8 posts tagged “liberal rantings”
CBS Nightly News
Katie Couric: OK, fuckers, apparently the world's discovered sexism all of a sudden. News to me, as I didn't think you assholes cared about what was said about me after I left that douchebag Matt Lauer the Today show and came over here. Whatever. Anyway, guess what the fuck's up? Apparently, I'm going to get the chance to talk to Sarah Palin now. Needless to say, it was the most awkward thing I've ever been a part of, and I had a camera up my butt on a morning talk show. Roll the fucking tape
*scene cuts to a beach for some reason, where Sarah and Katie are pedeconferencing*
Katie: So the economy collapsed last week.
Sarah Palin: Um, that it did.
Katie: Hey, what about the campaign staffer on Senator McCain's campaign who got a payout from Freddie Mac even while that ship was sinking?
Sarah: As far... as I know he... um.. recused himself from that? And, um, so it shouldn't matter?
Katie: ... Ok, I'll bite Define "recuse."
Sarah: It means... he... recused himself.
Katie: Oh, well that sure clears everything up. Christ. This beach smells like garbage.
*scene cuts to comfortable, intimate setting in the studio*
Katie: Ok. So let's stay on topic here. The economy is in the crapper, what do you think we need to do about it right now?
Sarah Palin: Oh, well, you know I think America is just really waiting to see what John McCain has to say... um.. about all this. You know, America is watching John McCain.
Katie: Sure they are. While we're on that subject, let's look at the polls and -- oh! Oh dear, a direct result of this collapse is that Barack Obama is up in the polls. So, why would America be watching John McCain yet voting for Barack Obama?
Sarah: Um.. Um...
Katie: *glowers*
Sarah: Well... I think at this time what America wants is experience, you know, and they want to know what an experienced candidate would think...
Katie: You sure you want to go down this path?
Sarah: And, you know, this one time, Senator McCain called for stricter regulations
Katie: Oh, that's true. While we're on THAT topic, let's look at his voting record. Oh, oh my goodness. Twenty-seven years of voting for lighter regulations, and then one time, when shit starts hitting the fan, he votes in favor of stricter regulations. Kinda like voting for the war before voting against it, hmmmm?
Sarah: But he did vote then! That's proof right there!"
Katie: Ok, I'll bite again. That's proof. Now, tell me, what else is proof that he's the man to take care of this?
Sarah: Well, there was that thing that we just talked about...
Katie: Covered, move on...
Sarah: And, um... well, there's the other thing... you know, John McCain is a maverick!
Katie: You've got to be fucking kidding me.
Sarah: He takes shit from his own people, so, you know. He... um.. is takin' punches from... other. republicans.
Katie: Uh-huh.
Sarah: He's... a... maverick.
Katie: Drop the maverick shit and answer the fucking question.
Sarah: Can I get back to you on that?
Katie: *narrows eyes*
Sarah Palin: *nervous giggle*
Katie Couric: I. Am going. To eat. Your. Heart.
In response to my blogpost yesterday about marriage, my sister-in-law Beep sent me a thoughtful email that I'm just going to post here because it's just so good. She wanted to comment on my blog but had trouble doing so, so I'm putting it here.
Beep and my brother, Professor Hermano, have been married for seven years and are expecting their first child in less than a month (my second niece or first nephew! i'm stoked!) Beep is a smart cookie -- she's clerk for a judge in Pennsylvania and she's passed the bar in two states (and counting). She will be a judge someday, this is just a fact, and I for one would want her making decisions for this country as a Supreme Court judge. She refers to a few things:
1) "Marriage to a White Dude," Beep is Bengali, Professor Hermano (like me) is Irish/Polish.
2) "Two persons in Milwaukee" A friend of ours from college and her very longtime girlfriend, who are getting married in Canada next year.
3) "Indoor and Outdoor plumbing": Vaginas and Penises. Or, hoo-hahs and wangs.
Here's Beep:
From Bride and Groom...soon to "Plaintiff" and "Defendant" in a Complaint in Divorce.
I love the irony of "traditionalists" who claim they are doing it to save the "institution" of marriage. Hate to point out a lot of us Heteros are pulling it down with some of the highest divorce rates in recent times.Yet people still get married...so as far as I am concerned the "Institution" of marriage is healthy...it just needs to expand to include all persons who want to be in a committed relationship and be considered married.
