Today's Failbook fail: Status Irony.
This is just pure, distilled jackassery. Someone posts one of those mass statuses where they're asking for support for cancer survivors and victims. Some jackass responds, "These 'support' posts are the cancer of Facebook."
Honestly, I don't have a whole lot of academic feminist talk to bust out on this. It just pisses me off. Chances are, the OP has cancer, or someone close to him/her does. So, what the fuck, commenter. If you really can't stand mass statuses, ignore it. Or hell, block that person. Don't make them feel like they're ruining your fun just because they want to mention cancer.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Friday, February 11, 2011
A Tale of Two Douchebags
Real dilemma tonight, guys. There are two posts on Failbook today that are both of the highest douchebag nature. One is just pure sexism; the other mixes sexism with the false sexuality binary and slut shaming.
Okay, how's this: I'm going to do the mixed one, and assign the pure sexism one as homework. I'll grade anyone who comments.
So. Today's Failbook fail: Try-Sexual.
This is a gem on so many levels. The original post is someone saying they don't "believe" in bisexuality. I love it when people think they have a vote on other people's lived experiences. It's like when jackass white people put down "human" as their race on forms. It's true that bisexuality doesn't seem to be as common an identity as being straight or gay, but I think it's more common than asexuality (which also exists, regardless of your willingness to "believe" in it, dear reader!)
Then a girl comments, saying she is bi, and has two girlfriends and a boyfriend. Now, while this does showcase her bisexuality, it's worth noting (for people who might be, I don't know, confused?) that bisexuality and polyamory are unrelated issues. I mean, they're related inasmuch as they threaten the patriarchy, but they're just two more slightly overlapping circles in the giant Venn diagram of human sexuality.
Still. A dude denies people's identities. A lady reminds him that it is her identity. What do you think is gonna happen next, smarty-pants?
If you said, "He's gonna slut-shame her!", I award you 50 Patriarchy Points!*
Yeah, he says, "That just makes you a whore." Yeah! You tell it like it is, bisexuality denier!! People having multiple consenting relationships definitely means they are sex workers! And also, sex workers are best referred to by epithets! You're so brave, telling it like it is in a sea of acceptance and friendliness towards women, sex workers, bisexuals, and poly people!
Here's an idea, dude: you're not the arbiter of others' sexuality. I know it's a shocker, but better to get it through your fucking head now than later, when you're screaming at some girlfriend because her "number" (ugh) is higher than you thought.
* Redeemable for male privilege at a Wal-Mart near you!
Okay, how's this: I'm going to do the mixed one, and assign the pure sexism one as homework. I'll grade anyone who comments.
So. Today's Failbook fail: Try-Sexual.
This is a gem on so many levels. The original post is someone saying they don't "believe" in bisexuality. I love it when people think they have a vote on other people's lived experiences. It's like when jackass white people put down "human" as their race on forms. It's true that bisexuality doesn't seem to be as common an identity as being straight or gay, but I think it's more common than asexuality (which also exists, regardless of your willingness to "believe" in it, dear reader!)
Then a girl comments, saying she is bi, and has two girlfriends and a boyfriend. Now, while this does showcase her bisexuality, it's worth noting (for people who might be, I don't know, confused?) that bisexuality and polyamory are unrelated issues. I mean, they're related inasmuch as they threaten the patriarchy, but they're just two more slightly overlapping circles in the giant Venn diagram of human sexuality.
Still. A dude denies people's identities. A lady reminds him that it is her identity. What do you think is gonna happen next, smarty-pants?
If you said, "He's gonna slut-shame her!", I award you 50 Patriarchy Points!*
Yeah, he says, "That just makes you a whore." Yeah! You tell it like it is, bisexuality denier!! People having multiple consenting relationships definitely means they are sex workers! And also, sex workers are best referred to by epithets! You're so brave, telling it like it is in a sea of acceptance and friendliness towards women, sex workers, bisexuals, and poly people!
Here's an idea, dude: you're not the arbiter of others' sexuality. I know it's a shocker, but better to get it through your fucking head now than later, when you're screaming at some girlfriend because her "number" (ugh) is higher than you thought.
