Posts Tagged that word does not mean what you think it means
Taslima Nasrin, what is that I don’t even.
Posted by alysonmiers in Bi-Yotch, Monstrous Little Heathen on April 10, 2012
I enjoyed Ms. Nasrin’s speech at the Reason Rally and was all excited to see her join FreeThoughtBlogs, and then barely out of the gate, she came out with this. (Teal Deer version: “All prostitution is sexual slavery. Because I say so.”)
Since the network is called FreeThoughtBlogs, there should have been no surprise when other members of the community expressed their disagreement with Taslima’s post.
So now, Taslima is all like, “Why are all you meanies attacking me by saying I’m wrong?!” No, seriously, that’s pretty much her angle:
I hope we all Free-thought bloggers believe in freedom of expression. My opinion on prostitution is nothing new. Most feminists believe prostitution or sexual slavery must end. I do not want to be misunderstood. But it looks like a war started against me on FTB because I said something politically incorrect. I feel suffocated because I am opposed by a group I proudly belong to, a group of atheists, secularists, humanists, rationalists.
If you’re now smashing your face into your keyboard in horrified disbelief, then congratulations: you might be a good fit in a skeptical community.
Iggy demands to know: "WTF is this shit?!"
There seems to be something about my comments that her blog doesn’t like, because I’ve posted twice so far and both have been snagged in “awaiting moderation” status. Since Taslima has allowed much more negative and aggressive comments to appear, I will assume it’s a technical glitch and not actually an attempt to keep my questions from appearing, but anyway, here is the comment I have attempted to leave on her post:
Yes, they do believe in freedom of expression, and that is why they are posting their disagreements with your assertions. It’s not a war against you; other bloggers respect you too much to ignore you when you write something they find objectionable. No one is trying to stop you from posting what you have to say. But when they disagree with your ideas, they will say so.
Belonging to a group doesn’t mean disagreements won’t happen. Freethinkers, pretty much by definition, expect to have arguments amongst themselves.
Shit, I hope this doesn’t turn into a case of genuinely Bitter Rifts. She just got there.
ETA: She’s thanked me for my comment. You’re welcome, Taslima. I hope you stick around, and I hope you enjoy some lively debates in the future.
If you don’t want to be called racist, then don’t say shit like this.
Posted by alysonmiers in Citizen Red on March 21, 2012
“I do find it amazing and entertaining that one of our stickers has become a racist thing,” Ms. Smith told Forbes.
She even tried arguing that the dictionary does not define the “N-Word” as racist. Wisely, Friedman posted the actual definition from dictionary.com, which says the word, “is now probably the most offensive word in English. Its degree of offensiveness has increased markedly in recent years, although it has been used in a derogatory manner since at least the Revolutionary War. Definitions 1a, 1b, and 2 represent meanings that are deeply disparaging and are used when the speaker deliberately wishes to cause great offense.”
Her protestations aside, Ms. Smith appears to have removed the bumper sticker from her site. Under the ”Anti-Obama” section of the site (advertised as her No. 3 bestseller), you’ll now only find a sticker reading, “I was Anti-Obama Before It Was Cool.”
In what may be a reference to the controversy her other bumper sticker has caused, the description below reads, “Show the world how you feel! (but be careful, you may hurt someone’s feelings).”
Ms. Smith then goes on to argue that President Obama is “not even black,” but rather, “a mixture of race.” When Friedman asks Smith if she thinks the N-Word is offensive or derogatory, she says no, but then claims that she herself does not even use the word.
“I have kids here around me that are black kids. I call them my own kids. I’ve helped black families…to guide them in the right direction,” Smith told Forbes. “We like to laugh and have a good time. That’s our way of life.”
[Emphasis mine]
Won’t someone please think of the children who don’t exist!
Posted by alysonmiers in Bi-Yotch on March 15, 2012
By gum, Pastor Aaron Fruh is mad as heck and he’s not going to take it anymore! He’s not bigoted at all, it’s the gays who are prejudiced and hateful by demanding their right to marry their partners. The word salad is so special that I think it warrants a crazy-looking graphic. The emphasis is mine, but this is a direct quote…
Cough it up, Laurens County GOP. I demand a PDF.