None of this would matter except for the part where "marriage" is tied into so many rights...the least of which is health care. Think about it...if a husband or wife dies without a will, the remainig spouse has an AUTOMATIC right to the estate in ALL 50 states, in ALL 50 states husband and wife have AUTOMATIC and EQUAL parenthood and custody rights to their children (including adopted children), in ALL 50 states BOTH parties have the EQUAL rights to powers of attorney, guardianship etc. in the event either spouse is incapacitated,
These are just some of the rights that under the law are AUTOMATIC to any hetero couple simply on the basis of indoor & outdoor plumbing and a piece of paper from the state citing said plumbing.
I guess what galls me is that two persons (you know them too...they are in Milwaukee and they will be getting married in Canada) who have loved each other for so long will get none of these rights automatically in the grand ol' state of WI even if they consider themselves married.
So called "traditionalists" think all they are doing is "saving" some heavenly fluffy pink concept of marriage...not realizing marriage has always existed for exceptionally practical reasons of stability in wealth sharing, familial arrangements and what happens next when the life of either spouse ends. Marriage does this as a practical answer to questions like..who gets the money now, who gets the kids or who makes the decision to pull the plug. Not because of some concept of "happily ever after!" Love is happily ever after...marriage is the practical expression of love if you want to look at it that way.
So I feel blessed to have fallen in love and I feel fortunate that my marriage is recognized especially since I understand that a mere 40 years ago (when Loving v. Virginia was decided) my marriage to a White Dude would not be recognized in at least 45 states in the US. Some darn concept of how "traditonalits" back then believed interracial marriage would, and this is the best part, corrode the institute of marriage because its just too hard to raise biracial kids...because bi racial kids simply did not fit into being just white or black!
These same "traditionalists" have surivived and now have a new cause...indoor and out door plumbing only no same sex plumbing pleez...it hurts marriage.Ironically, if I told them their prejudice is no different than what it was 40 years ago...I would probably be lynched, b/c discrimination based on sexual orientation and skin color is like TOTALLY different.
So the only thing to do..is VOTE for the people you believe will protect those you love.
So I guess two Californians have decided that since a legal document says "Party A" and "Party B" instead of bride and groom, they're taking their ball and going home. Not without some publicity, mind you.
Bird and Codding said they didn't intend to become part of the culture debate. They didn't know about the change when they applied for their marriage license in August. When they saw the terms, Codding wrote "groom" next to "Party A" and "bride" next to Party B and submitted their license. On Aug. 16, they married at her father's church.
On Sept. 3, the couple received a letter from the Placer County Clerk-Recorder Registrar of Voters informing them that their license did not comply with California law and that the state did not accept licenses that had been altered. The couple had 10 days to complete a duplicate form.
The couple say they have no intention of signing the forms.
"We feel that some things are worth fighting for," said Gideon Codding, 29.
Boo-fucking-hoo, pretty white people. Boo-fucking-hoo. You had a wedding day, people called you bride and groom, there was a bride and groom on the cake, you can call yourself bride and groom all you want. This is not a fight, folks, this is a publicity stunt. Like hell you didn't want to be part of the culture debate. You're standing right in the middle of it shouting, "BUT WON'T ANYONE THINK OF THE POOR HOMOPHOBES?" Meanwhile, you refuse to turn in a form that will help you qualify for shared health insurance, and basically laying any blame for what happens next on those who are in favor of gay marriage.
“Those who support (same-sex marriage) say it has no impact on heterosexuals,” said Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute. “This debunks that argument.”
Except it fucking doesn't. Sorry, folks. As a fellow hetero, I gotta say you two are being fucking stupid.
I think the best argument in this case has to be one I read on Pandagon. A commenter pointed out that this is a matter of religious marriage versus civil marriage. If I were still Catholic, and married someone else in a Catholic church, and we got divorced -- the United States would view us as divorced, but Rome would view us as still married. Likewise, certain churches will not recognize gay marriages, but the state will. But only two other states in the US will recognize it. To the rest of the country, you'll just be a couple of dudes hanging out.
But if you're heterosexual, all you have to do is fill out a piece of paper and turn it in and, tah-dah! The whole USA says you're married. And you can have a party WHENEVER. One of my brothers got married in a civil service in February, and is having the ceremony next month. One cousin of mine got married in the Bahamas and had a party three months later in Wisconsin. My other brother and his wife got married in Minnesota, then three years later had another ceremony in Bangladesh. See, hetero couples, we can get married any goddamn time we please, any goddamn way we please, however goddamn many times we want to. I can meet someone tomorrow and get married next week. I can dress up like Princess Leia and the groom can dress up like Chewbacca and we can elope in Vegas, then have another ceremony in London, then have one more ceremony right in front of the statue of Leonidas Hamline on Hamline Campus in St. Paul.*
This couple doesn't even have to get married in California. They can get married anywhere they damn well please, get a license, and bring it to California and be like, "We did another ceremony in South Carolina because WE CAN."