* Redeemable for male privilege at a Wal-Mart near you!
Thursday, February 10, 2011
That's So Straight.
Today's Failbook fail: Phone PHAIL.
Breaking news: "Gay" still not a synonym for "broken," "bad," or "wrong"! In other news, the Earth still orbiting the sun four billion years after its formation! Later this hour, we show the shocking truth about mammals: they STILL have hair and a neocortex!!
Why are we are so inured to "gay" as a random negative adjective? Can you imagine the average teenager walking around saying shit like, "My principal blocked Twitter at school. He is so black!", or, "My mom grounded me for a week! It's so wheelchair-user of her.*" I'm not playing Oppression Olympics here; I had a really wise African Studies prof in college who campaigned fiercely against that kind of thinking, and it stuck with me. I just can't believe it's 2011 and we're still saying, "That's so gay." And most people don't even bat an eyelash.
Anyway, thanks, Failbook, for slipping that in there. I was starting to get worried that you thought gay people were human beings or something!
*I think some people would argue that the use of "lame" actually fits the bill here, but I respectfully disagree. Words that initially serve to negatively label oppressed groups can and do evolve beyond that usage. My go-to example is "dumb," which was used against the Deaf for decades, but there are no Deaf people arguing we shouldn't say "dumb" to mean something is stupid. It has become utterly divorced from the Deaf. Similarly, when people say something is "lame," they do not connect it in the least with people with physical disabilities. I don't believe this is the case for "gay," the primary difference being that it's a group's self-label, not a superfluous outgroup usage.
Breaking news: "Gay" still not a synonym for "broken," "bad," or "wrong"! In other news, the Earth still orbiting the sun four billion years after its formation! Later this hour, we show the shocking truth about mammals: they STILL have hair and a neocortex!!
Why are we are so inured to "gay" as a random negative adjective? Can you imagine the average teenager walking around saying shit like, "My principal blocked Twitter at school. He is so black!", or, "My mom grounded me for a week! It's so wheelchair-user of her.*" I'm not playing Oppression Olympics here; I had a really wise African Studies prof in college who campaigned fiercely against that kind of thinking, and it stuck with me. I just can't believe it's 2011 and we're still saying, "That's so gay." And most people don't even bat an eyelash.
Anyway, thanks, Failbook, for slipping that in there. I was starting to get worried that you thought gay people were human beings or something!
*I think some people would argue that the use of "lame" actually fits the bill here, but I respectfully disagree. Words that initially serve to negatively label oppressed groups can and do evolve beyond that usage. My go-to example is "dumb," which was used against the Deaf for decades, but there are no Deaf people arguing we shouldn't say "dumb" to mean something is stupid. It has become utterly divorced from the Deaf. Similarly, when people say something is "lame," they do not connect it in the least with people with physical disabilities. I don't believe this is the case for "gay," the primary difference being that it's a group's self-label, not a superfluous outgroup usage.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
They Already Paid for It, Asshole
Today's Failbook fail: You Break It, You Buy It.
Congratulations to Failbook for being about the eighteenth entity to try to tell me this stupid joke:
Moreover, this joke is just bullshit. First of all, the pyramids were almost certainly not built by Jewish slaves. Archaeologists think the builders were skilled, paid laborers. In fact, the historicity of the entire Exodus narrative is not supported by any science or, indeed, any accounts outside the Bible.
So the Jews didn't build the pyramids. And, you know, that's not widely known, so whatever. But I think the larger point is that this is actually a really negative, awful message about an oppressed group of people that is trying to throw off their oppressors. The Egyptians have been protesting -- not "rioting" -- since January 25th. They've already effected a lot of change, and it looks like there's more to come. But there's no surer way to denigrate a group of protesters than to call them "rioters" and boil all their struggles down to a destructive action that might hurt the only landmark in their country that most white Westerners give a shit about. And since Jews are construed as "white" in the sane corners of America, it's just a racist/Islamophobic clusterfucktastrophe of a "joke."
Look, I'm Jewish; I get that I am the owner of a problematic identity, to say the least. But this joke makes me ashamed, since it was probably kicked off by a Jew. We should give more of a shit about the Middle East than to crap out a dud like this.
