insulted in the locker room. If Brice wants people to respect his privacy for non-major reasons, then the disclosure needs to be joint instead of unilateral. He’s not entitled to control Dee’s speech. And if she keeps the secret I don’t think it would be reasonable at all to also/i> burden Dee with a requirement to forgive, empathize with, or “understand” Bruce, or to refrain from being annoyed at him just because he is scared, or gay.
Of course, this is all pretty general. there are plenty of special circumstances which would change my opinion either way.
I think that “… or I will!” is confrontational in a way that is probably not productive (it is not a good starting point). I think Dee should tell Bruce that Gayle needs to know this (unless Bruce feels his safety is at risk), but should ask if Bruce wants her to tell Gayle (if she is willing to do that). Raise the action that Bruce may have been hoping for as an explicit option (if Dee is okay with it) rather than refusing it or making it into a threat.
Phrasing it as “or I will” sounds threatening and could be off-putting, but as with many off-putting things, there are more gentle ways to say it. “Bruce, does Gayle know? I really feel like Gayle needs to know and it’s unfair to keep her in the dark. Do you want to tell her or would you prefer it if I did? Or perhaps we could talk to her together.”
That casts telling Gayle as an inevitability but leaves some control over how that takes place in Bruce’s hands.
All of this is assuming that Dee is willing to take that on. In terms of an emotional “dump-in-the-lap,” it’s not like it’s no big deal to tell your best friend her boyfriend is gay.
Dee has no obligation to Bruce, unless he confided in her only after getting her word to keep it a secret. He chose to burden his girlfriend’s best friend, he’s the one who should deal with the consequences.
Because of him, Dee has a problem. The first thing to do is to dump it back in his lap. “I feel that Gayle deserves better than unknowingly dating someone who is not attracted to her, but you deserve to choose how this situation will remedied.” Now Bruce can come out to Gayle, end the relationship, or whatever he feels necessary.
If he resolves the issue (using Gayle without her consent) and Dee does not think that Gayle will benefit from knowing, Gayle does not need to be told anything. If Gayle ever learns and confronts Dee about it, Dee can truthfully state that she thought that this was in Gayle’s best interests.
Dee should not make any promises to Bruce, because if she thinks that her friend is being hurt by being kept in the dark, she wants to be free to act. She should also try to protect Bruce as much as possible, but not at the expense of Gayle.
overheard from my 4 year old: “Barbie clothes don’t fit on this doll, they’re too big. I need skinny-doll clothes for her.” Yes people, in my 4 year olds head Barbie is a plus size doll.
Good Morning,
I’m Jenna, and I like your blog. I also work for a non-profit organization in Oregon that provides training and technical assistance to prevention folks and responders to sexual assault. We are hosting a conference next month that we are very excited about. We have a special line-up this year – famous feminist Jessica Valenti will be speaking on Thursday night. Her co-editor on Yes Means Yes, Jaclyn Freedman, will introduce her new book. Rachel Griffin is going to speak about black feminist reflections on gender violence and other speakers and workshop presenters will cover topics like engaging men, using pop culture, campus prevention, and so many more relevant, and rarely covered topics.
I’m hoping that since you stand for so many of the things that we will be discussing at the conference, you would be willing to let your readers know about it. You can read more about the conference here:
http://oregonsatf.org/program/sexual-assault-training-institute/prevention-training/roots-of-change-biennial-conference/
Our registration is on eventbrite here:
http://rootsofchangeconference.eventbrite.com/
Thank you so much,
Jenna Harper
What’s the point of the first image?
You can make one for someone defending comics.
Hell spend enough time on any issue you hear the same arguments over and over. Even from your side.
Well Ok sometimes you get a nonsensical argument you’ve never seen before but other than that…
Thanks to all for sharing your thoughts about Galye, Bruce & Dee — and for Amp for enduring this digression. A follow-up:
1. I’m struck by how many people identified Bruce as having brought this problem to a head needlessly. You’ve persuaded me; my sympathy for the guy had kept me from recognizing this.