If memory serves, gay people can get married in the following places in the western Hemisphere:
California
Massachusetts
Canada
Urbana, Illinois (But not Champaign)**
...that's pretty much it.
So, go on ahead and have a fight with the world over a gender-neutral marriage license. Go on. Do it. Because you can always get unmarried, remarry different people, divorce those people, get married again to each other. On and on and on again, anywhere in the USA and most of the Western world. You can get married hanging upside down, underwater, wearing only underpants, wearing each others' underpants, whatever. You are heterosexuals. THe world will generally regard your marriage as a marriage.
I can meet someone tomorrow and marry him next week and the whole of the United States would regard it as a marriage. My cousin, who is gay and has been in a committed relationship for years, cannot marry the man he's with because he lives in Wisconsin. If they decide to schlep up to Canada and get married, very few states will recognize it as a marriage. To me, this is injustice.
*The invites go out tomorrow.
**Then you'd have to live there. Blecch. Although, there's always C-Street.
Gov. Palin,
I won't judge your daughter or her choice. Please don't legislate governmental coercion of a private moral issue, which would be judging the choices I make for my reproductive health.
Love,
Tigi
As we head into the election season... or, um, I guess I should say NOW that we are smack-dab in the middle of an 18-month Custard-Fluck to the White House... I'm thinking over my own personal requirements for president. I really have only two large criteria, and everything else gets sorta lumped into "various issues i care about."
1) "Want to have a beer with" does not equate "Want to run my country." I know a lot of people I enjoy having beers with, and I probably wouldn't want them as president (Pineapple being the sole exception, but that's because I'd probably be VP or Secretary of Being Awesome). The Dwarf Star, for instance -- good roommie, great drinking buddy, but it'd be like the worst idea ever to make him president. He'd get angry and bomb the shit out of someone in the first month. Seriously, though -- I get the idea of wanting a president who has her or his finger on the pulse of the country, but I also want to have a beer with Carl Newman... actually, I'd probably also vote for Carl Newman if he weren't, um, Canadian. Then we'd be the rockingest country ever.
Seriously, though. I don't give a shit if someone would have a beer with Mike Huckabee. Tell me something you like about his record. You know, his political record, not the spoken word album he may or may not be recording with Chuck Norris (I have no idea if this is true. I think I just dreamed it one night).
2) "There shall be no religious test for office." Do I care which church, if any, my world leader goes to? Not really, because we are a wildly diverse country with many different belief systems all of which have their own domains and none of which should have control of the government. I want a president who will consider this with every decision she or he makes. I agree that this is difficult for a lot of people -- putting aside their religious and spiritual beliefs to do their job. But you know, I think it's something of a requirement in a country with as many avenues of worship as we have. I also think pharmacists and doctors and teachers need to eschew religious (and in their cases, political) judgment in favor of professionalism. I can't walk around my school stumping for Obama even though I'd like to and even though I consider my political side a very important part of who I am, and I couldn't walk around my school spreading gospel even if I considered that an important part of who I was. I'm contractually obliged to not do these things, and I didn't have to take the job. I could very well have looked for another job that didn't require these things. In this case, it's not discrimination because it's the same for anyone regardless of faith. Same goes for political office -- the president's religious background may have shaped her or his character, but it should not shape our policies, because these are large universal things that affect people of all belief systems.
As for issues:
1) Does she or he have a plan for the following messes:
a) Iraq
b) Health Care, i.e. is it possible to make it affordable and not such a nightmare so I don't live in terror of breaking my arm?
c) Education and systematic racism -- right now, I'm in a school that is overfull, underfunded, and struggling to keep up with the white middle class. No Child Left Behind is leaving a lot of these kids behind. Teachers are exhausted because they keep getting shuffled and given new curricula that are supposed to "solve" the problem by teaching kids how to take exams. It's so frustrating to watch this.
2) I am prochoice. This doesn't mean I run around demanding abortions for everyone. It just means I think they should be safe, legal and rare. I'm for any candidate who pulls away from the focus on abortion and emphasizes the importance of comprehensive sex education, access to family planning, and doesn't seem to have some crazy ass hangup about sexuality.