Congratulations to Failbook for being about the eighteenth entity to try to tell me this stupid joke:
Dear Egyptian rioters,Failbook is behind my grandmother on this one. My AOL-subscribing grandmother. Hooray for relevance!
Please don't damage the pyramids. We will not rebuild.
Thank you.
The Jews.
Moreover, this joke is just bullshit. First of all, the pyramids were almost certainly not built by Jewish slaves. Archaeologists think the builders were skilled, paid laborers. In fact, the historicity of the entire Exodus narrative is not supported by any science or, indeed, any accounts outside the Bible.
So the Jews didn't build the pyramids. And, you know, that's not widely known, so whatever. But I think the larger point is that this is actually a really negative, awful message about an oppressed group of people that is trying to throw off their oppressors. The Egyptians have been protesting -- not "rioting" -- since January 25th. They've already effected a lot of change, and it looks like there's more to come. But there's no surer way to denigrate a group of protesters than to call them "rioters" and boil all their struggles down to a destructive action that might hurt the only landmark in their country that most white Westerners give a shit about. And since Jews are construed as "white" in the sane corners of America, it's just a racist/Islamophobic clusterfucktastrophe of a "joke."
Look, I'm Jewish; I get that I am the owner of a problematic identity, to say the least. But this joke makes me ashamed, since it was probably kicked off by a Jew. We should give more of a shit about the Middle East than to crap out a dud like this.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
No fail!
Perhaps in honor of my mother's birthday, no fails jumped out at me today. Enjoy the break!
Monday, February 7, 2011
Short Failbook Fail: Screw Assumptions
Today's Failbook fail: Trailer Tatty.
This post, my friends, is the motherlode of classism. Someone posts a quote by Winnie the Pooh (except, excuse me, I read that book when I was little, and that quote is not A.A. Milne, but I suppose that's beside the point). Commenter #1 says they want a tattoo of Winnie the Pooh. Commenter #2 racks up the following assertions about those with "cartoon character tattoos":
Underneath all these seemingly unconnected statements, of course, is the assumption that poor people are stupid. They get stupid tattoos, parent in a stupid fashion, shop at stupid stores, and wear stupid hairstyles. Never mind that their income level and their intelligence may not be related. (Education and income are generally highly correlated, but innate intelligence pops up in people regardless of their background.) If you are poor, you are stupid; you are worthless; you deserve my mockery. That's what Commenter #2 needed to say to Commenter #1, who only wanted to get an image of a cartoon bear emblazoned on her skin.
Look, if someone wants to get an "88" tattooed on their arm, I can say with high confidence that that person is a racist, anti-Semitic assclown. But if someone wants a Winnie the Pooh tattoo, the only thing I can say with high confidence is that they like Winnie the Pooh. But I don't know their income level, their haircut, or whether they're a good parent (or a parent at all).
I feel like three-quarters of my posts are about not making dumbass assumptions about other people. If we could all adhere to that one tenet, what a lovely world this world would be.
This post, my friends, is the motherlode of classism. Someone posts a quote by Winnie the Pooh (except, excuse me, I read that book when I was little, and that quote is not A.A. Milne, but I suppose that's beside the point). Commenter #1 says they want a tattoo of Winnie the Pooh. Commenter #2 racks up the following assertions about those with "cartoon character tattoos":
- They live in trailer parks.
- They are fat.
- They abuse their children.
- They frequent Wal-Mart.
- They cannot read.
- They have mullets.
- They love wrestling.
Underneath all these seemingly unconnected statements, of course, is the assumption that poor people are stupid. They get stupid tattoos, parent in a stupid fashion, shop at stupid stores, and wear stupid hairstyles. Never mind that their income level and their intelligence may not be related. (Education and income are generally highly correlated, but innate intelligence pops up in people regardless of their background.) If you are poor, you are stupid; you are worthless; you deserve my mockery. That's what Commenter #2 needed to say to Commenter #1, who only wanted to get an image of a cartoon bear emblazoned on her skin.