Posted by alysonmiers in Bi-Yotch, Citizen Red on March 7, 2012
The blogosphere is all a-buzz with some fresh nonsense from Republican politicians who wish to purge their ranks of embarrassing monkey business. They got the smackdown from the state GOP, but for a little while there, the GOP in Laurens County, SC was going to ask all Republican candidates to sign a pledge in which they would promise such things as:
–”A compassionate and moral approach to Teen Pregnancy”
–”A high regard for Unites States Sovereignty”
–Opposition to abortion under any circumstance
–Faithfulness to one’s spouse, who cannot be of the candidate’s gender
–Support of a balanced state and federal budget
–Candidates must have or currently abide by abstinence before marriage
–Candidates must not look at pornography
They also decided that candidates should be vetted by a committee to make sure they were properly adherent to the Code of Preoccupation with Private Parts. The committee never got a chance to assemble, as the state GOP told them it wasn’t happening, so the purity pledge isn’t going any further. It kind of leaves us to wonder how they were going to enforce a lot of it, either way. Things like balanced budgets and “support for U.S. sovereignty” (read: keep on blowing stuff up in Islamic countries) are policy matters, and the candidates’ adherence to those doctrines can be observed in the decisions they make while in office, but how do they know if any of their politicians are looking at porn?
In all seriousness, I actually kind of sympathize with the reasoning behind the pledge:
Smith got into a public fight with one of the county’s chief Republicans last summer, when Sheriff Ricky Chastain admitted to having a two-and-a-half year affair with a subordinate at the sheriff’s office. The woman sued him for sexual harassment, accusing the sheriff of driving her to get an abortion in a county-owned car. That lawsuit is still pending.
Smith called for Chastain to resign. He refused, and the issue appeared to have died down until the pledge was passed Feb. 28.
They’re trying to make sure this doesn’t happen again, and given their party’s platform, I think that makes sense. I don’t see how banning porn is going to help—if nothing else, every hour an official spends consuming porn is an hour that he’s not fucking his mistress and potentially getting her pregnant!—but I can see where they’re coming from in trying to weed out guys like Chastain.
Now that I’ve said that, I have a request to make of Lauren County:
Show us the full text of the pledge.
Yeah, you heard me. I read the fricking FAMiLY Leader Pledge, now I want to see your Orwellian word salad. I say Orwellian because I really want to hear you say, in so many words, what you think a “compassionate and moral approach to teen pregnancy” would look like. Please understand that my idea of “compassionate” tends not to match up very well with a social conservative’s idea of “moral.” Since we have to hear about this thing in the news, I would like to see it written out, and Google isn’t turning up anything that would answer my questions. Show us a PDF. We’re counting on you.
Bed-Crapping: Not just for individual authors!
Posted by alysonmiers in Bi-Yotch, Little Red Writing Hood on February 8, 2012
Just when I thought my week was nothing but getting a stitch in my side from the treadmill of catching up with the work I missed last week, here comes Romance Writers Ink with their More Than Magic contest, in which they fabulously and hilariously show themselves as a pack of oblivious bigots. Romance Writers Ink is the Tulsa, OK chapter of Romance Writers of America, which is kind of a big deal in the publishing industry. According to the Guardian, RWI amended the rules of their More Than Magic contest this year to say:
– Note: MTM will no longer accept same-sex entries in any category.
Now, those who don’t read romance novels, don’t hang out with a lot of people who read romance novels, and don’t keep up with publishing industry discussion may now be thinking, “Yeah, that’s unfortunate, but if it’s what their readers want…” No. This is not about responding to reader preferences. There is a major market for same-sex romance fiction. There are lots of people who are totally happy to pay money for novels about two men or two women falling in love and pleasuring each other. If RWI is trying to set their contest rules in a way that pleases everyone, this is a very strange way to go about it.
Why did they make this change? Kari Gregg got in touch with RWI, and this is what happened:
So…I emailed the contest organizer to ask why this change was enacted. The contest organizer replied that RWI chapter members were “uncomfortable” with accepting same-sex contest entries. “Same-sex was just too much.”
Yeah, you read that right.