3) Governmental Accountability. You know something? I'm happy to pay taxes on things. I'm happy to have decent roads and bridges that don't fall (oops!) and a postal service that functions. That's fine. Hooray. But I would like to see a breakdown of where the money goes. I mean, hell, even NPR says "Your $150 donation helps us buy enough bandwidth to give you three free This American Life podcasts." I'd be happy with the occasional fireside chat, wherein the president says not platitudinous statements about hope and staying the course, but says, you know, "Hey, America, this is how we are being your representative. This is how we are serving you. This is how we are going to help you out. This is what we are doing with your money. Keep telling your house and senate reps what concerns you, and I'll listen to what they have to say, and let's do this again sometime." Maybe it's naive of me, I don't know.
4) Diplomacy. On the one hand, I want a strong, confident leader who will keep the country's best interests at the forefront of her or his mind. On the other hand, I want someone who, you know, understands that our place in the world is a controversial one and that we are not always well-loved and, you know, perhaps we ought to mend some bridges and compromise and also take a few language classes and learn how to say names that have a lot of consonants in them. I'm just saying, you know, it's unlikely that all the countries of the world are going to unite against a common foe -- let's say robot overlords -- at least in the foreseeable future. And as a large country with a ridonkulous amount of wealth, it might be in our best interests to not bully anyone around for awhile, because who knows how long that could last. Go ahead, ask anyone. I'm just saying, look at the historical record: Germany in the 20th century, England in the 19th, Napoleon, the Spanish Armada, Rome, Athens... Xerxes, Cambyses, Croesus, Cyrus.* Before we find ourselves up to our ears in a wineskin full of blood, perhaps we should pause and say, "Perhaps there is such a thing as crossing one line too far."
* Bonus requirement: Candidate has read Herodotus.
I understand that I'm clearly not in "Maxim's" readership and I'm happy not to be. Nonetheless, it chaps my ass to even consider that a number of even slightly intelligent heterosexual men out there consider their lists and decrees to be acceptable (oh, I read Pajiba and those boys, normally very respectful, occasionally let me down with the misogynistic link or two). I just recently stopped rolling my eyes over the fact that they decided a decent retort to Ann "Lookatmeeee" Coulter was "Haha, you're ugly" (again, class, why do we dislike Ann Coulter? Because of the crap she SAYS, not because of what she LOOKS LIKE. She SAYS racist and classist things. She LOOKS fairly decent actually, if a little thin, but that's not the point. She SAYS horrible, terrible things and THIS is what we should call her out on. Listen to Miss Tigi.).
Imagine my shock to discover that they have a list of the top "Most Unappealing Women." First of all, you'd never see a list like this in a women's magazine -- not because there AREN'T unappealing men, but because both mens' and womens' mags have a few things in common -- 1) mens' opinions come first, and 2)women should never ever EVER feel good about themselves. Ever. Das ist verboten! (I could go on and on about this but I'm not on Feministe or Pandagon or Feministing and if you want some thoughtful essays on why feminism is important, those three blogs have loads of them, Jill, Amanda, Jessica and co. are more articulate than little Rage Machine Tigi can ever hope to be. And Maxim isn't the cause of misogyny but rather a symptom of it, so anyway.)
Back to the list, though. There's the usual suspect, Britney, on said list, because she's the media whipping-girl du jour, owing to a few disasterous career choices and her inability to cope with life-after-superstardom (but you see, she's not sexy! how dare she!). I don't want to talk about Britney. No, what annoys me is that Sarah Jessica Parker and Sandra Oh were on the list. This isn't just because 1) I would lance off my right breast Amazon-style to have a body like Carrie Bradshaw and 2) Sandra Oh is fucking gorgeous. It's more than that -- it's always more than looks.
Stay with me, now.
Say what you like about Sex and the City --- Sarah Jessica Parker is someone I totally respect. She's got balance. She has a family life and she's in control of her career -- she made herself a producer on Sex and the City and produced two-and-a-half good seasons as such. And she was invested in the character of Carrie. As whiny and self-absorbed as Ms. Bradshaw was, SJP made her likeable. And, come on. She's got a unique style, she's got class, and she's never spilled out from a limo dead drunk for all the world to see. To reiterate -- she's in control.