Look, if someone wants to get an "88" tattooed on their arm, I can say with high confidence that that person is a racist, anti-Semitic assclown. But if someone wants a Winnie the Pooh tattoo, the only thing I can say with high confidence is that they like Winnie the Pooh. But I don't know their income level, their haircut, or whether they're a good parent (or a parent at all).
I feel like three-quarters of my posts are about not making dumbass assumptions about other people. If we could all adhere to that one tenet, what a lovely world this world would be.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Face the Fail
Today's Failbook fail: Not the First Time a Girl's Boobs Saved Her from a Shot to the Face...
There's nothing particularly fail-y about this post as it occurred on Facebook. A girl says she walked into a wall, but her breasts acted as a cushion.
Then, of course, Failbook has to turn it into a joke about ejaculating onto a woman's face. BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WOMEN'S FACES ARE FOR, AMIRITE??! That, and saying things about how wonderful their man is. Dude.
Friday, February 4, 2011
The Hilarity of Slavery
Today's Failbook fail: R.I.P. Billy.
A guy posts an ad for a "server" (i.e. a piece of computer equipment). His jackass "friends" pretend he is selling a woman who will serve them. The jackass-iest comment of all has to be, "She better not talk back!"
You guys. I am really tired, but I just have to point out that 27 million people across the world are enslaved today. Today, as in, February 4, 2011, 150 years after we "abolished" slavery. Women and girls are particularly vulnerable to sexual slavery.
So this post is not fuckin' funny. I don't have the energy to state the obvious anymore.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Fiftieth Post Special Edition: A Feminist Skeptic
For this, my fiftieth post, I thought I'd veer off a little from laying waste to Failbook and instead discuss an issue that has been a thorn in my side for the better part of the last year, namely, what's a feminist skeptic to do?
(If either of those words confuses you, try referencing these working definitions of feminism and skepticism. It may be the case that neither means what you think it does, even if you are well-educated.)
At first blush, feminism and skepticism seem to complement each other like chocolate and peanut butter. Skepticism is the perfect vehicle to debunk claims about female inferiority, and feminism is all about breaking out of traditionally held but incorrect notions about all aspects of life. I can cite a few wonderful examples of this marriage of the two concepts: Delusions of Gender, Woman: An Intimate Geography, and Amanda Marcotte's amazing Skepticon talk late last year (we'll get back to her at the end).
But more often than not, feminism and skepticism are either at odds with each other, or, more frequently, completely out of touch with each other. The fault lies on both sides, and I've seen failures on both sides so many times that it makes me despair for the joining of forces that seems logical to me.
Let's start with the feminist side, because I have more experience with the feminist blogosphere than I do with the skeptical blogosphere. I follow a lot of feminist blogs: Feministe, Feministing, Fugitivus, Tiger Beatdown, and Yes Means Yes! are just some of the feeds in my Google Reader. But when I think about which feminist blog best sums up my experience in this world, it has to be Shakesville. Melissa McEwan takes on the worst of sexism, racism, heterosexism, ablism, transphobia, and so many other ugly ideologies in this world with wonderful contempt, causing anyone with an open mind to re-examine themselves for prejudices so ingrained that they might as well be undetectable, were it not for her illumination of them.
And yet. And yet when it comes to matters of science, I sometimes see Shakesville fall short in ways that make me cringe. When it comes to scientific studies that support Shakesville's positions on, say, abortion, they are lauded. And they rightfully post vicious take-downs of pseudo-scientific bullshit studies about gender differences.