Romance is defined by RWA as a love relationship between two individuals, but RWI has unilaterally redefined romance as existing between one man and one woman for MTM.
And at RWA headquarters, no one seems to be willing to do anything about that. Chapters, apparently, are allowed to run their contest as they see fit, limiting contest entries by category and genre as appropriate. The only problem with this response is that LGBT is not considered a category or genre by RWA. If you look at the categories and genres for which RWA’s national awards are separated into for Golden Heart and Rita contests (2011 winners list), you will not find a LGBT category. Because there isn’t one. LGBT stories are entered into GH/Rita in the Paranormal category. Or Historical. Or Romantic Suspense. Whatever category fits the story without regard to the gender or sexual orientation of the protagonists.
Again: all it takes is a little browsing around the Romance section of Amazon or Barnes & Noble to see how odd that “just too much” part is. This is not a genre that’s known for tiptoeing around easily offended sensibilities. Courtney Milan gives it to RWI with both barrels:
Apparently, it’s possible for the MTM contest to get entrants’ books in the hands of diverse judges from multiple RWA chapters who are comfortable with all types of romances and heat levels. You can write M/F erotica. You can write M/M/F. You can write about aliens from another planet who have tentacles, or barbed sexual organs. You can write degrading rapes. None of those things are barred from entry in the More than Magic contest, and if you write them, they’ll try to find judges who are predisposed to like your books.
But they won’t do that if you write same sex romance–even if it’s a sweet romance with no sexual contact whatsoever. No–when it comes to same sex romance, the fact that they might be able to identify judges in their chapter or outside of it who would be willing to read same sex entries and judge them fairly somehow becomes irrelevant. In that instance, the majority gets to say that those entries don’t belong.
Yes; barbed sexual organs. She did not just make that up. Meanwhile, RWI is uncomfortable with stories about two dudes or two gals getting together. Milan is also unsatisfied with RWA.
Others have taken a variety of tactics. They’ve written to RWA (who apparently sanctioned this nonsense). They’ve written to the contest directly. I suspect that writing to RWA and the contest will result in much handwringing–there’s nothing in the P&PM or the Bylaws that prevent this, not without stretching overly much. There’s nothing in the P&PM that prevents a chapter from barring interracial romance, either. What should prevent such things from happening–is good sense and common human decency.
While we can put pressure on RWA to create and maintain more egalitarian guidelines, RWA as an organization moves at a snail’s pace.
Here’s the thing: some people like to buy and read same-sex romance. Some people like to buy and read het romance but are totally uninterested in same-sex fiction. Might there be some romance readers who are so homophobic that they’ll ignore the contest’s output if same-sex entries are included? Possibly, but if so, they’ve been ignoring the contest for years already; this is a new development. However, there are a lot more readers who either do like same-sex fiction, or maybe are indifferent to the fiction itself but don’t take kindly to needless exclusion, and who are getting seriously pissed off about this, and RWI should have seen that coming. I find it really funny that they apparently didn’t.
It doesn’t end there, though.
In response to the outrage, RWI went ahead and cancelled the contest rather than change the rules back to their previous, non-homophobic stance.
The Tulsa organisation has now cancelled the competition, saying in a statement on its website that “we have heard and understood the issues raised, and will take those concerns into consideration should the chapter elect to hold contests in the future”.
“Please note: our contest coordinator, Jackie, is a chapter member who graciously volunteered to collect entries and sort by category. It is unfortunate that she has become the object of personal ridicule and abuse,” added RWI. “We recognise the decision to disallow same-sex entries is highly charged. We also opted not to accept YA entries. We do not condone discrimination against individuals of any sort.”
“We do not condone discrimination against individuals of any sort” roughly translates as “I CAN’T STOP MY HANDS FROM HITTING THIS KEYBOARD.”
And then they expect us to believe that they’re not bigoted against gays and lesbians, no, not at all, because they also disallow YA entries.
Hmm.
No.