Sandra Oh is an amazing actress. She's captivating, she's smart, and she's dedicated to her character. I know I said Justin Chambers was my main reason for sticking with the recently craptastic Grey's, but I lied a little. Sandra Oh makes you want to know and like Dr. Yang. Her character is what scared little Maxim boys would call a ball-buster and she's utterly convincing as the bold, no-holds-barred and yet infinitely fragile Cristina. I can't take my eyes off of her -- same when I watched her in Sideways (hell, same when I watched her in friggin' Under the Tuscan Sun, and the delectable Raoul Bova was in that saying he wanted to make sex all over Diane Lane). And a lot of this is because Sandra is protective of Cristina -- she goes into the writers' room and she makes sure this character is consistantly written and well-written. Again, this woman takes control.
So why are SJP and Sandra Oh "unappealing?" Say all you want about "horseface." The truth is, these are high-powered women in control of their lives and careers who play characters that intimidate the crap out of the little boys at Maxim. I didn't read Fark for a year without learning that a certain subset of men are terrified of women. Nothing scares those bedwetters more than the idea of a strong woman, and so they keep shooting their little arrows of mockery, always equating a woman's worth with her fuckability.
One day, and in my lifetime, I hope that a woman will be recognized first for her personhood. And if you're reading this, I hope you agree.
And Sandra Oh is the shit. God, I love her.
So, Maxim? A big, fat, Cornelius Bear "Fuck along, now" to you.
I don't know shit about Star Jones other than she used to be on The View and that a contingent of people hate her for merely existing. Anyway, I came across this clip in which Star Jones tells Ann Coulter that she's tacky and that she wants to shoot her for saying what she said about women voters (if you'd not heard about it -- Ann "Kitty Sanchez" Coulter said if women didn't have the right to vote the country would be better off because then no one would vote for a democrat). While I don't agree that Star Jones should have invited Ann "Elizabeth Edwards is THREATENING me" Coulter on her show (if we all ignore her, maybe she'll go away) I understand the desire to meet with her if only to tell her that she's tacky and that I hate her. Star Jones, I agree with you. Please continue. I'd watch your show if you did like Keith Olbermann and started a daily segement in which all you did was berate Ann Coulter for all the harm she's done to political discourse.
The thing is, we've got to avoid commenting on her appearance when we criticize Ann "Wasn't The Handmaid's Tale supposed to be a fairy tale?" Coulter. Make it less about whether or not she's too boney or even pretty at all and more about the fact that everything she says is terrible. Imagine her as a twisted version of Silenus -- gorging herself on negativity and hatred and then spewing it back out onto the American public*. It gets to a point where I don't even know if she's saying half this shit because she actually believes it, or if she is saying it because she knows that it appeals to the vilest and most secret opinions of rightwingers out there, and that she'll become successful for saying the most vile things and calling it "honesty." The same goes for Bill O'Reilly, come to think of it. And Rush. And all the usual suspects. These people set the political discourse so far to the direction of reactionary hatred that all someone has to say is "Well, at least I think women should have the vote," to be considered moderate.
So we need someone to say once a day every day and as loudly as possibe -- "You are tacky. You are unreasonable. You are anti-democratic in the simplest sense of the word -- meaning you are not against Democrats, you are against democracy. The first amendment protects your right to speak your mind, and you'll be the first to tell us that when it comes to the crap you say, but you then act as if this right is your privilage and belongs to no one else, in particular those of us who disagree with you vehemently. I'm not like you because I'm not going to tell you to shut up. I'm just going to say this everyday: You are awful."
*She's also supported by ugly men with perpetual hard-ons. Oh-ho, the comparisons just go on and on.
Anyone who knows and loves me knows that I have read the literary corpus of L.M. Montgomery so many times that I refer to Anne of Green Gables as an actual childhood friend. This isn't about my love of LMM, though it's interesting how she still provokes me to approach my world through the sprectrum of her own. On my last trip to my parents house, I retrieved some of her books that I'd left there (along with my winter clothes) so I could re-read some of them while I job-hunt (a job in itself -- 3-5 resumes and coverletters submitted a day, M-F, but at least I have one part-time job) and work on my applications for school. What can I say? Prince Edward Island circa 1910 is where I go when I need to calm down.