But a couple weeks back, when Melissa made a post entitled "Feminism 101: Coded Misogyny and Institutional Prejudice," I found myself wincing at just a few of the points she made. Some of them are dead on: Black women are punished for wearing their hair in a natural style; our sexist culture codes war and the lack of a social safety net as masculine and therefore desirable; we should all be aware of the way that gender binaries influence our thinking about many, many aspects of culture. But her attack on "Western" medicine is painful for me to read:
Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear oh dear. I'm not going to explain why non-science-based medicine (NSBM) is generally a bad idea: you can go to Science-Based Medicine for that. But I'd like to take on her claim that the opposition to NSBM is based on sexism and racism. In fact, my personal objection to NSBM is caused partly by my advocacy for social justice. In short, women and people of color are more likely to be poverty-stricken and without adequate health care. If they are having medical issues and the only care they can afford is "alternative" care, that is a huge, institutional problem that we should be addressing, because alternative care is not adequate care. Black and Latina women with breast cancer don't have equal access to treatment. If they fill that gap with homeopathy or acupuncture, that is not adequate and not equal. Immigrants to the U.S. get about half the health care services afforded to natural-born citizens. If they fill that gap with traditional medicine from their home countries that has no measurable positive effect on their health, that is not adequate and not equal. I could go on and on, but the point is this: marginalized people may be more willing and likely to opt for NSBM, but this is not good for their overall health outcomes, and may in fact be a product of their marginalized status.
Yes, there are problems with science-based medicine, specifically the way it interacts with capitalism (see Bad Science for more on this). And Melissa rightfully points out in the comments that medical trials need to include more marginalized populations. But modern, science-based medicine has lengthened our lifespans, given us birth control and abortion, made it possible for transfolk to physically transition, and afforded new opportunities to the disabled. Don't we owe it a little more respect than to say, "reflexively privileging Western medicine, which is best at serving the needs of financially privileged straight white thin generally able-bodied cis men, serves the narratives of the Patriarchy"?
So that's one example of how my favorite feminist blogs can be insufficiently skeptical. (There are plenty others, but I'm already headed for tl;dr territory.) It's posts like those that make me feel that I cannot make my Internet home entirely within the feminist blogosphere.
But I can't migrate to the skeptical blogosphere either. Though skeptical bloggers should be using their well-developed senses of critical thinking to examine their own prejudices, this just doesn't seem to be the case.
Sure, skeptical bloggers are generally progressive folks. They tend to be pro-gay marriage, pro-choice, anti-censorship, etc. But the safe space that you see on feminist blogs, where racism/sexism/homophobic/etc. are not acceptable, is not present in the skeptical blogosphere, perhaps because the skeptical movement is dominated by white, cisgender, straight, able-bodied men. Here's an example: about a month ago, Skepchick had a post up about the kerfuffle over the removal of n-word from Huck Finn. The author rightfully condemned the proposal, but in his condemnation he wrote:
Sweet Stephen Jay Gould's ghost, what was this poster thinking?? In case it's too subtle for you, he equated modern Black culture with rap and "skank 'ho's." What an evenhanded, neutral representation of an oppressed minority culture! It's as though a Kanye West music video came to life in the form of words on a skeptic blog.
Even on consciously progressive skeptic blogs like the Friendly Atheist, the comment threads can devolve into rampant, ugly sexism. (I wanted to post a link to a discussion I found particularly offensive, but the post where I believe it happened seems to have been scrubbed of all evidence of the back-and-forth between the misogynist and the women who protested his comments. I'm not a fan of this revisionism; I'd prefer the offending comments be hidden [i.e. accessible an extra click], with a note from the mod as to why it's unacceptable on that site.)
So what's a feminist skeptic to do?
Personally, I've only found one blog that meets in the middle of my two deep-seated identities, and that's Pandagon. This is Amanda Marcotte's baby, and she attacks both social justice issues and skeptical issues with unmatched rigor. More and more these days, I find myself sharing all her articles with my Google Reader followers, posting them on Facebook, doing whatever I can to spread her opinions across the Internet. We need more bloggers like her.
Just don't expect me to answer the call! I happened to have time to write this all up today because I'm home sick. Otherwise I'd be running around on my usual hectic schedule of full-time job, part-time school, and constant, time-consuming disease management. I'll continue my daily posts taking down Failbook, though, because it's a good outlet for my extreme frustration with popular culture. And maybe for my 100th post, we can dive back into this topic.
(If either of those words confuses you, try referencing these working definitions of feminism and skepticism. It may be the case that neither means what you think it does, even if you are well-educated.)