There are different arguments to be made for refusing Young Adult fiction in a romance contest. One is quantity control: YA is very popular lately and everyone and their sister is joining in the fun, so keeping the contest limited to adult levels is a way to keep the number of entries at a manageable level. Another is that, since Young Adult really means high school kids, and the novels have to be written accordingly, it may be very tricky to judge romance novels intended for that audience. Excluding YA from the contest may be problematic, but it’s a very different type of exclusion than barring same-sex entries. Wrong answer, RWI.
The butthurt about People Being Mean on the Internet is just the icing on the cake. If Jackie didn’t have any say in setting the contest rules, then it is indeed unfortunate if she bore the brunt of the anger directed at RWI. That being the case, she should blame RWI for making the rules that got them on the shit list. If she was aware of how they had changed their rules before she agreed to coordinate the contest, then she probably should have thought about that before she painted the target sign on her back. The news that her feelings have been hurt, even if she’s not in a position of authority in this contest, isn’t going to quell anyone’s anger over this.
I would like to see some Christians defending Jessica Ahlquist.
Posted by alysonmiers in Monstrous Little Heathen on January 20, 2012
We have an overall summary of the case brought to our attention by 16-year-old Jessica Ahlquist via Friendly Atheist. With me so far? Church/state separation issue, prayer banner displayed in public school, clearly unconstitutional, no surprise that the judge ruled against the school? Right? Right, so, THAT happened, and now that the case has been decided, a lot of people in Cranston, RI are not happy with Jessica. In fact, they are extremely upset with her, and they’re making sure she knows it.
Greta Christina gives her analysis of the backlash at Alternet. She draws from these two basic observations: 1) this was a clear, simple question of church/state separation from the beginning, and no one should be surprised that the judge ruled against the school, and 2) and yet people are totally enraged at Jessica for her role in this case.
Some edited highlights are below the jump. This shit ain’t pretty, folks.
We now return to our regularly scheduled snark.
Posted by alysonmiers in Citizen Red, Etiquette on January 3, 2012
I’m all finished talking about Iggy (or at least I’ve posted all the pictures I ever took of him), and there’s another 5 days until the next Sunday afternoon. Unless you want to see me use this blog as therapy and talk about how I was harassed almost daily by some of the neighborhood kids for more than half of my Peace Corps assignment (and you probably don’t want to hear about that), I’ll just have to go back to making fun of ignorant bigots.
For example, there’s this little nugget on Microaggressions, aka The Daily WTF:
“I hear these Spanish and Oriental kids speaking and I think they must speak English because they go to school and have to communicate with their teachers.”
Oh, for Pete’s sake.
First, there’s the matter of vocabulary. Do we still need to say this, in 2012? RUGS are Oriental, people are ASIAN. And when the perpetrator labels kids s/he obviously doesn’t know as “Spanish,” you should assume that most or all of the youngsters in question are not actually from Spain.
More importantly, this is the kind of complaint one only hears from monolingual Anglophones who’ve never visited another country. The issue is not that the Asian and Latin@ kids in question can’t speak English and therefore are not integrating into American society. The issue is that they can sometimes be heard speaking languages other than English.
It must be so, so difficult, to have to live in a country that allows people from non-Anglophone countries to immigrate and doesn’t force them to give up their native tongues altogether. It must be so uncomfortable to hear young people saying things you don’t understand, and demonstrating abilities that you don’t have. (I mean, they speak more than one language. Scary.) It must be so confusing to be reminded that other countries with other languages exist, and that people do not always stay where they were born.
How dare they.
The religion of Macy’s is “Thou Shalt Not Suck at Turning a Profit.”
Posted by alysonmiers in Monstrous Little Heathen on December 8, 2011
Is this the new front in the War on Christmas? Are we now taking the battle to vicious, soulless corporations who heartlessly force their employees to do their jobs?
A week ago, a Macy’s employee spotted a transgender woman going into the women’s dressing room, and decided to stop her and inform her that she wasn’t really a woman. The company promptly fired her, but now the employee has enlisted the help of a hatemongering conservative organization and is claiming that Macy’s discriminated against her religious beliefs by denying her the right to harass whichever customer she chooses.