2. I’m impressed with the suggestions here. To summarize: Determine how vulnerable Bruce’s situation is. If not unduly problematic, sensitively impress upon him the untenable situation Dee is in, and advise him that Dee will need to tell Gayle about the situation if Bruce does not take action on his own. I hope you guys are all parents; I’d hate to see all this talent go to waste.
3. Specifically, why would we expect Gayle to feel humiliated if the school learned that she was dating a gay man? I sense that she’d lose some kind of status – but what kind? Does “going steady” give you status because people envy the fact that you have a sex partner — even if there’s no presumption of sex? Or do you achieve status only if you’re presumed to be having sex? Or do you achieve the status because you MIGHT be having sex, and you’re one of only a few people who knows? Would the humiliation come from being intimately associated with a gay person, who is presumed to have lower status in society? Or would the humiliation arise simply from being an object of public discussion involving sex?
Here’s the irony: There’s no evidence that Gayle is not attracted to, or content with, Bruce. By coming out of the closet, Bruce would reveal the HE was unable to fulfill his sexual needs – but it would not suggest that Gayle had not fulfilled her needs. Indeed, it would suggest that Gayle’s appeal is so great that she can even lure gay men into intimate relationships, and get them to satisfy her.
4. So, what did I do about all of this? I said things to Dee such as, “So …” and Dee would say, “Not now, dad” and go do homework. That’s a pretty typical discussion for us, really.
5. But I suspect it’s mostly moot now. I overheard Gayle saying that she and Bruce have broken up. A friend then joked about adding Bruce to the list of people they hate. Gayle responded by saying, “I don’t hate Bruce. I just wish … he’d made other choices.”
Hope you like ambiguous endings, ‘cuz I don’t expect I’ll be learning anything more any time soon. Don’t know if Dee had any role in the break-up or not. So there you have it, such as it is.
3. Specifically, why would we expect Gayle to feel humiliated if the school learned that she was dating a gay man? I sense that she’d lose some kind of status – but what kind? Does “going steady” give you status because people envy the fact that you have a sex partner — even if there’s no presumption of sex? Or do you achieve status only if you’re presumed to be having sex? Or do you achieve the status because you MIGHT be having sex, and you’re one of only a few people who knows? Would the humiliation come from being intimately associated with a gay person, who is presumed to have lower status in society? Or would the humiliation arise simply from being an object of public discussion involving sex?
Can I go with none of the above?
In fact, none of the above even crossed my mind.
If everyone knew but Gayle, it’s potentially humiliating for Gayle because people might think she was a dupe for thinking Bruce liked her, when everyone knows he likes boys.
Even if no one else knows, it’s potentially humiliating for Gayle because women are socialized to think that if they come on to a man and he rejects them, there must be something wrong with them (not sexually attractive enough or gross in some way) or if they were sexual, she might think that he had been thinking of England instead of actually feeling passionate toward her.
(That last one is what I, personally, would find humiliating about learning that a partner was gay. Thinking back on all the sex and thinking that the other person was just tolerating it would be humiliating for me.)
Here’s the irony: There’s no evidence that Gayle is not attracted to, or content with, Bruce. By coming out of the closet, Bruce would reveal the HE was unable to fulfill his sexual needs – but it would not suggest that Gayle had not fulfilled her needs. Indeed, it would suggest that Gayle’s appeal is so great that she can even lure gay men into intimate relationships, and get them to satisfy her.
It would suggest that she couldn’t meet his needs.
Now, obviously, if he’s gay, she wasn’t the “problem” (if there was a problem), but I don’t think that if a lot of people knew about the situation, that Gayle would come out ahead in their estimation. Or maybe I underestimate the maturity and open-mindedness of high school kids today.
Regardless, from what you’ve gleaned, it sounds like Gayle has a good head on her shoulders and a good attitude toward the situation.
Re: 8:
As a regular reader of Dresden Codak, I’m pretty sure this is satire. The comments seem to be in the spirit of such, certainly. It’s sure on point!