At first blush, feminism and skepticism seem to complement each other like chocolate and peanut butter. Skepticism is the perfect vehicle to debunk claims about female inferiority, and feminism is all about breaking out of traditionally held but incorrect notions about all aspects of life. I can cite a few wonderful examples of this marriage of the two concepts: Delusions of Gender, Woman: An Intimate Geography, and Amanda Marcotte's amazing Skepticon talk late last year (we'll get back to her at the end).
But more often than not, feminism and skepticism are either at odds with each other, or, more frequently, completely out of touch with each other. The fault lies on both sides, and I've seen failures on both sides so many times that it makes me despair for the joining of forces that seems logical to me.
Let's start with the feminist side, because I have more experience with the feminist blogosphere than I do with the skeptical blogosphere. I follow a lot of feminist blogs: Feministe, Feministing, Fugitivus, Tiger Beatdown, and Yes Means Yes! are just some of the feeds in my Google Reader. But when I think about which feminist blog best sums up my experience in this world, it has to be Shakesville. Melissa McEwan takes on the worst of sexism, racism, heterosexism, ablism, transphobia, and so many other ugly ideologies in this world with wonderful contempt, causing anyone with an open mind to re-examine themselves for prejudices so ingrained that they might as well be undetectable, were it not for her illumination of them.
And yet. And yet when it comes to matters of science, I sometimes see Shakesville fall short in ways that make me cringe. When it comes to scientific studies that support Shakesville's positions on, say, abortion, they are lauded. And they rightfully post vicious take-downs of pseudo-scientific bullshit studies about gender differences.
But a couple weeks back, when Melissa made a post entitled "Feminism 101: Coded Misogyny and Institutional Prejudice," I found myself wincing at just a few of the points she made. Some of them are dead on: Black women are punished for wearing their hair in a natural style; our sexist culture codes war and the lack of a social safety net as masculine and therefore desirable; we should all be aware of the way that gender binaries influence our thinking about many, many aspects of culture. But her attack on "Western" medicine is painful for me to read:
So, too, discussions of Western/non-Western medicine. Western medicine is coded rational/masculine; alternative medicine is coded irrational/feminine. And here again is an example of intersectional prejudice, as many alternative practices (yoga, acupuncture, acupressure, massage, herbal remedies) are imported from the East. (And practiced disproportionately by people marginalized in the West: Women/people of color/queers.) The wholesale dismissal of alternative practitioners and practices as quacks and opportunists (despite there being plenty of quacks and opportunists to be found in Western medicine, too) is an institutional prejudice frequently loaded with both coded misogyny and coded racism.
Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear oh dear. I'm not going to explain why non-science-based medicine (NSBM) is generally a bad idea: you can go to Science-Based Medicine for that. But I'd like to take on her claim that the opposition to NSBM is based on sexism and racism. In fact, my personal objection to NSBM is caused partly by my advocacy for social justice. In short, women and people of color are more likely to be poverty-stricken and without adequate health care. If they are having medical issues and the only care they can afford is "alternative" care, that is a huge, institutional problem that we should be addressing, because alternative care is not adequate care. Black and Latina women with breast cancer don't have equal access to treatment. If they fill that gap with homeopathy or acupuncture, that is not adequate and not equal. Immigrants to the U.S. get about half the health care services afforded to natural-born citizens. If they fill that gap with traditional medicine from their home countries that has no measurable positive effect on their health, that is not adequate and not equal. I could go on and on, but the point is this: marginalized people may be more willing and likely to opt for NSBM, but this is not good for their overall health outcomes, and may in fact be a product of their marginalized status.
Yes, there are problems with science-based medicine, specifically the way it interacts with capitalism (see Bad Science for more on this). And Melissa rightfully points out in the comments that medical trials need to include more marginalized populations. But modern, science-based medicine has lengthened our lifespans, given us birth control and abortion, made it possible for transfolk to physically transition, and afforded new opportunities to the disabled. Don't we owe it a little more respect than to say, "reflexively privileging Western medicine, which is best at serving the needs of financially privileged straight white thin generally able-bodied cis men, serves the narratives of the Patriarchy"?
So that's one example of how my favorite feminist blogs can be insufficiently skeptical. (There are plenty others, but I'm already headed for tl;dr territory.) It's posts like those that make me feel that I cannot make my Internet home entirely within the feminist blogosphere.