…
Johnson says she told a manager, “I’ve made my choice the other day … I refuse to comply with this policy.” Since she was incapable of complying with company rules, Macy’s fired her. Johnson went to the Liberty Counsel, a conservative organization that’s called GLBT rights “a radical agenda,” then filed a complaint with the federal employment commission. When asked for a response, Macy’s said it doesn’t “comment on personnel matters,” adding, “At Macy’s, we recognize and appreciate the diversity of our customers and associates.”
Johnson says that by mandating that all employees appreciate the diversity of Macy’s customers, the store is forcing her to violate her Christian beliefs.
Right. Here we have the overinflated sense of entitlement multiplied by the persecution complex which American Christians have raised to an art form.
That said, I also think that, Liberty Counsel notwithstanding, most American Christians, including the ones who agree with Natalie Johnson’s rather reductive view of gender, would agree that if you cannot perform your work duties as your employer requires, you can work somewhere else.
You are entitled to your beliefs. You are entitled to practice your religion, but only within bounds that do not encroach on someone else’s beliefs. You are not entitled to have your employer bend its policies around your beliefs. You are not entitled to force customers to live according to the rules of your religion.
Your customers do not have to follow your religion. Your employer does not have to follow your religion. The imperative of a major retailer such as Macy’s is to turn a profit by selling goods, and they accomplish that goal by providing good customer service. If you do not provide good customer service, they will not employ you. No one is entitled to draw a paycheck for a job they refuse to do. I could go to my supervisors today and tell them that duplication of efforts is a violation of my religious beliefs, and rather than re-arrange our department’s workflow so that I never have to deal with duplicate invoices, they’d fire me and hire someone who isn’t too devout to get the job done.
If allowing a transgirl into the woman’s dressing room is a violation of your Christian beliefs, then you can go find a job that doesn’t involve dressing rooms. Meanwhile, Macy’s will employ someone who serves all customers so that they will purchase goods. Problem solved on both sides.
We’re not racist, we just won’t stand for any mixing of the tribes!
Posted by alysonmiers in Monstrous Little Heathen on December 1, 2011
Via Rawstory and HuffPo, we get news of Gulnare Free Will Baptist Church in Pike County, KY, where all seemed perfectly fine and ducky until lifelong (and white) church member Stella Harville brought her Zimbabwean fiance, Ticha Chikuni, to sing a song with her at a church service.
What is the result, you may ask? Why, church members voted 9-6 to pass a resolution that their church does not condone interracial marriage!
Sayeth former pastor Melvin Thompson, author of the ridiculous resolution:
“I am not racist. I will tell you that. I am not prejudiced against any race of people, have never in my lifetime spoke evil” about a race, said Thompson, the church’s former pastor who stepped down earlier this year. “That’s what this is being portrayed as, but it is not.”
Melvin Thompson seems to think that if he runs around with the goalposts in hand, we won’t notice they’re missing. He is mistaken.
“Parties of such marriages will not be received as members, nor will they be used in worship services and other church functions, with the exception being funerals. All are welcome to our public worship services. This recommendation is not intended to judge the salvation of anyone, but is intended to promote greater unity among the church body and the community we serve.”
What is that I don’t even.
“Intended to promote greater unity among the church body and the community we serve”?
Perhaps I’m missing something because it’s almost midnight and I haven’t had any coffee since mid-afternoon, but, is there any message here aside from “don’t make us uncomfortable”?
The church congregation is all-white, and I suppose this resolution is their way of letting it be known that they intend to keep it that way? To paraphrase Irshad Manji, they’re not concerned with unity so much as uniformity.
If the church body’s “unity” depends on keeping interracial couples out, then I guess their identity demands that they keep a safe distance away from those people. (But they’re not racist, no, of course not.) If they keep seeing well-adjusted, loving couples like Stella and Ticha, they might end up thinking that the separation between white people and black people (as well as Asians, and Latinos, and Natives, and Middle Eastern folk, and, and, and…) is an accident of history rather than a hard line carved in stone. They wouldn’t like that; they like their hard lines and don’t like to revise their categories and hierarchies.
I suppose that, with their belief in Biblical inerrancy, the Free Will Baptists don’t accept evolution by natural selection. It would probably not put me on their good side if I told Mr. Thompson and his fellow non-racists that all of humanity started out in sub-Saharan Africa. Guess what, Thompson? We are all Africans!