Right now, I'm re-reading Magic for Marigold, another one of her books about an imaginative young girl distinguishing herself in her family. I like Marigold because she's not sugary sweet and her childhood fears stem partially from her gullibility and mostly from a too-impressionable imagination. LMM writes her fears both as a little ridiculous (because come on, a lot of our fears were like that) but as entirely real to Marigold -- she pokes a little fun at her, but not too much. One chapter that sticks out to me is entitled "It," in which Marigold is on a visit at a relative's house -- one of her first trips out alone -- when her fussy aunts discover IT on her head. They don't explain to Marigold what IT is (a small bug thought to be indicative of an infection of lice), but instead banish her from the rest of the family until such time as they can take her home. LMM mocks the aunts for their foolishness in concealing the true nature of IT to Marigold, who, having overheard only parts of her aunts' conversation, concludes that she's caught an unspeakable disease and vividly imagines herself dying of it. It pretty accurately describes how children fill in the blanks when they only get a little bit of information. In her journals and books, LMM comes across as being set against concealing things of this nature from children. Children are naive but they are not always dumb, and sometimes the impressions they get can be much worse than the truth.
Which made me think, of course, about sex.
I was pretty lucky growing up -- my mother was a nurse. and she didn't leave a lot of blanks for me to fill in on my own. Not to get too graphic, but I'd had some kind of kidney-related condition when I was very young, and had to go in for regular check-ups that were a bit like pelvic exams. So I had "good touch/bad touch" explained to me very early on -- what the doctors were doing was good because it would make me healthy, but if someone did this without my wanting them to, that would be bad. It was my body and only I had say about it. This colored my ideas of consent and sexuality for the rest of my life. And like I said, my mom explained things to me when I asked, or she helped me find answers on my own. When I was eight or nine, my grandmother was in the hospital a lot and so my family spent a lot of time there. This was about the time I started having a lot of questions, and so my mother let me peruse some of the hospital pamphlets about sexuality and puberty. Again, the impression I got was positive -- there wasn't anything for me to think of as bad. I giggled at these pamphlets, yes, because I was eight, but at least I knew. And I think this is why I have a pretty healthy perception about sex and relationships at 25. Is it perfect? No, I still do dumb things like making out with the wrong person. But that's because I have an unhealthy relationship with melodrama and, to use Chuck Klosterman's term, "fake love." (query: how often are LMM and Chuck Klosterman described in one blog entry? Yet I love them both dearly for entirely different reasons!)
I wonder how it is that some kids develop any healthy idea about sex and relationships, with the way we treat sex in the media. Take, for instance, the recent outrage over some Disney-channel starlet caught with her pants down. Apparently, she sent private nude photos to her boyfriend and co-star -- not overtly-sexual shots (yes, I saw them on IDLYTW) but definitely nude. It was a stupid move, yes, because she's a star and people love nothing more than to rip young female stars to shreds for existing.* But people in love and lust do stupid things, like sending each other nude photos or getting married. These photos got leaked to the public, and parents are OUTRAGED, simply OUTRAGED. Terms like "dirty" and "damaged" are being tossed around. And this is what irritates me, because THIS is what I think sends the wrong message to kids. She's "damaged" because probably had consensual sex with her boyfriend? It's like those damn abstinence-only classes that use suckers, gum, or tape to beat the message home to girls that the more sexual partners you have, the fewer men will want to marry you, so keep your sucker wrapped or you'll regret it! This has got to be fucking up little boys' and girls' heads. This girl is dirty and damaged because she sent nude photos to her boyfriend, and then there's a huge blank for kids to fill. "Therefore, sex is dirty?" "Therefore, sex damages you?" "Therefore, nothing is more shameful than a woman's body?" It's like that skit by Lewis Black about "Nipplegate 2004." The millisecond that Janet Jackson's breast was exposed on national television wasn't the problem, he says. The problem was the month we spent playing that image over and over again screaming, "LOOK AT THAT! LOOK AT IT! IT'S DISGUSTING!" And yet, they don't explain why it's "disgusting,' because there is no explaination, because it's not disgusting. It's a breast. People have them. I've got two of my own, and "disgusting" isn't what I'd use to describe them.
What's disgusting is this: giving kids the vague idea that sex is dirty and using that to conceal facts about sex from them. They fill in the blanks on their own, and the answers are seldom correct, and sometimes these wrong impressions lead to unnecessary consequences.
What also blows my mind is -- the average eight year old wouldn't see the nude photos of this young woman, or even know of its existence, if parents weren't screaming "LOOK AT THAT! IT'S DESTROYING YOUR MIND!" Um?
*Not just Lohan and the other unspeakables, but stars I actually like, like Kelly Clarkson, who is repeatedly ripped apart for being "fat" and occasionally liking to go out and sing drunken karaoke with her friends. Jesus, ladies. Too fat, too thin, too sexy, not sexy enough -- we can't fucking win, can we?
(via feministe)