But I can't migrate to the skeptical blogosphere either. Though skeptical bloggers should be using their well-developed senses of critical thinking to examine their own prejudices, this just doesn't seem to be the case.
Sure, skeptical bloggers are generally progressive folks. They tend to be pro-gay marriage, pro-choice, anti-censorship, etc. But the safe space that you see on feminist blogs, where racism/sexism/homophobic/etc. are not acceptable, is not present in the skeptical blogosphere, perhaps because the skeptical movement is dominated by white, cisgender, straight, able-bodied men. Here's an example: about a month ago, Skepchick had a post up about the kerfuffle over the removal of n-word from Huck Finn. The author rightfully condemned the proposal, but in his condemnation he wrote:
Did he discover that Twain was not commenting on an atrocity of the time the book was set, but simply writing a buddy story about Huck and Jim that we can update every couple of decades to suit our current culture? I can't wait for the version with the rapping river boat captains, or the version where the Widow Douglas and Miss Watson sign on as a couple of skank 'ho's on The Bachelor.
Sweet Stephen Jay Gould's ghost, what was this poster thinking?? In case it's too subtle for you, he equated modern Black culture with rap and "skank 'ho's." What an evenhanded, neutral representation of an oppressed minority culture! It's as though a Kanye West music video came to life in the form of words on a skeptic blog.
Even on consciously progressive skeptic blogs like the Friendly Atheist, the comment threads can devolve into rampant, ugly sexism. (I wanted to post a link to a discussion I found particularly offensive, but the post where I believe it happened seems to have been scrubbed of all evidence of the back-and-forth between the misogynist and the women who protested his comments. I'm not a fan of this revisionism; I'd prefer the offending comments be hidden [i.e. accessible an extra click], with a note from the mod as to why it's unacceptable on that site.)
So what's a feminist skeptic to do?
Personally, I've only found one blog that meets in the middle of my two deep-seated identities, and that's Pandagon. This is Amanda Marcotte's baby, and she attacks both social justice issues and skeptical issues with unmatched rigor. More and more these days, I find myself sharing all her articles with my Google Reader followers, posting them on Facebook, doing whatever I can to spread her opinions across the Internet. We need more bloggers like her.
Just don't expect me to answer the call! I happened to have time to write this all up today because I'm home sick. Otherwise I'd be running around on my usual hectic schedule of full-time job, part-time school, and constant, time-consuming disease management. I'll continue my daily posts taking down Failbook, though, because it's a good outlet for my extreme frustration with popular culture. And maybe for my 100th post, we can dive back into this topic.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Mostly, Just Shut Up
Today's Failbook fail: The Justin Bieber Movie Trailer.
My fail yesterday was not posting! We did have power, but the day got away from me. My apologies.
Someone mentions Justin Bieber. Some jackass makes a joke about how Bieber is closeted.
I'm so tired of this joke. It's hard for me to believe that the folks at Failbook aren't. Justin Bieber: entertainer. I can look at him and approximate his age, maybe his race; I cannot examine his innermost desires and tell what his sexuality is. Neither can you. He could be gay, straight, asexual, bisesxual, whatever, and none of those orientations would be morally different from any other. We do people a disservice when we assume we know shit about their sexuality when they haven't identified as anything, because it reinforces stereotypes and creates rampant heterosexism.
So . . . shut up.
My fail yesterday was not posting! We did have power, but the day got away from me. My apologies.
Someone mentions Justin Bieber. Some jackass makes a joke about how Bieber is closeted.
I'm so tired of this joke. It's hard for me to believe that the folks at Failbook aren't. Justin Bieber: entertainer. I can look at him and approximate his age, maybe his race; I cannot examine his innermost desires and tell what his sexuality is. Neither can you. He could be gay, straight, asexual, bisesxual, whatever, and none of those orientations would be morally different from any other. We do people a disservice when we assume we know shit about their sexuality when they haven't identified as anything, because it reinforces stereotypes and creates rampant heterosexism.
So . . . shut up.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)